Research and analysis

Furniture review qualitative research: report

Published 3 March 2025

1. List of abbreviations

DAS Defence Accommodation Store

GYIP Get You In Pack

MOD Ministry of Defence

PRS Private Rental Sector

SFA Service Family Accommodation

SP Service personnel

2. Executive Summary

The Ministry of Defence (MOD) provides Service personnel (SP) with subsidised accommodation and support to aid workforce mobility, operational readiness and capability (Ministry of Defence, 2022). To support this, the MOD provide a furniture provision to SP and their families who live in Service Family Accommodation (SFA) in the UK. Under the existing furniture provision, SP can rent a range of furniture from the MOD through Defence Accommodation Stores (DAS).

In 2015, Industry Partners proposed a review of the DAS furniture provision, due to delivery, equality, cost and sustainability issues. However, this did not take place and these issues came into sharp focus in 2023 ahead of the Modernised Accommodation Offer being launched in March 2024. The MOD Accommodation Policy Team therefore undertook a review of the DAS furniture provision with the aim of delivering a fair, modern and sustainable furniture provision, which is compatible with the planned Modernised Accommodation Offer.

To inform the overdue review, the MOD wanted to understand SP experiences of using the existing furniture provision and assess their need for a furniture provision in the future. The MOD Accommodation Analysis Team therefore designed and conducted a qualitative research project to explore this. MOD Government Social Researchers conducted qualitative research interviews with 36 SP via Microsoft Teams between September and November 2023.

Whilst this research included a broad range of SP and saturation of findings were reached, these findings are not representative of the entire Armed Forces.

3. Key conclusions

• There is still a need for the furniture provision to be provided, as SP use it for practical and functional reasons rather than for comfort and style.

• The existing furniture provision could be scaled back, removing some smaller items such as toilet brushes and step stools, as these were not considered essential.

• The Get You In Pack (GYIP) is not essential for SP who move between SFA properties within the UK. However, they are used and considered helpful for temporary use for SP who move to/from abroad or on first move into SFA.

• Overall, participants were satisfied with the furniture provision, but some suggested the quality of items, particularly sofas and mattresses could be improved.

• Overall, participants were satisfied with the application process, but some improvements such as providing photos and dimensions of both the furniture and house were suggested. It is unclear whether these improvements would resolve existing issues with the provision or just improve customer experience.

• Enabling SP to select furniture after they are allocated accommodation, rather than before they select a property preference would help them decide how many/ which items to rent. This could avoid unnecessary returns.

• A clearer and more consistent returns process is required.

• Furniture provision is not expected to be available to SP who own their own home but is expected to be available for those placed into the Private Rental Sector (PRS).

• Participants thought mattresses should be used by only one SP/family, but all participants agreed they would be happy to move with the same mattress each time, to reduce waste.

• A one-off loan or small payment, which SP could use to purchase their own furniture, is not considered an acceptable standalone alternative to the existing furniture provision, given the number of concerns or conditions raised by participants associated with this alternative.

• Despite many participants reporting they would be just as happy to move with the same furniture, rather than returning this to the Defence Accommodation Stores before moving, they raised concerns around how this would work practically and highlighted many conditions to this an alternative provision, which could be costly to introduce.

• Overall, an alternative provision is not wanted/ considered necessary. Instead, improvements could be made to the existing provision. 

4. Introduction and purpose

The MOD provides SP with subsidised accommodation and support to aid workforce mobility, operational readiness and capability (Ministry of Defence, 2022). SP change jobs frequently, sometimes at short notice and to remote locations. To mitigate the impact of this, Defence provides subsidised housing and support to SP, their families and to Foreign and Commonwealth Armed Forces attached to UK Defence Forces. To further support this, the MOD have historically provided a furniture provision to SP and their families who live in SFA in the UK. Under the current provision, SP living in SFA can rent a range of furniture from DAS. Furniture which can be rented includes beds, sofa, dining room table, bookcases, wardrobes and children’s items such as high-chairs and cots but does not include white goods. A full list of items is provided in Annex A.

This furniture provision follows a charging system whereby charging is tapered per grade (type) of property, which is considered illogical and unfair as the furniture provided is the same. The charging is also heavily subsidised by MOD and some items are provided free of charge, noting that charges have not been raised in line with Consumer Price Indices.

SP apply for family accommodation using the MOD form e-1132, when changing assignment or a change in personal circumstances i.e., birth of a child. SP are typically allocated the same size property on each move; however, the exact size and floor plan of the property varies. When SP apply for family accommodation, they can select which, if any, items of furniture they want to rent. The number of items they rent determines whether their property will be un-furnished, part-furnished or fully furnished and is linked to partial or full charging rates. The associated cost is then deducted from the SP’s pay each month. When the SP moves, these items are returned to DAS and the SP is re-issued with items they have selected (if any) at their next SFA. The furniture is held at regional stores across the UK. It is delivered to and collected from SFA properties for the SP. More information on the furniture provision policy can be found here: JSP 464 Part 1 Directive (publishing.service.gov.uk)(see Part 6, Section 2).

In 2015, DIO assumed responsibility for the delivery of the DAS furniture package, which is contracted to Pinnacle (who contract to Pickfords) who store, maintain and deliver the furniture in the majority of locations but not all. At this point, Industry Partners proposed a full review should be undertaken, as the package was costly, not fit for purpose and in need of modernisation. However, a review did not take place and these issues came into sharp focus in 2023 ahead of the planned Modernised Accommodation Offer launch in March 2024. More information of the Modernised Accommodation Offer can be found here: Modernised Accommodation Offer - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk).

Key issues with the DAS furniture provision highlighted include:

• Equality. Under the Modernised Accommodation Offer family accommodation was planned to be allocated based on need (family size) rather than rank, but the furniture provision charging was rank based. Also, under the Modernised Accommodation Offer, it was intended that some SP may be asked to live in the Private Rental Sector (PRS) instead of SFA, but the furniture provision was not available outside of SFA.

• Delivery. The DAS ‘base rate’ is set on 18,000 major/minor moves per year and 200,000 items moved. However, Industry Partners are going beyond the base rate and have been doing some of this work ‘at risk’. The Pinnacle contract does not cover 17 sites which, although receive DAS furniture, are managed locally by Sodexo, SERCO and Babcock under separate contracts, whereby some are life limited arrangements.

• Sustainability. Some items are single-use and therefore disposed of each time a SP moves and there are inefficiencies in the system, generating unnecessary logistical activity. A full list of single use items can be found in Annex A.

• High cost.

Due to these issues, the MOD People Accommodation Policy Team undertook a review of DAS furniture provision, with the aim of delivering transformational change based on the following principles:

• Equality. DAS furniture provision must offer equality and will no longer be rank based in order to be compatible with the planned Modernised Accommodation Offer.

• Modernisation. DAS furniture provision must be deliverable, affordable and compatible with modern Defence and modern living, as it is a component in the competitive incentivisation package as identified in the Defence Command Paper (2023).

• Sustainability. DAS furniture provision must be sustainable, transforming systems and behaviours in order to be compliant with the Defence Climate and Sustainability Strategic Approach for 2050.

To inform the review, the MOD wanted to understand SP experiences of using the existing furniture provision and assess their need for a furniture provision in the future. The findings were used to inform recommendations and subsequent policy decisions on the future provision of furniture for SP in UK based accommodation.

This review and research only focus on the DAS provision of furniture in UK based SFA.

5. Research objectives and methods

5.1 Research questions

Research questions were developed by the MOD Accommodation Analysis Research Team, working in collaboration with the MOD Accommodation Policy Team, to understand their requirements for this research.

The research aimed to answer the following research questions:

5.2 Primary research questions

• What are SP’s experiences of furnishing family accommodation?

• How, if at all, could the provision of furniture be improved?

5.3 Secondary research questions

• How did SP furnish their SFA? Why did/ didn’t they use the furniture provision and Get You In Pack (GYIP)?

• How often did SP change or return furniture mid-assignment? Why?

• How satisfied or unsatisfied were SP with the current furniture provision? Why?

• Why do SP think Defence provide a furniture provision?

• When sourcing personal furniture, what are SP priorities?

• What, if any, expectations do SP have for a furniture provision outside of SFA?

• What, if any, views do SP have on the provision of single-use items?

• What are SP views on alternatives to the existing furniture provision?

5.4 Research methods

Qualitative data was collected through one-to-one research interviews with 36 SP via Microsoft Teams.

Qualitative research was preferred over quantitative methods as it allowed for deeper investigation of input shared by research participants through techniques such as probing (asking follow up questions to a participants answer) and laddering (asking a series of questions to identify the order of decision making), to gain a deeper understanding of the topic (Roller & Lavrakas, 2015). Qualitative research was preferred over a survey, which have historically attracted relatively low response rates across MOD.

Interviews were preferred over focus groups because:

• The topic of furniture provision may relate closely to SP finances. It could therefore be more sensitive for some participants, who may therefore feel uneasy about discussing their feelings openly and honestly in front of each other (Morgan, 1998).

• One to one interviews allow a usability element, using the e-1132 form as a prompt to allow for more in depth discussion and therefore deeper understanding of the process individual SP took in applying for furniture.

Remote interviews were selected because, compared to face-to-face interviews, they are less intrusive and confer greater power and control to interviewees in terms of negotiating interview times to suit their schedules (Drabble, Trocki, Salcedo, Walker, & Korcha, 2016). The use of Microsoft Teams also allowed for automatic transcript, therefore reducing burden on researchers to transcribe.

The research is qualitative and therefore limited in the breadth of coverage. Whilst the research insights represent a range of SP views and provide informed findings, this research is not representative of the SP population who have used the furniture provision. The research will also not be reflective of the entire Armed Forces (Atieno, 2009).

5.5 Sampling

The research sample was designed based on UK Armed Forces Quarterly Service personnel Statistics (Quarterly service personnel statistics 1 January 2023 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)), on the Service and gender of SP and quantitative data provided by Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO), on the number of SP who utilise the furniture provision.

The research sample focused on three groups, to improve understanding of experiences of a) SP using the furniture provision and b) SP furnishing accommodation outside of the DAS, and why they did not currently use the provision:

• Group 1: those who currently live in SFA and were using the furniture provision (either part or fully furnished)

• Group 2: those who currently live in SFA, but were not using the furniture provision

• Group 3: those who previously lived in SFA (who both had and had not previously used the furniture provision)

A stratified/quota sampling approach was applied to the research. In stratified/quota sampling, a research population is grouped into mutually exclusive smaller groups, then professional judgment is used to select the participants from each of the smaller groups based on a specified proportion. This means that certain participants can be targeted for participation, and as such not everyone in the population or the sub-group will have an equal or random chance of being invited to participate.

The sample was stratified by:

• Service (Royal Navy/Royal Marines, Army, Royal Air Force)

• Gender (Male or Female)

• Furniture Status (Group 1, 2 or 3)

The research also aimed to recruit SP with varying lengths of service and across different ranks (Officers and Other Ranks).

5.6 Research ethics, recruitment and participation

Quality assurance processes and ethics were adhered to throughout the research project. A Data Protection Impact Assessment was completed and reviewed to ensure MOD standards were met. A Scientific Advisory Committee was not conducted as the project was considered a Service Evaluation. However, a second Social Researcher reviewed the research plan and all research materials for quality assurance purposes.

Participation in the research was voluntary. Participants were provided with an information sheet about the research and gave consent ahead of the taking part in the research for their data to be collected, analysed, and reported on.

The recruitment approach for the research is outlined below:

• The research was advertised via internal MOD communications and through HIVEs, a team who give information and support to all members of the service community and Families Federations and provide an independent voice for SP and their families.

• SP who were interested in participating in the research were asked to email a MOD research mailbox to register their interest.

• Following expression of interest, SP were asked to provide the following details: name, service, rank, length of service, gender, current property type and furnishing type. This was to determine their eligibility to participate in the research and to ensure a range of views were captured, to meet the sample criteria. A participant information sheet was also sent to SP at this stage.

• Participants were selected based on the information provided.

• Selected participants were sent a consent form (to review and sign) and a discussion date and time slot.

• Calendar invites were sent to SP with details on how to join the discussion. If participants could not attend, the research team rescheduled for a more convenient time.

• Participants were free to withdraw at any point up to the data collection session.

• Participants were informed that anything they said would be anonymised, unidentifiable and reported in aggregate.

• Participation incentives were not offered.

There are some limitations in relation to recruitment and participation:

• The sample was filled on first come, first served basis within the quotas set.

• The sample was self-selecting.

• Those who completed interviews were based on participant availability (availability bias).

• Despite best efforts to fill the sample criteria, some cohorts of SP were over/underrepresented compared to the target sample, as outlined in section 3.2.3.

5.7 Data collection

The qualitative interviews lasted up to 45 minutes. Participants responded to questions from a Government Social Researcher. The interviews were conducted via Microsoft Teams. Participants either joined the Microsoft Teams meeting using the link provided or were dialled into the meeting by the researcher using a telephone/mobile number they provided. The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed through Microsoft Teams. The transcripts were reviewed for quality purposes against the recordings. At this point, any identifiable information was removed, and transcripts were anonymised.

Data collection took place between September and November 2023. A total of 36 interviews were conducted. Saturation of findings was reached, meaning by the end of the interviews no new themes emerged. Table 1 shows the target and achieved samples.

5.8 Table 1: Group 1: SP who currently live in SFA and were using the furniture provision.

Cohort	Target	Achieved sample
Royal Navy, including Royal Marines	8	6
Army	8	7
Royal Air Force	8	8
Female	4	5
Male	20	16
Total	24	21

5.9 Table 2: Group 2: SP who currently live in SFA but were not using the furniture provision.

Cohort	Target	Achieved sample
Royal Navy, including Royal Marines	3	3
Army	4	4
Royal Air Force	3	3
Female	2	2
Male	8	7
Prefer not to say	0	1
Total	10	10

5.10 Table 3: Group 3: SP who previously lived in SFA (who both had and had not previously used the furniture provision).

Cohort	Target	Achieved sample
Royal Navy, including Royal Marines	2	1
Army	2	2
Royal Air Force	2	2
Female	2	2
Male	4	3
Total	6	5

22 participants were Officers and 14 were Other Ranks. Participants had varying lengths of service, between less than a year and 39 years.

Despite best efforts to fill the sample criteria, the following cohorts of SP were underrepresented compared to the target sample:

• Male SP

• Royal Navy SP

• SP who currently lived in fully furnished SFA. Initially, the research team aimed to recruit an equal number of ‘part’ and ‘full’ furnished SP. However, only a limited number of SP who were currently fully furnished expressed an interest in participating, despite targeted recruitment of this cohort. Instead, the research team recruited more part furnished SP to account for this. Some of these SP had previously been fully furnished so still provided insight on the use of a fully furnished provision.

Some groups were overachieved (females and those in part furnished SFA) due to overscheduling of interviews to account for ‘no-shows’ or underrepresented groups. It is therefore noted results may be slightly biased in favour of the oversampled groups. However, it is not thought that this would have a noticeable impact on the results, given the qualitative in-depth nature of the research and that the research findings are not intending to be reflective of the entire Armed Forces.

5.11 Analysis

The analysis approach for this research was thematic analysis. Thematic analysis is aimed at systematically describing the meaning of qualitative data by assigning codes to the data, then identifying themes that emerge from the codes. An inductive approach was used for this research, meaning the data determined the themes which emerged.

The interview transcripts were coded by a Government Social Researcher. A second Government Social Researcher independently coded half of the transcripts for quality assurance purposes. The codes were compared in a workshop attended by the researchers. The codes were grouped into themes by a Government Social Researcher and an independent MOD analyst quality assured these. Any discrepancies identified were discussed and resolved by checking the original transcripts and codes.

Quotes used in this report have been provided from the interview transcripts. They have only been edited for grammatical errors, clarity and brevity.

The final report was quality assured by both a Government Social Researcher within the Accommodation Analysis Team and a Government Social Researcher external to the Accommodation Team, but within MOD. This ensured the report met MOD and Government Social Research profession standards.

6. Findings

6.1 Use of the furniture provision

This section addresses the following research questions:

• How did SP furnish their SFA? Why did/ didn’t they use the furniture provision and Get You in Pack?

• Why do SP think Defence provide a furniture provision?

• How often did SP change or return furniture mid-assignment? Why?

Furnishing family accommodation

Participants reported renting a variety of items through DAS. Typically, participants rented larger items such as dining room tables, wardrobes and drawers, rather than smaller items, such as toilet brushes and step stools.

Not toilet brushes, I think it’s something a bit more personal that the individual should buy. It’s a couple of quid to buy one down the pound shop. It’s mostly large bulky items, because that is what gets battered and bashed about when it moves. [Army, Officer, Part Furnished]

Some participants ordered beds and sofas, whilst others decided to order their own due to comfort. Children’s items, for example cots, stairgates and garden packs were also commonly ordered by participants.

All participants reported they had never changed furniture mid-assignment. However, some participants requested mid-assignment returns. Reasons for this included buying their own furniture, items were broken or uncomfortable, they did not know the size of the property and/or because they found wardrobes or stairgates built into their property on arrival.

In four of the five properties we’ve requested returns to furniture because we requested furniture based on the photo of the outside of the house and a knowledge of the number of rooms. When we got to the property, we discovered there are wardrobes [built in] or the chimney breast is a bit bigger, so it didn’t fit a second sofa or things like that. [Army, Officer, Part Furnished]

A few participants noted they wanted to return an item but had not done this yet, as they were not sure on the returns process or were waiting until they had more items to return.

Most participants who did not use the furniture provision noted they accumulated furniture over time, rather than buying their furniture when they moved into their first property. It was mixed whether participants reported they bought their furniture second hand or new. Participants reported they considered cost, practical factors, style, quality and comfort when furnishing their SFA outside of DAS. Many participants noted it was a balance between quality, style and comfort.

Most participants did not order a Get You In Pack. A Get You In Pack is free and contains items such as crockery, kitchen utensils, pots, pans and bedding, for temporary use. Reasons participants gave for this included already owning these items, moving these items with them between SFA within the UK, lack of awareness of the pack, what was in it or that it was free and not wanting to get charged for forgetting to return the pack or for potential damage.

That’s the first time I’m hearing it. The key reason might be I didn’t actually need it, that’s why I didn’t look for it…I was already living in single living accommodation before, so I had a few necessities when I moved in. [Army, Other Rank, Fully Furnished]

Whilst these participants did not order a GYIP, many highlighted the pack would be useful for those moving into their first house, when moving to or from abroad and for emergency moves.

Some participants did order a GYIP, either at their first SFA or when they came back from abroad. A few reported the pack was outdated and views on the quality were mixed. However, overall, they considered kitchen items such a cutlery, pots and pans, as well as bedding to be helpful in the short term.

We’ve never used that, but something I firmly believe that the MOD are brilliant in what it does to provide for service personnel when they first moved in and maybe it’s great for young people when they first got married, they’re in their early 20s. [Army, Officer, Part Furnished]

Reasons for using the furniture provision

Most participants reported using the furniture provision for reasons related to functionality and need.

We try and use items of furniture which are going to be the same and don’t really matter too much in terms of comfort or style. [RAF, Officer, Part Furnished]

The furniture is basic, but it works, and it does the job. [Army, Officer, Part Furnished]

Many participants had used the provision as they did not have to worry about moving the items, including the fear of damage to items on removal, the volume of removal allowance or waiting for furniture to arrive at their next property.

It’s just the ease so when you move in, you’ve got somewhere to put stuff or if the kids need to eat you’ve got a table already set up. [RAF, Other Rank, Part Furnished]

Most participants who used the provision reported cost did not influence their decision to use it. However, many did acknowledge that renting furniture through DAS is good value for money and some highlighted they used the provision as it saves them the cost of buying furniture upfront. A few participants noted if the furniture provision was more expensive, they would consider buying their own furniture second hand instead.

Some participants reported they use the provision due to the size of the SFA. They noted they would use the furniture provision to scale up and down as needed between properties.

It’s just needs based on how big the quarter is that we’re moving into. So, this one was far bigger than our last one, our last one was tiny, so we needed a dining table now, whereas we didn’t need that at the last house. So, it was to adjust what we need to fill the space. [Army, Other Rank, Part Furnished]

Personal circumstances also influenced some participants decision to use the furniture provision. For example, a few participants who were divorced noted they used the provision post-divorce when they needed the items. A few participants also had their own house, so did not want to double up on furniture. Other participants had moved straight from Single Living Accommodation (SLA), so used the provision as they had no time yet to accumulate their own furniture.

Other reasons given by some participants for using the furniture provision included the quality of items being acceptable for the price paid and uncertainty over future plans, such as being posted abroad or not knowing whether they would be entitled to SFA on their next assignment, so did not want to buy their own furniture to have to either store or sell it.

We could be living abroad next - we don’t want to accrue so much furniture that we can’t store it. [RAF, Officer, Part Furnished]

Most participants who used the provision currently had part furnished, rather than fully furnished SFA. Many participants said this was because some of the items, particularly sofas and mattresses, were poor quality and/or uncomfortable, so they did not rent these from DAS. Many participants reported they used fully furnished as a stop gap provision when they first moved into SFA and instead bought their own furniture over time to personalise their home, or as and when they could afford to buy it. Other reasons highlighted by a few participants for being part furnished, rather than fully furnished included some items not being available through DAS (such as a king-size bed), already having their own items (from accumulating over time or from friends/family) and/or the cost of fully furnished compared to part furnished.

We did deliberately try and work it so that we stayed under the threshold, for part furnished, just because we knew we didn’t need everything so we thought we might as well pay the reduced part rate rather than paying a full rate and not taking everything. [Navy, Officer, Part Furnished]

Reasons for not using the furniture provision

Participants reported they did not use DAS to furnish their SFA as they already owned their own furniture, they wanted to choose the style of the furniture and/or a dislike of some of the DAS items, due to comfort or quality (particularly sofas and mattresses).

It makes it feel a bit more homely if you can get your own stuff because you can sort of pick a theme. [RAF, Other Rank, Unfurnished]

Many participants reported cost did not influence their decision not to use the furniture provision. However, a few felt it was cheaper eventually to buy their own furniture if only a few items were being rented.

Some participants had used the provision previously, for example when they moved into their first SFA, when they moved back from abroad or when renting children’s items when they needed them. Most of these participants found it helpful, although a few felt it was poor quality.

When I first got married, we used part furnished as we were youngsters you didn’t have everything. [RAF, Officer, Unfurnished]

There were a small group of participants who never rented furniture from DAS. This was predominately due to wanting choice of style, or already owning their furniture.

Purpose of the furniture provision

When participants were asked why they think Defence provide a furniture provision for SP in SFA, the top three factors reported align to the reasons why they reported they use the provision. Many participants thought Defence provide furniture provision due to the operational requirement to move, often at short notice. They felt it is easier than moving with your own furniture and saves MOD money on moving costs. They also thought it was to support moving between different houses, which may vary in type and size and uncertainty over the next house.

With the contrast and differences of house, you’re going to have to either fill it up or get rid of furniture as and when you move. [Army, Other Rank, Part Furnished]

Many participants thought the furniture provision is provided to remove the financial burden of paying for furniture upfront.

Some participants thought the furniture provision is provided to support those who moved straight from SLA, are divorced, newly-weds or those who did not have family support in helping them furnish a home.

Other reasons reported by some participants included to increase retention and SP satisfaction and/or as a duty of care, to show Defence look after their people and to reduce stress for SP when changing jobs.

6.2 Satisfaction with the furniture provision and suggested improvements

This section addresses the following research questions:

• What are SP’s experiences of furnishing family accommodation?

• How satisfied or unsatisfied were SP with the current furniture provision? Why?

• How, if at all, could the provision of furniture be improved?

Application process

Overall, participants were satisfied with the application process of applying for furniture, noting it was an intuitive, clear, straightforward process.

It’s dead easy as you can see on the form, you just check the box for what you want, and it turns up on the day you move in if everything goes smoothly, which it did for me. [RAF, Other Rank, Fully Furnished]

However, many participants who reported they were satisfied suggested improvements to the application process, specifically in relation to how improvements to the e-1132 form would help them to make a more informed decision on what furniture to order.

Suggested improvements included a standard photo of the item and it’s dimensions; clearer costings shown on the page, such as a basket or sliding scale to show when you change from part to fully furnished and the cost associated with this; clearer language or descriptions of items, specifically in relation to ‘table occasional’; a floor plan of the house they are moving to and clarity over how many items they could order, with a definition of ‘av ent’, which means average entitlement (noting that for example, a SP with a four bedroom house would be entitled to more beds than a SP in a two bed).

Quality

Overall, most participants reported they were satisfied with the furniture provision. However, many of these participants highlighted both positives and negatives.

Participant views on the quality of DAS furniture was mixed. Some noted that most of the furniture met their expectations and needs for the price they had paid, particularly wooden furniture.

All the wooden furniture, the chairs, the dining table, dresser, side table, it’s very solid, it’s very fit for what I need it for. It’s not aesthetically something you’re going to pay hundreds of pounds for, but for my intents it’s very sturdy, it’s very usable, it’s fit for purpose undoubtedly. [Army, Officer, Fully Furnished]

A few highlighted the quality was better than they thought and had improved over time.

In contrast, many participants noted they were not satisfied of the quality of some items, particularly sofas and mattresses, which were considered uncomfortable.

Some participants also noted that some items were chipped, outdated and/or made of cheap materials. It was also highlighted that the quality of furniture was not consistent between locations.

Some participants suggested the quality could therefore be improved, particularly sofas and mattresses which they reported should be comfier.

Service and logistics

Overall, participants were satisfied with the service provided by staff who deliver and repair items. They noted they received items which they ordered on time and that furniture was placed into logical rooms and/or staff were happy to move the furniture between rooms if needed.

Participants liked that they could contact Pickfords directly and amend delivery times if needed. They reported staff were friendly and polite and quickly assembled furniture.

A few participants did have negative experiences, such as missing, damaged or unavailability of items on arrival (without being told prior to moving in that these would not be available), poor quality repairs and having to move heavy furniture between rooms themselves. However, these appeared to be isolated incidents and were predominately resolved quickly. Some participants suggested the availability of items should however be improved.

Returns process

Overall, participants were satisfied with the returns process once they found out who to contact. It was noted they left the furniture at the house and would be collected once the ‘March-Out’ process was complete.

However, some participants highlighted the returns process was unclear and inconsistent.

It took me probably about 2 weeks to find the actual person that I needed to speak to [to return items]. [RAF, Other Rank, Part Furnished]

Some participants noted they had not yet returned furniture which they wanted to because they thought they were only allowed one free return during each assignment. However, others reported they understood they were allowed multiple free mid-assignment returns.

Some participants commented on the furniture march out process. A few participants mentioned their furniture was checked for damage, whilst others highlighted that the furniture march out process did not seem consistent among SP. It was clear some SP are not having their furniture checked for damage or charged for this.

6.3 Furniture provision in a modern Defence

This section addresses the following research questions:

• What, if any, expectations do SP have for a furniture provision outside of SFA?

• What, if any, views do SP have on the provision of single-use items?

• What are SP views on alternatives to the existing furniture provision?

• When sourcing personal furniture, what are SP priorities?

Furniture provision outside of SFA

Overall, participants agreed they would not expect a Defence provided furniture provision to be available to them if they bought their own home. Reasons given for this included: there no longer being an operational requirement to move if you buy your own home; you are choosing to be outside Defence support when you buy your own home and a desire to personalise furniture if buying your own home. Despite not expecting to receive the provision, some reported it would be nice to have and/or felt it would encourage home ownership.

Most participants reported they would expect to receive the same furniture provision as in SFA if they were placed into the Private Rental Sector (PRS), because SFA was not available at their assigned location. Many highlighted this is because it is not their choice to move into the PRS under the New Accommodation Offer.

Yes, I think you should have the option of it if you need furniture because you would do in a military house and if you’re not [offered furniture] then you’ve been disadvantaged by the MOD. [RAF, Officer, Past SFA]

Many participants highlighted they would expect the provision as they would still be expected to move every few years. They raised concerns that if they had to buy their own furniture in the PRS, this furniture may not fit their next property, as they do not know the size or whether they would be placed back into SFA. Some participants also raised concerns around the level of removal allowance given to move their own furniture and delays to receiving furniture if they waited to order it themselves outside the provision to a PRS property. They felt these logistical aspects add burden to SP. Some participants highlighted they do not own their own furniture, so would not feel able to use the PRS if DAS was not available to them.

Most participants described negative feelings, including frustrated, unhappy, disadvantaged, gutted and annoyed, if a furniture provision was not available to them if they were placed into the PRS. Some felt this would have negative implications on morale and retention. A few also highlighted financial concerns with having to buy their own furniture.

Whilst some participants who did not currently use DAS reported they would feel fine about furniture not being available in the PRS due to having their own, they highlighted concerns for colleagues who may be reliant on DAS furniture if this was not available. Reasons for this aligned with those outlined above.

Participant views on whether a furniture provision should be provided if they opted to live in the PRS were mixed. Many participants felt it should not be provided as it is a personal choice, whilst others reported that although they would not expect it, it would be nice to have.

Some participants reported they would expect to receive a furniture provision if they opted to live in the PRS because the expectation to remain mobile remains. A few participants also noted that although the PRS may be considered a choice, they would feel forced there if the only other alternative was a long commute. A few expected a furniture provision to be available in specific circumstances when opting to live in the PRS, such as if it was close to work and if there was a service need to move again.

It depends on how close in proximity to the caps the furniture provision is, so if you opted to move into a private rental that’s three miles away from camp then yes, if it was 50 miles away from camp then no. [Army, Officer, Part Furnished]

Single use items within the furniture provision

Participant awareness of single use items was mixed. A list of single use items is provided in Annex A.

All participants agreed that toilet brushes should be single use for hygiene reasons. Some noted they are meant to be disposable anyway.

Participant views on whether mattresses should be single use or not were mixed. Some participants thought mattresses should not be single use and instead should be assessed, cleaned and reconditioned as people use mattress protectors at other places (such as Single Living Accommodation and hotels) do not swap them. However, many participants felt mattresses should be single use for hygiene reasons. Most of these participants were concerned about the waste this causes and impact this has on the environment and costs to MOD. Some participants reported they would have asked to keep the mattress instead if they knew it would be disposed of. When asked, all participants agreed they would be happy to move with the same mattress each time, if it was replaced after a suitable serviceable life.

Participant views on whether highchairs should be single use or not were mixed. Many participants reported they do not need to be single use as they can be wiped clean, assessed and re-issued. However, a few did feel they should be single use for safety and hygiene reasons.

A few participants highlighted that if an item is single use (particularly toilet brushes), Defence should not provide them.

I do find it surprising that some of the things that are provided like ironing boards, toilet brushes and high chairs, it’s great they are provided but I would expect people to buy them themselves noting the level of damage that is going to get inflicted on a high chair by a child…I think single use probably shouldn’t be provided [Army, Officer, Part Furnished]

6.4 Alternatives to the current furniture provisions

Loan or one-off payment

Most participants either had mixed views on whether a one-off loan or small payment would work or did not think it was an acceptable standalone alternative to the existing furniture provision. Only a few participants thought it was good as a stand-alone alternative, without any concerns or conditions.

Many participants noted they would appreciate the flexibility of choosing the type, style and quality of items.

It would allow you to purchase to your own needs and requirements rather than be limited to what they [DAS] can offer you. [Navy, Other Rank, Part Furnished]

Other benefits of this as an alternative provision raised by a few participants included saving Defence time on the logistics of delivering and refurbishing furniture and better preparing SP for civilian life, as they would own their furniture outright.

However, many participants had concerns with a monetary provision. The key concern raised was that SP may spend the money on other items, leaving them with no furniture.

If the MOD is effectively depositing money into your bank account, they have no way of guaranteeing that you spend it on what you’re supposed to. And then if you don’t, it becomes a welfare issue that MOD has to spend more money on resolving. [RAF, Other Rank, Fully Furnished]

Many participants noted a monetary provision would not work as you do not know what furniture you need until you see the house and unlike the existing provision, it would not allow them to scale up and down as they moved between different properties.

Other concerns raised by some participants included inconvenience moving with furniture between properties, the loan or payment not being enough to fully furnish a house (which they noted could cost around £5000), lack of ability to replace damaged items and not accounting for changing needs over time.

If a loan or one-off payment was used as an alternative, some SP made suggestions around conditions they felt would need to be in place to facilitate this. It is important to note each of these suggestions were made by between 1 to 3 participants but demonstrate a range of conditions participants felt would need to be in place for this provision if they were to consider it an acceptable alternative. This included:

• the ability for the payment to be drawn upon at multiple points during the service career (and for this to increase, if not spent in full upfront, in line with inflation);

• repayments being no more than monthly furniture payments;

• ability to see SFA before moving in to determine what furniture to order;

• additional leave to buy furniture;

• additional removal allowance;

• guidance for SP on what they should spend the money on and/or

• SP to bring quotes to MOD on what they want to buy and Defence pay this, rather than giving money upfront.

Moving with furniture between SFA

The majority of participants had mixed views on whether furniture should be re-issued or moved with them between SFA, highlighting concerns and benefits with each option.

In terms of being re-issued items, participants reported it was good that they did not need to consider moving the furniture, furniture could be monitored and refurbished between uses and furniture could be changed and returned as and when needed.

It’s a chance to be checked, by both the person who’s getting it and by the people who are issuing it, so people get to make sure it’s of a proper standard and cleanliness. [Navy, Other Rank, Part Furnished]

However, participants raised concerns about receiving damaged or unclean items and an unclear returns process.

In terms of moving with items, participants liked that it would make the furniture feel more personal and noted it may incentive SP to look after the furniture better. However, they raised concerns over who would be liable for damage on removals, whether the furniture would fit into the next property and the practicalities of moving taking longer for them.

When asked, many participants reported they were just as happy to move with the same furniture as they would be to have it re-issued. However, many of these participants reported they would only be happy to move with the furniture under the following conditions: an option to change furniture if it does not fit their next property; a floor plan available so they could see the size of property they were moving to; a fair wear and tear policy so they are not charged for damage that happens over years or due to removals and an audit/inventory in place to monitor the condition of items.

I wouldn’t be opposed as long as it’s a good quality and there is a potential to renew for normal wear and tear. [RAF, Officer, Past SFA]

Some participants reported they would not be happy to move with existing furniture, particularly due to the furniture potentially not fitting in the next SFA and liability for damage.

Consideration for other alternatives

Most participants reported several factors were important to them when sourcing their own furniture, including cost, quality, comfort, durability, whether furniture would fit into SFA, style and functionality.

Many participants felt a dining table and chairs, sofas, beds (and mattresses), chest of drawers and wardrobes are essential furniture within a home. Some participants reported coffee tables, TV units, bedside tables, children’s items, white goods (fridge, washing machine) and desks are essential furniture. A few participants reported side tables, bookshelves, hoovers, garden tools and mirrors are essential furniture.

Most participants reported they could not think of an alternative to the existing furniture provision. Many participants reported this was because they were satisfied with the existing provision.

I’ve not really thought about an alternative because the provision has worked well for me, you’ve got the option of the full, part or none and I think the provision itself is actually quite effective. [Army, Officer, Fully Furnished]

6.5 Conclusions

Use of furniture provision

• The key reasons participants reported for using the furniture provision related to need (functional and practical reasons), rather than style or comfort.

• Despite not all participants currently using the provision, many had used it at previous life stages when they needed it, such as when they first moved to SFA.

• The top three factors’ participants reported they thought MOD provided furniture provision for align to the reasons they reported they used the provision (due to the operational requirement to, to support SP financially and personal circumstances such as divorce or moving straight from SLA meaning they don’t own furniture). These are need-based reasons.

• Some smaller items, such as toilet brushes and step stools were not considered ‘essential’ furniture and the key reasons participants reported they use the provision, such as moving bulkier items and fitting furniture into different sized properties, are not applicable to smaller items.

• The GYIP was typically not use by SP when moving between SFA properties in the UK. However, they were used and considered helpful for temporary use when participants moved back from abroad or on first move into SFA.

• A common reason participants returned items mid-assignment was because they found items, such as wardrobes and stairgates, were already built into the property when they arrived.

Satisfaction with furniture provision

• Overall, participants are satisfied with the furniture provision, and it meets their needs for the price they pay.

• Some participants suggested improvements to the e-1132 system for applying for furniture, such as being provided with pictures and dimensions of both the furniture and the property they are moving to. However, when asked later if they faced any challenges, only a few mentioned issues which would have been resolved by these improvements.

• Participants suggested the quality of some items, particularly mattresses and sofas, could be improved as they are not comfortable to sleep or sit on.

• Overall participants were satisfied with the returns process once they found out who to contact.

• It was clear some SP are not having their furniture checked for or charged for damage.

Furniture provision in a modern Defence

• Furniture provision is not expected to be available to SP who buy their own home. 

• Furniture provision is expected to be available to SP who are placed into the private rental sector. Reasons for this were the same as the reasons participants reported they felt the furniture provision as provided to them in SFA, namely the operational requirement to move.

• Views on whether SP should receive furniture provision if they opt to live in the PRS were mixed.

• Some participants agreed for hygiene reasons specific items should be single use, whilst others were happy if it was sufficiently cleaned and restored, it could be used again. All participants were happy to move with same mattress each time to reduce waste, if it was replaced after a suitable service life.

• Overall, a one-off loan or small payment was not considered to be an acceptable standalone alternative to the furniture provision, given the number of concerns or conditions raised by participants associated with this alternative. Participants did not think this would work practically and highlighted many conditions to its use, which could be costly to introduce. Although participants liked that they would get to choose furniture, the practical reasons they reported for needing furniture would not be met with a one-off payment, therefore outweighing benefits.

• Except style, the factors participants reported they considered when sourcing their own furniture broadly aligned to factors, they considered when deciding what to order through the furniture provision.

• Despite many participants reporting they would be just as happy to move with the same furniture, they raised concerns around how this would work practically and highlighted many conditions to this an alternative provision.

• Most participants reported they could not think of an alternative. Many said this was because they were satisfied with the current provision.

7. References

Atieno, O. (2009). An Analysis of the Strengths and Limitation of Qualitative and Quantitative Research Paradigms. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 13-18.

Drabble, L., Trocki, K., Salcedo, B., Walker, P., & Korcha, R. (2016). Conducting qualitative interviews by telephone: Lessons learned from a study of alcohol use among sexual minority and heterosexual women. Qual Soc Work, 118-133.

Ministry of Defence (2021). Ministry of Defence Climate Change and Sustainability Strategic Approach

Ministry of Defence (2022). UK Armed Forces Defence Accommodation Strategy

Ministry of Defence (2023). Defence Command Paper

Ministry of Defence (2023). JSP 464 Tri-Service Accommodation Regulations Volume 1: Service Family Accommodation (SFA) and Substitute Service Family Accommodation – UK and Overseas

Ministry of Defence (2023). New Accommodation Offer Guidance

Morgan, D. L. (1998). The focus group guide book. London: Sage Publications.

Roller, M., & Lavrakas, P. (2015). Applied Qualitative Research Design: A Total Quality Framework Approach. Guildford Publications.

8. Annexes

8.1 Annex A: Furniture Provision Items

DAS Item

Get You in Pack

Double Mattress

Single Mattress

Sideboard Unit (Large)

Sideboard Unit (Small)

Bookcase (Large)

Bookcase (Small)

Dining Table (Large)

Dining Table (Small)

Dining Chair

Nest of Tables

Occasional Table

Desk/Dressing Table c/w Three Drawer Pedestal

Bedside Cabinet/Side Table

Chest of Drawers

Dressing Stool Chair

Free Standing Mirror

Wardrobe, Double

Wardrobe, Single

Castor Cup

Cot

Cot Mattress

High Chair

Replacement Harness for High Chair

Play Pen Folding

Replacement Mat

Stair and Door Gate

Stair and Door Gate Extension

Wall Cups

Step Stool

Bathroom Stool

Linen Container

8.2 Annex B: Discussion Guide

Introduction [ALL PARTICIPANTS]

Thank you for volunteering to take part in this interview. I understand that you are busy, and I do really appreciate your time. You’ve been asked to participate as the Ministry of Defence (MOD) would like to speak to different SP to hear about their experiences of furnishing their SFA. Your view is really important to us.     

As you may be aware, currently SP have the option to rent a range furniture from DAS on each assignment move into SFA when they submit an MOD e1132. This means if you were renting furniture at your last SFA, this is returned to the DAS warehouse, and you are re-issued with furniture selected at your next property.    

In the next few months, we’ll be reviewing the way in which furniture is currently provided to SP. We therefore want to hear about your current experiences of furnishing your family accommodation and understand what your priorities and needs are for a furniture provision in a modern Defence. We’ll use your feedback when considering any potential changes to furniture provision.    

The interview will take about 45 minutes. Your participation is completely voluntary. If you do not want to take part, you are free to leave now or at any time without giving me a reason. I won’t inform your Chain of Command or anyone else that you left. Likewise, your Chain of Command won’t be informed of anything you say in the interview. If you need to take a break during our discussion to take a phone call or go to the toilet, just let me know and we can pause. If you don’t understand something, please do let me know and I’ll do my best to rephrase the question.   

You’ll have reviewed the participant information sheet and signed the consent form ahead of this session. I’ll be recording and transcribing this interview using MS Teams on my laptop. Despite this interview being transcribed, you’ll remain anonymous in the research. After the interview, the transcript will be processed by our research team to remove any information that would allow you to be linked to specific statements. Would you be happy for me to use the transcribe function on MS Teams? This will allow us to listen back to the interview and analyse the information you give us.    

Do you have any questions that you would like to ask me about the research?

A: Experiences of furnishing SFA [Group 1 only]

Screen share to e1132 form, or if conducted via telephone, ask them to refer to the screenshot they will have received in advance via email. This is the form you will have completed on the e1132 when applying for SFA.

Can you talk me through what you considered when deciding whether to apply for unfurnished, part-furnished or fully-furnished SFA? 

PROMPT 

• Why did you decide to rent furniture from the Defence Accommodation Store? 

• How, if at all, did the rental charges influence your decision to utilise the furniture provision?

• What, if any, other factors influenced your decision to opt for your SFA to be fully/part furnished?

• What factors did you consider when furnishing your home: cost, quality, style, logistics of purchase, size of SFA?

Can you talk me through how you decided which items to select?

PROMPT

• How did you decide how many items to select?

• Why did you opt to choose [fully/part furnished] over [fully/part furnished]?

What, if anything, could be improved on the form? 

PROMPT

• Was anything unclear? 

  Overall, how satisfied, or unsatisfied were you with the application process of applying for furniture? Why? 

Did you order a Get You In Pack?     If yes: 

• What did you think this would contain? 

• Did the pack meet your expectations? Why/ why not? 

• Which items were the most/least useful?  

• Did you order this at previous properties? 

If no: 

• Why not? 

• What did you think this would contain?   

Which furniture was the most useful to you?  

• Which furniture was the least useful for you? 

• What, if any, items did you not use? Why? 

Overall, how satisfied, or unsatisfied were you with the service provided by the Defence Accommodation Store? Why?    PROMPTS 

• What do you think about the logistics of receiving your furniture? (Prompts – time taken for delivery, any contact with the warehouse) 

• What, if any, thoughts did you have on the quality of the furniture you received when you used DAS? Did it meet your expectations? Was it good or poor? 

• Overall, how satisfied, or unsatisfied were you with the process to return furniture at the end of your assignment? 

Do you own, but not use, any of your own furniture? 

If yes: 

• Why do you not opt to use this? 

• Where do you keep this furniture? 

How many prior assignments did you rent furniture from the DAS?   

SP who has not always used furniture provision only 

• Have you always opted for [part/fully] furnished? Why/ why not? 

• What sorts of items did you rent? Did you rent larger items such as beds and tables or smaller items such as toilet brushes? 

• At what point did you decide to use the furniture provision? Why? 

• How did you furnish your SFA outside of using the DAS?   

SP who has always used DAS 

• What, if anything, has stopped you from sourcing your own furniture?  

    Besides moving out of the property, how often have you requested changes or replacements to your furniture? Why? 

Besides what you have mentioned already – What, if anything, has been good about using the Defence Accommodation Store to furnish your home and when moving locations? 

Besides what you have mentioned already - What, if any, challenges have you faced when using the Defence Accommodation Store to furnish your home and when moving locations? 

B: Experiences of furnishing [Group 2 only]

Screen share to screenshot of furniture provision part of e1132 form, or if conducted via telephone ask them to refer to the screenshot they will have received in advance via email. This is the form you’ll have completed on the e1132 when applying for SFA.

Can you talk me through what you considered when deciding whether to apply for unfurnished, part-furnished or fully-furnished SFA?   

PROMPTS

• Why did you not decide to rent furniture from the Defence Accommodation Store? 

• How, if at all, did the rental charges influence your decision not to utilise the furniture provision? 

• What, if any, other factors influenced your decision to not utilise the furniture provision? 

What, if anything, could be improved on the form?

PROMPT

• Was anything unclear? 

Overall, how satisfied or unsatisfied were you with the process of applying for your SFA to be unfurnished? Why? 

Did you order a Get You In Pack? 

If yes: 

• What did you think this would contain? 

• Did the pack meet your expectations? Why/why not? 

• Which items were most/least useful?  

• Did you order this at previous properties? 

If no: 

• Why not? 

• What did you think this would contain? 

• Did you order this at previous properties? 

Have you ever used the Defence Accommodation Store in your service career? 

If yes: 

• How many prior assignments did you rent furniture from the DAS? 

• Did you do fully or part furnished? 

• What sorts of items did you rent? Did you rent larger items such as beds and tables and/or smaller items such as toilet brushes 

• When did you stop renting DAS provided furniture? Why?   

Overall, how satisfied or unsatisfied were you with the service provided by the Defence Accommodation Store? Why? 

PROMPTS 

• What do you think about the logistics of receiving your furniture? (Prompts – time taken for delivery, any contact with the warehouse) 

• What, if any, thoughts did you have on the quality of the furniture you received when you used DAS? Did it meet your expectations? Was it good or poor? 

• Which furniture was most and least useful to you?  

• Overall, how satisfied or unsatisfied were you with the process to return furniture at the end of your assignment? 

• Besides moving out of the property, how often did you request changes or replacements to your furniture? Why did you? 

How did you furnish your SFA? 

PROMPTS 

• Did you buy most of your furniture when you moved to your first property or over time? 

• Where did you get your furniture from? 

• What are your thoughts on the process of moving your furniture? 

What factors did you consider when sourcing furniture for your home? 

PROMPTS 

• Cost 

• Quality 

• Style 

• Logistics of purchase (collection, delivery options/time) 

• Size of SFA 

Besides what you have mentioned already – What, if any, benefits are there to furnishing your home outside of DAS and when moving locations? 

Besides what you have mentioned already - What, if any, challenges have you faced in furnishing your home and when moving locations? 

C: Experiences of furnishing [Group 3 only]

How do you furnish your accommodation in the Private Rental Sector? 

PROMPTS 

• Did the property come furnished? If so, what furniture did this include? 

• Did you buy most your furniture when you moved to your first property or over time? 

• Where did you get your furniture from? 

What factors did you consider when sourcing furniture for your home? 

PROMPTS 

• Cost 

• Quality 

• Style 

• Logistics of purchase (collection, delivery options/time) 

• Size of property 

Overall, how satisfied or unsatisfied were you with the process of furnishing your own home?  

Screen share to screenshot of furniture provision part of e1132 form, or if conducted via telephone ask them to refer to the screenshot they will have received in advance via email. This is the form you’ll have completed on the e1132 when you previously applied for SFA. Can you talk me through what you considered when deciding whether to opt for unfurnished, part-furnished or fully-furnished SFA? 

PROMPT 

• Why did/ didn’t you decide to use furniture from the Defence Accommodation Store? 

• Why did you opt for part/fully furnished over fully/ part furnished? 

• How, if at all, did the rental charges influence your decision not to utilise the furniture provision? 

• What, if any, other factors influenced your decision to not utilise the furniture provision? 

What, if anything, on this form could be improved? 

PROMPT 

• Was anything unclear? 

Did you order a Get You In Pack? 

If yes: 

• Did what was in the pack meet your expectations? What did you think this would contain?  

• Did you use the pack? Why/ why not? 

• What items were most and least useful?  

• Did you order this at previous properties? 

If no: 

• Why not? 

• What did you think this would contain? 

 

If used DAS only - How many prior assignments did you rent furniture from the DAS? 

• Have you always opted for fully or part furnished?

• When did you stop using DAS? Why?

Overall, how satisfied or unsatisfied were you with the service provided by the Defence Accommodation Store? Why? 

Besides moving out of the property, how often did you request changes or replacements to your furniture? Why? 

Compared to the furniture you bought yourself through the PRS, what are your thoughts on the cost, quality, style and logistics of DAS furniture?

What, if any, support would you have liked when furnishing your home in the PRS? 

Besides what you have mentioned already – What, if any, benefits are there to furnishing your home outside of DAS?  

Besides what you have mentioned already - What, if any, challenges have you faced in furnishing your home in the PRS? 

D: Improvements to furniture provision [All]

The next topic I would like to get your views on is how future furniture provision could be improved.  

Why do you think MOD provide SP with the option to rent furniture for their family accommodation through Defence Accommodation Stores? 

Skip if part furnished, as they will have answered earlier. When you are sourcing furniture for your home, what factors are most important to you?  

PROMPTS  

• Which of the following aspects are most important to you; cost, quality, style, logistics?   
• What do you consider to be essential furniture in a home?   
• Would you expect to receive the same furniture provision as if you were in SFA if: 

a) You moved into your own home? Why/ why not? 

b) You were placed into the Private Rental Sector? Why/ why not? 

c) You opted to move into the Private Rental Sector? Why/ why not? 

What, if any, thoughts would you have if you found out a furniture provision was not available to you in the Private Rental Sector?  

Currently SP have the option to rent a range of furniture from the Defence Accommodation Stores on each assignment move into SFA. This means if you were renting furniture at your last SFA, this would be returned to the DAS warehouse, and you are re-issued with furniture selected at your next property. What, if any, thoughts do you have on furniture being re-issued on each move?  

Some of the items provided by the Defence Accommodation Stores are single use and therefore disposed of when returned to the DAS warehouse each time a SP moves. These items are: mattresses, high chairs, toilet brushes and damaged items that are not cost effective to refurbish. Were you aware of this? 

PROMPTS 

• What, if anything, is good about this? 

• What, if any, concerns do you have about this? 

• Are there any specific items you think should be single use? 

• Are there any specific items you think should not be single use? 

• Would you be happy to move with the same mattress each time?   

What, if any, improvements would you make to the current provision of furniture? 

What, if any, alternatives to the current provision of furniture would you suggest? 

PROMPTS 

• How would you feel if you were given a large loan or a small one-off payment for furniture, instead of renting furniture that is changed on every assignment? If SP asks what small or large is – How much would you expect to receive? 

E: Closing [All]

That is the end of all my questions for you. Thank you again for your valuable contributions today. 

• Is there anything else that you would like to share about furnishing your family accommodation?  

• Do you have any questions for me before we finish?