Discuss DHE Problems in Current Affairs, News and Analysis on The Army Rumour Service; Originally Posted by pombsen-armchair-warrior
The revised JSP 464, however, has removed this leeway and now states:
"At Our election You must either make good or instead pay any cost incurred by Us in making good ...
The revised JSP 464, however, has removed this leeway and now states:
"At Our election You must either make good or instead pay any cost incurred by Us in making good any damage to the Property or its fixtures or fittings caused by either Your negligence or wilful or accidental damage or that of any member of Your household including family pets or any invited visitor or their pets. Damage caused by fair wear and tear and acts of God is excepted".
So, they must do the work first and can then charge only the actual cost to them, anything else could amount to 'unjust enrichment'.
The revised JSP 464, however, has removed this leeway and now states:
"At Our election You must either make good or instead pay any cost incurred by Us in making good any damage to the Property or its fixtures or fittings caused by either Your negligence or wilful or accidental damage or that of any member of Your household including family pets or any invited visitor or their pets. Damage caused by fair wear and tear and acts of God is excepted".
So, they must do the work first and can then charge only the actual cost to them, anything else could amount to 'unjust enrichment'.
VB,
Good point, but it's potentially a double-edged sword. There are situations where DE might not charge the real cost, but rather a proportion of it. Lesson here is that if it is a fair cop, and the charge reasonable, then sign and accept.
Incidentally, the same rationale applies to barrack damages. A soldier cannot be made to pay against an estimate of costs, only against the actual bill raised, which should be made visible to said soldier. Caveat above applies however.
I'm not really surprised to see so many problems with new move out 'ethos'. AFF is concerned that there is increasing and unrealistic pressure being put on occupants. Incorrect charges for damages have recently been used in some garrisons and a harsher move out standard is being imposed. Advice is to
1. Make sure you have pre move out visit (up to 2 months before moving but if late posting order still ask for one) - go through the whole SFA and work out what needs to be done. Find out if there is any 'history' of the property - what was it like when you moved in. The person who said the 14 day reporting had been lost is right - another strand of work we're presently pursuing to get it replaced.
2. Be aware that MHS (or PFI) contractors will need access to the house to work on any problems before the move out date. There is evidence that the MHS situation is improving but if you have problems then contact their complaints option on the Helpdesk number.
3. At move out if you are charged for damages check that you have the correct charges.
There is no doubt that it is going to get tougher - not quite back to the white gloves but SFA are going to have to be really clean. Defence Estates Ops Housing DE OH (was DHE then DEHD!) say that the majority of failed move outs are due to cleanliness, poor self decoration or pet damage so have a check that none of these are the problem.
We all want to move into a clean house - who has moved into a house as clean as the one we left (actually I have!). I'm working for the middle ground here but what I do NOT agree with is changing what is expected after the nightmare year we've all just had.
If you really are having trouble then contact the Army Families Federation (after Easter please!) and we'll help.
you are assuming that although you have reported any faults prior to moving out ie during the time that you have occupied the quarter that they have
1 accutally kept the appointed time
2 even turned up
3 you have acctually had the fault repaired at the first visit not oh this is just to asscertain the extent of the fault
Bookmarks