Home Equity Assistance & "Military Families Pushed to Financial Ruin" (Merge)

[momtoprincesses]

I find it interesting that one or two posters here have the impression that if they put $20K worth of work into their home in the way of renovations, etc. that they should recoup all that money as well.

I don't know about others, but what got us on this one is that our IRP rep approved certain property improvements as being eligible for reimbursement under CFIRP.  There are very specific ones that they will consider a "capital improvement" and reimburse you for under certain financial circumstances.  They didn't amount to even half what we did invest, but we were happy about the possibility, especially since we were taking such a hit from the market.  But those with more power than she had turned it around and said no to that along with the 100% HEA that we applied for (and that she had expected for us to get). 

Live and learn... we'll most likely stick with renting until he is ready to retire, unless we find an amazing deal somewhere.

 

[Pusser]

I don't know about others, but what got us on this one is that our IRP rep approved certain property improvements as being eligible for reimbursement under CFIRP.  There are very specific ones that they will consider a "capital improvement" and reimburse you for under certain financial circumstances.  They didn't amount to even half what we did invest, but we were happy about the possibility, especially since we were taking such a hit from the market.  But those with more power than she had turned it around and said no to that along with the 100% HEA that we applied for (and that she had expected for us to get). 

Live and learn... we'll most likely stick with renting until he is ready to retire, unless we find an amazing deal somewhere.

Bit of a misconception here.  Brookfield/IRP cannot "approve" home improvements for reimbursement.  Home improvements are not reimbursed - under any circumstances.  All Brookfield/IRP can do is use the cost of eligible capital improvements to determine the "adjusted purchase price."  From there, they use the adjusted purchase price, compared to the actual sale price to calculate the loss.  That's it.

 

[going_broke]

So there is a CDS decision on grievance 2010-043 (http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/english/2010-043.html).  In summary, a file was submitted proving that the market declined by about 30%, but DCBA refused to send the file to TBS.

This was the CFGB finding and recommendation: "The Board recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) direct that the grievor's matter be submitted to TBS, with his strong support, for consideration of the grievor's request for a depressed market designation and reimbursement from his core benefit of 100 percent of the loss on his home."

And the CDS decision: " The CDS redirected the DGCB to review the adequacy of the HEA provisions with Treasury Board with respect to ensuring the aim of minimizing any negative effect on CF members."

Well... So is the file going to TBS or not?? Or is there going to be just another workgroup/commission? Does anyone know more details of this particular grievance?

 

[captloadie]

I can see TB backing down and reviewing all the cases submitted to them, but still saying no in the majority of cases. I wonder what the recourse is if/when the TB denies the HEA in this case.  With all the  CF options having been expended, what is the next step for members? A class action suit would be long and expensive, if there are even enough cases to form one. I remember once being told that individual CF members could not file suit against the crown while still serving, but this might have been more myth than fact.

 

[TimBit]

As well, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think collective action or recourse by members of the CF is forbidden.

 

[heavy reader]

So there is a CDS decision on grievance 2010-043 (http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/english/2010-043.html).  In summary, a file was submitted proving that the market declined by about 30%, but DCBA refused to send the file to TBS.

This was the CFGB finding and recommendation: "The Board recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) direct that the grievor's matter be submitted to TBS, with his strong support, for consideration of the grievor's request for a depressed market designation and reimbursement from his core benefit of 100 percent of the loss on his home."

And the CDS decision: " The CDS redirected the DGCB to review the adequacy of the HEA provisions with Treasury Board with respect to ensuring the aim of minimizing any negative effect on CF members."

Well... So is the file going to TBS or not?? Or is there going to be just another workgroup/commission? Does anyone know more details of this particular grievance?

I can see the decision/action cycle playing out here....should go something like this:

DCBA: Hey, TBS can you review these files?
TBS: No.
DCBA: OK. We tried.

Followed by radio silence.

One post indicated the possibility of class actions.  Before that discussion would take place, one would need to find out who is the authority in each case.  Is it the administration of the policy (DND's responsibility) or is it a policy issue (TBS issue).  This will vary by case (but there may be clusters in certain areas).

I had been advised that my case was sent to TBS for a "second look", however when I got my ATI request from TBS, they indicated that they have had no communications with DND on this issue. Interesting.

BTW- anyone spare some change for a lawyer?

If the redress system has been exhausted, there is the ombudsman. Failing that, if one were to litigate, you need cash.  I don't know of any lawyers who would do this pro-bono (but kudos to the lawyers who are helping our vets with their issues - seriously, thanks).

I would see that the issue would be between each member and the treasury board secretariat. This would seem to be outside of the military, but there would likely be political ramifications (i.e. posting to Shilo).

As there are 3-4 grievances at the CDS right now (on this subject), I think it would be prudent to see how they play out.  However, if you are affected, I would encourage some noise making in order to ensure that you (and those posted after you), don't have to deal with this for future postings.  If you have a problem that cannot be resolved within the normal procedures, grieve it so that those initial authorities at least know there is a problem!

How's my cynicism level?

 

[Strike]

BTW- anyone spare some change for a lawyer?

If the redress system has been exhausted, there is the ombudsman. Failing that, if one were to litigate, you need cash.  I don't know of any lawyers who would do this pro-bono (but kudos to the lawyers who are helping our vets with their issues - seriously, thanks).

You might not be able to find a lawyer to take this pro-bono but if the funds you are looking to be reimbursed for are taxable, as in considered a salary and included on your T4, then you can claim the lawyer fees on your income tax.

Haven't had to deal with this issue myself (knock on wood) so not too sure how those payments are handled.

 

[going_broke]

From the Ombudsman's report on Grievance Process (http://www.ombudsman.forces.gc.ca/rep-rap/sr-rs/gp-prg/doc/gp-prg-eng.pdf):

The Chief of the Defence Staff’s decision in a grievance is final and binding. It can, however, be challenged by an application for judicial review in the Federal Court of Canada. The National Defence Act and the Federal Courts Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7) set out the circumstances
and manner of a court challenge to a grievance decision and, during the course of a judicial review, the court is able to look at the entire grievance file.

 

[heavy reader]

Update:

For those affected by the HEA policy drag, note that round 2 of the pain is about to start. Just finished with a financial adviser and tax time this year will cost me an extra $5,800 out of pocket.

So, to summarize since posting season:

Lost $88,000 of my equity;
Got $15,000 HEA;
Lost approx $1,000 per month carrying the debt from HEA loss (total of $8,000 so far);
Hammered at tax time (HEA and CMHC are TAXABLE benefits) to the tune of $5,800; and
and waiting for the redress to come to completion (will lose about $25,000 if successful as this is another taxable benefit).

So far this posting has cost about $86,800 out of pocket...and counting. Thats 2 years worth of salary after taxes and only considers the financial cost.  Everthing else has gone for a dump.

Sure with the redress process was faster! (and yes I know the CDS has higher priorities like Libya). BTW, I did not win Lotto Max on Friday, what junk luck!


Other than that, things are wonderful! Keep smiling kids, the ride doesn't end just yet.

 

[rnkelly]

Curious about how to qualify for the first $15 000 HEA.

I haven't had any luck selling my condo at my old posting location for the last 10 months (currently at my new posting unaccompanied).  Asking price is currently below assessed value, approximately 95%.  So eventually when I sell for less than assessed and original purchase price how do I go about getting the first $15 000. 

80% of loss is covered by core up to $15 000, then custom/personal until exhausted right?  Is this portion all dealt with by Brookfield and if selling for less than 95% of assessed value does it need extra approval?  Then after this, apply for 100% recovery with the TB and wait to get rejected right?

My projected losses will range anywhere from $40 000 to $60 000 when I finally get it sold. 

 

[GINge!]

Keep your chin up Heavy Reader.

I am curious that TB finds that no market was depressed. I spoke with my realtor about this and it common knowledge among those in their field that Edmonton took a dive from 2007 to 2010. I know you were not in the city of Edmonton, but Edmonton has a web site that shows the appraised value of all homes. I'm sure there is a record of this somewhere, and I would expect your town to maintain a record of property tax assessments over the past 5 years. 

Surely the TB could not argue with city property tax assessments for every house on your street? BTW Hvyrdr - Mine was $470k in 2007, down to $350k in 2009. I don't think my house or your house was a unique situation. I put about $30k of sweat equity into my place, so I should break even this APS...just in time to buy in the soon-to-burst Ottawa market

The crux of the argument is to convince TB that the market is depressed. Make that your schwerpunkt.

 

[heavy reader]

Hey!
Good to hear a friendly voice.

The problem remains that TB has not even seen my file (nor anyones). TBS has told DCBA that there are no depressed markets and not to send them any files. DCBA then takes the HEA applications and denies them all based on this. My ATI request to TBS indicates that they do not communicate on this subject at all, aside from putting out the master policy.

It's not a question of proving the 20% loss for the affected community, its that they have created a catch 22. I.e. TBS says no depressed markets in Canada, however they will not review any applications which could change that assessment.

Last CDS grievance on the subj matter directs CDS to send the file to TBS for review (in accordance with IRP policy), however I do not believe that it forces TBS's hand in any way. They will likely say there are no depressed markets in Canada. Then the grievor is left with other actions outside of the grievance process.

Watch and shoot!

 

[heavy reader]

Curious about how to qualify for the first $15 000 HEA.

I haven't had any luck selling my condo at my old posting location for the last 10 months (currently at my new posting unaccompanied).  Asking price is currently below assessed value, approximately 95%.  So eventually when I sell for less than assessed and original purchase price how do I go about getting the first $15 000. 

80% of loss is covered by core up to $15 000, then custom/personal until exhausted right?  Is this portion all dealt with by Brookfield and if selling for less than 95% of assessed value does it need extra approval?  Then after this, apply for 100% recovery with the TB and wait to get rejected right?

My projected losses will range anywhere from $40 000 to $60 000 when I finally get it sold.

Hi there:

You can have a look at all of the comments posted and hopefully get some good ideas. Ensure you always go with policy as the primary source of info, above advice, so you don't get bleeped. Further, the policy I am dealing with is the 2009 policy and there may be some changes to this year's policy) so take note.

If your selling price is below the assessed value - you need to get approval for that or you may NOT GET ANY FUNDS! If you need some advice, send me an e-mail and I can point out the appropriate policy areas for you. I know for 2009 there was a percentage window that you had to stay within or else you needed a letter (I can provide you a template).

If you have done all of your homework, the $15K loss comes out of custom envelope and there is nothing special you need to do for it (aside from presenting the docs to IRP).

For anything above $15,000 it (normally) comes out of your envelopes until they are dry. You should apply for HEA right away as you can see how long you may have to fight for the reimbursement. I applied for HEA the day my house sold, but you need to get all of the legwork done in advance.

My HEA application was 88 pages long and provided information from the Realtor, city, bills, everything to ensure that all components of the HEA application were covered. Basically, I figured that they would not pay out, so I provided all of the information in the front end, so that when it became a redress, it just needed a cover sheet and it could stand on it's own.

The elements you need to include in your HEA should be included in the IRP policy for the year you were posted. Let me know offline if you need any templates or further information and I may be able to assist you. Remember, it is not the loss you got but the depressed market is (currently) described as a 20% loss for aggregate home sales in your town. Your realtor can build this for you. Probably a good first step.

Further, if you are at month 10, you will want to get this initiated before your relocation benefits expire, I believe there may be a timeline of 12 months, but you need to check with your 2010 IRP policy.

 

[going_broke]

So it looks like there is some movement on HEA grievances: http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/English/2010-012.html

The CDS agreed with the Board's recommendation to deny the grievance. The CDS also agreed with the Board's systemic recommendation and he directed the DGCB to review the HEA provisions with TB with a view to reducing the impact of losses on sale to a reasonable and minimally detrimental level. One issue for review is the definition of "community": using a large metropolitain area as a basis for defining a community would average out large discrepancies amongst the communities that make up the larger area. The CDS strongly support the grievor's case as a valid compensation as a claim against the Crown for the loss of equity not reimbursed under the CF IRP, and he forwarded the file to the DCCL.

Too bad the DCCL usually denies the compensation requests...

 

[heavy reader]

Referernce: DAOD 7004-0 at http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/dao-doa/7000/7004-0-eng.asp

It iwll be interesting if DCCL actually accepts these claims as their website specifically excludes claims with respect to relocation...Perhaps this is an oversight or there may a valid mechanism to address the claims (if not successful through TBS submission).

DAOD 7004 reads as follows (under definitions):

"Claims (réclamations)
Claims include requests for compensation to cover losses, expenditures or damages sustained by the Crown or a claimant, including requests or suggestions that the Crown make an ex gratia payment.
Claims do not include claims made under other governing instruments or policies, for example: under section 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (Equal Wages);
from a contract dispute;
for loss and recovery of money; for damage or loss to Crown servants' effects during travel or relocation that may be claimed under the public service or CF integrated relocation programs; and
related to bodily injury while on duty. "

Hopefully I am missing something here. Perhaps as the losses were not able to be claimed under CF IRP, that would allow DCCL to address those particular claims as directed by the CDS?

 

[going_broke]

I hope CDS has its own crew of legal advisers who would know the DAOD....  they way I read it is that "damage or loss to Crown servants' effects" are not covered...

 

[heavy reader]

Reference: Access to information request file # A-2010-00699

Just got the results of an ATI request (took 8 months).  Here is the breakdown of CF members who have applied for and been granted 100% HEA from core between 2007 and 2010.

2007/2008 (33 applied, 0 approved)
2008/2009 (49 applied, 0 approved)
2009/2010 (54 applied, 0 approved)

Shouldn't this be setting off alarms somewhere? There is an demonstrated requirement as the number of applicants is on the rise, there is an approved policy to assist those who need it and yet, there has been no-one approved for 100% HEA from core.

Comments?

 

[MJP]

Reference: Access to information request file # A-2010-00699

Just got the results of an ATI request (took 8 months).  Here is the breakdown of CF members who have applied for and been granted 100% HEA from core between 2007 and 2010.

2007/2008 (33 applied, 0 approved)
2008/2009 (49 applied, 0 approved)
2009/2010 (54 applied, 0 approved)

Shouldn't this be setting off alarms somewhere? There is an demonstrated requirement as the number of applicants is on the rise, there is an approved policy to assist those who need it and yet, there has been no-one approved for 100% HEA from core.

Comments?

It could be that the increase is statistically insignificant when compared to the number of posting for that year, or the number of applications has risen linearly in proportion to the number of postings for those years.  I couldn't tell you either way as the full set of numbers are not included in your post.  It would be better presented as a case if they were all from the same geographic region, but again I can't infer that from your number only the total number across the board.  Did you get any other numbers with your ATI that we could work with?

 

[heavy reader]

Reference: Access to information request file # A-2010-00699

Just got the results of an ATI request (took 8 months).  Here is the breakdown of CF members who have applied for and been granted 100% HEA from core between 2007 and 2010.

2007/2008 (33 applied, 0 approved)
2008/2009 (49 applied, 0 approved)
2009/2010 (54 applied, 0 approved)

Shouldn't this be setting off alarms somewhere? There is an demonstrated requirement as the number of applicants is on the rise, there is an approved policy to assist those who need it and yet, there has been no-one approved for 100% HEA from core.

Comments?

Reference: Depressed Housing Market RLRS Analysis-Edmonton - March 2009 CF IRP as found in Access to information request file # A-2010-00699


Oh yeah, the other thing that this particular ATI (ref) demonstrated was that the only policy clarification or research studies on depressed markets disclosed by the CF was an analysis conducted by Royal Lepage Relocation Services (RLRS) conducted in Edmonton (the city of, not surrounding areas) and using data from 2007 and 2008. 

How can that be used as substantiation for losses which occurred since then (i.e. 2009 and 2010)? 

Subject document contains anecdotal assessments from local appraisers in Edmonton and uses minimal evidence based information, rather it relies on grand economic inferences (probably taken from Wikipedia). It does, however show HEA losses of between $13,000 and $66,000 for military members in EDMONTON (again not the surrounding areas), showing again that there is a need to live up to the  policy.

All of the information from the ATI concerning policy clarification between TBS and DCBA had been removed citing sections 19,21 and 23 of the ATI act.

MJP, there were no other numbers provided for that portion. The issue is that there is a systemic denial of the HEA provision within the TBS.

OK, now comments?

 

[heavy reader]

Update:

Clarification and update may be found at http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/english/Publications_PerspectivesMay11.html.

In this update by the grievance board, they have found the problem and clearly laid it out. A good read for those affected. Hopefully there will be some tangible relief within the near future.

Good luck all.