Allowances - Post Living Differential (PLD) [MERGED]

[donaldk]

What boggles my mind is how the system is trying to recover 13 years when already a previous grievance cites a 6 year recovery limitation, and current tax laws permit 10 years max for adjustments after the former 6 year limit was bumped in 2004.  This is on top of what already has been brought up in here about RMS.

10 year limit on tax adjustment/recovery: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/gncy/cmplntsdspts/lmttnprd-eng.html

Formerly was 6 years: http://www.ipolitics.ca/2013/04/30/cra-racing-to-collect-tax-debt-before-10-year-limit-expires/

I had my share of pay errors like most on here and sometimes they were not hard to fix with the RMS folks, and others had to be taken up direct with the centre.  My last pay error was in my favour and occurred when I CT/OT'd from a ResF MS IPC 4 to RegF SLt pay group D IPC 3.  CT cell messed up the ETP message, which caused HRMS to change my rank directly from MS to SLt, and not go MS -> NCdt -> A/SLT -> SLt.  This caused the programming for CBI 204 provisions relevant to SCP/UTPNCM to not kick on and I was on a basic pay rate at $2400/month for 1 year instead of $5000/month.  After dealing with the BOR at S90, I got fed up, reviewed the MHRRP and called DMPAP at the 1 year mark, sent them my ETP and pointed out the CBI, and a friendly civi on thier end pointed out the clerical mistake in the ETP message by email.  Using this email chain I replied to DMCA 7 who subsequently amended by ETP 4 times over 3 months and apologized by a follow on email for the mess up.  In this entire process, no RMS clerk was of useful assistance!  

 

[DAA]

I had my share of pay errors like most on here and sometimes they were not hard to fix with the RMS folks, and others had to be taken up direct with the centre.  My last pay error was in my favour and occurred when I CT/OT'd from a ResF MS IPC 4 to RegF SLt pay group D IPC 3.  CT cell messed up the ETP message, which caused HRMS to change my rank directly from MS to SLt, and not go MS -> NCdt -> A/SLT -> SLt.  This caused the programming for CBI 204 provisions relevant to SCP/UTPNCM to not kick on and I was on a basic pay rate at $2400/month for 1 year instead of $5000/month.  After dealing with the BOR at S90, I got fed up, reviewed the MHRRP and called DMPAP at the 1 year mark, sent them my ETP and pointed out the CBI, and a friendly civi on thier end pointed out the clerical mistake in the ETP message by email.  Using this email chain I replied to DMCA 7 who subsequently amended by ETP 4 times over 3 months and apologized by a follow on email for the mess up.  In this entire process, no RMS clerk was of useful assistance!

If I'm reading this correct, it looks like your issues were with DMCPG 5 (formerly known as DMCA 7) but still, your local OR could and should have provided help.  Yes, ETP/Tranfers messages are a "sticking" point, right across the board.

But something that will probably "shock" you.....your Broker at DMCPG (DMCA 7) and the people you were dealing with through the process........probably weren't RMS Clks, believe it or not.

 

[TwoTonShackle]

What boggles my mind is how the system is trying to recover 13 years when already a previous grievance cites a 6 year recovery limitation, and current tax laws permit 10 years max for adjustments after the former 6 year limit was bumped in 2004.  This is on top of what already has been brought up in here about RMS.

$51,000.00 / 12 Months / $660 PLD Halifax Zone = ~6.4 years of PLD.

I don't remember when the PLD increased to it's current rate, but this is around what PLD currently pays out over ~6 years.  Bottom line it would be nice to see this system take the hit for this oversight, but you have to wonder how many cans of worms that would in turn open up.

 

[Strike]

$51,000.00 / 12 Months / $660 PLD Halifax Zone = ~6.4 years of PLD.

I don't remember when the PLD increased to it's current rate, but this is around what PLD currently pays out over ~6 years.  Bottom line it would be nice to see this system take the hit for this oversight, but you have to wonder how many cans of worms that would in turn open up.

They are recovering the amount after taxes.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Nuances, QR&Os, NDA and whatever else you want to throw into it.

Before taxes, after taxes, claimed losses and gains, in the end, none of it has anything to do with the situation.

Early on, the member identified a potential problem. He was told everything was okey dokey. He accepted the SMEs word, as is allowable.

15 years later someone decides there was an error. Instead of trying to figure who was at fault, and hold them accountable, they download it to the member.

That is pure, unadulterated bullshit.

If I was the person being persecuted, I would have my wife bring a suit against the Feds for malfeasants, financial abuse, loss of earnings, loss of use of earnings, court costs and interest to start.

Lawyers fees would eat up most of it, but ensuring that those putzes that made the initial and retroactive decision would be called and asked to answer for their total incompetence and total lack of compassion for a persons situation. Hopefully, it would effectively end their careers.

I hate faceless bureaucrats and bean counters.

This appears to be a scene straight out of Brazil -  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_(1985_film)

 

[Strike]

And was there never an audit done on this person's pay that might have caught this?  Heck, mine usually gets checked every three years or so, whether or not I'm posted.  In fact, it's usually because of these audits that I find I'm owed a few bucks here or there.

 

[Sub_Guy]

And yet I was just told that they are NOT going to follow up with the MATA/PATA claw back.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Because it's a political bomb waiting to go off and it shows total failure on the admin side. When the error was discovered and size realized, someone should have gone up the line and said "Boss we have a problem" At which point the seniors should have weighed the consequences of the various option. This is the stage that divides the leaders/thinkers from the process monkeys. Sadly more and more systems are designed for the benefits of process monkeys and poorly thought out databases rather than for people who know their jobs and take pride in doing it well. 

 

[Shamrock]

Can the individual not make a claim for this under the DAOD 7004 series?

 

[CountDC]

The question on when did he move there and did he notify the pay office is a good point and raises another question.  Was he moved there by DND?  If he was then it should have been picked up at that time that he was moving to a location outside the boundaries and proper steps taken then - ie the request and approval to live outside the boundaries needed in order for DND to move him there.  If he moved there on his own after PLD was started for a residence within the boundary and didn't notify the pay office at the time then that changes things and puts more of the onus on him.

It sure would be interesting to see the entire file on this case.

recceguy:

"Early on, the member identified a potential problem. He was told everything was okey dokey. He accepted the SMEs word, as is allowable."

I don't see that anywheres, am I just missing it or are you mixing up someone elses case?

 

[Crispy Bacon]

I wonder how this member's case will play out considering this announcement from CMP.

 

[donaldk]

I wonder how this member's case will play out considering this announcement from CMP.

As your other post mentions PLD errors for specific zones in Ontario, I think DND will continue to dig a hole into this PLD case.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

$51,000.00 / 12 Months / $660 PLD Halifax Zone = ~6.4 years of PLD.

I don't remember when the PLD increased to it's current rate, but this is around what PLD currently pays out over ~6 years.  Bottom line it would be nice to see this system take the hit for this oversight, but you have to wonder how many cans of worms that would in turn open up.

Halifax PLD is $631 month.  Might change the math some.

 

[Sigs Pig]

An update

N.S. navy family facing $51K clawback wins small victory
Leading Seaman Jeffrey Rissesco being forced to pay back housing allowance

A member of the Canadian navy living in Nova Scotia is getting a slight financial reprieve from the $51,000 the military is trying to claw back from his pay.

The wife of Leading Seaman Jeffrey Rissesco says the military now says they are only pulling back six years of housing allowance, rather than 11.

"The payment order is still in effect, but it has been reduced," Leah Rissesco says. "I guess that shows a spirit on both ends of making some efforts towards having this fixed."

Rissesco says the total amount is now likely less than $30,000, but the whole financial mess still feels like a "kick in the guts" for her and her husband.

"It’s hard to have strength when you’re not getting any answers," she says. "It seems like they’re only paying attention now to kind of keep us appeased at the moment. Who knows where it’s going to go."

Her husband started collecting a housing allowance called the posted living differential in 2001.

Leah Rissesco says there wasn’t a problem with the supplement until 2012, when the military decided their Vaughan, N.S., home lies 300 metres outside the boundary that determines who qualifies.

The military has been clawing back the money, putting the family in dire financial straits just a couple years before Rissesco is due to retire.

Rissesco was forced to sign over his $25,000 severance and his wages are being garnisheed.

CBC News

ME

 

[DAA]

The thing I see, something such as this, is not limited to just this one person or two or three.  There are alot more out there, who are receiving PLD and actually have no entitlement to it.  So until DND/CF decide to initiate a complete audit, it really can't be considered as a "systemic" issue and therefore won't be considered for write-off.

http://army.ca/forums/threads/115131/post-1309172#msg1309172

Of the three overpayment issues addressed in the link above, the first one was a system/programming anamoly so really no ones fault but the other two could probably be attributed to "human" error".  All three of which are apparently being "waived" but then again, the dollar value is relatively low and could be considered negligible.

Regarding Land Duty, Aircrew, Sea Duty and other environmental allowance calculations.  I brought up a calculation anomoly to DCBA over 5 years ago, that their spreadsheet/taught methodology didn't conform to the regulation the way it was written and the result was the potential for "underpayments" occurring.  Which I still believe may be happening today.  They told me to "stick it where the sun doesn't shine".........

 

[Ostrozac]

Question -- are the geographic boundaries of our various garrisons completely harmonized with the PLD zones? And if so, then shouldn't an adjustment to a boundary definition result in a recalculation of PLD for the entire zone?

I'm thinking that, since Garrison Halifax believed that the member in question lived within the PLD zone, then his house value (and those of his neighbors) would have been included in the data that led to the PLD rate. Remove that neighbourhood, and the PLD rate for the entire area would have been calculated based on bad data.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

The thing I see, something such as this, is not limited to just this one person or two or three.  There are alot more out there, who are receiving PLD and actually have no entitlement to it.  So until DND/CF decide to initiate a complete audit, it really can't be considered as a "systemic" issue and therefore won't be considered for write-off.

http://army.ca/forums/threads/115131/post-1309172#msg1309172

Of the three overpayment issues addressed in the link above, the first one was a system/programming anamoly so really no ones fault but the other two could probably be attributed to "human" error".  All three of which are apparently being "waived" but then again, the dollar value is relatively low and could be considered negligible.

Regarding Land Duty, Aircrew, Sea Duty and other environmental allowance calculations.  I brought up a calculation anomoly to DCBA over 5 years ago, that their spreadsheet/taught methodology didn't conform to the regulation the way it was written and the result was the potential for "underpayments" occurring.  Which I still believe may be happening today.  They told me to "stick it where the sun doesn't shine".........

DAA- I just forced an audit of both my SDA and Aircrew allowance, because neither made sense, based on the CBI.

It took me a year to get the audit results (which had to gomto Ottawa), but the bad news is that I have been overpaid nearly 1k of aircrew allowance.

The good news is that they have underpaid my SDA to the tune of nearly 5k. 

 

[DAA]

DAA- I just forced an audit of both my SDA and Aircrew allowance, because neither made sense, based on the CBI.
It took me a year to get the audit results (which had to gomto Ottawa), but the bad news is that I have been overpaid nearly 1k of aircrew allowance.
The good news is that they have underpaid my SDA to the tune of nearly 5k. 

I'm happy for you, take the money and run, run fast......and far.......  But the probable truth is, you were most likely not overpaid ACA.  Just a thought......

 

[421_434_226]

Hmmmm, wonder if I should get an audit done on the PLD I use to receive when in North Bay, you know DAA that $6/month that we use to get. 

 

[cupper]

DAA- I just forced an audit of both my SDA and Aircrew allowance, because neither made sense, based on the CBI.

It took me a year to get the audit results (which had to gomto Ottawa), but the bad news is that I have been overpaid nearly 1k of aircrew allowance.

The good news is that they have underpaid my SDA to the tune of nearly 5k. 

But in their infinite wisdom, they will pay you the $5K you were shorted, then realizing that they forgot to deduct for the overage on the ACA will proceed to deduct $2K back over time, since you were really only supposed to be paid $4K in the first place. ;D