Good2Golf said:
Seen.
As PMedMoe says, BGRS in this context is the civilian company that is mandated to provide relcation services to CF members on posting that in years past were provided by CF clerks. Starting with Royal Lepage Relocation Services then by Brookfield Global Relocation Services, the military posting/relocation services were devolved through the alternate services delivery (ASD) trend that began in the 90's. Apprently, the ASD intent for relocation services was to provide BETTER services for LESS MONEY. "Some" have found that their "mileage may have varied" with the actual services provided when compared to when the military provided its own services.
Regards
G2G
In answer to the OP's question, your first course of action is to approach the landlord and ask for the money back. If they refuse, you can then approach BGRS for reimbursement. The regulations are quite clear that you are entitled to reimbursement of expenses incurred as a result of cancelled postings. See
CBI 209.9962 - Reimbursement on Postponement or Cancellation of a Posting, specifically:
(b) in respect of any amount the member has paid as a deposit or rent or in respect of any liability under a lease for accommodation the member was unable to occupy at the place to which the member was authorized to move prior to postponement or cancellation of the posting; and....
As someone who has been involved in the relocation business of the CF, both under the old system and under the IRP (Royal LePage and then BGRS), I can offer a little insight.
We all tend to look back through rose-coloured glasses and many folks will swear up and down that thing were better before the IRP. This was simply not true. Some parts may have been better, but other parts were quantitatively worse. The worst part of all was a lack of consistency. Every orderly room in the country (and we had a lot more of them then) interpreted regulations and policy differently and so folks on some bases were receiving things that folks on other bases were not. Furthermore, the regulations often could not keep up with the policy changes and so we were administering relocations based on stacks of CANFORGENS, while the CFAOs we should have been using simply gathered dust in a corner. This was all combined with an horrific lack of consistency out of DGCB that swung wildly between approving everything and approving nothing. It was a mess.
Out of this was born the Integrated Relocation (Pilot) Program. This was not a DND initiative, but rather a pan-government one. Although we move more people than anyone else, we are not the only federal government organization to do it and the Government wanted everyone under the same umbrella. It was not necessarily designed as a cost saving measure, but rather as a means of streamlining and simplifying things. One of the biggest goals was consistency. Another goal was to formalize and properly approve policies which were being used, but technically didn't exist (e.g. reimbursement for home inspection and pet shipment fees wasn't actually an approved policy, but we managed it by using the Special Powers of the Minister (CBI 209.013)). Yes, the Minister had to approve Fido and Fluffy's trip to a new home. Obviously, this was not the best way to do this. The process of instituting the IRP brought many things into line and formalized what had in many cases been "ad hoc" benefits. However, there was some negative fallout in that certain benefits, which had previously been tax-free became taxable. The fact is, they should have been taxed all along and so our benefits had actually been in violation of the Income Tax Act. At least the didn't collect any taxes retroactively!
Based on my observations, we came out ahead on this. Although there are frustrations (particularly where things
seem to have gotten worse), I would say that overall we have a better, more flexible package with more consistency than we had before the IRP.
