# 2014-108 - Post Living Differential (PLD), Recovery of Overpayment

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2014–11–28

The grievor submitted that a decision that his residence was located within the Post Living Differential (PLD) Area and he was entitled to receive PLD benefits, was properly approved and should be honoured. The grievor argued that the decision to reverse that determination, 7 years later, and recover the grievor's PLD benefits was unjust. As redress, the grievor requested that the original decision, authorizing PLD benefits, be honoured and all PLD recovery action be reversed.

Upon review of the applicable geographical boundaries set out in the geographical area in question, the Initial Authority (IA) determined that the grievor's residence was not within the PLD Area and never had been. Thus, the grievor was not entitled to receive PLD benefits. The IA noted that the Crown was statute barred from collecting repayment earlier than six years from the date that the pay action was taken.

The Committee agreed with the IA that the grievor's residence was not in a PLD Area and thus, the grievor was not entitled to PLD benefits.

Upon review of the file, the Committee found that the grievor had been given incorrect advice at the time he applied for PLD benefits and was in this situation due to an administrative error and through no fault of his own. Given the large recovery that the grievor now faced, the Committee determined that the Canadian Armed Forces should bear some responsibility for its administrative errors and recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff refer the grievor's case to the Director Claims and Civil Litigation with his support.

FA Decision Summary

The CDS partially agreed with the Commitee's findings and recommendations. The CDS acknowleged that the description of the geographical boundaries for the area in question is not precised as it should and that the CAF must bear some responsibility in their erroneous advice which led the grievor to believe he was entitled to PLD for this area. However, the CDS found that it was also incumbent on the grievor to be knowledgeable about the eligibility requirements for the PLD, and to ensure his principal residence was located within the PLD area. The CDS agreed with the Committee that the grievor was not entitled to PLD but disagreed with the Committee's recommendation that his file be sent to DCCL to evaluate