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

[heavy reader]

Hey folks:

Looking to start a discussion on HEA (100% from Core).  Anyone out there get hosed this posting season?  I understand that several applications have been sent up and none have been approved.

What's my stake?  I lost my shirt this APS, proved the 20% loss in local market decline and was denied.  Further admin action is pending.  Trying to find some anecdotal insights from others who bought high and sold low.

Appears to be quite a situation where policy states you are covered, then "poof" everything you have is gone.  How are others holding up after 100% HEA is denied.  How has it affected your lives?

Once the first 100% HEA is approved by Treasury Board, it will likely open up the flood gates and blow their budget out of control, perhaps that's why no one is being approved, hmmmm?

I realize that this does not likely affect a great number of us, but those who get blindsided by this are in for one helluva ride.  I know of three between $60,000 and $100,000 loss with only $15,000 from Core and peanuts from the other envelopes.  This does not include those who got out in 2007 (highest year for attrition) due to the skyrocketing housing prices.

Looks like the CF retention plan is working.  Bankrupt the soldier so that s/he can't quit.  Nice.

I'd welcome any comments (posted here) or to my e-mail at i_win@live.ca (got the e-mail address before I got my HEA application denied).

Ubique!

 

[PuckChaser]

I remember a briefing a little while ago stating that HEA will only pay money if you sell the house for less than what you paid for it, not its market value.... I could be remembering that incorrectly.

 

[aesop081]

I remember a briefing a little while ago stating that HEA will only pay money if you sell the house for less than what you paid for it, not its market value.... I could be remembering that incorrectly.

I have been posted a few times since i joined and things were never based on market value. It was always based on assesed value and that usualy never came close to what you could sell it for.

 

[George Wallace]

I remember a briefing a little while ago stating that HEA will only pay money if you sell the house for less than what you paid for it, not its market value.... I could be remembering that incorrectly.

That makes sense.  Other wise we could see people in Pet who bought a house for $100K, put it on the market for $350K and the sell for $320K, then expect the Government to cough up the extra $30K that they figure they'd lost in the sale.  HEA is not another form of LOTO.

 

[armyvern]

I was under the impression that HEA was intended to offset losses for those who purchased "at fair market value [or assessed value??]" (not at "high"), but still had to sell at a loss.

Think it's bad this year?

Wait until those tax-free tours end next year and people start getting posted out of places like Pet and try to sell off their vastly inflated value homes. A very big bubble is about to burst in those military 'deployment towns' and there aren't a lot of people going to be posted in willing to purchase a 3 bedroom mobile home for circa ~250K anymore ... HEA won't help them either as they bought at vastly inflated prices and not at fair market values.

Should get interesting.

 

[captloadie]

Here is what was required to prove a case from last year's IRP:

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:

1.Personal introduction including an outline of changes in the local economy evident during the time at origin.

2.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.

3.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.

4.For real estate information:
a.Letter from Realtor expressing his/her professional opinion of the overall decline in the market since time of purchase;
b.Copies of comparable sales (similar type homes) that were concluded within the past 6 to 12 months;
c.Number of current listings in various price ranges and number of days on the market;
d.Number of sales (year-to-date) in various price ranges and number of days on the market;
e.Number of sales during previous 2 years in various price ranges and number of days on the market;
f.Number of foreclosures (year-to-date) and same for previous 2 years; and
g.Current vacancy rates, and similar information from previous years.

It looks like there is alot that needs to be done to prove one's case. Para 3 seems to indicate that the area has to be suffering pretty bad. I can almost guarantee that Edmonton, Calgary, Victoria, Toronto, Kingston, and Halifax will never be considered depressed areas, simply because only the housing market is in decline. Most people are still employed, and people are still moving to these areas for work. Greenwood might be another story.

If that weren't bad enough, I think until we start to see point 4 f above begin to be a factor, the Treasury Board will not approve an area as a depressed market.

Part of me also has little sympathy for people who are taking 50-100k losses on a 400-500+ K home. That probably means that they bought a house they really couldn't afford in the first place. Did they need 4 bedrooms, granite countertops, swimming pools in the best parts of town, expecting to make big money on resale?

I'm now prepared for incoming rounds.

 

[heavy reader]

Here's how it played out in my situation.  Bought a house.  3 years later, posted.  Housing in the area dropped by more than 20% (average house selling price in the town).  IRP conducted their assessment (assessed value).  Sold within 95% of current assessed value, and incurred a loss of approx $90,000.  IRP covers 1st $15,000 out of CORE.  The rest comes out of the Custom/pers envelopes.  As these envelopes are quite small, I will be out of pocket for about $70,000.  That's about a years salary.

I was pretty torked when the req for HEA was denied, now I have to carry a $70,000 loss and come up with 5% down for a new house.  That's it in a nutshell.  No scope here of taking HEA as a "lotto", just trying to get by without having to declare bankruptcy (after 22 years service and saving like a scrooge).

And yes, I had considered the options of renting out (would be a montly loss vs a one time $70,000 out of pocket), posting turn down (which is now grounds for release and/or career action) and IR (which would see me away from my family until the housing market bounced back by 25% or so).  There's little room for manovre here, take the loss and be with your family or don't take the loss and loose your family.

Here's the real kicker - Treasury Board response to the application was "there were/no depressed markets in Canada".  How can they say that without assessing every town.  Doubt my application was even read at TBS.

COC,IRP, SISIP, peers are all sympathetic, but no-one is going to bat on this.  Will advise of any develpments.

In the meantime, I would like to hear from any others affected - what's your story?

 

[heavy reader]

Perhaps TBS could look into Home Equity Insurance product.  A US company has started such a monster and (at first glance) could offset these major losses.  If it were implemented in areas which were deemed overinflated (major bases or areas such as Vancouver), it COULD be effective.  Could be linked with those areas with a high Cost of Living (PLD) as assessments for housing prices are already done for those areas.  Even if it were an option for the relocating member to "opt in" for $5,000 from their own pocket, it could fill the need.

Here's a link I found with the pilot project in the states: http://www.homepriceshield.com/how.htm . I haven't seen anything like this avail in Canada though.

After all, CF IRP policy allows for Mortgage protection for the banks on our mortgages (CMHC/GENWORTH).  Why not protect the relocating member with a similar product/insurance? 

As for the number of forclosures being a factor in delcaring a depressed market, is it relevant?  An average  20% decrease in local home prices since the time of purchase sets the bar pretty high, considering the older HEAP program had the bar set at 10% market decrease, which was later removed after the SCONDVA report studied it and recommeded it's removal.  So why, all of a sudden has it gone from 10%, to 20%.  IMHO, cost savings for TBS.

 

[dapaterson]

1.  The Government of Canada self-insures; that is, it doesn't buy insurance products for its assets.

2.  The GoC would not take out insurance on private property of its employees or service members. 

3.  If such insurance products are on the market, it would be the individual's responsibility to take out such insurance.  The insurance fees might be reimbursable.

4.  On the other hand, asking the Crown to cover off any losses without limit could arguably get the Crown to request a share of any appreciation - sharing of risk/reward.


Looking at the numbers you provided and doing a bit of reverse-engineering, I'm estimating you bought at $375K, had it assessed at $300K, and sold at $285K.  Not unreasonable amounts.

 

[RUNRMAC13]

We received 100% reimbursement for HEA in the summer of 2008.  We lived in Windsor, ON and my wife was posted to CFB Esquimalt.  The IRP reps in Esquimalt said we were the first case they had seen where 100% HEA was given.  We purchased our home in Windsor December 2006 for $133,000 and had it up for sale April 2008.  It was assessed at $127,000.  We ended up selling it for $113,000, a $20,000 loss.  We had only lived there for 1.5 years, but Windsor experienced a significant downfall to its economy during that time.  Our realtor had to put together a package for TB that included everything listed above.  It took over 3 weeks to hear back, but in the end we got the 100%.  They covered up to what we had purchased the house for and we actually received a cheque in the end with the difference we had paid off the mortgage.

 

[Sprinting Thistle]

Here's how it played out in my situation.  Bought a house.  3 years later, posted.  Housing in the area dropped by more than 20% (average house selling price in the town).  IRP conducted their assessment (assessed value).  Sold within 95% of current assessed value, and incurred a loss of approx $90,000.


Out of curiosity and to add context to the post, what market is this?

 

[Maritimegal]

My family is facing a similar situation. We were posted to Edmonton in 2007 at the height of the market. We didn’t wish to buy a home, but there was a 2 year wait list for PMQ’s ( when I asked why there was no vacancy, one CFHA rep said many military began moving into the Q's in the spring because they were selling their homes) and the vacancy rate in Edmonton was 1%. Finding an apartment was even an impossible task.  My husband was denied his request to stop his posting to Edmonton.

Interestingly enough, they stopped posting soldiers to Edmonton later in the summer. After looking at all options, we decided to purchase a home outside the city limits as it was more affordable ie. 346,000 vice ½ million dollars. Spending that much on a home was not something we ever wanted to do. The home we purchased was a simple 3 bedroom, one bath home that we had to put a lot of work into to make it marketable this year.

When we were posted, my husband was told to secure a residence, was denied a house hunting trip because he had to go to the field and I couldn't go because I was due to give birth any day. We began working with a real estate agent and there were literally no homes available. Homes would pop up on MLS and bidding wars would begin. 10 cars would line the street to make bids on homes. We ended up trying to bid on a few homes, but they would sell the next day. In desperation, we were lucky to buy our current home online sight unseen with the advice of a DND real estate agent and home inspection. For those who are reading this and think that who in their freaking right mind buys a home sight unseen, I could never fully describe to you the market and various pressures at the time. We were constantly being asked by my husband’s Chain of Command if we secured a residence and the IRP agent we spoke with said many families were doing the same thing including my military neighbour. As I mentioned renting was not an option. There was an extremely limited amount of rentals and the ones that did exist cost more than a mortgage, (not to mention the fact that rent was rising every month and there was no PLD until a year later). Our options were to rent a place we couldn't afford and go bankrupt slowly or overbid for a basic shelter over our heads.

Prior to moving to Edmonton my family lived very frugally with one vehicle and an affordable mortgage. We lived on a strict budget, had savings and bought most things for our kid’s second hand.

Our current situation is that my husband will now be heading out East on IR because we can’t afford to take the huge loss on our home. Our house has been listed for over 2 months and we have been told to list in the 280’s to have a better chance of selling. 280’s is still not even the appraised value we would need for TDRA! We are devastated at the thought of our family being separated for another year………..maybe two ………who knows. We were told our house is likely not to sell anyway because the market is over flooded. Renting is not an option as we will be renting at a loss and if there is any severe damage to the property we will fall further into a hole. We are in a situation where we have to choose between being together and facing financial stress or live separate for an undetermined amount of time until the market recovers (if ever!)

The military does a lot to work to improve the quality of life of its members. My husband is a proud soldier who takes pride in his service. We move around when were told because that’s his job. That being said, postings should not cause military families financial stress. The military knew the market was inflated and that housing was scarce. They were well aware PMQ’s and rentals were extremely limited. If the military did not want to reimburse 100% equity fine, but they should have made the call to stop ALL incoming postings in 2007 and advised soldiers NOT to purchase homes. Soldiers posted out that summer made a killing on their homes (kudos to them), but the military should have kept soldiers in Edmonton for one more year and things would have levelled out for everyone.

By the way, I take offense to the comment about HEA being a LOTO. I don’t see any comments about anyone here trying to profit off the sale of their home. All that soldiers are discussing is the need for fairness in being able to break even in a situation they otherwise never would have faced had they not been ordered to Edmonton, a city that  was over inflated market and had scarce rental accommodations.

Heavy Reader, thanks for your post. I know there are many other members out there in the same situation. I know some people have been advised to file bankruptcy. How is that fair?

 

[armyvern]

My family is facing a similar situation. We were posted to Edmonton in 2007 at the height of the market. We didn’t wish to buy a home, but there was a 2 year wait list for PMQ’s ( when I asked why there was no vacancy, one CFHA rep said many military began moving into the Q's in the spring because they were selling their homes) and the vacancy rate in Edmonton was 1%. Finding an apartment was even an impossible task.  My husband was denied his request to stop his posting to Edmonton.

Interestingly enough, they stopped posting soldiers to Edmonton later in the summer. After looking at all options, we decided to purchase a home outside the city limits as it was more affordable ie. 346,000 vice ½ million dollars. Spending that much on a home was not something we ever wanted to do. The home we purchased was a simple 3 bedroom, one bath home that we had to put a lot of work into to make it marketable this year.

When we were posted, my husband was told to secure a residence, was denied a house hunting trip because he had to go to the field and I couldn't go because I was due to give birth any day. We began working with a real estate agent and there were literally no homes available. Homes would pop up on MLS and bidding wars would begin. 10 cars would line the street to make bids on homes. We ended up trying to bid on a few homes, but they would sell the next day. In desperation, we were lucky to buy our current home online sight unseen with the advice of a DND real estate agent and home inspection. For those who are reading this and think that who in their freaking right mind buys a home sight unseen, I could never fully describe to you the market and various pressures at the time. We were constantly being asked by my husband’s Chain of Command if we secured a residence and the IRP agent we spoke with said many families were doing the same thing including my military neighbour. As I mentioned renting was not an option. There was an extremely limited amount of rentals and the ones that did exist cost more than a mortgage, (not to mention the fact that rent was rising every month and there was no PLD until a year later). Our options were to rent a place we couldn't afford and go bankrupt slowly or overbid for a basic shelter over our heads.

Prior to moving to Edmonton my family lived very frugally with one vehicle and an affordable mortgage. We lived on a strict budget, had savings and bought most things for our kid’s second hand.

Our current situation is that my husband will now be heading out East on IR because we can’t afford to take the huge loss on our home. Our house has been listed for over 2 months and we have been told to list in the 280’s to have a better chance of selling. 280’s is still not even the appraised value we would need for TDRA! We are devastated at the thought of our family being separated for another year………..maybe two ………who knows. We were told our house is likely not to sell anyway because the market is over flooded. Renting is not an option as we will be renting at a loss and if there is any severe damage to the property we will fall further into a hole. We are in a situation where we have to choose between being together and facing financial stress or live separate for an undetermined amount of time until the market recovers (if ever!)

The military does a lot to work to improve the quality of life of its members. My husband is a proud soldier who takes pride in his service. We move around when were told because that’s his job. That being said, postings should not cause military families financial stress. The military knew the market was inflated and that housing was scarce. They were well aware PMQ’s and rentals were extremely limited. If the military did not want to reimburse 100% equity fine, but they should have made the call to stop ALL incoming postings in 2007 and advised soldiers NOT to purchase homes. Soldiers posted out that summer made a killing on their homes (kudos to them), but the military should have kept soldiers in Edmonton for one more year and things would have levelled out for everyone.

By the way, I take offense to the comment about HEA being a LOTO. I don’t see any comments about anyone here trying to profit off the sale of their home. All that soldiers are discussing is the need for fairness in being able to break even in a situation they otherwise never would have faced had they not been ordered to Edmonton, a city that  was over inflated market and had scarce rental accommodations.

Heavy Reader, thanks for your post. I know there are many other members out there in the same situation. I know some people have been advised to file bankruptcy. How is that fair?

I've got to comment on the yellow bits. The  military did NOT create the housing market. They should have kept soldiers in Edmonton and NOT posted them out!?? What!!?? Some of those soldiers had been "stuck" there for 10 or more years --- it was their turn to go to a cheaper place and have someone else replace them. And they did their expensive 10 years with zero benefit of PLD.

Experts have been saying for years "the housing bubble is going to burst" ... and it is beginning to happen. It is not just happening to soldiers. It is happening to Canadian homeowners almost everywhere. This is not, and was not, a situation caused by the military or military service nor is it exclusive to military families. When people get into bidding wars and pay 10s of Ks MORE than the assessed value of a home ... well ... ... the bottom has to fall out sometime. Homeownership has always come with risks; you make money/you lose money - that goes for ALL Canadians. We've got it pretty damn good having the govnt cover for us what they DO because most other employers don't even do that.

Given that, I wonder how many pers would be willing to "pay back" the system 90% of any profit they make when they sell their home on a posting (say we get to keep 10% of "profit" for ourselves)?? But, we expect them to pay us back 100% if we lose on a posting? After all, given your line of reasoning that "the military posting caused this!!" <--- it follows that the "military posting therefore causes both losses AND profits". Shouldn't the profit then be theirs too if they are to pony up for the loss?

Your husband also had the option of going to Edmonton IR in the first place if you could not afford a home there. Three of my pers were posted to Edmonton from the East Coast in the same year you were; each went there IR due to the high housing costs. Yeah, I know IR is a sucky choice ... but it is a choice/option ... I'm on the third one of my career.

________________________

Many years ago, my parents didn't want to lose money on their house when my father was posted; they improvised. He had a young soldier working for him who was renting a basement apartment and essentially "paying someone else's mortgage for them". Problem was, the lad (with wife & 2 kids) couldn't "live" and simultaneously "save a downpayment". So dad says, "my mortgage is less than what you are paying in rent every month. Why don't you and your family move into my house and pay me rent for 10 months ... we'll then consider all that rent money that as your downpayment." They talked to the bank. The bank was good-to-go. After 10 months, the house was transferred over into the young lads name and the totals of his rent money for the 10 months was considered to be the downpayment by the bank. It worked out well for both and got a family (of a soldier at that)  into their own home that probably would have been years trying to scrimp up for that downpayment.

Kind of like a rent-to-own if you will.

 

[Occam]

Given that, I wonder how many pers would be willing to "pay back" the system 90% of any profit they make when they sell their home on a posting (say we get to keep 10% of "profit" for ourselves)?? But, we expect them to pay us back 100% if we lose on a posting? After all, given your line of reasoning that "the military posting caused this!!" <--- it follows that the "military posting therefore causes both losses AND profits". Shouldn't the profit then be theirs too if they are to pony up for the loss?

Joe Civvy that gets a job offer (or transfer offer, or offer of a better job with another company) gets a choice - move and suck up the loss on the home, or refuse the offer and continue on with their current job.  Similarly, someone from out of the area has the choice to either accept the job and pay a vastly inflated purchase price for a home, or keep their current job where they are and live in a realistic housing market.

The CF member doesn't get to do that.  He/she neither gets the option to remain in area indefinitely to avoid the loss, nor the option to refuse a posting into the inflated area.  Sure they have the option to release - but very few civvies get forced into that option, so why should the CF member?  I'll touch on IR later.

The notion that the CF should have any stake in any profit in the sale of the home is ludicrous.  The idea is that no CF member should be disadvantaged by a forced relocation.

Your husband also had the option of going to Edmonton IR in the first place if you could not afford a home there. Three of my pers were posted to Edmonton from the East Coast in the same year you were; each went there IR due to the high housing costs. Yeah, I know IR is a sucky choice ... but it is a choice/option ... I'm on the third one of my career.

And which marriage/relationship are you on now?  IR was supposed to be a temporary fix - not a method to help families avoid moving altogether.

 

[captloadie]

Let's move away from the whole the CF forces us to move debate and back to the topic. There is a policy, like it or not, that we all have to follow.

The 100% HEA was meant to be used in exceptional circumstances, hence the reason the need to provide a 3 inch binder worth of information. I think terming the HEA as a lotto was incorrect, however, it may have been seen as a crutch or rescue net for some who moved. Maybe it wasn't explained the best it could have been. With 20-20 hindsight, some people may have made a different choice.

I think many of us take home ownership as a right. We have often been insulated from the real costs and turmoil of the real estate market because DND does a rather good job of reimbursing us for all the moving we do. However, based on our salaries, should many of us be purchasing homes 5-7 times our annual salary with a minimum down payment and a 35-40 year mortgage?

To the posters who say they couldn't find a nice house under 300k when they moved, this should have been the first clue that sinking all ones savings into a single asset was a bad idea. Even renting a place for the equivalent of a mortgage would save some the huge losses they are going to take if they can sell their homes.

 

[George Wallace]

Joe Civvy that gets a job offer (or transfer offer, or offer of a better job with another company) gets a choice - move and suck up the loss on the home, or refuse the offer and continue on with their current job.  Similarly, someone from out of the area has the choice to either accept the job and pay a vastly inflated purchase price for a home, or keep their current job where they are and live in a realistic housing market.

The CF member doesn't get to do that.  .............

OK.  Yada. Yada. Yada. 

Point one was covered before, but once again, had the CF member made $100K or more on the sale of their home, as some have on posting, they would be celebrating, not complaining.  Hopefully they are wise enough to invest this wisely for any emergency or Real Estate downturn.  I am sure we can rehash Entering the CF and YOUR Money....   and reemphasize fiscal responsibility.

Point two:  Poor Joe Civvy does not get all his/her Real Estate, Movement, Legal Fees, etc.  reimbursed/paid for.  In the case of the OP, had he been a Civvy, instead of being out $90K, he could have been out several hundred K.

To be a little harsh, it has just been the luck of the draw.  How many postings have these people had, where they made money on the sale of a house compared to a loss?  Usually everything balances out in the end.  I do agree that at the end of 30 plus years of Service, this could be a real kicker. 
 

 

[Occam]

OK.  Yada. Yada. Yada. 

Point one was covered before, but once again, had the CF member made $100K or more on the sale of their home, as some have on posting, they would be celebrating, not complaining.  Hopefully they are wise enough to invest this wisely for any emergency or Real Estate downturn.  I am sure we can rehash Entering the CF and YOUR Money....   and reemphasize fiscal responsibility.

Who cares about the people who made money?  Again, the idea is that no CF member should be disadvantaged by a forced relocation.

Point two:  Poor Joe Civvy does not get all his/her Real Estate, Movement, Legal Fees, etc.  reimbursed/paid for.  In the case of the OP, had he been a Civvy, instead of being out $90K, he could have been out several hundred K.

No he wouldn't have - were he/she a civvie, they'd have stayed put and not carried out the move, period.  Unless forced by circumstances to relocate - and very few civilians are ever placed in that situation - the choice would simply be to remain in the existing situation until more equity was built in the home, or the market turned around.

To be a little harsh, it has just been the luck of the draw.  How many postings have these people had, where they made money on the sale of a house compared to a loss?  Usually everything balances out in the end.  I do agree that at the end of 30 plus years of Service, this could be a real kicker.

Who cares how many postings they've had where they made money?  That money wasn't paid out of government coffers, so it's irrelevant to the discussion.

Let's move away from the whole the CF forces us to move debate and back to the topic. There is a policy, like it or not, that we all have to follow.

The "CF forces us to move" debate is a core issue to the topic.  The policy that is in place is not fair nor suitable to the situations that the CF places us in.

I think many of us take home ownership as a right. We have often been insulated from the real costs and turmoil of the real estate market because DND does a rather good job of reimbursing us for all the moving we do. However, based on our salaries, should many of us be purchasing homes 5-7 times our annual salary with a minimum down payment and a 35-40 year mortgage?

To the posters who say they couldn't find a nice house under 300k when they moved, this should have been the first clue that sinking all ones savings into a single asset was a bad idea. Even renting a place for the equivalent of a mortgage would save some the huge losses they are going to take if they can sell their homes.

I was posted to Ottawa two years ago.  We purchased a modest "fixer-upper" in the east end for $265K.  Spent some money fixing it up to the same standard as the rest of the neighbourhood, which are $300-320K homes.  If I'm posted in two years, and the real estate bubble has truly just burst, then we have no hope of even breaking even on the home - and Ottawa is not a depressed area, although some might describe it as depressing.  If I'm still around in two years (and I have instructed my co-workers to kick my ass if that's the case), then I'll pull the pin whether I have a PS job or not.  I'll sell toilets at Rona and draw my CFSA pension before I move again.

 

[heavy reader]

One of the main themes in these discussions is that of fairness, equity and the military member's responsibilities.  There is a common thread which has been reviewed in the SCONDVA report, that the government is responsible and that the CF members do deserve protection due to the particularities of their work.

The arguments above are valid, but not new.  The rights and responsibilities of the CF and the relocating member have been previously made to SCONDVA, Treasury Board and Parliament .  The decisions for reimbursement allowances firmed up.  The end result is the policy which we have to go by.  This is the IRP policy.  So again, I ask, if a member meets the requirements (20 % depressed market), how can Treasury Board decree that there "were/no depressed markets in Canada", when the member provides proof.  Its great that there is a policy, it sets an expectation that the policy will be adhered to.  Lord knows that if the relocating member doesn't follow the policy for any aspect of relocation, they are held accountable.  How about the policy administrators?

This is a leadership issue that should be addressed with TBS.  Specifically as the promices of taking care of our members have been made by current and previous CDS, CMP etc.  Here's a non exhaustive list of some of those commitments to provide insight:

CANFORGEN 078/10 2010 (CF IRP)
CANFORGEN 130/09 CMP 056/09 201717Z Jul 09
National Defence.  Accommodation in support of the Canadian Forces: A Vision for 2020
National Defence.  Chief Review Services – Audit of Military Moves March 2007.  7050-10-2-4 (CRS). 
DAOD 5044-1 Canadian Forces Commitment to Families

Someone earlier asked what market I was in for my loss, it is Edmonton. 

 

[Maritimegal]

Your husband also had the option of going to Edmonton IR in the first place if you could not afford a home there. Three of my pers were posted to Edmonton from the East Coast in the same year you were; each went there IR due to the high housing costs. Yeah, I know IR is a sucky choice ... but it is a choice/option ... I'm on the third one of my career.

________________________

Just to put a spin on things here. Say my husband did go on IR to Edmonton for 3 years. They are paying to put members up in private accommodations with rent as high as 1800/mth plus Separation expense and low rate dinner allowance. Soldiers were put out of the shacks because accommodations were so limited. Over a three year period the costs would be around $80,000, less than the loss I am taking on my house. 

 

[armyvern]

...

And which marriage/relationship are you on now?  IR was supposed to be a temporary fix - not a method to help families avoid moving altogether.

You forgot that Joe civvy also has a choice when his employers tell him they are relocating him ... "Relcoate or be out of a job, and, do so without us paying a single thing for you. No real estate fees, nada".

Yes, you are correct, we have it soooooooo tough in the CF.  :

As for my relationship status - as if THAT has anything to do with the above - I'm on my second. The 1st marriages failure also had sweet fuck all to do with any IR posting. Had I stayed in that marriage another 11 months, we'd have experienced our 19th anniversary. is that a good enough answer for you??

By the way, I've got 22 years in and am on my 10th posting. 10 pack up and move postings. Using IR as a method to haelp my family avoid moving all together?? You obviously do not know my family very well.  :  3 IRs out of 10 postings STILL leaves my family moving seven times in the last 22 years ... I guess that indeed makes it the "temporary fix" that it was supposed to be eh??  :

The sense of "entitlement" amongst some these days is atrocious. My question on giving back the "profits" of home sales was rhetorical ... I knew damn well that people would NOT be good to go with that. Quelle surprise ... NOT.