AIP clawback
AIP clawback
Thread Starter
AIP audit in 2012 of circa 15000 people identified anomalies. It's taken till now for the SoS to decide to reclaim the money. About 2000 people affected in the RAF. Not sure of the scale in the other two services.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: England formerly Great Britain
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AIP has been a runnng goat since its introduction. Like a bag of morale that cannot be opened; and now all these years later huge sums of money are being recovered. For the benefit of those who do not fully understand the process - the entitlement was clearly documented. It could not be claimed on JPA, it required good old fashioned paperwork and audit by PSF as to entitlement and approval. It was not an easy process, and achieving qualifications alone was not enough. The courses had to be completed at different rank levels. I was theoretically entitled to two, but as both were achieved at the same rank level, I got one.
In case there is any doubt as to who is runnng UK Military plc, this is it, for no self respecting leader of men would make himself vulnerable to the fallout the coming days will bring. If morale was not already rock bottom, it is about to go into freefall. We all understand that discontent is corrosive and there is a storm brewing.
In case there is any doubt as to who is runnng UK Military plc, this is it, for no self respecting leader of men would make himself vulnerable to the fallout the coming days will bring. If morale was not already rock bottom, it is about to go into freefall. We all understand that discontent is corrosive and there is a storm brewing.
The AAC have been stuck in this corrosive process for at least three years now with still no sign of closure. Utterly let down by the leadership at the very highest level.
Just what 'corrective' action is being taken to all the PSFs who authorised these AIPs?
As far as I can see it's nothing at all while the individual who applied in good faith and submitted the required evidence is being hung out to dry.
Shameful leadership from the top.
As far as I can see it's nothing at all while the individual who applied in good faith and submitted the required evidence is being hung out to dry.
Shameful leadership from the top.
CG
Accelerated Incremental Progression.
The problem being that, although you could have two in your career, there were specific guidelines as to what you could claim.
Accelerated Incremental Progression.
The problem being that, although you could have two in your career, there were specific guidelines as to what you could claim.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: England formerly Great Britain
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Accelerated Incremental Progression.
Financial reward for getting qualifications that the system needs wrong needed that usually nvolve a 'Q'.
CG. If you had become a QHCI at FS and a CSRO at MALM, then you would have achieved the maximum x2 permitted.
SAR Q got one as did HTI IIRC, there were pretty much no others for Crewmen.
A SAR Boy who got QSAR - CSRO - QHCI all at the same rank, would only get one AIP. They had to be accumulated at different rank levels.
The effect of a succesfull application was a step up the pay scale and hence some of the fiqures being banded around ammount to tens of thousands of GBP of unexpected debt.
Financial reward for getting qualifications that the system needs wrong needed that usually nvolve a 'Q'.
CG. If you had become a QHCI at FS and a CSRO at MALM, then you would have achieved the maximum x2 permitted.
SAR Q got one as did HTI IIRC, there were pretty much no others for Crewmen.
A SAR Boy who got QSAR - CSRO - QHCI all at the same rank, would only get one AIP. They had to be accumulated at different rank levels.
The effect of a succesfull application was a step up the pay scale and hence some of the fiqures being banded around ammount to tens of thousands of GBP of unexpected debt.
Thread Starter
Just what 'corrective' action is being taken to all the PSFs who authorised these AIPs?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: London
Age: 50
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely, most people who owe money have now left their respective services? Plenty left in I fully appreciate but most will not be repaid or will require a lot of chasing.
This decision will mostly effect the SNCO SQEP that have been holding the force together for the last few years - a terrible terrible decision to pursue this.
This decision will mostly effect the SNCO SQEP that have been holding the force together for the last few years - a terrible terrible decision to pursue this.
Thread Starter
They say no because the onus was on the claimant to check the JSP.
However the JSP for my Trade Group listed all the quals, then had a line that said "or equivalent qualification". The Trade Sponsor accepted it, OC signed it, PSF actioned it, yet at the time of the audit the next Trade Sponsor rejected it. Hence they want to reclaim against me.
However the JSP for my Trade Group listed all the quals, then had a line that said "or equivalent qualification". The Trade Sponsor accepted it, OC signed it, PSF actioned it, yet at the time of the audit the next Trade Sponsor rejected it. Hence they want to reclaim against me.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely, you did everything reasonably expected of you, the reasonableness of your actions in light of the admin steer and conformation must have some legal resonance. Probably, the ministry knows it, maybe it has nothing to lose and is simply playing the numbers game.
One for the new Service Complaints Commissioner? Either way, I certainly wouldn't blink first.
One for the new Service Complaints Commissioner? Either way, I certainly wouldn't blink first.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 59
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a copy of a letter that was posted on FarceBook.
"Government policy clearly states that an error made in good faith does not in itself correct an inherent wrong when an individual is not entitled to a payment"
"Government policy clearly states that an error made in good faith does not in itself correct an inherent wrong when an individual is not entitled to a payment"
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: London
Age: 50
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So a scheme that encouraged people to undertake extra quals for the benefit of the service and that had a robust approvals mechanism ie not a self claim on JPA is now being clawed back in retrospect many years after the fact.
I only saw people work hard for their AIP and it was generally the brightest and best that wanted to improve themselves and the service.
The whole thing stinks
I only saw people work hard for their AIP and it was generally the brightest and best that wanted to improve themselves and the service.
The whole thing stinks
Is this really going to descend into 15,000:
1st stage appeals
2nd stage appeals
Level 1 SCs
Level 2 SCs
Level 3 SCs
Employment tribunals
Add in the legal reviews between SC levels and the final tribunal this is going to cost a fortune to administer.
1st stage appeals
2nd stage appeals
Level 1 SCs
Level 2 SCs
Level 3 SCs
Employment tribunals
Add in the legal reviews between SC levels and the final tribunal this is going to cost a fortune to administer.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nov4,
Stuff 'government policy'.. 'government policy' is still subordinate to the law of the land, government policy should be to observe scrupulously the law of the land. The government intention may not have been to maliciously deceive but the ministry still has a commercial duty of care.
If it transpires that the state failed to discharge that duty of care, if some bean counter was guilty of some sub standard performance of duties, if they were neglectful of generally fair dealing standards and still had no malicious intent, then I would stick them with a suit so fast their eyes would water.
And if it transpires that Crown Immunity (or the lack of) does not prevent you from taking legal action immediately, without jumping through those silly administrative hoops, I'd add that final paragraph to the writ as well - it . And if you are prevented, I'd appeal it as discriminatory. 'Statutory rights and protection under the covenant', my ar$e.
Stuff 'government policy'.. 'government policy' is still subordinate to the law of the land, government policy should be to observe scrupulously the law of the land. The government intention may not have been to maliciously deceive but the ministry still has a commercial duty of care.
If it transpires that the state failed to discharge that duty of care, if some bean counter was guilty of some sub standard performance of duties, if they were neglectful of generally fair dealing standards and still had no malicious intent, then I would stick them with a suit so fast their eyes would water.
And if it transpires that Crown Immunity (or the lack of) does not prevent you from taking legal action immediately, without jumping through those silly administrative hoops, I'd add that final paragraph to the writ as well - it . And if you are prevented, I'd appeal it as discriminatory. 'Statutory rights and protection under the covenant', my ar$e.