Home to duty decrease
 

Forgive me if i am wrong but i believe that home to duty rates have decreased. The reasons cited are: 1. Lower petrol costs 2. Lower car servicing costs. Could anyone just confirm that this is planet earth in 2007 and if so what f*****g planet are these people on?:mad::mad::mad:

Maybe they will use the same excuse for a pay cut???

I can see it now.......

"intrest rates are falling so you dont need as much pay"


maybe this would be better, less people are bothering to vote, therefore less people are interested in politics. Surely that means we dont need as many MPs??

Have a look at http://www.theaa.com/allaboutcars/ad...trol_table.jsp and http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice...s/archive.html - I don't have time to do the analysis.

Same thing happened to MPs a couple of years ago.

Parliamentary allowances: Motor Mileage Allowance

2004/05 mileage rate: up to 20,000 miles per year at the rate of 57.7p per mile, and over 20,000 at 26.6p per mile. (For 2005/06 this rate has been reduced to a rate of 40p and 25p per mile).

"Home to Duty"????

You mean to say you guys can claim expenses for driving to work????

I'm speechless...I hope you at least declare it on your tax returns.

haha good windup eng.... keep fishing

Lower petrol prices? :confused:

I've not noticed them, some independants round here are charging 99p a litre, a damned site more than last year!!! :*

ase eng, if your question was serious I can tell you the rules and why.

I always reckoned the ONLY people who should have ever got home to duty costs were those that the RAF forced to live in a married quarter some distance away from camp. If you chose to live that far away or bought your own house through choice then you should have to pay your own transport costs to and from place of duty, exactly the same as any other "normal" person going to/from work.
I claimed it because I could, but had the rules changed I wouldn't have batted an eyelid as it was my choice to live 14 miles from work. I upset a lot of people (all married and living far from camp, strangely enough) with this belief over the years.

SecretSooty, to a point I agree with you. HtoD came in at the time I got married and very welcome at a penny halpenny a mile. We had just moved in to remote quarters. The calculation was tricky however as normal hours route was through a back gate and out of hours was a longer route.

Later we moved and bought a house. Now this is where we disagree. My house was about 16 miles from the base; not through choice but through lack of choice. There were quarters from the same unit on our estate. Should I have got HtoD? I think so.

Later I was posted to another unit a further 15 miles away. Now the deal changed. I could have been paid for the house move (disturbance allowance) or I could continue to claim more HtoD. Without the sums the cash was probably not that different but the Air Force saved by not having to fork out the most dosh up front. Also Mrs PN who worked for the NHS 15 miles in the other direction would have had to leave her job or pay twice the motoring costs. HtoD while remaining in one's own home can help the Missus retain her job in the local area.

After a house move to a different part of the country I had 5 tours from the one house. The major driver now was MRs PNs flat refusal to move to Doncaster! Maybe in this instance HtoD may not have been appropriate but the system was happy to pay HtoD and also BSA. It almost made a 3 hour daily commute pleasant but thecar had to be serviced every 12 weeks.

PS HtoD is tax free as it is not seen as a perk but an economy. It is paid at a rate less than the 40/25 and you cannot claim tax relief on the difference unlike when you get the Public Transport rate.

Well SecertSooty if that was the case then maybe more people would live in Married Quarters but then the RAF would be in trouble as me thinks they do not have enough of them!!

Secret Sooty

Fifteen years ago, I might have had some sympathy for your position, though I have never claimed this allowance. However:

Rant On

That most excellent chap Michael Portillo screwed the housing stock years ago by selling the whole lot off for peanuts and having us lease them back. I stand to be corrected, but we have to release a percentage of these houses (5%? 10%?) each year to be sold to the general public at an obscene profit to the original purchaser. In a few years, there will be next to no FQs left, and the Service/Govt will either have to build new FQs or, pretty soon, buy back some of of the FQs sold by Mr Portillo. Can anyone see that happening?
As a result, the Service/Govt wants people to buy their own houses, and I can see a situation soon where those joining the Services lose the right to FQ accommodation completely as a means of reducing the demand in line with reducing availability. Another element of this is the increase in FQ rates to bring them more into line with commercial rents. I have no objection to this, except that I see no increase in pay to offset this, yet the availability of Service accommodation is oft cited as one reason our pay is not similar to civil equivalents.

With the current state of the housing market, many of our people have no option but to live in FQs, or else accept whatever accommodation they can get away from the unit at which they are serving. Anyone below Air Cdre rank thought of buying something decent in the High Wycombe area recently? I have a good friend who lives with his family over an hour away from his Unit - because it was all he could get - and I bet there are worse examples of daily commutes! Oh, and when you take into account the Service's abandonment (over many years I accept) of meaningful support for families (Medical, Dental, Local Education), these too become factors that mean, through no fault of their own, people may have to live further away from their units than previously THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN! After 2 years at my current Unit (in FQs) wife has been given an appointment at a dentist - in Oct 07 - about a month after we are posted - back to the bottom of the list she goes! HEEEEEELP!

Incidentally, ISTR the DHEDHDEDEDH()()()()( - rearrange letters and brackets to make their current name - is allowed to accommodate us up to 45 mins(?) away from work, which is fine if you can drive (have a (second) car, licence etc). IMHO, they should only be able to house you where there is Service transport to work.

Sorry, but I feel better for that.

Rant Off

So yes the Service does contribute to the cost of getting to work, though the rates don't even begin to approach those the MPs get :mad:.

STH

PS. This post was runner-up in the National Forums Championships for imaginative use of brackets and the letters D, H and E in a single sentence!

htd
 

I was told the other day that on JPA you can only claim back 3 months worth of HTD, which kind of f:mad:ks things up a bit if you haven't put claims in for the last three years...nice work fellas:ugh:

there is a way, but it involves so much paperwork and an office in Glasgow..:zzz:

On whose time? ;)

Go for it!

STH

STH,

Going back to your FQ rant, as you and I are currently in receipt of CEA, how does the lack of FQs work with the mobility contract of uplifting the whole family on posting if there are no FQs at your next duty station?

Home to almost Duty .....
 

Grateful if someone in the know on the scribbly / allowances side could shed light on whether I'm just being a bit thick (very possible :ok:) or whether the current HDT scheme is taking the p1ss. And before anyone says, read it, have already looked at JSP 752 and the admin office in my new section of the trench believes just turning up is going above and beyond:

I am in the process of relocating Melchett HQ outside the wire - some 40 miles outside the wire. Now some might say it's my choice to live so far from my current location, but having had discussions with the desk about career aspirations it looks as though I will be spending the next couple of tours in this part of the world, so my new place will be fairly central for most future locations. To me that makes sense - a bit of forward planning and according to the JSP 752 I will be saving the Dept money by not living on base, hence why they pay HDT for people living in their own homes.

However, it appears that the HDT allowance is based on the private care rate MMA, ~25p/mile, but the deductions made for the private contribution is based on a rate of 31p / mile. Furthermore, the formula used to calculate the allowance is based on 18 journies per month; now unless my maths is rusty, that is 9 days worth of commuting there and back, but in a typical month I will be in work for 22-22 days. Even if the 18 journies per month is there and back, that's still less than the number of days at work each month.

So if I will be saving the Dept money for the rest of my career, how come the HDT regs appear to be the epitome of Scrooge like penny pinching - just what justification is there for penalizing people for commuting to work if you want to get them off base so you can save money?

Yet more lip service from the allowances people? But then I guess Gordon has to save money somehow in order to keep paying the MPs' unreceipted allowances. Have I got it wrong - will HDT deliberately leave me out of pocket for going to work? :sad:

Melchett, sounds to me like one should only turn-up to the office 9 days per month.

If memory serves me correctly, I believe it is assumed that you will "car share" on 5 days every month. 22-5=18 QED

Don't think so! Melchett, they are whole days - and it is not far off 18x12 days per year when you knock off weekends, leave and minor dets.

BN - I'm sorry, but not far off just doesn't cut it. Anytime they make a mistake in your favaour, reagardless of the amount they persue it with a ruthlessness that would put Stalin to shame. So why should we - not just me - we, accept it when it comes to us being out of pocket? Anyway, they are still obliged to pay you HTD if you are on a course / det within a reasonable distance of your home & home unit.

LFFC - I shall ask my nearest colleague to take a daily 30 mile detour to pick me up and drop me off a week a month!

What really hacks me off is that they take a personal contribution - fair enough, but at a rate of 124% of the rate they pay you (much more if you travel over 28 miles where the rate of payment is 2/3 of the MMA for affordability purposes!). And yes it's only for part of the total, but it is a principle; it mightn't be so bad if they took the personal contribution at the same rate as they paid you, but what is the justification for clawing back extra? Surely that can't be right?

So come on then SP Pol, justify that one - especially as the price of keeping a car going has shot through the roof. Another nail in the RAF's coffin - keep it up at this rate and you won't have to pay HTD as there'll be no-one left.