Office closure - 5pm Thursday 28 March - 2 April 2024

Please note that we will be closed from 5pm Thursday 28 March until Tuesday 2 April 2024 for the Easter break. You can still request a review via our online form but we will not be able to respond until we reopen. Wishing you a happy Easter!

Case study

  • Date:
    August 2018
  • Category:
    Meeting the need

Example

Miss C applied to the fund as she had experienced an infestation of bed bugs which had meant she had to remove a number of household items. She applied for a double bed, double orthopaedic mattress and a bedroom carpet. She explained that she was working, but in receipt of housing benefit (HB) and tax credits (TC). She explained her partner has significant physical health issues and receives Personal Independence Payment (PIP)
 
The council refused the application at initial stage as assessed that the applicant was not on a low income. Miss C submitted a first tier review request providing further information about her income, personal circumstances and need for the items. The council considered the review request and changed the decision.  They awarded a double bed, double mattress and bedding. The request for a bedroom carpet was refused.
 
Miss C asked SPSO for an independent review. She explained that she required a bed frame rather than a double divan bed base and also a double orthopaedic mattress rather than a standard one given her partners health issues. We considered this information and changed the council’s decision. We assessed the request the need for a bed frame was reasonable given she wanted this to ensure she could clean the bed thoroughly due to experiencing an infestation in her home. We noted the council furniture supplier does not provide bed frames so asked the council to award the cash equivalent of the cost of the divan bed base to the applicant (4.46 of the guidance). In regards to the orthopaedic mattress we assessed this item was required due to her husband’s health needs. We provided feedback to the council regarding their handling of the case and decision letters as did not consider the SWF guidance had been followed.

Updated: July 17, 2019