JPA Frauds
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: ASTOR
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JPA Frauds
There is currently zero tolerance on JPA fraud, which has since led to a ridiculous amount of criminal investigations (something some of us warned of at JPA's inception).
I welcome any comments on the matter.
I welcome any comments on the matter.
Should there be any tolerance for actual fraud? If people are really taking the p**s, I don't think many people are going to object to any number of criminal convictions.
If you're talking about someone legitimately claiming for DS, losing the receipt, being audited and facing either repaying their £24.52 or criminal charges, then I think that's a problem worth complaining about. But if people are stealing and being caught out, I don't see there being a huge amount of sympathy being flung around.
If you're talking about someone legitimately claiming for DS, losing the receipt, being audited and facing either repaying their £24.52 or criminal charges, then I think that's a problem worth complaining about. But if people are stealing and being caught out, I don't see there being a huge amount of sympathy being flung around.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting. I absolutely agree with 5f6b - fraud is a criminal offence and should be treated as such. However, in my experience of JPA, and more importantly the revised allowances that were introduced at the same time, the mechanism for instigating audit is at best arbitrary (and at worst just random) and it would seem that the bulk of the work generated is pretty nugatory.
If 'zero tolerance' does indeed mean a prosecution for anyone who has lost their receipts, or didn't get one, then I think the sledgehammer is being applied too heavily to the nut - the effort expended versus the amount of money likely to be lost in fraud would appear (to my uninformed eye) to be grossly disproportionate. All it will really do is deter people from making claims which they're probably entitled to, but are unsure of for some reason.
If 'zero tolerance' does indeed mean a prosecution for anyone who has lost their receipts, or didn't get one, then I think the sledgehammer is being applied too heavily to the nut - the effort expended versus the amount of money likely to be lost in fraud would appear (to my uninformed eye) to be grossly disproportionate. All it will really do is deter people from making claims which they're probably entitled to, but are unsure of for some reason.
Surely the process is flawed, as the allowances are paid automatically when submitted and then checked/scrutinized/audited at a later date. If you have made a genuine mistake, because you are not fully aware of what you can and can't claim for (please tell me who is!), then you are held to account as a fraudster!!
Top Tip. Get to know the Audit Clerk, a packet of Jaffas should do the trick. If there is a doubt about what and how to claim, run it past them verbally and then confirm with an email, prior to submitting on JPA. It has kept me out of the dwang since this farce (JPA) started.
Top Tip. Get to know the Audit Clerk, a packet of Jaffas should do the trick. If there is a doubt about what and how to claim, run it past them verbally and then confirm with an email, prior to submitting on JPA. It has kept me out of the dwang since this farce (JPA) started.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Age: 65
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely for a fraud charge to be made, there must be evidence of intent to defraud. The woefully inadequate "training" we have received since JPA was introduced, means that the vast majority of personnel have little detailed knowledge of what they can and cannot legitimately claim. The MOD argument that the details are available for all in the relevant JSPs is disingenious, in that we have never undergone a training package which even explains the layout of the relevant JSPs, never mind the detail. PSF/Accounts used to have a people that actually knew what you could and couldn't claim and were available to provide guidance. I feel that the likes of Mr Blades could drive a horse and coaches through any argument that MOD could come up with, unless there was good evidence that there was an intent to defraud.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely for a fraud charge to be made, there must be evidence of intent to defraud. The woefully inadequate "training" we have received since JPA was introduced, means that the vast majority of personnel have little detailed knowledge of what they can and cannot legitimately claim. The MOD argument that the details are available for all in the relevant JSPs is disingenious, in that we have never undergone a training package which even explains the layout of the relevant JSPs, never mind the detail. PSF/Accounts used to have a people that actually knew what you could and couldn't claim and were available to provide guidance. I feel that the likes of Mr Blades could drive a horse and coaches through any argument that MOD could come up with, unless there was good evidence that there was an intent to defraud.
