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

[762gunner]

    In Edmonton, had to buy a townhouse for $250k (leaving out details as to why, not important). Supposed to get posted, can sell for $220K.  Two years left in CE contract. CoC and CM saying get posted or get out, tough luck about the contract.  Not much choice there.  That's the military and Brookfield for you.  I almost agree, don't join the CAF.

 

[inndiera]

ok this might be a long shot:
can someone please explain in detail how is home equity assistance calculated? Just got an offer on a condo today, brookfield is closed till monday. It's abit of a low ball offer. Trying to come up w a counter offer, but the market is basically forcing me to sell at close to 20,000$ loss compared to purchase price. I read the brookfield relocation policies...but it's not very clear at all...The whole 80% from core...then the diff covered by customs envelope. I am ok w a loss on the place...but it would be good to know how much of a loss I will be taking and what my bottom line is...
Can someone please PM me and I can send actual numbers and figure out a counter? My deadline to return counter is sunday...brookfield is gone...so effing confusing....I am I am holding down two residences for 6 months already and the interest is hurting my frugal chinese soul!!

HELP!!!

 

[Occam]

I'm pretty sure this is how it would work for you if you lost $20K on the selling price from the buying price:

80% of $15K gets reimbursed from core;
20% of $15K gets reimbursed from custom;
remaining $5K gets covered if you can achieve the impossible and get TBS to declare your market a depressed area.

 

[heavy reader]

Update: http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2015/02/05/major-still-fighting-for-housing-compensation


HALIFAX - A report that is central to a dispute between military members and the federal government over housing compensation is deeply flawed and should be tossed out, says a 25-year veteran who claims the ongoing feud is devastating his family.

The study examined the housing market in Bon Accord, Alta., to determine if it was depressed from 2007 to 2010, when Maj. Marcus Brauer bought his home and then sold it at a loss after being transferred to a base in Nova Scotia.

The assessment, done by an appraiser for the Treasury Board, found the community did not meet the definition of a depressed market, which involves a drop of more than 20 per cent.

The finding angered Brauer, who said it is just another delay in a lengthy legal battle with the Treasury Board over compensation dozens of Forces members say they are unfairly being denied.

"I was absolutely livid that they're going out and again for the second time trying to reverse engineer the decision to negatively affect members," Brauer said Thursday in an interview from Vilnius, Lithuania, where he is on duty.

"I wouldn't say it's valid at all."

The finding is a critical part of a fight that has dragged on for five years between Brauer and Ottawa over military members' forced relocations and compensation they can receive for losses on the sales of their homes.

Brauer, a 43-year-old father of five, said he lost $88,000 when he sold his home in Bon Accord after being posted to Halifax, but was granted only $15,000 in compensation after the Treasury Board decided in 2012 it was not a depressed market.

Brauer, who said housing prices dropped 23 per cent over three years, took the matter to Federal Court a year ago and a judge ordered the board to review its decision, which he called "unreasonable."

Brauer and his lawyer, Dan Wallace, said this latest report excluded certain home sale numbers, included the wrong geographic location and used subjective data.

"We frankly don't think this report is any good," Wallace said.

Wallace sent his response to the report to Tony Clement, the minister responsible for the Treasury Board, but has not yet received a response. A spokeswoman for the Treasury Board would only say the review is continuing.

Wallace is also handling a proposed class action on behalf of other Forces members who have suffered financial losses after selling their homes.

New Democrat MP Robert Chisholm, who represents the Halifax-area riding where Brauer lives, pushed Clement in the House of Commons to make a decision without success. He says the board should compensate Brauer, even if it sets a precedent for other members.

"Even if that opened the door to other families, it's a drop in the bucket," he said. "They feel like they're fighting a losing battle, financially and otherwise."

At least 146 military families have had a fraction of their losses covered. Military officials have argued for years that the policy should be changed. The chief of defence staff, the military grievance board and the Canadian Forces ombudsman have all said the Treasury Board position is unfair.

"My family's been destroyed," Brauer said. "I can't carry the army's debt anymore."

 

[heavy reader]

Opinions from Canadians on the Systemic Home Equity Denial by TBS:

Comments from interview:

http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2013/02/07/the-emotional-financial-costs-on-military-
families-moving-frequently/

c_city: Toronto

d_region: Ontario

e_country: Canada

h_comments: Powerful interview this morning -- brought me to tears - listening to Major Marcus
Brewer (sp) talk about the losses, costs and challenges he and his family has faced - and the
source of comfort he tries to provide to other military in similar position. Thank you for sharing
this story -- it must have been difficult for him to break the facade - and show such vulnerability.
Vulnerability is key to our humanity - and connects us all -- no matter what our job, gender,
social or financial status. The willingness to speak up, let down our guard and let others in to
help - takes deep bravery. Hats off to him and CBC 's The Current. If there is contact info for
him to extend help - please let us know. Thank you .





c_city: Blenheim

d_region: Ontario

h_comments: I was listening to this on my way to work this morning and I was just outraged. I
personally know people, family members actually who work for the federal government, in very
high paying positions, that have requested transfers to other areas, to further their career
aspirations, and the government has paid for the move, paid the rent, and they were even given a
decorating bonus. If they chose to sell their previous home, to accomodate the move, the closing
costs and legal fees were paid on both the sale of their current home and the purchase of another.
Why? Because of the union agreement. Ridiculous waste of my money. Now you tell me, is this
fair?

I can't believe that someone that serves their country on the battlefield is worth less than
someone who serves their country at the computer in their office. This is a disgusting situation
and we should not be tolerating this If the government is going to spend my money, I want it to
go to the military families instead of an office worker. This has to change. We should be
ashamed of ourselves.

subject: Military Family Poverty



c_city: Ottawa

d_region: ON

h_comments: Hi,



I listened to your broadcast with interest. I was surprised to hear the government was planning to
reduce the moves as well.





I am married to a military member and have also had to deal with having to pay for my husband's
move. We are recently married and while we knew that we would be dealing with the moves and
separations we certainly didn't expect to have to pay for them. I am an aerospace engineer and
my husband is a junior NCO (non-commissioned officer) which to begin with, the military, even
nowadays doesn't actually deal with very well. Having the spouse at a higher wage/career level
isn't something that they are particularly prepared to deal with. So we knew we would have some
difficulty at posting seasons as my career is rather specific and not particularly transposable to
many places in the country. My husband had originally been told he would remain within
Ontario which we found good but then when the call came he was told he was going to Cold
Lake, Alberta and that it was non-negociable. At around the same time, he'd put in a request for a
remuster, but that wasn't being followed up in any kind of rush, at least not until there was
significant proding from his part. The remustering got lost in bureaucracy and he got posted to
Cold Lake. While I remained with my job and career (working for the military but at a much
higher level ironically) in Ottawa. In the end the remuster actually went through (a bit to our
surprise) and he ended back in Ottawa after a year in Cold Lake. During that year the military
did its utmost to get my husband to make me quit my job and career and move to Cold Lake and
get a job at Zellers. Since I didn't (it would have made no sense either financially or careerwise)
the pressure continued and that did nothing to help the fact that we were separated by over 3500
kms and in different time zones. As he was planning his move back, he was told to go over to the
contractor hired by the military to organize the moves of its military members and did so and
was assured by both military and the contractor that everything was taken care off and was fine
and that he needn't worry about it; it was the contractor's specialty and they had the expertise to
know what was required etc... And the move seemed to go fine. Until six months AFTER the
move back he got an email from the contractor stating that the contractor had actually approved
something that he wasn't entitled to, but that he should have checked all the regulations and
figured it out (despite essentially being told not to because that's what the contractor is hired to
do) and that we needed to pay back the $2300 that they claimed we owed them for the amount
the crown would not pay them. Since we refused to pay and argued back to we couldn't be held
accountable for something they had erred on, the bill actually went UP again to $2600. We filed
a claim against the charge since we feel we are being charged for something the contractor
messed up, but were told back in Ottawa by the office in charge of overseeing the contractor that
really we should have read up on all the regulations and done the math and looked into
everything to make sure the contractor was correct. This despite being told before to let the
contractor deal with it. Eventually the office in charge of the claims declared they could only talk
to my husband through his chain of command, who luckily for us did take it up, but they came
back and told my husband that the office in charge of dealing with claims were reluctant to take
the claim on because they had never had to deal with one so expensive and serious. So it was
sent to the back of the pile and we were told it would probably at least a year or two and they
garnished my husband's wages to get the money to give to the contractor.

The financial stress that ensued from them garnishing the wages for the next 6 months were
enough to cause my husband to break down as there was no forthcoming assistance in sight,
require counselling and was in no small part responsible for our eventual separation. As the
military still chooses to pretend there are no problems, and refuse to give the support that we
need either financially to recoup our funds or psychologically to try and hope to have our
marriage not break up completely, we have essentially been left to fend for ourselves. When my



husband requested help when he first started breaking down due to the stress, military sponsored
counselling was eventually offered to my husband but only six months later, at which point the
damage was already done. We ended paying for outside counselling out of pocket. Now the
military is providing counselling, but is also getting ready to post my husband again after two
years in Ottawa. We still haven't heard from our previous claim and the contractor in charge of
organizing the moving is still the same.

While I understand that there is a need to move members around, it's high time the military move
into the current century and review how it posts its members and how much it loses in terms of
expertise and money everytime it moves people around for the sake of moving them because
"that's the policy". Current technology advances mean that people can communicate much more
easily and that a lot of these moves are not actually required for anything except that "it's the way
it's always been done". People who sign up to the military essentially sign their lives away to
defend and fight for our country and they get little thanks in return for the commitment they
make.



I can only hope that things move in the right direction and that the 10% reduction announced is
only the begining of our military getting much better treatment and recognition.



Cheers,



subject: Military moving and its effect on families







c_city: vancouver

d_region: bc

h_comments: as i was listening to this report, the first and continuing thought was of the other
story about how Canada's senators are allowed to take advantage of a very generous housing
allowance. Normally, I do not have problem with the Senate and I have viewed it as a democratic
necessity, but lately it just seems that it is no more than a useless and expensive institution for
useless and expensive people. it is about time that this country treated its armed forces as well as
it does its senators.

subject: lack of support for the military



c_city: Victoria

d_region: BC



h_comments: I grew up in as an Army brat in the 60's & 70's. My father was a Sargent at the
time. We would move every 3-4 yrs. We never had a house and always rented. 5 kids and 2
adults in 2-3 bedroom PMQ's or small apartments.



One of the effects of all these moves on myself has been my inability to make long term
friendships. I learned early when I was young to not make friends in school or the
neighbourhood because I knew we would be leaving in a couple years. To this day ( I am now
55) I still have this problem with personal relationships.



Thanks

Richard

subject: Military Moves





c_city: Ottawa

d_region: Ontario

h_comments: I recently retired without regret after 32 years in the RCAF. The military life
allowed me to see every part of Canada and a good part of the world and to really appreciate
what we have at home. There were significant career costs for my wife and moving teenagers is
hugely stressful; but, on balance, it was a positive experience for my family.



Having lived in CF Married Quarters twice and bought and sold five homes, I fully sympathize
with the plight of your guest. We lucked out with market timing and were only out of pocket
about five thousand dollars on one house. I've known many members who were not nearly so
lucky.



The current home equity loss program is completely inadequate and an unfair burden on those
who cannot chose the timing of a move.



For those members who cannot afford a home at today's prices, Married Quarters are not much
of an option either. Early on in my career, monthly rents were entirely reasonable, especially
considering that most MQs were cramped, draughty, WWII era houses. Then, the CF decided to
make rents 'market driven', significantly raising the rents in high cost areas - for the same
cramped, draughty houses. Junior members who are now priced out of the housing market can
also ill afford an MQ in many areas. If they do take the plunge and buy, they stand to loose their
shirts if they have to sell at an inopportune time. Something has to change.



Thanks for bringing this topic up. No need to respond.

subject: Comment - Military Moves





c_city: Winnipeg

d_region: Manitoba

h_comments: I was appalled at what strikes me as a gross injustice practiced by the Department
of Defense in failing to provide adequate financial support to allow a normal family life for
people who are charged with the protection of our country. I suspect that members of the military
are well aware of the rationale for a large number of moves and go willingly where they are told
to go. However, it would appear from your interview that the financial support has not been
available. No wonder one hears about social problems within the ranks. What are the statistics
for divorce, alcoholism, drug use and family violence issues? These types of issues are often a
function of financial pressures within a family. Perhaps it is time for the Government of Canada
through the Department of National Defense to take specific action. In your interview, you did
indicate that someone is taking notice and trying to initiate changes. However, the wheels of
government tend to move slowly. Perhaps in this case the wagon needs more of a push! Thank
you for drawing public attention to this matter. Although I abhor violence I am not naive enough
to believe we can do without a national Defense system. We need to protect our country and it
takes committed people to ensure that protection.

subject: Military Moves and the Costs Interview with Major Brower(sp?)

 

[heavy reader]

A few more comments from Canadians:

c_city: Norwood

d_region: Ontario

h_comments: I served with the CF from 1963 to 1996, retiring as a senior officer. Over my
service we moved 11 times from the west coast to the east coast and back. Over those 33 years
we saw average house prices go from $30,000 to $250,000 in places we were posted to. We also
saw military housing built in the 1950's reduced, more and more members required to live on the
economy, and little new military housing provided. Military bases tended to be in depressed
areas of the country, but we still had members posted from rural bases to large cities with little
consideration to how the families were accommodated.



In 1963 few military spouses had employment and most families lived on the single military
income. By 1996 it was impossible to live adequately on the economy in most parts of the
country on a single military income. Officers were better able to adjust to the conditions, but the
salaries of the lower ranks were woefully inadequate. As a consequence many families were
forced to live separated or commute from great distances to afford to live reasonably well.



The military move compensation was never willing to keep up with the changing circumstances.
The move budget grew rapidly and in times of austerity it was a budget that was cut or reduced
to provide funds for other programs.





People were moved often to provide for career advancement. Generally commanding officers of
units were changed every two years and base commanders every three to four years. Lower ranks
were able to stay in one location longer, and officers who were not on a career track could also
remain in one location in many circumstances. Some officers and many other ranks could serve
in headquarters locations for many years if they were not on a career advancement track.



I seemed that the career advancement requirements drove many of the moves, but the
organization did not want to fund the full costs of this policy, particularly, the costs on the rest of
the family. This reluctance to fund rapidly rising family moving costs was tolerable in an
expanding economy and housing market, but in times of recession and falling house prices
severe economic challenges resulted. Being a solid bureaucracy, the military re-locations
managers had hard and fast rules and little wiggle room for extenuating circumstances. In the
meantime, career advancement had to go on or else the military would end up stagnating its
future leaders until the economy turned around. The end result was that the member and family
paid.



As a commanding officer family relocation issues were always top of mind. The unit
effectiveness is degraded whenever members are worrying about their family and not
concentrating on the mission. There was always a tension between the needs of many families
and what the system was ready to provide - and the tension was relieved through the sacrifices
many members and their families made for the mission. I will be honouring those sacrifices until
the end of my days.

subject: Military Moves







c_city: Toronto

d_region: Ontario

e_country: Canada

h_comments: Powerful interview this morning -- brought me to tears - listening to Major Marcus
Brewer (sp) talk about the losses, costs and challenges he and his family has faced - and the
source of comfort he tries to provide to other military in similar position. Thank you for sharing
this story -- it must have been difficult for him to break the facade - and show such vulnerability.
Vulnerability is key to our humanity - and connects us all -- no matter what our job, gender,
social or financial status. The willingness to speak up, let down our guard and let others in to
help - takes deep bravery. Hats off to him and CBC 's The Current. If there is contact info for
him to extend help - please let us know. Thank you .

subject: Military families/interview Feb 7th







c_city: London

d_region: On

h_comments: I listened with interest to your segment on the military families moving. I grew up
in the military as one of four children to a father who was a cook and after 25 years who rose to
the rank of Sergent. The bases we went to were Greenwood NS, Bagotville PQ, Sennitere PQ,
Val Dor PQ, NorthBay ON, Gander NFLD, Chatham NB, Chibougamau PQ, Ottawa ON,
Clinton ON, and when my dad retired we moved to London ON. We moved approximately every
2-3 years. A couple were only six months.

The effects it had on our family - were great. I loved it! New friends, new experiences, new
schools and new culturals were life lessons. Now retired, I have been looking back keenly on my
life experiences and have started a journal . I have even entered, this year, an essay into CBC
STORIES CONTEST. I wrote on my experiences in one of the bases. It is entitled "Life as an
Air force Brat - Chapter 5" - CFS Chibougamau. It was a high point of my life. Being 16 years
old, I was dropped into a totally different culture then what I experienced previously in CFB
Chatham New Brunswick.

subject: Canadian Military Families Moving







c_city: East York

d_region: ON

h_comments: I was horrified to hear the stories of Military families suffering huge economic
hardship because of relocations forced on them. Can this be? Here in Canada can we be
penalizing those who have taken on one of our countries most dangerous jobs? Our government
should immediately make legislative & regulatory changes so that no Military family is left
shouldering the expense of relocations. Shame on the Canadian Forces for treating their members
so unfairly.

subject: Military families moves



c_city: Niagara Falls

d_region: Ontario

h_comments: This is the first time I am writing in to provide comment on anything,,,, But it is so
frustrating to hear the additional sacrifies our military families have to endure, especially in light
of the recent controversy with the 'Senator's yearly $21,000.00" living expenses.... where is the
fairness

subject: Military Family







a_firstName: Julia

b_lastName: Armstrong

c_city: Toronto

d_region: ontario

h_comments: It makes no sense for someone who knows that they will be moving again soon to
purchase a home. It makes financial sense to rent under these circumstances. If one feels a need
to have a real estate investment, it would be more appropriate to invest in real estate mutual
funds instead. I am sorry for the situation the military folk have gotten themselves into
financially but they have not been given good financial advice if they have been encouraged to
buy a home in each new location they have been sent to. Home ownership is expensive and a
luxury and is not a guarenteed investment over the short term.

subject: Military families having to move





c_city: Petawawa

d_region: Ontario

h_comments: I'm a military spouse. I've lived at cfb petawawa for 3 years. We have yet to be
posted anywhere thus far. We have just recently purchased a home and what your guest was
saying makes me very nervous. Recently there have been cut backs to the programs which would
give the military members extra money while they are posted , this money is supposed to be used
to help the families who are waiting at another base for their homes to sell. Because this money
has been abused by spouses who are not willing to move and have no intention to sell their
homes, everyone is missing out on this. I have a college education and I cannot find a job in my
field. I am going back to school in the fall to get another diploma in hopes of getting a job that
pays more than minimum wage. The military wastes so much money on silly things like sending
the entire base across Ontario to show off to different towns while the military families are just
scraping by.

subject: Military moving







c_city: Peterborough

d_region: Ontario

e_country: Canada



h_comments: I just listened to the Military Officer who has lost over 2K from the multiple
moves. This man is not a private or a young man who is starting his career without any
responsibilities..This man has a wife and children.Is it not bad enough that we do not pay our
Military staff a livable wage that they don't have to use food banks? It takes a certain type of
person to join the military in the first place. Do we not have an obligation to ensure they are at
the very least to keep them whole due to the moves that are imposed on them?



Yes, moves are a part of Military life, but this should not crush them financially. It's just another
example of how little we value our military forces I found the story sad and wondering what I
could do to make a change. Good on him for coming out and speaking about it....I hope from this
he is reimbursed for his shortfall....For shame.....

subject: Military Families Losing Out.....Disgusting





c_city: Peterborough

d_region: On



h_comments: C'mon Anna Maria, this situation is not 'shocking'.

For years we've heard of shoddy treatment for family accomodations for our military. They are
treated just like our natives!Its embarassing and Harper should be ashamed.

subject: Military lives







c_city: Cormack

d_region: Newfoundland

h_comments: Just listening to your conversation with Major Marcus of the Canadian Armed
Forces regarging the financial burden placed on military families due to mandatory
moves/posting. I feel extremely saddened that this is happening in a country such as Canada.
Shame on the Government and shame on us, it's citizens, for expecting our men and women in
uniform and their families to bare the financial loss associated with the moves. We expect so
much from these brave people, and their sacrifice in the cause of freedom and justice has been
well noted. Is this how we say "Thank You?"

subject: Financial burden regarding Military moves

 

[heavy reader]

Meet the Ombudsman Shearwater MFRC
​
What’s your Beef?
Do you have concerns, questions or topics of discussion you would like to be addressed by the Canadian Forces Ombudsman? On March 4th Gary Walbourne, Ombudsman, will be holding a Town Hall Open Forum for military families and community members at the Shearwater MFRC from 6 to 8 p.m. This is a great opportunity to learn, share and make your concerns known and help make changes to your community. Child Care is available through pre-registration by March 2nd. For more information or to register please call 902-427-7788.

I will be there.

 

[heavy reader]

For those concerned with the Home Equity Assistance (past or present), below is an updated visit schedule for the CAF Ombudsman. Updates may be found at: http://www.ombudsman.forces.gc.ca/en/ombudsman-news-events-visits/visits.page


Visits to Canadian Forces Installations

The Ombudsman’s office is committed to connecting directly with constituents where they live and work. In this vein, the Ombudsman and his staff travel regularly to Canadian Forces bases and wings, where they meet with senior leaders, non-commissioned members of all ranks and occupations, military family members, health care providers, chaplains, social workers and civilian employees. These sessions are meant to provide information on the office’s services, to discuss issues of importance and to receive and document complaints. 


Upcoming
CFB Halifax and CFB Shearwater
Tuesday March 3, 2015
•Town Hall (Officers of CFB Halifax): 08:00-09:30 at the Stadacona room S32

•Town Hall (Chiefs and Petty Officers of CFB Halifax): 10:00-11:30 at the Stadacona room S32

•Town Hall (Master Seamen and Below of CFB Halifax): 13:00-14:30 at the Stadacona room S32

Wednesday March 4, 2015
•Town Hall (Civilians Employees of CFB Halifax and CFB Shearwater): 08:00-09:30 at the Stadacona room S32

•Town Hall (Family members of CFB Halifax and CFB Shearwater): 18:00-20:00 at the Shearwater MFRC

Friday March 6, 2015
•Town Hall (Officers of CFB Shearwater): 08:30-10:00 at the Sea King Club

•Town Hall (Jr. Ranks of CFB Shearwater): 10:30-12:30 at the Sea King Club

•Town Hall (Senior NCM's of CFB Shearwater): 13:00-14:30 at 12 Wing HQ

 

[McG]

With the government taking steps to be seen doing something for veterans, maybe next they will try to sort out this problem.  For now, it looks like they would rather spend more money saying no than it would cost to look after families.

Ottawa spends almost $65,000 on fight over home assistance for military members
Alison Auld
CTV News
13 Mar 2015

HALIFAX -- A Canadian Forces member who is locked in a legal battle with the federal government to recover $88,000 he lost on the sale of his home when he was forced to move says it's "unjust" that Ottawa has spent almost $65,000 fighting the case.

Maj. Marcus Brauer expressed his dismay Friday that the Treasury Board Secretariat has spent almost as much fighting the matter as he lost on the sale of his home when he was posted to Halifax from Bon Accord, Alta., in 2010.

"That they're paying any money to fight this is an injustice and it has had such traumatic effects on so many families," Brauer said in Halifax.

"All this to get the Treasury Board to follow their own policy, which is that soldiers don't have to pay out of pocket for relocation costs. It's unjustifiable."

The secretariat said Thursday that it has so far spent about $58,646 on the case, which includes $25,376 for Brauer's legal fees and disbursements, and $33,270 for the federal government's legal fees.

It also spent almost $6,000 for a third-party review of the housing market in Alberta that's at the centre of the dispute, making the total expenditure to just over $64,500.

The Treasury Board said in an email Friday that it was continuing its review and could not comment further. Treasury Board President Tony Clement said months ago that a decision would be coming "soon."

New Democrat MP Robert Chisholm, who represents the Halifax-area riding where Brauer lives, says the board should compensate him rather than fight it in the courts, even if it sets a precedent for other members.

"They haven't hesitated to spend money that should have been going to pay these amounts that Maj. Brauer and his family are entitled to," he said.

Brauer, a 43-year-old father of five, took the government to court last April to seek compensation for the $88,000 he lost on the sale of his home in Bon Accord. As a result, the Federal Court ordered Ottawa to review its decision to grant him only $15,000 to cover his losses.

Brauer's lawyer Daniel Wallace argued his client's losses should have been covered because there is a policy offering financial protection for military members forced to move from depressed housing markets.

Wallace argued that housing prices in Bon Accord dropped 23 per cent during the three years his client lived there, which is three percentage points above the 20 per cent threshold for a depressed market in the military's policy.

However, the Treasury Board Secretariat argued the municipality was part of the Edmonton market where housing prices dropped just 2.9 per cent.

The judge found the board failed to consider Brauer's contention that Bon Accord was a separate community of 1,500 with its own mayor and boundaries.

Brauer paid $405,000 in 2007 for the home in Bon Accord and sold it three years later for $317,000.

"We're just asking for what was just withheld from us so we can go back to where we were in 2010," he said. "This doesn't increase our wealth by any."

Wallace has also launched a proposed class-action lawsuit, which is still at a preliminary stage before the Federal Court.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/ottawa-spends-almost-65-000-on-fight-over-home-assistance-for-military-members-1.2278350

 

[ProPatria05]

So, here's my question. If you want to be fully compensated when you lose money on the sale of residence when posted, are you prepared to turn over the profits when you make money on sale of residence when posted? My point is that the majority of people make money when they sell their home on posting, yet nobody is lining up to turn those profits back over to Treasury Board.

If we truly want to be equitable, we'd keep a running total of profits and losses on postings over a member's career, and create some mechanism whereby a member is only reimbursed for any NET loss on home sale over the course of their career.

 

[Tibbson]

Others can speak with more passion on this issue then I can but it really has nothing at all to do with profits.  It has to do with not losing your shirt owing to a career in the military.  I purchased my home for $255,000 and after three years at my last posting I was told I was moving again.  Owing to market conditions it took 9 months to sell my house which meant I was on IR, away from my family for 6 months.  When the house finally sold it was for $242,500 which meant I lost $12,500.  Thats not $12,500 of potential profit, thats a net loss because my employer chose to move me.  I've known people who have had three moves in three years, a situation that could destroy a person financially unless there were some protections in place.  If after that same three years my home had appreciated in value or market conditions had resulted in a profit upon sale then that is no different than the navy types who had already spent 20+ years posted there and who bought their houses back then for $70k or so and now found the home worth $250k. 

IF, and thats a big if, the average person breaks even or makes money on the sale of their home when they are posted then good for them however if the situation results in a loss because the employer moves them than they deserve to be compensated.  Since you are unable to look into a crystal ball and determine just how long or short someone's career may be your career average theory just goes out the window. 

 

[Alberta Bound]

PP05

Sorry I have to disagree with your rationale. I have found that most govt employees (CF, RCMP, PS) that I have talked to who have had to make physical moves in their career usually "make" money on their house as the whole market goes up. In effect not really making money at all as the next house they buy has also gone up. Those that lose money usually lose due to a specific market losing value and they still end up paying an increased pricing at the next posting. Yes there are exceptions.

But career people who do 20 plus and numerous moves already sacrifice a lot financially, emotionally and family wise. Why should a high value area like this be a constant concern every time posting season comes around.

Most importantly. The policy was made considering that unavoidable losses should be covered. It is the misapplication of the policy that is the issue.

20 years, 7 moves, 3 house sales, 1 loss (20,000) mostly covered, 2 times in Crown housing, still got a mortgage that hopefully is gone by 25 years. Lucky never to have taken a big loss.  Why should I worry that being transferred once at the wrong time could kill me financially.

Sorry, your just wrong.

 

[ProPatria05]

So I'm "just wrong"....glad to see that there are only absolutes in the world, and that certain people's opinions are apparently undebatable. All I'm trying to do is take some of the emotion out of this and be somewhat logical. And I'm not an unaffected bystander - posted this summer for my 5th move, 4th home sale.

That said, I'm seeing two themes throughout this discussion:

1) If I make money on a home sale because my employer chose to move me then fair is fair, good for me, I keep all the money, and the government has no entitlement to it (nor should they, IMO). But If I lose money for the exact same reason, then woe is me, this is unfair, I keep none of the burden of loss, and the government owes me.

2) There is hardship associated with moving that I should be compensated for.

Ref #1, this makes no sense. However, I will agree that the 'depressed market' rules are probably not applied in many cases where they should be, and if this is the case then there is merit in compensating for the portion of the loss if the market you are selling in is way down when all other markets, including the one you're posted to, are steady or up.

What I'm suggesting is that aside from the above situation (which could be excluded from the equation), a member should have a kind of 'running total' with IRP or TB of home profits and losses. If you're cumulatively ahead, say, $20000 on 3 home sales and your next sale results in a loss of $5000, then your 'account' simply goes down by $5K to $15000, and you don't get any actual reimbursement. A safety catch would be that no member could ever go into the negative, ie. if he/she loses money on their first sale, then they get reimbursed. Why should someone benefit from the general ups of the market, but then bear no risk of the general downs? (again, as long as the 'catastrophic' scenario is properly recognized and dealt with). It's having your cake and eating it, too.

And ref #2, we are already compensated for the 'hardship' of posting via the posting allowance. An extra month's pay is huge. And if you're smart and roll it into an RRSP, or use it to buy down your mortgage interest rate, you get the full value by fending off the tax man.

Would enjoy debating this on its merits/shortfalls (maybe I'm out to lunch, or crazy), but I'm not going to enter into any emotional arguments about it.

 

[kratz]

I'm glad you are choosing to use your "windfall" posting allowance for an investment or mortgage opportunity.
This allowance is not intended for the use you chose to use it for. The posting allowance is to cover expenses
experienced not covered by standard IRP policy. 

Your post wants to remove emotion and talk hardship?

Yes, there are expenses incurred each time a move happens.
Yes, there is wear and tear on F&E each time a move happens.
Yes, there are suprise costs each time a move happens.
Yes, we can all be so lucky to choose to invest our move in an RRSP

Move 7 times over 10 years and then we can talk.

 

[ProPatria05]

I think 5 times in 11 years is close enough, so I'll bite.

I don't believe I ever used the term 'windfall', which would imply I might have suggested we haven't earned it - which we have.

As for the posting allowance not being 'intended' for Mortgage Interest buy-down - from the current IRP Directive:

8.3.15 Mortgage interest buy-down
Personalized benefit (aka Posting Allowance)
Interest expenses to buy down a mortgage and associated legal fees shall be reimbursed. Buy-down amount shall not be below the prescribed rate as determined by Canada Revenue Agency (CRA)

No specific reference to RRSP rollover in the directive, however you can do it. Ack that you sometimes can't use some or all of it for this. My last move was cross-country, and I used up all my custom funding moving a boat and camper, so had to dip into personal to cover the rest. This time, we will likely use most or all of it to buy some new furniture, mostly because we just want some new stuff. But I have the choice - the choice to have bought a boat and camper that cost a ton to move (and thus ate into my posting allowance), a choice to use it replace furniture that is still useable, etc, etc. Luck has nothing to do with it.

I have no doubt that there are specific examples of horror stories where the only luck is bad luck (sounds like maybe you have one or two of those), but I think by and large (at least anecdotally from people I know), the majority of moves go fairly smoothly (fingers crossed for this year).

 

[heavy reader]

THe intent of the HEA is just that- for assistance. Assistance when the arse falls out of the market. It is also provided due to the nuances of serving (Military, RCMP). Further, it is consistant with other relocation benefits for major corporations across Canada (none of which would have their employees contribute any "gains" should they occur.

Simply put, it is insurance for those of us who get posted often. Here is the origional intent from the 1999 SCONDVA Report (available at: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=1031525&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=36&Ses=1&File=6)

"ENCOURAGE HOME OWNERSHIP

Military personnel who own their homes instead of renting accommodations on or off military bases also face many problems. Like other Canadian homeowners, they have to deal with the needs of growing families, the long-term financial implications of ownership, and the complexities of the real estate market. However, unlike most Canadians, they also have to move more frequently, have to sell and buy homes more often, and, not by choice, have to contend with significant differences in housing prices from one region to another. If real estate values in their region are on a downward trend when a posting comes, they may have to sell their homes at a loss. If they move to an area where homes are much more expensive, they may only be able to afford less expensive and smaller homes than the one sold at the previous location. Some may even abandon their dream of homeownership because they lost too much money on the sale of their home at the old location.

Encouraging homeownership can benefit not only military personnel, but the Department as well. If more people buy homes, the Department will have to build and maintain fewer PMQs and help a smaller number of renters deal with regional differences in housing costs. The quality of life of individuals is improved because homeownership remains a viable option to them despite their frequent moves and because with good financial planning, they will own a home when they retire from the military. Some measures are already in place to help homeowners and some improvements can help make them more effective.

The Home Equity Assistance Program (HEAP) was established to help homeowners who have to leave an area when the real estate market is depressed. Homeowners can be reimbursed up to 90% for any difference between the price at which they sell their homes and the adjusted purchase price which includes the value of certain improvements made to the home as well as the original purchase price. To be eligible, homeowners have to demonstrate that the home prices in the area have declined by 10% or more between the time of purchase and the time of sale. This is not always easy to do because of conflicting information and other factors. Delays in determining eligibility for assistance has also been a problem and revised application procedures were introduced in 1996 to deal with this.

However, given the number of complaints we heard, the way eligibility is determined still creates problems. Some people suffered significant financial losses when they sold their homes in a depressed real estate market, but could not get assistance because the price of houses in their area dropped by only 8 or 9% or because of the way the adjusted purchase price was determined. Losing assistance because of one or two percentages is of course disappointing, but it is even more difficult to accept if people do not have confidence that their eligibility is determined fairly. Some questions were raised about the way appraisals are carried out to determine the adjusted purchase price. Two appraisals of a home are usually carried out, but the Department sometimes orders a third appraisal when there is a significant difference in the first two. While the way appraisals are carried out should be reviewed, other factors in determining eligibility also need attention. It should be sufficient to demonstrate that the local real estate market is depressed rather than trying to determine as well if the price of homes has dropped by 10% or not. In short, procedures should be simplified and the 10% rule should be abandoned. We therefore recommend:

36. That the Home Equity Assistance Program be revised, notably by eliminating the 10% rule, to ensure that homeowners have access to fair and equitable assistance when, because of a new posting, they have to sell their home while the local real estate market is depressed.

Some military personnel would not have to make use of the Guaranteed Home Sale Plan or the Home Equity Assistance Programme if they did not have to sell their homes every time they got a new posting. They might want to keep a home in one location while posted elsewhere because it is a good investment or because they wish to return there in a few years, for example, upon retirement. If the Housing Agency opts for the construction or leasing of PMQs off bases in some areas, it could assist these individuals by leasing or administering their homes and renting them as PMQs. The Housing Agency would gain extra units for its pool of PMQs and offer a choice of locales without having to build new homes. Meanwhile, owners would be able to keep a favourite home or avoid the stress of trying to sell a home on short notice or in unfavourable conditions when posted elsewhere. Of course, the Housing Agency would be free to refuse to lease a home because of its condition, location or other reasons and the number of homes individuals could lease to the Agency would be limited. However, making such a leasing arrangement possible would give homeowners another option while helping both the Housing Agency and military personnel trying to find suitable rental accommodation close to their base. Since both PMQs residents and homeowners can be helped by such an initiative"

I do believe there are opportunities to improve the system, such as using modern market analysis tools available from CMHC to calculate the %loss in a community. Since "community" has now been defined by DND and the Federal Courts to mean 3 city blocks, or a Town (such as Bon Accord, AB), then a good sample could include the 20 closest homes (within a certain radius), of the same house type.

 

[TCM621]

Whether or not people make money on a house sale is irrelevant to the conversation. The question is whether or not a Cf member should have to eat a significant financial loss for the needs of the service. In Marcus' case that is almost a years salary. If you tell people that we are posting you and it's going to cost you 10s of thousands of dollars, and by the way it's your loss, you will have a lot of people quit.

We put up with a lot of BS due to our occupation and most people take it as the cost of doing business. Our spouses routinely give up well paying or otherwise rewarding careers to follow us and spend countless days alone while we do our job. We all signed on for this and most of us accept it.

When we put a dollar figure to it, it is harder to swallow. I can only imagine the conversation I would have with my wife where I said "this next posting is going to cost me 75 grand and the military expects us to pay it all. And no I don't get a choice."

 

[Alberta Bound]

PP05

Regarding the two themes you feel that you are seeing:

1) I don't think you understood my point. Most members I know don't truly make money. The total market goes up and the difference in original purchase and proceeding sale / next purchase is simply eaten up by the higher price. Joe citizen swims through life with this and when markets are good he can decide about selling generally when he wants to and can benefit. When the market is bad then JC can  not sell if he doesn't wish. Most members move when told and this option is not open to them.

Now Maybe the odd member truly wins and sells high somewhere after buying low and again buys low. Good for them. But that is the exception

Your concept to set up a system to decide who has made money on a house and monitor these credit debit accounts throughout their service? What would that cost to administer? Funding better spent on beaurocracy than the members? I am not even going to comment...........

So now 2). The posting allowance isn't for the hardship of a transfer. It is there to cover certain expenses that aren't funded under other provisions of the relocation directive. I also wouldn't say it is huge. Depends on what expenses you need to use it for. Spouse, kids, HHT, pets, etc. In some cases it doesn't last long.
Your correct. If you are in a good financial position it is a nice way to pay down the interest rate. If you can afford to do that.
As far as using it for an RRSP buy down, well that is a different subject and ultimately in that case you aren't saving the taxes, you are just deferring them.

So you would like to discuss a highly emotional subject ( a member and their families financial well being)  Without Emotions? You sound like some people I have met from PWGSC and TBS when they discuss members pay and benefits. Dispassionate, cold, uncaring. 

I live in a world of mostly grey each and every day. But yes in some cases there are absolutes. And sometimes people just have to say so. This back and forth we are having is a debate. But I will still stick by my assertion. On this subject. Yes you are wrong.

No hard feelings just my unequivocal belief. Members should be entitled to the benefits that TBS has approved in order to be financially stable.

 

[ProPatria05]

AB

I actually agree with much of what you're saying. Also get the sell high/buy high situation where you're not really 'making' any money.

As for costs of managing a running balance of 'profits and losses', Brookfield already tracks buying and selling prices of homes. No additional work, really, and it's part of the IRP contract so no additional cost to DND. As for the merit of it, agree to disagree. All good. I don't see it ever happening, anyways - just spitballing.

Ack on "deferral" vice avoidance of taxes. But you still get to roll the full amount (if you choose) into an RRSP and earn investment income on all of it, including the tax deferred portion. Plus, if you transfer it to a spousal RRSP, it gets taxed on the spouse's return when withdrawn in the future, which is advantageous if he/she is in a lower tax bracket than the mbr.

As for cold and uncaring, as especially dispassionate, you got me all wrong, dude. I've fought tooth and nail for my troops in too many cases to remember, and like to think that I had some part in saving a few careers (whole other topic), amongst other things. On the other side of the coin, I've fought tooth and nail to hold some to account and/or get rid of them, because they were a waste of oxygen and were negatively impacting the ones I cared about.  Just always thinking about what the 'right' thing to do would be, which is not always the easiest or the most popular. And I fully agree that nobody should be denied benefits they are entitled to, regardless of what I or anyone else thinks about them.

No hard feelings on this end, either.

 

[heavy reader]

The contact information for the Home Equity Assistance class action is: hea@mcinnescooper.com