-482004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 CSSA applications received not meeting residence requirement 68,601 62,097 54,746 46,807 Applications for waiver 1,665 (2.4%) 3,856 (6.2%) 4,925 (9%) 3,553 (8.5%) Applications for waiver withdrawn 1,299 (78%) 2,892 (75%) 3,480 (70%) 2,221 (62%) Applications approved 230 843 1,383 1,307 Applications rejected 18 26 33 39 134. After the death of her husband (who left her only $982.37) and having been made homeless, Madam Kong survived by living in a shelter for street sleepers and receiving some financial help in the form of one-off payments from certain charities.120 She was willing to work and had attended government training courses with a view to finding employment. She had found sporadic casual jobs as a cleaner (at $175 per day) and as a substitute security guard (at $200 per 12 hour shift). When she applied for a waiver, she explained that her staying at the shelter was unsatisfactory because it did not open until 5.30 pm, so that she had to sleep in a park if she had been on night shift as a security guard. She submitted that she needed CSSA to meet her housing needs “in order to have better rest before she could find stable gainful employment”. She admitted owning a property on the Mainland but explained that it was an illegal structure which was occupied by her two sons who were themselves without means, and was not a property that she could sell. 135. The Board applied the guidelines in rejecting her application. It noted that financial hardship alone does not merit exceptional treatment and found that the death of her husband did not count as a “substantial and unexpected change in circumstances beyond her control”, as she should have realised that she could not depend financially on her late husband who was an aged CSSA recipient suffering from chronic disease. It noted that she had 120 She received $3,200 from the Rainbow Fund, $2,100 from the Apple Fund.