Secret Plan to Remove Quarters

[Admin Mole]

This is my very first visit to PPRuNe and I've registered especially so I can highlight something that is going on at present that is rather sinister.

A lot of work is being conducted by MOD policy staff at the moment in order to justify an ambition to get rid of Service Accommodation. Papers are being written and economic models produced; naturally, none of these dare to include operational or social impact implications as these would run counter to the party line.

The lease on Annington Homes is due to expire in 5 years time. The MOD still require the quarters, therefore Annington are in a position to charge whatever they wish. The MOD therefore cannot afford the sustain the decision to sell the estate that they made back in the 90's for short term gain. In conjunction with this, recent Continual Attitude Surveys have shown most people wish to own their own home. Of course, most people do, but on service salaries, most of our personnel (especially ORs) cannot afford to, especially when posted to the SE.

However, this response to a rather unbalanced question has given the ivory-tower merchants the excuse they need. The plan is to grant a small amount of money to service personnel to buy a house (£5-10k ish). As a result they have to sign away their right to ever live in SFA again. It doesn't matter where they get posted, what happens in terms of welfare or any other issue. My main worry is that our younger, more vulnerable troops could fall for this. I am well aware that most Officers and SNCOs already choose to buy and can manage perfectly well, but the loss of all the service accomodation will hit our troops harder than anything else they could take away. If this does come in, I only ask that you make your people think long and hard before they sign away their rights.

[Fg Off Max Stout]

As the overstretch continues to place ever greater demands on individual service personnel, so the perqs of the job get chipped away one by one. And they wonder why PVR rates are at record levels (and they'd be higher still if the RAF hadn't been reduced in size so much already)!

[Wader2]

The lease on Annington Homes is due to expire in 5 years time. The MOD still require the quarters, therefore Annington are in a position to charge whatever they wish. The MOD therefore cannot afford the sustain the decision to sell the estate that they made back in the 90's for short term gain.

First consquence

In conjunction with this, recent Continual Attitude Surveys have shown most people wish to own their own home.

The plan is to grant a small amount of money to service personnel to buy a house (£5-10k ish). As a result they have to sign away their right to ever live in SFA again.

Good and

but the loss of all the service accomodation will hit our troops harder than anything else they could take away

as they would not want to leave the family home nor afford to sell/move/buy.

So consequence 2 would be an increase in SLA usage, encouraged by removal of bean stealers rights, or PVR and lack of retention.

Foot, aim, fire once again.

[Squirrel 41]

Admin Mole,

Firstly, many thanks for registering and putting this up. Could I suggest that you cross-post it on E-Goat as well to get it to the broadest possible auidence?

Right - genuine question time.

Q1. How much are rents on the FQs that we (stupidly) flogged actually subsidised by?

Q2. What proportion of the FQs flogged off are outside the wire? (And therefore more easily available to be rented or sold to civilians?)

Because if FQ rents are currently reflective of the market rates, then

Q3. How much difference will this make?

A genuine question, not having a go at anyone.

S41

[vecvechookattack]

I think that many servicemen have the option of buying their own house...maybe they could do that.

[stickmonkeytamer]

Some people are forced to move in MQs, especially if they move "south". The main problem I have with moving is the pitiful £5000 offered for moving private to private on posting. SHould we not be entitled to what it actually costs us (producing all receipts) if we are "forced" to move? It was great 11 years ago on my first move as it covered everything, but, including stamp duty, it would cost over £15000 for me to move house. I'm not willing to pay £10000 of my own money to move. Should I just pay the difference myself or can I refuse to move? As Mrs SMT is also in the RAF, but stationed elsewhere, can we both apply for it?

SMT

[Admin Mole]

Rents charged to individal tenents depend on the grade of the property so vary quite a lot. The MOD pay a ground rent to Annington homes regardless of if the home is occupied or not. As an aside, the MOD are looking at reviewing the way in which we grade these properties. There is a view that SFA is 'too cheap' and should be made more expensive to reflect market forces. One hazards a guess that this is to gradually discourage the use of SFA. Obviously the people that really need these houses are our SACs who have a starting salary of £16,000. They are often the ones that are required to deploy the most frequently. Surely it isn't hard to predict the impact of this policy if one looks beyond the simple economics and takes a strategic view?

[Rheinstorff]

vecvechookattack, maybe they should also have the option of refusing their postings when it doesn't suit to move or buy where they don't want to.

You can't impose special requirements on individuals without some sort of compensating measure that ensures they are not disadvantaged. Unless you want them to leave that is.

Perhaps if the MOD wishes us to take a much more market-based/civilian approach to housing, they could also take a much more market-based/civilian approach to relocation packages. Couple that with civilian severance norms and most servicemen would be out within 60 days if a posting (or anything else) didn't suit them.

[adminblunty]

I believe the the originator of this thread is referring to the Defence Living Accommdation Strategy (DLAS). From what I've heard on the subject Admin mole is spot on with his post. With regard to S41's questions:

Q1. How much are rents on the FQs that we (stupidly) flogged actually subsidised by?

A1. The last Tory Government (Michael Portillo) flogged virtually all SFA for approximately £7b in 95/96 (bottom of the last housing market dip) to get the government out of a financial hole. SFA rents are set by the AFPRB, you pay the same rent for a Type C or IV etc no matter where you live in the UK. I believe the rents are abated rather than subsidised. The abatement reflects the poor quality, lack of choice, poor location(under the airfield approach) etc. Thus SFA rent in the SE appears very cheap in comparison to the local market and not so much of a good deal at Lossie.

Q2. What proportion of the FQs flogged off are outside the wire? (And therefore more easily available to be rented or sold to civilians?)

A2. Not sure and it doesn't matter. If for instance they disposed off SFA at Waddington, the MOD would just knock the fence down around the SFA patch and build a new fence around the remaining MOD buildings. This currently happens when we dispose of surplus SFA at Units (see Wittering, Wyton etc) A lot of SFA patches aren't inside the wire. Disposals are listed here http://www.annington.co.uk/

Q3 Because if FQ rents are currently reflective of the market rates, then
how much difference will this make?

SFA Rents are not reflective of the market rate. I pay £110 in SFA rent for my Type C (3 bed) SFA in High Wycombe. Great for me, not so great for the MOD.

The MOD is broke, the rent we pay for SFA doesn't pay the rent Defence Estates pay Annington Homes (Approx 4.5K PA per property). Therefore something needs to give, DLAS seeks to address this as far as I'm aware. Stats on RAF home ownership when I last saw them were Officers 60% and Airmen 40%. The £5K cap on the refund of legal fees on house purchase and sale hasn't increased since it was introduced over 10 years ago!

[OCCWMF]

:mad::mad::mad:This makes me furious if it is true. Subsidised housing is a necessary part of service life for the stability it provides to the service people and their families who are posted at the behest of the service. And no - 'you knew about it when you joined up' is not a reason to remove this. Why are our masters not seeking to sternly counter these moves by highlighting the benefits of service housing and accepting that it costs money to run a military. If they are scared to put their hands up and admit to a wrong decision made by their predecessors and suggest a course of action that benefits those it will affect then we are hypocrites to profess to any IIP tripe.

Jean Paul Getty said “If it appreciates, buy it. If it depreciates, rent it.” Unless this is a far sighted move in advance of a predicted or planned property price crash (Although this may have something to it - all perks chipped away - are these the signs?) they have surely made a very short sighted decision which is best rectified early.

I heard this morning that we are now irrevocably tied to the pay as you dine stuff as well. The company having discovered that the dining rooms make a loss rather than profit (and on a 7 year test contract; which idiot agreed to that?) have demanded the exclusive rights to all bars, tea-bars and shops on camp with the food operating as a loss-leader. I cannot in good conscience sit by and watch that happen. We need to robustly defend these institutions. None of them run at a loss (or indeed extra public cost on top of that that would be incurred anyway) and I cannot see how the service has any right to take away what so many people invest so much of their own valuable time in. When I raised this I was told that it was also felt that we spend too much time dealing with secondary duties. :ugh:Then DON'T ASSESS US ON THEM. We would end with higher prices, minimal control over our own mess and its functions, day to day running and pricing strategy. This is totally contrary to the original concept of a mess which was formed to benefit the members.

http://regimentalrogue.com/srsub/officers_mess.htm has some good words on the subject.

I think we need to express ourselves clearly and in reasoned terms to those at the helm of these initiatives to put across how damaging such moves would be. I cannot see any benefit to the process in my own mess and with a likely deadline of 2009 we need to make ourselves heard and soon.

[Ali Barber]

Perhaps if you got the same perks as the civil service on posting which I believe include paying bridging loans and covering the difference in cost of housing - that's what a friend of mine in the civil service got several years ago. They held onto their old house for ages waiting for the right price as they were under no pressure because someone else was paying the bridging loan!

[Clear Right,Px Good!]

You can't impose special requirements on individuals without some sort of compensating measure that ensures they are not disadvantaged. Unless you want them to leave that is.


Mr R (cant be arsed to type the full name)

This certainly is a nice thought, and one I have to say I totally agree with, but just imagine a move from ......for example a nice 3 bed semi in the north to a nice 3 bed semi in the south (forced by posting of course). The remuneration that would be required to keep the said person within the same level of comfort that he or she had been afforded to date, would cost in excess of £100,000 tax free.

This of course would never happen, and I think we all know that, this has long been the case.... but on your second point again I agree, "unless you want them to leave", and funnily ebough that is what WILL happen, as it is right now.

CRPxGood

[ericferret]

So private Smith buys a house, not being brilliant with money he has his home grabbed back by the building society.

Are we to see our soldiers living in shacks close to the barracks?

Being in debt used to be a chargeable offence, so apart from loosing his home would he face disciplinary action?

There are times when I would love to turn on the tele first thing in the morning to hear General X telling us that a military coup has taken place and Gordon Brown and co have met with an unfortunate "accident".

[PingDit]

Altogether worrying, but somehow inevitable. It's what we seem to expect from our governments of whatever political persuasion, a bit like the great council house sell off of years gone by where the government release anything they're losing money on back to the private sector.
How would we be expected to manage selling a private property every 3 years, along with the consequential strain on partners, partners employment, schooling etc. It simply wouldn't be practicable.
It's heavily tied into a similar point I made on another thread with regard to the current cabinet. Apparently, the only one with any previous military experience is the Defence Secretary, Des Browne who rose to the dizzy heights of Lance Corporal. Our 'old school' pals who used to take an active interest in the concerns of the Armed Forces passed away years ago it would seem!

It's high time someone in government started taking serious notice of what the military have to say. We passed the thin end of the wedge way back. I strongly believe that in the event of any future major conflict, they'll be saying "I thought we used to have some armed forces?" - Nope, they all left years ago - nobody noticed.

[vecvechookattack]

In many ways you are right. In the RN we have the benefit of not being posted away from our families and are pretty much stable. I think the last statistic stated that 70% of the RN owned their own homes. Sadly the Army and RAF cannot afford that.

I would argue against derricks point though...

So private Smith buys a house, not being brilliant with money he has his home grabbed back by the building society.

When and who was the last serviceman to have his home repossessed? Do you know the name and if possibe the year that it happened?

[VinRouge]

If this comes to fruition, I for one will be giving in my 31 days notice, I dont give a Sh*t what they think they can keep me in for. If this is how they think they should reward the over-stretched armed forces, then they are mad. :mad:

This couldnt have anything to do with Gordon wanting an extra 2 Million homes on the market over the next few years could it, as a result of backward planning laws and complete under-investment in new builds? I bet it does.

[Clear Right,Px Good!]

When and who was the last serviceman to have his home repossessed? Do you know the name and if possibe the year that it happened?


All due respect, people on a sensible civilian wage are having homes repossessed, don't be naive enough to think that it isn't happening to people within the forces. Nobody here could give you figures (challenge), but you could bet your bottom dollar that it will be happening, ask the right person no doubt!
CRPxGood

[VinRouge]

I think this is a wind-up. And not a very funny one at that. Read this full-text of the statement supplied by the Ministry of Defence concerning Jon Douglas' report of 30 November 2006:

"
A1: The majority of SFA in England and Wales (Scotland and Northern Ireland were not included) was sold to Annington Homes Limited on a 999 year lease on 5 November 1996, and then leased back by MOD on 200 year leases. Of those properties leased from Annington Homes, once any are identified as potentially surplus, MOD seeks confirmation from the Services that there is no longer term requirement for the properties. Surplus leased housing stock in England and Wales is, under the terms of the 1996 Sale Agreement, returned to Annington Homes. It is then for the company to arrange sales as they see fit. "

Which is completely against this bezerk suggestion that they may be running up against a 5 year lease.

Besides, this would be complete suicide for our masters. Seriously. The PVR rates are bad enough as it is currently, Imagine what it would be like if 40% of officers and 60% of the men are told to go out and buy. They would have no-one left.

Oh, one other thing, if this is the masterplan, why are they about to start to build FMQ over at Brize for CATARA? Wouldnt build houses that are about to be sold back to Annington in 5 years, would they now.

[ZH875]

This is just the UK Jockistani parliament's attempt to force the armed forces to move up to Jockistan.

Then when Jockistan gets 'independence', it will have a ready made military force, which will probably invade England, and make the English blokes wear skirts and eat Haggis.:eek:

[Clear Right,Px Good!]

Wearing a skirt and eating haggis would be a small sacrifice, compared to some of the big sacrifices one has to make these days.....If the terms of service were good!

:D

CRPxGood

[D-IFF_ident]

Perhaps some sort of housing allowance would suit? The USAF have BAH, or free quarters with no utility fees of course:

https://secureapp2.hqda.pentagon.mil/perdiem/bah.html

Bang bang bang goes another nail in the coffin.

[blogger]

And they grant you £5000 on posting to move home. Which has been £5000 since the ark set sail.

Right i'll say £250K home.

Stamp duty = £7500
Estate agent at 2% = £5875 ......don't forget it attracts VAT!
Solictors buy and sell = £1200 to £1500
Sellers pack £700
Mortgage get out clause £295
Mortgage reservation fee/set up £495 to £1495 (for a good fixed rate mortgage)
Valuation fee £250.

Yes £16,970

Also wifes job change and her lack of income for 2 or 3 months.

I am so glad the RAF gives me that £5000 SO I CAN GIVE STRAIGHT BACK 3% STAMP DUTY £7500 WHO'S PAYING WHO TO MOVE ON POSTING????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????

[VinRouge]

I Bet any money we are paying the price for nonsenseical planning permission, and Gordys promise to "Build" an extra 2 million properties over the next ten years. Should save a few bucks by stealing our homes :mad::mad::mad:

[MightyHunter AGE]

ZH875, with all due respect we up here in 'Jockistan' are much better off not having the likes of you live amongst us, trot on...................:D

[Clear Right,Px Good!]

ZH875, whilst 'trotting on', try not to forget the sealed bidding system, could you handle it?

[VinRouge]

Any words on whether we would get first dibs upon eviction? OR would be evicted forthwidth?

And can I become a Squatter?

[shawtarce]

When we sell our 3 bed semi "up North", because of a posting, and have to buy a similar 3 bed semi "down South", it only seems fair that the military should fork out the extra cost because of regional house price differences. Especially if there are no service quarters available.

But what happens when a bloke down south with a 3 bed semi gets posted "up North".............

Would we have to pay back the 100K or so , at 4 days salary a month, for the next umpeen years (around 20 years in my case)

I just can't see JPA being able to cope with that one.

2 years, 7 months, 21 days left

[Out Of Trim]

There are times when I would love to turn on the tele first thing in the morning to hear General X telling us that a military coup has taken place and Gordon Brown and co have met with an unfortunate "accident".


You're not the only one!

[Clear Right,Px Good!]

But what happens when a bloke down south with a 3 bed semi gets posted "up North".............

I Guess he's lucky !

[vecvechookattack]

am so glad the RAF gives me that £5000 SO I CAN GIVE STRAIGHT BACK 3% STAMP DUTY £7500 WHO'S PAYING WHO TO MOVE ON POSTING??????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????

If the RAF guys are getting £5000 why aren't the Navy guys....I want my £5000.

[Clear Right,Px Good!]

If the RAF guys are getting £5000, why aren't the navy?


I think the last statistic stated that 70% of the RN owned their own homes. Sadly the Army and RAF cannot afford that.


Sympathy I reckon !

[vecvechookattack]

Hmmmm, interesting. I didnt realise that. So the guys in the Navy are better paid so that they can afford their own house whilst the RAF get given £5000 ....not quite sure of the logic there nor why we can't all get paid the same...

[Clear Right,Px Good!]

Excuse me, who in the Navy is better paid?

[Clear Right,Px Good!]

Ok, i'll tell you then......Nobody of an equivalent rankk, unless of course they are in receipt of Specialist Pay!

Cut me down with sabers and I shall cry if I am wrong.

[vecvechookattack]

All of the Navy are better paid....

Apparently 70% of the RN own their own houses but the RAF and the Army can't afford them....so therefore, the RN must be better paid....which makes sense seeing as we dont get £5000 for free

[Clear Right,Px Good!]

Well, You are the senior service after all !

[ZH875]

ZH875, whilst 'trotting on', try not to forget the sealed bidding system, could you handle it?

Having done my 'Overseas' tour at Lossiemouth, I should think so! :)

[Brian Abraham]

Gen Dannatt http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/20/ntroops121.xml

More needed to be done on housing and pay in order to retained troops because "people are more likely to stay if we look after them properly".

[Widger]

VecVecCOCK,

Why don't you just go and post on XBOX or something. Everything you ever spout is complete Cr$p and you are either extremely deluded or just being deliberately atagonistic. Your comment about RN personnel never being posted away from their families might be true for WAFUs like you who spend their entire lives in Culdrositon but the vast majority of the real Navy, spend a significant amount of time away. You do them all a dis-service by suggesting that life is better in the Dark Blue.

On the subject of FQs, the only way most people could afford to own their own homes in the South East, is by leaving the service and using the gratuity as a deposit. (£5000-£10000 is derisory). House Prices are way above what they should be and completely unaffordable to the average sailor, soldier or airman. (Of course VECCOCK probably gets an allowance from mummy!)

I noticed that this very issue was raised in Des Browne's CVF statement. "most servicemen want to own their own homes", yes ...but not in the current economic climate.

Another issue, what is the level of marital breakdown in the services. What percentage of service personnel are paying child maintainence etc, living in FQs with second wives/husbands, trying to build a home because they cannot afford to buy another house.

The beauty of FQs is that is allows a flexible, mobile force who can move their families at minimla expense.

You watch........the next thing to be attacked will be BSA!

Chip, chip, chip.................

[Wader2]

The beauty of FQs is that is allows a flexible, mobile force who can move their families at minimla expense

and, to some extent, cushions the family from the loss of the wife's income until - or IF - she get a new job.

Also not to be ignored is the financial aspect of the high to low cost jobs market.

A job on the M4 corridor may pay £27k and only half that up North.

OK it may be cheaper up North but when you move back down south again "And what salary were up earning before?"

[WhiteOvies]

Anyone know when this is actually happening? Am having to sell house in Midlands and move into quarters down south due to posting mid next year and am getting a bit worried! Mrs WO (ex RAF) is also rather worried about the whole thing as having investigated it we cannot afford to buy or rent anywhere close to my prospective work location or anywhere where she can work.:uhoh: This despite the fact that I apparently earn more than the average UK wage (not looking for sympathy BTW!)

[Wader2]

WO, it will happen about 3 days after the last time you can do anything about it.

[WhiteOvies]

That sounds familiar! When I bought the house I am currently in (as a single first time buyer) I paid stamp duty. About 2 weeks later the Gov raised the level on what value house pays the duty above the cost of my house. Current house market and posting is forcing me to sell my house and I was kind of banking on an MQ. Guess that plans a gonner :{

[L1A2 discharged]

WO, if you can it may be better to keep your house and rent it out. I moved from my house into MQ for a while whilst the interest rates were 14%, the rent plus the reduction in outgoings allowed us to eat at eat once a day:\

[Hitback]

Some interesting Figures in these links. I wunder how many past and present MP's have shares in this housing group.!!!

I have managed to find the HANSARD which discloses the amount Annington paid for each Service Family House; The sale to Annington of 57,428 properties in England and Wales raised £1.662 billion for the Exchequer. The average price per dwelling was approximately £29,000.
That's not a bad price at all, a win, win hand for Annington Homes.
The full HANSARD can be seen here;- http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/vo020919/text/20919w77.htm some interesting points were brought up on this issue back in 2002.
I also found the folllowing on the sale of SFA to Annington Homes back in 1996. I found the following in HANSARD below this sentence. I find it hard to understand how any government can say it has no money to help military personnel onto the property ladder, Between 1996 and 2004 the Exchequer received £100 million from Annington Homes in its' profit share arrangement, It's our rent and occupation as tennants of Annington Homes SFA, that prevents these properties becoming delapidated. At present service families receive only 1% for every 10 years served as a discount from Annington. I can't be the only military person finding this disgusting arrangement wrong, we are being stuffed by the MoD and Parliamentary Ministers from most Parties . Prejudicial Interests comes to mind here.:ugh::ugh:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/vo041004/text/41004w26.htm

Mr. Caplin: Under the terms of the 1996 Sale Agreement the Exchequer benefits from a Profit Share arrangement following subsequent disposal by Annington Homes Ltd. of surplus houses handed back by the Ministry of Defence. This arrangement applies for the first 15 years following the 1996 sale and is based on a sliding percentage of the profit made by the Company after allowable overheads have been deducted. To date the Exchequer has received approximately £100 million under this arrangement

Regards
Hitback

[oxoneil]

"Oh, one other thing, if this is the masterplan, why are they about to start to build FMQ over at Brize for CATARA? Wouldnt build houses that are about to be sold back to Annington in 5 years, would they now."

No sign of that happening at the moment from what I can see. Some flats and houses were knocked down ages ago and a load of the remaining flats have been boarded up and unoccupied for a long time. Talk about a blot on the landscape.

[8-15fromOdium]

On a related subject isn't military pay abated because we have access to cheap(er) accommodation through MQ's & SLA? If this cheap(er) accommodation is removed the justification for this pay abatement is removed. Now who on here believes that the government is going to do anything that means giving above inflation pay increases to anyone?

[Wader2]

8.15 see PM/

[Hitback]

Annington Homes Plc did turn down some proprties. It's only property that's owned by Annington that has to be got rid off asap. The property in NI and Scotland was never bought or should I say not offered to Annington Homes. All DHE in NI and Scotland is being offered to the highest bidder. However under the old DCI's for selling Military Property service personnel should be given first choice, which the MoD states is not in place due to Annington owning property:confused:. That doesn't make sense to me.

The only reason for super garrisons is to allow the MoD to return all of Annington's Homes back to them before 2012. The profit shared agreement and the money made from MoD land is funding the two conflicts at present. The media has covered this in detail over the past couple of months.


£2.2bn Army boot sale funds Iraq and Afghanistan wars 07.07.07 London Evening Standard

Experts predict the cost of the Iraq war to the British taxpayer will exceed £1 billionThe Ministry of Defence has sold off historic barracks and land worth more than £2.2 billion to fund the spiralling cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Figures show ministers have met about half the cost of the conflicts by selling armed forces assets, including accommodation, airstrips, sports fields, military hospitals and firing ranges. The true cost of the invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein and driving the Taliban out of Afghanistan has never officially been released, but the respected Iraq Analysis Group has estimated that the MoD has spent in the region of £5 billion to fund the wars. Critics claim the money raked in by the Treasury should have been spent on better housing and equipment for troops. Figures released under the Freedom of Information Act show that since 1998, Defence Estates - the MoD organisation responsible for managing land and buildings - sold assets totalling £2.2 billion, including 12,446 hectares of land for housing and business developments. Chelsea Barracks has been sold to housing developers for a reported £900 million. Nearly 150 years of military tradition will come to an end when the prime location between Sloane Square and the Thames is vacated next year. The Duke of York Barracks in Chelsea fetched £94 million. Thousands of married quarters up and down the country have been snapped up by developers, as have former aerodromes. The Second World War airfield at RAF Hendon is being transformed into one of the country's biggest residential estates. The figures were uncovered by Lord Trefgarne, a former Conservative defence minister under Margaret Thatcher. He said: "I kept noticing from snippets in the press that famous and historic buildings in which our armed forces have been based for centuries were being sold to property developers. I have to say I am staggered by the findings." Nick Harvey, the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, said: "At a time when thousands of military personnel are living in sub-standard accommodation, it is shameful for assets to be sold off to pay for the illegal war in Iraq." Alan Simpson, a senior Labour backbencher, said: "If surplus assets are to be sold off it has to be on the basis that it improves the quality of support that is given to troops." The Mail has repeatedly highlighted how thousands of service personnel and their families have been forced to live in squalor, enduring ageing barracks with leaking roofs, broken boilers, cracked windows and damp. Some accommodation is so run-down it has been condemned. Meanwhile, soldiers with horrific battlefield injuries are treated on NHS wards because the Government closed specialist military hospitals to save money. And troops have been forced to buy their own items of kit such as sleeping bags, boots and rucksacks because they felt the Army issue was inadequate. Experts predict the cost of the Iraq war to the British taxpayer will exceed £1 billion this year for the first time since the invasion in 2003.



The Great Sell-Off
Examples of land and Barracks sold by the MoD

1.Royal Military Academy, Woolwich, South-east London.

2.Chelsea Barracks, west London.

3.Duke of York Barracks, west London.

4.Army Medical Office, Droitwich Spa, Worcs

5.RAF West Raynham (airfield and control tower)- West Raynham, near Fakenham, Norfolk.

6.Princess Mary's RAF Hospital and Halton Tennis Centre, RAF Halton, Bucks.

7.Anzio Barracks, Leek, Staffs.

8.Oakington Barracks, Longstanton, Cambs.

9.Whittington Barracks, Lichfield, Staffs.

10.HMS Daedalus (Training establishment for Fleet Air Arms)-Lee-on-Solent, near Portsmouth, Hampshire.

11.Atomic Weapons Establishment Cardiff (Manufactured components for nuclear programme)-Cardiff, South Wales.

12.Deysbrook Barracks (former home of Army bomb disposal unit)-West Derby, Liverpool.

13.Purfleet Rifle Ranges, Purfleet, Kent.

14.Chetwynd Barracks, Chilwell, Notts.

15.Parts of RAF Greenham Common, Newbury, Berks.

[ranger703]

Interesting reading in the Forres Gazette. Whats going to happen when Kinloss becomes 'busy' again when the MRA4 finally arrives,no housing available?

http://www.forres-gazette.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/1753/RAF_housing_rumours_continue_to_circulate.html

[VinRouge]

One would expect the MOD to stump up the cash for privately rented accom. If I got posted there and was told I was expected to rent out my own pocket as a result of shortsightedness on the behalf of MOD/DE/DHE then my next step would be to take the MOD to court as my salary is factored to allow for FMQ.

Oh, and i think CLASS ACTION would be a phrase the MOD would come to understand pretty bloody quickly :mad:

http://www.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=117237&d=11&h=24&f=23

[ATCO17]

Heard a little rumour that MoD was refused bank loans to fund project MoDEL at Northolt. Word is that the developers are being handed Bentley Priory and Uxbridge in lieu of payment. This is just a rumour though!

[D-IFF_ident]

People living in SFA are not tenants - MOD are the tenants and we live in the properties under license, meaning we probably don't get the usual tenants' rights.

See - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6234227.stm

The National Audit Office has a few interesting things to say on the sale of the properties in the first place:

http://www.nao.org.uk/Recommendation/report.asp?repId=393 and

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmpubacc/518/51803.htm

Actually, the more I sit here and Google, the more the whole 'Selling our homes' debacle starts to stink -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1996/11/14/nmod14.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1996/09/04/njap04.html

It would not surprise me at all if Annington pull the plug and start realising their investment by selling the properties - and there would be nothing we could do about it. Also, since the tenants (MOD) are responsible for the upkeep, repairs and improvements to the properies they lease (bizarre in itself), then it makes financial sense for them to stop paying the rent.

If the rumour at the start of this thread is in any way true then, at the very least, there needs to be a more thorough investigation into the selling of the properties in the first place, and the General Officers involved before and after retirement.

:=

[Hitback]

As I said before, this property is owned by the DHE, I would ask why you aren't permitted first refusal on the properties as ex-tenants as per the old DCI's disposal of ex-SFA. I would ask, if I lived their, for the SNP to look into this area and question the DHE legal obligation to ex-tenants of service accommodation. This could set a legal precedence for service personnel wishing to live in ex-service property at greatly discounted rates in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The DHE cann't use the Annington Homes Plc Line on this one.

I would also like to point out service personnel are tenants if they pay rent for a property. I have lived in 14 SF Homes and have always signed a tenants agreement.


D-IFF_ident (http://www.pprune.org/forums/member.php?u=23179) Is there a list of Share holders to Annington Homes or any of their other Companies. Interesting to see who the Chairman and Vice Chairman is. I just wounder how many others got their fingers in the pie.

Hitback

[D-IFF_ident]

Chairman is Sir Thomas Macpherson of Biallid, CBE MC** TD DL -

http://www.emac-global.com/content/about/people/sir_thomas_macpherson.html

http://www.entuity.com/company/board.html

Also Chairman of Boustead PLC-

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20051107/ai_n15767356

http://takingstock.accountancyage.com/2005/03/man_of_honours_.html

Deputy Chairman is Air Vice-Marshal Sandy Hunter CBE AFC -

Who owned 24% of shares in Annington Homes -

http://www.pprune.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-104853.html

Allegedly :cool:

[Al R]

The great MQ giveaway was one of Brown's first acts as CotE to rake in some 'free' cash. Remember those early heady days when there was suddenly money for allsorts of things, and none of them had anything to do with defence? Well, the MoD was well and truly stuffed, the whole deal is murky and as rancid as hell, and Gordon the Gopher has now moved on leaving the mayhem in his wake.

The Defence Estate is responsible for almost 50,000 MQs in the UK. Most of those in England and Wales were sold to Annington in 1996 and leased back by MOD. MOD retained the responsibility for maintenance and upgrade. Annual rent to Annington is around £140 million per year. Given that the MoD only received 1.6 Billion from Annington back in 1996, it doesn't take too much in the way of grey matter to work out that the windfall has now 'gone' and the MoD not only has to pay for the upkeep of the MQ estate, but also has to find 140 Million each year to give to Annington. Its like spending the redundancy money on a shiny new car but not bothering with the mortgage.

For those who don't know, the majority of MQs in England and Wales (Scotland and Northern Ireland were not included) was sold to Annington Homes Limited on a 999 year lease in November 1996, and then leased back by MOD on 200 year leases. Of those properties leased from Annington Homes, once any are identified as potentially surplus, MOD seeks confirmation from the Services that there is no longer term requirement for the properties. Surplus leased housing stock in England and Wales is, under the terms of the 1996 Sale Agreement, returned to Annington Homes. It is then for the company to arrange sales as they see fit. Which MoD pratts negotiate deals like this on the public behalf?

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/newhtml_hl?DB=semsimple&STEMMER=en&WORDS=annington&ALL=&ANY=&PHRASE=&CATEGORIES=&SIMPLE=annington&SPEAKER=&COLOUR=red&STYLE=s&ANCHOR=70621w0004.htm_wqn8&URL=/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070621/text/70621w0004.htm#70621w0004.htm_wqn8

The Public Affairs Committee wasn't very happy at the time either.

http://www.nao.org.uk/Recommendation/report.asp?repId=393

Gordon Brown? trust/far/throw.

[buoy15]

IIRC about 20 years ago, the RN won an arguement for an 'Assisted House Purchase' scheme which granted an up-front sum for the deposit and a pay back arrangement based on time remaining in Service. There was lots of noise from the 'Navy News' prior to it's introduction, and when it was agreed it all went quiet - hardly surprising - as, unfairly, it was not extended to the Army or RAF. That's why 70% of fishheads own their own homes - nothing to do with salary or location
About 8 years ago 180 airmens qtrs were demolished on North Side at ISK
The DHE or whatever they call themselves this week claimed they had to reduce the stock holding and they were left with few choices
They would not release them to the local authority for fear of DHSS and Druggies moving in alongside Service people
They were worried squatters might move in
They had all been recently upgraded with double glazing and natural gas etc
Yet, they still decided the cheapest option was demolition to meet the reduction quota
The Stn Cdr had no say on this and what was happening to his estate
To date, there are another 80 Off Qtrs boarded up awaiting a local estate agent crook to arrange disposal
The office DHE occupy is the old Kinloss Farmhouse once used by the Families Officer, his assistant and 2 secretaries
Today, there are no less than 15 cars parked outside, including weekends and they now only manage half the estate - says it all

[parabellum]

Given the appalling track record of the present government towards the armed forces and the emasculation they have already made happen why would they stop half way and only take the forces accommodation away?

May as well go the whole hog and send all the regular armed forces home and make them all reservists. Need a change in the law that requires a minimum of three months attending camp per annum, employers and employees to cooperate, by law. Individuals may serve an additional three months if they wish but no unemployment pay during these periods of camp. When operations are required then mobilisation will take place.
In the meantime those attending camp will service and maintain the buildings and equipment and pilots will require to attend refresher training of one week every three months. Courses of training requiring more than three months will be done in modules etc. etc. etc. There is no limit to what the bean counters could dream up and even though such a plan would be wholly unacceptable from a services point of view, when was that ever considered? The bean counters win every time.:uhoh:

[PMA's Toy]

Spoke to a colleague this weekend who's heard about some possible plans for quarters. I wasn't too impressed! :uhoh:

Apparently, the government wants us all to own our own homes. So we'll get some sort of lump sum scheme whereby your salary's abated by X for Y years, then you get a lump sum of X x Y to help buy a house. Then, when you get posted, you'll get the current package to help cover the costs incurred. Bingo, everyone's happy, we all own houses, but we're not out of pocket. Quarters will go, or be reduced, because we don't want them, we all want to own our own homes.

Except this doesn't cover what I'm meant to do when the constant moves cost twice as much as I can reclaim, nor does it help when I'm posted from Lossiemouth to High Wycombe or Whitehall and can barely afford a parking space.

Apparently, the response to this was that if the move is prohibitively expensive, the money saved from doing away with quarters will fund upgrades in SLA; so I can just live in the mess.

Strikes me as madness. Yes, I like owning my own home, but I don't want to move every 3 years. I like the house I have and I look forward to living in it permanently after my next option point, so I don't want to sell it! I also dislike the alternative; if you keep your home in one place, who wants to spend their 30s and 40s living in messes? The current system works and is necessary; I can still save up and buy a home, but at least when the military forces me to move, they can provide me with a house to put my family in so I can have some semblance of a normal life.

I don't want a mess to come home to, regardless of how much is spent improving it. I'd rather come home to my family! :ugh:

[VinRouge]

Apparently, the government wants us all to own our own homes. So we'll get some sort of lump sum scheme whereby your salary's abated by X for Y years, then you get a lump sum of X x Y to help buy a house. Then, when you get posted, you'll get the current package to help cover the costs incurred. Bingo, everyone's happy, we all own houses, but we're not out of pocket. Quarters will go, or be reduced, because we don't want them, we all want to own our own homes.


I have a funny feeling if they try anything like this, there will be legal challenges as it I am sure it borders on Illegal. At what rate for example, will interest be charged on this saving scheme? This WILL for me be the straw that breaks the camels back and the Air force can expect my 31 days notice if they expect to change my T&C's so significantly. There are plenty of airline jobs out there, with lots and lots of people already leaving, MOD would be digging their own grave with such a crackpot idea.

[D-IFF_ident]

I find it hard to believe that anybody would sell their house to a private company, then rent it back from them AND still be financially responsible for upgrades and upkeep of the house. Incredible piece of contract work from the civilian sector if they really got the MOD to agree to pay for upgrades so that the company can then sell a better house than the one they first bought.

Is this really the case?

[Affirmatron]

Service accommodation will always be available because we couldn't post a family from, let's say Scotland to London and expect them to pick up the bill for the move (minus the first 5k) and the substantial difference in house costs. Servicemen will be UNABLE to move and therefore the situation is untenable. Someody would (have to) take it to court. MOD would always settle out of court. The story gets around that you can contest it, end of policy.

FQ rents are likely to increase, but it cannot be possible to charge a realistic local rent in expensive areas such as London. If all rents go up, people would prefer to move out into better quality private accommodation, but the MOD would have to keep FQs but wouldn't be getting a rent. Own goal.

It's common for commercial leases to place the burden of repair on the tenant, but not for residential. However, the MOD will have leased them on commercial terms to ensure they have an assured contract that cannot be terminated within the lease period. As we occupy them under license we have none of the normal tenant's rights afforded to normal residential properties. It's a strange anomaly caused because the tenant of the property doesn't sign the lease.

[PMA's Toy]

Service accommodation will always be available because we couldn't post a family from, let's say Scotland to London and expect them to pick up the bill for the move (minus the first 5k) and the substantial difference in house costs. Servicemen will be UNABLE to move and therefore the situation is untenable.

Affirmatron, you're right; but the gist of it was that if you can't afford to move your family it's the same as choosing not to move your family. From what I understood, if I'm posted from Scotland to London then I have to accept that my family will stay in Scotland while I live in for the duration of my tour.

The idea appears to be that most spouses would have their own careers and not want to move, while the money saved from not providing quarters would improve messes, making them more pleasant places to spend 3 years.

It is, of course, completely wrong, and not what ANYONE in their right mind would want. It also doesn't consider those of us smart enough to marry a teacher, or someone else who can work in most parts of the UK; nor does it consider that maybe we'd all prefer to live together with our families?

[ZH875]

making them more pleasant places to spend 3 years

This should read 'Less than 1 year' as 12 months PVR notice, less annual, resettlement and Terminal leave would see the average bloke 'punished' for 9 months.

Then it all starts over again, how many more ways of 'forcing' people to PVR can they think of, there must be another round of redundancies in the air, and the MOD can not afford it.:sad:

[SirToppamHat]

Affirmatron, you're right; but the gist of it was that if you can't afford to move your family it's the same as choosing not to move your family. From what I understood, if I'm posted from Scotland to London then I have to accept that my family will stay in Scotland while I live in for the duration of my tour.

Which would, in turn, make one no longer eligible for Boarding School Allowance/Continuity of Education Allowance - so the Service wins again then.

<<RANT WARNING>>

My understanding is that we are on license to occupy FQs precisely so that we are prevented from exercising our right as tennants. I am lucky at the moment, I live in a good FQ on a nice patch, but in the next couple of months, I will be moving Mrs Hat and the Hats Minor to a dump. What I have noticed over the past XX years is that the cost of living in a FQ has increased dramatically, but the standard of service has plummeted.

MODern Housing Solutions is a bad joke that has no chance of success because THERE IS NO MONEY, which is kind where we came in isn't it? Every time I see a workman they are botching whatever job they have been given. My roof still leaks 6 weeks after a temporary repair. Reported it? Yes. Emergency? No. Estimate of time to repair? Not possible. What makes it worse is that most of the people visiting FQs to do repairs are pretty reasonable people - but they are working with their hands tied behind their backs. They have been told not to spend too long on a job. If that means botching and running away, then that's what they have been told to do in writing[U], and get the occupant to raise an additional job, which sets the clock back to zero and produces another tick in their stats.
There is [U]no preventive maintenance going on (even when its necessity is reported), and in many cases they would rather move a family out of a FQ than fix a problem (been there, done that).

In my opinion, those responsible for the original sell-off of the FQs should have been strung-up.

<<RANT OFF>>

Sorry about that, and I haven't had a drink since Sunday morning!

STH

[Rev I. Tin]

STH,

I am concerned re the CEA rules. Having signed the Mobility Clause and have to move when posted in order to receive the CEA I am scratching my head over this latest MQ revelation.

:confused:

[SirToppamHat]

Rev I. Tin

It depends/will depend on the interpretation of the rules. I don't have immediate access to the JSP but, as you are aware, once you sign up for CEA, you agree to serve accompanied, and will need to show this each time you claim. This is in addition to your poster providing you with a signed certificate stating that you are vulnerable to posting within X years.

There are some posts that are shielded from the 'accompanied' requirement - where there are no FQs for example, and I believe some of the posts in MoD are shielded because of the difficulties in getting accommodation. These posts allow you effectively to serve unaccompanied, but without losing your CEA.

This is all very well for a small number of people, but where the inability to serve accompanied becomes widespread, because of the inequity of North/South house prices and non-availability of FQs, you can be pretty sure that the argument for CEA will be closely examined by the beancounters (as it currently seems to be about very 6 mths).

The main problem with CEA, though, is that its withdrawal would, I believe, be the final straw for many people. For someone with a couple of children, it's worth a lot of money, and your kids (generally) come out of it educated!
However, this is going away from the thread and is perhaps a topic for another time.

STH

[Lima Juliet]

STH

You are right about CEA and a FMQ was instrumental in my plan - diary simply says "Bugger..."

LJ:(

[philrigger]

;)

After all these posts, has anybody who is directly concerned with this matter tried to get an official response on the subject ?

As an outsider looking in it appears that because someone posted a suggestion that married quarters are dying a death everybody else has assumed this to be true.

I am not saying that there is no truth in this but what are the facts from the official side of things ?






'We knew how to whinge but we kept it in the NAAFI bar.'

[cornish-stormrider]

I realise that this is tantamount to treason. My apologies to HM the Queen. PM me if you want a coup. now is it a coup, a coup d'etade, a coop de grace or whut???

I say we shut the gates, bring all the lads and lasses back from the sandpits and put all the sniveling politicians against the wall.

[navibrator]

I haven't read all the thread but lets get real. Ever since the MQs were sold off, the writing was on the wall for FQs. And do not expect a housing allowance. We are already told that we get paid really well so do not expect a US housing allowance.

The RAF will be in 3 places soon - Scotland, Lincs and London/Oxford.

So go buy a house and commute!

I am off!

[Rigchick]

You forgot sunny Norfolk!:rolleyes:

[D-IFF_ident]

Everyone gets a vote - in fact two votes if you count the other foot. I voted - it's death by a thousand paper cuts and I'm not waiting around to see if this rumour is another slash.

[Hitback]

UPDATE ON HOMELESSNESS LEGISLATION ISSUE

The following link is on the BAFF site. It explains the Housing issue in detail and shows the support they have given to this issue. A big thank you for all their support on this campaign. as well as the RBL.


Regards
Hitback

Clause 270 - Armed forces: homelessness and allocation of housing
775. Clause 270 amends section 199 of the Housing Act 1996, which sets out the circumstances when a person has a local connection with the district of a local housing authority. Housing authorities may take account of whether a person has a local connection with their district when considering the person's priority for an allocation of housing under Part 6 of the 1996 Act or when making inquiries about whether the person is homeless and owed a duty for the purposes of Part 7 of the 1996 Act. The effect of the amendment is that a person in the armed forces will now be able to establish a local connection with a district through residence of choice or employment there, in the same way as a civilian.


http://www.baff.org.uk/baff-social-housing-campaign.htm

[FFP]

they in effect have divorced themselves from the rest of us and should be treated as scum

Slightly harsh, but see where you're coming from.

Is the above official Aircrew policy statement ;)

[HILF]

Hitback,

In reading back through this thread I note that at least one establishment in your list (posting 31/07/2007, 16.17) has not been sold off - Whittington Barracks. This establishment is still in open, in MOD hands and is earmarked at present to receive elements of the Defence Medical Services (DMS) organisation.

Not points scoring, but I am sure that you would want the record straight.

HILF

[Hitback]

EDM361 - Medical Discharge Boards And Armed Forces Personnel

Proposed by Nick Harvey on 03/12/2009


That this House recognises the difficulties with the current Medical Discharge system by which three medical boards discuss the injured person's medical treatment and discharge; believes that insufficiently reliable information about benefits and entitlements is available to service personnel prior to discharge, as well as information about the Discharge board process itself, which is often convoluted and conducted in an uninformative manner; notes that the appointments with the boards can often be intimidating; calls for better support from outside agencies such as the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency; and urges the Government to investigate the matter and to transform medical discharge boards so that they become fairer, more transparent and more accessible in terms of advice and guidance throughout the whole process.


The following link will make locating your MP easy. UK Parliament - Her Majesty's Government (http://www.parliament.uk/mpslordsandoffices/government_and_opposition/hmg.cfm)


Please show your support by sending your MP the following.

Thank you once again for the sites support.
Regards

Hitback


Dear .........

Please sign EDM 361 Medical Discharge Boards And Armed Forces Personnel.

These are the reasons why you should sign.

Although the Armed Forces have been Tri-Service for some time the MoD still run three separate Medical Discharge Boards for the three Armed Forces. Service personnel go through three Boards but only attend the final one before discharge.

Having three separate Medical Discharge Boards adds to greater cost to the public purse and confusion for those being discharged.

Many service personnel have little or no idea of how these Boards work before they arrive at one –this has been the case for decades and urgently needs reform.

When service personnel arrive at the final Board they have no idea what to say, who sits on the Medical Board, or what powers these Boards have. There is very little general advice or guidance from the MoD or other agency on the process service personnel undergo, their fundamental rights or reliable answers about discharge.

There is no automatic right for personnel to bring along a nominated colleague or friend or legal adviser so candidates can sometimes make catastrophic decisions about their future lives.

The degree or percentage of disability service personnel qualify for (important for realising how much compensation they will later receive) is not told to them by the Medical Board but are informed much later. There is no medical plan for injured personnel or any appointments booked with medical staff.

The Service Personnel and Veterans Agency (SPVA) is not involved at any stage of the Medical Board process and are not permitted to see any information about service personnel going before the Board.

If the SPVA were allowed information, it would mean the necessary paperwork for a war pension for example will have been completed and information about benefits including Incapacity, Mobility, Carers Allowance, Housing Benefits etc will have been talked through.

It would mean an exemption certificate for medication (presently not issued until discharge) will have been issued which would allow personnel to get medication they require free of charge and not allow some of them to fall into poverty.

The SPVA would also be responsible for contacting outside agencies such as Combat Stress or Talking2Minds with the date, time and place of treatment before the service leaver enters civilian life. This is essential for those suffering from Mental Health Issues (PTSD). Combat Stress should be made aware of the service leaver if they have PTSD or any service related mental illness.

A story in The Times on 15 November 2009 said that 4,916 cases of mental disorder have been identified in British troops who toured Afghanistan and Iraq, while 67 who served in the two war zones had committed suicide since 2003.

While an injured person is on the SAM List or at Headley Court, they should be encouraged to start pre-release courses including advice on self employment, CV writing, Interview techniques.

The resettlement into Social Housing requires to be done at least 6 months prior to discharge.

Finally, there should be recognition of the job spouses and dependants do for those who are discharged – it is them who keep family life together when the front door closes.

By re-examining its procedures and introducing change to the present Medical Discharge System it would mean that a faster transition to civilian life would be achieved in line with the Ministry of Defence’s paper The Nation’s Commitment to the Armed Forces Community: Consistent and Enduring Support which was presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Defence in July 2009.


Your Respectfully

...............................

[Hitback]

I had to place that in here as the One Common Cause thread kept on closing down on me....:ugh:

Regards

Hitback

(http://onecommoncause.*************/)

[navibrator]

This is a ploy to stimulate the housing market! GB knows the country is bust unless he gets house prices up - my recommendation is a nice caravan!

[johnny99]

Ok, amongst other things (inter alia for staff types) I can see particular problems when moving from Scotland to Englerlandstan and vice versa re ZH's previous. The sealed bid system (albeit not in great use at moment in Scotland due to the depressed market) brings a greater level of certainty in the purchase in that it moves more quickly to a binding agreement than the system favored in Engerlandstan. It is possible that moves from Scotland to Engerlandstan could fall through close to time of move. Ok that can happen with existing moves in England but do away with SFQs and the prospects of homeless service families rises. Likewise, try buying a house in Scotland being reliant on a house sale in Engerlandstan to fund the legally binding bid – most solicitors would not take you seriously so you will need balls of steel to brass out your bid. I guess what they are banking on is that the RAF will move towards a more static basing policy. Oh well no could it mean fewer tours in the bad lands of East Anglia?