# Dead soldier hit with parking bill



## GAP (30 Jan 2009)

Dead soldier hit with parking bill
Families of soldiers left with car fees
By JOE WARMINGTON The Toronto Sun     
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2009/01/30/8200556-sun.htmlArticle Link

PETAWAWA -- The last thing you'd think we would want our soldiers in Afghanistan worrying about is if they die there, will a $250 cancellation fee have to be paid to get their car out of a storage facility and returned to their family. 

And yet this is what a lot of them and their families were worrying about this week -- when word got out that a $250 cancellation fee had to be paid for a contract broken by Pte. Michael Freeman. 

The contract was indeed broken. But there was a pretty good reason. 

Freeman, of Peterborough, was killed in action by a roadside bomb on Boxing Day. 

In the end, grieving families are compensated but the fact is at their most vulnerable moment they still have to deal with a $250 bill and a cold bureaucracy. 

"It's disgusting," military wife Wendy Leduc said.  
  

No word on whether this would happen to Taliban fighters. 

Needless to say, there are people here on the base outraged -- as are some in the war zone in Afghanistan. 

"There are guys e-mailing their wives telling them to get their cars out of there," said one military insider. 

There is a Facebook page dedicated to this, with dozens of angry comments and puzzled people. 

How could this be? It seems heartless. The family has to see their son brought home in a box and then be told he's violating a storage contract? 

"It's just wrong," said Karen Beauparlant last night at the Tim Hortons on the base which is abuzz with a mini-controversy swirling here all week. 

"What can you say about something like that?" adds her friend Kristen Vincent. "It's not fair." 

Both of their husbands will deploy to Afghanistan next year. "We worry about them every day," said Beauparlant. "We don't need this." 

Calls to the owner of privately owned Carbank, who has a contract with the base to store cars, were not returned and a woman answering the phone for businessman Kevin MacWilliams said, "the base commander speaks for him." 

Lieut.-Col. Bill Moore, base commander, CFB Petawawa, did issue a base-wide memo to "clarify" what has become a hot topic in a place which has had to endure the loss of 24 soldiers during the war -- and has many men and women stationed there still today. 

He wrote: "Mr. Kevin MacWilliams, the owner of Carbank storage, has dealt with approximately two dozen incidents whereby the car owners were killed during operations. He incurs a cost of $250 each time this happens. The removal fee is a legitimate fee which Director of Compensation Benefits Administration (DCBA), not the family, pays for. It covers an incurred cost to Mr. MacWilliams and is part of a legitimate contract established with DND." 
More on link


----------



## George Wallace (30 Jan 2009)

This is the statement from the Base Comd:



> Subject:	IMPORTANT: MESSAGE FROM THE BASE COMMANDER
> Importance:	High
> 
> MESSAGE FROM THE BASE COMMANDER
> ...





As to the matter of vehicle storage; not everyone deploying requires the storage of their vehicle.  Married members have their spouses who need transportation, so there would be no requirements in the majority of cases (Some spouses admittedly do not drive.) to store a vehicle.  Many others attached to a BG return their vehicles to their homes before deploying.  So to think that there is a requirement to store thousands of vehicles, may be stretching it a bit.


----------



## GAP (30 Jan 2009)

So......that's what a comparison between Fact and Fictions looks like......


----------



## geo (30 Jan 2009)

> Lieut.-Col. Bill Moore, base commander, CFB Petawawa, did issue a base-wide memo to "clarify" what has become a hot topic in a place which has had to endure the loss of 24 soldiers during the war -- and has many men and women stationed there still today.
> 
> He wrote: "Mr. Kevin MacWilliams, the owner of Carbank storage, has dealt with approximately two dozen incidents whereby the car owners were killed during operations. He incurs a cost of $250 each time this happens.* The removal fee is a legitimate fee which Director of Compensation Benefits Administration (DCBA), not the family, pays for*. It covers an incurred cost to Mr. MacWilliams and is part of a legitimate contract established with DND."



so.... where is the problem ???
The MsM article is a tempest in a teapot - I'm shocked !


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Jan 2009)

The only interesting question he asks in the article (and I can't tell whether he asked anyone in the system in any detail or not) is how this company got the chance to do this in (what appears to be) an exclusive situation - I'm guessing there's a good answer to that out there (and I'm guessing it's not the business owner who set up any process, either).  I find it odd that this question is near the BOTTOM of the piece, while the question that's already answered (the family doesn't pay the fee) is the lead element.  How about "how are big bases dealing with this kind of ROTO issue?" as an angle?

While the writer may think he's looking out for the troops and the families, there may be better ways to to that than this kind of coverage....


----------



## geo (30 Jan 2009)

how this company got the chance to do this in (what appears to be) an exclusive situation ?

Tony... 
with our bachelor troops going on tour, there is a HUGE need to find storage facilities for their vehicles.  It's either that or you'd have huge parking lots on base jammed full of cars for the 6 months the troops are away.
Soo - Instead of leaving it to the individuals to find their own storage means, the ASU commander has found a business that will look after them - at a reasonnable price.  It's all part of the cost of deploying.... and services are all paid for by the state.  I am certain that competitive bidding due diligence has been taken care of.


----------



## mover1 (30 Jan 2009)

This is an excellent example of flying off the handle half cocked and how the MsM only reports what sells. InfoTainment as it were. 
Also how the rumint system can work so blindingly fast as to hurt  ones business and ones career. 
So before we get all fired up over something next time and your sitting at Tims dicussing it. Just remember to stay in your lanes and check your facts before adding any fuel to the fire. 

The whole carbank thing is now a non-issue. 
I belive an apology is in order for Mr MacWilliams.


----------



## the 48th regulator (30 Jan 2009)

mover1 said:
			
		

> This is an excellent example of flying off the handle half cocked and how the MsM only reports what sells. InfoTainment as it were.
> Also how the rumint system can work so blindingly fast as to hurt  ones business and ones career.
> So before we get all fired up over something next time and your sitting at Tims dicussing it. Just remember to stay in your lanes and check your facts before adding any fuel to the fire.
> 
> ...




Actually,

There was an e-mail chain that went around like wildfire, which is a good thing, and it ended up getting sent to the Media.

Kudos to the Grass roots method of the Military banding together, however, I can not stand by and have the media blamed for the piece that was written.  The whole situation was resolved faster than a pace stick flying out of the hand of an angry CSM on parade.

dileas

tess


----------



## George Wallace (30 Jan 2009)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> The only interesting question he asks in the article (and I can't tell whether he asked anyone in the system in any detail or not) is how this company got the chance to do this in (what appears to be) an exclusive situation -



From experience on other deployments, there is usually a list of recommended storage facilities.  I am sure the facility in Ottawa, that has been used by CF members deploying for the past fifty years is still on one of these lists.  Remember, not all pers are from Pet, so they may not be storing anything in Pet.  I highly doubt that one facility has been chosen as "exclusive".


----------



## PMedMoe (30 Jan 2009)

Threads about this were started on the Petawawa PSP forums only to be deleted immediately.  While I certainly understand that the family is going through a difficult time, I also understand that Carbank is a business and that is how businesses are run.  It's not like the family is actually out that amount of money as it is paid by DND.  I knew this was going to hit the media.  There's a group on Facebook as well (which I refuse to join).  This is no different than a funeral home charging for coffins, services, etc.  Do you think they'd waive those fees?  ???


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Jan 2009)

geo said:
			
		

> how this company got the chance to do this in (what appears to be) an exclusive situation ?
> 
> Tony...
> with our bachelor troops going on tour, there is a HUGE need to find storage facilities for their vehicles.  It's either that or you'd have huge parking lots on base jammed full of cars for the 6 months the troops are away.
> Soo - Instead of leaving it to the individuals to find their own storage means, the ASU commander has found a business that will look after them - at a reasonnable price.  It's all part of the cost of deploying.... and services are all paid for by the state.  I am certain that competitive bidding due diligence has been taken care of.



That all makes sense - and could have been included in a story on "how does this get dealt with?"



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> From experience on other deployments, there is usually a list of recommended storage facilities.  I am sure the facility in Ottawa, that has been used by CF members deploying for the past fifty years is still on one of these lists.  Remember, not all pers are from Pet, so they may not be storing anything in Pet.  I highly doubt that one facility has been chosen as "exclusive".



Thanks for that - that's why I weasel worded the "exclusivity" - barring information to the contrary, it appeared to me to be the only game in town.  Also, I was thrown by some references to the business being on base, as opposed to nearby.



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Kudos to the Grass roots method of the Military banding together, however, *I can not stand by and have the media blamed for the piece that was written.*


I guess we have to agree to disagree, since this angle doesn't appear to have been handled prominently in this article:


			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> The whole situation was resolved faster than a pace stick flying out of the hand of an angry CSM on parade.


Where does the buck stop with an attributed piece of research and writing?  With the researcher/writer, no?  

For example, the editor that wrote the sub-headline:
*Families of soldiers left with car fees*
didn't read far enough down the piece to realize that they aren't "left" with said fees.  OK, I'll let the researcher/writer off the hook for the headline, then, since he probably didn't write it


----------



## Journeyman (30 Jan 2009)

The Carbank office is located beside the CANEX; as such it's the most handy for troops dropping off vehicles, but it's not "exclusive."

The fact that Warmington chose to write that sensationalist piece of crap, highlighting the opinions of some wives in Timmies over the BComd's factual explanation, speaks volumes about his abilities and motivations as a "journalist." My only surprise is that such a tabloid-style hack isn't working for the Toronto Star.


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Jan 2009)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> The Carbank office is located beside the CANEX



Not familiar with Pet - does that make it on or off base?


----------



## Journeyman (30 Jan 2009)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> *Not familiar with Pet - does that make it on or off base?*


On the road that divides the Base from the PMQs. I'd have to call it "on base."


----------



## the 48th regulator (30 Jan 2009)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> The Carbank office is located beside the CANEX; as such it's the most handy for troops dropping off vehicles, but it's not "exclusive."
> 
> The fact that Warmington chose to write that sensationalist piece of crap, highlighting the opinions of some wives in Timmies over the BComd's factual explanation, speaks volumes about his abilities and motivations as a "journalist." My only surprise is that such a tabloid-style hack isn't working for the Toronto Star.




He did not get the story from someone's wife, and it was sent to him before the Base Commander addressed it, which was lightening fast.

dileas

tess


----------



## geo (30 Jan 2009)

Check it out.....

http://www.baseservicecentre.ca/carbank/


----------



## Bzzliteyr (30 Jan 2009)

So the Timmies is "on base" as well?


----------



## Journeyman (30 Jan 2009)

Tess, read   the article, as Warmington provided it in the Sun:


> By JOE WARMINGTON The Toronto Sun
> ......
> "It's just wrong," said Karen Beauparlant last night at the *Tim Hortons on the base * which is abuzz with a mini-controversy swirling here all week.
> "What can you say about something like that?" adds her friend Kristen Vincent. "It's not fair."
> *Both of their husbands * will deploy.....


Ergo, "wives" at "Timmies." 



> Lieut.-Col. Bill Moore, *base commander*, CFB Petawawa, did issue a base-wide memo to "clarify" ..... *He wrote*......


Warmington had the facts in hand when writing his column.

Regardless of where/when he got the initial email, his "research" provided him with the whole story, yet he chose to emphasize uninformed, scandal-mongering opinion rather than correct fact.


----------



## the 48th regulator (30 Jan 2009)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Tess, read   the article, as Warmington provided it in the Sun:Ergo, "wives" at "Timmies."
> Warmington had the facts in hand when writing his column.
> 
> Regardless of where/when he got the initial email, his "research" provided him with the whole story, yet he chose to emphasize uninformed, scandal-mongering opinion rather than correct fact.




Seen,

In Hindsight, the reporter must have some contacs, which would ahve helped him to wade throught the wives chatter.  And chose not to, so I see now what you mean.

dileas

tess


----------



## RCR Grunt (30 Jan 2009)

The issue here is not the money, as the family does get reimbursed.  The issue is that the owner, who knows full well that the military will cover the cost, had the gall to force the parents of young Pte Freeman to pay the money up front for the release of his vehicle in the first place.  I'm not saying he shouldn't get paid (but anyone who believes that he cannot absorb the cost in the event of a death overseas is fooling themselves) if he is owed money he should get it.  I'm saying that, if he can call up the Base Commander and have him write a base wide email defending him (which is what I believe occurred, with help from the PAFFO) why couldn't he write or call and explain about the cost and work on another way to get his money, without bothering the parents or spouses of dead soldiers?  I'm sure that is not beyond impossible, he might have to wait a couple of weeks for the check to roll in, but that's the price of supporting the troops, isn't it?

There's a few businesses in town that claim to support the troops, but what does that mean?  Does it mean they support the troops when it is convenient to them?  In the case of certain businesses, yes.  Or, does it mean they support the sacrifices we make and are willing to make sacrifices themselves in support of our efforts?  Very rarely in this town.

You see, Petawawa is different.  It's not Edmonton, that's a big city with many options available for personnel to give their business to. Businesses there that support the troops do so because they actually support us and want our business, they know soldiers can go anywhere else and they work to keep them happy. It's not Shilo, with 2 large cities on either side, each less than an hour's drive away.  Shilo has only recently grown with the move of 2VP, local businesses there are happy for the boom and will work to retain the business.  It's not Gagetown, with Fredericton just down the highway from Oromocto.  A major city within rock throwing distance gives soldiers and their families a plethora of options to choose from.  Petawawa is unique.  It's an hour and a half from Ottawa.  It's nearest "city" is Pembroke, which isn't much of a city at all.  There are businesses in this area that hold the attitude of "I'll do what I want to, when I want to, for what I want to charge regardless, because I'm the only show in town.  Those poor schmucks up the hill don't have a choice."

Business owners like that believe they hold the base hostage.  In reality, it is the base that could very well hold Petawawa hostage.  If more people sent an email, like the one that started this whole broo-ha-ha, saying "I went here and they ripped me off, don't give them your business." the level of customer service would go up and prices would become more competitive.

How many of you have heard "Don't buy a car in Pet, go to Ottawa."  Well, there's a reason for that.  Who has tried to get things done on a weekend in Petawawa only to find the business you are looking for closed?  All too common.  Has anyone noticed that with the growth of the base there has been no new commercial development in this town?  No new restaurants, no new stores, no new anything.  Housing is booming, of course, but not the commercial sector of Pet.  What you DO notice, is old businesses moving to new locations.  Pizza Pizza moved up the street, Rexall Pharmacy moved to the new mall, the movie gallery moved to the new mall, the old mall is left to die.  The Sears outlet is set to move to where the old dollar store used to be.  Craze Electronics has moved a half dozen times since I've been here.  But nothing new.  Why?  No one wants competition, that would make it easy for the "Pongo's" to take their tour money some place else.

I'm a little bitter, as you can tell.  If anyone saw the original email that started this whole thing, you would understand my frustration.  The owner of the Base Service center acted like a douche, but he didn't care.  He called the clerk's bluff, and now he stands to lose.  He deserves what he gets, in my opinion, and so does anyone else who claims to support the troops but steals from us instead.  From what I've been told, his garage is one of the worst places to take your car to anyways.

This whole post is the way I see it from my point of view, it's my opinion on the whole matter.  I'm not trying to deride all business owners here, just the shady ones, and they know who they are.  I'm frustrated because finally, someone has been called on their BS, and instead of saying "TAKE THAT, COBRA!!" we're blaming the media for sensationalizing it and writing emails defending the culprit.  I mean, c'mon, we all know how the media works, seriously.  As for the defenders ... I understand that we have an image to uphold and going around with pitchforks and torches is inappropriate, but the fact is it's not a reputable business, and the owner conducted himself poorly and people should be made aware of it.

My $0.02, take it or leave it.

[/rant]


----------



## George Wallace (30 Jan 2009)

Did you get that all off your chest RCR Grunt?  I spent lots of years in Pet and know about the "Dealerships" and "Businesses".  Don't buy a Car from Michael's.  Don't buy a car from Butler's. Don't do business with _______________.  Fine.  That is not the problem and you know it.  You CAN NOT have every business in the area telling the "Family" what they are entitled to.  The "Family" would never get the same story twice.  IT IS THE DUTY of the SUPPORT PERSONNEL on the Base to help the "Family" through this period.  Where were the Rear Party people?  Where were the RMS Clerks with all the information?  Where were the Counsellors?  Where was the members Unit?

Don't place all the blame on the businessman.  Who else let the "Family" down?  They are more the culprits than the business owner.  The CF Administration System is flawed.  This is a Quality of Life Issue within the CF, not downtown.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Jan 2009)

Perhaps some should go back to Reply # 17 and begin asking questions as to what went on at Timmies.  The "Wives Net" can often be a source of some very serious grief.


----------



## helpup (30 Jan 2009)

RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> why couldn't he write or call and explain about the cost and work on another way to get his money, without bothering the parents or spouses of dead soldiers?  I'm sure that is not beyond impossible, he might have to wait a couple of weeks for the check to roll in, but that's the price of supporting the troops, isn't it?
> 
> [/rant]



Just to clarify, ( and I was involved with that persons funeral ) His parents were not saddled with that bill.  This whole " temptest" as was put earlier derived from a clerk passing on her information for a claim with this company.  In her email to her CoC for the claim she included the particulars of her conversation with him 

I am not going to get into the details as many who are on this site have read or should of read the original email. 

I will state that from what I read he did not present his case well in the Email ( or at least the clerks version of the conversation) I will admit that I was not impressed with what I read.  And that I forwarded it to my better half and her boss as a FYI ( they are people who would need to be aware of this ) Having said that the original Email was to clarify the payment of this bill, from there it went to Ottawa and approved. After that it grew and went out like wild fire.  The intentions were good but the result was overblown.  The original Email did not include most of the information brought up by the Base Comd. This was quickly put out and I have no doubt did not go as fast as the original email.  

I do have some issues with the whole affair, the charge for storage removal.  It is a legitimate expense and one that my cynical mind is aided by the fact that allot of businesses up here know the army will pay for it.  The extra work done on the car for $500 that was not charged........... Sorry I am suspicious of this, very suspicious.  I have heard too many stories of people storing their vehicle ( in general I am not pointing this business out ) only to have work they did not ask for done while they were gone and all to make it road worthy. ( despite the vehicle being road worthy before they dropped it off ) The troops in the situation have no choice but to pay the fee or they don't get their vehicle back.  So the bit about oh look he did this to ensure the car was road worthy for the parents rings a tad hollow to me.  If it was legitimate he would of charged for it in my books.


----------



## HItorMiss (30 Jan 2009)

+1 Grunty!


Having been in the original email chain and been in direct contact with some of the players, the issue I have is simply the owners response over the phone to military members was less then appropriate. It came down to "tough luck I'll do what I want and there isn't anything you can do about it" once the owners bluff was called that's when he scrambled to justify his actions.

The cost is 100% up and up and the owner of carbank is entitled to receiving said cost that I will not argue, his personal actions are deplorable. For instance did you know that the highest rates are charged to soldiers on deployment simply because the owner knows just how much said soldier is entitled to monthly for vehicle storage.


----------



## Journeyman (30 Jan 2009)

> MESSAGE FROM THE BASE COMMANDER
> 
> - ensure *the facts * of the situation have been given to all members
> - Mr. MacWilliams had also completed a number of repairs totalling $500 which was *not charged to the family or DCBA*.  He did this *at his cost *
> ...


A presentation of the facts, which seems to indicate a reputable, supportive member of the business community

.....versus



			
				RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> *- what I believe occurred...
> - Business owners like that believe.....
> - I'm a little bitter, as you can tell.
> - in my opinion...
> ...


....an unsubstantiated diatribe, sparked by a refuted email, with the same logical foundation as the quoted comments of the wives in Timmies.




			
				RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> *My $0.02, take it or leave it.*


No doubt in my mind


----------



## RCR Grunt (30 Jan 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Did you get that all off your chest RCR Grunt?  I spent lots of years in Pet and know about the "Dealerships" and "Businesses".  Don't buy a Car from Michael's.  Don't buy a car from Butler's. Don't do business with _______________.  Fine.  That is not the problem and you know it.  You CAN NOT have every business in the area telling the "Family" what they are entitled to.  The "Family" would never get the same story twice.  IT IS THE DUTY of the SUPPORT PERSONNEL on the Base to help the "Family" through this period.  Where were the Rear Party people?  Where were the RMS Clerks with all the information?  Where were the Counsellors?  Where was the members Unit?
> 
> Don't place all the blame on the businessman.  Who else let the "Family" down?  They are more the culprits than the business owner.  The CF Administration System is flawed.  This is a Quality of Life Issue within the CF, not downtown.



Oops, my bad.  Clerks=bad, rip-off artists=good, got it now.   :

Don't defend what you know is wrong.  Yeah, the system is flawed, but they do the best they can in very stressful times.  The businesses downtown just want their money.  



> You CAN NOT have every business in the area telling the "Family" what they are entitled to.



Never said that.  I said if there is a cost the family has not been prepared for, he should have contacted someone base-side, like the RMS clerks, to have it taken care of base-side, not grieving-family-just-trying-to-get-through-it-side.

Bottom line, the guy acted wrong, has been acting wrong, and will continue to act wrong unless he receives a message that says he is acting wrong, which he did.  He called the bluff, stated that he will continue to conduct business the way he is, and now stands to lose a lot of business.

I don't get my info from the wives net, I got mine from the emails received on the DIN, starting with the email regarding the Base Service Center from the chief clerk in 3 RCR which made its rounds all over the CF, and ending with the base wide email "clarifying the facts."   Fact is,  he does crap work down there and if you ask anyone in the know they will tell you to take your vehicle else where.  The $500 of "free work" was done to make the car road worthy.  Fact is that is paid for when you pay the fee, it's in the contract, the car will be made road worthy before being released.  If your brakes, which won't move for several months while it is in storage, rust up, they will be worked on before it is released to you.  It's not free, it's worked into the fee you pay for storage, which, as BM stated, is the max amount allowed to a member who deploys. What, you don't think he's NOT going to attempt to make a huge profit off tax payer money, do you?

The fact is that the Colonel is trying to cover his ass.  He doesn't want this to turn around and bite the base legally, and that's his job.  This is NOT a reputable business.  Soldiers here on the ground will tell you that.

Listen, if you don't like the way I called it, fine.  But don't try to lecture me on what I should or should not believe or whom I should and should not be angry with.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (30 Jan 2009)

Since this is a public forum, can't someone post the email that started this whole thing off?  It would probably help everyone grasp what might have happened?

As for businesses charging what they can, it's called "supply and demand".  There is a demand, and no supply so the prices will be what they can be (for the business owners).

In Oromocto before I left on 0307, I dropped my car off in storage.  The owner had just finished dealing with the whole of 2RCR being over and told me to not worry about payment that we'd deal with it when I got home and we'd settle the bill after the military paid me the claim with his receipt.  I thought that was very kind of him and I paid a hell of a lot less for storage than all the other soldiers deploying from Quebec City did!!


----------



## yak (30 Jan 2009)

Hello all.  I've just rec'd a private email from a winger in Pet, apparently there is a storage outfit there that's levied an additional fee to a member deployed for breaking a storage contract.

The catch is that the member was recently KIA - and the charge was levied the persons trying to retrieve his auto from storage.

I've forwarded this to my work email and intend on contacting folks there to offer financial or other support, come Monday.  Has anyone heard of this issue, and is there anything being done that one can support from a distance?  It's not like I can boycott the business, if you know what I mean.

This is dispicable business practice and it makes my blood boil.  I won't post the name of the company here but I have a feeling it's public knowledge in Pet though.

yak


----------



## Michael OLeary (30 Jan 2009)

It's been discussed.

And apparently the e-mail doesn't have all the facts.

(Merged to original thread.)


----------



## aesop081 (30 Jan 2009)

yak said:
			
		

> This is dispicable business practice and it makes my blood boil.



Nothing like going off half cocked before reading everything.....


----------



## McG (30 Jan 2009)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Since this is a public forum, can't someone post the email that started this whole thing off?


No.  If the businessman in particular decides there is something libelous in that email, we do not need to involve this site.  I encourage everyone to keep that in mind when commenting on this topic.


----------



## aesop081 (30 Jan 2009)

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> For instance did you know that the highest rates are charged to soldiers on deployment simply because the owner knows just how much said soldier is entitled to monthly for vehicle storage.



And this is a surprise or something new to you ? How long have you been in the CF anyways ?

For Kosovo in 1999, the cost of HLTA back to Canada was always $2200 , no matter where you were going. Conveniently enough, $2200 was exactly what the CF allocated for each member's HLTA.

Its not exactly a new buisness practice.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Jan 2009)

Yak

Hopefully soon after you received that email, the person responsible for Forwarding it to you was also responsible enough to have accompanied it with a follow on email with the Base Commander's email (See Reply #2) message.


----------



## HItorMiss (30 Jan 2009)

The point isn't that it happens, it's that we allow it to happen. I have the same issue with Uniglobe travel and their HLTA policies and how they enact them...

If we didn't allow it to happen, it wouldn't happen.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (30 Jan 2009)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> And this is a surprise or something new to you ? How long have you been in the CF anyways ?
> 
> For Kosovo in 1999, the cost of HLTA back to Canada was always $2200 , no matter where you were going. Conveniently enough, $2200 was exactly what the CF allocated for each member's HLTA.
> 
> Its not exactly a new buisness practice.



Just like how the cab companies at the Fredricton airport know the maximum amount we can claim for cab fare from the airport to base and charge us that.


----------



## yak (30 Jan 2009)

G. Wallace:

No, but in my reply to him I said that I'd be looking for more information in this (apparently) dispicable practice.  First stop...log on here.  So now that that story is more filled in, I sent a second email with some of what I'd learned. 

Ah.  Unbiased reporting.  I love it.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Jan 2009)

yak said:
			
		

> Ah.  Unbiased reporting.  I love it.



Really burns up the presses.   It really doesn't take long with the Internet for the Rumour Net to take off.   This causes a lot of collateral damage.


----------



## the 48th regulator (30 Jan 2009)

My question is this folks.  I will lay it out first, then ask.

The tour happens, and a wack of soldiers line up at his door to store their vehicles.  Let us say 25 show up.

The man signs up the contracts, receives the initial payment and off the soldier goes.

Now the fella has budgeted that he will get a constant payment from 25 soldiers, for the vehicles he stores, for the next 6 months.  He pays his staff, and all other costs, and figured out a profit.  Now, in the event that something happens, and one of his customers cannot pay, he tries to at least recuperate a small amount based on what he has budgeted for the future.  Now say 5 do not make it back.

Had this Gent waved the feeds, and did not charge the $250 penalty, How much would he be lost?  hard to say as they may all not come back at the same time.   So let us concentrate on the penalty fee.  $2500 dollars. How many of you would be knocking on his door to thank him?  

How many of you would be walking over to the employee, the one he had to lay off, and ask them if you could help?

How many would walk to his shop and say, hey mister, here is a fin to say thank you for waiving the fee that you did for the dead soldier??

He can absorb the ammount.....How does one figure this?  Obviously spoken by someone who does not control his own destiny, when it comes to making cash to put food on the table.

E-mails and posts cost nothing, hence why it is so easy to have them fly around.  Please let me know if anyone here actually contacted the family, or the owner of this company and offered to help cover the costs incurred?

I am all for attacking the ones that take advantage of us troops, because it happens everywhere, even within the system.  But this self deserving attitude is shocking!

dileas

tess


----------



## PPCLI Guy (30 Jan 2009)

RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> The issue here is not the money, as the family does get reimbursed.  The issue is that the owner, who knows full well that the military will cover the cost, had the gall to force the parents of young Pte Freeman to pay the money up front for the release of his vehicle in the first place.



As I understand it (having spent a fair bit of time on this one today) the family were not served the bill - and they will not have to pay it.


----------



## Armynewsguy (30 Jan 2009)

I would like to add a first hand account of the business in question, as most of the other posters are giving out second or third hand information. Before leaving for Roto 3 Op Athena in 2005 I left my vehicle in the care of Carbank Storage. Kevin and his staff went out of their way to accommodate the unusual hour that I would be required to drop off my vehicle and also offered me rides in the day and morning preceding my departure from Petawawa.

Upon completion of my tour I walked over from the gym to Carbank to retrieve my vehicle, not only had it been cleaned for me but Kevin or one of his staff had noticed that the driver door lock pin on my vehicle had a cracked mount and was very loose. Much to my suprise they had welded it up and at no cost to me and of course I had not asked for this service.

I cannot say enough about the professionalism of the staff and their friendliness. As stated in the email from the Base Commander Kevin did his time serving in the military and now runs in my opinion a very above the board business that is geared to of course make money but also provides a needed service to the troops.

Just my 2 cents, but I would encourage people to know all the facts and judge the business and Kevin by investing the time to verify the facts and make an informed opinion.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (31 Jan 2009)

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> For instance did you know that the highest rates are charged to soldiers on deployment simply because the owner knows just how much said soldier is entitled to monthly for vehicle storage.



When your kids go to the dentist have you never wondered why the *very first* question is ' Do you have insurance?".


----------



## Franky (31 Jan 2009)

I have read through all these posts and can't help but think that sometimes the wives need to cool down before springing into action.  As Admin of Facebook HOH I have dealt with many Pet wives most of whom are great but a couple who are a bit shall we shall "panic- oriented".

My concern is why Joe would have posted this article and risked his hard-earned reputation on a bit off fluff  ( twice in the last few weeks)...I have a good idea of the source of his info and would only tell him to at least counter the information fed to him with info gathered from him from people actually involved.  How hard would it have been for him to find a couple of soldiers who have deployed and asked them their opinion?

BTW..his story was pulled from the news site rather quickly...


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 Jan 2009)

Franky said:
			
		

> BTW..his story was pulled from the news site rather quickly...



It's still up as of this posting....


----------



## riggermade (31 Jan 2009)

I've dealt with the indiviaual and wouldn't deal with him again, however if it is a fee he is entitled to then so be it....assisting officer should have been the one dealing with him and I'd be interested to know what disciplinary action is being taken against the individual who started this...if you are a clerk you shouldn't be passing on information that is nobody's business


----------



## RCR Grunt (31 Jan 2009)

The original email was not intended for the slander of a business, simply to ask for direction and assistance on the matter from her CoC.  The clerk who started it had no way to control who or how it was forwarded further.  No disciplinary action should be taken whatsoever.


----------



## George Wallace (31 Jan 2009)

RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> The original email was not intended for the slander of a business, simply to ask for direction and assistance on the matter from her CoC.  The clerk who started it had no way to control who or how it was forwarded further.  No disciplinary action should be taken whatsoever.



I beg to differ.  The original poster, stated how she spoke sternly with the business owner, and made an idle threat which landed up being carried out.  The whole chain of emails was "emotional"; not "professional".  Yes disciplinary action should take place.  All involved should at the very least have a couple stern lectures; one on "Professionalism" and another on "Internet Security" as all involved are clearly identifiable and who knows where that email went outside of the CF and DND, ......... other than to SUN Media.


----------



## McG (31 Jan 2009)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> As I understand it (having spent a fair bit of time on this one today) *the family were not served the bill* - and they will not have to pay it.





			
				RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> I said if there is a cost the family has not been prepared for, he should have contacted someone base-side, like the RMS clerks, to have it taken care of base-side, not grieving-family-just-trying-to-get-through-it-side.
> 
> *I don't get my info from the wives net, I got mine from the emails received on the DIN, starting with the email* regarding the Base Service Center from the chief clerk in 3 RCR which made its rounds all over the CF, and ending with the base wide email "clarifying the facts."   ...
> 
> The fact is that the Colonel is trying to cover his ass.  He doesn't want this to turn around and bite the base legally, and that's his job.  This is NOT a reputable business.  Soldiers here on the ground will tell you that.


If you had gotten the facts, you would not be mis-representing the situation as the dealer holding the family hostage.  Don't let the facts get in the way of a good tale I guess.



			
				RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> The fact is that the Colonel is trying to cover his ass.  He doesn't want this to turn around and bite the base legally, and that's his job.


The base commander is attempting to present the facts that were not available in the email chain.  Despite that, emotional busy-bodies (read: you) are still doing their best to destroy that business.



			
				RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> The original email was not intended for the slander of a business, simply to ask for direction and assistance on the matter from her CoC.  The clerk who started it had no way to control who or how it was forwarded further.  No disciplinary action should be taken whatsoever.


As described in the initial email, it is apparent that the clerk who initiated this email chain approached the phone conversation less than diplomatically and, without looking into the logic behind the fee, attempted to embarrass the business into waving it.  This relatively hostile approach (even if it were presented in the gentlest of tones) would not have been conductive to inspire the business owner to explain his fees but instead would have insulted and put him on the defensive.  The clerk (still ignorant as to fact that the fee is the result of costs incurred to the business) then became belligerent and threatened to cripple the business through embarrassing it across the CF.  To me, it seems the clerk needs some remedial training in diplomacy when dealing with the public, and the venting in detail through the email suggests a reminder to think before you send is in order (the "I'm angry and want to embarrass this guy" is still visible even if it was put through the CoC to the right people).

Intentional or not, the originator of that email chain has done damage to the business and to the reputation of the Canadian Forces.


----------



## McG (31 Jan 2009)

Some further thoughts for all,
Emotions understandably run high surrounding the death of one of our own.  Emotion, for a time, completely took control of this discussion.  It is time for all to take a step back and separate emotion from fact from assumption.  All those who received that email should see themselves as having a moral obligation to forward the corrected information (the base commander's email) to the person from whom the initial email was received and to everyone to whom they forwarded that initial email.

The question of disciplinary action cannot and should not be addressed on this forum.  There is much information we do not have and further speculation will only make matters worse for all involved.


----------



## kratz (31 Jan 2009)

It looks like those who are working to stir the pot have succeeded in spreading their part of this message. Today in the Charlottetown Guardian Military BLOG.


----------



## 1feral1 (31 Jan 2009)

WOW!

Pure and open profitting from any troops KIA is plainly and utterly disgusting. To think this is on base too!

Shame on Kevin MacWilliams and Carbank.

Shame ! Shame! Shame!

For those KIA/WIA this fee should be exempt.

No one should give this company any business PERIOD.

Regards,


Wes


----------



## the 48th regulator (31 Jan 2009)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> WOW!
> 
> Pure and open profitting from any troops KIA is plainly and utterly disgusting. To think this is on base too!
> 
> ...




Oh give me a break.

What next, we ask for a credit on Gas for the trip the family and fallen took down the Highway of heros?

We ask that medical companies, not charge for the bandages used to treat the wounded, or the fallen before they died?

Should we ask for a refund from the company who supplied the body bags?

This is getting to be downright ridiculous, all this we deserve the world handed to us on a platter drum beating.

We serve the Canadian public, people!  We did it on our own choice.  And although I will fight, to receive what is owing to our band of brothers, I will not stand by while people try to squeeze blood from a stone, because of some self heroic belief of who we are!

The owner is a Veteran himself folks, and he could probably charge a lot more, if he wasn't one.  Cut the man some slack, as we are looking like a bunch of pompous primadonnas!

dileas

tess


----------



## Michael OLeary (31 Jan 2009)

Any contract made with an individual has legal authority to apply any charges to the estate of the deceased, it does not lapse at the moment of death for either party to the contract.  The business owner has done nothing wrong.  If this had been a civvie (or service member on leave) who died in a snowmobile accident, would the same sense of outrage be felt by the "public"?

Too many people are too quick to assume that the sacrifice of dying in the service of one's country should then absolve all other expectations at the moment of death.

If any case is made that a business owner should waive such charges, how many times should we expect him to do so?  How quickly would he stop storing cars of members heading overseas because he cannot absorb the losses.  And why just auto storage?  Did anyone ask if his cell phone company waived all outstanding charges? What about his car loan, his mortgage?  Why is it that only a local small business owner is the target of such vitriol?

Perhaps if those folks at Tim Horton's had accepted the legality of the charges, and then dug into their collective pockets and offered to pay it on behalf of the member, all of this sentiment would be very different.


----------



## 1feral1 (31 Jan 2009)

Sorry Tess, thats just how I feel.

Thats my opinion.

I would be storing my kit elsewhere.

On my deployment (and others from additional deplyoments), cars, boats, trailers, and caravans of deployed members were stored in a Unit compound for free. 

Regards,

Wes


----------



## George Wallace (1 Feb 2009)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> On my deployment (and others from additional deplyoments), cars, boats, trailers, and caravans of deployed members were stored in a Unit compound for free.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Wes



Wes

With this "new Plug N Play" concept that the CF has been using for the past decade or so, full units do not vacate their Unit Lines, freeing up undisturbed storage space.  Only a portion of a Unit deploys and other members of the Unit will take over their vacated space.  With budget restraints over the past several decades, many buildings have in fact been torn down.  In 1998, approx 95 buildings were torn down in CFB Petawawa alone.  This included several Barrack Blocks, warehouses, the three Airborne hangars, etc.  Space became a premium.

Canada has been contracting out vehicle storage for over fifty years.  People posted to 4 CMBG often stored their vehicles.  The Service Member paid the fees, but was compensated in their Claims to the Crown when they finalized their Claims.  Any good Clerk knows this.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Feb 2009)

Today I received two emails, both with the same originator, 3 RCR's PO2 CC, but split and commented on different parties after 2 ASU Petawawa's WO CC sent it out.  I "replied to ALL" with the Comd of CFB Petawawa's email message, and said shame on all of us for acting in such an emotional, rather than professional, manner.  I am not impressed with the list of 'senior' CF members, especially Clerks responsible for processing CLAIMS, who passed these emails world-wide.  It truly was very unprofessional of all of us to pass this on, especially when we overlooked these words from the PO2 in the very first email:



> *I was really stern when I was talking to him at this point and I told him that once the word gets out that he is charging fees for early withdrawal of vehicles in the event of a death, his business will not do well.  He responded to me and said, you are not in the position to make idol threats like that.  I told him it was not a threat but a fact  and if the word does get out, his business will be hurting.
> *



Totally unprofessional.

If, and it is only a matter of when, you get one of these emails, do not delete it, but do the right thing and correct the person(s) who sent it to you.  "Reply to All".


----------



## PMedMoe (2 Feb 2009)

I'm wondering why the Unit (or higher) ISSO hasn't got on this yet.   ???  That's who I'd report it to.  Or send it to the spam cop.  

At this point, the business owner should sue the originating member for libel.

Also, if I were sending an email out CF-wide, I would have proof read first.  "Idol" threat?  :


----------



## George Wallace (2 Feb 2009)

These did not come from a DND or CF source.  These emails are now spreading uncontrolled outside of the CF.


----------



## PMedMoe (2 Feb 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> These did not come from a DND or CF source.  These emails are now spreading uncontrolled outside of the CF.



Wonderful!   :

Edit to add:  From an outside source to your DND email?


----------



## George Wallace (2 Feb 2009)

From Association members, and others to my home address.


----------



## Journeyman (2 Feb 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> * "Idol" threat?*


 Yes, the explicit menace of being worshiped. You get used to it.   ^-^

One can only hope that the originator's chain of command remembers all these very public, embarrassing to the CF, repercussions at PER time.


----------



## Michael OLeary (2 Feb 2009)

Here's another forum with some related posts, starting with a public posting of the original e-mail.  I see the member identified as "Petawawa Moderator" likes to be outspoken.  How nice to do so behind a shroud of anonymity.

CanadiansTalk.ca.  - I am sickened by this....


----------



## geo (2 Feb 2009)

Who needs to wait till PER time ???
(though PER time IS just around the corner)


----------



## Nfld Sapper (2 Feb 2009)

geo said:
			
		

> Who needs to wait till PER time ???
> (though PER time IS just around the corner)



Don't remind us .....


----------



## armyvern (2 Feb 2009)

Well, I am one who got this email on day 1. I forwarded it. Next day, I received a copy of the Comd Petawawa's statement which I then sent to the pers I had sent the original email to (except for the one who sent me the Comd's).

You know, I always knew there was a reason I don't forward spam et al around. This incident just reinforces that.

Very bad on *ME*. My apologies to Mr MacWilliams.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (2 Feb 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Well, I am one who got this email on day 1. I forwarded it. Next day, I received a copy of the Comd Petawawa's statement which I then sent to the pers I had sent the original email to (except for the one who sent me the Comd's).
> 
> You know, I always knew there was a reason I don't forward spam et al around. This incident just reinforces that.
> 
> Very bad on *ME*. My apologies to Mr MacWilliams.



Well Vern you did the right thing in fw the Comd's email too so the people get both sides of the issue.


----------



## geo (3 Feb 2009)

Unfortunately, it's just like when the press issues a retraction to a sensational article.....
The original story makes the Headlines in 28 pitch font..... hang the ba$tard
The retraction follow up makes it to page 102 in 8 pitch font..... oopsie - my bad

The press will say - what more do you want - I said I'm sorry - while the fella's a$$ has been torn a 2nd a$$hole... reputation shot to hell & business down the crapper.


----------



## 4Feathers (3 Feb 2009)

There are always two sides to every story, and somewhere in the middle lies the truth. Never be too quick to jump on the judgement platform, it can sometimes come back to bite you.


----------



## mover1 (3 Feb 2009)

I wonder how time will distort this story and what urban legend will be borne of it. 

Its a done issue.  I think this thread should be closed locked and sealed. lets not add any more fuel to the fire and let it rest.
Its been dealt with!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (3 Feb 2009)

Now that's a good plan.

If someone has something of importance to add, you just need to PM a Moderator.


----------

