AIP clawback

[downsizer]

Any other ground trades or NCA dudes get stung today with debt payback notices?

I've heard some run into 20k plus :eek:

[Just This Once...]

Not heard of NCA being impacted - what has triggered this?

[downsizer]

AIP audit in 2012 of circa 15000 people identified anomalies. It's taken till now for the SoS to decide to reclaim the money. About 2000 people affected in the RAF. Not sure of the scale in the other two services.

[Admin_Guru]

AIP has been a runnng goat since its introduction. Like a bag of morale that cannot be opened; and now all these years later huge sums of money are being recovered. For the benefit of those who do not fully understand the process - the entitlement was clearly documented. It could not be claimed on JPA, it required good old fashioned paperwork and audit by PSF as to entitlement and approval. It was not an easy process, and achieving qualifications alone was not enough. The courses had to be completed at different rank levels. I was theoretically entitled to two, but as both were achieved at the same rank level, I got one.

In case there is any doubt as to who is runnng UK Military plc, this is it, for no self respecting leader of men would make himself vulnerable to the fallout the coming days will bring. If morale was not already rock bottom, it is about to go into freefall. We all understand that discontent is corrosive and there is a storm brewing.

[Sloppy Link]

The AAC have been stuck in this corrosive process for at least three years now with still no sign of closure. Utterly let down by the leadership at the very highest level.

[Stuff]

Just what 'corrective' action is being taken to all the PSFs who authorised these AIPs?

As far as I can see it's nothing at all while the individual who applied in good faith and submitted the required evidence is being hung out to dry.

Shameful leadership from the top.

[charliegolf]

What's an AIP?

CG

[Toadstool]

CG

Accelerated Incremental Progression.

The problem being that, although you could have two in your career, there were specific guidelines as to what you could claim.

[Admin_Guru]

Accelerated Incremental Progression.

Financial reward for getting qualifications that the system needs wrong needed that usually nvolve a 'Q'.

CG. If you had become a QHCI at FS and a CSRO at MALM, then you would have achieved the maximum x2 permitted.

SAR Q got one as did HTI IIRC, there were pretty much no others for Crewmen.

A SAR Boy who got QSAR - CSRO - QHCI all at the same rank, would only get one AIP. They had to be accumulated at different rank levels.

The effect of a succesfull application was a step up the pay scale and hence some of the fiqures being banded around ammount to tens of thousands of GBP of unexpected debt.

[downsizer]

Just what 'corrective' action is being taken to all the PSFs who authorised these AIPs?

Nothing is happening to PSFs, nor anything against the OCs who signed as approved (I don't think they should be blamed, they're the same as the applicant IMO, non-SMEs), and nor the Trade Sponsors who approved some individual qualifications that subsequent Trade Sponsors at the time of audit said weren't sufficient.

[Selatar]

Surely, most people who owe money have now left their respective services? Plenty left in I fully appreciate but most will not be repaid or will require a lot of chasing.

This decision will mostly effect the SNCO SQEP that have been holding the force together for the last few years - a terrible terrible decision to pursue this.

[Al R]

Is there a plausible case for a good faith/bad faith defence?

[downsizer]

They say no because the onus was on the claimant to check the JSP.

However the JSP for my Trade Group listed all the quals, then had a line that said "or equivalent qualification". The Trade Sponsor accepted it, OC signed it, PSF actioned it, yet at the time of the audit the next Trade Sponsor rejected it. Hence they want to reclaim against me.

[Al R]

Surely, you did everything reasonably expected of you, the reasonableness of your actions in light of the admin steer and conformation must have some legal resonance. Probably, the ministry knows it, maybe it has nothing to lose and is simply playing the numbers game.

One for the new Service Complaints Commissioner? Either way, I certainly wouldn't blink first.

[November4]

This is a copy of a letter that was posted on FarceBook.

http://i59.tinypic.com/dxil9f.jpg

"Government policy clearly states that an error made in good faith does not in itself correct an inherent wrong when an individual is not entitled to a payment"

[Selatar]

So a scheme that encouraged people to undertake extra quals for the benefit of the service and that had a robust approvals mechanism ie not a self claim on JPA is now being clawed back in retrospect many years after the fact.

I only saw people work hard for their AIP and it was generally the brightest and best that wanted to improve themselves and the service.

The whole thing stinks

[Just This Once...]

Is this really going to descend into 15,000:

1st stage appeals
2nd stage appeals
Level 1 SCs
Level 2 SCs
Level 3 SCs
Employment tribunals

Add in the legal reviews between SC levels and the final tribunal this is going to cost a fortune to administer.

[minigundiplomat]

Glad I left 4 years ago - but feel for the guys that stayed.

Is there not a 2 year claim limit?

[downsizer]

The managing public money document from the treasury issued with the letter say 6 years from the overpayment.

[Al R]

Nov4,

Stuff 'government policy'.. 'government policy' is still subordinate to the law of the land, government policy should be to observe scrupulously the law of the land. The government intention may not have been to maliciously deceive but the ministry still has a commercial duty of care.

If it transpires that the state failed to discharge that duty of care, if some bean counter was guilty of some sub standard performance of duties, if they were neglectful of generally fair dealing standards and still had no malicious intent, then I would stick them with a suit so fast their eyes would water.

And if it transpires that Crown Immunity (or the lack of) does not prevent you from taking legal action immediately, without jumping through those silly administrative hoops, I'd add that final paragraph to the writ as well - it . And if you are prevented, I'd appeal it as discriminatory. 'Statutory rights and protection under the covenant', my ar$e.

[Selatar]

So if you stayed in your screwed and face a bill if you bailed you don't get a bill?

Great way to reward loyalty...

[downsizer]

JTO

it's not 15000 reclaims, 15000 people were audited, of whom about 2000 are having money clawed back.

Note to any internet pedants, those figures are close but not exact.

[minigundiplomat]

Find a good (and aggressive) lawyer.

Tell them the situation and explain you have 2000 mates in same boat.

Wait until they have finished adjusting themselves and muttering 'its the new PPI' and guide them to a tribunal.

Group together or the MOD will pick you off one by one.

[Rude C'man]

Wilkman Chapman Lincoln solicitors will take your case on they're offering effected service folk to contact them . IMHO one of the best in their field.

[circle kay]

First let me say this doesn't affect me, but I know people, good hardworking honourable people, just the kind of people the RAF is trying to retain, who will be affected some to the sum of thousands.

This is an absolute scandal; with the command chain just looking at their feet and whistling the usual, ‘nothing to see here it's just government policy, our hands are tied’. Exasperated by the fact that it only affects the ‘Other Ranks’.

This is not buying Duck Houses, it's not even claiming for another round of ‘Ice Creams’ at the end of the expensive meal on Det.

It's people gaining extra qualifications, submitting the correct paperwork, having that paperwork signed off by the command chain and in some cases approved by the Trade Sponsors. To now say, the thick end of a decade later, it's all a mistake, but it's not a system error, it's yours and you'll have to pay it all back.; it's just beyond contempt.

Just remember this the next time the Honourable Member or The Multi-Stared thruster arrives in that that really cheap leased Helicopter (the trains must have been full) and tells you all that people are their most important asset.

After all this time you think I'd learnt, but I still expect them to behave with honour. :ugh:

[downsizer]

Bang on Circle Kay.

[Lordflasheart]

Wilkman Chapman Lincoln solicitors :ok:

Close enough for government work without getting into advertising trouble ;)

Group together or the MOD will pick you off one by one. :ok: :ok:

LFH

[MaroonMan4]

My jaw dropped when I heard this....

How many senior officers and VSO briefs have we tried to inform the chain of command that our people are at breaking point, often threaders and looking for options to leave. Not just any old people that keep the manning figures looking rosey, but some of our most talented and experienced people that continue to allow us to pull a safe rabbit out of the hat when inevitably 'more is asked with less'.

And this is the way that our people experience support, and this is what our people experience as loyalty, well we have really shot ourselves in the foot this time.....this is an own goal that will transcend not just those affected, but those watching in disbelief at the way it's Service allows its people to be treated.

One of my last tours of Afghan saw the real acidic, negative and poisonous atmosphere that was everywhere as the AAC guys dripped, were angry, and recounted how they were let down over their flying pay issue. They were all talking about clubbing together for a top legal brief, so maybe ask around and see what advice they have from their experiences.

Has a bean counter worked out the sums that will be recovered from this policy versus the cost of retraining/getting someone to the equivalent experience levels?

I personally believe that the best advice on this thread so far is for as many of the 2000 to get together, all chip in pro rata and get the best, most high profile legal brief possible.

Also touched on is culpability. If it is the individual Service Person that is culpable then what accountability and responsibility do the myriad of experts that implemented the policy and signed off on the claims have. I trust that we are investigating this further and bringing those to account that allegedly did not do their jobs correctly. If I damage one of HM aircraft, I get investigated and therefore if certain individuals allegedly contributed to the 'damage' of our Service Personnel then they too should be investigated.

[Chugalug2]

If I were treated like this when I was in, then I'd be out ASAP, if you see what I mean. The lack of leadership, of moral responsibility, of loyalty to those who are below as well as those who are above, is in stark contrast to the experience that I had while serving (1959-1973).

Does no-one in command assume the responsibility of command these days? Does no-one in command when faced with such arbitrary diktat not resign in protest when those that they command are so unjustly treated? Or is no-one in command any longer?

I see on another thread that those who serve in the UK Armed Forces are not even considered to be employed anyway:-

http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/520308-boi-into-2012-tornado-collision-over-moray-firth-20.html

[salad-dodger]

Spot on Circle Kay!

This is an absolute scandal; with the command chain just looking at their feet and whistling the usual, ‘nothing to see here it's just government policy, our hands are tied’. Exasperated by the fact that it only affects the ‘Other Ranks’.

I might be misinterpreting what you meant, but one minor suggestion:
Mightily relieved by the fact that it only affects the ‘Other Ranks’.

I had two AIPs in my time. Read the AP, filled in the paperwork, had it all assessed etc. I simply cannot see how I could have been held culpable having followed the process to the letter and complied with all of the requirements.

S-D

[Lordflasheart]

Several previous threads refer – from about 2012

http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/500863-aip-overissue.html

http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/501807-flying-pay-shambles-again.html

http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/484301-over-paid-fifteen-years.html

Have any of the earlier cases been resolved ? If so, with what results ?
Or have they all been waiting for someone (or anyone) to make a decision, as suggested above ?

Send for Blades ! LFH

[alfred_the_great]

Reading the letter, this isn't a MoD decision: it is a HMT one. And however much the MoD doesn't want to comply with it, it's hands are tied as this is the law as it is currently read. I would suggest that legal action is the only way forward in order to change the law as it is interpreted.

[Chugalug2]

I'm confused, ATG. You say that it is HMT policy, not the MOD's. Is it HMT policy to only pursue 'other ranks' for monies that it deems were incorrectly paid out?

Other posts suggest that some commissioned officers have been in receipt of AIP, or do I have that wrong? Did they all comply with the subsequent reviews (by HMT?), whereas 'other ranks' did not? Or is there one rule for Officers, Gentlemen, and Ladies, and another for 'other ranks'?

There is a stink of much hand washing here, and an appalling lack of leadership. Or do I have that wrong as well?

[salad-dodger]

Reading the letter, this isn't a MoD decision: it is a HMT one. And however much the MoD doesn't want to comply with it, it's hands are tied as this is the law as it is currently read. I would suggest that legal action is the only way forward in order to change the law as it is interpreted.
With that kind of attitude you must be one of the VSOs staring at their shoes hoping the whole thing will blow over.

The people who applied for and received this did everything the RAF and MoD required of them. They followed the AP (or DIN/JSP etc). They completed the correct paperwork (correctly), they had it checked, by more than one signatory I would imagine. All of that would have been iaw the prescribed process. What else could they have done? If HMT think there is an issue with this, then the fault lies fairly and squarely with the MoD/RAF (RN/ARMy etc too). There must be a few people who implemented this within the MoD and services keeping their heads down and hoping no one spots that it is them who made such a monumental cock up.

S-D

[salad-dodger]

There is a stink of much hand washing here, and an appalling lack of leadership. Or do I have that wrong as well?
You are spot on Chug!

S-D

[Selatar]

Chugalug,

Pretty sure this only applies to 'other ranks' as the scheme was only open to them. Of course those commissioned from said ranks potentially have liability.

When you remove the officer cadre and junior pers for whom this has not been applicable, 2000 folks is a fair chunk of the serving NCOs numbers if that's how many letters went out.

I presume for those that have left it is simply written off? Or will they be going for pensions and billing those happily elsewhere I wonder. This debacle doesn't effect me but with a call for more effort against ISIS and typhoons heading east it's hardly a morale booster for what is probably the cost of yesterday's hellfire and brimstone shots.

[zedder]

Someone has started a petition and it's off to a good start numbers wise. The Department have to reply once it gets past 10,000.

Royal Air Force AIP re-payment - e-petitions (http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/74501)

[Wander00]

Did a bit of Googling and came up with this, which is a note in the H of C Library, which applies to benefit payments. Paper says Government will seek to change the law to make all benefit overpayments and by implication other Government overpayments, recoverable.


SN/SP/5856
Last updated:
8 February 2011


This is quite interesting too


http://www.brethertons.co.uk/Content/File/PDF/overpayment%20of%20Salaries%20Booklet%20June%202010%20.pdf

[Avtur]

I am clearly no legal eagle, but there is a law concerning misrepresentation: If I buy a car based on the fact the salesman promised it would have a 6 year warranty and then found subsequently that it only had three, I could claim to be compensated for misrepresentation, ie I bought the car based on a particular promise.

In the case of AIP, Service members applied for an AIP based on a promise (policy) by the MOD that they could jump a pay level if they possessed certain qualifications. Now, ten years later, those that took up the AIP offer find out that they should not have jumped a pay level after all and must pay back the difference.

Surely they have been misrepresented by the MOD, ie they entered into the AIP programme based on a promise, and therefore have a counter claim against the MOD (presumably for the sum they are being told to pay back)?

Just a thought.

[alfred_the_great]

Chug - Officers are not eligible for AIPs.

From Wander00's discovery:

As announced in the joint DWP/HMRC strategy paper, 'Tackling fraud and error in the benefit and tax credits systems', we will be bringing forward proposals in the Welfare Reform Bill to widen the range of working age benefit overpayments we can recover and this will include those resulting from official error. While the Department must take responsibility for its mistakes, that does not give people the right to keep taxpayers' money that they are not entitled to.

However, we recognise that recovery will not be appropriate in all cases, and the legislation will be supported by a code of practice which will set out the type of case where recovery action will not be taken. This will include overpayments arising from official error where the customer accepted the payment in good faith and where, given the customer's circumstances, it would be unreasonable for the money to be repaid.

Obviously HMT have decided that Armed Forces Personnel are in a reasonable position to repay the money.

[Training Risky]

time to leave billy smarts flying circus i think!:mad:

[salad-dodger]

I can't understand why anyone would want to stay if this is how the service looks after its people.

[kintyred]

When Pay 2000 was rolled out.....sometime in 2003 IIRC (!) we were told that one aim was to harmonise Officers' and ORs pay and pensions. AIP was available to ORs and work would be completed on Officers' AIP shortly.......still waiting!

[Chugalug2]

ATG:-
Chug - Officers are not eligible for AIPs.Thanks for the confirmation. A pity perhaps, as the effect might be said to divide and conquer. It seems that command is now vested in the HMT, which can override the CoC that approved these payments, and in the Courts that you see as the way to resolve the issue.

So what is the point of the UK Services? They might as well be privatised, or the work contracted out as franchises to companies subject to those very same controls.

Of course public money must be safeguarded and strictly supervised. That is exactly what happened here apparently. The fact that HMT considers that the MOD/Services fell short in that requirement means that it has an issue with those bodies, not the people who received the increased pay in all good faith.

If the future of the UK Armed Forces is seen as one of entirely civilian practice, albeit in uniform, then my advice would be at all costs to avoid sending them into harms way, lest the last man or woman leaves the lights on, incurring yet more cost!

[Al R]

One merit of multitude of individual cases is that it would be harder the the MoD to counter.

[Aerials]

Bearing in mind that I never knew in detail how various things were funded, I think that HMT used to give approval for certain rates (HTD?) amongst other things, so I question how this policy got approval in the first place. Could it be that HMT are being blamed for this fiasco in the letters (that I haven't seen, from MOD?) detailing the recovery action?

[Doobry Firkin]

This is nothing new, I was pinged for this back in 2004 and had to pay back £3,000.

It was all a huge balls up as we were told we could use an AIP for the Quals you got from JMLC (the instructors on the course told us all to apply for it if we hadn't used the AIP already). What they didn't say was only some of the Trade Sponsors had signed it off, all the paperwork went in and was authorised and i got my AIP.

Three years later as in my first pay statement in Akrotiri was a reclaim of £3,000. I found out later aircraft trades apparently didn't qualify for the AIP as our trade sponsor hadn't authorised it (MT, Suppliers, Admin all did). Nobody could answer the question of why some trades got it and some didn't and why there was no parity across trades, etc.

I tried fighting it and went legal and the result was the same i owed them £3,000.
If the unlucky 2,000 who have been pinged on this win their fight I'll start again and ask for my money back as well.
The whole Pay 2000 and AIP thing has been a mess from day one.

[Just This Once...]

It seems that command is now vested in the HMT, which can override the CoC that approved these payments, and in the Courts that you see as the way to resolve the issue.

A nail on head moment here and this may lead to a new act of parliament.

The act that covers Service Complaints was built on the foundation that the military controlled its own regulations and policy so could address such grievances. This foundation has been removed and the CoC is completely subservient to Treasury policy.

Nobody anticipated this so there is no lawful process in place for Service personnel to express a grievance about the Treasury. As it was explained today a Service Complaints Panel may find in your favour but have zero authority to challenge the Treasury.

For now it appears that the only place that this can be challenged is through an employment tribunal but further legal advice may be coming down the pipe.

[Melchett01]

For a long time now I've said that if you want a career where you can shape operations, influence policy and make a huge difference to the organisation, get a job in J8.

It always used to be said a little tongue in cheek. Seems I was right after all:uhoh:

Another example of leaders not knowing the difference between what is correct and what is right.

[Rotate too late]

Evening Aviators,
Just as a heads up, if the Treasury are insisting on doing this, it may appear on your Pay Statement as a Public Debt, one of our chaps with a light blue beret had all sorts of dramas trying to get LSAP because (and I will always stand corrected if thingS have changed since then) he wasn't allowed to apply whilst owing a public debt. It was, I must say, a stressful time for that person! Have a good weekend.
RTL

[Chugalug2]

Melchett01:-
get a job in J8.Would that be in Berjaya Air (IATA designator J8) or The Force Structure, Resources, and Assessment Directorate, (J-8)?

http://www.jcs.mil/Directorates/J8|ForceStructure,ResourcesAssessment.aspx

Berjaya Air - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berjaya_Air)

Either, in the circumstances, would appear to have about as much influence over the lives of UK Armed Forces personnel as the UK High Command, which now apparently acts as a mere post office transmitting the commands of various other Departments of State.

[Melchett01]

Chugalug2,

The former and I'm afraid that when viewed across Defence, they have a huge amount of sway as they are the ones holding the purse strings so to speak.

In the current climate of persistent doctrinal austerity, it's J8 who will decide whether a plan or capability is affordable, regardless of the actual operational imperative, and I have spent more time writing business cases just so people can do the jobs they are in post for than I would ever care to remember.

[Lima Juliet]

I see several DASORs have recently been submitted from individuals who work in flight safety critical roles and they, or their line managers, felt unable to work safely due to the worry of this latest policy and how much money they owe. I wonder how much productivity has been lost, in terms of money, that offsets the clawback of this money?

LJ

[downsizer]

Penny wise, pound foolish.

[rockiesqiud]

Having just received my letter demanding over £1880 repaid, I wonder if any of my fellow ex Airman are in the same boat? I'm a bit confused how an ex employer can demand repayment especially as they've stated that my unit "P Staff" authorised it in good faith. They have not even supplied me with which of the two AIPs was incorrect nor how they have arrived to the above figure. I understand that this is HMT driven but I cannot believe the money recouped will outweigh the man hours wasted on this goose chase. The money they'd get from me wouldn't even pay for half an afternoon with an ex Foreign Secretary!:ugh:

[Al R]

FoI Act response.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/433752/20150605-RAF_AIP_Debt_Recovery.pdf

Write off requests seem to be regarded on individual merit then.

[downsizer]

FoI Act response.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/433752/20150605-RAF_AIP_Debt_Recovery.pdf

Write off requests seem to be regarded on individual merit then.

So no-one has been successful then. What a surprise.

[Rotate too late]

I'm assuming once you receive the obvious news that you're not successful, then you can approach a lawyer if you feel you have a case. I only ask because I have a OAR submitted at the moment and fully expect to be unsuccessful, this document merely confirms it. I would like to point out I left the military over my flying pay being cut, wonder how much it costs to replace little old me......

[Courtney Mil]

RTL,

They probably gapped you, therefore able to call you a savings measure.

[Chugalug2]

ATG (quoting):-While the Department must take responsibility for its mistakes, that does not give people the right to keep taxpayers' money that they are not entitled to.
So how exactly does a Department take responsibility for such mistakes? Does someone lose their job? Does a Minister resign? Does the SoS resign? Does it have to hand over responsibilities to other departments that do not make such mistakes? Oh, it already has? In which case is there any justification in its future existence at all?

BTW, AlR's interesting FoI response (well done that man!) seems to indicate that non standard repayment rate is the way to go. 100% successful!
1p a week? No? Well then 2p? Perhaps another FoI response will tell us the minimum successful acceptable rate...

[Wander00]

I know nothing about the history of this but from what I have read here everyone who got the money that the Treasury want back received it in good faith. "The system" told them they were entitled. In many cases recipients said "Are you sure?" and were told "Yes". This seems IMHO to parallel the criminal law concept of condonation - implied pardon of an offence by treating the offender as if it had not been committed. There might be a civil law equivalent

Might be worth a try. Good luck anyway to all those affected

[dallas]

I didn't see this thread back in February when it was originally doing the rounds, but have just read-up.

That's an exceptionally bad decision by HMG, of all the bad decisions I've seen. A good lawyer will have a very strong position to fight this, and based solely on my old-fashioned moral compass telling me the law is ordinarily the champion of right over wrong, will get repayment rejected.

So to compound the Govt's crass decision, they now won't end up with either the repayment or the goodwill of the individual after the undoubted lengthy, expensive and bitter court battle. :D

[Courtney Mil]

Interesting how they overpay, you pay back, you over pay, they don't pay back.

Big rumpus at the married quarters at Medmenham around 2005/6ish when it was revealed that a lot of the quarters had been incorrectly graded and, therefore, residents had been overcharged for years. When folks enquired of Mr Scribbly what refund we would receive, the official answer was that it was all in the past, would affect too many people and "what's done is done."

[Rotate too late]

Interesting that common sense has been mentioned, as I can categorically say that none has been used in my issue, I actually approached JPAC and they have an Isupport stating that I phoned up and asked in black and white, is this correct? Their answer? Absolutely! And here's some back pay to reinforce the error WE have made. Lovely......fast forward years later.....ah actually......we've decided that the interpretation was wrong.....bend over.:mad:

[Wander00]

Where is a "civil law" Gilbert Blades when you need him?

[smujsmith]

How things don't change! I can offer an event that caught me, and many others I suspect in 1975. After the Turkish invasion of northern Cyprus in 74 many of us, I was a Jnr Tech at the time, found ourselves in possession of cars, on local HP deals, that we could not afford to pay off. Along comes Mr helpful PSF Akrotiri, with the offer of an "advance of pay" to allow us to pay off the finance (at the time, no one would buy a car in the south of Cyprus). Fast forward six months and after having spent all of our family savings on paying for the car to be brought to the UK, on Sir Galahad as I remember, registering and all the other stuff, I'm summoned to handbrake house at Cranwell. I was informed that the "advance of pay" was assessed to be unacceptable by HMRC and I was required to repay the amount forthwith. I'm still a Jnr Tech, and now have a bundle of joy to feed and clothe. I couldn't afford the cut in my pay to repay it by instalments, so sold the car, at a loss, and paid my debt. We spent 8 months before we could afford to buy another car, an old brown minivan. But SWMBO and myself learned the benefits of walking to shops, and carrying the bags home.

This thread definitely smacks of the many ways that so called "proffesional" PSF staff can lead us all in to debt. It seems that there is never a case for obeying rules and regulations, especially when a scribbly is involved.

[Doobry Firkin]

I went through all of this in 2004.

I asked PSF at Lossie if i was entitled to an AIP (we were all told on JMLC we could get it back in 2001) they said 'Yes, it's all in the book'. I applied it was checked by a SNCO in PSF and authed - I got my AIP

Fast forward 3 years - just posted into Akrotiri and bought a shiny new car, next pay slip has a cancelled deduction of over £3,000. I quick visit to PSF and I'm told i was never entitled to the AIP (only some trades were allowed it and Tech trades were not on the list and never had been). At the time there were lots of people effected by this issue.
I was told after lodged a complaint they wouldn't touch my wages while the dispute went on - they didn't but i didn't see any LOA or 'work of an unsanitary nature' money for 2 1/2 years while they clawed back the money.
I never did manage to reclaim the tax i'd paid either PSF's answer was thats not our problem and being in Cyprus made it a complete PITA to deal with the tax office.

If these guys win great, then i'm sure there are lots of guys who've been hit in the past will all be sat waiting to stick in a claim for the money they paid back.

The whole AIP system was a cluster from the start - there was no parity accross the trades, one could use the quals from JMLC, others couldn't all because the trade sponsors decided that way.

I wonder how many people have been effected by one of these 'cock ups' since the AIP system came in!

[Army Mover]

How things don't change! I can offer an event that caught me, and many others I suspect in 1975. ....

About the same time, I found myself on a long 6-month course, away from my home base and in a similar situation; I went to see the Army Paymaster for some advice. He told me that there was something in Queens Regulations that stipulated that a serviceman had to receive a specific percentage of his/her daily rate of pay and that no matter what the recovery was against him/her, they could only take so much and had to leave you with the regulated amount. He wrote to the authority that were after me, pointed out the requirement and they backed off. Still had to pay it off, but over a much longer time and it sure took a lot of stress away at a time I really needed it (I had to sell my car as well).

[spooky3]

Just wondering how many on here voted Tory, Oh well.

[kintyred]

spooky3 Just wondering how many on here voted Tory, Oh well.

???

[Wander00]

It is not a "Tory" thing, but a "Treasury" thing. Try Osborne as "Chancellor", not as a politician, and not CAS/CGS

[Rotate too late]

Correct, I'm currently dealing with a civil servant and the JSP's not a politician.

[Clunk60]

I have had a number of pay issues over the last 7 years, in total the military has told me I owed them in excess of £22000!! Some of it was the current AiP fiasco, now resolved in my favour, the other was a very large amount and the final turd in the water pipe was £1200 deducted with no warning (another AiP screw up on JPACs side). I warned my CoC enough was enough, letters and meetings with my MP got the right questions asked to the right people and half a dozen letters from the Houses of Parliament sorted the problem out. My advice: cause as much of a stink as possible, write to your CoC stating the impact on you personally, morale in general and possible loyalty and trust issues. Involve your MP as an option, they are paid and voted in to represent you; the fact you are an ex or current Service person is irrelevant. Good luck.