SSC and Flying Pay

[Charlie Croker]

I have received a letter from PMA saying that they are going to reclaim a staggering amount of my pay. This is apparently due to an admin error with SSC 8 year options and payment of middle rate flying pay.

Has anyone else received a similar demand? If so, we need to get together to present a unified argument.

Does anyone know of somebody who has fought a similar case?

[BEagle]

Unusually for me, I had a look at SROs today. There was on item on this very subject. It seems that those on SSCs will move from Initial Rate to Middle Rate at either the '4 year on Initial Rate' or when they waive their right to exercise their SSC exit date, whichever the later.

However, those who have achieved 4 years on Initial Rate - but who plan to leave at their SSC exit - will remain on Initial Rate for the remainder of their service.

Not sure whether this is 100% correct - that's the way I read it. Please don't take this as gospel but check with your P staff!

[D-IFF_ident]

I'd start here:

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/1996018.htm#aofs

But you'll notice that most employment law doesn't apply to HM Forces...:rolleyes:

[high spirits]

CC,
Just out of interest when did you join up approx? Most of my SSC generation lost their option to leave after 8 years anyway due to prolonged time in the hold. Hence on completion of OCU found that the RAF had moved, nay removed the goalposts by holding them to the normal 6 yrs return of service thereby effectively cancelling their 8 yr option.

[Charlie Croker]

HS,

I joined in 91 and fall into exactly that group. I have discovered that my 8 year option has been deferred to almost co-incident with the end of SSC, but was left open.

The middle rate flying started being paid and I took it in good faith because I thought I was entitled to it.

Now, 4 years later, they have asked for the whole amount (gross!) to be repaid. They have already dropped me to initial rate and want £400 a month back for the next 3 years.

I suspect that there are other folks in the same situation and would really like to get in touch with them.

D_iff,

Thanks for the pointer but I will need a solictor to decipher that lot. Any ideas on the best man for the job?

[Autorev]

I know of 3 people that this has happened to recently. (I suspect that you may be one of them) If you want to email me I'll put you in touch.

On a similar line, another mate was promoted to Flt Lt a year early due to some confusion over the length of his degree cse ( took him 4 yrs despite being a 3 yr cse) He managed to avoid paying the dosh back (obviously already spent as he was at Linton at the time!) under some rule that if the cash was received and spent in good faith or some such bolloxo, he was exempt.

Another fine retention initiative, eh?

[sangiovese.]

Charlie, with reference to Beagles comments ref SROs. Is this not setting some sort of precedence of stable door and horse bolting? Now I don't know which station you're at, but I assume this SRO has gone to all of them (will check on my own when back from det). Therefore, one would imagine a good solicitor having a field day with this. I'm sure you're just as knowledgable to all rules of the RAF P staff as they are to having a strong working knowledge of JSP 318 et al.

I seem to recollect there is a comment oft found in SROs stating that it is the individuals responsibility to report over payment etc. Now travel claims, LSSA etc fair game, but 3 yrs-ish of flying pay when you haven't an option to leave hmm. Smells like an Innsworth mistake, which somebody is desperately trying to correct, without realising consequences. Can't somehow believe you're the only one in this boat.

Incidentally, are you still aviating with this hanging over you? Was this a letter sent to you as bills normally are? Must have been a good one to open before a sortie. Perhaps a note to PSF to watch the 'Distractions' video may be in order.:confused:

[Charlie Croker]

Autorev,

Thanks for taking an interest. Your profile denies email access so I have asked the administrator to forward my email address to you.

I agree that the "good faith" defence will be paramount. As more examples of this case that come to light then greater credence can be given to the argument that there is a failing with their system.

Please email me with that info when you receive my address.

Thanks

sang,

Yes I have been away on det and route since hearing about this matter My supervisors are fully aware of what is going on and have been very pragmatic. I would feel even worse if I was grounded as a result of this affair.

Admin Wing at my station have been very supportive and efficient.

The notification came in exactly the same letter format as when they reclaim a bit of overpaid LSSA and invited me to send a cheque for the full amount to Innsworth! It was signed by a civil servant.

[You want it when?]

From the outside looking in - the error is in their actions and not yours, you may be able to claim good faith etc.. however I think it is illegal to sequester your pay - you may have to pay it back but you should be able to negotiate a reasonable period - say 10 years or the like.

[D-IFF_ident]

APPEAL - You have 28 days from notice of overissue.

If you don't already have them, try these for starters:

AP 3392 Vol 2, Leaflets 1904, 2117 and 2118.

QRs 2371, 2389 - 2395 and 2681.

As aircrew you are expected to have a working knowledge of QRs, but not so of AP3392, so your 'good faith' appeal should hold.

In summary:

Middle rate Fg pay is payable to SSC officers who waive their option or after receipt of initial rate for 4 years, whichever is the later date.

When notified of an overissue individuals have a right to appeal. Appeals are to be made in writing to the applicant's CO.

On Appeals on the grounds that sums were received in good faith the CO should consider whether the error arose from the application of such complicated regulations that the recipient could not reasonably have been expected to be aware of the current entitlement. (Do you have a copy of AP3392?)

On the application of the law see:

http://www.hrothgar.co.uk/hol/frames/01/55.htm

for the Kleinwort Benson V Lincoln City Council case.

Found all that from Qrs and the AP (which I borrowed after appliation to the relevant specialist!)

[uncle peter]

charlie - hope you got the e mail.

kleinwort case removed the distinction between mistake of fact and mistake of law (mistake of law non-recoverable if can prove good faith) also decided that recovery action for over-issues is recoverable certain to some defences - proprietry estoppel and change of position.

good faith appeal will not cut any ice with AFPAA - response will be so what?

the only defence to recovery action is to show you have spent the money you received in good faith - AFPAA will try to prove bad faith in that you probably overheard a conversation when you were in handbrake sometime. This defence is change of position and the case you need to read is phillip collins ltd v davis 2001 can be found at www.law.cam.ac.uk/restitution/engl.htm.

if you do not quote up to date case law AFPAA will erroneously claim that you have to provide evidence that you increased your standard of living - from Govt accounting 2000 which is also bollox.

phil collins case states that if you received the overissue monthly in your pay and it was reasonable for you to do so, then as long as you can show you spent that money then you can assert change of position as a defence.

private message if you need any more info - hope it helps

[high spirits]

CC et al,
Referring to my previous post on this thread I still don't see how the RAF can ask you to write a letter to them waiving an option that you no longer have because they took so long to get you through the training system! I may be in the same situation as the rest... yet to receive a letter though, it's probably lancing its way towards me in that great mail system we have.

[Charlie Croker]

Uncle P,

Thanks for the email. I was unable to reply because your pprune email is blocked and your private email wouldn't deliver.

The advice I've had so far from Admin Wg is that good faith alone would be a suitable defence with AFPAA, but your advice leads me to believe that I need a solictor soonest. Please could you email me if you know someone suitable.

I now know that there are several other people in the same boat, but PMA won't/can't tell us the names because of confidentiality. If anyone hears of someone at work in this predicament, could you please ask them to contact me via this site. We could possibly engage one solicitor to represent us as a group.

[Jambo Jet]

Back in 93/94 I was being paid initial rate of flying pay when the powers that be changed the goalposts to the 72 wk rule and hey presto I didn't qualify anymore.

They stopped my fg pay and wanted the money back, approx £2000.

Suggest you do what Diff Ident suggests; worked for me and I didnt have to pay back a bean. Still took me another 8 months to get my fg pay back again. That was the backlog for you.

[uncle peter]

charlie - have got the pprune e mail thingy going now.
[email protected]
drop me a note and ill let you have wot ive got

admin wg dont know their arrises from their elbows - their advice book was last amended before the kleinwort case, alot has changed since then.

[UAM]

A little off the point, but when exactly is the starting point for basic flying pay as aircrew? Is it based upon a number of years in the service, or when you officially start flying training?
Im not too fussed, cant wait to get in the training system, it would be handy to know though.
Cheers.

[BuzzLightyr]

I know this thread seems to have died back in April but I thought my post might be useful anyway. A friend I know on an SSC got to his 4 year point on initial rate of fg pay recently and expected to see an automatic rise to the middle rate. When this didn't happen, and after a lot of searching PSF informed him that he had to waive his option to start claiming the middle rate. He was completely unaware of this requirement but happily wrote the letter to Innsworth to start claiming middle rate. However, Innsworth were unwilling to pay the middle rate for the 3 month period that had been missed. Their position was that said friend should have known about the requirement to waive his option. It seems that a great many people on SSCs are unaware of this requirement. Middle rate of flying pay does NOT happen automatically.

After a bit of a struggle between his DO and the Pay people, Innsworth decided to cave and sensibly agreed to pay back the money for the missed 3 months. Out of interest the friend spent so much time holding at the start of his career that his 'option' was near enough coincident with his 12 year exit date as to be almost meaningless anyway.

[swinging monkey]

Gentlemen,

May I ask a question, pretty unrelated to the guts of this forum, but again one which involves 'acting in good faith'?

My circumstances are that I sought advice from my P staff, on a 'scribbly' matter, and acted upon it 'in good faith'
I now find that the info given was duff, and as a result I am being seriously penalised both financially and carreer wise.
My OC A has confirmed to PMA that I was given 'duff' info from the P staff, but they are choosing to ignore that fact.
Should I ask Mr Blades to look into the matter, or go straight to my MP?

I'd be grateful for any advice from those of you who have had similar problems.
Many thanks

Best wishes, and Merry christmas

The swinging Monkey
'Caruthers, get me a large Scotch, there's a good chap!'

[Fire 'n' Forget]

I am not a scribbly/coffee drinking/seat tester.... but as regards your dilemma the most obvious course of action if you are definately right and have the evidence is to Redress whoever gave you the duff gen. If the outcome is favourable then you might be able to get the 'wrong' corrected.

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

Although the amount involved may be much less, I have an SAC who was paid the wrong 'banding' for 14 months. Eventually the computer figured out that it had overissued her £800. What's more, it then started recovery action even though it neglected to send one of those natty little printouts saying that the accused was obviously guilty and 4 days/month was going to be recovered.

Anyway, to cut a long story short, the "good faith" argument was poo-pooed and the only concession we got was a reduced recovery rate.

SAC now broke and looking for alternative employment; do we really still think we are good to our people?

[Woff1965]

I am a civvie but the civilian equivalent is the defence of PROPIETRY ESTOPPEL in overpayment of wages cases.

Basically the argument is that the overpayment was made in error and that it was not reasonable for you to realise you had received the wrong money because of a wrongly calculated bonus or pay rise. Obviously if you had received the equivalent of your annual salary one Friday it would be quite difficult to argue you did not realise your wages are wrong.

If the employer attempts recovery the plaintiff would have to argue in court that the money demanded should be estopped and that recovery should not take place as recovery would cause financial distress and hardship.

[uncle peter]

Swinger and Woff
proprietary estoppel has now been overlooked by courts when there may be a defence of change of position available. as a concept is very rarely used by the courts these days on the basis that change of position negates the financial hardship aspect.

web site listed on page 1 of this thread is invaluable - includes discussions by law professors on merits of both defences.

swinging monkey - on the face of it sounds like a good case. you will have to go through redress process bcos courts wont look at it until you do. have some contacts if you want to drop e mail.

[Training Risky]

In conversation with blunties in the bar they often used to whinge about the 'unfair' 'bribes' that we receive as FG PAY!

"Why don't the rest of the RAF get extra money for enjoying themselves in the air!": was their cry...

A good retort was to state that an equal benefit, (on equal terms) to said blunty, would be to pay EVERY officer a bonus equal to fg pay, then march into a random Handbrake on a random day, drag a random blunty officer from his warm comfy office, stand him against a wall and shoot him dead.
Repeat this action once a month, every year, and they would soon appreciate: a) The risks involved in being aircrew as opposed to being blunt, and b) Why we deserve our pay to be correctly administered with the highest degree of professionalism by them.

(Try gushing that lot out when you've had a few...)

Hope this helps...

[tu chan go]

Have only just seen this thread today or I would have posted earlier. I had a similar experience when on Loan Service a few years ago. They wanted me to repay about £1500 over three months. I wrote back and said that I thought this was unreasonable and suggested a lesser amount per month. In the end, I paid a lot less than £1500 back but the gist of my post is that there is a maximum amount that the RAF can automatically take from you each month. I think it is the equivalent of one day's (basic) pay per month (but don't quote me on this amount). It is certainly a lot less than they originally ask for! Stick to your guns and don't give in to the bullying.