Home Equity Assistance & "Military Families Pushed to Financial Ruin" (Merge)

[PuckChaser]

VTC tech support couldn't be bothered to answer the phone either today.

Likely minimum manning due to Christmas leave until tomorrow.

 

[CountDC]

at least you can still talk to your CM.  Not only do we not get the one on one visits we don't even get to talk to them anymore. I haven't talked to CM in 6 years. We have to go through the chain up to them.

Still haven't improved the area around the stone frigate  ;D

 

[heavy reader]

Its been a while so here's an update. Fed Court in 6 Days. Treasury Court Sectariat has aldrady been caught cheating us by a pplying a "b landket denial" to all pers who lost more than $15,000.  A class action has been launched, their POC is the legal rep at McInnis Cooper in Halifax.; http://canliiconnects.org/en/users/952

 

[heavy reader]

2 Days until Federal Court. A show of support from folks in Ottawa on 19 January, 0930 would be appreciated.

Details for the hearing in Downtown Ottawa may be found here: https://www.facebook.com/events/207866362878020/ The hearing is open to the public.

Thanks for all of the support over the past 5 1/2 years on this issue.

Marcus Brauer

 

[Zoomie]

Slightly off-topic (maybe).  While not related to 100% HEAP - I feel for you guys.  I was in a high level briefing before Christmas where a one-star was discussing how the maximum coverage for the lesser HEAP ($15k) was based on an arbitrary number that was no longer relevant.  The working group was actively working to increase that number to more adequately reflect losses. 

 

[PuckChaser]

Considering homes in most areas where CAF members are posted easily approach $300k, 10% of that, or $30k would more accurately reflect the market now, I think.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Major Brauer has lost in court.  Shared under the fair dealings provisions of the cpoyright act.

Canadian Forces Maj. Marcus Brauer loses legal battle over home sale loss

Federal Court judge sides with federal government, but questions compensation policy

By David Burke, CBC NewsPosted: Feb 11, 2016 11:49 AM AT|Last Updated: Feb 11, 2016 11:53 AM AT

A Canadian soldier has lost a legal battle to recover tens of thousands of dollars he lost when posted to a new city, even as the judge hearing the case questions the fairness of the government policy denying him more compensation.

"I am disappointed with the decision," Maj. Marcus Brauer wrote on a GoFundMe page set up to raise money for his court case.

In 2010, Brauer lost $88,000 in equity when he was forced to sell his home in Bon Accord, Alta., to move to Halifax for a new posting. He was only awarded $15,000 worth of compensation.

Brauer took the federal government to court. He argued he should be reimbursed the entire $88,000 under a federal home equity assistance program that's supposed to cushion the financial blow when military members are forced to sell in so-called depressed housing markets.

In a ruling this week, Federal Court Justice Robert Barnes dismissed Brauer's case, and said he was treated fairly under the current government relocation policy.

"It is not the role of this Court to rewrite the government relocation policy for CF members which, without doubt, imposes most of the financial risk of home equity losses on CF members who are required to relocate," wrote Barnes.

Brauer said on the GoFundMe site that this is the end of his legal battle. Brauer also said he learned a great deal about the damage financial stress can have on a family.

"I wanted to advise my supporters that the government has worn us out despite my best efforts," wrote Bauer. "I wish I could have done more, just as much as I wish my superiors would have done more to provide support over the years. We have to accept this decision and try to move on."

'A valid political concern'

The ruling comes as separate case, a proposed class action, is making its way through the courts. It claims other Canadian Forces members have been unfairly denied compensation after suffering steep loses on home sales after being posted to new locations by the military.

Military members can receive 100 per cent compensation for significant home sale losses under the home equity assistance program only if they sell in what's considered a depressed market. 

To get that money Brauer had to show housing prices in Bon Accord had decreased by 20 per cent from the time he bought his house to the time he sold it.

Brauer argued Bon Accord met that requirement while the Treasury Board, which controls compensation, refused to pay.

That led to a court battle between Brauer and the federal government. In 2014, a Federal Court judge ruled the Treasury Board was unreasonable in denying Brauer further compensation.

The federal government was even ordered to pay Brauer's legal costs and the case was sent back to be considered a second time. However, the Treasury Board once again rejected Brauer's claims for compensation and the case went back to court last year.

This latest ruling dismissed Brauer's case and sides with the government. However, Barnes did have concerns about the government's relocation policy.

"The fairness of government policy is a valid political concern but it is not, on its own, a basis for judicial relief," Barnes wrote. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/marcus-brauer-legal-fight-compensation-canadian-forces-ruling-court-1.3443550

 

[CountDC]

damn

 

[TCM621]

Sorry Marcus. You tried. I hope your family is doing OK in all this.

 

[TCM621]

If the courts do not think they are the appropriate place for resolution,  then we need to engage our MPs . As most of our MPs have a significant military presence in their ridings,  it is in their interest to look into this.  Here is a copy of the email I wrote my MP,  feel free to use it as a template.


Major Marcus Brauer was denied home equity assistance (to which is entitled) when he was forced to sell his house in Bon Accord Alberta at a significant loss due to a posting. He did his duty and followed up through the military chain of command which agreed that he should have received it but unfortunately didn't have the authority to give it to him.  The authority lay with treasury board.

Maj Brauer took the Treasury Board to federal court and won. The judge instructed to the board to re-examine his case. Treasury Board proceeded to return the same answer that lead to losing in court the first time.  Upon taking Treasury Board to court a second time,  the judge deemed an injustice had been done but it was a problem better addressed politically rather than judicially.

Maj Brauer,  did his best to fight but Treasury Board was able to use our tax dollars to win the war of attrition. He is now continuing the fight through his local MP in Halifax. As the MP for a riding with a significant military presence,  this should be of great concern to you.  His situation is not unique. I lost close to 100 thousand dollars of equity in my house when I was posted in 2012,  although I was lucky because it was equity and I did not end up owing.

I have linked his go fund me page so you can get some background on the situation. I hope you will stand with our service members in this fight.

https://de.gofund.me/Home-Equity-Assistance&rcid=7a644ec6dcc511e59c63bc764e0525d6


You can find your MP here
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parliamentarians/en/members

 

[heavy reader]

Change is in the wind my friends. Have a look at the attachment and watch the news.

Looks like we may have had an impact after all.

Happy APS everyone!

 

[Pusser]

I certainly hope so, but I'm not holding my breath.  I just received a negative response to a reasonable request on something that DCBA direction does not say.

Unfortunately, DCBA spends a good deal of time justifying bad decisions and has created a culture of NO!  Nowadays, it seems that a reasonable and logical interpretation of policy is seldom applied.  Only the letter of the law, or rather only what someone would like or thinks the letter of the law should be, is applied.  If there is any phrase or even word in a policy statement that can be used to justify a negative response, it will be used, irrespective if that particular part of the policy is actually applicable to the case at hand.

It is indeed a sad state of affairs in which we find ourselves today.  It is no small wonder that the backlog of adjudications and grievances at DGCB is so long.  If they actually applied policy intelligently and looked at CAF members, not as adversaries, but as people to be supported, they might find their jobs a lot easier.

 

[heavy reader]

Posted this year?

The Home Equity Assistance has still not been ammended, even though proven to be ineffective.  Check out the Ombusdman's recommendations at: https://healoss.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/hea-study.pdf

 

[bluecollared]

I couldn't find much relating to this specific situation, so I figured I'd give a shot and see if anyone here can shed an light on this. Regarding the IRP Directive section 8.2.13 Home Equity Assistance, I think there's a lot of people posted out of Gagetown this year who are in a tough spot for selling their homes and being told different things about HEA.

It's a buyer's market here right now, most people are having to sell their homes for quite a bit less than what they paid and are relying on HEA to top them up. Most of the appraisals seem to be coming in low as well, because there are so many houses on the market. So the way I understood HEA (and confirmed by Brookfield) as long as a house is sold within 95% of its appraised value you will be reimbursed up to what you paid (80% of the loss to a max of $15000 from Core, the remaining coming from Custom and Personalized).

The problem is, with people having to sell below what they paid and having low appraisals, the difference between what they sell for and what they paid can be tens of thousands of dollars and still be within 95% of the appraised value.

For example.
House purchase price: $250000
Appraised value: $225000
95% of appraised: $213750

So according to the IRP directive, that house could sell for $213750 and not have to prove a depressed market status to get reimbursed. But the difference between purchase and sale price is $36250, with only $15000 max coming from Core that leaves $21250 to come from Custom and Personalized.

That's where the confusion is. Obviously everyone's funding is different, but there are limited funds in Custom and Personalized to make up a difference like that. Everyone seems to have been told slightly different things from Brookfield about how HEA works and exactly how/if it gets reimbursed at all.

So, my question is, if anyone has any experience with this or can shed some light on what issues there could be making a claim for an amount like that I'd really like to hear it. I know there's lots of other people posted this year who are stressed about how low they should go when considering offers on their homes.

Thanks.

 

[mariomike]

Regarding the IRP Directive section 8.2.13 Home Equity Assistance, I think there's a lot of people posted out of Gagetown this year who are in a tough spot for selling their homes and being told different things about HEA.

For reference, perhaps "IRP Directive - Home Equity Assistance" will be merged with "Home Equity Assistance & "Military Families Pushed to Financial Ruin" (Merge)".
http://army.ca/forums/threads/95326.475.html
20 pages.

 

[CountDC]

Hope so and hopefully the OP will pass it on to his friends who will pass it on to theirs and so on and so on so everyone in Gagetown will see how really screwed they are.

 

[RADOPSIGOPACCISOP]

The real shocking thing is no one complains and tries to give money to the CF when their house investment goes up $40,000 but the second their investment drops by $30,000 it's the tax payer's job to cover their investment risk.

If you don't want to take the risk of losing money on a house purchase, rent. Otherwise you need to accept that it could go up or down and it's your gain or loss, not the CF's.

 

[CountDC]

oh oh. [

 

[Lumber]

So, my question is, if anyone has any experience with this or can shed some light on what issues there could be making a claim for an amount like that I'd really like to hear it. I know there's lots of other people posted this year who are stressed about how low they should go when considering offers on their homes.
Thanks.

One "issue", I guess, is that everyone's custom envelopes are different. The custom envelope is based on an estimate of the cost of your move from point A to B (I can't remember if it's based on the mileage rate or the estimated moving cost).

So, two people get posted out of Halifax. One is going to Victoria, one is going to Ottawa. The guy going to Victoria will have a much, MUCH bigger custom envelope than the guy moving to Ottawa.

If both take a hit on the sale of their houses in Halifax, the guys getting posted to Victoria will have a greater well of funds with which to cover his losses.

 

[Brasidas]

The real shocking thing is no one complains and tries to give money to the CF when their house investment goes up $40,000 but the second their investment drops by $30,000 it's the tax payer's job to cover their investment risk.

If you don't want to take the risk of losing money on a house purchase, rent. Otherwise you need to accept that it could go up or down and it's your gain or loss, not the CF's.

And when you've got three kids, two dogs, and two cats and you're posted into a market where three bedroom units literally do not exist, you should just shove your family into a 2 bedroom apartment?