Consultation on Regulations and Statutory Guidance under the Welfare Funds (Scotland) Act 2015

THE MORAY COUNCIL
HIGH STREET
ELGIN
MORAY

It is important that Decision Makers (DMs) can apply discretion to a variety of individual circumstances to ensure the fund is accessible and awarded to those most in need of assistance.

By applying the current guidance of a low income being similar to that of someone on one of the qualifying benefits it gives a degree of consistency across all LAs and all applicants to the fund.

To provide a list of ‘different approved’ ways for LAs to calculate a low income could result in inconsistency across LAs. Different DMs could use different methods and DMs could apply the approved way most ‘beneficial’ or
‘unfavourable’ to an applicant. If this option is used a LA should be required to decide on the approved way it will use so that all applicants are treated the same.

To set income levels according to households would not take into account the differing living costs across LAs.

None. DMs still have discretion to make an exception to this exclusion in appropriate circumstances e.g. following a breakdown in a relationship, an unexpected change to household income etc.

We agree that the current guidance which allows each person in a couple to have 3 awards discriminates against a single householder or lone parent, who can have less resilience than a couple, although it is acknowledged that this is not always the case.

Limiting CGs to 3 per household places a responsibility on all households and applicants to take steps to address any underlying issues resulting in repeat CG applications, with the help of appropriate support.

None if DMs have the same discretion as they have for CGs. A limit would help to reduce ‘opportunist’ applications and reliance on the fund thus protecting the budget. If a CCG is refused DMs should signpost to alternative sources of assistance e.g. a budgeting loan or refer them to other support services.

An applicant will still need to meet the eligibility and qualifying conditions before the award of the item is considered and it is important that DMs can use their discretion and make decisions on a case by case basis, taking into account the reasons the same item is required, previous award history, disabilities, vulnerabilities and support in place or needed.

The date of the previous award will also be a factor as the item may still be under guarantee.

A key priority of the fund is to prevent any risk to the health and wellbeing of a child so if there is a child in the household of a CG applicant it should be prioritised.

As a rural authority we are limited to what is available and what is accessible to our applicants. It is important for us that a variety of payments methods are accepted as equivalent to cash.

DMs should take into consideration:
- Any vulnerabilities, disabilities or special needs the applicant has.
- Where the applicant lives and their access to Council Offices, transport, stores, banks etc.
- Any previous application history.
- Any support network the applicant has, whether it be professional or family/friend.

DMs need to discuss and understand the applicants needs and explain to them why the method of award being used is appropriate.

We consider this will have adverse implications for both SWF teams and the applicant:
- It places additional pressure on DMs (in what can already be a challenging job) to make decisions without having all the relevant information.
- Administratively it will be more costly as a new application and a new decision will be required if the applicant provides the requested information later than the day after they made their original application (double handling).
- Applicant experience and satisfaction will decline if they are required to make a repeat application. 2 decisions within days may also cause confusion.
- Small teams of DMs, like ours, may struggle to maintain this processing timescale when resource is reduced due to annual and/or sick leave and at times of an increase in applications over consecutive days. (We have experienced a 100% increase in applications to our average daily application number on 2 consecutive days). Unpredictable application numbers and the administrative funding the Council receives for the delivery of SWF do not allow additional resource to be allocated to the team to achieve this processing timescale at all times.
- Quality of decisions is at risk – applicants may not be awarded the correct amount.
- Our performance (which is reported quarterly by Scottish Government) could attract criticism if we do not achieve this processing time.

If the property is private rented it is the landlords responsibility to maintain the property.

LAs should have discretion to make awards to owner occupiers as there are implications on other Council services if the applicant is unable to remain in their own home.

Awards for repatriation costs are a budget issue:
- Application numbers could increase due to the changes to Jobseekers Allowance regulations. The existing grant budget could not meet the costs of these awards.
- LAs would also incur additional administrative costs as decisions would be resource intensive determining the amount required and validating an award is to be used for the purpose intended.

Excluded item 10 – amend to include repair costs to items provided by the NHS. If a person qualifies for an item from the NHS it should be repaired or replaced by the NHS.

A history of seasonal temporary or insecure work – we accept an applicant is financially vulnerable in this situation but this is taken into account when assessing eligibility for a grant.

Children living with young parents aged under 25 - we think this should be
changed to under 21. A person is more vulnerable under 21 but less so after this age.

Recently bereaved (immediate/close family member):
- the applicant may have been cared for by the deceased
- it can take time for benefits and income to be transferred to a surviving spouse or partner
- if an applicant has lost a child their household income will be reduced

Guidance 8.13 – “a family cannot be an individual” excludes a single person facing exceptional pressure from qualifying for a CCG under this criteria but allows couples to be considered for an award. A single person facing exceptional pressure is potentially less resilient and resourceful than a couple with the same exceptional pressure.

We think the definition of a family as per the original guidance “ as long as there are dependent children present ” fits with the aim of the fund to protect the health and well being of children. DMs could use their discretion to determine other instances when a ‘family’ applies e.g. when the applicant is caring for a disabled non-dependent son or daughter etc.

As indicated in the response to Q9 in relation to regulation 14 (2) (b) we are concerned that measuring response times from the point at which an application is received would be to the detriment of correct decisions being taken. It is recommended that performance is measured from the point at which a ‘complete application’ is received (‘complete application’ to be defined as a completed application form together with all required supporting information).

For CG applications supporting information is only requested where there is reason to clarify or question the information in an application or because of previous application history. The information required is usually bank statements/printouts, receipts or bills in order to verify applicants financial circumstances. This sort of supporting information should be readily/easily available for the applicant to provide within the timescales proposed. However, failure to do so will put pressure on DM’s to make uninformed decisions in what can be contentious situations. Potential incorrect awards will place additional pressure on our limited budget and could attract criticism which may affect our LAs reputation.

4.39 – CGs to be made in cash or cash alternative

As a rural authority it is essential that ‘cash alternatives’ remain an acceptable method of paying CGs and LAs are not restricted to using ‘cash’ only.

It is also important that a variety of options are acceptable as cash alternatives to ensure LAs:
- Meet the need of the applicant, which if appropriate gives the applicant the choice of where they spend their award.
- Can chose the option(s) they consider appropriate for their area and that are available e.g. store cards for a supermarket available in all/majority of towns in the LA area.
- Can choose the option(s) that are affordable to procure and administer.
- Can have a contingency method in place e.g. loaded store cards in case the LAs or PayPoint network is not available.

It is essential for Moray Council that ‘PayPoint or alternative electronic transfer’ is accepted as a ‘cash alternative’. Many applicants in crisis situations do not have the means to attend a Council office or live a considerable distance from an office and are therefore unable to collect an award, whether it be ‘cash’ or other ‘cash alternative’. PayPoint allows us to make an immediate (same day) award to such applicants.

A procurement exercise carried out earlier this year for a cash alternative means of making discretionary awards in Moray only attracted 2 bids – PayPoint and Allpay (pre-loaded debit card). Analysis of the bids identified that PayPoint was the only viable option for us. Pre-loaded debit cards have to be posted to applicants unable to collect from an office. Posting of cards incurs delays of between 2 - 3 days for applicants to receive which is not acceptable in crisis situations.

7.17 – the guidance needs to state that the 3 CGs in any 12 months is “measured from the date of the decision” as per the Consultation paper.

8.13 – amend definition of a family as per comments at Q16 above.

A single form allows an applicant to apply for both grants at the same time without the need to duplicate information.
It is for the Local Authority to decide if a grant from the fund is awarded as a CG or CCG based on the information provided by the applicant in their application and information gathered by the DM.

Our experience is that in some situations applicants are confused as to which grant they should apply for. If there are separate forms an applicant may complete the wrong from which may not ask the relevant questions or gather the information the DM requires to make a decision. This will result in the need for the applicant to complete another form or for LA staff to contact the claimant to gather the additional information required before a decision can be made.

There is some duplication of information on the current paper application form which should be removed e.g. part 2 starts by asking what money the applicant and their partner receive and the next questions asks them to give details of the income they receive, including the amount, frequency of the income etc.

Part 6 – About the account you want to use. Providing details of an account can raise an applicants expectation that this is how any award will be paid. It is not needed to assess an application. These details can be collected by the DM if this is how any award is to be fulfilled.

As stated at Q20 applicants can be confused as to which grant they are applying for. They complete both CG and CCG sections of the application form, providing the same information twice. We suggest reference to CG and CCG is removed from the questions in the application form; the applicant applying for a ‘Grant’ from the Scottish Welfare Fund and the DM decides which grant is most appropriate in their circumstances.

Questions about emergency services and household insurance could be removed and asked by the DM in relevant situations.

Tick lists could be used for applicants to declare any health problems, disabilities or vulnerabilities with a section to provide further details below.