What the fudge.
I am starting to freak out. I just got a notification from the relocation coordinator (separate company from my employer) about an expense I filed for reimbursement a couple days ago. It won't be approved, becuase I was classified/approved by my employer as a renter. I don't really know why, since I've been pretty clear from the get-go that I am purchasing, and the only reason I am renting right now is because the move to NJ was pending within a year. Why would I buy a house to stay there less than a year?
The relocation coordinator from the outside company basically just said I was approved as a renter by the company, so I only get renter's benefits - was I told something different? Well, no, I wasn't told anything at all about how they classify an employee as a renter vs. a purchaser, other than when they ask you if you're looking to rent or purchase, you tell them what you're planning and they put you in that class. There is nothing in the relocation policy that says "you only get home purchaser benefits if you are already a homeowner." I imagine that it's not uncommon for someone to go from renter to owner in a company move (or even go from owner to renter, depending on the situation - but of course that circumstance costs the company less than the first scenario) - what is going on? Was I simply not clear enough when I spoke to HR that my intent was to buy?
Acutally in typing this I got a call from the relocation coordinator who is going to try to work something out for me with the company's reps. It's just that there is NOTHING in the policy that says clearly that no renter/non-homeowner can receive home purchase benefits. Why would I think I am not granted any purchase benefits? Maybe I've just been spoiled because the last 2 companies I've been with have offered decent move benefits and suddenly having something taken off the table seems awful, even though a lot of people don't get nearly the benefits I am already getting? The thing is that it's fees in excess of $7,000, which we could cover by emptying our savings account. I'm sure our parents could help too, but that's beside the point. Had it been clear from the start that we would be responsible for those extra thousands of dollars we either could have reduced our down payment or rolled the closing costs into our home loan, or SOMETHING to take the edge off that hefty amount.
Goddammit.
UPDATE: I found ONE LINE in the Eligibility criteria for home buying assistance (which covers more than just closing costs, but also can hook one up with lenders, and local guides etc.) that states "You must own a home in the old location." Well, shit. But what did the new hire agreement say one year ago? Would home buying assistance be on the table then? Because if it was, it should still be there - I would have bought locally had the move not been on the horizon.
The relocation coordinator is going to bargain with them anyway and find out if some of the budget not needed for lease breaking fees (I was able to find a place for rent that allowed me to go month to month after the initial 9-month lease expired - our landlords are very nice, cool people) can be given to me as home purchase assistance.
The relocation coordinator from the outside company basically just said I was approved as a renter by the company, so I only get renter's benefits - was I told something different? Well, no, I wasn't told anything at all about how they classify an employee as a renter vs. a purchaser, other than when they ask you if you're looking to rent or purchase, you tell them what you're planning and they put you in that class. There is nothing in the relocation policy that says "you only get home purchaser benefits if you are already a homeowner." I imagine that it's not uncommon for someone to go from renter to owner in a company move (or even go from owner to renter, depending on the situation - but of course that circumstance costs the company less than the first scenario) - what is going on? Was I simply not clear enough when I spoke to HR that my intent was to buy?
Acutally in typing this I got a call from the relocation coordinator who is going to try to work something out for me with the company's reps. It's just that there is NOTHING in the policy that says clearly that no renter/non-homeowner can receive home purchase benefits. Why would I think I am not granted any purchase benefits? Maybe I've just been spoiled because the last 2 companies I've been with have offered decent move benefits and suddenly having something taken off the table seems awful, even though a lot of people don't get nearly the benefits I am already getting? The thing is that it's fees in excess of $7,000, which we could cover by emptying our savings account. I'm sure our parents could help too, but that's beside the point. Had it been clear from the start that we would be responsible for those extra thousands of dollars we either could have reduced our down payment or rolled the closing costs into our home loan, or SOMETHING to take the edge off that hefty amount.
Goddammit.
UPDATE: I found ONE LINE in the Eligibility criteria for home buying assistance (which covers more than just closing costs, but also can hook one up with lenders, and local guides etc.) that states "You must own a home in the old location." Well, shit. But what did the new hire agreement say one year ago? Would home buying assistance be on the table then? Because if it was, it should still be there - I would have bought locally had the move not been on the horizon.
The relocation coordinator is going to bargain with them anyway and find out if some of the budget not needed for lease breaking fees (I was able to find a place for rent that allowed me to go month to month after the initial 9-month lease expired - our landlords are very nice, cool people) can be given to me as home purchase assistance.