Yeah, and the policies you based your mortgage on 3 years ago are once again the opposite of what is rewarded.
New IRP / Move policy-effective Dec 01, 2017 [Merged]
- Thread starter paws
- Start date
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,781
- Points
- 1,160
The new SIT policy, if it is being interpreted correctly, is simply right out of it. Basically, if you're F & E goes into SIT and remains there more than the approved/covered # of days...you will be billed for the loading back onto truck, etc.
If you are within the approved/covered # of days...the cost is billed to your move. WTF?
If you are within the approved/covered # of days...the cost is billed to your move. WTF?
- Reaction score
- 1,781
- Points
- 1,140
Where do you see that interpretation?
Does anyone have any experience with the new local move policy in 1.1.05(1)(a) where a cost move can be authorized if the old workplace and the new workplace are more than 40km apart? As written, this seems to authorize cost moves in certain circumstances when a member is moved within the NCR, which always used to be a flat out no cost move. For example, DHTC and 1600 Star Top Road are 52 km apart.
Am I reading this incorrectly? Are such cost moves actually happening? Or are Career Managers lily-padding members to get around the 40 km? "Here are your two no-cost moves: first you go to Carling for a day, then you report to 1600 Star Top"
Am I reading this incorrectly? Are such cost moves actually happening? Or are Career Managers lily-padding members to get around the 40 km? "Here are your two no-cost moves: first you go to Carling for a day, then you report to 1600 Star Top"
- Reaction score
- 1,781
- Points
- 1,140
I would say that a posting within the NCR would be a prohibited posting. To be eligible to the CAFRD, you need to be NOT prohibited from moving your HG&E, your new workplace be at least 40 km away from your current workplace AND your new residence be at least 40 km closer to your new place of duty (compared to your old residence).
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,781
- Points
- 1,160
This is what more than one person is being told by both BGRS and Base F & E Sections. It's a discussion on a social media site (FB) group with military families helping each other thru the processes. I've no vested interest, personally, but...like many people on the site, I advised to request clarification via DCBA thru to their Relocation Coordinator.
- Reaction score
- 1,781
- Points
- 1,140
That is interesting. If you read the policy it states:
“SIT at the member’s expense is limited to the maximum number of days of basic coverage under the HG&E RSC. The member is responsible to coordinate delivery of their HG&E before that period of basic coverage expires. The member is responsible for all subsequent HG&E storage costs after that period of basic coverage ends.”
It mentions storage costs, not loading/delivery/unloading.
“SIT at the member’s expense is limited to the maximum number of days of basic coverage under the HG&E RSC. The member is responsible to coordinate delivery of their HG&E before that period of basic coverage expires. The member is responsible for all subsequent HG&E storage costs after that period of basic coverage ends.”
It mentions storage costs, not loading/delivery/unloading.
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,781
- Points
- 1,160
Agreed; if enough people query DCBA, maybe they'll put out a bulletin so the intent is clear.
Our last move, our F & E was in SIT a few weeks longer than covered (new home); the company didn't charge anything so we didn't get a bill from BGRS for additional SIT. If there was a SIT charge, we still wouldn't have paid for the load truck/delivery/unload as it is part of the contract. We would have paid, based on the weight and rate per 100lbs only.
Our last move, our F & E was in SIT a few weeks longer than covered (new home); the company didn't charge anything so we didn't get a bill from BGRS for additional SIT. If there was a SIT charge, we still wouldn't have paid for the load truck/delivery/unload as it is part of the contract. We would have paid, based on the weight and rate per 100lbs only.
- Reaction score
- 822
- Points
- 1,240
Halfway through our move process and so far this is far and the CAFRD is much improved over the implementation of the last CFIRP update with those relo cards and other policies IAW our experiences to date.
- HHT was smooth. no major issues,
- House Purchase was smooth and it's nice to now have the MDI reimbursed to FTHBs.
- Pet expenses now being covered by CAFRD, great to see it,
- Our packing is going smooth, and
- Advances, claims have been processed much faster than before.
- Reaction score
- 423
- Points
- 780
What I have been reading from the online forums and social media is that the TB policy is being strictly enforced, at the insistence of the TB. There may be some very valid reasons for this, as I have been also been reading many comments on these same sites for the last 2 or 3 years on how more and more members are moving away from the intent of the door to door policy.
The CAF has contracts in place with moving companies that set out specific timelines that the contractor must meet, certain standards of service, for a fixed amount. The CAF wants to also be able to hold these contracted companies accountable when they don't meet the agreed upon terms. However, contracts are a two way street. The contracted companies higher staff, subcontract parts of moves, and calculate space requirements based on the information provided to them by F&E. They also expect to be paid additional fees when the CAF requirements are outside the standard terms of the contract, especially when they are being held more accountable for their service levels. I believe that in the past, if pan-CAF there were a small majority of moves that required leaving SIT greater than the contracted days, companies either waived the fees, or F&E sections just paid the bills, as the effort to track one or two individuals down for relatively small sums of money wasn't worth it.
Now though, where it might have been an exception to leave items in SIT for unseen circumstances, members are actually building that into their move plans. House is being built and won't be ready for 2/4/6 months, I'll just leave it in SIT and stay at a Air BNB or friends. RHU isn't ready, or I'm way down the list, no problem, I'll leave my items in SIT until it becomes available so I don't lose Pri 1 status. Individuals booking moves without an address at destination, because, hey, stuff can just stay in SIT. They plan this because they have heard that either no one has ever had to pay the additional storage fees, or at worst, the fees are relatively small and they'll just claim it on taxes if not reimbursed. But there is a cost to the contracted company to have to wait, reschedule, higher staff outside normal move windows to deliver and unpack. And it impacts other DND and private moves, thus potentially incurring penalties. So they want to be paid.
When in the past these "abuses" were studied, what happened? A crack down in policy, and a loss of benefits for the member. Everyone remember the inflexible door to door move policy because it was perceived individuals were abusing the 10 days of ILM? This I think is a similar, though fairer, crackdown, if one needs to happen.
All that said, it doesn't address the the underlying problem at the root of this, which I would predict is:
1) unaffordable housing markets in many CAF locations;
2) a lack of available RHUs;
3) an unwillingness to go unaccompanied or IR, based on family needs and current policy.
If we work on fixing these three items, perhaps it would fix the above issue in most circumstances.
The CAF has contracts in place with moving companies that set out specific timelines that the contractor must meet, certain standards of service, for a fixed amount. The CAF wants to also be able to hold these contracted companies accountable when they don't meet the agreed upon terms. However, contracts are a two way street. The contracted companies higher staff, subcontract parts of moves, and calculate space requirements based on the information provided to them by F&E. They also expect to be paid additional fees when the CAF requirements are outside the standard terms of the contract, especially when they are being held more accountable for their service levels. I believe that in the past, if pan-CAF there were a small majority of moves that required leaving SIT greater than the contracted days, companies either waived the fees, or F&E sections just paid the bills, as the effort to track one or two individuals down for relatively small sums of money wasn't worth it.
Now though, where it might have been an exception to leave items in SIT for unseen circumstances, members are actually building that into their move plans. House is being built and won't be ready for 2/4/6 months, I'll just leave it in SIT and stay at a Air BNB or friends. RHU isn't ready, or I'm way down the list, no problem, I'll leave my items in SIT until it becomes available so I don't lose Pri 1 status. Individuals booking moves without an address at destination, because, hey, stuff can just stay in SIT. They plan this because they have heard that either no one has ever had to pay the additional storage fees, or at worst, the fees are relatively small and they'll just claim it on taxes if not reimbursed. But there is a cost to the contracted company to have to wait, reschedule, higher staff outside normal move windows to deliver and unpack. And it impacts other DND and private moves, thus potentially incurring penalties. So they want to be paid.
When in the past these "abuses" were studied, what happened? A crack down in policy, and a loss of benefits for the member. Everyone remember the inflexible door to door move policy because it was perceived individuals were abusing the 10 days of ILM? This I think is a similar, though fairer, crackdown, if one needs to happen.
All that said, it doesn't address the the underlying problem at the root of this, which I would predict is:
1) unaffordable housing markets in many CAF locations;
2) a lack of available RHUs;
3) an unwillingness to go unaccompanied or IR, based on family needs and current policy.
If we work on fixing these three items, perhaps it would fix the above issue in most circumstances.
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,781
- Points
- 1,160
Good points.
My last move (last fall, actually), the company and Destination F & E were very forgiving. We were at the mercy of the power company to get power connected so the contractor, inspectors etc could finish everything and give us our Occupancy Permit. We had a realitively small move too (just over 7k weight). The moving company basically said we were lucky it was in the fall (outside peak time), and that the only real concern they had was if we said 'we can accept F & E on Day X" and then that shit the bed and they then had to unload/restore/re-load the truck again later. If that happened, then we'd of likely absorbed some additional charges. As we avoided that, no additional SIT charges fell on us (some luck/some design). If that all happened in July....potentially a more expensive outcome. We were already absorbing all the ILM and M out of pocket at that point, so some mercy was welcome.
My last move (last fall, actually), the company and Destination F & E were very forgiving. We were at the mercy of the power company to get power connected so the contractor, inspectors etc could finish everything and give us our Occupancy Permit. We had a realitively small move too (just over 7k weight). The moving company basically said we were lucky it was in the fall (outside peak time), and that the only real concern they had was if we said 'we can accept F & E on Day X" and then that shit the bed and they then had to unload/restore/re-load the truck again later. If that happened, then we'd of likely absorbed some additional charges. As we avoided that, no additional SIT charges fell on us (some luck/some design). If that all happened in July....potentially a more expensive outcome. We were already absorbing all the ILM and M out of pocket at that point, so some mercy was welcome.
- Reaction score
- 1,781
- Points
- 1,140
Tell me, in the policy, where it states that loading/transport/unloading must be paid by the member? It merely states that storage costs (in excess of TNL/IL&M) must be paid by member.
- Reaction score
- 423
- Points
- 780
The policy states that member must attempt to organize a door-to-door move to be eligible for the benefits. Other than door-to-door moves are made by exception. Therefore, by the black and white of the policy, members should not be entitled to the benefits if their personal circumstances fall outside these parameters. Because of the way that the policy is chunked up, you can be entitled to be reimbursed for parts of the move, but not others, if they don't fall within the policy.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should be forcing members to pay for anything other than additional SIT, but that means we need to change the policy. Or spell it out better in the current policy what a member forfeits when they go outside the parameters of policy and service contracts.
- Reaction score
- 1,781
- Points
- 1,140
If your F&E go into SIT for 7 days, DND would have to cover reload/move/unload. Not sure why they would not cover reload/move/unload for a SIT of more than is covered by the policy.
- Reaction score
- 423
- Points
- 780
W
Well, if the contractor wants to charge extra for the delay and hassle, and it is due to a member's personal choice, should DND pick up the extra charges?
- Reaction score
- 1,781
- Points
- 1,140
The member should pick up the cost above and over what would have been covered but no more!
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,781
- Points
- 1,160
I agree with SSM. The "load on truck, unload in mbr's house" was already paid for in the contract. The only additional charges should be "days in sit, by weight". Anything else is fleecing it, IMO.
The CAF RP didn't do much to help the mbr, IMO. Reduced ILM and M (the $$$ part)...reducted SIT...
The CAF RP didn't do much to help the mbr, IMO. Reduced ILM and M (the $$$ part)...reducted SIT...
Similar threads
