Free Mess Accommodation....

[Trusty Adjusty]

In the current climate there is a massive (and largely vindicated) concern that there is only one way the allowances scales tip - and it certainly isn't in our favour.

At very best, what is given with one hand is taken away with the other. Recently, allowances have either been reduced (HDT/Disturbance Allowance) and in some cases ceased altogether (IE) and it is a fair assumption to make that this is a pattern that will continue for the foreseeable future.

PAYD is a very good example of well intentioned but mis-directed moaning gone horribly wrong and it isn't hard for many in the Armed Forces these days to see how a similar thing could happen with what little allowances we do have left. The rules will never be altered to suit us and/or our pockets, cynical I know but in light of recent history I can't see how anyone could argue different. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[FOGHORN LEGHORN]

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.

I agree completely but that was my circumstance before I was married and I believe I covered that, read my post.

Things are what they are, they will never change for the better, only for the worst. Thats the pesimist in me. Soon we will lose all benefits...

 

[Joe_90]

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.

They have, get married or enter into a civil partnership. Usually the people complaining try and excuse themselves by saying they don't see why they should have to in the 21st century. There is no reason they have to, but why should the rules be changed at expense to the Service because a singly can't be bothered giving up an hour at a registry office one weekend?

 

[Realist78]

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?

Probably, once shafted etc. Saying that, folks might be a little more detailed in what they ask for in future.

 

[feckinG RANT]

I suspect this difference in allowances is a throw back to older times, and until such time as it is seriously challenged then nothing will happen.

Bottom line, there is no parity and I suspect if it was challenged by someone prepared to go all the way (wherever that may be, courts maybe?) then the rule would have to be changed to proved parity.

Of course there are different circumstances, for example a singly that has a house that he rents should pay for the room in the mess, but so long as the singly is commuting back to his house at a weekend the same as a married guy, then I fail to see how he can be justifiably made to pay for a room over a married guy.

There's loads of issues that are similar. Why should a same-sex couple get SFA over co-habiting male/female partners? Should males be allowed to have ear rings and long hair like females? Again, if someone challenged it, legally, would it still stand?

Nice to see the 'man-up' brigade are still at it too!

 

[Climebear]

A couple of answers to the legal questions you raise:

1. The law only rules against discrimination on the grounds of marriage; ie it is unlawful to discriminate against someone that is married but lawful to discriminate against singlies.

2. The allocation of SFA is the same for both hetro-sexual and homo-sexual couples. Both are entitled to SFA is they are in a relationship legally recognized by the state. (ie either marriage or a civil partnerships). Cohabiting couples outside of these are not.

3. Differing rules for appearance for male and female employees have been challenged at an Employment Tribunal against a civilian company. The Tribunal ruled that it was legal to have differing rules.

 

[True Blue Jack]

Why should a same-sex couple get SFA over co-habiting male/female partners?

Because the law was changed to give same-sex partners in a civil partnership the same status as married heterosexual couples. As you say, it will take someone who feels sufficiently aggrieved and is determined enough to challenge the rules through the courts and, as with homosexuals in the military, I suspect it would take a ruling by the ECHR to force a change. Flash-to-bang would be about a decade and would cost untold thousands in legal fees.

But before anyone sets off on this crusade, they should remember that there is not enough SFA for those who have an entitlement at present, never mind creating an entitlement for unmarried couples. Any legal case would have to be based on discrimination to have a chance of success, the result of which would be to ensure both married and unmarried couples would be treated the same. This could equally be achieved by removing the entitlement to SFA for all. Lose-lose.

 

[Trusty Adjusty]

I suspect this difference in allowances is a throw back to older times, and until such time as it is seriously challenged then nothing will happen.

Bottom line, there is no parity and I suspect if it was challenged by someone prepared to go all the way (wherever that may be, courts maybe?) then the rule would have to be changed to proved parity.

Of course there are different circumstances, for example a singly that has a house that he rents should pay for the room in the mess, but so long as the singly is "claiming he is" commuting back to his house at a weekend the same as a married guy, then I fail to see how he can be justifiably made to pay for a room over a married guy.

There's loads of issues that are similar. Why should a same-sex couple get SFA over co-habiting male/female partners? Because they have entered into a civil partnership as required to be eligible for SFA the same as a male/female couple would. Should males be allowed to have ear rings and long hair like females? Again, if someone challenged it, legally, would it still stand?

Nice to see the 'man-up' brigade are still at it too!

The system would become too open to abuse and (more importantly to the treasury) cost the MOD far too much money. Frankly, anyone who thinks that by "going all the way to courts etc" will bring parity is deluded. The only parity that would bring is EVERYBODY getting LESS. As has been the case in recent years.

I can see it now - someone will rock the boat with accommodation, under some mis guided crusade for equality. The MOD will be forced to change it's rules by some beaky European Beurocrats (who enjoy nothing better than giving us headaches) and the MOD will be hugely out of pocket as:

* Applications for SFA go through the roof from all the newly eligible personnel.
* Of course SFA is in short supply so now they have to shell out crazy (usually way over the odds) amounts on SSFA in local areas.
* They are now losing income from unmarried Livers in who now don't have to pay for the block.
* Home to Duty claims increase
* Disturbance Allowance claims increase

Inevitably the MOD say enough is enough, we aint got no money and this is now a huge burden so we're selling all SFA and you can sort yourselves out, we'll probably get some kind of "living" allowance but we will ALL be hugely out of pocket.

Home to duty? Well you wanted parity with civvies and they don't get it, so guess what? Yep, we're chinning that off too. You get the picture.

We're already taking a beating over pensions, no-one fought our corner for that one, and there won't be anyone to fight it should they (private sector) call into question our benefits and expenses.

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR

 

[CC]

Also, I think you'll find that the MoD no longer owns our SFA, they're owned by a private company. Therefore, they are entitled to choose who they 'let' their property to; the same way I did when I let my house.

 

[feckinG RANT]

The system would become too open to abuse and (more importantly to the treasury) cost the MOD far too much money. Frankly, anyone who thinks that by "going all the way to courts etc" will bring parity is deluded. The only parity that would bring is EVERYBODY getting LESS. As has been the case in recent years.

I think you're right. But the problem is that if you're single you're not getting the same treatment as a married bloke. Now, to some this may not be a major issue, but to others... Who knows?

I remember being a singly in the block years ago when livers out got free duty supper. I didn't mind it but I couldn't fathom why they got it for free whereas I paid. This was stopped, the food went down hill but it provided parity. Another example, if you lived out and went on a course using Service accommodation you got (I think?) 30 days free food and accommodation, if you lived in you still paid. That was stopped, harsh, and god knows it sucks to have to pay but at the end of the day it is now fair for all. While you might not like having to pay, you can't complain it's one rule for one, and another for another.

As a SNCO, the one thing I try to do is be fair to my guys, and after a recent Force Development day I attended when the question was asked what do you look for in your leaders, fairness was one of the very top answers. So it is important. Of course sometimes it is not practicable to apply fairness for all situations, for example women as infantry men. But in this case I fail to see any justifiable reason why either both should or should not get free accommodation. It should be clear, you do or don't. As you say Trusty, most likely outcome would be you both single and married would have to pay, not nice but fair nonetheless.

 

[Downsizer]

As opposed to MTFU, how about it's the Air Force not the Fair Force....

 

[Climebear]

Also, I think you'll find that the MoD no longer owns our SFA, they're owned by a private company. Therefore, they are entitled to choose who they 'let' their property to; the same way I did when I let my house.

The MOD still owns the majority of the SFA estate in Scotland. Annington Homes owns the majority of the SFA estate in England and Wales (other companies own some elements under various PFIs) and lease them back to the MOD. The rules on allocation are the MOD's rules not the owners'.