Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Secret Plan to Remove Quarters

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Secret Plan to Remove Quarters

Old 26th Jul 2007, 12:40
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South
Posts: 2
Unhappy Secret Plan to Remove Quarters

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.
Admin Mole is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2007, 14:12
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The front end and about 50ft up
Posts: 510
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)!
Fg Off Max Stout is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2007, 14:20
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 76
Posts: 1,538
Law of Unintended Consequences

Originally Posted by Admin Mole View Post
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.
Wader2 is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2007, 14:35
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Wonderful

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
Squirrel 41 is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2007, 14:37
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
I think that many servicemen have the option of buying their own house...maybe they could do that.
vecvechookattack is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2007, 14:48
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 250 ft agl
Posts: 242
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
stickmonkeytamer is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2007, 15:08
  #7 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South
Posts: 2
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?
Admin Mole is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2007, 15:16
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bucks
Posts: 63
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.
Rheinstorff is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2007, 15:55
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: england
Posts: 90
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!

Last edited by adminblunty; 26th Jul 2007 at 18:37.
adminblunty is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2007, 16:18
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: At piece.
Posts: 188
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. 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.
OCCWMF is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2007, 16:19
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Muscat, Oman
Posts: 604
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!
Ali Barber is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2007, 16:48
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Lynehamshire
Posts: 79
Can't be disadvantaged!

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
Clear Right,Px Good! is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2007, 17:13
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: England
Posts: 1,249
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".
ericferret is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2007, 17:28
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: In the workshop, Prune-whispering.
Age: 67
Posts: 740
Danger

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.
PingDit is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2007, 18:31
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
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?
vecvechookattack is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2007, 18:32
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,987
Thumbs down

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.

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.
VinRouge is online now  
Old 26th Jul 2007, 18:36
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Lynehamshire
Posts: 79
Private Smith

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
Clear Right,Px Good! is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2007, 18:39
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,987
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.
VinRouge is online now  
Old 26th Jul 2007, 19:07
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 2,157
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.
ZH875 is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2007, 19:11
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Lynehamshire
Posts: 79
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!



CRPxGood
Clear Right,Px Good! is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.