- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Update: TBS still sitting on the fence for the decision.
Home Equity Assistance & "Military Families Pushed to Financial Ruin" (Merge)
- Thread starter heavy reader
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Update:
The 100% HEA loss has been featured in the 28 June 2012 Ombudsman's Report: Here is an exerpt from http://news.gc.ca/web/article-eng.do?nid=683289
Ombudsman Releases Annual Report: Delivering Results for Canada's Defence Community
Ottawa, June 28, 2012 - The Ombudsman for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces, Mr. Pierre Daigle, today released his 2011-2012 annual report, entitled Delivering Results for Canada’s Defence Community.
In his annual report, the Ombudsman provided an overview of the more than 1,900 individual cases handled by the office over the past fiscal year, the most common of which related to benefits, release from military service, medical issues, recruiting, redress of grievance, military postings, and harassment. “I am extremely proud of the real and positive results that our dedicated staff has delivered for the members of Canada’s Defence community,” stated Mr. Daigle.
In releasing his annual report, the Ombudsman also highlighted a number of issues of concern that were brought to his attention during his extensive outreach efforts or as recurring individual complaints. For example, during his many outreach visits, the Ombudsman heard from Canadian Forces members across the country that the Integrated Relocation Program is causing a great deal of frustration. Widespread criticism has been focused on the way in which the program is administered and on its restrictions, which are causing significant strain – particularly the door-to-door requirements.
Over the past year, the Ombudsman’s office also received a number of complaints related to financial losses when Canadian Forces members are posted and have to sell their homes in certain areas of the country. After reviewing these complaints, the office identified serious concerns with the Home Equity Assistance policy within the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program. “When posted, Canadian Forces members can be faced with volatile market conditions, a lack of availability of military housing, limited housing options in the open market, low rental vacancy rates and a short time-frame in which to decide where to live,” stated Mr. Daigle. He added, “As a result of the Home Equity Assistance policy, a number of Canadian Forces members have incurred significant financial hardship through no fault of their own.”
In his annual report, Mr. Daigle also outlined his serious concerns regarding delays with military claims and grievances, delays in getting access to the Reserve Force pension plan, and delays with civilian classification grievances.
In addition to addressing individual complaints and a number of issues of concern, the Ombudsman’s office also initiated and continued to work on a number of broader investigations.
For example, in 2011, the Ombudsman launched a third follow-up investigation into the issue of post-traumatic stress disorder and other operational stress injuries in the Canadian Forces. The investigation will determine the status of the nine recommendations contained in the 2008 report, entitled A Long Road to Recovery: Battling Operational Stress Injuries, and the seven recommendations included in the companion report, The State of Mental Health Services at CFB Petawawa.
As part of the investigation, Ombudsman staff conducted more than 200 interviews with over 425 individuals, including senior leaders at National Defence Headquarters and within the Canadian Forces Health Services Group. The investigative team also travelled to Canadian Forces Bases Edmonton, Gagetown, Halifax, Petawawa, Shilo, Trenton, Valcartier and Wainwright in order to meet with medical staff and other caregivers, Integrated Personnel Support Centre staff, Operational Stress Injury Social Support program staff, Military Family Resource Centre staff, unit leadership, Canadian Forces personnel, military families and others. In addition, during their collection of data, the investigative team accumulated and assessed more than 650 documents. The investigation will be completed and released in the summer of 2012.
In early 2012, the Ombudsman’s office began a follow-up investigation to assess the status of the recommendations made in the office’s 2008 special report entitled Reserved Care: An Investigation into the Treatment of Injured Reservists. This investigation is expected to be finalized and published in the summer of 2012.
In his annual report, the Ombudsman also announced that the office will be undertaking a comprehensive review of the issues and challenges facing Canada’s military families across the country. The office’s most visible intervention in recent years has been related to the care and treatment of military families who have lost a Canadian Forces loved one while the member was serving their country. The focus on this issue, however, shed light on a number of other concerns that affect the lives of Canada’s military families, including operational tempo, operational stress injuries, housing, medical concerns, and social and community support.
At the same time, since the Ombudsman’s office was established in 1998, more than 1,000 military families have come forward with complaints and concerns (more than 100 over the past 12 months) regarding these and other issues. Moreover, through the Ombudsman’s extensive outreach efforts, the office has also encountered and documented dozens of similar complaints from military families across the country.
As part of its review, the office will be looking at whether the Canadian Forces have the appropriate policies, programs and resources in place to properly care for Canada’s military families. The office is also interested in working with provincial ombudsmen from across the country in order to look at best practices and see if some collective recommendations can be put in place to improve the quality of life of Canada’s military families. Finally, the office will also be talking to military families and looking at the care and treatment they have received throughout their experience with the Canadian Forces – from the time their loved ones joined the military, to the initial and ongoing training periods, to the various postings, to the operational deployments, and to when they decide to leave the Defence community.
In launching this comprehensive study, the Ombudsman stated, “Canada’s military families are national entities and have a key role to play in maintaining the operational effectiveness of the Canadian Forces.” He added, “They also sacrifice a great deal for their Canadian Forces loved ones and we want to see if we can help address some of their most pressing concerns and challenges.”
It is expected that this review will be completed and published in fiscal year 2012-2013.
More information on the office’s investigations and special reports, including the 2011-2012 annual report, is available on the Ombudsman’s website at: www.ombudsman.forces.gc.ca.
-30-
For additional information, please contact:
Michelle Laliberté
Communications Advisor
Office of the National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman
Tel: (613) 995-8643
E-mail: [email protected]
Further, page 11 of the Ombudsman's report at http://www.ombudsman.forces.gc.ca/rep-rap/ar-ra/2011-2012/doc/2011-2012-eng.pdf goes on in more detail:
Home Equi t y A s s i s ta nce
The Ombudsman’s office has received a number
of complaints related to financial losses when
Canadian Forces members are posted and have
to sell their homes in certain areas of the country.
After reviewing these complaints, the office has
identified serious concerns with the Home
Equity Assistance policy within the Canadian
Forces Integrated Relocation Program.
When posted, Canadian Forces members can be
faced with volatile market conditions, a lack of
availability of military housing, limited housing
options in the open market, low rental vacancy
rates and a short time-frame in which to decide
where to live. Many of these circumstances
are beyond the control of Canadian Forces
members and can have severe and long-lasting
financial and personal consequences.
Under the Home Equity Assistance policy, Canadian
Forces members are only compensated for the
full loss on the sale of a home if it is located in a
community where Treasury Board Secretariat, the
authority on the government’s relocation policy,
has determined that the housing market has
dropped by more than 20 percent. The Canadian
Forces Integrated Relocation Program requires
that a military member, who wishes to apply for
depressed market status due to a home equity
loss, must substantiate his/her case and submit
it to the Director of Compensation and Benefits
Administration for consideration and possible
submission to Treasury Board Secretariat.
When Treasury Board Secretariat renders a positive
decision on a case, the Director of Compensation
and Benefits Administration applies that decision
to all Home Equity Assistance cases for full
reimbursement for that same region and that
same year. If Treasury Board Secretariat does not
recognize the area as a depressed market, only
80 percent of the financial loss is reimbursed, up
to a maximum of $15,000. As a result of the Home
Equity Assistance policy, a number of Canadian
Forces members have incurred significant
financial hardship through no fault of their own.
The Chief of the Defence Staff has supported a
number of grievances as valid claims for Canadian
Forces members’ loss of equity as a result of the sale
of their home; however, he has no financial authority
to reimburse these losses.
The Ombudsman’s office is concerned by the financial
losses and the resulting distress being placed
on military members and their families as a result
of relocation. The office will continue to investigate
complaints that relate to Home Equity Assistance
and submit recommendations as appropriate.
SITEP on my issue: Awaiting TBS Decision (9 months now).
The 100% HEA loss has been featured in the 28 June 2012 Ombudsman's Report: Here is an exerpt from http://news.gc.ca/web/article-eng.do?nid=683289
Ombudsman Releases Annual Report: Delivering Results for Canada's Defence Community
Ottawa, June 28, 2012 - The Ombudsman for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces, Mr. Pierre Daigle, today released his 2011-2012 annual report, entitled Delivering Results for Canada’s Defence Community.
In his annual report, the Ombudsman provided an overview of the more than 1,900 individual cases handled by the office over the past fiscal year, the most common of which related to benefits, release from military service, medical issues, recruiting, redress of grievance, military postings, and harassment. “I am extremely proud of the real and positive results that our dedicated staff has delivered for the members of Canada’s Defence community,” stated Mr. Daigle.
In releasing his annual report, the Ombudsman also highlighted a number of issues of concern that were brought to his attention during his extensive outreach efforts or as recurring individual complaints. For example, during his many outreach visits, the Ombudsman heard from Canadian Forces members across the country that the Integrated Relocation Program is causing a great deal of frustration. Widespread criticism has been focused on the way in which the program is administered and on its restrictions, which are causing significant strain – particularly the door-to-door requirements.
Over the past year, the Ombudsman’s office also received a number of complaints related to financial losses when Canadian Forces members are posted and have to sell their homes in certain areas of the country. After reviewing these complaints, the office identified serious concerns with the Home Equity Assistance policy within the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program. “When posted, Canadian Forces members can be faced with volatile market conditions, a lack of availability of military housing, limited housing options in the open market, low rental vacancy rates and a short time-frame in which to decide where to live,” stated Mr. Daigle. He added, “As a result of the Home Equity Assistance policy, a number of Canadian Forces members have incurred significant financial hardship through no fault of their own.”
In his annual report, Mr. Daigle also outlined his serious concerns regarding delays with military claims and grievances, delays in getting access to the Reserve Force pension plan, and delays with civilian classification grievances.
In addition to addressing individual complaints and a number of issues of concern, the Ombudsman’s office also initiated and continued to work on a number of broader investigations.
For example, in 2011, the Ombudsman launched a third follow-up investigation into the issue of post-traumatic stress disorder and other operational stress injuries in the Canadian Forces. The investigation will determine the status of the nine recommendations contained in the 2008 report, entitled A Long Road to Recovery: Battling Operational Stress Injuries, and the seven recommendations included in the companion report, The State of Mental Health Services at CFB Petawawa.
As part of the investigation, Ombudsman staff conducted more than 200 interviews with over 425 individuals, including senior leaders at National Defence Headquarters and within the Canadian Forces Health Services Group. The investigative team also travelled to Canadian Forces Bases Edmonton, Gagetown, Halifax, Petawawa, Shilo, Trenton, Valcartier and Wainwright in order to meet with medical staff and other caregivers, Integrated Personnel Support Centre staff, Operational Stress Injury Social Support program staff, Military Family Resource Centre staff, unit leadership, Canadian Forces personnel, military families and others. In addition, during their collection of data, the investigative team accumulated and assessed more than 650 documents. The investigation will be completed and released in the summer of 2012.
In early 2012, the Ombudsman’s office began a follow-up investigation to assess the status of the recommendations made in the office’s 2008 special report entitled Reserved Care: An Investigation into the Treatment of Injured Reservists. This investigation is expected to be finalized and published in the summer of 2012.
In his annual report, the Ombudsman also announced that the office will be undertaking a comprehensive review of the issues and challenges facing Canada’s military families across the country. The office’s most visible intervention in recent years has been related to the care and treatment of military families who have lost a Canadian Forces loved one while the member was serving their country. The focus on this issue, however, shed light on a number of other concerns that affect the lives of Canada’s military families, including operational tempo, operational stress injuries, housing, medical concerns, and social and community support.
At the same time, since the Ombudsman’s office was established in 1998, more than 1,000 military families have come forward with complaints and concerns (more than 100 over the past 12 months) regarding these and other issues. Moreover, through the Ombudsman’s extensive outreach efforts, the office has also encountered and documented dozens of similar complaints from military families across the country.
As part of its review, the office will be looking at whether the Canadian Forces have the appropriate policies, programs and resources in place to properly care for Canada’s military families. The office is also interested in working with provincial ombudsmen from across the country in order to look at best practices and see if some collective recommendations can be put in place to improve the quality of life of Canada’s military families. Finally, the office will also be talking to military families and looking at the care and treatment they have received throughout their experience with the Canadian Forces – from the time their loved ones joined the military, to the initial and ongoing training periods, to the various postings, to the operational deployments, and to when they decide to leave the Defence community.
In launching this comprehensive study, the Ombudsman stated, “Canada’s military families are national entities and have a key role to play in maintaining the operational effectiveness of the Canadian Forces.” He added, “They also sacrifice a great deal for their Canadian Forces loved ones and we want to see if we can help address some of their most pressing concerns and challenges.”
It is expected that this review will be completed and published in fiscal year 2012-2013.
More information on the office’s investigations and special reports, including the 2011-2012 annual report, is available on the Ombudsman’s website at: www.ombudsman.forces.gc.ca.
-30-
For additional information, please contact:
Michelle Laliberté
Communications Advisor
Office of the National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman
Tel: (613) 995-8643
E-mail: [email protected]
Further, page 11 of the Ombudsman's report at http://www.ombudsman.forces.gc.ca/rep-rap/ar-ra/2011-2012/doc/2011-2012-eng.pdf goes on in more detail:
Home Equi t y A s s i s ta nce
The Ombudsman’s office has received a number
of complaints related to financial losses when
Canadian Forces members are posted and have
to sell their homes in certain areas of the country.
After reviewing these complaints, the office has
identified serious concerns with the Home
Equity Assistance policy within the Canadian
Forces Integrated Relocation Program.
When posted, Canadian Forces members can be
faced with volatile market conditions, a lack of
availability of military housing, limited housing
options in the open market, low rental vacancy
rates and a short time-frame in which to decide
where to live. Many of these circumstances
are beyond the control of Canadian Forces
members and can have severe and long-lasting
financial and personal consequences.
Under the Home Equity Assistance policy, Canadian
Forces members are only compensated for the
full loss on the sale of a home if it is located in a
community where Treasury Board Secretariat, the
authority on the government’s relocation policy,
has determined that the housing market has
dropped by more than 20 percent. The Canadian
Forces Integrated Relocation Program requires
that a military member, who wishes to apply for
depressed market status due to a home equity
loss, must substantiate his/her case and submit
it to the Director of Compensation and Benefits
Administration for consideration and possible
submission to Treasury Board Secretariat.
When Treasury Board Secretariat renders a positive
decision on a case, the Director of Compensation
and Benefits Administration applies that decision
to all Home Equity Assistance cases for full
reimbursement for that same region and that
same year. If Treasury Board Secretariat does not
recognize the area as a depressed market, only
80 percent of the financial loss is reimbursed, up
to a maximum of $15,000. As a result of the Home
Equity Assistance policy, a number of Canadian
Forces members have incurred significant
financial hardship through no fault of their own.
The Chief of the Defence Staff has supported a
number of grievances as valid claims for Canadian
Forces members’ loss of equity as a result of the sale
of their home; however, he has no financial authority
to reimburse these losses.
The Ombudsman’s office is concerned by the financial
losses and the resulting distress being placed
on military members and their families as a result
of relocation. The office will continue to investigate
complaints that relate to Home Equity Assistance
and submit recommendations as appropriate.
SITEP on my issue: Awaiting TBS Decision (9 months now).
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
After three years and one day, the Treasury Board has finally rendered their decision on our Home Equity Assistance application.
Denied.
I will present the response after I have declassified the documentation through access to information.
I find now that I am forced to submit a claim against the Crown. If there are any other serving CF members who may have been affected as laid out in this discussion, please contact me at [email protected] to discuss options regarding a class action lawsuit in Federal Court.
Keep strong
Denied.
I will present the response after I have declassified the documentation through access to information.
I find now that I am forced to submit a claim against the Crown. If there are any other serving CF members who may have been affected as laid out in this discussion, please contact me at [email protected] to discuss options regarding a class action lawsuit in Federal Court.
Keep strong
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
heavy reader said:
Aw man, I was rooting for you! Ram Singh hates the word yes, unless it's for an executive. I hope things go well for you
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Good morning:
There has been an overwhelming response on this board and via e-mail from the number of people already affected, as well as those who are expecting a loss this posting season. I can summarize what has been done already, and where I am going. All I can say is that you have a choice on how each individual is going to find their solutions. There is an easy road (delare bankruptcy early and start rebuilding your credit, which will of course preclude you from homebuying for several years) or fight for your entitlements (of which the 100% HEA out of core is an entitlement, not a benefit). Either road will have an affect on you, your family and your job. You will need to be professional, determined and above all, patient.
Before I get into this, note that this posting season there may be a change in the CFIRP program, so it is important to understand any changes in policy as they may not reflect those which affected my posting in 2010.
For those who are expecting an equity loss above 15K in 2012, these are my lessons learned:
1. Know the policy;
2. Determine which portions of the policy you are going to fight (whether the geolocation, 20% criterea, timliness etc);
3. Start building a package for IRP before the home sells (only the numbers change). For example, I had to take off two weeks of leave to build a concise 88 page application for HEA. This was done so that it was complete enough to travel through the grievance system without the need for additional info resulting in further delays;
4. Be dead accurate in all you say and do;
5. Make timelines and deadlines for yourself;
6. Get help (from your realtors, neighbours, community, OR, administrators, governance, Mental Health etc);
7. Build a strategic plan for your financial survival (do not assume that this will be over quickly). My origional assessment was 10 years, and its only been 3 very hard years. I've done everything from selling family heirlooms, yard sales, bottle drives, accessing social services to keep our family afloat. The burden of carrying this debt has resulted in a net loss (currently) of $1900 per month on top of the origional claim. Time is not on our side.
8. Get used to your new financial reality asap. Face it, if you are reading this, you have been hard done by. Money won't be coming your way anytime soon. Adapt a new standard of living - SISIP fin counsellors can help with a budget, but you are the one who needs to execute it.
9. Use this forum for questions and answers. There are more affected than represented here. All have valuable opinions which have been helpful to date (apprecated).
For those already fighting the good fight:
Here are my (rough) actions to date and the decisions. These are listed to allow each of you to avoid the pitfalls and save on some staff work:
1. Applied for 100% HEA out of core the day after house sold (2010); initiated access to information requests;
2. HEA verbally discouraged by CFIRP at sp base;
3. HEA denied by DCBA (rationale - TBS states there are no depressed markets in Canada);
4. Grieved the decision;
5. DCBA (as the initial authority) returned the grievance "without further action" as they believed that CFIRP policy was not grievable;
6. Elevated grievance, went to CDS who partially supported the grievance (supported the claim, but could not pay out);
7. CDS directed DCBA to submit the application to TBS (as directed in CFIRP policy), failing that CDS directed that I should submit a claim against the crown;
8. TBS rejected the application (considered my community as part of Edmonton);
9. Submitted claim against the crown; submitted more access to information requests;
10. Awaiting returns from ATI requests.
11. Failing a claim against the crown, class action lawsuit in Federal Court (kind of sounds like a repitition of the SCONDVA report http://hr.dwan.dnd.ca/scondva/engraph/reports_and_documents_e.asp
In my particular situation, my community is far from the area of Edmonton, however TBS has not defined community (from ATI requests), leaving it up to their discretion.
References: Recommend review of the following websites for further information:
http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/English/SR24.html#SR25
http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/English/Publications_Perspectives201105.html
Previous ATI requests:
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/atipo-baiprp/req/req-eng.asp (Treasury Board)
http://www.admfincs-smafinsm.forces.gc.ca/aip/cr-dc-eng.asp (Canadian Forces)
Previous grievances:
http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/English/2009-091.html
http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/English/2010-012.html
http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/English/2010-015.html
http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/English/2010-043.html
http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/English/2011-025.html This is my grievance.
http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/English/2011-119.html
Note the RCMP also falls under the TBS IRP and they have redresses online as well:
See grievances numbered G-205, G-232, G-242, G-244, G-300, G-415 for Home Equity Assistance available at http://www.erc-cee.gc.ca/cases-cas/comm-idx-eng.aspx and
see grievances numbered G-278, G-281, G-297, G-299, G-337, G-341, G-345, G-349, G-357, G-360, G-383, G-406, G-409, G-505, G-524 for RCMP IRP grievances.
As requestested, I will shortly post my table of contents for general use of an application for 100% HEA out of Core for general reference.
And, oh yes, you will need to review the Military Administrative Law Manual. You thought you were in the combat arms, now you need to become a lawyer to recoup your equity entitlements. The manual (A-LG-007-000/AF-010) can be found at http://www.forces.gc.ca/jag/publications/mal-dam/miladminlaw-droitadminmil-eng.pdf
Have a great Friday!
There has been an overwhelming response on this board and via e-mail from the number of people already affected, as well as those who are expecting a loss this posting season. I can summarize what has been done already, and where I am going. All I can say is that you have a choice on how each individual is going to find their solutions. There is an easy road (delare bankruptcy early and start rebuilding your credit, which will of course preclude you from homebuying for several years) or fight for your entitlements (of which the 100% HEA out of core is an entitlement, not a benefit). Either road will have an affect on you, your family and your job. You will need to be professional, determined and above all, patient.
Before I get into this, note that this posting season there may be a change in the CFIRP program, so it is important to understand any changes in policy as they may not reflect those which affected my posting in 2010.
For those who are expecting an equity loss above 15K in 2012, these are my lessons learned:
1. Know the policy;
2. Determine which portions of the policy you are going to fight (whether the geolocation, 20% criterea, timliness etc);
3. Start building a package for IRP before the home sells (only the numbers change). For example, I had to take off two weeks of leave to build a concise 88 page application for HEA. This was done so that it was complete enough to travel through the grievance system without the need for additional info resulting in further delays;
4. Be dead accurate in all you say and do;
5. Make timelines and deadlines for yourself;
6. Get help (from your realtors, neighbours, community, OR, administrators, governance, Mental Health etc);
7. Build a strategic plan for your financial survival (do not assume that this will be over quickly). My origional assessment was 10 years, and its only been 3 very hard years. I've done everything from selling family heirlooms, yard sales, bottle drives, accessing social services to keep our family afloat. The burden of carrying this debt has resulted in a net loss (currently) of $1900 per month on top of the origional claim. Time is not on our side.
8. Get used to your new financial reality asap. Face it, if you are reading this, you have been hard done by. Money won't be coming your way anytime soon. Adapt a new standard of living - SISIP fin counsellors can help with a budget, but you are the one who needs to execute it.
9. Use this forum for questions and answers. There are more affected than represented here. All have valuable opinions which have been helpful to date (apprecated).
For those already fighting the good fight:
Here are my (rough) actions to date and the decisions. These are listed to allow each of you to avoid the pitfalls and save on some staff work:
1. Applied for 100% HEA out of core the day after house sold (2010); initiated access to information requests;
2. HEA verbally discouraged by CFIRP at sp base;
3. HEA denied by DCBA (rationale - TBS states there are no depressed markets in Canada);
4. Grieved the decision;
5. DCBA (as the initial authority) returned the grievance "without further action" as they believed that CFIRP policy was not grievable;
6. Elevated grievance, went to CDS who partially supported the grievance (supported the claim, but could not pay out);
7. CDS directed DCBA to submit the application to TBS (as directed in CFIRP policy), failing that CDS directed that I should submit a claim against the crown;
8. TBS rejected the application (considered my community as part of Edmonton);
9. Submitted claim against the crown; submitted more access to information requests;
10. Awaiting returns from ATI requests.
11. Failing a claim against the crown, class action lawsuit in Federal Court (kind of sounds like a repitition of the SCONDVA report http://hr.dwan.dnd.ca/scondva/engraph/reports_and_documents_e.asp
In my particular situation, my community is far from the area of Edmonton, however TBS has not defined community (from ATI requests), leaving it up to their discretion.
References: Recommend review of the following websites for further information:
http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/English/SR24.html#SR25
http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/English/Publications_Perspectives201105.html
Previous ATI requests:
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/atipo-baiprp/req/req-eng.asp (Treasury Board)
http://www.admfincs-smafinsm.forces.gc.ca/aip/cr-dc-eng.asp (Canadian Forces)
Previous grievances:
http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/English/2009-091.html
http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/English/2010-012.html
http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/English/2010-015.html
http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/English/2010-043.html
http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/English/2011-025.html This is my grievance.
http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/English/2011-119.html
Note the RCMP also falls under the TBS IRP and they have redresses online as well:
See grievances numbered G-205, G-232, G-242, G-244, G-300, G-415 for Home Equity Assistance available at http://www.erc-cee.gc.ca/cases-cas/comm-idx-eng.aspx and
see grievances numbered G-278, G-281, G-297, G-299, G-337, G-341, G-345, G-349, G-357, G-360, G-383, G-406, G-409, G-505, G-524 for RCMP IRP grievances.
As requestested, I will shortly post my table of contents for general use of an application for 100% HEA out of Core for general reference.
And, oh yes, you will need to review the Military Administrative Law Manual. You thought you were in the combat arms, now you need to become a lawyer to recoup your equity entitlements. The manual (A-LG-007-000/AF-010) can be found at http://www.forces.gc.ca/jag/publications/mal-dam/miladminlaw-droitadminmil-eng.pdf
Have a great Friday!
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Good evening all:
This will likely be my last post here. No, I'm not offing myself but preparing for a class action suit for those negatively affected by the 100% HEA out of core decisions.
Anyone interested in sharing information, joining the suit or providing assistance, please contact me at [email protected] (no commitment at this time, looking to gauge interest).
A separate file sharing folder has been made online for sharing of decisions, research, access to information etc , but as the details are rather personal - they will only be accessible to those who are interested in joining the class action.
I would like to take the opportunity to thank all of those who have offered their constructive criticism, support and suggestions over the last three years. This forum and your support has been very important to me and all of those families (over 146 as of 2010) denied this entitlement.
Anyone with contacts who would be willing to do some pro-bono work on this subject would be very welcomed.
All the best, and keep strong.
This will likely be my last post here. No, I'm not offing myself but preparing for a class action suit for those negatively affected by the 100% HEA out of core decisions.
Anyone interested in sharing information, joining the suit or providing assistance, please contact me at [email protected] (no commitment at this time, looking to gauge interest).
A separate file sharing folder has been made online for sharing of decisions, research, access to information etc , but as the details are rather personal - they will only be accessible to those who are interested in joining the class action.
I would like to take the opportunity to thank all of those who have offered their constructive criticism, support and suggestions over the last three years. This forum and your support has been very important to me and all of those families (over 146 as of 2010) denied this entitlement.
Anyone with contacts who would be willing to do some pro-bono work on this subject would be very welcomed.
All the best, and keep strong.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Bon chance. 
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Here's another case where a soldier has been denied $72,000 out of pocket due to denial of Home Equity Assistance from Core entitlement.
I would advise all relocating members to become familiar with this issue as it could very easily be you next APS. Over 150 have been denied to date.
http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/English/2012-064.html
I would advise all relocating members to become familiar with this issue as it could very easily be you next APS. Over 150 have been denied to date.
http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/English/2012-064.html
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 410
Not to sound callous, but is it not reasonable to view cases such as this as a "bad investment" on the part of the individual who bought the home? Purchasing a home is generally the largest investment that anyone will ever make. I know that as a member of the CF, anytime I have ever bought a house on posting, one HUGE FACTOR on my mind is the fact that I am going to have to resell it........
- Reaction score
- 6,451
- Points
- 1,190
DAA said:
Its not the same as an investment, you aren't forced to sell your investment in poor market conditions. Yes, there are some people who demand they get what they paid for the house even in a market downturn, but the ones that are getting screwed are the ones that are forced to sell for way under appraised value (appraised in the current market) who could lose their shirts.
Considering the CF is content on getting rid of a lot of PMQs, what do you expect soldiers to do?
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 430
To add to what PuckChaser said, you can't always read a crystal ball and be able to foresee this stuff happening. The area around the oil patch was going through huge growth and rising real estate costs due to rising oil prices. When oil prices fell, and the boom turned to bust, real estate prices dropped sharply. I don't think anyone could successfully predict a huge drop in oil prices a few years down the road, making the oil sands less lucrative.
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 410
PuckChaser said:
Oh but yes, your home is definitely an investment and when you purchase one as a CF member, the potential future resale value needs to be a real and present consideration.
Mind you, when the CF says "it's time to go" it may not be in our best interests to sell but we have little if any choice, so we should be reimbursed for "reasonable" losses as a result.
I would love to point fingers but I am not sure who to point at? The Realtor or the CF member? I have seen so so many people buy homes at what I personally would consider "inflated" prices, only to end up taking a substantial hit 2-4 years later and not as a result of a "depressed market". Most of the time, it is a first time buyer too.....
A
aesop081
Guest
PuckChaser said:
You're not forced to sell your house either. I was going to lose money last APS so i did not sell and rented my home out.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
More HEA policy issues to come:
Perhaps I have missed something, but the CBI (below) indicates that only a 10% loss is now required (effective 1 Sept 2012) to get 90% HEA out of core. However, the new and improved CF IRP policy (below) states that a 20% loss may trigger 100% HEA from core. Looks like the two policies are out of synch. I thought my HEA application is a nightmare, now soldiers have to face two different criteria at two different levels? Good luck. If any one can shed some light on this, I'd love to find out what is going on with this policy mismatch.
The following info is from the recent version of the CBI 208.97 published 1 Sept 2012 http://cmp-cpm.forces.mil.ca/dgcb/cbi/engraph/cbi_chapter-208_e.asp?sidesection=6
208.97(2) (Application) This instruction applies in respect of the sale of a principal residence by an officer or non-commissioned member where, as determined by the Chief of the Defence Staff, the housing prices at the member’s place of duty have decreased by 10% or more between the date of purchase and the date of sale of the principal residence.
208.97(3) (Sale price lower than adjusted purchase price) An officer or non-commissioned member who is moved at public expense other than locally and sells a principal residence shall be reimbursed 90% of the difference between the sale price and the adjusted purchase price, when the sale price is lower than the adjusted purchase price.
208.97(4) (Sale price lower than current market value) Despite paragraph (3), when the sale price is also lower than the current market value, the Chief of the Defence Staff may limit reimbursement to 90% of the ifference between the current market value and the adjusted purchase price.
208.97(5) (Appraisal) For the purpose of this instruction, the current market value and the value of eligible home improvements shall be determined on the basis of three appraisals by licensed property appraisers appointed by the Chief of the Defence Staff.
208.97(6) (Under financial hardship) Despite paragraphs (2), (3) and (4), the Chief of the Defence Staff may approve reimbursement to an officer or non-commissioned member in any case that does not meet the criteria of this instruction when the Chief of the Defence Staff considers that the member would suffer undue financial hardship.
The 1 Sept 2012 CF IRP policy at http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/pd/rel-rei/aps-paa-2011/chapter-chapitre-08-eng.asp#art-08-03-03 is as follows:
8.2.13 Home Equity Assistance (HEA)
As per the HEA calculation criteria listed below, CF members who sell their home at a loss are entitled to reimbursement for up to 100% of the difference between the original purchase price and the sale price from specific funding envelopes as follows:
Core benefit
80% of the loss, to a maximum of $15,000; and
100% of the loss, in places designated as depressed market areas by Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS).
Custom benefit
In excess of core entitlement.
Personalized benefit
When all custom funds have been expended.
HEA calculation criteria
Properties selling for less than 95% of the market value require DCBA approval prior to qualifying for this benefit. Market value is to be based on the appraisal provided by CFIRP.
Capital improvements shall not be included in the calculation of HEA but may be claimed separately as per art 8.2.10.
Any reductions of the sale price based upon deferred maintenance shall not be included when calculating HEA.
The original purchase price for new home construction consists of costs:
identified in the Building Agreement, and
for initial landscaping which occurs within one year of occupancy (when not identified in the Building Agreement).
Depressed market, as established by Treasury Board Secretariat, is defined as a community where the housing market has dropped more than 20%.
Depressed market status may be evaluated when:
A CF member and the Realtor build a case for depressed market status by submitting the following documentation to DCBA through the CF Relocation Coordinator for review, DCBA will forward it to IRP Program Authority at Treasury Board Secretariat:
Personal introduction including an outline of changes in the local economy evident during the time at origin.
All pertinent information with respect to the purchase of the subject property. This would include the original purchase agreement, the current appraisal report, list of the capital improvements made to the property and the related costs. Also, the appraised value when originally purchased and any property assessments since the time of purchase. Regarding cost of construction, this will require submission of original receipts to confirm the original purchase price, if a building contract was not used. Capital improvements must be supported by original receipts only.
General and specific information on the geographic location and local economic state; i.e. the circumstances that may be happening in the surrounding areas such as mill closures, unemployment rate, school closures. Include relative newspaper articles, memos, and objective evidence of market decline. Also, include sale date, date offer received, listing date list price, lowered list price and any home equity loss paid.
For real estate information:
Letter from Realtor expressing his/her professional opinion of the overall decline in the market since time of purchase;
Copies of comparable sales (similar type homes) that were concluded within the past 6 to 12 months;
Number of current listings in various price ranges and number of days on the market;
Number of sales (year-to-date) in various price ranges and number of days on the market;
Number of sales during previous 2 years in various price ranges and number of days on the market;
Number of foreclosures (year-to-date) and same for previous 2 years; and
Current vacancy rates, and similar information from previous years.
NOTE: All items must be labelled with a table of contents.
More on the definition of community in a future posting.
Perhaps I have missed something, but the CBI (below) indicates that only a 10% loss is now required (effective 1 Sept 2012) to get 90% HEA out of core. However, the new and improved CF IRP policy (below) states that a 20% loss may trigger 100% HEA from core. Looks like the two policies are out of synch. I thought my HEA application is a nightmare, now soldiers have to face two different criteria at two different levels? Good luck. If any one can shed some light on this, I'd love to find out what is going on with this policy mismatch.
The following info is from the recent version of the CBI 208.97 published 1 Sept 2012 http://cmp-cpm.forces.mil.ca/dgcb/cbi/engraph/cbi_chapter-208_e.asp?sidesection=6
208.97(2) (Application) This instruction applies in respect of the sale of a principal residence by an officer or non-commissioned member where, as determined by the Chief of the Defence Staff, the housing prices at the member’s place of duty have decreased by 10% or more between the date of purchase and the date of sale of the principal residence.
208.97(3) (Sale price lower than adjusted purchase price) An officer or non-commissioned member who is moved at public expense other than locally and sells a principal residence shall be reimbursed 90% of the difference between the sale price and the adjusted purchase price, when the sale price is lower than the adjusted purchase price.
208.97(4) (Sale price lower than current market value) Despite paragraph (3), when the sale price is also lower than the current market value, the Chief of the Defence Staff may limit reimbursement to 90% of the ifference between the current market value and the adjusted purchase price.
208.97(5) (Appraisal) For the purpose of this instruction, the current market value and the value of eligible home improvements shall be determined on the basis of three appraisals by licensed property appraisers appointed by the Chief of the Defence Staff.
208.97(6) (Under financial hardship) Despite paragraphs (2), (3) and (4), the Chief of the Defence Staff may approve reimbursement to an officer or non-commissioned member in any case that does not meet the criteria of this instruction when the Chief of the Defence Staff considers that the member would suffer undue financial hardship.
The 1 Sept 2012 CF IRP policy at http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/pd/rel-rei/aps-paa-2011/chapter-chapitre-08-eng.asp#art-08-03-03 is as follows:
8.2.13 Home Equity Assistance (HEA)
As per the HEA calculation criteria listed below, CF members who sell their home at a loss are entitled to reimbursement for up to 100% of the difference between the original purchase price and the sale price from specific funding envelopes as follows:
Core benefit
80% of the loss, to a maximum of $15,000; and
100% of the loss, in places designated as depressed market areas by Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS).
Custom benefit
In excess of core entitlement.
Personalized benefit
When all custom funds have been expended.
HEA calculation criteria
Properties selling for less than 95% of the market value require DCBA approval prior to qualifying for this benefit. Market value is to be based on the appraisal provided by CFIRP.
Capital improvements shall not be included in the calculation of HEA but may be claimed separately as per art 8.2.10.
Any reductions of the sale price based upon deferred maintenance shall not be included when calculating HEA.
The original purchase price for new home construction consists of costs:
identified in the Building Agreement, and
for initial landscaping which occurs within one year of occupancy (when not identified in the Building Agreement).
Depressed market, as established by Treasury Board Secretariat, is defined as a community where the housing market has dropped more than 20%.
Depressed market status may be evaluated when:
A CF member and the Realtor build a case for depressed market status by submitting the following documentation to DCBA through the CF Relocation Coordinator for review, DCBA will forward it to IRP Program Authority at Treasury Board Secretariat:
Personal introduction including an outline of changes in the local economy evident during the time at origin.
All pertinent information with respect to the purchase of the subject property. This would include the original purchase agreement, the current appraisal report, list of the capital improvements made to the property and the related costs. Also, the appraised value when originally purchased and any property assessments since the time of purchase. Regarding cost of construction, this will require submission of original receipts to confirm the original purchase price, if a building contract was not used. Capital improvements must be supported by original receipts only.
General and specific information on the geographic location and local economic state; i.e. the circumstances that may be happening in the surrounding areas such as mill closures, unemployment rate, school closures. Include relative newspaper articles, memos, and objective evidence of market decline. Also, include sale date, date offer received, listing date list price, lowered list price and any home equity loss paid.
For real estate information:
Letter from Realtor expressing his/her professional opinion of the overall decline in the market since time of purchase;
Copies of comparable sales (similar type homes) that were concluded within the past 6 to 12 months;
Number of current listings in various price ranges and number of days on the market;
Number of sales (year-to-date) in various price ranges and number of days on the market;
Number of sales during previous 2 years in various price ranges and number of days on the market;
Number of foreclosures (year-to-date) and same for previous 2 years; and
Current vacancy rates, and similar information from previous years.
NOTE: All items must be labelled with a table of contents.
More on the definition of community in a future posting.
- Reaction score
- 517
- Points
- 810
So the first thing is that comparing the two is comparing apples to oranges in a sense. Those moved under Section 208, as quoted above, are only those not entitled to a move via IRP (Section 209). So, at the end of the day, the majority of us will still need to depend on the TB to deem an area as a depressed market.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Capt Loadie:
That clears it up for me. Thank you.
That clears it up for me. Thank you.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
THE SUMMING UP...
Ref A: http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/documents/Perspectives_May11-e.pdf
B. ATI file # A-2010-00699
C. http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/English/CS.html#frmCurrentFormID
D. CFIRP 2009 Policy at http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/pd/rel-rei/aps-paa-2009/chapter-chapitre-08-eng.asp#art-08-02-13
I have been asked by my Member of Parliament to provide a synopsis of the HEA blanket denial for discussion in the House of Commons and a press release.
As such, I request that anyone affected by the denial of 100% HEA out of core (i.e. equity losses above $15 K) let me know your circumstances and if you are willing to be identified or not (your choice). I may be reached at [email protected] or (902) 466-4339.
I realize that it has been three years now since this issue began for most. To date, all levels of recourse have resulted in denial. The military grievance system does not have authority over Treasury Board approval, nor is there any (timely) mechanism to have Treasury Board accountable for using a blanket denial of CFIRP entitlements, even when provided with the requisite substantiation (even with CF Ombudsman, CFGBA and CDS recommendations). There does not seem to be any military method to provide "relief", although the CF is sympathetic to this situation. The same issue affects relocating RCMP members.
For those not affected, we are a small group of CF members who, have been denied our CFIRP entitlements. One major stumbling block is that a solution; in the words of Treasury Board has not been pursued “given other more pressing priorities and TBS conviction that there simply isn’t a big enough problem to justify a submission for a policy change.” (Ref A). The issue has been identified to the following institutions: DCBA, DGCB, CFGBA, CF Ombudsman, Member of Parliament, Minister of National Defence, CDS, President of the Treasury Board (Tony Clement), Jack Harris (NDP National Defence Critic). To date there has been no medial release or publication on this issue as all possible methods of resolution were conducted by affected members (to no effect).
The second major issue (in most applications for 100% HEA cases) is the definition of the term "community". Community is the term used in the 2009 and 2012 CFIRP policy (Ref D) . It is not defined by Treasury Board, and in their denials of the HEA applications, Treasury Board has swapped out the term "community" with "area". This lumping together of towns with larger areas has resulted in changes of average housing loss to go from the requisite average 20% loss threshold to 2-3% loss. This is the basis for the majority of the denials, and a major issue.
A thorough review of the term community (provided in applications), have approved GOC, Legal and academic definitions of community, none of which could possibly be construed as taken by Treasury Board to include an area. Further, smaller affected towns have been identified as "communities" officially by Statistics Canada as well as other Federal Agencies, including the Treasury Board. The president of the Treasury Board himself (Tony Clement) identified community as "being as large as a town" as an upper limit to a community.
Between 2007-2010 there have been 146 applications for 100% HEA (Ref B). Treasury Board has approved none, using a blanket decision that there are "no depressed markets in Canada". Note that the majority of cases were after 2010 and likely quite large.
The effects on each family are different; however by reviewing some of the HEA Grievances at the CFGB Website (Ref C) this issue is systemic, has resulted in losses over $100,000 in some cases, as well as multiple family, health, mental health and career issues.
I can assure everyone reading this message that the problem of loosing 2 years of after tax pay, certainly has affected our family in ways I could not have ever imagined. Fellow affected members have (as a result) divorced, declared bankruptcy and had career action.
As there are two main types of solution remaining, I am seeking your input to assist the Government of Canada to provide either the correct and intended Home Equity Assistance entitlement (retroactively), or a method of relief for those who have been negatively affected. These solutions may take two main options:
1. Addressing the issue in the House of Commons for debate and resolution, in an open and accountable forum; or
2. Federal Court of Canada litigation (a legal team has expressed interest in supporting our cause).
I would ask for your input and assistance with option 1 as it seems a logical next step in the resolution of this National Issue. My MP is willing to take this to the House of Commons on our behalf and requests that I collate the following:
Briefing Note;
Number of affected individuals (awaiting ATI return); and
Points of contact for affected families willing to speak on the subject.
That being said, I will be providing my name and particulars as well as collating a BN for the MP.
Whether you have a stake in this fight or not, I would implore everyone (military or civilian) reading this chain to make their opinions known to their Member of Parliament. Contact information for your MP may be found at: http://www.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainMPsCompleteList.aspx?TimePeriod=current
Remembering that this is an approved entitlement, not something extra we are seeking. Realistically, that a solder has to take action over three years, to get his approved entitlements is outrageous. By Treasury Board changing the terms of the policy retroactively in order to deny all applications defeats the purpose of the CFIRP, the NJC Relocation directive and the laws of justice.
Thank you.
Ref A: http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/documents/Perspectives_May11-e.pdf
B. ATI file # A-2010-00699
C. http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/English/CS.html#frmCurrentFormID
D. CFIRP 2009 Policy at http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/pd/rel-rei/aps-paa-2009/chapter-chapitre-08-eng.asp#art-08-02-13
I have been asked by my Member of Parliament to provide a synopsis of the HEA blanket denial for discussion in the House of Commons and a press release.
As such, I request that anyone affected by the denial of 100% HEA out of core (i.e. equity losses above $15 K) let me know your circumstances and if you are willing to be identified or not (your choice). I may be reached at [email protected] or (902) 466-4339.
I realize that it has been three years now since this issue began for most. To date, all levels of recourse have resulted in denial. The military grievance system does not have authority over Treasury Board approval, nor is there any (timely) mechanism to have Treasury Board accountable for using a blanket denial of CFIRP entitlements, even when provided with the requisite substantiation (even with CF Ombudsman, CFGBA and CDS recommendations). There does not seem to be any military method to provide "relief", although the CF is sympathetic to this situation. The same issue affects relocating RCMP members.
For those not affected, we are a small group of CF members who, have been denied our CFIRP entitlements. One major stumbling block is that a solution; in the words of Treasury Board has not been pursued “given other more pressing priorities and TBS conviction that there simply isn’t a big enough problem to justify a submission for a policy change.” (Ref A). The issue has been identified to the following institutions: DCBA, DGCB, CFGBA, CF Ombudsman, Member of Parliament, Minister of National Defence, CDS, President of the Treasury Board (Tony Clement), Jack Harris (NDP National Defence Critic). To date there has been no medial release or publication on this issue as all possible methods of resolution were conducted by affected members (to no effect).
The second major issue (in most applications for 100% HEA cases) is the definition of the term "community". Community is the term used in the 2009 and 2012 CFIRP policy (Ref D) . It is not defined by Treasury Board, and in their denials of the HEA applications, Treasury Board has swapped out the term "community" with "area". This lumping together of towns with larger areas has resulted in changes of average housing loss to go from the requisite average 20% loss threshold to 2-3% loss. This is the basis for the majority of the denials, and a major issue.
A thorough review of the term community (provided in applications), have approved GOC, Legal and academic definitions of community, none of which could possibly be construed as taken by Treasury Board to include an area. Further, smaller affected towns have been identified as "communities" officially by Statistics Canada as well as other Federal Agencies, including the Treasury Board. The president of the Treasury Board himself (Tony Clement) identified community as "being as large as a town" as an upper limit to a community.
Between 2007-2010 there have been 146 applications for 100% HEA (Ref B). Treasury Board has approved none, using a blanket decision that there are "no depressed markets in Canada". Note that the majority of cases were after 2010 and likely quite large.
The effects on each family are different; however by reviewing some of the HEA Grievances at the CFGB Website (Ref C) this issue is systemic, has resulted in losses over $100,000 in some cases, as well as multiple family, health, mental health and career issues.
I can assure everyone reading this message that the problem of loosing 2 years of after tax pay, certainly has affected our family in ways I could not have ever imagined. Fellow affected members have (as a result) divorced, declared bankruptcy and had career action.
As there are two main types of solution remaining, I am seeking your input to assist the Government of Canada to provide either the correct and intended Home Equity Assistance entitlement (retroactively), or a method of relief for those who have been negatively affected. These solutions may take two main options:
1. Addressing the issue in the House of Commons for debate and resolution, in an open and accountable forum; or
2. Federal Court of Canada litigation (a legal team has expressed interest in supporting our cause).
I would ask for your input and assistance with option 1 as it seems a logical next step in the resolution of this National Issue. My MP is willing to take this to the House of Commons on our behalf and requests that I collate the following:
Briefing Note;
Number of affected individuals (awaiting ATI return); and
Points of contact for affected families willing to speak on the subject.
That being said, I will be providing my name and particulars as well as collating a BN for the MP.
Whether you have a stake in this fight or not, I would implore everyone (military or civilian) reading this chain to make their opinions known to their Member of Parliament. Contact information for your MP may be found at: http://www.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainMPsCompleteList.aspx?TimePeriod=current
Remembering that this is an approved entitlement, not something extra we are seeking. Realistically, that a solder has to take action over three years, to get his approved entitlements is outrageous. By Treasury Board changing the terms of the policy retroactively in order to deny all applications defeats the purpose of the CFIRP, the NJC Relocation directive and the laws of justice.
Thank you.
Similar threads
