Accommodation Charges
Thread Starter
Accommodation Charges
PRunErs,
I am throwing myself on your mercy and hope that somebody may have some knowledge or experience of accommodation charging issues. The long story cut very short is that I am part of that wonderfully biblically sounding diaspora, serving on a Defence unit - read Army heavy - and well outside of the RAF admin chain. I have spoken to my Admin section, but as most of their time seems to be taken up with charges and appraisals my query seems to be well outside their knowledge / understanding, hence my question here.
One of the few Light Blue on my unit has come to me with a conundrum. He currently owns and lives in his own home and commutes daily but has recently had an assignment order for later in the summer with his new job too far for a daily commute, so he will have to live in the Mess during the week which is where the problem arises. He has been told that because he isn't married, he will have to pay full accommodation charges at his next unit despite his being a homeowner, continuing to pay the mortgage and living in his home when off duty. However, if he was married, those charges would be waived on the grounds that he was maintaining his family home and it was the RAF's decision to separate him from his family.
I have scoured the various JSPs myself and can't see any way out of it, short of getting married or possibly trying to persuade the desk officer to break his tour up into 12 month chunks as there seems to be a waiver on accommodation charges if you own your own home and are posted on a short tour of under 12 months. However, given that the Manning authorities are strapped for manpower(ironic, I know), I can't see them wanting the hassle this course of action might bring. Given all we are hearing that the RAF recognizes the changing demographics and expectations of its people, COS Pers' statement when he visited last year that the RAF would love to get people off base and into their own homes and recognizing peoples' desire for stability and some trappings of normality, this does seem to fly in the face of all these grand ideas.
If I were being charitable, I would suggest that this is simply one of the inevitable anomalies you get in a complex policy. If I were being less charitable, I would suggest that it penalizes single personnel for trying to have a life outside of the wire. So the exam questions:
The RAF don't appear to have actually done anything wrong in applying the policy, it's simply the policy itself isn't representative of the 21st century RAF. Is there any way of appealing against the policy?
Does anybody on here have any insights in to NEM - is it likely to go anyway towards rectifying these sorts of anomalies?
If all else fails, given that he will have to live on base or at least in the local area in order to carry out his role, could it be argued it is a justifiable expense and therefore claim some sort of tax relief / rebate on his accommodation charges?
I'm not particularly confident on any level that there will be a sensible solution to this. I don't think (hope) it won't be financially crippling for him, but over the course of an average tour length I can see accommodation charges easily being the best part of 5K - a rather large disincentive to continued service if this happens over a number of tours. Renting out the house is an option, but I sense that will lead to a degree of disenchantment as someone lives in his comfy home whilst he is back in a tired Mess. It all just seems rather incoherent when the realities of life are compared with the various grand announcements about how the services are adjusting to meet the demands of the 21st century.
So, if anybody has any ideas or suggestions as to the best way ahead - or even knows of a friendly contact at Air who might be able to advise, any and all pointers gratefully received.
I am throwing myself on your mercy and hope that somebody may have some knowledge or experience of accommodation charging issues. The long story cut very short is that I am part of that wonderfully biblically sounding diaspora, serving on a Defence unit - read Army heavy - and well outside of the RAF admin chain. I have spoken to my Admin section, but as most of their time seems to be taken up with charges and appraisals my query seems to be well outside their knowledge / understanding, hence my question here.
One of the few Light Blue on my unit has come to me with a conundrum. He currently owns and lives in his own home and commutes daily but has recently had an assignment order for later in the summer with his new job too far for a daily commute, so he will have to live in the Mess during the week which is where the problem arises. He has been told that because he isn't married, he will have to pay full accommodation charges at his next unit despite his being a homeowner, continuing to pay the mortgage and living in his home when off duty. However, if he was married, those charges would be waived on the grounds that he was maintaining his family home and it was the RAF's decision to separate him from his family.
I have scoured the various JSPs myself and can't see any way out of it, short of getting married or possibly trying to persuade the desk officer to break his tour up into 12 month chunks as there seems to be a waiver on accommodation charges if you own your own home and are posted on a short tour of under 12 months. However, given that the Manning authorities are strapped for manpower(ironic, I know), I can't see them wanting the hassle this course of action might bring. Given all we are hearing that the RAF recognizes the changing demographics and expectations of its people, COS Pers' statement when he visited last year that the RAF would love to get people off base and into their own homes and recognizing peoples' desire for stability and some trappings of normality, this does seem to fly in the face of all these grand ideas.
If I were being charitable, I would suggest that this is simply one of the inevitable anomalies you get in a complex policy. If I were being less charitable, I would suggest that it penalizes single personnel for trying to have a life outside of the wire. So the exam questions:
The RAF don't appear to have actually done anything wrong in applying the policy, it's simply the policy itself isn't representative of the 21st century RAF. Is there any way of appealing against the policy?
Does anybody on here have any insights in to NEM - is it likely to go anyway towards rectifying these sorts of anomalies?
If all else fails, given that he will have to live on base or at least in the local area in order to carry out his role, could it be argued it is a justifiable expense and therefore claim some sort of tax relief / rebate on his accommodation charges?
I'm not particularly confident on any level that there will be a sensible solution to this. I don't think (hope) it won't be financially crippling for him, but over the course of an average tour length I can see accommodation charges easily being the best part of 5K - a rather large disincentive to continued service if this happens over a number of tours. Renting out the house is an option, but I sense that will lead to a degree of disenchantment as someone lives in his comfy home whilst he is back in a tired Mess. It all just seems rather incoherent when the realities of life are compared with the various grand announcements about how the services are adjusting to meet the demands of the 21st century.
So, if anybody has any ideas or suggestions as to the best way ahead - or even knows of a friendly contact at Air who might be able to advise, any and all pointers gratefully received.
Get You Home Allowance To Check Your Property? | Army Rumour Service although a little old gives hope. I cannot open JSP 752 Ch 5 but I am certain your man does pay accommodation charges but is entitled to GYH(P) to visit and maintain his main residence upon proof of ownership ie mortgage, council tax, utilities etc. Another link http://www.arrse.co.uk/community/thr...wances.106752/
Thread Starter
Sloppy Link,
Thanks for the reply. I was aware of GYH, but surely that is a travel allowance (an alternate to HTD which is a daily allowance?) payable to all personnel regardless of marital category that do a weekly commute? And that is the crux of the problem - for 2 individuals living next door to each other and doing an identical weekly commute to work at adjacent desks doing the same job away from home, the singly will pay the accommodation charges but the married person won't . It's this apparent anomaly I'm trying to fathom out and that is the cause of the current problems.
Thanks for the reply. I was aware of GYH, but surely that is a travel allowance (an alternate to HTD which is a daily allowance?) payable to all personnel regardless of marital category that do a weekly commute? And that is the crux of the problem - for 2 individuals living next door to each other and doing an identical weekly commute to work at adjacent desks doing the same job away from home, the singly will pay the accommodation charges but the married person won't . It's this apparent anomaly I'm trying to fathom out and that is the cause of the current problems.
Last edited by Melchett01; 3rd Apr 2014 at 22:16.
I suspect that the system might argue that since your mate is single he has no food cost during the week and would have pay under save as you starve. As for his accommodation charges I seem to remember that there was a clause which allowed singles to escape the charge if they had their house up for sale. Of course the problem comes when they get an offer and dont actually want to sell.
Surprisingly, although it is illegal to discriminate against someone on the grounds of marital status it is not illegal to treat married people more favourably.
Surprisingly, although it is illegal to discriminate against someone on the grounds of marital status it is not illegal to treat married people more favourably.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,754
Received 2,738 Likes
on
1,166 Posts
Not good is it, one would have hoped it had improved from my time, we had a chap went to PMC etc and asked if there was the slightest chance of being posted as he wanted to purchase a house, he was told no, then literally weeks after signing on the dotted line, they posted him from Brize to St Athans.
singles to escape the charge if they had their house up for sale. Of course the problem comes when they get an offer and dont actually want to sell.
. He is complying with requirements.All needs to happen is that is it on Rightmove for sale..........talk to local Estate Agent and just give them £50 for listing it, no board outside.
Think local council will provide him with relief on council tax as well.
If ultimately someone offers 40% above local market then he not really losing out.
Additionally could let it as a Buy to let while keeping it listed for sale.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Englandshire
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing new to see here, Families Quarters that aren't available to families, dependents Rail Cards which aren't available to dependents, etc.
Married or civil partnership are not the only forms of "stable relationship" but the military has not caught up.
You still have to "apply to live out" FFS, not that I ever have.
Suggest your man puts in a Service Complaint.
Married or civil partnership are not the only forms of "stable relationship" but the military has not caught up.
You still have to "apply to live out" FFS, not that I ever have.
Suggest your man puts in a Service Complaint.
Meltchett, I think that only applies to over 37's. This is designed to encourage individuals to buy their own house before they discharge and not have to consider the cost of accommodation in their budgetary calculations, if your man has peaked too soon then I'm afraid he may be stuffed.
I think that there was a clause about having a certificate from an estate agent to say the house is for sale at a realistic price.
So put the house up for sale at the high end of the market. You do not have to accept an offer, nor take viewings. In fact if you get too many offers the price is too low, add 10k and repeat.
I did that, weekly commuted as a singly, with a property elsewhere. He will get GYH based on mileage to the home residence, payable as a daily rate in his pay. Part of the accommodation charge is CILOCT which is a (small) contribution to council tax but he will still have to pay full council tax at the home address.
JSP 752 (Allowances) and JSP 754 (Pay and Charges) are available here: RAF Community - Pay, Allowances & Pensions
SLA is about £5 per day, which equates to GYH for about 130 miles. So if he is 130 miles from home, GYH will just about equate to the accommodation charge. Food is PAYD on top of that, but then so it would be at home.
JSP 752 (Allowances) and JSP 754 (Pay and Charges) are available here: RAF Community - Pay, Allowances & Pensions
SLA is about £5 per day, which equates to GYH for about 130 miles. So if he is 130 miles from home, GYH will just about equate to the accommodation charge. Food is PAYD on top of that, but then so it would be at home.
I think that there was a clause about having a certificate from an estate agent to say the house is for sale at a realistic price.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't help you with regs melch, but I do know that your chaps problem goes back a long way and has given rise to some amusing - and also successful - resolutions in the past. Perhaps your chap my find some inspiration - who knows.
Case 1 mid eighties, a single MAEOP (as was then) posted to Pitreavie Castle (as was then) against his wishes and accommodated at RAF Turnhouse Sgts Mess (as was...you get my drift).
Day 1 Monday AM around 7am (he is required for the AOC brief at around 0830) he phones MT and asks what time the duty transport. Blank silence...before he is told no such thing and authorised to take a taxi...which gets him into work at about 10.
Much rumpus.
Day 2 Rinse and repeat.
Day 3...ditto
After much toing and froing, the following exchange...
MTO We will authorise a service mini for you.
MAEOP OK...what about the driving lessons?
MTO. You don't have a licence.
MAEOP. That is charlie
MTO ????
Cut a long story short...too difficult. He was posted after a fortnight.
Case 2
A whole bunch of singlies on bolthole from Kinloss to Machrihanish. Beanies (married chaps) all living/dining buckshee. Singlies (many of whom lived in their own homes) paying the full monty. After mucho complaining and no sign of anybody giving a sh1t, the singlies took to racing into the mess every night, piling their plates high with all the "decent" grub, then taking it outside and dumping into the trash.
They accomplished **** all, but had sh1tloads of fun winding up a ton of people, and felt much better about the whole deal.
Somewhere in that is a moral...something like, if the system f**ks you, don't be embarrassed to f**k it back.
Probably no help, but maybe something for your chap to chew on.
Case 1 mid eighties, a single MAEOP (as was then) posted to Pitreavie Castle (as was then) against his wishes and accommodated at RAF Turnhouse Sgts Mess (as was...you get my drift).
Day 1 Monday AM around 7am (he is required for the AOC brief at around 0830) he phones MT and asks what time the duty transport. Blank silence...before he is told no such thing and authorised to take a taxi...which gets him into work at about 10.
Much rumpus.
Day 2 Rinse and repeat.
Day 3...ditto
After much toing and froing, the following exchange...
MTO We will authorise a service mini for you.
MAEOP OK...what about the driving lessons?
MTO. You don't have a licence.
MAEOP. That is charlie
MTO ????
Cut a long story short...too difficult. He was posted after a fortnight.
Case 2
A whole bunch of singlies on bolthole from Kinloss to Machrihanish. Beanies (married chaps) all living/dining buckshee. Singlies (many of whom lived in their own homes) paying the full monty. After mucho complaining and no sign of anybody giving a sh1t, the singlies took to racing into the mess every night, piling their plates high with all the "decent" grub, then taking it outside and dumping into the trash.
They accomplished **** all, but had sh1tloads of fun winding up a ton of people, and felt much better about the whole deal.
Somewhere in that is a moral...something like, if the system f**ks you, don't be embarrassed to f**k it back.
Probably no help, but maybe something for your chap to chew on.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It may be that as he has moved leaving his own house unoccupied - provable as he is paying rent - that he will not be required to pay Council Tax. Depending upon the band he is taxed in, he may even be better off. Caveat - it is a little while since I last checked this protocol. If still valid, this would save me £180 per month which for sure would neutralise the problem.
The fact however remains that the system is unfair and should be changed, especially as the same system is hell bent on getting all ranks to live out in future years.
The fact however remains that the system is unfair and should be changed, especially as the same system is hell bent on getting all ranks to live out in future years.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Oxfordshire
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You could always submit a PACCC application claiming hardship and discrimination under the equality act 2010. Since this act replaced the disability discrimination act it has become much more far reaching and many of the military get out clauses have been removed, I suggest a good look through ref married vs single.
The template for the application is contained in both 752 and 754. Fill it in with as much detail and supporting evidence as you can. For example projected cost of moving vs projected cost of not moving and living in. If he is likely to be disadvantaged by having to sell (ie negative equity or mortgage fees).
Once complete it needs to be submitted to your unit admin who will write an accompanying letter either supporting it or not supporting it. It is then sent to SPVA. You have 2 appeals if it doesn't go your way.
It is essential that you indicate what entitlement you are seeking. It is not a whinge about the posting but you want exemption from paying accommodation charges as per married personnel because you are required to maintain your home. It shouldn't in the eyes of the law matter if you are married or not.
The template for the application is contained in both 752 and 754. Fill it in with as much detail and supporting evidence as you can. For example projected cost of moving vs projected cost of not moving and living in. If he is likely to be disadvantaged by having to sell (ie negative equity or mortgage fees).
Once complete it needs to be submitted to your unit admin who will write an accompanying letter either supporting it or not supporting it. It is then sent to SPVA. You have 2 appeals if it doesn't go your way.
It is essential that you indicate what entitlement you are seeking. It is not a whinge about the posting but you want exemption from paying accommodation charges as per married personnel because you are required to maintain your home. It shouldn't in the eyes of the law matter if you are married or not.
discrimination
I don't think there should be any discrimination between married and singlies.
If anyone has made a 'lifestyle' choice to remain in their own property but be accommodated at a unit then they should pay the same as the singlie.
The majority of pers at HQ Air who live in the messes are 'bean stealers', yet have the same standard of rooms as those who are single yet pay a significantly less. Where is the fairness in that?
If anyone has made a 'lifestyle' choice to remain in their own property but be accommodated at a unit then they should pay the same as the singlie.
The majority of pers at HQ Air who live in the messes are 'bean stealers', yet have the same standard of rooms as those who are single yet pay a significantly less. Where is the fairness in that?
If anyone has made a 'lifestyle' choice to remain in their own property but be accommodated at a unit then they should pay the same as the singlie.
Thread Starter
Thanks for the replies chaps, very much appreciated. He's a good bloke and in true RAF fashion, he will just get on with it. And as I was in the same situation a couple of tours ago, I understand where he is coming from and want to try and reduce the impact of a system designed god know how many decades ago from screwing him over. That said, after a lot of head scratching over various JSPs, what I want to achieve and what I will be able to achieve are probably 2 different things.
So what have I discovered so far:
Technically, the RAF have done nothing wrong, so appealing on the grounds of misapplication of policy will get no-where. It's the policy itself that I think is out of step here. However, to go down this route simply demonstrates the difference between what is correct and what is right. The policy simply doesn't reflect what is becoming increasingly normal in society - people not being married for whatever reason.
Steve Tonks - this ties in nicely with your suggestion. I don't think any claim for hardship would succeed. He's a sensible bloke, so he isn't going to be reduced to living off Mother's Pride and processed cheese. And he isn't complaining about the posting per se, just this one aspect of the charging for accommodation which seems to be anomalous at best and discriminatory at worst
He will qualify for GYH, but that is effectively a travel allowance designed to reduced the impact of separation by contributing towards trips home (paraphrased from the JSP). To my mind, it is simply a weekly commuters' version of HTD and he will still likely be out of pocket. If GYH matches his accommodation charges, he will be paying for the commute home out of his own pocket whilst he gets HTD at the moment; if GYH matches his travel costs, he will be paying for accommodation on top of the costs of maintaining his home.
He is reluctant to rent his home out - not I use the word home rather than house. He deliberately bought where he did because he has links in the area and has just spent the past 2 years working hard to renovate it. And having looked at the sort of places he was likely to end up, this seemed to be a reasonable location that would allow him to live at home whilst offering the possibility of postings to at least 3 or 4 stations within a 50 mile radius. This post is either new or has been gapped for a long time and so has come out of left field - I don't know who is more surprised him or his new unit that they are actually getting somebody.
I did have a look into the world of discrimination on the grounds of marital status. I'm no lawyer and so have probably misunderstood the relevance of the cases that I read - they were linked to tax allowances - but they were nearly all thrown out because the courts ruled that marriage was a special institution that should be recognised as such, and favourable treatment in this case through tax and other allowances was the system's way of recognising the status of marriage. My argument would be that with the introduction of legislation to legalise gay marriages and the whitling away of child benefit that the concept of marriage has changed significantly in recent years, so maybe the old arguments about the system favouring married couples is no longer as relevant given today's demographics. Who knows, I'm probably clutching at straws.
I've suggested he might want to look into the possibility that he could claim it as a legitimate business expense and put a claim in to HMRC for tax relief / rebate. After all, he isn't doing this out of choice, it is purely work related. Again, probably clutching at straws, but as there are all sorts of things you can claim for these days, he might just get lucky.
By sheer coincidence, yesterday's P1Os contained the latest NEM Newsletter which had an item on accommodation charges and an invitation to ask questions direct of the NEM team - so I did, and I eagerly await their response. Again, I'm not hopeful as rather than seeing it as an opportunity to bring the Services into the 21st century, I suspect they will see it as another expense for them to absorb, and choose to continue to penalise people for choosing to have a life outside the wire. Will keep you all posted on the outcome of that one.
Finally - TOFO - you're right in that I don't think I can use your tales as arguments here, but they definitely raised a smile, so thanks
So what have I discovered so far:
Technically, the RAF have done nothing wrong, so appealing on the grounds of misapplication of policy will get no-where. It's the policy itself that I think is out of step here. However, to go down this route simply demonstrates the difference between what is correct and what is right. The policy simply doesn't reflect what is becoming increasingly normal in society - people not being married for whatever reason.
Steve Tonks - this ties in nicely with your suggestion. I don't think any claim for hardship would succeed. He's a sensible bloke, so he isn't going to be reduced to living off Mother's Pride and processed cheese. And he isn't complaining about the posting per se, just this one aspect of the charging for accommodation which seems to be anomalous at best and discriminatory at worst
He will qualify for GYH, but that is effectively a travel allowance designed to reduced the impact of separation by contributing towards trips home (paraphrased from the JSP). To my mind, it is simply a weekly commuters' version of HTD and he will still likely be out of pocket. If GYH matches his accommodation charges, he will be paying for the commute home out of his own pocket whilst he gets HTD at the moment; if GYH matches his travel costs, he will be paying for accommodation on top of the costs of maintaining his home.
He is reluctant to rent his home out - not I use the word home rather than house. He deliberately bought where he did because he has links in the area and has just spent the past 2 years working hard to renovate it. And having looked at the sort of places he was likely to end up, this seemed to be a reasonable location that would allow him to live at home whilst offering the possibility of postings to at least 3 or 4 stations within a 50 mile radius. This post is either new or has been gapped for a long time and so has come out of left field - I don't know who is more surprised him or his new unit that they are actually getting somebody.
I did have a look into the world of discrimination on the grounds of marital status. I'm no lawyer and so have probably misunderstood the relevance of the cases that I read - they were linked to tax allowances - but they were nearly all thrown out because the courts ruled that marriage was a special institution that should be recognised as such, and favourable treatment in this case through tax and other allowances was the system's way of recognising the status of marriage. My argument would be that with the introduction of legislation to legalise gay marriages and the whitling away of child benefit that the concept of marriage has changed significantly in recent years, so maybe the old arguments about the system favouring married couples is no longer as relevant given today's demographics. Who knows, I'm probably clutching at straws.
I've suggested he might want to look into the possibility that he could claim it as a legitimate business expense and put a claim in to HMRC for tax relief / rebate. After all, he isn't doing this out of choice, it is purely work related. Again, probably clutching at straws, but as there are all sorts of things you can claim for these days, he might just get lucky.
By sheer coincidence, yesterday's P1Os contained the latest NEM Newsletter which had an item on accommodation charges and an invitation to ask questions direct of the NEM team - so I did, and I eagerly await their response. Again, I'm not hopeful as rather than seeing it as an opportunity to bring the Services into the 21st century, I suspect they will see it as another expense for them to absorb, and choose to continue to penalise people for choosing to have a life outside the wire. Will keep you all posted on the outcome of that one.
Finally - TOFO - you're right in that I don't think I can use your tales as arguments here, but they definitely raised a smile, so thanks
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've heard that NEM is looking at this issue with a view to making access to mess accommodation free (or at a very much reduced rate) for anyone who has a home elsewhere irrespective of whether they are married or not. Seems to make sense and in line with 21st Century lifestyle. But it probably won't change for a while so might not help your chap.