Departments Directions Social Fund Guide

Part 3 - Crisis Loans

Direction 7 – Circumstances in which repeat applications are not to be determined

The Department directs that

(1) A Decision Maker shall not determine an application in the circumstances set out in this direction.

(2) Where the application is for a crisis loan for living expenses in respect of a period for which such a payment has already been awarded to the applicant or his partner, the decision maker shall not determine the application unless satisfied that it is to meet living expenses:

(a) as a consequence of a disaster which has occurred since the previous award; or

(b) in an emergency which-

(i) has arisen since the previous award

(ii) is not a consequence of an act or omission for which the applicant or partner is responsible, and

(iii) the applicant or partner could not have taken reasonable steps to avoid.

(3) A Decision Maker shall not determine any other crisis loan application, or a grant application, made within 28 days of a previous application by the same person for the same expenses for which a payment has already been awarded or refused unless there has been a relevant change of circumstances.

Repeat applications

4500For the purposes of Direction 7, do not refuse to determine an application for the same expenses in those cases where:

the previous application was withdrawn before an offer was made
the applicant declined the previous offer
the applicant does not respond to offer
the Department decided that the previous application was incomplete

See the Social Fund (Applications and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2008

Direction 7(2)

4501This provision applies where the crisis loan application is for living expenses and an award has already been made to that person or their partner for the same period on a previous application.

4502The Department envisages very limited circumstances in which, where an award for living expenses has been made, it would be appropriate to determine a further application for living expenses for the same period.

4503The decision maker should refuse to determine the repeat application unless satisfied that the expenses are for help:

as a consequence of a disaster which has occurred since the previous award; or

-in an emergency which has arisen since the previous award,

-is not a consequence of an act or omission for which the applicant or partner is responsible, and

-the applicant or partner could not have taken reasonable steps to avoid.

4504Where the repeat application is for living expenses as a result of something an applicant or partner has done, or failed to do, the application will not be determined unless one of the exceptions above applies.

Disaster since the previous award

4505If there has been a disaster since the previous award and the Decision maker is satisfied that help with living expenses is needed as a consequence of this, the Decision maker can go on and determine the repeat application under Direction 3. See paragraph 4702 for definition of disaster.

Emergency since the previous award

4506In order to determine the application, the SF Decision maker must be satisfied that there has been no act or omission on the part of the applicant or partner for which they are responsible. And that they could not have taken reasonable steps to avoid the emergency.

4507This means considering:

whether the applicant or partner caused the emergency by a direct act or omission (failure to act); and if not whether the applicant or partner could have taken reasonable steps to avoid it.

4508Examples of causing the emergency by a direct act are gambling or misspending.

4509Where the applicant or partner did not directly cause the emergency, the Decision maker should ascertain whether reasonable steps were taken avoid it.

4510For example, if the home is burgled, confirm that steps were taken to secure the home in the first place by locking all doors and windows etc. Whilst it may be understandable that the applicant or partner forgot to lock a door leaving cash easily accessible to an opportunist thief, in most cases it could not be considered that they have taken reasonable steps to avoid an emergency.

4511Similarly, if the applicant or partner chose to carry all their available cash and this is lost or stolen, there may have been several steps that could have been taken to avoid the emergency. For example, some cash could be left in the bank or secure at home; or more securely carried around on a person in an inside pocket or money belt.

Exceptions

4512In considering the responsibility of the applicant or partner, the Decision maker should take account of their individual circumstances. For example, it may be relevant that the person whose act gives rise to the emergency is suffering from a mental illness or disability.

4513However, where that person is a member of a couple, the Decision maker should still consider whether the other member of that couple could have taken reasonable steps to avoid the emergency.

4514Those who are the innocent victims of crimes such as serious physical assault which results in the loss or theft of money are not likely to have caused the emergency, or have been able to take steps to avoid it. There will generally be corroborative evidence available for such incidents, such as a police report and an ongoing investigation.

4515However, where the applicant or partner is a victim of crime, the Decision maker must still be satisfied that the emergency could not reasonably have been avoided. For example, the Decision maker should seek further explanation where it is not apparent why it was necessary to be in a known high crime area late at night carrying more than a small amount of money.

4516If satisfied that neither the applicant nor partner caused the emergency and could not have taken reasonable steps to avoid it, the exception in Direction 7(2)(b) applies; the Decision maker can go on and determine the repeat application under –Direction 3.

Direction 7(3)

4517A crisis loan or grant application made after 28 days from the date of a previous application for the same expense is not subject to the provisions of direction 7(3).

4518In considering direction 7(3), a relevant change of circumstances might be, for example, a change in the:

applicant's circumstances
budgetary position
law

4519With regard to the applicant’s circumstances and whether there has been a relevant change, consider the following example.

4520A repeat application for a bed is made by 2 different applicants who have already been awarded a payment for a bed. Applicant A did not buy a bed, but a different household item instead. Applicant B did buy a bed, but the bed has been subsequently destroyed by a house fire.

4521In the above example, there is no relevant change in Applicant A’s circumstances. There may however, be a relevant change in Applicant B’s circumstances.

4522In terms of the budgetary position, a new budget allocation at the beginning of the year or the normal budget fluctuations throughout the year would not in themselves represent a relevant change of circumstances. However where there has been a change in the budget that allows greater award amounts this may constitute a relevant change.

4523The main focus, in deciding whether a change is relevant, will be on whether it relates to the reasons for refusing or awarding a payment.

4524-4549