Government finds new ways to screw soldiers in the name of saving money: door-to-door move policy

[George Wallace]

In all likelihood, you will drive it, and be given X number of days to make the trip. 

 

[ltmaverick25]

I dont think my car will make it  :'(

 

[Michael OLeary]

How about someone just coming out of school with no finances so to speak?  No debt, but no cash balance either.

First line of defence, have clear credit cards and talk to your bank about a line of credit when you discuss a pre-approved mortgage.  At least that way you can't say you didn't do what you could to be prepared.

On a slightly different note, does anyone happen to know if one is being sent from Ontario to Victoria if sending your car is included in the move package.  I know it has been discussed elsewhere, I did a search but the information conflicted.

Relocation Directive - APS 2009
Chapter 9. Shipment of Household Goods and Effects (HG&E)

9.3.02 Shipment of vehicle by commercial carrier

CF members must ship their PMV under the HGRS contract system when the service is available. Once HGRS has been contacted, CF members may be reimbursed actual and reasonable expenses, not to exceed HGRS contract rates, related to shipping their PMV by commercial carrier as follows:

Core benefit
Primary PMV including motorcycle (when the primary mode of travel to the new location is by commercial carrier.)

Custom benefit
Secondary PMV including motorcycle.

Personalized benefit
Additional PMVs including motorcycle.

Delivery of vehicle Actual and reasonable expenses, including a maximum of one-day meal expenses, associated with delivery and pick-up of vehicle to the point of shipment.

 

[Lil_T]

E.R. Campbell   
          I completely agree with on what you stated good points on all .  Doesn't the American Military provide its housing for free to its troops ? I know that our troops make allot more money than the American counter but always felt the government could do something like this for the PMQ and single quarters .

The American military does NOT provide housing free of charge.  This is a myth.  American military members receive BAH which is the "Basic Allowance for Housing".  This allowance is used - if they live on base - to cover the cost of housing.  However, if the member chooses to live off base, they still receive BAH and can use that toward the cost of rent or a mortgage.

 

[ltmaverick25]

First line of defence, have clear credit cards and talk to your bank about a line of credit when you discuss a pre-approved mortgage.  At least that way you can't say you didn't do what you could to be prepared.

Relocation Directive - APS 2009
Chapter 9. Shipment of Household Goods and Effects (HG&E)

Is HGRS a car moving service?  Some of these ackronyms are still new to me.  If so, I take that message to say that I need to use HGRS to move my car and if they cant then I can find someone else to do it and be reimbursed up to the amount that HGRS would have charged?

 

[Michael OLeary]

Household Goods Removal Service (HGRS) contract

It's whoever the local IRP office has been contracting for moves of Household Goods and Effects (HG&E)

 

[McG]

CANFORGEN 078/09 CMP 034/09 011755Z MAY 09
AMENDMENT TO CANFORGEN 066/09 CMP 029/09 161423Z APR 09
UNCLASSIFIED

REFERENCE: CANFORGEN 066/09 CMP 029/09 161423Z APR 09
CANADIAN FORCES INTEGRATED RELOCATION PROGRAM (CFIRP) 2009

PARA 4 OF REFERENCE IS TO READ AS FOLLOWS: ALTHOUGH NOT A CHANGE TO THE CFIRP, THE INTENT OF ENSURING THAT CF MEMBERS EFFECT A DOOR-TO-DOOR MOVE HAS BEEN EMPHASIZED OWING TO AN INCREASING TREND TOWARDS EXTENDED ILM AND M

SIGNED BY MGEN SEMIANIW, CMP

It appeared to me that this CANFORGEN indicates the IL&M policy is not changed from previous years in regards to members entitlements for receiving IL&M.  The only difference is wording for a re-emphasis of the previously existing obligation on members to exercise due diligence in achieving a door-to-door move or minimizing the time of IL&M.  If my reading of this CANFORGEN is correct, then as long as you have made my best effort to achieve a door-to-door move, then you are entitled to IL&M.

Passed this interpretation to Royal Lepage relocation folk, and they are sticking by their previous interpretation: if you don’t arrange the perfect door-to-door move, then you will pay for IL&M while waiting for your new residence.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Passed this interpretation to Royal Lepage relocation folk, and they are sticking by their previous interpretation: if you don’t arrange the perfect door-to-door move, then you will pay for IL&M while waiting for your new residence.

Therein lies the danger, while the DND policy drafter may have intended "only" a stronger emphasis on the intent, the contractor can interpret that as directive, especially since it fits their preferred financial model of paying out as little as possible.

 

[PMedMoe]

How much do you want to bet that Royal Lepage gets a "bonus" for saving money?
Reminds me of some of the CANCAP operations while on tour in Bosnia.  Getting a light bulb was like pulling hen's teeth.  :

 

[Wookilar]

All it takes is one short, concise memo with the dates included to DGwhoeverthehell runs Movements now for them to tell Royal Lepage to cover the costs. A copy of the offer to purchase and the offer of sale attached, complete with dates of sale/possesion would also help.

The "corrected" CANFORGEN released this morning certainly reads differently than the previous one and I would hope that the powers that be will sort out the interpretations being done by Relocation Offices across the country.

Royal Lepage itslef does not get a bonus exactly. In the '05-06 contract, there were performance bonuses given to if a section came in under budget. Remember, their contract does not say "To assist the member in their move for their maximum benifit." Royal Lepage's job is to "administer" the relocation program for the Cf, that's it.

 

[Michael OLeary]

I don't think anyone here is arguing for "maximum benefit", how about just "minimal additional grief" on top of the usual personal posting admin burden?

 

[Occam]

So if I use my move last year as an example:

1.  Receive posting message, COS 14 Jul 08.  Put house up for sale.
2.  Receive excellent offer on house, with condition that closing date MUST be 29 Aug (buyer is military, about to complete a course/posted into gaining unit, and cannot close on house before that date).  Accept offer.
3.  I go on HHT at destination.  Play the game for a few days, make some offers that fall through. Find something suitable 5 days into HHT, put in offer.  Counteroffer stipulates no closing before 22 Aug 08.  Confirm with RLRS that ILM&M is available if I request change in RFD date to 11 Aug 08. Confirmed.  Accept counteroffer on house at destination.
4.  Pack/load/clean 7/8/9 Aug 08, travel on 10 Aug, RFD 11 Aug.  HG&E goes into SIT upon arrival at destination.
5.  House at destination closes on 22 Aug, unload 25 Aug, unpack 26 Aug.

ILM&M from 7 Aug 08 - 26 Aug 08 = 19 days.

So, if that move were made under the rules that are being slavishly enforced this year, what was I supposed to have done, given that RFD date can only be moved 30 days in either direction from COS?

A.  Pass on perfectly good offer on house at origin, because closing doesn't match with COS/RFD.  Continue with house on market, showings at odd hours, keeping house in showing condition and all the other inconveniences that go along with trying to sell a house;

B.  Pass on perfectly good counteroffer from house at destination, because closing doesn't match up with COS/RFD dates.  Continue to search for a house with a suitable closing date, sacrificing things I want in my house in order to do so - and end up paying more for the house than I should because the seller's agent can tell we're anxious to finalize a deal before HHT ends; or

C.  pay the 14-odd days of ILM&M to get the house that is right for me, not the one that suits the military's rules.

Come time for my next move, I know what choice I'll make - and it's not A, B or C.  ;D

 

[ModlrMike]

It appeared to me that this CANFORGEN indicates the IL&M policy is not changed from previous years in regards to members entitlements for receiving IL&M.  The only difference is wording for a re-emphasis of the previously existing obligation on members to exercise due diligence in achieving a door-to-door move or minimizing the time of IL&M.  If my reading of this CANFORGEN is correct, then as long as you have made my best effort to achieve a door-to-door move, then you are entitled to IL&M.

Passed this interpretation to Royal Lepage relocation folk, and they are sticking by their previous interpretation: if you don’t arrange the perfect door-to-door move, then you will pay for IL&M while waiting for your new residence.

You're response at this point should be "show me the regulation". No policy can stand on its own, and is only as enforceable as the regulation from which it is built. If you take all reasonable steps to reduce the number of day IL&M you anticipate claiming, then they are obligated to pay you the rest. No where in the regulation does it explicitly say you MUST make an exact door to door move.

 

[Michael OLeary]

And they respond that they're just the front desk people, they don't write the regulation and only apply the RLRS book.

Then they let you talk to their supervisor..

Who says exactly the same thing.

And then you get told you can appeal it to some mysterious office in Ottawa, who generally just confirms with RLRS that they followed the book.

See where I'm going here?

 

[ModlrMike]

Yes, I see your point. I suppose the other way to do it is to get your replies in writing so that when you file your grievance you have sufficient proof. I suppose that I've been lucky using the "show me the regulation" tack.

 

[jacksparrow]

Apologies if snippets of this has already been mentioned. On our splash page today May 5th 2009

Important Notice

Intent of ILM&M

There have been many queries/complaints regarding the perceived "change" to the ILM&M policy. Many "potential" problem situations have been presented and some of these situations have not necessarily been fully addressed by RLRS in a fashion that would make the intent of ILM&M clear and help CF members understand their responsibilities. The attached was reviewed with RLRS and will be distributed to RLRS consultants so that they inform CF Members correctly. Once translated we will include the French version.

Note that DCBA has also responded to several queries regarding ILM&M, to help all understand the intent below is an excerpt from one of his responses.

"First of all, I guess it should be clarified that there has not been a change in policy. If you look at your 2008 CFIRP policy manual (last year's) you will note that right at the very beginning, article 1.1.02 (just the second paragraph) states, "The Department will: pay for a door-to-door move when authorized at public expense." The policy has always required members to effect a door-to-door move. ILM & M entitlements have always been based on pack, load at origin, travel to new location, unload, unpack at destination plus any additional days caused by the government or its contracted agents. The later clause covers such things as movers that won't unload or unpack on weekends and stat holidays, trucks delayed by the contractor to pick up/deliver other loads, etc.

This is being perceived as a change for two reasons. First, under CFIRP ILM & M up to 15 days was being approved by RLRS on our behalf. They came to understand the policy as providing an "automatic 15 day" entitlement and were briefing members that they could arrange their moves with 15 days in a hotel, no questions asked. This was never the intent, but we weren't aware that this was the way the policy was being briefed and applied to members. Depending on family size and the location of the move, that was running at approximately $250 a day for a single member and upwards of $500-600 for a family of four. If you start multiplying that by 15 days and 15,000 moves you very quickly reach a very big number. That was never the intent of the policy. Thus, the more explicit wording is in part to make it clearer to the contractor what the policy is intended to provide. It also makes it crystal clear to the member so that he/she can make informed decisions when they're considering big decisions on sale or purchase dates. Secondly, and to a lesser extent, the notion that you would get 15 days seemed to be developing into an unfounded belief that it was a bottomless pit. We saw a huge increase in the number of people who made no attempt whatsoever to align their occupancy dates and incurred huge expenses for prolonged stays in hotels (up to 4 months in a couple of cases) and then were shocked to discover they were on their own for the vast majority of it. Thus, it seemed prudent to be absolutely clear insofar as the intent of the policy was concerned.

If you stop to think about it for a second, you will quickly see why this is and has always been the policy. Big numbers aside, the CF has no control over the personal decisions members are making WRT the disposal of one residence and the acquisition of another. These decisions are frequently being made to permit folks to maximize profit from a sale and minimize their cost on a purchase. Lots of times people are choosing one home over another based on their assessment of the likelihood of making a larger profit on one versus the other. I have no difficulty with that. But the Government of Canada shouldn't be subsidizing those decisions. The Government's responsibility is to move you from one place of duty to another as efficiently as possible but without passing on the costs to you. Hence the door-to-door policy. When you decide to sell your house early because you get a fantastic offer, i.e. you decide to maximize your profit (none of which you're sharing with the CF) part of the cost benefit analysis should be what additional cost you take on (having nothing to do with the actual move) as a result. If it works out to your advantage to sell once you've factored in the additional costs, go for it, but don't ask the Crown to pick up the additional costs so you can keep all the profits. This is even more true when you consider the considerable number of options that are at members disposal to effect a door-to-door move without resorting to long stays in ILM & M, such things as Temporary Dual Residency Allowance (TDRA), Reverse TDRA, automatic IR for up to 6 months, etc.

The situation described of a CF member selling a house on 27 May and contracting for a house that would be available on 1 Jul actually gives an excellent example of why we're re-emphasizing the rules on ILM & M. He chose to have a house built that would not be ready until after 1 Jul and then he chose to sell his home because he got an excellent offer. Both of those things are fine. But under what construct would there be an expectation that Canadian taxpayers, you and I, would pay for 33 days in a hotel so that he could turn a big profit on his house. I don't begrudge him the profit, but when he is making the decision to sell, he should have been thinking, "hmm, my house won't be ready for 33 days, where am I going to live and what's it going to cost me to cover that period?" (We have seen, for example, instances where people have arranged accommodations at the builder's expense as part of their contract.) If the answer to that question turns out to still be in his favour, he can sell, if it doesn't, then he may wish to wait for another offer that more closely matches the dates he will be moving.

On a final note, we still have the ability to approve longer stays in ILM & M where circumstances warrant. Nothing has changed in that regard either. The bottom line is that people had lost sight of the fact that they are expected to make a door-to-door move and were making decisions that risked putting them into financial jeopardy. We want the policy to be absolutely clear what the government's part is in their move so that they can make informed decisions."

 

[Strike]

Link or source?  The blurb about packing and loading over a weekend would be nice to show to IRP when I go in to sort my own move.

 

[armyvern]

The later clause covers such things as movers that won't unload or unpack on weekends and stat holidays, trucks delayed by the contractor to pick up/deliver other loads, etc.

Eerily, this statement is pretty much exactly what I used earlier to emphasize the grounds on which I would be grieving my upcoming move if indeed IRPP was now briefing that "weekends during pack/load at your own expense". The book seems pretty clear to ME (military members) in this respect, but obviously NOT so much to IRPP as they are the ones who are briefing members of this BS about weekends at  your own expense during load/unoad.

This is being perceived as a change for two reasons. First, under CFIRP ILM & M up to 15 days was being approved by RLRS on our behalf. They came to understand the policy as providing an "automatic 15 day" entitlement and were briefing members that they could arrange their moves with 15 days in a hotel, no questions asked.

Also eerily, in three IRPP moves - I have never been briefed that I was "entitled to 15 days in a hotel" by IRPP. I have always been briefed (2 different IRPP cells at 2 different locations) that I was entitled to UP to 15 days in hotel, if, for some unpreventable reason, my F&E and I could not be reunited with each other. I was also briefed that IF we couldn't be reunited before then, that I would have to seek out compensation authority over the 15 days via the CoC and that it may be denied and thus I would be on my own. IRPP stressed that it was extremely important to get closing date/rental date etc within that 15 day window - I was briefed all of this BEFORE I went on any HHTs.

On a final note, we still have the ability to approve longer stays in ILM & M where circumstances warrant. Nothing has changed in that regard either. The bottom line is that people had lost sight of the fact that they are expected to make a door-to-door move and were making decisions that risked putting them into financial jeopardy. We want the policy to be absolutely clear what the government's part is in their move so that they can make informed decisions."

That's not why members are bitching. Members are botching because IRPP seems to have lost sight of the fact that I am STILL entitled to "up to 15 days". I am STILL entitled to make a closing date of 15 July on a 04 July COS date, and - if my furniture arrives on 05 July - I am STILL entitled to ILM to be covered until that 15 July date. I AM within my 15 day window (actually, I am at 9 days ILM). It's IRPP who's insisting (THIS YEAR) that my entitlement has changed and that it now ceases on 5 July when my furniture arrives.

Sort THEM out.

 

[c_canuk]

I’ve yet to complete a move, but expect to 2010, and these are my thoughts on the whole thing. My ignorance is most likely going to be displayed and clarification of my misunderstandings would be great.

This is being perceived as a change for two reasons.

1. IRP Pers say it's changed, and 2. The way policy is being interpreted and applied has changed.

First, under CFIRP ILM & M up to 15 days was being approved by RLRS on our behalf. They came to understand the policy as providing an "automatic 15 day" entitlement and were briefing members that they could arrange their moves with 15 days in a hotel, no questions asked. This was never the intent, but we weren't aware that this was the way the policy was being briefed and applied to members.

So what you are saying is that ILM & M is only for use if there is a delay outside of the members control and you seem to think that members can close a deal on selling their house and buying their house at their whim? Sure homeowners will have some leeway but 2 weeks plus a day is pitifully small to complain about.

Depending on family size and the location of the move, that was running at approximately $250 a day for a single member and upwards of $500-600 for a family of four. If you start multiplying that by 15 days and 15,000 moves you very quickly reach a very big number.

Irrelevant, if DND is so concerned with costs, they should be posting people around the same base, instead of sending them all over the country.

Secondly, and to a lesser extent, the notion that you would get 15 days seemed to be developing into an unfounded belief that it was a bottomless pit. We saw a huge increase in the number of people who made no attempt whatsoever to align their occupancy dates and incurred huge expenses for prolonged stays in hotels (up to 4 months in a couple of cases) and then were shocked to discover they were on their own for the vast majority of it. Thus, it seemed prudent to be absolutely clear insofar as the intent of the policy was concerned.

So a handful of people misunderstand their entitlements and now we have no leeway? The sins of the few condemn everyone? Am I wrong or would the members plans have to be reviewed by IRP before they acted on them… why didn’t IRP pers pick up on a 4 month window and inform the member of the problem? IRP Pers are supposed to be SMEs on the subject are they not?

If you stop to think about it for a second, you will quickly see why this is and has always been the policy. Big numbers aside, the CF has no control over the personal decisions members are making WRT the disposal of one residence and the acquisition of another.

I don’t see it, 2 weeks leeway between the selling of a house and purchase of a replacement seems a tight window to begin with.

These decisions are frequently being made to permit folks to maximize profit from a sale and minimize their cost on a purchase. Lots of times people are choosing one home over another based on their assessment of the likelihood of making a larger profit on one versus the other. I have no difficulty with that.

The problem isn't which home they are picking, the problem is getting your house sold without taking a loss, you need to understand the difference between profit and equity, and the difference between turning down an offer to hold out for a high price and turning down an offer because it's a rip off.

If I buy a house for 100 000 and 4 years later sell it for 120 000 you want to imply that I made 20 000 in profit. that is incorrect because a 100 000 house will increase in value and the owner will have had to pay out 6,000-10,000 in property tax and had to spend Maint costs as well of aprox $8000 (2000 per year)... to avoid their property dropping in value.

But the Government of Canada shouldn't be subsidizing those decisions. The Government's responsibility is to move you from one place of duty to another as efficiently as possible but without passing on the costs to you.

Exactly and if a reasonable offer is made on a house you are selling with a closing date within 15 days of a house you want to buy then it's reasonable for the Government of Canada to subsidize that gap in housing since they required the move in the first place

Hence the door-to-door policy. When you decide to sell your house early because you get a fantastic offer, i.e. you decide to maximize your profit (none of which you're sharing with the CF) part of the cost benefit analysis should be what additional cost you take on (having nothing to do with the actual move) as a result.

Houses rarely sell for much above their assessed value, people don't sell early because they are being offered fabulous profits, they sell them because they are scared they aren't going to get another offer and will end up having to take a substantial loss.

If it works out to your advantage to sell once you've factored in the additional costs, go for it, but don't ask the Crown to pick up the additional costs so you can keep all the profits.

I don't but if the crown needs to move me, I don't expect to take a 40 000 hit to my worth just so I have a perfect door to door move.

This is even more true when you consider the considerable number of options that are at members disposal to effect a door-to-door move without resorting to long stays in ILM & M, such things as Temporary Dual Residency Allowance (TDRA), Reverse TDRA, automatic IR for up to 6 months, etc.

Please illuminate, with TDRA, Reverse TDRA, and IR, how if I get an offer to close on a house I'm selling for the 30th of June at break even price and the only house(s) in my price range and functionality is available on the 30th of July do I arrange things so I don't end up spending my life savings without turning down a reasonable offer on my current house with the possibility of not being offered another? Assume PMQs have a waiting list.

The situation described of a CF member selling a house on 27 May and contracting for a house that would be available on 1 Jul actually gives an excellent example of why we're re-emphasizing the rules on ILM & M. He chose to have a house built that would not be ready until after 1 Jul and then he chose to sell his home because he got an excellent offer.

You can't reasonably expect someone to have a contract to build a house where construction begins until after their house is sold, a house built in under 6 weeks is recklessly fast. So how does a member moving to a location with a shortage of housing completes a door to door move on a house that isn't built yet? They have to move somewhere within 50 km of the base.

Both of those things are fine. But under what construct would there be an expectation that Canadian taxpayers, you and I, would pay for 33 days in a hotel so that he could turn a big profit on his house.

The construct that the member pack up and move their family across the country on the crowns dime within a couple of months notice.

I don't begrudge him the profit, but when he is making the decision to sell

Clearly you do because you keep going on about all the members collecting fantastic profit like a game show host going on about fabulous prizes.

he should have been thinking, "hmm, my house won't be ready for 33 days, where am I going to live and what's it going to cost me to cover that period?"

Under your interpretation of the situation he will be thinking "holy crap I've got a quarter million dollar house being built that will be finished in 4 weeks and I'll have to have the money ready, and I've got an offer for my current house right now; do I sell now and apply for entitlements that are supposed to give me the flexibility to effect a painless move at no cost to myself due to requirements placed on me by the crown, or gamble that there will be another offer that will allow me to break even and hope I don’t go bankrupt"

yes a 1/4 million, you might be able to get a shack built for less but not in 6weeks, and certainly not without a large percentage up front and another mid way through the project.

(We have seen, for example, instances where people have arranged accommodations at the builder's expense as part of their contract.) If the answer to that question turns out to still be in his favour, he can sell, if it doesn't, then he may wish to wait for another offer that more closely matches the dates he will be moving.

That would be a late penalty clause, not part of the estimated construction time. Even if a contractor would do such a thing they would simply tack the expense of accommodations onto the final price of the home, again impacting the member’s finances.

On a final note, we still have the ability to approve longer stays in ILM & M where circumstances warrant. Nothing has changed in that regard either. The bottom line is that people had lost sight of the fact that they are expected to make a door-to-door move and were making decisions that risked putting them into financial jeopardy. We want the policy to be absolutely clear what the government's part is in their move so that they can make informed decisions."

They are expected to do their best for a Door-to-door move; the problem is now you are saying that nothing is unreasonable to deny them the flexibility the policy is supposed to provide.

The problem is there is a disparity between what we think is reasonable and what IRP thinks is reasonable and there is no policy framework that fleshes out what is reasonable so IRP has defaulted to nothing outside a door to door move excepting delays in HG & E delivery is reasonable. Which is a farce.

 

[Cdnarmybear]

Not here to whine, just passing on something that I was told after one of my meetings with IRP....

I was advised by IRP that I should get my posession date 2 or 3 days before I get out to Pet (!?) even though as per the policy when I drive to my new location I have 7 days to get there from Wainwrong (and I would be arriving on a Friday despite their attempts to get my to leave here earlier even with the closing date of my house here being on the Friday before I leave) ...kinda hard to do an unload and unpack  in your new location when you aren't there to take posession of your house, no?

They seem to be very reluctant to pay out for the weekend in a hotel before unload and unpack.... even though odds are that my F&E may not be ready for delivery on that Friday anyways.
Unload and unpack aren't usually done on the weekend(someone can correct me if I am wrong here)..and of course, that is dependent on whether the people I buy a house from have a COS date that is close to my own

I don't have a problem paying for a couple nights hotel if I have to, but it seems they are taking the "door to door move" thing to the extreme....and if there are people out there that are abusing it, then they should be dealt with....but then again, that usually ends up being a group punishment thing