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

[Pusser]

Although the CDS can order a review of the policy, he cannot actually grant the redress the grievor is asking for (i.e. reimburse him the additional $29K).  That authority lies solely with Treasury Board.

On another note, it's interesting that the griever denied a request for an extension by the IA.  This is seldom helpful.  The IA can often provide some helpful insight and recommendations on a grievance file.  Unfortunately, an IA may sometimes need more time than the 60 days allowed in order to staff the file properly.  If the IA asks for an extension, it is usually worth your while to grant it.  If you don't, then the file is simply closed and forwarded, as is, to the Grievance Board - without comment.  Then, the Grievance Board has to start almost from scratch and WITHOUT a time limit (i.e. denying an extension does NOT speed up the process).  Furthermore, the Grievance Board will often send the file to a subject matter expert, which coincidentally is often the IA (although to a different desk), for comment.  My advice (as someone who once granted an extension and then won a grievance) is that it is better to work with the system and grant them the leeway that they are asking for.

 

[dapaterson]

[ tangent ]
The problem that I encourntered was an IA who ignored the first 60 days, and when I contacted the individual responsible for an update (2 weeks after the 60 days) he requested and I granted a 45 day extension.  At that point, he had still done virtually no work on the file.

I found that forwarding our email chain (including his admissions of not working in the first 60 days and still not being ready, some 119 days after receipt of the file) to his supervisor (cc'ing him), and requesting resolution within 2 weeks, to be a very effective method to have my concern addressed.
[ /tangent ]


The grievance posted does not meet the NDA requirements to be a grievance, as it's appealing regulations made by TB - and the NDA states:

(2) There is no right to grieve in respect of
(a) a decision of a court martial or the Court Martial Appeal Court;
(b) a decision of a board, commission, court or tribunal established other than under this Act; or
(c) a matter or case prescribed by the Governor in Council in regulations.

 

[Pusser]

[ tangent ]
The problem that I encourntered was an IA who ignored the first 60 days, and when I contacted the individual responsible for an update (2 weeks after the 60 days) he requested and I granted a 45 day extension.  At that point, he had still done virtually no work on the file.

I found that forwarding our email chain (including his admissions of not working in the first 60 days and still not being ready, some 119 days after receipt of the file) to his supervisor (cc'ing him), and requesting resolution within 2 weeks, to be a very effective method to have my concern addressed.
[ /tangent ]

Under those particular circumstances, I fully agree with your course of action.

 

[captloadie]

DP - The Grievance board in several cases posted on the site this year has said that
c) a matter or case prescribed by the Governor in Council in regulations.
must have an explicit exclusion of something to make it non grievable. Reading the case summaries, many IA's have used this as an excuse not to hear a grievance, and it looks like the Board is now consistently saying there must be a specific exemption.

 

[heavy reader]

Hi folks:

Thank you all for your insights and experiences with the HEA policy.  Funny thing how these huge problems/inconsistencies don't attract the attention they deserve until they hit you or your peers/staff.

We're relocated now and learning to live with the financial impacts of the HEA loss ($88K - $15 K covered by IRP).  The redress is currently 65 days at the IA.

The move sucked (split load, leaky truck, damaged vehicle) but that's another thread.  Hey what else could go wrong?

UBIQUE!

 

[dapaterson]

DP - The Grievance board in several cases posted on the site this year has said that
c) a matter or case prescribed by the Governor in Council in regulations.
must have an explicit exclusion of something to make it non grievable. Reading the case summaries, many IA's have used this as an excuse not to hear a grievance, and it looks like the Board is now consistently saying there must be a specific exemption.

Apologies for missing your post two weeks ago.

The prolem with cost moves is that the rules are set by TB, making them "a decision of a board, commission, court or tribunal established other than under this Act;" .

Fighting QR&Os or other GiC items, on the other hand, is fair game unless prescribed.

 

[going_broke]

I am wondering, for all those who submitted grievances related to equity loss, what was exactly the matter grieved? Seems to me there are two possible ways to request 100% HEA:

  a.  Try proving that the market in particular location declined by more than 20%, and request 100% HEA
  b.  Request 100% HEA based on "exceptional circumstances" (CFIRP 2009, para 2.1.01)

In both cases the request has to go to Treasury Board - but, after talking to 1-800-GRIEVOR advisor (it was a Maj from DGCFGA), was told that a decision of a TB cannot be grieved.  That does not seem quite right to me, since the CFGB in case 2010-001 stated:

"A number of cases have been referred to the Board in which the Director General Compensation and Benefits (DGCB), acting as the Initial Authority, dismissed grievances on the grounds that the Compensation and Benefit Instructions (CBI) are Treasury Board (TB) regulations and that, consequently, a CF member could not dispute them through a grievance, in accordance with Queen's Regulations and Orders (QR&O) 7.01(1) – Right to Grieve. This paragraph reiterates subsections 29(1) and 29(2) of the National Defense Act (NDA), which stipulate that “there is no right to grieve in respect of … a matter or case prescribed by the Governor in Council in regulations.”

The Board firstly pointed out that TB regulations are not regulations made by the Governor in Council. In addition, the Board indicated that the DGCB’s interpretation of QR&O 7.01(1) is erroneous. This subsection does not prevent CF members from filing grievances against matters governed by regulations made by the Governor in Council. Rather, it enables the Governor in Council to make regulations excluding specific matters or cases from the grievance process. There is no regulation made by the Governor in Council that excludes matters or cases governed by the CBI on the grievance process"

I sent an e-mail to treasury board asking if Edmonton has fallen yet into a category of depressed markets, and, after bouncing around, reply came from Director Canadian Forces Relocation Program: "Treasury Board has stated that there are no depressed markets in Canada".  Unless TB monitors housing market in every single community that CF members are posted, how can they state that?  If TB simply is guarding the public purse - well, CF Grievance Board in one of their earlier cases stated that fiscal considerations cannot be a reason for denying benefits, but again, CFGB and CDS have no jurisdiction over TB decisions and actions. 

Seems that the only way 100% HEA grievance could be upheld is by CDS referring the grievance to the litigation and compensations office, or whatever is that organizations that settles pain and suffering claims...

 

[heavy reader]

You seem to have reached the same conclusions as I did, however when I contacted Treasury Board and identified myself as a soldier, the advised me to talk to my union rep. :nod:

As for the grievances, the CDS cannot force TBS to pay out, but he does need to know what is going on with his troops.  That is one reason to send the grievance to the CDS.  Also, if there is a systemic problem, several redresses on the same issue will cross his desk and perhaps raise a flag.  Third, ombudsman will not consider reviewing your case until you have exhausted the CF Redress process (confirmed today by telephone).

So, after you get an answer back from the CDS, you could send a letter to your MP (could do that anytime however), and you can begin planning for litigation at the federal level.  Not sure if a class action is legal with troops, hopefully someone in the CoC will step up to the plate on this one.  Not sure about the finances of others who were affected by this issue, but I can't even afford to get my furnace fixed or buy winter tires :crybaby: - how the hell am I supposed to hire a lawyer for federal court?

As for your initial question - What was being grieved?  The fact that TBS has a blanket policy in place and is not honoring the 100% HEA from core even if you meet all the requirements set out in the policy.  My file never went to TBS, DCBA just applied the blanket policy, then returned the redress without further action. 
Wonder which of these guys have a "support our troops" magnet on their vehicle.

My advice, don't quit...ever. 

 

[heavy reader]

Please check out the poll for those who have applied for 100% HEA out of core.  The poll is anonymous, but could provide some insight on how big this problem is.  Thanks again everyone.

 

[Maritimegal]

Heavy Reader,

Where is the poll? Could you provide a link?

 

[Task]

Heavy Reader,

Where is the poll? Could you provide a link?

Top of the page

 

[George Wallace]

Heavy Reader,

Where is the poll? Could you provide a link?

It is at the top of this topic/page..............Look up.

 

[soontoretire]

"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?"


Ii am one to respect people's opinion but the comment above left me with a bad taste.  If this guy was in lost of near $100,000 he would be shaking in his pants.  Don't make comment that you can't support or when you don't know what you are talking about.  I paid a fortune for my home and I have no granite countertops or swimming pools or 4 bedrooms for that matters and not even a jucuzzi tub!  So until you walk in someone's else shoes for a day...I am bitting my tongue at what I would love to say to this guy...

 

[TimBit]

Ii am one to respect people's opinion but the comment above left me with a bad taste.  If this guy was in lost of near $100,000 he would be shaking in his pants.  Don't make comment that you can't support or when you don't know what you are talking about.  I paid a fortune for my home and I have no granite countertops or swimming pools or 4 bedrooms for that matters and not even a jucuzzi tub!  So until you walk in someone's else shoes for a day...I am bitting my tongue at what I would love to say to this guy...

Case in point, I don`t know how a cpl in Cold Lake on one salary could afford much more than a mobile home. Some sell for 120-150 thousand plus. You need close to 200K to get in a detached house, and we`re talking basic stuff here! Not everyone is lucky enough to be posted in a cheap area where you can get decent QoL for your family at a reasonable price.

 

[dapaterson]

Assume a $200K house.  Cpl (no spec pay) Basic is $4476 per month, or $53712 per year.  Assume a 6% fixed rate mortgage, with 5% downpayment.

Therefore:  Mortgage amount = $200K*95%*1.0275 (CMHC premium) = $195K

On a twenty five year amortization, the semi-monthly payment on that $195K mortgage would be $623.81, or 27.8% of income, well within the recommended parameters.

 

[GAP]

From the little exposure I have seen in house prices (mainly through MJPs moves), $200K isn't going to buy much these days that PMQ's wouldn't supply. (except maybe in Winnipeg and a few others).

my  :2c:

 

[dapaterson]

From the little exposure I have seen in house prices (mainly through MJPs moves), $200K isn't going to buy much these days that PMQ's wouldn't supply. (except maybe in Winnipeg and a few others).

my  :2c:

Yes, but it gets you into the marketplace, and building some equity.  My first purchase (a sub-$100K condo) provided the funds to act as a downpayment on my current house.  Paying PMQ rent gives you nothing at the end.

 

[GAP]

Granted, as long as you are going to be located in the general area long enough to flip through the various levels...

 

[TimBit]

Yes, but it gets you into the marketplace, and building some equity.  My first purchase (a sub-$100K condo) provided the funds to act as a downpayment on my current house.  Paying PMQ rent gives you nothing at the end.

Granted as well, that is why I am living in a small but owned condo right now. THAT being said, I would rather waste 200$ a month living in a Q (and I am generous here) than living in a small, inadequate, ugly house that my family would hate with a passion. It is my duty to them. Wouldn't you do the same? Now I am just saying that in some areas it is indeed difficult to find an ok house within ok prices.

Oh and also, the calculations you supplied would not actually work based on this calculator:

http://www.fcac-acfc.gc.ca/iTools-iOutils/Mortgagequalifier-eng.aspx

Remember that you must account for the heating and taxes in the GDS calculation, which must not exceed 32%. At 27.8%, ut is highly likely that heating and taxes will send you over 32%. I am also seeing there a mortgage payment of 1249 a month, well above what you put.

 

[dapaterson]

Note that my payment was semi-monthly, so we're in the same ballpark.

And yes, it would be tight as a Cpl IPC 0.  But my point was that it is possible, if difficult.  Add a second income (part-time at $10/ hour) and you've got another $10K or so per year.