Departments Directions Social Fund GuidePart 8 - The Directions issued by the Department
Reviews
Direction 31 – Circumstances in which a determination is to be reviewed31.(1)A determination made by a decision maker must be reviewed where it appears that - the determination concerned:
(a)was based on a mistake as to the law (including the directions); or
(b)was given in ignorance of, or was based on a mistake as to, some material fact, or.
(2)Reviews referred to in paragraphs (1) above shall be undertaken by a decision maker (other than the one who made the determination being reviewed), or by a reviewing officer authorised for the purpose of carrying out social fund reviews.
(3)A reference in directions 32 to 39 to a "reviewing officer" is to a decision maker or reviewing officer carrying out a review.
Direction 32 – Manner in which a review is to be conducted32.(1)In reviewing a community care grant determination and a crisis loan determination the reviewing officer having first considered the matters specified in direction 39(1), must have full regard to -
(a)all the circumstances which existed at the time the original determination was made;
(b)any new evidence which has since been produced, and
(c)any relevant change of circumstances.
(2)In reviewing a budgeting loan determination the reviewing officer having first considered the matters specified in direction 39(2), must, have full regard to -
(a)the applicant's personal circumstances as they existed at the time the original determination was made;
(b)the material facts confirming the applicant's personal circumstances which existed at the time the original determination was made;
(c)any new evidence, supporting the material facts which confirm the applicant's personal circumstances existing at the time the original determination was made and which has since been produced;
(d)any other material fact which existed at the time the original determination was made and any new evidence supporting that fact which has since been produced;
(e)(provision removed from 1 April 2009)
(f)any increase in the amount repayable to the social fund by the applicant or his partner or both since the date of the original determination and, where there has been such an increase, any sums repaid to the social fund since the date of the original determination.
(3)For the purposes of paragraph (2)(a) to (c), in relation to the applicant's personal circumstances, the reviewing officer shall have regard to those circumstances which are both applicable to him and which are specified in directions issued by the Department pursuant to section 136(1A) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992.
(4)In arriving at the maximum amount available to a budgeting loan applicant the reviewing officer shall apply the baseline figure current on the day the review determination is made.
Direction 33 – Decision not wholly in applicant’s favour33. (1) In determining an application for review a reviewing officer must comply with procedures set out in paragraphs (2) to (6) as appropriate
Review of a determination of an application for a Community Care Grant or Crisis Loan
(2) If a reviewing officer is minded not to revise a determination of a community care grant or a crisis loan wholly in the applicant's favour, the applicant must be given the opportunity of taking part in a telephone interview before a determination is made, if:
(a) the reviewing officer is minded to reject evidence that has been put forward in support of an application for a payment, and rejection of that evidence would be detrimental to the application; or
(b) the reviewing officer intends to use evidence from a third party of which the applicant is unaware, and use of that evidence would be detrimental to the application.
Mode of interview for a review of Community Care Grants and Crisis Loans
(3) The interview under (2) must be conducted by telephone except in the following circumstances where the applicant must be given the opportunity of being interviewed in person, accompanied by a relative, friend or representative if he wishes:
(a) the applicant has a communication or other problem that might be a disadvantage in understanding the points made by the interviewing officer or in making any representations, in relation to their application, on the telephone;
(b) the applicant does not have access to a telephone; or
(c) the applicant has requested an interview in person and the reviewing officer considers that it would be appropriate to conduct such an interview in the applicant’s case.
Review of a determination of an application for a Budgeting Loan
(4) A reviewing officer must comply with paragraph (5) if:
(a) he is minded not to revise the determination of a budgeting loan wholly in the applicant’s favour, and
(b) the applicant has expressly disputed information, upon which the determination was based, about:
(i) his personal circumstances, i.e. the composition of his household (Direction 50 refers); or
(ii) receipt of a relevant qualifying benefit (Direction 8).
(5) The reviewing officer must contact the applicant to:
(a) explain the determination;
(b) give the applicant an opportunity to comment; and
(c) if necessary, ask questions to ascertain relevant facts.
(6) Under paragraph (5), the reviewing officer must normally contact the applicant by telephone, but where the applicant:
(a) cannot be contacted or is difficult to reach by telephone; or
(b) is disadvantaged by using the telephone due to communication or other problems; or
(c) has requested a written explanation;
he must write to the applicant instead.
Direction 34 – Interviewing the applicant (CCGs and CLs)34.(1)during any interview conducted in accordance with direction 33 the interviewing officer must:
(a)explain the reasons for the determination, including the relevant law (including the directions) and the facts that were taken into account;
(b)ask the applicant any questions necessary to establish all the relevant facts;
(c)give the applicant the opportunity to make any representations, and to provide any additional evidence, in relation to his application.
Direction 35 – Interviews35.The interviewing officer must record an accurate account of the interview conducted under Direction 33(2), including any representations the applicant makes in relation to his case, and this must be agreed with the applicant.
Direction 36 – Action following the interview
36.The reviewing officer, having decided whether or not to revise the determination concerned, shall inform the applicant of his decision in writing and that written notification shall advise the applicant of his right to apply for a further review of that decision by a Social Fund Inspector
Direction 37 – Withdrawal of application for review37.If an applicant indicates in writing that he does not wish to proceed with his application the reviewing officer should take no further action unless satisfied that he should conduct a review in accordance with direction 31 (circumstances in which a determination is to be reviewed).
Direction 38 – Social Fund Inspector refers the matter to a Reviewing Officer for decision38.A reviewing officer shall consider carefully any cases referred by the social fund inspector for redetermination. He should take into account any reasons given by the social fund inspector in reaching his decision to refer the matter to him, remedy any defects drawn attention to by the social fund inspector and note that he has done so when determining the case afresh.
Direction 39 – Review action, first stage39.(1)In reviewing a community care grant determination and a crisis loan determination the reviewing officer must have full regard initially to -
(a)whether the decision maker applied the law correctly in arriving at his decision. In particular -
(i)that the decision is sustainable on the evidence;
(ii)that the decision maker took all relevant considerations into account and did not take irrelevant considerations into account;
(iii)that the decision maker interpreted the law - including Department directions - correctly;
(b)whether the decision maker acted fairly and exercised his discretion to arrive at a conclusion that was reasonable in the circumstances - i.e. a decision that a reasonable decision maker could have reached;
(c)whether the required procedural steps have been followed; that the applicant had sufficient opportunity to put his case; and there has been no bias.
(2)In reviewing a budgeting loan determination the reviewing officer must have full regard initially to -
(a)whether the decision maker applied the law correctly in arriving at his decision. In particular -
(i)that the decision is sustainable on the evidence;
(ii)that the decision maker took all relevant considerations into account and did not take irrelevant considerations into account;
(iii)that the decision maker interpreted the law - including Department directions - correctly;
(b)whether the decision maker had regard to the relevant allocation in accordance with Direction 41; and
(c)whether the decision maker acted fairly; followed the required procedural steps and acted without bias.
|
