Home Equity Assistance

100% Home Equity Assistance in CFIRP

Archive for the ‘hea’ Category

2009 Briefing Note on HEA

with one comment

This info just recieved through Access to Information. The BN (2009) identifies the costs of home loss to DND, the impact on families and implications. Make your own judgement, however coupling this (https://healoss.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/2009-cfirp-briefing-note.pdf) brifing note with the 2011 briefing note (https://healoss.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/bn-on-hea.pdf)…well, I don’t think I need to say it, but we’ve been had by our own org.

This is shameful, but at least I know the origins and the blockers.

Written by Major Marcus Brauer

November 22, 2015 at 21:36

Military Families remain in limbo over relocation entitlements (5 years and counting)

leave a comment »

Once more, into the fray…with Michele Drapeau Law Office

with one comment

fed crt

Once again, after winning in Federal Court, our battle has been extended by Treasury Board Secretariat. We find ourselves having to take TBS back into Federal Court to finalize our claim for Home Equity Assistance. Our family has carried this load for 5 years now, won our grievances and won in federal court, but TBS continues to SPEND YOUR TAX DOLLARS denying our entitlements.

The only way we can get accountability is by voting, and taking them to court.

We are once again asking for financial support to assist with this legal battle, so that the TBS will be held accountable to follow their own policies, instead of getting away with the use of Blanket Denials for hundreds of Canadian Military families. Details available at www.healoss.wordpress.com

Donations may be made at: http://www.gofundme.com/2j18gw

Thank you so much for your continued support in this quest for Government Accountability.

T

https://healoss.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/2015-06-03-brauer-notice-of-application.pdf

Standing Committee on National Defence discusses ongoing relocation denial

with one comment

Mr. Jack Harris: Thank you. I hope that we’ll be able to deal with that motion later on today.

To move to another point and I’m finding that, again and again, that services that are expected to be provided to military and military families there seem to be glaring gaps occur. I want to refer you to two that come to mind as a result of recent information and recent reports.

The first one being the fact that the Universal Child Care Benefit doesn’t appear to be universal when it comes to military families. I have here a letter addressed to a military family living and serving in the United States saying that the Universal Child Care Benefit that was given is not available to that family because they’re living outside of the country and demanding $3,600. to be repaid going back to 2012. I wonder how is that that these things occur and is this something that you can actually fix? This seems to be certainly problematic.

The other one is the case of Major Marcus Brauer who has twice now been refused by the government to be paid for his $88,000 home equity assistance loss that occurred when he was forced to move from Edmonton base to Halifax despite having won a grievance through the grievance procedure and having the Chief of the Defence Staff of that time support his grievance, but being unable to pay it out. Now, that seems to me to be a direct contradiction to the notion that people who serve in the military should be entitled to get the benefits that a policy suggests that they should receive. Secondly, in the case of Major Brauer, that the grievance procedure that we have in place doesn’t seem to provide an effective remedy when a monetary payment is required because the Chief of the Defence Staff doesn’t have the authority to actually order a monetary payment.

These two things are glaring. Major Brauer has been fighting this for five years now. This case of the Universal Child Care Benefit it seems again another fact where our military members are not receiving what they should receive in terms of government benefits.

Hon. Jason Kenney: Thank you, Mr. Harris. On the first point, I’d be happy to look into that. Of course, many social benefits administered by both federal and provincial governments apply only to residents for taxation purposes. But I will certainly look into that and commit to get back to you.

On the second matter, I’m not familiar with that case. Perhaps the Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff could respond.

LGen Guy R. Thibault: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On the issue that’s been referred to, Major Brauer’s case, one of the dimensions of the Canadian forces that we see is the frequent moves of members of the Canadian armed forces. So in those kind of circumstances, finding the appropriate locations for your homes is always one of our biggest challenge and to find the right place for your children to go to school. In those moves, what happens of course inevitably over time is that individuals who buy into market will find that they may not be able to sell their home when they’re being posted.

So within the protection that we do have for members of the Canadian armed forces with a protection really to offer them in the case where they may not be able to recoup their full cost, there are provisions to allow a member to recoup some of that which would be involved with their overall situation in a particular sale of a home.

We can never tell somebody where they’re going to buy a house or what kind of house to buy.

Mr. Jack Harris: Vice-Chief, he won his grievance procedure and the Chief of Defence Staff has the final say and he says “yes, you should be entitled to receive your full loss of home equity”.

LGen Guy R. Thibault: In this particular case, if I may, the point would basically be is that of course he’s gone through the grievance procedure. He has still measures that are available to him in terms of judicial review which is his entitlement to do and ultimately at this point, I would just say that from the compensations and benefits that we provide for members of the Canadian armed forces, I think are recognized very widely as being a very high standard. We have a good overall compensation and benefits package for members of the forces and that ultimately when you come to each individual circumstance, you’re never going to satisfy 100% of the people, 100% of the time.

Editors note: “But you can deny 99% of the HEA applicants and try to get away with it”. 1 of the 147 applications between 2007-2010 were approved, and these were approved after the fact in 2012″

Mme Élaine Michaud

I want to very briefly about the case that was raised by my colleague, Mr. Harris, that of Major Browar , because I do not quite understand the answer you gave , General Thibault. The situation is that Major won his grievance, he should not have to take additional action, he won, he got the support of the Chief of Staff. There you mention it always has recourse, I do not understand why he would still have to fight when he won his grievance, he should not have to take further action or use of other services. I do not understand why he has yet to fight for funds that have been granted with a favorable decision.

Editors note: “TBS is above the law and acting outside of it. No accountability and no conscience”.

tony peace

http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/parlvu/ContentEntityDetailView.aspx?contententityid=12989&date=20150513&lang=en&taid=8&tnid=401

Written by Major Marcus Brauer

May 21, 2015 at 10:00

Auditor General should review the HEA process

leave a comment »

A member of the Canadian military, who lost his bid to recover thousands of dollars he lost in a move, says it’s time the auditor general review how the Treasury Board oversees relocation compensation.

Maj. Marcus Brauer says he was told by a branch of the military Thursday that the Treasury Board had reviewed his housing claims and found the market in Alberta was not depressed in 2010 when Brauer sold his home at a loss of $88,000. Brauer had to sell because he was posted to Halifax.

Brauer says the Treasury Board made calculation errors. He claims the board omitted four properties in Bon Accord, Alta., because they were considered empty lots.

Brauer says those properties had a purchase price that included a house, and said those prices fell by 25 per cent and affected the assessment to his detriment.

“That made their report invalid,” he said.

“The Treasury Board is acting like an unscrupulous insurance agent and trying to find any possible way they can to deny the claims. Even so far as contradicting themselves, making up data, withholding information from access to information requests.

“It’s been a real maladministration of the policy. I don’t think anyone should have to go through this process to get something they’re entitled to and promised.”

‘I won’t be satisfied’

Brauer says it’s time the auditor general of Canada review how the home equity assistance program is handled for military members.

“It shouldn’t be put on the back of a solider to resolve this,” he said.

“If people can’t trust the policies that are put in place and have to fight for five years with the evidence on their side and the support of the military, the ombudsman, the federal court, and still be turned down by Treasury Board, I think that speaks volumes as far as how much they can trust their own policy.”

He calls the process he’s been through “laughable.”

Brauer said he’s already taken his new concerns up the chain of command to ask for an adjudication, but would like to avoid going to court again.

“I won’t be satisfied until the Treasury Board relents, understands they can’t do this to other human beings and we’re not the enemy,” he said.

He says he’s heard from people who’ve experienced the same type of equity loss and didn’t go through the appeal process.

“I’ve seen people who have lost their families, who’ve had to declare bankruptcy, single family moms that are carrying two mortgages,” Brauer said.

“People that have just quit the army because they’d rather quit the army and walk away than go through the fight we have.”Death_By_Bureaucracy_by_Vicotnic

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/maj-marcus-brauer-calls-for-review-after-losing-moving-compensation-case-1.3069505

URGENT Request for Public Assistance- 11 May 2015

leave a comment »

I have learned that the decision to deny the HEA entitlement all comes down to four properties. TBS indicates the properties are as follows:

http://www.professionalgroup.ca/blog-1091507-New_Listing___E3173709.html
http://www.professionalgroup.ca/blog-1091555-Just_Sold___E3173743.html
http://www.professionalgroup.ca/blog-1091553-Just_Sold___E3173710.html
http://www.professionalgroup.ca/blog-1091509-New_Listing___E3173747.html

 

I need help urgently to identify if these homes were sold in 2009 as EMPTY LOTS, or EMPTY LOTS with HOMES TO BE BUILD ON THEM. Anyone with access/information on this would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely, Marcus

 

Written by Major Marcus Brauer

May 11, 2015 at 10:30

ACCESS TO INFORMATION HELP – HOME EQUITY ASSISTANCE

leave a comment »

As posting season is upon us, I have had multiple requests from military members who are expecting to loose a great deal of equity on their home sale. Luckily, the CAF has the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Policy which

Therefore, in order to gain access to government records you will need to fill out a request. You can do this online, or by mail by filling out this form http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/tbsf-fsct/350-57-nf-eng.pdf

Next: You may request information from both DND and TBS by sending requests to their ATI co-ordinator.

The DND forms get mailed to:

Director Access to Information and Privacy
National Defence Headquarters
Major-general George R. Pearkes Bldg.
101 Colonel By Drive
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0K2

and the TBS form gets mailed to:

Access to Information and Privacy Office
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
140 O’Connor Street
8th Floor, East Tower
L’Esplanade Laurier
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0R5

Each request can cost $5, so include a cheque (usually reimbursed if you are requesting information about you only).

What to expect: I have experienced that each department will reveal different information to you. Often the ATI officer will call and ask to reword the request to save work/time, stand your ground and ensure you are NOT watering down your request. If you encounter long delays there is an office which can help resolve. For example, DND and TBS both withheld information from me using various excuses. Also information was blacked out or “under review” by another department, and never actioned. With the assistance of the Office of the Information Commissioner  you can get help with some of these roadblocks.

So, you need information about your last relocation as you are expecting to take a large (over $15,000 hit) on your equity? Here are some sample ATI’s for your use as you see fit:

“All memoranda, reports, emails, briefing notes, minutes of meetings held within DND and any letters to or  from Treasury Board for the period 1 January 2009 to 5 August 2012 on the subject of 100% Home Equity Assistance, depressed markets  or policy clarification as it applies to Edmonton and surrounding communities (e.g. Bon Accord, Morinville, St Albert).
DGCB definition of ‘community’ as it applies to the relocation policy used within IRP (e.g. E-mail Thursday, 5, July, 2012 09:43 AM LCol Gash-LCol Raney). Any communications between DCBA/DGCB and TBS demonstrating an effort to resolve the issue of defining “community” as it applies to the CF IRP. Spreadsheet, printout or any document that would show the number of claims submitted, and approved under the Home Equity Assistance (100%) between 1 January 2009 and 5 August 2012″.

Between 2006 and Aug 2012, all memos, reports, emails, briefing notes, minutes, internal and external correspondence regarding Home Equity Assistance, Bon Accord, {Major Brauer}, and the definition of ‘community’ as it applies to relocation policy.  Any documentation on depressed markets, and policy clarification of Home Equity Assistance administration of IRP”.

Drop a line if anyone needs further guidance/assistance. Do note that there are discussions that ATI requests may increase from $5 to $250 each. I myself have been advised that my last ATI would cost hundreds/thousands – but this is my information and I have a right to access it. Without having access to our own personal information, I would not have discovered that we were being cheated out of our entitlements!

Below is an excerpt from the Senate of Canada on the subject of access to our information:

“Access to Information Requests—User Fees

Hon. James S. Cowan (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate and pertains to the proposed increased user fees for Access to Information requests.

Last Thursday, Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault testified before the House of Commons Access to Information and Ethics Committee on the funding crisis facing her office. In response, a number of Conservative Members of Parliament proposed that the solution to the office’s lack of funding would be to increase the $5 user fee charged for ATIP requests. Erin O’Toole, Member of Parliament for Durham, recommended that the government increase the fees charged to ordinary Canadians from $5 to $25 for each request, and to $200 per request from businesses, including commercial news organizations. This would mean that Canadians would be paying $25 to learn whether Mr. O’Toole’s predecessor had charged $16 for a glass of orange juice.

The Information Commissioner made it clear that increasing the cost of ATIP user fees was not, in her opinion, a good idea. She said:

. . . it is not my office that is in a crisis, it is the fact that Canadians’ right to access government information is in jeopardy, that is the real issue . . .

When your Prime Minister came to power in 2006, he promised to usher in a new era of openness and accountability. His exact words were:

We promised to stand up for accountability and to change the way government works.

Can you explain why the government is even considering charging Canadians more for information which by law belongs to them? If the government does increase user fees, does this not negate completely the government’s claim to be more open and transparent and accountable than its predecessors?”

Marcus

%d bloggers like this: