Scottish Welfare Fund: statutory guidance - April 2025

9. Review

First tier review^[63]

9.1 If an applicant disagrees with the outcome of their Welfare Fund application the Act requires local authorities to review the decision. The Regulations provide that applicants may seek, within 20 working days of being notified of a local authority decision, a review of the decision. Local authorities must, under the Regulations, arrange for a review of the decision to be undertaken by a decision maker who was not involved in making the original decision.

9.2 The Regulations allow a local authority to accept a review request made after 20 working days where it considers there are good reasons for doing so.

9.3 Where a local authority considers that the reason given is not a good one, they should explain this decision in writing, this could be by email.

9.4 The local authority should include the process for review in the information on the Welfare Funds pages on their website and must ensure decision letters contain information on the review process, including how to request a review and the timescales for this.

9.5 The decision on a first tier review supersedes the original decision on the case, which will no longer be valid. The Regulations state that a review by the local authority may not result in assistance awarded being reduced or withdrawn.

9.6 The first tier review by the local authority offers an opportunity to “re-make” the original decision on a case, based on a thorough look at the evidence and any new information which becomes available. The first tier decision maker should review the case in full, taking into account any evidence provided as part of the review request.

9.7 The person carrying out the review will need to re-consider the merits of the case. They may need to gather additional information or evidence to do this. Where the first tier decision maker determines that the original decision should be changed but the applicant’s need has been met by other means, consideration of any detriment to the applicant should be given.

9.8 The applicant can ask for a first tier review if they want the decision that has been made on their case to be changed, for example, but not exclusively based on:

• not agreeing with the decision on eligibility, for example, due to repeat applications or the assessment of their income (stage 1 of decision making).
• not agreeing with the decision on qualifying circumstances, for example, the decision maker did not judge them to be in crisis but they disagree (stage 2 of decision making).
• of the opinion that the priority level allocated to their application was not appropriate/should have been higher (stage 3 of decision making).
• of the opinion that insufficient information was gathered during the application process to make a decision.
• the application having been refused on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence, but the applicant considers that there was.
• not agreeing that the support they have been provided with is appropriate to their needs, for example, they were awarded items and not money or they do not think that the money they were awarded was enough to buy what they need.
• considering that there has been an error or failure in the decision making process, for example, a mistake in assessing the facts, or a failure to take into account a matter relevant to the decision.

9.9 Review cannot be sought for policy decisions such as the level of priority set for awards in that period (stage 4 of decision making) – see financial management at Section 3.

9.10 Applications for review should:

• be made within 20 working days of the original decision, though the local authority may use its discretion to allow later applications, for example, when illness has prevented an application being made.
• be made in writing and be signed by the applicant or emailed, unless the local authority accepts it in another format, which could be because it considers there are exceptional circumstances, for example, disability, health issue or problems with literacy. The local authority should also be mindful of practical or financial barriers to the review process such as lack of data on mobile phones to send emails. A flexible approach should be applied to ensure that barriers are overcome.
• contain the reason for requesting a review, a reference number or date of decision and any other additional information to support the case. The local authority should also be mindful that some applicants will not be able to express clearly the reasons why they wish to make a review due to language barriers or additional support needs, in these instances the review request should be accepted to allow the application to be reviewed.

Local authorities should ensure that reasonable adjustments are made for applicants that require additional support. They should also ensure that there is easily accessible information online about the review process to aid access, including making provision for an online review form.

9.11 Reviews of Crisis Grant applications should be carried out as soon as possible, recognising the circumstances of the applicant. The maximum processing time allowed for in the Regulations, for a first tier review of a Crisis Grant application, is no later than the end of the second working day after that on which the request was received. The Regulations provide that the maximum processing time for a first tier review of a Community Care Grant application should be no later than the end of the fifteenth working day after that on which the request was received.

9.12 Applicants should be notified in writing of the result of the review, giving reasons for the decision that was made^[64]. In urgent cases, the result should be given as soon as possible, by phone, and followed up in writing according to the usual arrangements for notifying decisions. Decision makers should bear in mind accessibility as noted in section 4.33.

9.13 First tier reviews should be viewed as an important source of learning for councils. The reviewing officer should feed back to the decision maker on the outcome of the review where appropriate and any key points relevant to future decision making. Learning from first tier reviews should be monitored, and issues and learning reported and considered by accountable managers. Where recurring or significant issues arise, appropriate action should be taken as a result, and its impact assessed through ongoing monitoring. This may include discussions at team meetings, training and/or amendments to local templates. The review process should therefore help drive forward improvement and consistency in decision making.

Local authorities are encouraged to report on best practice around the handling of first tier reviews and how it has informed learning in the local authority through the following means:

• Sharing of best practice through the Scottish Welfare Fund Practitioners Forum.
• Publishing of lessons learned that demonstrate reflective practice that can be shared across the network of local authorities delivering the Scottish Welfare Fund as a source of learning.

How to treat additional information – as part of First Tier Review

9.14 The decision maker should ensure that they have all the necessary information before reaching a decision. Receiving new information can sometimes prompt other questions. If new information is received as part of a request for a first tier review and the decision maker judges that an award should be made as a result of it, the local authority should process the review in the normal way within the specified timescales ensuring that the review decision is communicated to the applicant in writing unless the applicant requests otherwise.

A Change of Circumstances Identified as Part of a First Tier Review

9.15 If the circumstances of the applicant or family considerations as a result of a change to the wider family situation have changed since the date of the original application, meaning that the decision maker would have made a different decision based on the new situation, the decision should be re-made straight away. Any change of circumstances should be relevant to the assistance they have applied for. As this is information that could not have been taken in to account in the original decision as it had not yet taken place, the case should be treated as new for monitoring purposes.

Examples include:

• If an applicant who has applied for a CCG has a new health condition or deterioration in health which makes them more vulnerable.
• A family breakdown which means an applicant no longer has access to support.
• If an applicant had a small amount of funds when they applied for a crisis grant, but this has been spent by the time they submit their first tier review request.

The case should be entered on the system as a new case, using existing information and any additional information that needs to be gathered as a result of the change of circumstances. Again, the review process for the original application should be suspended but the papers held, in case the applicant still wants to pursue a review. This is to avoid artificial inflation of the number of reviews as a result of changes of circumstances.

9.16 If a review decision has been correctly reached but a change of circumstances occurs after the review so that the applicant is facing a different situation, then the applicant should be advised to re-apply.

Challenging a Decision at First Tier Review

• If applicant is not happy with the decision made on their claim they can request a review within 20 working days of the decision. Local authorities can also request late reviews beyond 20 working days. This is to be in writing by e-mail or in a letter. Councils can also accept reviews through other means such as by telephone or in-person.
• A new decision maker who was not involved in the original decision will review the application and any supporting information again. Reviews must be objective and discount the relationship to the person who made the first decision, any financial implications of making the award and thoughts about the applicant.
• Local authorities should deal with Community Care Grant reviews within 15 working days and Crisis Grant reviews within 2 working days. The decision of the review should also be in writing and should include an explanation of the decision and information about how they can request an independent review of the decision by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) if they remain unhappy with the decision.
• Each First Tier Review should be viewed as an opportunity to learn and reflect on practice.