AIP clawback
Thread Starter
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: ice station kilo
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by circle kay; 4th Feb 2015 at 20:20. Reason: Misspelling cheap mid-rant!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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-aviat...-firth-20.html
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-aviat...-firth-20.html
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Sunny Side
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spot on Circle Kay!
I might be misinterpreting what you meant, but one minor suggestion:
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
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’.
Mightily relieved by the fact that it only affects the ‘Other Ranks’.
S-D
previous discussions
Several previous threads refer – from about 2012
http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...overissue.html
http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...les-again.html
http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...een-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
http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...overissue.html
http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...les-again.html
http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...een-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
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.
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?
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?
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Sunny Side
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: London
Age: 50
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Up North (for now)
Age: 62
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E-Petition
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
Royal Air Force AIP re-payment - e-petitions
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...%202010%20.pdf
SN/SP/5856
Last updated:
8 February 2011
This is quite interesting too
http://www.brethertons.co.uk/Content...%202010%20.pdf
Last edited by Wander00; 5th Feb 2015 at 17:00. Reason: more info
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.
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.
Chug - Officers are not eligible for AIPs.
From Wander00's discovery:
Obviously HMT have decided that Armed Forces Personnel are in a reasonable position to repay the money.
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.
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.