Some of the district councils in our area have recently started to offer furniture packages to their tenants. The cost of these packages are then added to the rent of the property. The furniture is in effect on loan and should be returned to the council if the tenant leaves and the tenant will be charged for loss or breakage. Our problem with a recent case is that when we applied for CCG for our client who was setting up home for the first time the SFO has stated that she should first get the furniture package from the district coouncil and only items not provided in this package will be considered for a CCG. Following discussion with the SFO we have been told that they have had a decision from the SFI supporting this argument. Has any one got this decision?

The problem with this is that the furniture never becomes the tenants and if they start work their rent is higher because of the extra cost of the package (the cheapest being £17 per week). These packages can be returned at any time, but then how will that go down if a CCG application is made for the same items.

Any advice would be great. I must add that we do intend to take our own cases to the SFI.

Hi Julie

Its a while since I've done SI reviews so cannot remember any specific decision on this point.

However, this point has been dealt with by SFI's in various decisions down the years. I say this because I remember arguing this point with many SFO's in cases in the early years of the SF. SFO's have always operated under this guidance.

It used to be fairly easy to win on this point back then. I suppose its probably tougher now. As always though, its the facts of each case that count and whether it is reasonable for the claimant to avail him/herself of the available alternative. I think the argument you have outlined is a good starting point.

SFI decisions are not legally binding on SFO's in the way that commissioner's decisions are binding on decision makers. This is precisely because this part of the SF is discretionary. If the SF office in your area are operating a blanket policy on this issue then they are acting unlawfully.

Regards
Paul