• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

All things Intended Place of Residence/IPR (merged)

old fart

Member
Inactive
Reaction score
1
Points
230
Possible changes coming to IPR.

1.  If you are within 5 years of your CRA you can elect your IPR and move while serving (No change).

2.  If you have over 20 years of service, you can elect IPR two years prior to a selected release date and move while serving (No Change).

Scuttlebutt.....At this time, it is possible to complete a move that you eventually decide will be your IPR move.  Having kept all receipts, you then claim the IPR move in arrears. 

The right to" claim in arrears" is probably going to be crap-canned.

That change could occur with little notice as early as 1 Sep 13, or 31 Mar 14.....or not for a while, or never (which I hope is the case).  I would hope that any change would have been clearly articulated, but as with changes to Separation pay etc - don't hold your breath. 

As for me and to situate this....I am in year 35, we finally bought the retirement house (a good deal which ticked most boxes having missed out on 4 others)...My own home went on the market last week.  We close on the new house in the near future.  Plan was to move when my house sells having elected IPR.  Then "claim in arrears".

Not being a gambler, I will now select IPR while on IR (and most likely before selling my own house or moving)....As soon as you elect IPR of course you are done on Imposed restriction (IR)/Separation expense (SE).

I am on my first and last stint on IR.  My 35 year point is in Sep 13.  I have agreed to stay on till APS 14. 

As it's a guessing game, with substantial losses if you loose....I will elect before the first possible policy change date (Sep 13).  Having said that policy's can change any time.

I am posting this to offer a bit of scuttlebutt to anyone thinking of claiming in arrears, particularly if they are on IR. 

Here is something I did not know also....If you are on IR, and changed your principal residence (date whatever)....and subsequently try and claim in arrears you will have to repay your SE from the date you change principal residence.  I agree with this.

This has been a steep learning curve.....getting info should not be as hard as it has been.

My thanks to a certain member on this board who has been a great help.

Cheers, OF
 
IPR needs to be tightened up.  There's no valid reason for the CF to pay people to move within the same community on retirement.  I know of service couples who retire at different times and take their two moves to move within the same place they were last posted to.

 
dapaterson said:
IPR needs to be tightened up.  There's no valid reason for the CF to pay people to move within the same community on retirement.  I know of service couples who retire at different times and take their two moves to move within the same place they were last posted to.

Based on your earlier comments, I knew you would throw that in.  You are entitled to an opinion...but I think the highlighted bit is total BS.

The right to a final move on release to a residence that better fits your post retirement situation is a benefit that I hope is not lost.

I am moving 25km (small town to the big city!)...my choice...after 35+ YOS.....

Two IPR moves though sounds like abuse....on that I agree.
 
dapaterson said:
I know of service couples who retire at different times and take their two moves to move within the same place they were last posted to.
I know of service couples who retire at the same time and take both their IPR moves.  That benefit should exist only once per family. 
 
MCG said:
I know of service couples who retire at the same time and take both their IPR moves.  That benefit should exist only once per family.

Totally agree but the mechanics of that don't seem to make sense.  If they have one principal residence and move IPR to the new principal residence....don't see how that can be elected twice.

If they each have a principal residence and each move to a new principal but separately owned residence, I guess it does.  But if that is possible, it seems to be a loophole that should not be allowed.

My two cents....

The purpose here though is to let folks know about possible changes to "Claiming an IPR move in Arrears"....Can a Mod, change the title to better reflect the intent?  Thanks...
 
In order to qualify for the benefits of a move 2 postings ago (2008), they applied this rule:
Regular Force members who are posted and Reserve Force members who
accept a period of employment, as per Chapter 13, are authorized to move
their (D) HG&E from one place of duty to another only when the
replacement residence is at least 40 kilometres closer to the new place of
duty than the current principal residence.


Why then on an IPR do we allow members to move next door? I would hazard a guess that the regulation was originally implemented to offset the cost of moving members out of PMQs into other accommodations. That was back in a time where a majority of members still lived in. Maybe the rule needs to be changed allow an IPR when moving out of the geographical location, or out of DND owned housing (be it SQ, MQ, etc.).
 
You are either entitled to a final move or you are not....

The rest does not matter.
 
old fart said:
Totally agree but the mechanics of that don't seem to make sense.  If they have one principal residence and move IPR to the new principal residence....don't see how that can be elected twice.
First mbr takes IPR 24 to 18 months before release, then the other mbr of service couple takes IPR within the year after release.  That becomes one household with two paid IPR moves.
 
dapaterson said:
IPR needs to be tightened up.  There's no valid reason for the CF to pay people to move within the same community on retirement. 

Sure there is.

The house I selected, bought, and moved into when I was posted to Ottawa in 2008 was purchased with the knowledge that I would likely be moving again in 4-5 years.  It is not the same house that I would have purchased if I knew Ottawa was going to be my retirement posting - yet, a PS job offer made it just that; my retirement posting.

If I'm eligible for a move clear across the country, then I should be eligible for a move clear across the street.
 
Occam said:
If I'm eligible for a move clear across the country, then I should be eligible for a move clear across the street.

Two other groups come to mind, those who are only renting and the others being those occupying PMQ's?  I too purchased a home with the full expectation of having to sell at a later date.  When you are on a tight clock sometimes you have no choice but to "settle" for what is currently on the market.

Sometimes circumstance overtakes the situation and you now find yourself at the end of your career, so now to find a home that you will occupy for 15-20 years, as opposed to 4-7 years.  Across the street, across the country or even across the world really shouldn't make a difference.

The one point above that I agree with is the "one IPR" per household concept.  And don't get me started on MSC's each receiving 75% of PLD, cause that one makes no sense either!
 
So how far does the CF have to go to subsidize lifestyle choices?  Non-military personnel who want to change houses pay their own way.  Military members are already compensated for the disruptions of military life through their pay - it's one of the elements in the military factor.

In some of the cases cited people choose to retire - it's not forced up on them - in order to get a job in the local area.  How, exactly, is it then the military's responsibility to pay for a local move for someone?

Is there a need for the IPR move?  In some cases, yes.
 
dapaterson said:
So how far does the CF have to go to subsidize lifestyle choices?  Non-military personnel who want to change houses pay their own way.  Military members are already compensated for the disruptions of military life through their pay - it's one of the elements in the military factor.
In some of the cases cited people choose to retire - it's not forced up on them - in order to get a job in the local area.  How, exactly, is it then the military's responsibility to pay for a local move for someone?
Is there a need for the IPR move?  In some cases, yes.

The majority of people "choose" to retire.  The military factor is based on several items of which "liaibility to serve" (ie; 24/7/365 and go where your told) is probably the most overriding of them.  As members of the CF, we are by virtue already making "sacrifices" while at the sametime making a lifestyle choice.  The CF basically "uproots" you from what you know as home, family, friends, etc and pays for your relocation.  In turn and after a pre-determined number of years, they also agree to pay for a move as a result of, shall we say "services rendered".

It should not be considered a subsidy but rather an entitlement that has been "earned" as a result of time served.

I hear what you are saying and YES, in some cases the possibility exists that the benefit could be abused but why punish everyone for the actions of a few?
 
The original policy intent was to return individuals to their Ordinary Residence - their residence when they enrolled.  That policy has been twisted and turned ever since.

The challenge with changing any benefit is that there are inevitably losers (and sometimes winners).  I do not expect any signficant changes to the IPR because of that - too much hue and cry would result.
 
dapaterson said:
So how far does the CF have to go to subsidize lifestyle choices?  Non-military personnel who want to change houses pay their own way.  Military members are already compensated for the disruptions of military life through their pay - it's one of the elements in the military factor.

In some of the cases cited people choose to retire - it's not forced up on them - in order to get a job in the local area.  How, exactly, is it then the military's responsibility to pay for a local move for someone?

Is there a need for the IPR move?  In some cases, yes.

You have been in 20 years...I would like to have this conversation with you either when you plan to retire or hit 35 or more.....Enough said....
 
dapaterson said:
So how far does the CF have to go to subsidize lifestyle choices?  Non-military personnel who want to change houses pay their own way.  Military members are already compensated for the disruptions of military life through their pay - it's one of the elements in the military factor.

In some of the cases cited people choose to retire - it's not forced up on them - in order to get a job in the local area.  How, exactly, is it then the military's responsibility to pay for a local move for someone?

Is there a need for the IPR move?  In some cases, yes.

How is me choosing to retire and taking a local job and local move any different than my winger who chooses to retire, and take a job across the country and do a cross country move?  They're both choices.  If you're going to deny it to one, you have to deny it to both - or allow it for both.

I bought a low-maintenance home in a suburb of Ottawa, close to shopping, close to transit, and in a neighborhood where I knew I wouldn't have any problem selling 4-5 years down the road.  I did this with not only the CF in mind, but my family.  Close to shopping for the wife, close to transit for me (I was working at 101 and then Tunneys), in an affordable area of the city.  A house that my wife would have no problem maintaining if I got shipped off for a three week TAV, or a seven month deployment.  If I had bought a palatial 5 bedroom home on 10 acres, 45 minutes from the city - and then got deployed and my wife had a nervous breakdown trying to take care of it all, I wouldn't have gotten any sympathy here because I made a choice to live that far out, in a high-maintenance home and property.

So now that I've retired locally and don't have to worry about getting shipped off on a moment's notice, what distinguishes me from my winger who retires to take a civvie job 5000 km away?  Both of us got moved to Ottawa by the CF, and we both made wise choices in the type of home we chose here in Ottawa.  But because my winger wants to retire in BC while I want that bigger property and bigger house down the street that I couldn't have while I was serving, he gets a free move across the country while I have to foot the bill for a local move?

Nah, you're not going to sell me on that one.
 
Service folks trying to be civil servants....some times I shake my head....
 
Mods...you can change sH-T to crap...

Can you change the thread title and get this one back on track....

Thanks...OF
 
dapaterson said:
The original policy intent was to return individuals to their Ordinary Residence - their residence when they enrolled.  That policy has been twisted and turned ever since.

The challenge with changing any benefit is that there are inevitably losers (and sometimes winners).  I do not expect any signficant changes to the IPR because of that - too much hue and cry would result.

I will use myself as an example.  I enrolled when I was 18, right out of high school.  Now 30 years later, my parents have died, my siblings has since relocated out of the area, not about the relocate to the in-laws area as they are getting up there in years, I am at my current location, the home we purchased was bought with the intention that we would be selling again in 4-7 years time and given what was available on the market then, it is not what we even considered to be our "final nesting place".

Now with no links to the location that I enrolled at, as I haven't lived there in 30 years and the fact that I may very well not want to be posted again and choose to retire, it raises the question.

Should I be penalized for something I did, with some relatively that I would be moving again or should I be allowed the opportunity to better my lot in life?

You can bat the IPR issue around many times over.  Back to "place of origin" or "cost equivalent" but at the end of the day the middle ground is "move to where ever you like and thank you for serving".
 
DAA said:
..................You can bat the IPR issue around many times over.  Back to "place of origin" or "cost equivalent" but at the end of the day the middle ground is "move to where ever you like and thank you for seving".

Amen to that.....
 
Back
Top