Scottish
Welfare
Fund
For Second-tier
TUTOR
Review Panels
Workbook
1
Exercise 1 Are these decisions reasonable?
Case study 1 Stella
Stella, who is 48, has multiple sclerosis. She applies for a community care grant for
a new sofa and armchair for her living room. The ones she has now are over 10
years old and are too low for her to get in and out of, and the arms aren't right for her
to lean on when she tries to stand up. The decision maker (DM) has awarded a
three piece suite which is to be provided by the company with which the council has
a contract, and Stella has been shown a catalogue from which she can choose her
suite.
Stella seeks a review of the decision to award her the items instead of cash or a
store card. She says that the furniture she has been offered is of poor quality, is
ugly, that none of the colours (orange, turquoise or jade) match her living room,
which she says is painted lilac) and that she can't tell from looking at them whether
she's going to be able to get in and out of those seats either.
Case study 2 Julius
Julius, who is 38 and single, applies for a crisis grant. He had claimed employment
and support allowance (ESA), and his claim was refused. He applied for a
mandatory reconsideration of his ESA 5 weeks ago, and has not yet had a decision
on this. He tried claiming jobseeker’s allowance, but the decision maker told him
that because of the restrictions he was placing on his availability for work, he wasn't
entitled to that benefit. In the meantime, he has been relying on his friends and
family to feed him. His parents, who are both retired, have been buying him fuel
cards, but most of the times he can't afford to heat his flat. He has no money at all,
apart from what little his parents can afford to give him. He has an authorised
overdraft at the bank of £250, which is at its limit. He has had three food parcels
from the local food bank and has been told that that's all he can get for a rolling six
month period. The SWF decision maker has refused an award, on the basis that
there is no indication that Julius' friends and family have any intention of withdrawing
their support. He tells Julius to reapply in a week if he still hasn't had a decision on
his ESA.
2
Case study 3 Andrea
Andrea is a lone parent on income support with three children aged under 9, two of
whom receive DLA. She applied for a community care grant for a replacement
cooker, washing machine, kitchen furniture and new curtains, following a fire. She
doesn't have contents insurance. The decision maker rang the local fire station to
confirm the location and extent of the fire. In the course of the call, she learned that
the fire was started by a chip pan which Andrea forgot about while she was in the
back garden talking to her neighbour.
The decision maker calculates the amount needed to replace all the items needed,
reduces this amount by 10% in respect of Andrea's "contributory negligence", and
gives her a store card for the remaining 90%, plus an award for delivery and
installation charges. Andrea sought a review and complained about being blamed
for what was, as far as she was concerned, an accident
Case study 4 Angus
Angus, who is 59, gets pension credit and DLA (middle rate care and high rate
mobility). He has bronchitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and
emphysema. He has just had a lengthy stay in hospital after developing pneumonia.
His daughter, Geri, is coming to stay with him for a few weeks to look after him. He
will need help getting in and out of bed, getting dressed etc. He only has a camp
bed for her to sleep in. Angus says that Geri has a "bad back" and asks for a
community care grant for a new bed and orthopaedic mattress for Geri to sleep on
whilst she stays with him, as she sleeps on an orthopaedic mattress at home. The
initial decision maker refused the award and Angus asked for a review. At first-tier
review, a bed and ordinary mattress was awarded, the reviewing officer saying that
no medical evidence was produced in support of Geri's need for an orthopaedic
mattress. Angus seeks a second-tier review, and includes as evidence a
prescription in Geri's name for painkillers.
3
Exercise 2 Dealing with evidence
Read the following cases and decide whether the evidence has been properly dealt
with.
Case study 1 Anya: dealing with inconsistencies
Anya applied for a community care grant for a bed, saying she doesn’t have one and
is sleeping on the floor. Later when the decision maker spoke to her on the phone,
she told him that one of the legs of her bed is broken and propped up on bricks.
Both statements can’t be true. The DM decided that Anya must be lying, and refuses
to make an award. This is upheld at first-tier review.
Case study 2 Bob: conflicting evidence
Bob has applied for a community care grant to replace his living room carpet and his
three piece suite all of which he says were damaged in a flood. He says that a drain
was blocked and water and sewage came into his house. He rents his home from a
housing association which he says are responsible for maintaining the drains. He
gave permission for the housing association to be contacted.
The decision maker contacted the housing association to ask whether they accepted
responsibility and whether they would be making compensation. They confirmed that
that they did clear a blocked drain that day, but were not aware of any flood damage
and had no compensation claims from residents. Their report shows minor flooding
but not enough to enter any of the houses.
The DM decided that he preferred the report from the housing association, and
refuses an award. Bob seeks a review, but this is unsuccessful. He seeks a
second-tier review.
4
Case study 3 Irma: Has the applicant had a reasonable opportunity to put their
case?
Irma, who is 82 and housebound, applied for a community care grant for new
curtains for the long bay windows in her bedroom and living rooms. She also needs
a new curtain rail to be fitted, as her curtains keep snagging, and the occupational
therapist has told her she is at risk of falling when she leans back to jerk them into
place. Her application is successful, and Irma is told that someone will be contacting
her to come round and put up the new curtain rails.
Irma’s granddaughter seeks a review on her behalf. She says she would like cash to
pay the janitor at her church to come in and fit the rail for her, as she knows him.
She doesn't want a stranger coming into her house. The DM is concerned about
health and safety issues, which have been raised by Irma's application. He explains
to Irma’s granddaughter that the council's policy is to have any fixtures and fittings
installed by the council's workmen, or by the company delivering and installing white
goods, to ensure that work is covered by insurance. The council also has a policy of
not paying cash awards unless there are exceptional circumstances. Irma is
adamant: again, through her granddaughter who phones on her behalf. She says
that she doesn't want a stranger coming into her house. Irma can’t use the phone
because her hearing is so poor, and doesn’t want anyone from the council coming
round to talk to her. At first-tier review, the DM confirms that the council would be
willing to arrange for someone to come and do the work safely, but because of the
concerns about safety raised by Irma's application, she will not make a cash award.
She is also concerned that no-one at the council has actually had the opportunity to
speak to Irma themselves.
5
Case study 4 Graham: enough evidence? / guidance applied?
Consider the case described in the first- tier recording form below.
1. Has the DM failed to take into account any key facts or to collect relevant
evidence? Refer to any Guidance cited.
2. Decide in your group whether to change the decision, whether to seek further
information before making a decision, or whether to return the application to the
decision maker to collect further evidence before making a new decision. (In this
last case, you can, if you wish, include directions to the DM.) Then complete the
rest of the form.
Guidance and any local policies applied SWFG para 6.9
Summary of application Graham is a 26-year-old single jobseeker who has just
been sanctioned because the DWP says he didn’t do enough to look for work.
Graham said the sanction has been imposed for four weeks starting from the day he
applied. He applied for a crisis grant for living expenses. Graham said in his
application that he only had a few tins of beans left in the cupboard and that he had
an electricity bill to pay. He said he had no money at all. He can’t ask his mum for
help because she’s got no spare money herself. He says he is due to have his 5year-old son over to stay for the weekend.
Summary of key facts taken into account
There is a four week benefit sanction in place.
The applicant is single
The applicant has no health issues
The applicant has enough food for no more than one day.
The applicant has an unpaid electricity bill.
The applicant has no cash or other means of support
The applicant has not asked his family for help
Any information actively disregarded
How has applicant been given opportunity to put their case Filled in form
Reason given to applicant for the decision Not eligible because crisis grants do
not help people who have a benefit sanction.
Any other support offered Referred to welfare rights
Any other relevant information
Decision of first-tier review Unsuccessful. No award.
Reason for this decision Not eligible because of benefit sanction. Evidence of
applicant accepted.
6
Graham (continued)
Any other support offered to or received by the applicant as a result of their
application.
Any other relevant information
Decision of the Second Tier Review Panel
Was this decision unanimous?
Reasons for this decision
7
Exercise 3 Crisis grants – eligibility criteria
Read the following summaries from first- tier reviews. Decide whether you think in
these cases the decision is correct and fair, considering these questions:
1. Was guidance and local policy followed correctly?
2. Was relevant information considered and irrelevant information disregarded
(eg, no bias)?
3. Was evidence weighed correctly?
4. Was there enough evidence to decide the facts
5. Did applicant have a reasonable chance to put their case?
6. Did decision maker exercise discretion, and make informed decision based on
merits (eg, and not on rule of thumb)?
Case study 1 Jimmy’s JSA has been sanctioned
Guidance and any local policies applied SWFG para 6.9
Summary of application Jimmy is 61 and has schizophrenia and bronchitis. He is
homeless and currently stays in homeless accommodation in your local authority
area. He has no contact with any family. He has been claiming income-based
jobseeker’s allowance for years without any problems, but he was recently allocated
a new personal adviser at the jobcentre. He was immediately sanctioned for failing
to carry out a jobseeker’s direction. (He refused to trim his beard, which reaches to
his waist, and to wash or replace his clothes, which are rather threadbare and dirty.)
The grant application was made by an adviser at the CAB. She told the decision
maker that she has tried to persuade Jimmy to claim ESA, but he insists that he is fit
for work and is now writing a screenplay which will make him rich. The adviser has
appealed the sanction and has applied for hardship payments for Jimmy. She is
also applying for personal independence payment (PIP) for Jimmy.
Summary of key facts taken into account
There is a four week benefit sanction in place. (No JSA is being paid.)
The applicant is single
The applicant has schizophrenia
The applicant lives in homeless accommodation
The applicant has applied for hardship payments
Any information actively disregarded Jimmy’s intention to make money from
writing, as there is no evidence indicating that this is a realistic prospect. Application
for PIP – not yet determined.
How has applicant been given opportunity to put their case Adviser at CAB
assisting
Reason given to applicant for the decision Not eligible because benefit has been
sanctioned and hardship payments applied for by adviser at CAB.
Any other support offered Referred to local food bank
Any other relevant information
Decision of first-tier review Unsuccessful. No award.
Reason for this decision Not eligible because of benefit sanction. Evidence of
applicant accepted.
8
Case study 2 Iracema and the storm damage
Guidance and any local policies applied SWFG para 6.17, Annex C, para 6.3
Summary of application Iracema is a Brazilian student taking her final year at
university here. During the storms last week, a tree fell through the roof of her flat
and caused extensive damage to her 3 year old son Hamish's bedroom, as did the
torrential rain. His bed and chest of drawers were destroyed. The curtains and rug
were soaked, and many of Hamish's clothes and shoes were blown away in the
storm. Iracema did not have contents insurance. Fortunately, neither she nor
Hamish were in the flat at the time. Hamish is now staying with his paternal
grandmother in Auchterarder, and Iracema is staying with friends while the landlord
has the builders in. Iracema applies to the Scottish Welfare Fund for a community
care grant for items to replace the furniture, soft furnishings and clothing destroyed
and lost in the storm. The only money she has is child maintenance from Hamish's
father, a grant from Brazil and a loan.
Summary of key facts taken into account
Iracema has requested a community care grant for items following a disaster
She argues in her application that theirs is a family under exceptional pressure
She has produced her passport (photocopy taken), which says that she can have no
recourse to public funds
Any information actively disregarded Hamish is a British citizen
How has applicant been given opportunity to put their case Application was
made face to face. 1st tier DM phoned Iracema to check whether she had any
additional evidence before making his decision.
Reason given to applicant for the decision Iracema has no recourse to public
funds
Any other support offered Applicant referred to welfare rights team for expert
advice on benefit entitlement and assistance with applying for other help - s22
payments, for example, from local authority, or charitable assistance.
Any other relevant information
Decision of first-tier review No award made
Reason for this decision Applicant is subject to "no recourse" rule. Status of child
is irrelevant, as applicant must be aged 16 or over
9
Exercise 4 Crisis grants - qualifying conditions
Read the following summaries from first-tier reviews. Decide whether you think in
these cases the decision is correct and fair, considering these questions:
1. Was guidance and local policy followed correctly?
2. Was relevant information considered and irrelevant information disregarded
(eg, no bias)?
3. Was evidence weighed correctly?
4. Was there enough evidence to decide the facts
5. Did applicant have a reasonable chance to put their case?
6. Did decision maker exercise discretion, and make informed decision based on
merits (eg, and not on rule of thumb)?
(Assume that the eligibility criteria are met)
Case study 1 Em's flat is flood damaged
Guidance and any local policies applied SWFG para 6.2
Summary of application Em's flat is damaged by a flood in her upstairs neighbour's
flat. She gets pension credit and she has no savings. Although she has insurance,
she has discovered that by some oversight, her carpets were not covered by the
insurance policy. The living room carpet needs to be replaced. Em, who is 67, lives
alone. She provides photos of the damage, and a surveyor's report, which mentions
the carpet in the living room as being heavily soiled.
Summary of key facts taken into account
The clamant is on a qualifying benefit.
The applicant is single.
She has no savings.
The damage was caused by a flood, and the situation meets the definition of
disaster
Any information actively disregarded Her insurance policy didn't cover the carpets
and flooring
How has applicant been given opportunity to put their case Application made by
claimant without assistance
Reason given to applicant for the decision
Doesn't meet the definition of a disaster as damage to only one carpet - this is not
"significant damage"
Any other support offered
Any other relevant information
Decision of first-tier review Unsuccessful. No award.
Reason for this decision
10
Case study 2 Maeve is refused a short term benefit advance
Guidance and any local policies applied SWFG para 6.2
Summary of application Maeve, who is single, aged 23 and lives alone, lost her job
when her office closed down. She claimed JSA 3 weeks ago, but there has been a
delay in paying her for some reason. The DWP say her former employers haven't
confirmed her final day at work yet. She phoned to make a claim for a short term
benefit advance, but this was refused - she's still not sure why. Her housing support
worker has been helping her with her benefit claims and the grant application. She
hasn't had her final two weeks' pay yet. She doesn't have any money. She is relying
on her parents, who lives a couple of streets away, for food.
Summary of key facts taken into account
There is a claim in progress for JSA.
The applicant is single.
Her application for a STBA has been refused.
Her parents are helping her.
Any information actively disregarded
How has applicant been given opportunity to put their case Application made
with help of housing support worker.
Reason given to applicant for the decision As Maeve's parents are still willing to
help her, this does not constitute an emergency
Any other support offered Referred to local food bank
Any other relevant information
Decision of first-tier review Unsuccessful. No award.
Reason for this decision Not eligible - not an emergency yet
11
Exercise 5 Community care grants - eligibility criteria
Read the following case studies and decide whether you agree or disagree with the
first-tier tribunal decision about eligibility criteria.
Case study 1 Rufus is in debt
Rufus, who is 46, lives in the local authority area and claims income-related
jobseeker's allowance. He lives in rented accommodation and has rent arrears of
£1,200, accrued when he was in work, about a year ago, before he lost his job
because of his gambling problem. His landlord is now threatening to evict him. He
owes the power company £450, and £300 for water and sewerage charges. He
owes over £15,000 on his credit cards. He has also borrowed £1,700 from payday
loans companies. His neighbour has suggested to him that he applies to be made
bankrupt, and he has been told that the fees for sequestration are £200. His
neighbour also told him that the council could help him with the water charges. He is
applying for £200 for debtor application fees and £300 for water and sewerage
charges. The first-tier tribunal have decided he is not eligible for a CCG.
Case study 2 Mags applies again
Mags, who is 64 and gets a state pension and an NHS pension, lives in your Local
Authority area. Her mother, who is 88 and has recently had a fall at home, lives in
Shetland and is in Gilbert Bain hospital there. Her consultant says she can't be
discharged home unless there will be someone at home to look after her for a few
weeks. Mags needs £70 for the return ferry trip to Lerwick and £54 for the return
train journey to Aberdeen. She applies to your local authority for a payment on 3rd
October, and this is refused on the grounds that she (Mags) does not get a qualifying
benefit. The decision maker refers her to the Local Authority's welfare rights team
for a benefit check and income maximisation advice.
Three weeks later, on 25th October, she applies again. The welfare rights team
discovered that she was entitled to pension credit (savings credit), which she has
now claimed by phone, requesting 3 months' backdating. The first-tier tribunal has
decided she still is not eligible for a CCG.
12
Case study 3 Mitra and Imran are having a baby
Mitra, aged 21, and her partner Imran applied for a community care grant for carpets
and curtains. Mitra is 22 weeks pregnant. Imran gets income-based JSA. The claim
was made on the basis that it would ease exceptional pressures on their family. The
application was refused by the first-tier tribunal because the couple did not have any
children, and so could not be considered a family.
Case study 4 Jasmine gets out of prison
Read the following report of a 1st tier review decision. Should the 2nd tier review
panel uphold this decision? Give reasons for your answer.
Guidance and any local policies applied SWFG paras 8.11 and 8.15 Local
authority's policy: zero tolerance of vandalism
Summary of application Jasmine, who is single and aged 19, is a member of a
protest group, and has been serving six months for repeatedly vandalising the local
sheriff court. She is partially sighted and has restricted mobility as the result of a
childhood accident. Before she went into prison, she was getting DLA low rate care
and higher rate mobility, as well as income-related ESA. Her sister told her that,
while she has been in Cornton Vale, someone broke into her flat and squatted there
for a while. They've used her washing machine and broken it. It's an old machine
and the parts aren't available any more so it can't be repaired. She applied for a
community care grant for a new washing machine, for when she comes out of prison
in 6 weeks.
Summary of key facts taken into account
Jasmine is disabled (vulnerability in Annex E of Guidance)
When she returns home she will be an ex offender (Listed as vulnerability in Annex
E)
Jasmine repeatedly damaged a public building
Washing machine can't be repaired
Any information actively disregarded Washing machine was broken by squatters.
(It's irrelevant how machine was broken)
How has applicant been given opportunity to put their case Application was
taken by social worker in prison, who will be working with her upon release (who also
wrote 1st tier review letter on Jasmine's behalf).
Reason given to applicant for the decision Local authority has recently
introduced a "zero tolerance" campaign on vandalism.
Any other support offered
Any other relevant information
Decision of first-tier review Award refused
Reason for this decision Award would conflict with LA's policy on vandalism
13
Exercise 6 Community care grants: qualifying conditions
1. Do you agree or disagree with the decision maker's decision about qualifying
conditions in the following cases, which all concern applications for
community care grants?
2. Justify your reasons by finding the appropriate paragraph(s) dealing with the
qualifying conditions in the Guidance.
(Assume that the eligibility criteria are met)
Case study 1 Stella leaves rehab
Stella, aged 21, has spent the last 6 months in The Priory, a rehabilitation centre,
where she has been receiving treatment for her drug addiction. Whilst there, she
received counselling sessions twice a week and had to submit to random drug
testing, as well as attending daily recovery meetings. She attended these with a
group, accompanied by a staff member - residents were never allowed to leave the
centre unaccompanied for the first 4 months. There were members of staff present
in the centre 24 hours a day. Stella has been offered the tenancy of an unfurnished
one bedroom flat
The decision maker considered that the qualifying conditions were met.
Case study 2 Bella and Eddie move home
Bella's husband Edward, aged 79, has dementia, and Bella, who is also in her 70s,
can't cope with looking after him at home any more. They live on the first floor of a
block of flats and they both struggle with the stairs. Eddie has just spent 2 months in
hospital after contracting septicaemia. The council is moving them both into a local
sheltered housing scheme, which has a warden on site 7 days a week. Bella applies
for a community care grant for a sofa and arm chair, a kitchen table and kitchen
chairs, and a double bed, as her furniture won't fit into the smaller rooms in the new
bungalow.
The decision maker considered that the qualifying conditions were met.
14
Case study 3 Dorothy finds a new home
Dorothy has been staying in a women's refuge for the last two months with her three
children, and a local housing association has now offered her a one bedroom flat.
She applies for a community care grant for furniture, carpets and curtains.
The decision maker says that the qualifying conditions are not met on the basis that
she hasn't been in the refuge for three months and suggests she reapplies in one
month.
Case study 4 Robbie gets his own flat
Robbie, aged 22, has been living in a hostel for 5 months. Before that, he was
sleeping rough on the streets and sometimes in night shelters. He was in care
homes from the age of 14 after running away from home. A local charity which
works with young homeless people has offered him a place in one of their flats. He
will be working with a key worker, who will be assisting him with budgeting advice,
planning weekly shopping, teaching him some basic household maintenance, and
helping him with claiming benefits.
The decision maker considers that the qualifying conditions were met.
15
Exercise 7 Working out priority
What priority would you assign to the items in the following application? Give your
reasons, noting:




The level of need of the applicant
The level of vulnerability of the applicant (indicate this with reference to the
Guidance)
The consequences to health and wellbeing of the applicant of there being no
grant of each individual item
The effect of the award of each individual item on the applicant and their
family
Mark moves back to care for his father
Mark, who is 48 years old, is moving back in with his father, Jack, who is 74 and has
just been diagnosed with dementia. Jack also has emphysema of about 8 years'
duration, heart disease, diabetes, and is suffering some hearing loss.
Mike is getting income support as his father's carer.
Jack gets pension credit guarantee and attendance allowance.
Although Mark is filling in the application form, the application is being made on
behalf of Jack, who has lived alone in his home for the last 11 years, since his wife
died.
Mark applies for a bed, as there isn't a bed in the house for him (Mark) to sleep in.
At present he is sleeping on a camp bed.
He also applies for a new mattress for his father's bed, as the one on the bed now
smells strongly of urine and is very old. (His father is regularly incontinent and often
removes his incontinence pants during the night.)
He applies for a TV, as his father used to enjoy listening to daytime TV, and his
broke years ago, and a gas cooker and microwave. The cooker his father has is
not reliable - two of the rings don't work because something has been melted over
the gas inflow and the grill only works intermittently.
Jack used to have a pair of budgerigars several years ago and enjoyed the
company. Mark has found a pair for sale with their cage locally for £32 and applies
for money for this too, as he says that having a couple of budgerigars again will
probably do more for his father's health than medicine will.
16
Exercise 8 Reviewing decisions
Can you spot any important errors or other problems with the following? Would you
return the decision to the decision maker (with or without directions) or would you
remake the decision?
(You may find it helpful to use the checklist at paras 11.13-14 in the Guidance to
help you)
1. Jasmine's benefit has been suspended. Whoever broke into her flat stole her
identity to make fraudulent claims for benefit, and the DWP have suspended her
benefits while they investigate. She has no money for food. She applied for a
crisis grant, but the decision maker refused this on the basis that she was having
deductions made from her income-related ESA for fines imposed for vandalising
the sheriff court, and that a crisis grant should not undermine the purpose of a
legal penalty.
2. Myrtle, who is 68, applied for a community care grant. She had savings of
£1,500, and the amount she was requesting was £500. The decision maker has
awarded her £200.
3. Lucy applied for a crisis grant by phone. Part of the way through the
conversation, she mentioned that her children went to the same local school that
she herself had gone to. The person on the other end of the phone said, "Oh, I
THOUGHT it was you!" and laughed in what Lucy thought was an unpleasant
way. Her application was refused. Lucy has formed the view that the decision
maker is someone who went to the same school as her, has a grudge against
her, and has refused her award for that reason. When asked, the decision maker
acknowledges that she knew the person applying for the grant but says that didn't
affect her decision at all.
17
4. Mandy is a single parent with two children, aged 5 and 3. She applied for a
community care grant for living expenses because her brother, William, is getting
out of HMP Saughton on temporary licence for 3 days. Her application was
successful, and she was awarded vouchers for her local supermarket. Mandy
seeks a review on the basis that she prefers to shop at her local shops, and that
she doesn't see why we should be supporting the big supermarket chains who
don't pay tax. It is your local authority's policy to issue food vouchers unless
circumstances are exceptional. At first-tier review, the decision maker decided
that Mandy's circumstances were not exceptional, and did not change the
decision.
5. Una, who is 8 months pregnant, applies for a community care grant. She is
moving into a flat on the 9th floor of a block of flats. All the other flats around it
are 5 floors high. Una has applied for a number of items for her flat, including
curtains. The decision maker has not awarded curtains for any rooms, stating,
"Curtains for rooms which are not overlooked are not a high priority." This
sentence is repeated in the letter written by the decision maker at first-tier review.
18