Miss H. McNulty (Hansard, 16 February 1999)

§ Angela Eagle

The administration of the Social Fund is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. David Winnick, dated 15 February 1999: The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the Benefits Agency (BA) refusal of a Social Fund payment to Miss H McNulty, in particular whether contact was made with Walsall Social Services before a decision was made; for what reasons a payment was refused; if Miss McNulty was seen by officials prior to the decision; what circumstances were taken fully into account; whether the local office intends to send an official to see Miss McNulty; and if the local office in Walsall will reconsider the application. Neither the Social Fund Officer, Social Fund Review Officer or Social Fund Inspector made any contact with Walsall Social Services prior to making their respective decisions to refuse a Social Fund payment to Miss McNulty for a mobility scooter. It is not the practice of the BA to approach Social Services without the express permission of the customer. The application form which Miss McNulty completed asked if there was anyone she would like contacted in connection with the application, but the offer was declined. Miss McNulty was refused a Community Care Grant for a mobility scooter on the grounds of insufficient priority. Although the eligibility and qualification criteria for a Community Care Grant [Social Fund directions 25 and 4 (a) (ii)] were met, the demands on the district grants budget are such that only high priority grant applications can be met. The Social Fund Officer, Social Fund Review Officer, and Social Fund Inspector decided that Miss McNulty's need for a mobility scooter was not of high priority in her circumstances. The eligibility and qualification criteria for a Budgeting Loan [Social Fund directions 8 and 2] were also met. Again, the demands on the district loans budget are such that only high priority loan applications can be met. The Social Fund Officer, Social Fund Review Officer, and Social Fund Inspector decided that Miss McNulty's need for a mobility scooter was not of high priority in her circumstances, so a Budgeting Loan was refused. A Crisis Loan was refused because the Secretary of State has excluded mobility needs from consideration for a Crisis Loan [Social Fund direction 23]. The mobility scooter was not considered to be a medical item as it does not treat, cure, alleviate, prevent, or diagnose a medical condition. [Medical items are excluded by the Secretary of State from Social Fund payments]. McNulty was not seen by officials of the Benefits Agency or Social Fund Inspectorate prior to the decision to refuse her a Social Fund payment. However she received copies of all papers relating to her application and replied to these papers with her own comments. There is no provision in the Social Fund scheme for the local office to reconsider the application after it has been subject of a decision by a Social Fund Inspector, therefore there is currently no intent to visit Miss McNulty in connection with the application in question. I empathise with the difficulties faced by many of our customers, particularly our vulnerable and disabled customers such as Miss McNulty. I am satisfied that my staff have given full consideration of the facts but accept a home visit could have been carried out. There are two possible ways forward: Miss McNulty could either make another application for a payment from the Social Fund for a mobility scooter, but an immediate repeat application would be excluded by Direction 7 (if this was made within 26 weeks of her former application); or she could apply for a judicial review of the first decision if she thinks that there was an error in law in the processing of the application. I am sorry I could not be of more help on this occasion.

683W