AIP clawback

[Training Risky]

time to leave billy smarts flying circus i think!

[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...]

Originally Posted by Chugalug2

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

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

[Rotate too late]

GPD

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|F...ssessment.aspx

Berjaya Air - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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!

[Al R]

FoI Act response.

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...t_Recovery.pdf

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

[downsizer]

Originally Posted by Al R

FoI Act response.

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...t_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...