MoD to cut war widows' pensions if they sue over husbands' deaths (Merged)

[WE Branch Fanatic]

From the Telegraph; Here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/09/nwidows09.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixhome.html)

This is the most disgusting thing I have heard from this Government. I am speechless.

[chappie]

hi, i'm one of the family members of the crew who lost their life in the herc crash out in iraq. we were left devastated to learn that the omission of foam may have placed the boys at added risk when we were at the inquiry. as time has gone by we have given thought to taking action as the governments penny pinching ways has deprived me of my brother. it has come to our attention that we stand to lose some if not all our pensions if we start proceedings. as you may imagine there are alot of mothers who can't affoed to take the risk that they jepordize their only financial security. it's almost like a carrot and the stick situation. this threat has meant that the powers that be might get away from paying out as we're terrified what it'll mean. these families have lost their loved ones, but there is this to consider. if accomodated in quarters a house has been lost. a wage has been lost. if children are at private school, any subsidies paid towards that has also been lost. yet we still get stamped on even more.

as a sister i don't recieve the pension so i can take the fight forward. this is done though, knowing that there is not full support from other families because of their fears. it makes it a lonely and scary road to travel. i was part of the article in the telegraph and after alot of soull searching and time consumption my part complete. yet, with no warning i got dropped from a big height. i still intend to fight though. the end of the article revealed the MoD still stand by the clause and it gived the impression that they won't be moved on it,as they have the power. you can see what i'm up against. i will however do all that i can to get this clause removed.

on april 26th i go to london along with other military families who've lost their loved ones in iraq. we will meet with our MP's in parliament and try to lobby other MP's. We then go to the cenotaph where we wil lay flowers for our loved ones. we then proceed to downing street and hand in a petition that we have going on www.mfaw.org.uk it asks people to sign to support us in our quest to get tony blair to meet with the bereaved families and to answer our questions. please lend your support. please lobby your MP. i plan to use this platform to helpbring change about the pensions clause. one lone voice can't do it alone, but if others join me then i will be heard.

[Ginseng]

Welcome to PPruNe. If you are who you claim to be (and I don't doubt it for a moment), please first accept my condolences, and my sympethy for your and your family's situation.

As far as I can see, the offending "clause" referred to in the Telegraph article is most probably Part V ("Reduction of Benefits") of the Armed Forces and Reserve Forces (Compensation Scheme) Order 2005 (Statutory Instrument No 439 of 2005). The most relevant sub-section here is "Reduction in benefit to take account of awards of damages".

Under that heading, Article 32 (at paragraph 1(b)) requires that the Secretary of State must first be satisfied that damages (meaning any payment) have been, or will be, recovered by someone in respect of the death of a person for which benefit is payable. He may then take those damages into account against any benefit which might otherwise be payable, and may withold or reduce any such benefit accordingly.

I think it is important to realise that the Article does not force the SofS to make such an adjustment; he could use his judgement as to what is appropriate. Secondly, under this article, he cannot make the reduction just because proceedings have been started; he must be convinced that they will succeed, and that they will lead to an award of damages (or other payment), or have already done so, or will certainly result in an out-of-court or other settlement involving the actual payment of some form of financial compensation.

There is no mention in this Article of the term "third parties" as used in the Telegraph report, so the Article will apply to "damages" arising from proceedings against the MoD itself. It may seem unfair to allow a reduction in this case, but remember that what we are talking about here is a compensation scheme payment, similar in principle in some ways to a pay-out from an insurance policy. It is common legal practice, and certainly common insurance practice, not to pay multiple awards for the same occurence. The SofS therefore has to consider whether it is right for the public purse to pay twice for the same thing. I know that this will sound harsh, but I only mean to help you understand the arguments that MoD is likely to raise.

Were the families in this case to take legal action for negligence and win, it is quite likely that the damages awarded would exceed the usual Service Attributle Pensions. In that case, the action would actually have succeeded in achieving a higher award, even if the SofS decided to make the adjustments allowed by the scheme.

Personally (and although I admit to being a Telegraph reader!), I think the paper has done you a disservice by reporting this matter under the sensational headline that it used. Nevertheless, you do have my sympathy and best wishes for the future.

Regards

Ginseng

[Ali Barber]

But if the pension is an entitlement, any claim for negligence and resulting payout would be a stand alone issue. If the Government wants to take your pension in the account, then the plaintiff should include that in their claim.

My sympathies for your loss and I wish you luck.

[cazatou]

It does occur to me that this is one issue where you- whether serving/ retired/ or just plain interested- could actually make a difference,

Complain to your Local Paper/ write to your MP/ Demand air time on your local radio staions/ seek petitions through your local media/ Churches/W I./ Scouts/ Guides.

If you fail - well at least you tried. BUT NEXT TIME , YOU WILL TRY HARDER!!!!

Good Luck

CAZATOU

[Grum Peace Odd]

The most likely upshot of this is that lawyers for families will point this out in court, stating that the MoD will reduce or remove the pension in each case (regardless of the fact that the MoD will probably have come to no decision by that point, if usual decision timelines are anything to go by) and so the courts will up any compensation payments to compensate for that loss too, thereby providing the pension effectively 'up font'. Then the MoD will figure that to continue paying the pension will be to pay twice from the public purse (on top of the compensation) and so will be forced to stop the pension payments, thereby proving the lawyers right.

In thought of cazatou's comment, is the pension an 'entitlement'? For example, even on the standard pension, it is only indexed linked as long as you reside in in UK or a non-commonwealth country. Live in Canada or any other commonwealth country and the 'entitlement' disappears. The lawyers could probably argue long and hard over this one and only they would get rich out of it. Frankly, getting the pension up front could be a more favourable option. Are compensation payments tax free? The pension isn't.

[Tourist]

Chappie.
I am deeply sorry for your loss, and I am concious that you may not want to hear this, but I cannot agree with your stance on this subject.

We are all military volunteers, no pressed men.
Our job is dangerous, people make mistakes as they do in all walks of life, but in ours people sometimes die because of them.

Governments make decisions. Good or bad, it is up to us to implement them or leave as is our right.

We do not have to agree with their decisions.

In every war, people will get killed. We cannot sue just because we disagree with a particular war. We know the risks, and one of those risks is that the budget is limited and we will not always have the best, or indeed any suitable kit. Tornados are rubbish. Seakings are old. Lynx is dangerous. Our radios are useless half the time. SA80 is until recently cr@p. We don't necessarily have enough of every bit of kit to go around. Some aircraft have better defensive aids than others. People have to decide where to spend the money. They will not always get it right. That is the risk of being in the British military. We all know it. It is not an excuse to sue. We are paid extra for the riskiness of our occupation.

The way to get rid of a government we disagree with is to vote them out.

Litigation does nothing but deprive serving soldiers of even more kit, because the spiralling legal costs come from our budget.

The idea that a premier of any country should meet the families of war dead, whilst I can see that it might be cathartic for you, is frankly impractical, as well as a bad idea. A leader should be objective not subjective, cold though that may seem, plus where do you stop? In the second world war, Churchill could never have found the time.

I had various friends and aquaintances who lost their lives in Iraq, the family of at least one of whom have been quite prominent in the press. I strongly believe he would have been embarrased by his families stance, and have made a point of telling my familiy that I would not want any such stance from them in the case of my death in a conflict.

It is not my intention to upset you, but I feel it is important that you are aware that at least some of us in the militry do not support your actions.

[Ginseng]

"But if the pension is an entitlement, any claim for negligence and resulting payout would be a stand alone issue."

No, I'm afraid that is not how it works. Since the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme came into being in April 2005, for all servicemen and women, Service Attributable pensions have been paid under that scheme where the underlying incident occurred after the start date. They must therefore be seen as a form of compensation payment rather than an occupational pension under the main AFPS. Any damages or other financial settlement resulting from proceedings following the same incident are also a form of compensation, so the two would be viewed together. As I said to Chappie, the rules do not force the SofS to apply a reduction to the attributable pension, but they do allow him to consider it. Indeed, as the Minister ultimately responsible for MoD spending, he has a duty to consider it. It may not be very palatable, but that is how it works.

Regards

Ginseng

[Jack Aubrey]

Has anybody got the true story on the alleged MoD threat to litigious widows in the Daily Mail this morning?

[spekesoftly]

I'm not a DM reader, but I suspect the following thread is relevant:-

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=220989

[Jack Aubrey]

I was so shocked by this that I omitted to check whether other threads had been started on the same topic. Thank you spekesoftly for your link.
I wonder how serving persons will react. It is such an appalling move that I am afraid it begs the question whether this country is worth fighting for. It seems wicked, vindictive, grossly amoral and unbelievably stupid. Characteristics which I have long felt are possessed by the Blair government. They have now politicised the Civil Service to bend it to their vile ways. It suggests that the government and its ministries despise its soldiers, sailors and Royal Air Force personnel.
It is probably unwise to declare it but I feel that were I still serving that I would resign immediately.

[PPRuNe Pop]

The last 3 posts posts now merged with the original. No probs!

PPP

[nigegilb]

Just like to add a couple of things.
Firstly, Tourist, I appreciate your honesty and I always value a considered opinion, I do however think you are wrong. We need to establish if it was lawful to ask grieving relatives to sign a contract whilst being effectively coerced. If you have read my other thread you will see that I hold the Australian Military in high regard. They automatically provide legal representation for bereaved families. They are also represented the BoI process. It is important that families give informed consent. I have spoken with some of the families and they did not know what they were signing at the time. I am not a lawyer but I doubt if this is lawful. For the wider point do not fight wars of choice if you do not have the equipment. This govt assisted by its Chiefs of Staff are overly focussed on the task. I sincerely believe that the 10 crew who died on the hercules died unnecessarily. I also believe that unless we do something we will lose another crew. If you are not convinced about the amount of money please do some research and find out how generously the US Govt awards its own war widows. You may belong to the old school of military sacrifice but I am afraid your attitude is no longer in the majority. If we do not deal with this, the trickle of personnel leaving the military will turn into a flood. This reply is not meant to insult you in any way, I am merely pointing out that I believe you do not speak for the majority.

I should also add that I wrote to Mr James Arbuthnot Chairman of Defence Committee about this subject on 02 April.

[chappie]

thankyou for a balanced view. i accept not everone agrees with me and i will consider your points made.

i wish to make it clear i do not wish to speak for everyone as i would be assuming and generalising that everyone would be seeing everything from my view point.

i accept that risks are taken and lives lost in the military. surely you can rely on your own country to protect and care for you. not send you like a lamb to slaughter. it is the enemy that we should be frightened of and killed by. not by our own countries shortcomings. we live in the 21st century. we are not a third world country and there are times where making do will not suffice. if we send someone into battle, as a member of public, i'd expect that in order to do the job properly they have all that is needed. this may be idealistic but not unreasonable.

to maintain a "can do culture" you cannot have a "make do" one. there are funds that are being misused and but should go to you guys to maintain your equipment. i

we are not jumping onto a litiginous bandwagon. if we were we'd have taken action way sooner. it is not a decision that has been reached lightly. while it is okay to risk your life in battle it is not okay to do so because we don't have the equipment. who says that one life is more precious than another? why one solider hand over his flap jacket or crew get into an unprotected plane? why is it okay to gamble their lives? the powers that be have been warned that this would happen time and time again. it was ignored. the mistake was made and lives lost. that does not go un answered. it is not okay what has happened.

meeting with tony blair is to see why these decisions were made. he's the oone who stands by his decision, so why not defend it to any one? you cannot pick and choose who you justify it to. you lost lives because of your mistakes. justify why you did that.meeting with government can't be compared to winston churchill times they were different wars for a start. i have not said i disagree with the war. i'm not suing because of that.

you may be happy to accept second best. others aren't. taking action may or may not take money from your budget. that is not my responsibilty to think of that. it is the governments. they will have to take steps to rectify it. what about the cost of the ten lives lost? what about the cost of, recovery of bodies, investigation, repatriration,burial, lost plane, memorial, pensions, inquest and the like. where did that money come from??


thanks for the other side of the coin. i know no insult intended. some of it could have been a little insulting but life isn't pretty and i'll take it on the chin. but please do not generalise the families of the hercules. we are not happy that this happened. their deaths cannot go unanswered. i'm glad you can now express your wishes to your family in the event that god forbid you are killed. i'm not doing this for my brother. he is not here. if he's embarassed so be it. i'll have to deal with that. he didn't die doing his job, or what he loved. he stopped doing that the moment he was killed. not just my view, tourist. other families feel this way. he was let down, unnecessarily by his government. they are not untouchable and must answer for those lives they helped to lose.

[Winco]

Might I just say this, I left the service several years ago now, and I am now the head of a medium-sized business in the North East. As the owner of that business, if any of my staff are injured (or God forbid killed) whilst they are on my premises, it is myself who is responsible, no one else.

I fail to see how a government that enforces these laws upon industry is not liable for them themselves, for the people who they employ, namely service men and women.

Tourist, I understand your point of view, but I feel that in this case it is wrong Sir, sorry.

Chappie, you have my heartfelt condolences at your tragic loss. I hope you can take comfort in knowing that your friends and family were highly thought of, loved and respected by all.

Yours Aye

The Winco

[chappie]

thankyou for your support. as i said while it is good to have a balanced opinion and i would take on board points made i struggled to find anything to agree with. it has not been easy for us as families. certainly individually i have often questioned whether i'm doing the right thing. as a bereaved family it has felt that sometimes the powers that be wished we would crawl away and go somewhere quiet. i know that there was no insult intended but i would say there is a way of making a point. to suggest that we are taking directly from the soliders budget is frankly ludicrous.

myself and another family will still go ahead with steps to initiate action. we are saddened that we are in the position to do this. we certainly don't see pound signs in our eyes. that is best left to the holder of the purse strings over the defence budget. well, we want to see protection for all. see the thread over the parliamentary questions re: herc on page 2. we do not want to cause offence at the grass roots level. one lone voice will not change anything, but united together we will make a change for the better. i will ask this tourist. while you accept that you cannot have everything new or even working will you still feel that way when you are given the option of getting on a new plane or use new weapons or equipment . if you are to be believed be sure to lodge your views with the top bosses. i know this sounds cruel .you don't have to accept second best.

i will ask this. if anyone supports that tony blair should meet with us the bereaved families then please go to the military families website and follow the links to sign the petition calling for blair to meet us. i will be with other families in parliament on 26th april calling on our mp's and others to help force this through then onto cenotaph and then downing street. please help and share the word. thank you. i just want to know why those ten men weren't worthy enough of the necessary equipment safety and protection wise considering their role, where they were and the special blokes that they have on board regularly. why am i now so devastated and lost without him. please answer that blair.

[The Swinging Monkey]

Chappie, I share your grief and offer you my total support as well as my heartfelt condolences.

I do see and understand the comments made by Tourist, although on this particular occasion I do not agree with him.

The Winco makes a good point about ultimate responsibility resting with the employer, this being HMG in this case and their hypocracy, when it comes to accepting liability in these matters, disgusts me.

It makes me ashamed to be British frankly.

Best wishes with your cause
Kind regards
TSM

[JessTheDog]

This disgraceful "initiative" will not survive its first legal challenge. The scum who come up with this sort of nonsense should be publicly named and shamed so the whole country can hate them...someone must know the genius behind this?!?

[Baskitt Kase]

I know that this is initially off topic wrt to pension, but please stay with me...

I found Tourist's comments articulate and well considered. It was clear that he meant no offence to anyone and I think it is a shame that not everybody can understand his point.you don't have to accept second best.chappie, this is certainly not an attack; I'm just trying to draw an analogy that puts this in a slightly different perspective. Let's all move away from aircraft for a moment and look at cars. Should one constantly upgrade one's car to get the latest greatest safety features? You know, not just driver's airbag and ABS (as on my tatty old Mondeo), but the full wrap-around airbags for everyone; automatic wipers and lights; GPS-linked emergency transmitter; drive control computer etc etc? Very, very few people can financially afford to keep up with the innovations and accept an increased risk by not taking the latest and greatest safety features. In short, most people accept second best (or worse). Now, one may argue that the difference between the simple analogy and the complexities of the military risk decisions is that a car owner has the power to conduct the risk analysis themselves whereas, for us poor military types, the decisions are made by people much further up the chain than us. Except that my kids don't get to decide which car I own or whether they ride in it or not - I make the decision and they get in the car!

Tourist is correct in that any costs and payments made as a result of legal approaches does come directly from the defence budget - no other part of goverment comes forward to pay the bill. Each year, the MoD tries to estimate how much it will be sued for and puts aside cash for it. If settlements and costs are higher than the estimate, it cannot be taken at risk and saving do have to be made from other Top Level Budgets (TLBs). Those in the military only need to think back to the year most of the pregnant dismissals cases came to court to be reminded how the estimates were off and TLBs had to share the pain. Over estimates never seem to happen and as the money has to be held back from military effect spending, who would want to over estimate?

If relatives (for any reason, nit just the tragic loss of XV179) feel that compensation claims are in order, they should proceed, after all, this is a free(ish) country and they are entitled to approach the courts. Heck, the lawyers would claim that it's not just an entitlement to go to court, but a relative's duty (but then lawyers have a vested interest as they win regardless of the decision!) This is exactly the same as in the civilian world where, as Winco pointed out only too well, the employer has the responsibility to cover the costs. The difference is that Winco would not also supply a pension for life on top of any compensation.

It used to be that military families accepted that the job they volunteered for was dangerous and accepted that in the event of the unthinkable, the goverment would pay a pension. There was no such provision for civlian employment. Then we evolved in to the litigious society that we have become and the civilian workers realised that the only way to get a payout was through legal action. The clause in the pensions issue addresses a 'cake and eat it' by allowing the goverment to avoid paying out twice. Like Grum Peace Odd, I believe that the upshot of this is that any compensation claims in the future will be adjusted upwards (thereby blowing the current estimates and causing cuts to the TLBs) to offset the possibility of a reduced or removed pension, making it, effectively, one helluva commutation.

And no, I have had nothing to do with this pension decision, nor the sort of risk management decisions that put us in danger. I have, however, been in a position to sue the MoD in the past and elected not to because a legal right is not the same as a moral right and, in my case, the two did not coincide.