MSQ entitlements

#1
It's not every day I come on here actually LOOKING for the advice but here we go.

One of my guys approached me this morning, His (unmarried) missus is about to give birth in 3 weeks, he spoke to the DE, can I have a quarter etc.

DE response, you can, but she can't live there. Having looked at the regs, it quite clearly states that if the natural parent stays for more than 56 days out of a year, you lose Paystat 2 and subsequently lose the quarter.

Has anyone had any dealings with this before and staffed up a case etc etc etc?

In all my years, this is without a doubt one of the most OBSURD rules I have come across, especially given that a nanny / au-pair can stay 24/7 but not the natural mother.
 
#2
I think its because the nanny isnt technically 'co-habitating', she's employed staff!
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#3
Is marrying the woman to become eligible for MARRIED quarters out of the question?
 
#4
Welcome to the distinctly Victorian outlook on allocations.

The main question is; How amenable is your UWO, if he is willing to overlook the fact that they are living over the brush, then Soldier A can apply for a quarter for him and his child and mum can unofficially lodge.

Having dealt with similar cases, staffing a case up is usually just typing practice.

Another tack could be to have the natural mother not registered on the birth certificate and then 'employ' her as an au-pair.

I still cannot get my head round though, how we have to be so underhanded to try and achieve family unity. Its not quite the same as a spotty young seventeen year old wanting to shack up with a local slapper in a MQ.

I would be very interested to know if you are succesful with this one.
 
#5
JT,

I'm sure it has been staffed many times before and the response is always the same - SFA re for the use of Service families, a definition which does not include girlfriends, however pregnant they are.

The simple answer for this bloke is - get married.
 
#6
Auld-Yin said:
Is marrying the woman to become eligible for MARRIED quarters out of the question?
in todays pc world (blah blah, must write to daily hate etc) they are now 'Service Families Accommodation' or something similar.
 
#7
Poacher said:
Welcome to the distinctly Victorian outlook on allocations.
How is it Victorian? Policy is for provision for service families, not casual girlfriends and their off-spring, and for very good practical reasons, rather than some supposed outdated stuffishness.

Lets look at your proposition. Are MoD simply going to allocate SFA to single soldiers whose partner/girlfriend is pregnant/has kids, or is it going to be extended to all single personnel with a girlfriend? If not the latter, why not?

The stipulation to be married or in a civil partnership clearly delineates where entitlement lies. To go down your proposed route will inevitably lead to a world of pain.
 
#8
pombsen-armchair-warrior said:
JT,

I'm sure it has been staffed many times before and the response is always the same - SFA re for the use of Service families, a definition which does not include girlfriends, however pregnant they are.

The simple answer for this bloke is - get married.
I don't consider 'get married' to be a simple answer, though I do expect it to be a fairly standard resonse from unsympathetic ears.

Do we really live in a society these days that considers Marriage to be so unholy and irrelevant that we do it just for finacial gain, not LOVE and COMMITMENT.
 
#9
pombsen-armchair-warrior said:
Poacher said:
Welcome to the distinctly Victorian outlook on allocations.
How is it Victorian? Policy is for provision for service families, not casual girlfriends and their off-spring, and for very good practical reasons, rather than some supposed outdated stuffishness.
So your Mother isn't your family then???
 
#10
I know that local authorities do not require parents to be married to allocate housing to a family. However, throw the army into the equation and few if any local authorities would offer any accommodation to a service person.

Forcing a couple to marry so that they can co-habit is draconian, but, In my belief a father or mother (with full parental responsibility) for that matter is entitled to housing for them and their child, so an entitlement does exist for half of the family, no dispute about that. But, to force them to marry so that the partner can live in a MQ already allocated, in my estimation is victorian.

The argument about having to throw it open to any singlie with a local slapper, does not hold water. The key for me is 'full parental responsibility'.
 
#11
What financial gain is there in getting married?
 
#12
Filbert Fox said:
What financial gain is there in getting married?
Other than LOA overseas?
 
#13
Filbert Fox said:
What financial gain is there in getting married?
MSQ = £250ppm
Rent / Mortgage = £700ppm

I'm no Math whiz, but looks like financial gain to me.
 
#14
Singlies get LOA.

Singlies dont pay elec, gas, water rates, CILOT etc if they live in the block.

Where is the financial gain in getting married?

Get quarter, move in and as said above register the mother of his child as live in nanny.

Although, word of warning, if the relationship goes pear shaped and she refuses to leave the house, stand by!!
 
#15
jt9563 said:
pombsen-armchair-warrior said:
Poacher said:
Welcome to the distinctly Victorian outlook on allocations.
How is it Victorian? Policy is for provision for service families, not casual girlfriends and their off-spring, and for very good practical reasons, rather than some supposed outdated stuffishness.
So your Mother isn't your family then???
To further emphasise my point:

Oxford dictionary:

family

• noun (pl. families) 1 a group consisting of two parents and their children living together as a unit. 2 a group of people related by blood or marriage. 3 the children of a person or couple. 4 all the descendants of a common ancestor. 5 all the languages derived from a particular early language. 6 a group united by a significant shared characteristic. 7 Biology a principal taxonomic category ranking above genus and below order.

Though we digress;
 
#16
Whats so wrong with getting married? If he's happy enough to bring a child into the world with this woman then why not get married and all of the entitlements that come with it?
If he's worried about him and her not having much of a future together then the child is a more binding contract to her than any marriage certificate!

On the financial gain bit, years ago it was true, you got married tax allowance, only married people got separation allowance etc... Nowadays tax is tax and everyone gets LSA andyou get child benefit regardless of being married.
 
#17
singlies do pay CILOCT, Your tax is lower

Can't he go down the common law wife route/civil partnership malarky?
 
#18
Common Law wife is a myth, ask any laywer or solicitor, and civil partnerships are for homosexuals to gain legal rights of someone that is married.
 
#19
Such as living in a quarter.......................
 
#20
Theres a guy here in the same boat. All he did was say his childrens mother was the Au Pair. Quarter granted no drama's
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads