Grievance Case Summary - G-242

The member applied for pre-approval under the Home Equity Assistance Plan (HEAP) for compensation for the loss in equity anticipated to be suffered when his house was sold. Two appraisals, obtained by the Force, indicated that there had been a decline of less than 10% in the applicable housing market between the date the house had been purchased and the appraisal dates. The member's HEAP application was refused. As a result of the member's application under the Guaranteed Home Sale Plan (GHSP) almost four months later, the Force decided to obtain updated appraisals as well as a new appraisal. Shortly before his entry into the GHSP, the member requested the Force to reconsider its HEAP refusal based on the results of the GHSP appraisals which, despite maintaining a less than 10% market decline, indicated that the market was declining and that the value of his house had declined by a significant amount since the first appraisals were done. The Force considered the results of the updated appraisals and the new appraisal and maintained its refusal of HEAP compensation.

Within 30 days of the decision to maintain the refusal of his HEAP application, the member submitted a grievance against the refusal. He noted that the value of his house had declined by 12.8 % since its purchase and argued that the appraisers' opinions were simply estimates. He provided an aged market evaluation showing that he had paid market value for his house, contrary to what the first two appraisals had indicated. He contended that the new Integrated Relocation Program (IRP), which replaced the Relocation Directive on April 1, 1999 and which does not require members to show a 10% market decline in order to obtain equity compensation, was applicable to his case since as of April 1, 1999, his HEAP claim remained unresolved due to the grievance process.

The Appropriate Officer responded that the 10% market decline requirement, established by the Relocation Directive, had not been met in this case since the appraisers' were unanimously of the opinion that the market had declined by less than 10%. The Grievance Advisory Board recommended that the grievance be denied because a 10% housing market decline had not been established. The Level I adjudicator denied the grievance on the basis that it was untimely. He regarded the earlier refusal of the member's HEAP application as the decision being grieved. With respect to the merits, he found that the member had been treated fairly and equitably.

On December 7, 1999, the ERC issued its findings and recommendations. The Committee found that the grievance was timely because the Force had made a new grievable decision when it refused HEAP eligibility on the basis of the second set of appraisals which were closer to the time the GHSP sale price was set. The Committee also found that the IRP did not apply to the member because he had entered the GHSP and had been refused HEAP coverage before the IRP came into force. The Committee further found that although the evidence showed that the housing market had declined between the date of purchase and the date the GHSP price was set, it did not show a decline of 10% or more. Accordingly, the member did not qualify for HEAP.

The Committee recommended that the grievance be denied on the merits.

On January 21, 2000, the Commissioner rendered his decision. His decision, as summarized by his office, is as follows:

The Commissioner agreed with the Committee's recommendation to deny the grievance.