Scottish Welfare Fund
For Second-tier Review Panels
Aims Of The Course
• To know the process for review
• To understand the role of the review panel
• To understand the approach to decision
making
• To explore some issues likely to arise
• To gain an overview of Scottish Welfare Fund
grant conditions
Review Process Overview
Applicant
unhappy with
customer
service
Decision
Applicant
unhappy with
decision
First-tier review
Local authority
complaints
procedure
Scottish Public
Sector
Ombudsman
Second-tier
review
Judicial review
First-tier Review
A different decision
maker makes a new
decision looking at all
the evidence afresh
NEW DECISION
This replaces the original
decision
Applicant may ask for review
of first-tier review because of
•Mistake in applying guidance
(eg, eligibility, qualifying
criteria, priority, grant amount,
evidence gathered)
•Decision unreasonable
•Application treated unfairly
•Not given chance to put case
properly
Purpose of Second-tier Review
1. Ensure correct,
reasonable and fair
decisions are being
made and guidance
followed
2. Check guidance is
being applied
consistently
3. Provide feedback on
unintended
consequences of
Guidance & local policies
4. Promote confidence in
the Fund, demonstrate
impartial scrutiny & add
credibility to the Fund as
a whole
SWF Guide para 11.9
Is Decision Correct, Reasonable
and Fair?
Step 1 Can you deal with it? (remit)
Step 2 Is there an error in the decision or is it
unreasonable or unfair?
NO
Tell applicant (in writing)
Give reasons
Feedback to decision
maker
Record decision
YES
Step 3 Refer back to
decision maker or
remake
General Approach
For each stage of decision making ask yourself 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)?
IS DECISION REASONABLE?
Is Decision Reasonable?
Could a reasonable person
– who knows the guidance
and
– who knows the facts
have reached this decision
• Another
reasonable person
could disagree
• But should not
offend logic or
good sense
Facts and Evidence
• Relevant facts are
needed for each stage
of decision making
• Need to look at
evidence to establish
the facts
• Some evidence has
greater weight
• Balance of probability
• Some issues
–
–
–
–
–
Lack of evidence
Inconsistencies
Mental ill health
Corroboration
Previous applications
Stages of Decision Making
Stage 1
Are they eligible
Repeat applications/ exclusions/ qualifying
benefit
Stage 2
Do they qualify
Do personal/ family circumstances meet the
criteria in guidance
Stage 3
Are they a priority
High, medium or low given nature, extent,
severity and urgency of need, vulnerability
Stage 4
Is there money in the budget
Crisis Grant
Stage 1 Eligibility
• ID/home address
• Repeat applications
– 3 per 12 months
– 28 day rule
• Other resources
eg savings or STBA
• Exclusions
– Excluded items/ needs
eg phone
– Benefit sanctions
• Qualifying benefit
Stage 2 Qualifying
conditions
• Immediate living expenses
because of emergency
• Items or living expenses
because of disaster
Crisis Grant Stage 1 Eligibility
Repeat Applications
Guidance
Maximum 3 awards in rolling 12
month period
EXCEPTION Discretion to allow
more awards in exceptional
circumstances where applicant
can show no fault on their part
Not if previous award (or
refusal) in last 28 days for same
items or services
EXCEPTION Relevant change of
circumstances
Possible issues
Has DM asked about
exceptional circumstances
3 awards to each member
of couple rather than 3
awards to couple
28 days runs from date
each application received
Same item requested?
If so, is there a relevant
change of circumstances?
Crisis Grant Stage 1 Eligibility
Exclusions
Guidance
Possible issues
Benefit claim pending
EXCEPTION if need severe
enough
Other resources
No evidence that benefit claim made
DM wrongly referred for DWP shortterm advance
Other resource not actually available
Excluded needs eg, TV,
phone, debts, no recourse
to public funds
Benefit sanctions
EXCEPTIONS food for
children, disaster
European national wrongly excluded
Evidence that need so severe that
exception should be made? Has DWP
refused hardship payments?
Crisis Grant Stage 1 Eligibility
Qualifying Benefits
Guidance
Income support
Income-based JSA
Income-related ESA
Savings or guarantee pension
credit
Universal credit
Payment on account of one of
these (= short-term advance)
EXCEPTION No other means of
support and grant will help
avoid serious risk or damage to
health or safety
Possible issues
No benefit or other means of
support eg, while waiting for 1st
wage, while challenging fit for
work decision or pending other
appeal, because DWP say not
eligible (eg, 16/17s)
Applicant gets contributory ESA
or contribution-based JSA only
Examples in SWFG para 6.2 (eg,
domestic abuse) – has DM
indicated that only listed
exceptions apply?
Crisis Grant Stage 2
Qualifying Conditions
Immediate short-term
living expenses needed
because of an emergency
• ‘Emergency’ = circumstance of
pressing need which needs
immediate action
• Eg, losing money or having
money stolen, having had to
leave home suddenly
Items or living
expenses needed
because of a disaster
• ‘Disaster’ = event of great
or sudden misfortune,
usually causing damage
to, destruction or loss of,
possessions or property
• Eg, serious flood or fire
Community Care Grant
Stage 1 Eligibility
• ID/home address
• Repeat applications
– 28 day rule
• Exclusions
– Excluded living
arrangements
– Excluded items/ needs
– Capital limit
– Benefit sanctions
• Qualifying benefit
Stage 2 Qualifying conditions
• Moving out of care
• Staying in community
• Setting up home after
unsettled way of life
• Families under
exceptional
pressure
• Caring for
prisoner on release on
temporary licence
CCG Stage 1 Eligibility
Repeat Applications
Guidance
Not if previous award (or
refusal) in last 28 days for same
items or services
EXCEPTION Relevant change of
circumstances
Possible issues
28 days runs from date
each application received
Same item requested?
If so, is there a relevant
change of circumstances?
CCG Stage 1 Eligibility
Exclusions
Guidance
Excluded living
arrangements
Savings
Possible issues
Confusion about short-term care
arrangements
Has any disregarded income been
counted (eg, PIP, AA)? NB, no test of
other resources so eg, should not be told
to claim budgeting loan instead
Excluded needs eg,
Confusion about whether maternity
TV, phone, debts, no
expenses are excluded (should not be
recourse to public funds except (usually) for first child)
Benefit sanctions
Blanket exclusion – CCG grant can be
allowed if doesn’t undermine sanction
CCG Stage 1 Eligibility
Qualifying Benefits
Guidance
Income support
Income-based JSA
Income-related ESA
Savings or guarantee pension
credit
Universal credit
Payment on account of one of
these (= short-term benefit
advance)
EXCEPTION Likely to get
benefit when leave care
OR no other means of support
Possible issues
(probably most relevant to crisis
grants)
Exercising judgement – how to
determine whether likely to get
benefit when leaving care?
Requiring too much proof of
this
CCG Stage 2
Qualifying Conditions
Guidance
Possible issues
Someone move out of
residential care into the
community
Category confusion – eg, if type of
accommodation doesn’t qualify, applicant
should be considered under other headings
Someone stay in the
community rather than have to
go into care
Applying too high a test of risk of going into
care (eg, doesn’t have to be certain /more
likely than not – just an ‘identifiable’ risk
Someone set up home after an
unsettled way of life
Can’t get CCG for another temporary
address
Families under exceptional
pressures
Use of discretion over what is a ‘family’, eg
if shared care
Someone caring for a prisoner
Speed of decision – because need is for
or young offender on release on living expenses for a few days
temporary licence
Stage 3 Assessing Priority
High
Medium
Low
Need
Immediate
Severe
Less immediate
Less severe
Not time
critical
Vulnerability
High
Moderate
Some
resilience
Consequences Significantly Moderately
of no grant to adverse
adverse
health/
wellbeing
Effect of grant Immediate Noticeable
Substantial
No identifiable
effect
Minor
Assessing Priority
Possible Issues
• Whether DM has exercised discretion
reasonably
• Whether DM has wrongly used a rule of
thumb or list – emphasis should not be on the
general importance of an item (which would apply to
anyone) but on the impact an award for the item
may have on the applicant’s particular circumstances
that led to qualifying for a grant
What Level of Grant
• Amount discretionary
but should meet the
need
• For crisis grant, max
based on % of income
support
• Can award goods or
vouchers instead of
cash
Possible issues
• Applicant prefers cash not
voucher/ goods
• Amount not enough to
meet the need
• Objection to referral to
foodbank
• Food vouchers by default
(rather than because right
option for applicant)
• Standard item not
appropriate for applicant’s
needs
Communicating Original and
First-tier Decision
• Time limits
– Crisis grants as soon as
possible 2 days maximum
– CCGs 15 working days
• Method
– By phone for crisis grant if
possible (Always follow up
in writing)
• Advice on other support
– Eg, debt advice, benefit
check
Possible Issues
• No written decision
• No clear
explanation of
reasons for decision
• Inadequate
information about
right to review
Panel Decisions
Correct, fair and reasonable?
Yes
Uphold
No
Refer to
DM
Remake
Panel CANNOT reduce or remove an award
Changes of Circumstances
• If likely to affect outcome of
review then review suspended
• DM makes new decision
(no first-tier review recorded)
• Applicant can request review
• Then request second-tier review
• If there is an unrelated change of
circumstances, applicant must
re-apply
Processes – Time Limits
Second-tier review
• Time limit to apply
– 20 working days from first-tier review decision
• Time to decide
– 5 working days CG
– 30 working days CCG
Composition of Panel
• Minimum of two people (one for crisis grants)
• And someone to keep record of proceedings
• Can include
– other local authority staff
– elected members
– members of local third sector organisations
– members of other Local Authorities
Procedure
•
•
•
•
Paper-based – applicant and DM do not attend
Can be held electronically (eg teleconferencing)
Panel can contact applicant and DM if necessary
Chair elected by panel, manages meeting, checks
record of proceedings and has casting vote
Supporting The Applicant
Applicants should be
• notified of the date and time of the review
• given the opportunity to submit additional evidence
• given sight of all evidence and information which will
be before the panel
• offered the chance to provide a phone number so
that the panel can contact them (panel can use other
means if applicant can’t use phone)
• given as much information as possible throughout
about their review
Monitoring And Policy
Feedback to Scottish Government will include:
• Reports on numbers of reviews – numbers
and reasons reviews are sought
• Discussions with decision makers and review
officers – giving feedback
• Sampling of paperwork for reviews.
• Development of the Decision Makers Guide
and relevant case studies.