- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
In all likelihood, you will drive it, and be given X number of days to make the trip.
ltmaverick25 said:How about someone just coming out of school with no finances so to speak? No debt, but no cash balance either.
ltmaverick25 said:On a slightly different note, does anyone happen to know if one is being sent from Ontario to Victoria if sending your car is included in the move package. I know it has been discussed elsewhere, I did a search but the information conflicted.
9.3.02 Shipment of vehicle by commercial carrier
CF members must ship their PMV under the HGRS contract system when the service is available. Once HGRS has been contacted, CF members may be reimbursed actual and reasonable expenses, not to exceed HGRS contract rates, related to shipping their PMV by commercial carrier as follows:
Core benefit
Primary PMV including motorcycle (when the primary mode of travel to the new location is by commercial carrier.)
Custom benefit
Secondary PMV including motorcycle.
Personalized benefit
Additional PMVs including motorcycle.
Delivery of vehicle Actual and reasonable expenses, including a maximum of one-day meal expenses, associated with delivery and pick-up of vehicle to the point of shipment.
karl28 said:E.R. Campbell
I completely agree with on what you stated good points on all . Doesn't the American Military provide its housing for free to its troops ? I know that our troops make allot more money than the American counter but always felt the government could do something like this for the PMQ and single quarters .
Michael O'Leary said:First line of defence, have clear credit cards and talk to your bank about a line of credit when you discuss a pre-approved mortgage. At least that way you can't say you didn't do what you could to be prepared.
Relocation Directive - APS 2009
Chapter 9. Shipment of Household Goods and Effects (HG&E)
It appeared to me that this CANFORGEN indicates the IL&M policy is not changed from previous years in regards to members entitlements for receiving IL&M. The only difference is wording for a re-emphasis of the previously existing obligation on members to exercise due diligence in achieving a door-to-door move or minimizing the time of IL&M. If my reading of this CANFORGEN is correct, then as long as you have made my best effort to achieve a door-to-door move, then you are entitled to IL&M.CANFORGEN 078/09 CMP 034/09 011755Z MAY 09
AMENDMENT TO CANFORGEN 066/09 CMP 029/09 161423Z APR 09
UNCLASSIFIED
REFERENCE: CANFORGEN 066/09 CMP 029/09 161423Z APR 09
CANADIAN FORCES INTEGRATED RELOCATION PROGRAM (CFIRP) 2009
PARA 4 OF REFERENCE IS TO READ AS FOLLOWS: ALTHOUGH NOT A CHANGE TO THE CFIRP, THE INTENT OF ENSURING THAT CF MEMBERS EFFECT A DOOR-TO-DOOR MOVE HAS BEEN EMPHASIZED OWING TO AN INCREASING TREND TOWARDS EXTENDED ILM AND M
SIGNED BY MGEN SEMIANIW, CMP
MCG said:Passed this interpretation to Royal Lepage relocation folk, and they are sticking by their previous interpretation: if you don’t arrange the perfect door-to-door move, then you will pay for IL&M while waiting for your new residence.
MCG said:It appeared to me that this CANFORGEN indicates the IL&M policy is not changed from previous years in regards to members entitlements for receiving IL&M. The only difference is wording for a re-emphasis of the previously existing obligation on members to exercise due diligence in achieving a door-to-door move or minimizing the time of IL&M. If my reading of this CANFORGEN is correct, then as long as you have made my best effort to achieve a door-to-door move, then you are entitled to IL&M.
Passed this interpretation to Royal Lepage relocation folk, and they are sticking by their previous interpretation: if you don’t arrange the perfect door-to-door move, then you will pay for IL&M while waiting for your new residence.
jacksparrow said:The later clause covers such things as movers that won't unload or unpack on weekends and stat holidays, trucks delayed by the contractor to pick up/deliver other loads, etc.
This is being perceived as a change for two reasons. First, under CFIRP ILM & M up to 15 days was being approved by RLRS on our behalf. They came to understand the policy as providing an "automatic 15 day" entitlement and were briefing members that they could arrange their moves with 15 days in a hotel, no questions asked.
On a final note, we still have the ability to approve longer stays in ILM & M where circumstances warrant. Nothing has changed in that regard either. The bottom line is that people had lost sight of the fact that they are expected to make a door-to-door move and were making decisions that risked putting them into financial jeopardy. We want the policy to be absolutely clear what the government's part is in their move so that they can make informed decisions."
This is being perceived as a change for two reasons.
First, under CFIRP ILM & M up to 15 days was being approved by RLRS on our behalf. They came to understand the policy as providing an "automatic 15 day" entitlement and were briefing members that they could arrange their moves with 15 days in a hotel, no questions asked. This was never the intent, but we weren't aware that this was the way the policy was being briefed and applied to members.
Depending on family size and the location of the move, that was running at approximately $250 a day for a single member and upwards of $500-600 for a family of four. If you start multiplying that by 15 days and 15,000 moves you very quickly reach a very big number.
Secondly, and to a lesser extent, the notion that you would get 15 days seemed to be developing into an unfounded belief that it was a bottomless pit. We saw a huge increase in the number of people who made no attempt whatsoever to align their occupancy dates and incurred huge expenses for prolonged stays in hotels (up to 4 months in a couple of cases) and then were shocked to discover they were on their own for the vast majority of it. Thus, it seemed prudent to be absolutely clear insofar as the intent of the policy was concerned.
If you stop to think about it for a second, you will quickly see why this is and has always been the policy. Big numbers aside, the CF has no control over the personal decisions members are making WRT the disposal of one residence and the acquisition of another.
These decisions are frequently being made to permit folks to maximize profit from a sale and minimize their cost on a purchase. Lots of times people are choosing one home over another based on their assessment of the likelihood of making a larger profit on one versus the other. I have no difficulty with that.
But the Government of Canada shouldn't be subsidizing those decisions. The Government's responsibility is to move you from one place of duty to another as efficiently as possible but without passing on the costs to you.
Hence the door-to-door policy. When you decide to sell your house early because you get a fantastic offer, i.e. you decide to maximize your profit (none of which you're sharing with the CF) part of the cost benefit analysis should be what additional cost you take on (having nothing to do with the actual move) as a result.
If it works out to your advantage to sell once you've factored in the additional costs, go for it, but don't ask the Crown to pick up the additional costs so you can keep all the profits.
This is even more true when you consider the considerable number of options that are at members disposal to effect a door-to-door move without resorting to long stays in ILM & M, such things as Temporary Dual Residency Allowance (TDRA), Reverse TDRA, automatic IR for up to 6 months, etc.
The situation described of a CF member selling a house on 27 May and contracting for a house that would be available on 1 Jul actually gives an excellent example of why we're re-emphasizing the rules on ILM & M. He chose to have a house built that would not be ready until after 1 Jul and then he chose to sell his home because he got an excellent offer.
Both of those things are fine. But under what construct would there be an expectation that Canadian taxpayers, you and I, would pay for 33 days in a hotel so that he could turn a big profit on his house.
I don't begrudge him the profit, but when he is making the decision to sell
he should have been thinking, "hmm, my house won't be ready for 33 days, where am I going to live and what's it going to cost me to cover that period?"
(We have seen, for example, instances where people have arranged accommodations at the builder's expense as part of their contract.) If the answer to that question turns out to still be in his favour, he can sell, if it doesn't, then he may wish to wait for another offer that more closely matches the dates he will be moving.
On a final note, we still have the ability to approve longer stays in ILM & M where circumstances warrant. Nothing has changed in that regard either. The bottom line is that people had lost sight of the fact that they are expected to make a door-to-door move and were making decisions that risked putting them into financial jeopardy. We want the policy to be absolutely clear what the government's part is in their move so that they can make informed decisions."