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:
    April 2017
  • Category:
    Risk of care qualifying criterion

Example

Mr C applied to the council for a Community Care Grant for household items as he stated that those in his priority were old and in poor condition.
 
The council took into account that Mr C had been awarded a new cooker and fridge freezer a couple of years previously and were unable to contact him to clarify the circumstances. The council considered that Mr C met the qualifying criteria, although did not note which of the five they assessed that he met. However, they refused the application as not high enough priority, stating that the information in the application contradicted the information that they had awarded him the items not long before. As a result, the council refused the application and upheld this decision at first tier.
 
Mr C applied to the SPSO for an independent review of the council's decision. We took into account all the relevant information, including that Mr C has multiple health issues. We spoke with him for further information and he explained that the freezer part of his fridge freezer kept freezing up but the fridge part was working. He said that the cooker that had been awarded by the council had broken and had buttons missing, and that he acquired another one which worked. He said that he was using his microwave most of the time. Mr C added that the washing machine was working although it didn’t spin and his neighbour was doing his washing for him, although there was a launderette close by. He also advised that there were carpets in place but they were old and worn. While we took into account Mr C's health issues, as the items are partially working, we considered there was not enough evidence to suggest that Mr C would be at risk of care (s8.8 to 8.12 of the SWF guidance) without new items or that the provision of new items would prevent his admission to care. While we acknowledged that Mr C was experiencing pressures as the result of his health issues, due to many of the items partially working or having alternative access to cooking, etc., we did not assess that pressures facing Mr C were exceptional or that providing new items would ease exceptional pressure. As a result, we did not uphold Mr C's request.

Updated: July 17, 2019