JPA and their appalling administrating

[klingonbc]

Update Please

HA,
Like many other Ppruners I am holding my breath for you. Any news? And if the bailiffs do go in I hope there is going to be appropriate coverage? Well done for having the integrity to take the stand you have. I had to redress my beloved Service over an obvious injustice some time ago and I am glad to say "their airships" found in my favour. If only the responsible management had taken responsibility rather than hiding behind inappropriate regulations? I remember the stress it put me through and how it angered me. What I didn't realise was how it was affecting my work, both in the air and on the ground. It was only a trusted colleague who told me later. I hope your situation is under control - just remember the old mantra - don't let the b'stards get you down.
KBC

[Pontius Navigator]

Originally Posted by klingonbc

just remember the old mantra - don't let the b'stards get you down.
KBC

nil carborundum illiegitamus

[Riskman]

"With effect from 1 Feb 08, SPVA JPA Service Complaints will be dealy with by the SPVA Complaints Cell at Kentigern House, Glasgow. They will subsume responsibilities undertaken by the Customer Support Team."

Does this mean that MoD civil servants have taken on the job of dealing with complaints which were originally handled by an MoD contractor? Will there be a financial adjustment to reflect the fact that the MoD is now doing work which it had originally contracted-out?

[HeliAviator]

An update on the current situation, the fight goes on. The report in the Telegraph was I believe, about myself, although approached by the journalist/writer I did not supply the details, as these are in the public domain if you know where to look for them. However

A spokesman for the MoD admitted that money was still owed to the pilot and that it would be paid in the next few days. He added: "The MoD apologises for this isolated incident caused by an administrative error."

No apology has been received and no interest or court fee have been paid as of this post and the administrative error is still extant.

I mentioned last week that I would apply for a warrant of execution to claim the outstanding interest and court fee. I decided, due to the quote above to wait out and see if this would happen. It has not and therefore I intend to apply for the warrant of execution tomorrow, this is at a cost of £55 which will be added to the outstanding sum.

I am having a few web site hosting problems at the moment, the details of how to make progresss with your pay issues and take Small Claims Court action should be available soon.

HA

[Epimetheus]

HeliAviator,

Check your 6. Could it be that the web problems are the precursor to the black Omega arriving?

[HeliAviator]

What you might need to know ............... removed for a few tweeks, back soon!

HA

[SaddamsLoveChild]

website

well done chap, wonder how long before the DII fun police block access from the MOD Web.

[Wader2]

DII Only

Originally Posted by SaddamsLoveChild

well done chap, wonder how long before the DII fun police block access from the MOD Web.

Sorry for a bit of serious thread drift but probably more interesting than JPA any way. hhere is one the fun police missed:

http://www.naughtynaughtynorman.co.uk/


If you are not on DII its not worth it.

[Len Ganley]

Wader,

Thank for posting that link. Made another boring afternoon bearable.
Hoping I get a visit from Santas' Daughters this year - it'll be better than a pair of socks

[HeliAviator]

After a recent correspondence received I must inform you that I have been informed, that the small claim court is not the legal method to proceeding when all other paths fail. When I took the initial action I was presented incorrect legal advice, which I naturally took verbatim. A limited transcript of the correspondence is posted at www.heliaviator.co.uk and this explains the situation pertaining to the matter.

There was intention to mislead and I apologies to those who may feel this is the case. I merely wished to find a resolution to my issue and to highlight the problems faced by others in similar situations. I have always advised the the full and correct path of resolution be followed before undertaking legal action and then only with the advice of a solicitor.

I have deliberately not taken a swipe at the three services or the admin/HR personnel therein, I have never had an issue in this area and they have tried, albeit unsuccessfully to resolve the issue on my behalf numerous times and I thank them for that. The issue is still unresolved, though as of last week there is a very helpful chap working on it and I have been paid up to date now, though still at the old rate!

So, to those considering the small claims court route, I would council against it as it would appear it is the incorrect legal process and it may well cost you money.

HA

[SirToppamHat]

There was intention to mislead

Eh? Shurely Shome Mishtake Ed?

STH

[Al R]

Heli,

I, and I'm sure that everyone else, accept that you have always acted in good faith and after being exposed to prolonged intolerable treatment, and that no apology is due. There is more than one way to skin a cat, and I am sure too that if JPA has been stung into raising its game to the very bare minimum required of it, then that will be seen as a win in its own right.

Good luck, keep us informed.

PS: You might want to proof sentence one, para 2?

[Shackman]

I wonder how much the legal advice cost MoD just to get that letter written (it certainly looks like it was written by a very senior legal personage). Probably more than was outstanding - although maybe not to all those who have been by JPA.


I'm just glad I got out before this debacle started, although I have the misfortune of watching a good 50% of my military colleagues trying to sort out pay problems almost every month - and seen at first hand how it appears to be the prime reason for people abandoning a service career.

Nevertheless congratulations HA for at least getting something done (and on getting your back pay!).

[Biggus]

If I don't have a contract with the government (which I didn't think I did) how does that effect my rights to terminate my 'non employment', and the governments ability to change my 'terms and conditions' without consultation?? Does this 'official' statement open some doors while closing others?

Sorry if I am drifting off thread!



By the way, in terms of othe avenues to be taken, such as internal redress, I thought I heard that redresses were taking several years to resolve on many occassions, which is great if it is your pay they are getting wrong!!!

[D-IFF_ident]

I am confused: did you get an order from a court or not? If you did then the argument from the MoD must surely be with the judge or magistrates who allegedly made an incorrect and/or illegal judgement. It is one of the many duties of the court to ensure proper procedure.

I am also confused about the reference to a contract; there are specific parts of the Employment Rights Act 1996 that are relevant to members of HM Forces. See http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1996...ch1-pb1-l1g192

It suggest that you DO have a contract, of sorts. Specifically:

For the purposes of the application of provisions of this Act in relation to Crown employment in accordance with subsection (1)—
(a) references to an employee or a worker shall be construed as references to a person in Crown employment,
(b) references to a contract of employment, or a worker’s contract, shall be construed as references to the terms of employment of a person in Crown employment,


Should we all assume that you now have a 1021 to hang on you toilet wall?

I feel a hint of black Omega lurking behind your most recent post.

[Melchett01]

Whether or not the correct legal processes have been followed is largely irrelevant in term of the moral position.

So, the Treasury Solicitor was not served with the papers. And a lengthy redress procedure, which may or may not have found in favour of HA after many months or even years, was not gone through. All this means is that MOD will get off on a technicality. There can be absolutely no doubt here in my mind, that the MOD are morally liable for this state of affairs getting as far as it did. I would possibly even go so far as to say that which ever senior officers signed off on the whole JPA debacle are guilty of negligence - it should have been clear to almost any reasonable person that implimenting this system in the way they did was bound to be a disaster, leading to problems of under/over payment and general administrative failure.

If nothing else, I hope the publicity surrounding this case has embarrassed a few of their airships into looking into just why JPA is so unfit for purpose and doing something about it.

[RobinXe]

Yes, very suspect. One might find little wonder to the manner in which they have clearly been fastidious in doing their homework on the case after the judgement has been entered. If they had been so thorough firstly with the administration of pay, and secondly with their legalities at the time of the court case then they wouldn't have to resort to writing 'naughty, naughty' letters after the fact, and when they are still clearly in the wrong!

Incidentally, it is my understanding that a implicit contract does exist, regardless of the lack of signatures, due to the fact that you continue to show up for work every day in good faith, and they continue to pay you at the end of the month (including flying pay), thus establishing a previous course of conduct.

[dallas]

I don't think the letter says don't take Court proceedings, it says make sure you've pursued all other avenues first, which he had not, and sue the MoD, not JPAC, who are just another office within the former.

As for Shackman commenting on the seniority of the 'legal personage' who replied, I'm not sure many lawyers would volunteer free advice to the plaintiff on how to do it properly next time, unless there was a degree of sympathy somewhere.

[uncle peter]

A cynical person may be inclined to think that this is an attempt to bluff their way out of any responsibility.

By stating that proper procedures have not been followed wrt complaints procedure would, i am sure, make them think that this "isolated incident" is defendable and that they could claim the moral high ground!

Everyone who has applied for a Redress of Complaint knows how much of an inherently toothless and time consuming procedure it is. It is the reliance on this complaint procedure which allows those that can to introduce such follies knowing that any complaint will take months / years to have any impact.

As JPAC is civilianised, what we need is a timely complaint procedure outwith the military chain of command. Ideally, what we need is a judicial review.

Heliaviator- Sir, I take my hat off to you. Irrespective of whether "proper" procedure was followed, it appears that the desired result was acheived which is what counts above all else.

[dallas]

Incidentally, it is my understanding that a implicit contract does exist, regardless of the lack of signatures, due to the fact that you continue to show up for work every day in good faith, and they continue to pay you at the end of the month (including flying pay), thus establishing a previous course of conduct.

I think it's more likely that your attestment/commissioning papers saw you sign-up to military law, which includes stuff like 'following all legal orders' (or words to that effect), such as devolved power to subordinate commanders to issue shift rosters/working hours through section orders.

You don't show-up to work because of a contract; you do so to avoid getting jailed.

p.s. ditto what uncle peter says - lots of people talk the talk...