Hi there gang!
Have been advised, by a SF person, that the CS&DP Act 1970 is referred to by the Commissioner of the SFI, in relation to guidance on parting with cash (in this case a request for £2100 from CCG for a specialist bed for terminally ill client) as a reason for saying "No!".
The legislation makes it the duty of a LA to pay instead?
Any comments, experiences, guaranteed ruses, terrible Mike Shermer tales from the Fenlands, etc., all gratefully received!
Muchos Gratias mon Amigos - onderlay, onderlay . . . . .
Splo' Pablo.

There has always been SF guidance that if items were reasonably available from elsewhere then a claim for an item may be refused but only if there was evidence of availability and it was reasonable to go down that route.

I used to do a lot or SF reviews in the early days of the SF (not so many now) and SFO’s used to try this all the time. For example, I had a client who needed a cot bed. A SFO rang me and tried to argue that he should turn to the Health Service. I argued otherwise and he soon backed down. Make them make the argument.

As far as the CS&DP Act goes the lists of services are contained in section 2. This is not6 a reasonable route to go as whether a person gets a service is at the discretion of the Local Authority following an assessment of need with various factors taken into account. The LA has a duty to assess but not necessarily a duty to provide.

The LA is allowed to take its resources into account, for example, when assessing need although it cannot take them into account once a service is assessed as needed. Other factors will come into lay, such as priority and delay in assessment.

Section 2 is in the following terms.

(1) Where a local authority having functions under section 29 of the M1 National Assistance Act 1948 are satisfied in the case of any person to whom that section applies who is ordinarily resident in their area that it is necessary in order to meet the needs of that person for that authority to make arrangements for all or any of the following matters, namely—
(a)
the provision of practical assistance for that person in his home;
(b)
the provision for that person of, or assistance to that person in obtaining, wireless, television, library or similar recreational facilities;
(c)
the provision for that person of lectures, games, outings or other recreational facilities outside his home or assistance to that person in taking advantage of educational facilities available to him;
(d)
the provision for that person of facilities for, or assistance in, travelling to and from his home for the purpose of participating in any services provided under arrangements made by the authority under the said section 29 or, with the approval of the authority, in any services provided otherwise than as aforesaid which are similar to services which could be provided under such arrangements;
(e)
the provision of assistance for that person in arranging for the carrying out of any works of adaptation in his home or the provision of any additional facilities designed to secure his greater safety, comfort or convenience;
(f)
facilitating the taking of holidays by that person, whether at holiday homes or otherwise and whether provided under arrangements made by the authority or otherwise;
(g)
the provision of meals for that person whether in his home or elsewhere;
(h)
the provision for that person of, or assistance to that person in obtaining, a telephone and any special equipment necessary to enable him to use a telephone,

Thanks - I'll work me way through this!
By gum, you can type fast lad?!

Just to add to above, it is specifically the "alleged" Commissioner Guidance that intrigues me - this is the extract of the letter: -

"Decision Makers must have regard to guidance from the Independent Review Service (the Commissioner's Advice to Inspectors), pointing out that The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act imposes a duty on local authorities to make arrangements to meet the need of disabled persons in various ways, including "the provision of practical assistance for that person in his home" ; a duty that only applies where the LA is satisfied that these arrangements are "necessary". The Commissioner goes on to say that, where the LA accepts the provision of facilities is "necessary" than it is under a binding duty to make arrangements to meet that need, and making an application to the Social Fund is not a legitimate way of carrying out this duty.

In practice, if a person applying to the Social Fund for such an item has not had their needs assessed (eg by an Occupational Therapist) then Decision Makers will refuse the application on the grounds that help may be available from another source...if an assessment has been carried out, and the item is deemed "necessary", then it would be excluded on the ground that it is an expense the LA has a statutory duty to meet" (Direction 29(b)) - although I am aware that many LAs are unable to provide such items due to budget constraints. "

As you can see Chaps and Chapesses, they don't mince words with "binding" duty etc. Me thinks they are passing the buck, but as all of us are, I'm a trusting soul who's prepared to be proven wrong! They wouldn't mislead me, surely . . . . . !!!!

Found it on the IRS website, if anyone is interested, I'll happily direct to it. I feel a challenge coming on. Thanks to "Nevip".

"In practice, if a person applying to the Social Fund for such an item has not had their needs assessed (eg by an Occupational Therapist) then Decision Makers will refuse the application on the grounds that help may be available from another source".

That has to be the first line of attack. "Help may be available from another source". The issue of likelihood must be considered. The moon may be made of green cheese but I think it highly unlikely.

Thanks again. It doesn't help that the applicant, although seriously - possibly terminally ill - comes from a well-known local "family", something akin to the Borgias, or the Krays? Me thinks an element of that may be influencing the decision, but I'm happy to be proven wrong.