Married quarters
So, to take Lossiemouth as an example: Corporal with 6 kids gets the Old Manse and the Stn Cdr, whose kids are over 18, gets a semi on windy ridge. Have I got that right?
Stn Cdr gets a semi? 😀 In all seriousness has nobody in the press ever noticed that most married quarters should be condemned for their state regardless of allocation.
The following users liked this post:
No, not at all! The Station Commander lives in an official residence as part of their job. In that respect it’s not a family quarter at all.
The following users liked this post:
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,810
Received 136 Likes
on
64 Posts
See my post #33 … my wife was allocated that as a Head of Department at Staff College. And no, we have no kids. It was a nice end to our generally acceptable MQ exoerience.
However … are there officers’ quarters with only 2 bedrooms? Every one we ever occupied had 3. So would a childless JO have to move to the OR’s patch?
However … are there officers’ quarters with only 2 bedrooms? Every one we ever occupied had 3. So would a childless JO have to move to the OR’s patch?
Whilst serving my sentence at HQSTC we had a very good mq at Medmenham. Large, detached and well maintained, including a garage. I know this was a one off but we enjoyed it nonetheless, especially the location close to the Thames. I was a chf tech, directly opposite was a wg cdr and we got on fine, keeping conversations to non service matters. When I was OOA the wg cdr or his wife would pop over to see if everything was ok. When their pipes froze he came over to check ours and fixed them. All one could want from a neighbour but I still maintained the correct address of Sir and harmony prevailed.
The following users liked this post:
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: england
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone may want to draw Rosie’s attention to this from the AFPRB report 2023:
‘MOD assessed that Service accommodation offered excellent value for money for personnel of all ranks as a result of the subsidy. The monetary value of the Service Family Accommodation (SFA) subsidy was between 43% and 73% depending on type of accommodation occupied. The Single Living Accommodation (SLA) subsidy for a ‘Grade 1 for Charge’ en-suite room compared with the median private rental for a room stood at between 45% and 80%’
Or more explicitly, point out that say an OF3(Maj/Sqn Ldr/lt Cmdr) on a mid point salary of £69.5k pa pays circa £17 rent and £6.07 Contribution in lieu of council tax per day or £715 per month for a Type IV (two double bedroom and 2 single bedrooms) (source JSP 464), which from memory includes Water rates. Versus circa £1800 per month to rent a 4 bedroom property in Warminster plus council tax (say £200) and water (say £35) or £2035 per month. Or they could buy a bed property locally for between £950K and £275K and run the risk of having any random living next to them. (Source Rightmove)
So to Rosie et al I say I hope you have deep pockets to be able to pay the extra £1500 per month to have officer standard accommodation if her other half leaves.
I won’t cover the pension differential either, but worth thinking about
SFA-SLA-Accommodation-Charges-extract-WEF-April-2022.pdf (aff.org.uk)
‘MOD assessed that Service accommodation offered excellent value for money for personnel of all ranks as a result of the subsidy. The monetary value of the Service Family Accommodation (SFA) subsidy was between 43% and 73% depending on type of accommodation occupied. The Single Living Accommodation (SLA) subsidy for a ‘Grade 1 for Charge’ en-suite room compared with the median private rental for a room stood at between 45% and 80%’
Or more explicitly, point out that say an OF3(Maj/Sqn Ldr/lt Cmdr) on a mid point salary of £69.5k pa pays circa £17 rent and £6.07 Contribution in lieu of council tax per day or £715 per month for a Type IV (two double bedroom and 2 single bedrooms) (source JSP 464), which from memory includes Water rates. Versus circa £1800 per month to rent a 4 bedroom property in Warminster plus council tax (say £200) and water (say £35) or £2035 per month. Or they could buy a bed property locally for between £950K and £275K and run the risk of having any random living next to them. (Source Rightmove)
So to Rosie et al I say I hope you have deep pockets to be able to pay the extra £1500 per month to have officer standard accommodation if her other half leaves.
I won’t cover the pension differential either, but worth thinking about
SFA-SLA-Accommodation-Charges-extract-WEF-April-2022.pdf (aff.org.uk)
[QUOTE=adminblunty;11606195]Someone may want to draw Rosie’s attention to this from the AFPRB report 2023:
‘MOD assessed that Service accommodation offered excellent value for money for personnel of all ranks as a result of the subsidy. The monetary value of the Service Family Accommodation (SFA) subsidy was between 43% and 73% depending on type of accommodation occupied. The Single Living Accommodation (SLA) subsidy for a ‘Grade 1 for Charge’ en-suite room compared with the median private rental for a room stood at between 45% and 80%’[QUOTE]
'Grade 1 for Charge' aside (as there don't seem to be too many of those out there), the issue with the new system is not the subsidy and never has been. It is about entitlement to accommodation, how that accommodation is allocated, and the cost to the public purse. The new policy - which is likely to stay on hold for a while because Ministers don't like being criticised in the right-wing press - has been in devleopment since 2016, possibly earlier. There was a shortage of accommodation in the right places and at the right standard, and the 1993 contract muppetry meant it was becoming increasingly expensive.
A cynic might argue that one way to deal with shortages and increasing costs would be reduce demand, which can be done by a combination of encouraging people to buy/rent on the economy or hacking them off to the point where they vote with their feet. The people who designed the scheme probably had a poor understanding of why, for example, living next door to someone you have just sent to Colchester for 28 days is not a good idea. They may not have thought about the impact on a WO who has accepted a commission, been posted, and now has to explain to their spouse that they will be moving back into the 2-bed they occupied 20 years ago because their kids have left home, the only perk being that it's further to walk to the Mess. And they won't have thought about the impact on the Rosie's of this world, who see things getting worse for them, not better.
The answer for people at lower ranks who genuinely need larger houses is to build larger houses. But that all costs money and the accommodation programme has been under-funded since any of us can remember.
‘MOD assessed that Service accommodation offered excellent value for money for personnel of all ranks as a result of the subsidy. The monetary value of the Service Family Accommodation (SFA) subsidy was between 43% and 73% depending on type of accommodation occupied. The Single Living Accommodation (SLA) subsidy for a ‘Grade 1 for Charge’ en-suite room compared with the median private rental for a room stood at between 45% and 80%’[QUOTE]
'Grade 1 for Charge' aside (as there don't seem to be too many of those out there), the issue with the new system is not the subsidy and never has been. It is about entitlement to accommodation, how that accommodation is allocated, and the cost to the public purse. The new policy - which is likely to stay on hold for a while because Ministers don't like being criticised in the right-wing press - has been in devleopment since 2016, possibly earlier. There was a shortage of accommodation in the right places and at the right standard, and the 1993 contract muppetry meant it was becoming increasingly expensive.
A cynic might argue that one way to deal with shortages and increasing costs would be reduce demand, which can be done by a combination of encouraging people to buy/rent on the economy or hacking them off to the point where they vote with their feet. The people who designed the scheme probably had a poor understanding of why, for example, living next door to someone you have just sent to Colchester for 28 days is not a good idea. They may not have thought about the impact on a WO who has accepted a commission, been posted, and now has to explain to their spouse that they will be moving back into the 2-bed they occupied 20 years ago because their kids have left home, the only perk being that it's further to walk to the Mess. And they won't have thought about the impact on the Rosie's of this world, who see things getting worse for them, not better.
The answer for people at lower ranks who genuinely need larger houses is to build larger houses. But that all costs money and the accommodation programme has been under-funded since any of us can remember.
When I think back to any base where I have seen the married patch, there is not exactly a surplus of lovely houses just sat there waiting to be occupied. And the 2 bedroom properties that I remember are not fit for anyone of any rank. Certainly not in 2024.
As I said on page 2 of this thread. It’s a cynical ploy and I’m glad it backfired on them.
BV
