During January, our SWF team

• responded to 72 enquiries
• made 57 decisions
  • 30 community care grants
  • 27 crisis grants
• upheld 23 (77% of) of community care grants and 3 (11% of) of crisis grants
• signposted an additional 61 applicants to other sources of assistance. 77% of these were calling us instead of their local council in error. The remaining 23% had issues contacting their council as there was no freephone number
• received 11 enquiries from local council liaison contacts seeking advice on the guidance

Reconsideration process 

Anyone who has received a decision from us – applicants, representatives and councils – can ask us to take another look and reconsider our decision if they disagree with it. We are not required by law to have this reconsideration process; we introduced it as a voluntary step to promote quality and learning from reviews. 

In the first instance, we encourage parties who disagree with a decision to discuss their concerns with the case reviewer who made the decision. They have an in-depth knowledge of the review and are best placed to respond to any queries you have about their decision. They can also provide further information about asking for a reconsideration. 

The outcome of a reconsideration may be to confirm the original decision or to re-open a review. We may decide to change the decision but there are limited reasons why we would do this. We will not change our decision simply because you disagree with it. Full details about the process and timescales are available on our website. 

An example of a recent case where a reconsideration request was made is outlined below. You can find more examples in the searchable case directory on our website.

Case studies 

Insufficient enquiries made Reconsideration (council request)

C applied for a community care grant for several household items as they were broken or worn.

The Council declined the application, determining that C's circumstances did not match any of the qualifying criteria for a grant. At first-tier review, the Council revised their decision based on the information C provided and awarded some items that they assessed as meeting 'high' priority. 

We reviewed the Council's file and spoke with C. They told us they need to wash and dry clothes more often because their mobility issues sometimes make it hard to get to the bathroom in time. Their tumble drier was broken, and they were temporarily going to a family member to make use of theirs. We considered this was not a long-term solution and assessed that a tumble drier met high priority in C’s case. We asked the Council to award a tumble drier but agreed other items requested met high priority.

The Council asked for a reconsideration of the decision to award a tumble dryer. They felt we had applied guidance incorrectly, saying the item should only be given medium priority based on the priority matrix. We noted that C had several long-term health conditions that made their need for a tumble dryer more urgent. Based on this, we agreed with the original SPSO decision-maker’s assessment and did not change their decision.

Recommendations

• Award a tumble drier.

Feedback for the Council

• The information provided by C regarding their health and toileting issues, and the impact that this had on their need for a tumble drier, was sufficient to assess that it met high priority.
• The decision letters could have more clearly stated at which stage the application was being declined, and contained a more detailed explanation of priority assessments.

We asked the organisation to provide us with confirmation that the award was made within one week.

Eine Wienerin beschwerte sich darüber, dass sich im Auer-Welsbach-Park in Wien 15, den sie öfter besuche, niemand an das Radfahrverbot halten würde. Sie selbst sei im Rollstuhl und ihr Assistenzhund sei durch die rücksichtslosen Radfahrerinnen und Radfahrer ebenfalls gefährdet. Als die gehbehinderte Frau einmal ohne Rollstuhl zu Fuß unterwegs war, habe ein Radfahrer sie umgefahren, wobei sie sich die Hand gebrochen habe; der Radfahrer habe Fahrerflucht begangen. Einen Streifenwagen der Polizei habe sie lediglich einmal im Park gesehen. Um die Einhaltung des Radfahr-Verbots im Park habe dieser sich jedoch nicht gekümmert. Stattdessen habe man ihr gesagt, dass dafür der Bezirk zuständig wäre. Dort jedoch habe man achselzuckend auf Radfahrverbotsschilder an den Parkeingängen verwiesen und dass zur Kontrolle der Einhaltung kein Personal verfügbar sei. Da sich ihrem Empfinden nach keine Behörde als zuständig betrachtete, wandte sich die Frau an die Volksanwaltschaft, die den Wiener Bürgermeister um eine Stellungnahme ersuchte.

„In ihrer Stellungnahme verwies die Stadt Wien darauf, dass die Polizei, also die Landespolizeidirektion Wien (LPD), sehr wohl kontrollieren muss, ob jemand rechtswidrig mit einem Fahrrad in einer Parkanlage fährt. Sollte dies der Fall sein, so hat die LPD dem Magistrat eine Anzeige zu übermitteln, aufgrund welcher das jeweilige Bezirksamt folglich ein Verwaltungsstrafverfahren einzuleiten hat“, berichtet die prüfzuständige Volksanwältin Elisabeth Schwetz. Die Volksanwaltschaft vertritt die Meinung, dass die Stadt Wien daran interessiert sein müsste, dass von ihr verlautbarte Verordnungen auch eingehalten werden, umso mehr, wenn sie von Bürgerinnen und Bürgern auf einen solchen Missstand hingewiesen werde.

Die Stadt Wien antwortete in einer zweiten Stellungnahme, dass man die zuständige Polizeiinspektion (PI) aufgefordert habe, vermehrt Kontrollen zur Einhaltung des Radfahr-Verbots im Auer-Welsbach-Park durchzuführen. Gegebenenfalls werde diese künftig auch Anzeigen an den Magistrat weiterleiten.

„Da die Wiener Stadtgärten die Polizeiinspektion Wien-Storchengasse offenbar erst anlässlich des Einschreitens der Volksanwaltschaft um häufigere Kontrollen bezüglich der Einhaltung des Fahrradverbotes im Auer-Welsbach-Park ersucht haben, erwies sich die Beschwerde der Frau als berechtigt“, so Volksanwältin Schwetz.

La síndica y todo su equipo lamentan profundamente la muerte de Francesc Vendrell, que fue responsable de las áreas de consumo y territorio del Síndic de Greuges entre 2010 y 2020.
 

Anteriormente había ejercido cargos de representación y organización en diferentes partidos políticos y fue diputado del Parlamento de Cataluña durante tres legislaturas, entre 1999 y 2010. Además, fue uno de los ponentes del Estatuto de autonomía de Cataluña de 2006 y miembro de la Comisión del Síndic de Greuges en la cámara.

La institución destaca su vocación de servicio público y su compromiso con la defensa de los derechos de los consumidores de servicios públicos esenciales para la vida de las personas, especialmente los de las personas más vulnerables.

Summary of the decision: A unit of social services in Skellefteå Municipality sent letters to two people who had applied for financial assistance notifying then that they were only permitted to have contact with the unit in writing while their applications were being processed. The reason given was that relatives of the people in question had threatened and harassed staff at social services.

In their decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsman concludes that imposing such a categorical restriction on contact is incompatible with the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (2017:900) concerning service and access, and the right of a private party to give information orally in a matter. The Social Welfare Committee is therefore criticised for its decision to permit only written contact during the processing of the applications.

When ‘Amie’ left care, her local council did not look into her claim that she suffered abuse while living with foster carers properly.

This is just one of the cases highlighted in today’s Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman report about fostering in England which demonstrates what can and has gone wrong in the cases the organisation has investigated.

It looks at issues faced by both fostered children and the carers who support them. Cases include a pair of siblings who appeared settled with a couple who wanted to adopt them but were removed without warning. Another involves a single, first-time foster carer who was not told about the child’s extensive needs leading to the placement breaking down.

And in another case, siblings lost valuable time with one another because the council did not do enough to promote contact between them.

The report is the second of a duo of reports into councils’ adoption and fostering services. It looks at the ways councils can improve their services to everyone involved in the fostering process.

It offers good practice and guidance to those councils responsible for children’s services and concludes with a number of questions local Members can ask to scrutinise their offer and council officers can use to reflect on their departments' performance.

Ombudsman, Ms Amerdeep Somal, said:

“When councils become responsible for children - such as those who are fostered - it is often because there is no one else to look out for them, so it is all the more important they get it right. Who else would fight their corner?

“Foster carers play a key role in helping to provide stability for these children but need to be given the right tools to do it well. Councils need to ensure they provide the right information and support for the foster carers who look after the children they have ultimate responsibility for.

“I hope councils will read my report and take it in the spirit it is intended – we all want the best for children, and to give them the best start in life, regardless of their family set up.”

The report is free to download from our website.

Article date: 20 February 2025