Free Mess Accommodation....

[True Blue Jack]

A slightly different twist on the slightly different twist:

Make everyone pay for accom, regardless of Pstat, but limit GHY to those who are returning to a "family" home during periods of absence. And by "family", I mean a spouse, not a "lifestyle choice partner".

It could be argued that marriage is a lifestyle choice...

But back on topic, and I realise I am no longer current on such things, but I thought singlies with mortgage commitments didn't have to pay accommodation charges any more than an unaccompanied married guy?

 

[catmanmoo]

CEA is only available to those whose spouses accompany them on postings, so put that condom back on fella!

DT_Xtremez_30: Amen to that!!

 

[catmanmoo]

But back on topic, and I realise I am no longer current on such things, but I thought singlies with mortgage commitments didn't have to pay accommodation charges any more than an unaccompanied married guy?

Thats interesting...Adminers here are adamant that singles pay....

 

[muttywhitedog]

It could be argued that marriage is a lifestyle choice...

But back on topic, and I realise I am no longer current on such things, but I thought singlies with mortgage commitments didn't have to pay accommodation charges any more than an unaccompanied married guy?

Only if they are on a det. If they are posted, they pay SLA.

 

[UlsterExile]

Slight different twist on it from me.

Instead of the singlys getting it free, I think married guys should pay. They are serving as 'VOLSEP - Voluntarilly Separated' which means that it is their choice, not the RAFs for them to be unaccompanied. Yes, I recognise the pressures of spouse and childrens work/school etc, but the person made a choice on balance to live-in through the week in the same way that the single homeowner did. If you live there, why shouldn't you pay? (unless INVOLSEP of course but that status is rarely granted).

If that happens watch the applications for MQ's go through the roof.

 

[kawoloki]

Not quite on topic but I always felt agrieved that before being married I had to rent a house in Norwich with the future Mrs. Kawoloki for 5 years. We shared a bank account and had been together for years but even if we had kids at the time we would not have been entitled to a quarter.
I realise that the clue is in the name (MARRIED Quarter) but is it right that someone who shotgun weddings after knowing a lass for a week gets access to cheap service accomodation before a cohabiting couple who may have kids?
The main selfish reason for this post is that if I had been reckless and married straight away instead of doing the "proper" thing of getting to know ball and chain I would have saved a bloody fortune!!

 

[muttywhitedog]

and if the line wasnt drawn at being married, then you'd have an estate full of single girls who moved in with their squaddie boyfriend after a one-night stand, and then the DHE cannot get rid of them.

 

[CC]

Not that I'm splitting hairs, but they're called SFA these days, Services Families Accommodation; being married is not strictly the only criteria you need to get SFA. Single Personnel who are P Stat Cat 2 have an entitlement to SFA (P Stat Cat 2 basically meaning you have custody of the children and would be the main mover and carer of said children). According to PACCC, the whole accomm charge is based on choice. A married person has to provide a home for his family, be that private or SFA. When he is then assigned and family stay where they are then he is entitled to free SLA. However, single blokey that buys a private house who is then assigned, but keeps his house; in theory could sell up and move into the block. It is therefore his choice to keep his own house and therefore pay for his SLA. Additionally, a married bloke has a legal entitlement to provide a home for his family, whereas a single bloke has no such requirement. Whether or not I agree with this is by the by, it's just an attempted explanation as to why singlies and married people pay and don't pay for living in the block.

 

[kawoloki]

and if the line wasnt drawn at being married, then you'd have an estate full of single girls who moved in with their squaddie boyfriend after a one-night stand, and then the DHE cannot get rid of them.

I fully understand and agree with this point that there has to be a line drawn somewhere but surely a modern and forward thing airforce could come up with a set of criterea for cohabiting couples to meet should they wish to apply for SFA.

As I say it matters not to me now and really I'm only raising the point to play devil's advocate but I can safely say the years that I did spend in SFA were essential for me to save money to be able to afford a downpayment towards my first house.

Back on topic, if someone, who is not married but owns a home with his partner and has kids etc etc, is posted then I see no reason for him to be chargedfor his room in the block.

 

[CC]

Back on topic, if someone, who is not married but owns a home with his partner and has kids etc etc, is posted then I see no reason for him to be chargedfor his room in the block.

I totally agree, but when you start opening the floodgates for this, then imagine just how many other allowances would be allowed to 'co-habitating' couples with kids. Considering our current financial position, I don't think it would ever be entertained.

 

[duffman]

Considering our current financial position, I don't think it would ever be entertained.

Possibly but how many people thought the same about; gays being allowed in or civil partnerships being entitled to SFA, years ago? Some things do change.

 

[CC]

Possibly but how many people thought the same about; gays being allowed in or civil partnerships being entitled to SFA, years ago? Some things do change.

Duffman, you have a point and who knows. Thing is, these changes were brought about by a change in the law but, as you infer, one never knows !

 

[Vee2]

It's an interesting one, and apologies if this turns into a bit of a whinge about SLA.

At my unit we have two parts to the Sgts mess, the old part and a nice fairly new building. A lot of the singlies choose to stay in the old part because it's about £100 a month cheaper, so the married unaccompanieds live in the new bit for free. I don't really give a toss about that myself but I know there are some who have a bit of a whinge. I care more about singlies being given access to what I consider to be basic facilities such as TV sockets that work, access to decent cooking facilities and internet.

There's always been big differences between what the married people and the singlies get, which I think actually probably contributes to the fairly high divorce rate we have. It's better for us to get married and maybe people rush into things a bit too soon as it's seen as the better option.

Things are the way they are and are unlikely to change unless the married guys end up losing what they have, because we singlies aren't going to get anything extra in the current climate, they're always going to look to save money.

For my own reasons, this room I have in the mess is my home. I can't even move out without permission and if that's not granted I MUST live in, yet right now I don't even have access to basic cooking facilities (I consider basic to be more than a microwave) in the mess.

One quick question. Are married people allowed to smoke in their quarters these days?

 

[True Blue Jack]

Are married people allowed to smoke in their quarters these days?

Yes, the difference being that SFA are not MOD buildings. But then, not being allowed to smoke, or cook, or have pets in SLA has never usually stopped people.

 

[wally375]

Would you question or complain if the boot was on the other foot?

Just a thought!

 

[FOGHORN LEGHORN]

Individual needs.

Individual needs.

The key here for me is that everyone has their own individual set of circumstances. The RAF cannot change the rules or bend them for each individual case as this gets very complicated, especially when they already seem to struggle with things like pay etc. There are clear rules which apply to everyone and whilst it can seem unfair to some people, they are fair in general as they are there for all to see. Whilst there are those who live with partners who they never intend on marrying but never the less wish to have a family with (including both hetro and homosexual partnerships) or those who live with their future husband/wife. There are also those who live on their own or with short-term partners. There is a whole spectrum of relationships within the RAF but should the criteria for the current accomodation charges be changed to offer those who are not married either free accomodation or quarters, then the system would be much more open to abuse. A point that has already been made in this thread.

How long before a singly walks in PSF declaring his undying love for his doris back home and demands a quarter, or buys a house and rents it out whilst getting a free room on camp?

I bought my house seven years ago, commuted daily from Lincolnshire to Norfolk and have only this year been eligible for free accomodation due to marrying my wife in May. We lived together for three years prior and whilst I'd have been more than happy if the rules meant I could be treated the same as married personnel, I knew the rules before I bought my house. I've since moved in the block and I am seeing less of the Mrs during the week but do not miss the drive one bit and benefit financially.

The key here to me is this. The rules were there before I joined. I was aware of them when I joined. I chose to buy a house and commute. I chose to move the other half in. I then chose to get married. I have now chosen to move in the block. We choose not to re-locate as she has a career and good job.

At no point has the RAF moved the goalposts or changed the rules. I am the one who has made my choices and it's me who should live with them. At some points the rules have benefited me, others not. The truth is though, more often than not, the result has been down to the choices I have made. Just my two penneth.

 

[unruly1986]

The key here for me is that everyone has their own individual set of circumstances. The RAF cannot change the rules or bend them for each individual case as this gets very complicated, especially when they already seem to struggle with things like pay etc. There are clear rules which apply to everyone and whilst it can seem unfair to some people, they are fair in general as they are there for all to see. Whilst there are those who live with partners who they never intend on marrying but never the less wish to have a family with (including both hetro and homosexual partnerships) or those who live with their future husband/wife. There are also those who live on their own or with short-term partners. There is a whole spectrum of relationships within the RAF but should the criteria for the current accomodation charges be changed to offer those who are not married either free accomodation or quarters, then the system would be much more open to abuse. A point that has already been made in this thread.

How long before a singly walks in PSF declaring his undying love for his doris back home and demands a quarter, or buys a house and rents it out whilst getting a free room on camp?

I bought my house seven years ago, commuted daily from Lincolnshire to Norfolk and have only this year been eligible for free accomodation due to marrying my wife in May. We lived together for three years prior and whilst I'd have been more than happy if the rules meant I could be treated the same as married personnel, I knew the rules before I bought my house. I've since moved in the block and I am seeing less of the Mrs during the week but do not miss the drive one bit and benefit financially.

The key here to me is this. The rules were there before I joined. I was aware of them when I joined. I chose to buy a house and commute. I chose to move the other half in. I then chose to get married. I have now chosen to move in the block. We choose not to re-locate as she has a career and good job.

At no point has the RAF moved the goalposts or changed the rules. I am the one who has made my choices and it's me who should live with them. At some points the rules have benefited me, others not. The truth is though, more often than not, the result has been down to the choices I have made. Just my two penneth.

Firstly, Linclonshire to Norfolk every day - fair play to you!

Yes you are right that everyone knows the rules (or they are at least there for all to see) prior to making a decision on buying your own place. That isn't being disputed here. What is being disputed is that there is a difference between married entitlements and those who are `married` in all but law. Say if you have a shifty who isn't married but lives with partner at home (she has her own career etc) when off shift, but when on shift he lives on camp, that's a lot to pay when you are only there half the time.

 

[Realist78]

Firstly, Linclonshire to Norfolk every day - fair play to you!

Yes you are right that everyone knows the rules (or they are at least there for all to see) prior to making a decision on buying your own place. That isn't being disputed here. What is being disputed is that there is a difference between married entitlements and those who are `married` in all but law. Say if you have a shifty who isn't married but lives with partner at home (she has her own career etc) when off shift, but when on shift he lives on camp, that's a lot to pay when you are only there half the time.

Simple answer, get married then. The rules are there, tough sh1t if you don't like them. As Foghorn says, if the forces were to change rules every time a perceived anomaly is brought to light, it would lead to abuse. If we want everything to be exactly as it is in Civvy street, what's the fecking point? Just my twopenneth.

 

[duffman]

Simple answer, get married then. The rules are there, tough sh1t if you don't like them.

Only problem being if all took that attitude nothing would ever change. Things do change and can from what was seen as 'no chance never' to being fully accepted and within the rules. I don't think the op is on a winge he tried to look at the reasons behind it and alright he can't start a campaign, but things that are issues at the shop floor do get brought to attention of their airships, and enough people would like something to change, why not?

 

[catmanmoo]

Deff wasn't on a whinge...the rules and allowances are what they are, and correct, I knew the rules before I decided to buy a house and live in sin!

Was only ever looking for other peoples thoughts and opinions on the subject; don't worry, its not the start of a one man crusade!!

Some interesting points have been raised, particulary the train of thought that the allowances boat shouldn't be rocked since we 'got what we wished for' with PAYD, and how that didn't quite work out as hoped. Will every discrepancy, dispute and query be treated with a 'once bitten twice shy' attitude by the masses post PAYD now though?