NEM - Service Family Accommodation Rent

#3
Only that the provision of subsidised accommodation will continue, and that SFA charges will be subject to review against market rates.

Basically, as stated above, it will probably be more expensive...

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Navy Net - Rum Ration mobile app
 
#5
I've heard that the MQ rent is going to increase gradually over the next 6 years until it is the same as the civvie market rent for the same property type in the local area.
 
#6
I've heard that the MQ rent is going to increase gradually over the next 6 years until it is the same as the civvie market rent for the same property type in the local area.
Good maybe this will mean less offensive patch trolls in Pompey, Guzz and the Berg.
 
#10
If the MQ rent does increase to the market rate, I would rather buy my own property but why on earth would I buy a house in the local area if there is a chance of getting posted somewhere else?
 
#11
If the MQ rent does increase to the market rate, I would rather buy my own property but why on earth would I buy a house in the local area if there is a chance of getting posted somewhere else?
Which is part of the point of NEM: area drafts that last 5-6 years at a time. Of course, you want to be drafted somewhere unusual, or want to get a Gucci draft "out of area" then that's up to you.

It also means that if you're an Officer, you've cock all chance of being anything other than a Pompey local (or weekend commuting).
 

wave_dodger

MIA
Book Reviewer
#15
I think it will work - we'll eventually have a far smaller SFA footprint, which will ease the burden on the cost to DIO, which in turn means they may be able to provide better quality across the board.

Meanwhile I would hope, but suspect otherwise, that our overall package is adjusted to offset the loss of subsidised MQs which is a reasonably big recruitment and retention point, but if the offset it to allow more people to access the property market that would be a better overall move.

I wonder if they will then cease CEA entirely, as the stability rationale will be utterly diminishing for all but a very few people. It will be interesting to see how those who camp in Baseports on 'mobility' terms for 6 years then pop away for a brief period and then come straight back accept that?

The one thing about NEM that I really don't think is well considered is the concept of career breaks - I've had one inflicted upon me, with no warning the Army endorsement a request for a 2 year break of service, which means I have to accept a gap. I get the rationale but there needs to be a better screening process or we will break the system entirely.
 
Last edited:
#16
Noting you're wearing the pain, I'd suggest there should be little or no line manager input to it. Which sane LM would accept a gap purposefully? The entire point is that it is for the serviceperson's benefit, not the system. If LMs have a yes/no input, all you'd hear is 'no'!
 

wave_dodger

MIA
Book Reviewer
#17
The entire point is that it is for the serviceperson's benefit, not the system. If LMs have a yes/no input, all you'd hear is 'no'!
And this is another example of why in manning terms we're utterly buggered. The needs of the service/the employer should come first, it's an old chestnut but I simply see no rationale under which a person filling a priority gap is allowed to take a 2 year sabbatical if the donating Service cannot fill the post immediately ( and even then there will be a period of reduced capacity).

The LM should be making the CoC aware of what the business impact will be, that's where the LM input comes from and then the manning authorities agree to either soft gap or fill (priority as required).

It's one of the reasons why some of our key shore side areas are struggling.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

New Posts

Top