AIBU to be annoyed about taxpayers money being spent on a dubious 'relocation'?

[tiredandwanttosleep]

Have just been discussing with a very close friend a relocation deal she has negotiated with her work. She works for the civil service in an admin role and her post is being relocated to another office approx. 15 miles down the road. Because of this supposed 'distance' her branch of the civil service have agreed to buy her current home, at the very top market value (in fact almost £5k more than other similar houses near her are selling for), pay her moving costs, stamp duty and solicitors fees and appoint a relocation company to handle everything. The relocation company will sell her home on behalf of the Civil service afterwards and if they can't get the full price they paid her for it the civil service (and by default the taxpayer) will take the hit. Whilst I'm pleased for my friend, who can now afford to move to a house she's always wanted, am I being unreasonable to be furious that it's taxpayers money funding this so called 'relocation'?

I would understand if they had been offered travelling expenses for a period of time, as would happen in a private company, but such an expense when it's just an extra 15 miles (might be even less than this) from one office to another? As my friend says she's merely taking advantage of what's on offer but I can't help thinking that's what my taxes are being spent on, particularly in the current climate. There has also been much surprise from above her at the numbers of people taking up the offer but when you can move with all the hassle and expense taken out of it, and sell at the top market value given the current climate are they really surprised? Am I being unreasonable or do I just have to accept that for large parts of the public sector these deals are commonplace? I have worked in the private sector for most of my career so I accept I have a completely different attitude but if I had ever asked for relocation for such a move I'd have been laughed out of HR!

I'm struggling to believe this at all, in fact.

I've worked in three totally different sectors of the civil service. I am of the impression that your friend is feeding you a plate of BS.

I've only ever heard of a large international Bank doing this for a very senior employee who was moving from NI to England. Find it hard to believe the Civil Service would do it for such a small distance, especially in the current climate.

Yanbu. What a waste of taxpayers money.

Sounds absolutely weird. As an ex civil servant I have never heard of anything like this. We were not permitted first class travel and our office xmas party was in the office with the desks pushed back and we had to bring our own wine! There's more to this than meets the eye I'd say. Could it be some sort of TUPE thing? Or one of the regional authorities still working on outdated rules? This definitely does not happen in Whitehall.

I don't think she'd be telling me a load of bs as has been very honest all the way through the redundancy/ relocation process. It's the MOD by the way and this person is in a very middling role, not specialised at all. Don't want to be too specific but to give an idea of level it's less than £25k a year.

Is she going to an agency? I can imagine weird stuff applying in those circs. But no it's not on.

MOD (civi) moving allowances were roughly comparable to forces but under much much stricter criteria. I absolutely do not believe this.

Where do you work swatchdog? Because it certainly isn't the case for my area. First class travel was stamped out years ago unless an urgent business need eg no other train tickets or had to work or cheaper.

At that rate of pay you are talking D Band. Im afraid I'm another one that absolutely does not believe this. I'm sorry, I think your friend is having you on.

I work in local gov in a middle/senior role and benefited from a relocation allowance, but that was to take up a post in a different LA over 80 miles from where I was previously based and where the daily commute would have been totally impractical. it was however, no where as over the top generous as you describe. I still have to travel more than 30 miles to get to work every day.
That was 5 years ago. I have no idea if the relocation allowance still exists in our LA (not commonplace in other LAs to my knowledge) as we are being absolutely screwed down at the mo.
Just like to point out, as many others have, firstly, that being able to invoke a relocation policy for a 15 mile move is crazy, and secondly, that not all of the public sector are on the same benefits. We all get lumped together, but it is really like saying that people who work in the private sector are all on the same package.

I'm another who thinks your friend may be talking it up a bit.

Particularly re the house purchase: I simply do not believe that they can fund it in the way described; more likely to be a transitional rent allowance and moving costs (and that's exceptional for that distance - unless it's off an island or across a major river/other feature so the actual travelling time/complexity is indeed unreasonable).

Unless there is a massively important missing bit of relevent information here I am just at this.

But if this is the whole story then it is a good example of how/why the public sector is completely and utterly out of control in the UK. I must admit I am surprised that it is being allowed to happen under this government as opposed to the last one - that would have surprised me much less.

relevant.

Dh and I are both civil servants. He says this does happen but haven't heard of it for our depts. I wonder if Mod has different rules because a few years ago my good friend was working there and when she was relocated her rent in London was paid while her mortgaged flat outside London (but v commutable) stood empty. I remember being v shocked at the time

I don't really want to out myself Iggly but it's an executive agency (I left a few years ago). I was out with former colleagues last night and spoke about this and they both confirmed they were still allowed first class travel (non management roles on around £40k in London) and that the relocation thing still goes on. One of them is still having a good proportion of his rent paid after getting a promotion - which he applied for - a few years ago.

When I asked why things hadn't changed in the new austerity thing one said (admittedly he's v left wing and hates the current government) "It's in my terms and conditions".

And they got a pay rise last year and will get one this year as its in their contracts. The top of the pay scale won't move but those further down will go up a spine point within it.

From the outside it looks like nothing has changed.

There's plenty of things to waste taxpayers money on - I think YABU & jealous!!

Fair enough swatch!

I wish people would report these things - you can do it and your anonyminoty is protected.

Who to, though? We were talking about it last night as one friend was talking about staff overhead costs which were staggering, especially considering they've moved to a government owned building!

I was in the Civil Service for 10 years (left 2010) and one of the biggest bones of contention was the fact that the majority of staff were considered "mobile" and could be moved anywhere according to business need without any recompense whatsoever. The two most junior grades of staff MIGHT get travelling expenses for a limited period only.

The only proper financed relocation I ever knew about was for our area's head bomber, who was moved from London to the NE.

Sounds to me there's a bit more to this story than meets the eye.

Just a random thought (and I appreciate the OP may not want to answer this) but if the friend had a disability, some of this may be her department's interpretation of "reasonable adjustment"?

Possibly clutching at straws a bit though. (Me, not the MOD.)