The Social Welfare Board in Filipstad municipality is criticised (...)

Date of article: 24/11/2024

Daily News of: 25/11/2024

Country:  Sweden

Author: Parliamentary Ombudsmen of Sweden

The Social Welfare Board in Filipstad municipality is criticised for not implementing another municipality’s decision concerning home help etc. for a person who intended to temporarily stay in his holiday home in Filipstad municipality

Date of decision: 2024-10-24

Decision case number: 4879-2023

Decision maker: Ombudsman

Summary of the decision:In summer 2023, an individual was granted, among other things, home help in his holiday home. The municipality where he was permanently resident, which had taken the decision, requested the Social Welfare Board in Filipstad municipality to implement it. The Social Welfare Board decided, however, that was not possible, partly because it was difficult to recruit enough staff. The individual was instead offered to live in sheltered housing with assistance at home.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman states that, according to law, the municipality of temporary residence is obliged to implement the decision taken by the municipality of permanent residence, and it is not for the municipality of temporary residence to make its own assessment of whether it is reasonable or not. Neither is it the intention that a decision that will enable the individual to stay in their holiday home should be implemented by allowing him to stay in other staffed accommodation in the municipality where his holiday home is located. The Parliamentary Ombudsman criticises the board for not implementing the decision.

The Social Welfare Board also drew up a written agreement with the individual which meant that the interventions decided on would only be carried out for part of the period in question. In the view of the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the board’s intention seems to have been to amend and limit the period of validity of the decision. The Parliamentary Ombudsman states that the municipality of temporary residence must implement the decision of the municipality of permanent residence and is not entitled to change an authorised intervention. If the duration of the interventions needed to be changed, that would have been a matter for the municipality of permanent residence. The Parliamentary Ombudsman is also critical of the agreement.

Date of decision: 2024-10-24

Read more

Scottish Welfare Fund update – November 2024

Date of article: 20/11/2024

Daily News of: 25/11/2024

Country:  United Kingdom - Scotland

Author: Scottish Public Services Ombudsman

During October we

responded to 76 enquiries

  • made 59 decisions
    • 24 community care grants
    • 35 crisis grants
  • upheld 13 (54%) of community care grants and 8 (23%) of crisis grants
  • signposted an additional 56 applicants to other sources of assistance
  • received 12 enquiries from local council liaison contacts seeking advice. 

Spotlight on the impact of Scottish Welfare Fund High Most Compelling priority rating 

On Tuesday 19 November 2024, the Ombudsman published a report spotlighting concerns about the fairness and consistency of grants awarded through the Scottish Welfare Fund. 

The report highlights issues with the distribution of the Fund, which provides grants to those in crisis. 

It focuses on the application of the High Most Compelling (HMC) priority rating by some local authorities, which limits funding to individuals in severe crisis. 

A free webinar which will include Glasgow City Council, the Ombudsman and others will be hosted at midday on 4 December 2024 discussing the report. 

Read the report 

Sign up to the webinar 

Support and Intervention Policy 

We escalated two recurring issues via level one of our Support and Intervention Policy

The first issue concerned a local authority's misinterpretation of available information when assessing whether applicants met the qualifying conditions for community care grants. 

The second issue involved a local authority's decision that health benefits should be used to purchase items, rather than the fund providing them. We highlighted that this approach is not in keeping with the SWF guidance.

Case studies 

Reasonable adjustments 

C asked us to review the Council’s decision on their crisis grant application. C applied for money for food as their income reduced when their discretionary housing payment was stopped. Throughout the application process, C said that they need to communicate in writing as they were neurodiverse and were unable to communicate verbally. 

The council made an award for food only. C asked the Council to review their decision as the amount awarded did not meet their needs. The Council made a number of attempts to contact C by phone to verify their identity but were unable to reach them. As alternatives, they suggested that C visit the Council office, or that a home visit could be arranged. C stated that neither of these options were suitable as they would require C to communicate verbally. The Council did not change their original decision and no further payment was made. 

We reviewed the Council's file and contacted C by email. C explained that they have dietary requirements related to a food intolerance and so must avoid tinned and processed products. We did not agree with the amount awarded by the Council. We assessed that they had made inadequate enquiries with C to determine an appropriate award sufficient for C’s needs. We instructed the Council to make an additional payment of £63.00. 

We also fed back to the Council regarding their communication with C. We determined that repeatedly contacting the applicant by phone and suggesting face-to-face contact did not meet their needs and was not in line with the principles of fairness, dignity and respect that are embedded throughout the guidance.

You can find more case studies in the searchable directory on our website.

Read more

Volksanwältin Gaby Schwarz startet #Mutfrauen-Initiative

Date of article: 24/11/2024

Daily News of: 25/11/2024

Country:  Austria

Author: Austrian Ombudsman Board

25.11. ist Internationaler Tag gegen Gewalt an Frauen und Mädchen - Volksanwältin holt mutige Frauen vor den Vorhang, um andere zu ermutigen

„Am Internationalen Tag gegen Gewalt an Frauen und Mädchen möchte ich über Mut sprechen. Denn jeden Tag müssen Frauen mutig sein. Mut, um sich aus häuslicher Gewalt zu befreien. Mut, um sich gegen sexuelle Belästigung am Arbeitsplatz zu wehren. Mut, um für sich einzustehen. Als Frau und als Volksanwältin bin ich davon überzeugt, dass wir uns gegenseitig mehr bestärken sollten - das können wir sofort umsetzen und kostet nichts. Darum starte ich die #Mutfrauen-Initiative. Auf meinen Social-Media-Kanälen hole ich inspirierende Frauen vor den Vorhang. Um zu erzählen, wann sie schon mutig sein mussten. Und um andere Frauen zu ermutigen, ihren Weg zu gehen“, stellt Volksanwältin Gaby Schwarz ihre Kampagne vor, an der sich Mutmacherinnen beteiligen können.

„Heuer gab es schon 26 Femizide und 39 Fälle schwerer Gewalt an Frauen. In Österreich ist jede dritte Frau von körperlicher und/oder sexueller Gewalt betroffen. Mehr als jede vierte Frau musste eine Form von sexueller Belästigung am Arbeitsplatz erfahren. Unterstützung und Zivilcourage sind die stärksten Maßnahmen, die jedem von uns zur Verfügung stehen, um diese Situation zu verbessern“, so Gaby Schwarz. Bei der Volksanwaltschaft zeige sich ebenfalls, dass nur ein Drittel der Beschwerden von Frauen kommt. „Auch das hat mit Mut zu tun, die Dinge selbst in die Hand zu nehmen. Wie kann sich frau mehr zutrauen - und wie haben es andere geschafft? - um Fragen wie diese geht es bei meiner #Mutfrauen-Initiative.“ Laufend Infos und wie man mitmachen kann unter Instagram (@gabyschwarz_official) und LinkedIn (@Gaby Schwarz).

„Frauenrechte sind Menschenrechte. Und die Volksanwaltschaft ist das Haus der Menschenrechte in Österreich. Jede Frau hat das Recht auf ein gewaltfreies Leben. Dafür setze ich mich als Frau und als Volksanwältin ein“, so Gaby Schwarz.

Read more