Case study

  • Date:
    October 2018
  • Category:
    Inconsistencies/ Reason to doubt


Ms C applied for a crisis grant in order to obtain food, gas and living expenses. She explained that she lost money from an unzipped jacket pocket.

The council refused to make an award, noting that the applicant had made 14 applications in the past year, a significant number of which were made due to losing money. It was noted that losing money had become an ongoing situation and commonplace for the applicant. This decision was upheld in the first tier review.

While we disagreed with the sections of the guidance applied by the council, we nevertheless did not disagree with the overall decision. We noted that including this application the applicant had applied to the fund as having lost money on six occasions in a little over a year. We followed the guidance relating to inconsistencies and reasons to doubt the information provided (s4.20 of SWF Guidance). While noting that the applicant suffered from a condition that includes memory loss as a potential symptom, we did not consider that on balance it was likely that money would be lost with such regularity, and with such similarities between incidents, over a prolonged period of time. We therefore did not change the council’s decision. We did not change the council’s decision but recorded a finding of “guidance not followed correctly” and one relating to their written communication.

Updated: July 17, 2019