notared/northernmonkey1261
If you read the whole of this thread, you will see that it was people from MACC who first mentioned 'illegal banding' and 'the injustice of relocation'.
To counter that, I asked the question about the number of people who were at MACC on a second chance, and if they were amongst those who were now whingeing - yes whingeing - about having to move.
I am not talking about the negative equity issue - you have my full sympathy regarding that. However we continually get told about how unfair it is for people to have to move from MACC to NPC and it gets tiring.
As for the negative equity thing, I say again that NATS could be bloody minded about it and say the following
"Houses are not guaranteed as a cash cow, there have been price drops in the past - you knew when you were posted to MACC that you would have to move to NPC which would involve selling up... You took the decision to invest in property, that investment has, (like any investment can), just gone belly up... not our problem"
I think it would be unfair and very poor of them to do so, but you guys need to start thinking abut what you want done about it now... MACC are moving, you are not getting away from that fact,so that in mind what would you guys like NATS to do about the negative equity issue?
I repeat
To those who have brought up the very valid point about negative equity, what do you want the company to do about it?
Who will decide what, if any, level of compensation you will get?
How will it be decided?
Will it be a flat rate for everyone?
Will it be your purchase price with a percentage added on for each year since your purchase up to the beginning of the move window?
If so, what about the fact that different types of house and different areas sustain different growth?
Because there is a lot of sympathy on this thread from people who are not at MACC, but no one from MACC has actually said what they would like done about it (apart from saying the move is unfair - yawn).
You guys have a serious issue that needs resolving, however if you go at it half cocked and don't have a clue about how you want it to get resolved, NATS will bend you over and shaft you again.
You need to think of sensible ways of getting the shortfall back - see above - and also think about what ther company might counter argue with - see my point about different areas/house types having duifferent levels of equity growth etc.
The move is still some way off, but you need to start sorting this out now - otherwise you will end up doing what NATS is good at doing and that is firefighting at the last minute... if it gets to that stage, you will be buggered.