Charges to stay in mess when on duty?
 

My HR people are being most unhelpful on this one and I simply do not understand the logic of what they are saying.

When going away on duty eg an overnight to a MILITARY base HR (formerly known as admin) are saying that charges are to be levied from each individual. They are not entirely sure what the charges are and are yet to get back to me.

What charges might these be? Can I reclaim them of JPA if this really is true.

Has the world gone mad. Sent away on duty to a hotel - all charges covered.

Sent away on duty to a military base - you pick up the bill.

Any normal company ensures that when you are sent away on business, your costs are covered. What is going on - is this some mean way of clawing back the greater than 2% increase in pay which still does not cover the 9% increase in prices as published in the Telegraph today.

Believe this refers to the payment of food costs (which used to be free under 28 days).

Thiere have been several threads over the last year or so.

Not sure how true this is but was told, when I settled a lunch bill at the Officers' Mess at Shawbury recently, that any stay, inluding duty, in excess of 24 hours would incur full charges for the mess (food and accommodation) which would be taken from your pay.:sad:

If this is true, how palatable will it become particularly when they are just about to increase ICSC to 8 weeks for example.

Like I said, I am not sure of the accuracy of the comments. Any HR/ Policy pruners out there who can validate this?

re: ICSC(A)
 

We had a lengthy discussion last summer regarding charges whilst at Shriv.

Luckily, the contract for JSCSC includes a bed and food - and (was then) not going to be included in the PAYD scheme and other such charges.

Things may have changed however...

try being crew going away, stay on base with PAYD and errrr same as mentioned i first thread, it now costs to go to work!!!! they will be charging for in flight meals next
"cup of refreshing tap water stained orange 20 pence please sir"

Overseas subsistance (rates) will be reduced if in-flight is provided. Heavies just finding this out, but stil no clear guidance. No breakfast, lunch, dinner rate for overseas subsistance now so not sure how they can work out how much your subsistance will be abated. Rule coming from if you receive meals when also receiving subsistance then you get abated subsistance rate. HR having difficulty providing guidance as mentioned but Air Cmd looking to apply the rule. Anyone suffered or know more?

Was on the understanding that the "down route" rates although being reduced would essentially go to a reciept based set of rates "capped" If its the same as now the breakfast is always paid as part of the hotel bill
Cant see how they can say subsistance should be abated if you revieve in flight meal, does that mean yo should not eat for any time during rest periods hmmmm

With the PAYD thing in Cyprus passengers were able to eat for free if the jet was delayed

Does this now mean that as it costs can you refuse to go on courses? I know it was discussed on another thread a while back

Some of you are unbeliveable - 4 to go? I think you should leave now!

As an outsider, but having bean-counters try the same thing on BAe ( we 'staff' didn't receive an extra penny for being away on trials, sometimes for months, so were expected, indeed advised, to live well ) .

Groundcrew 'works' staff were usually in the same hotels, also on expenses 'living well' but thanks to their union also receiving a healthy bonus.

The only time I was hauled up for my expenses account was because I hadn't spent enough and reflected badly on the others so was asked to go away and add a few zeroes !!!

'The Old Fat One' is spot-on, bean counters will nowadays take any advantage of you they can - have you checked out THEIR expense arrangements, Old Beefer ? Might be very enlightening...

Your not a Saudi then.....

Bugger, that Black Omega was quick.

Ref Chutley's previous comments -

So, I am light blue working within DE&S and use self-drive MT extensively to carryout my duties, and I am not insured when driving? Please clarify.

rates require personnal contribution
 

I don't know if people know but the new capped actuals JPA rates require a personnal contribution. They don't tell you this but they have lowered all the capped rates to take account of a personnal contribution as you would spend money on food at home............GGGGGGGGGGrrrrrrrrr it makes me mad:suspect:

You do not need insurance if you can afford to pay whatever 'bills' need paying.

The MOD can afford to pay out claims, so they have decided take the hit if an accident requires an 'insurance claim', it is much cheaper than paying insurance companies to take the hit on their behalf, after all, how much would it cost in annual insurance premiums?.

So although you are not insured, you are 'insured'. :ok:

"But can you come back and stick it up your arse in 4 years please Mr Torpy? Wow I am sure he is worried that you are leaving in 4 years."

Eosm your right am sure torpy couldn't care less that chutley is leaving!
Therein lies the big problem! because chutley isn't in the minority and there are hoards of people just waiting till their option point, the whole pack of cards is teetering perilously on the edge and in a few years time I think it is going to come crashing down around those that are left.
The constant erosion of simple entitlements like having your food paid for by the people who want you to do a course for the Services benefit are amongst just a a raft of things that are sending people away in their droves.
Those of you that just roll over and take it like Old Beefer and yourself deserve the best of luck cos me thinks you are going to need it.

I think Chutley is talking out of his ChutleyHole on this one. You are covered by the MoD.

Food and Accomodation charges
 

JSP754 (Tri-Service Regulations for Pay and Charges) Ch.9

Temporary Assignments

09.0108.For Service personnel serving on temporary assignment accommodation charges will be raised as follows:

a. When public accommodation is used at the temporary assignment unit:b. When public accommodation is not used at the temporary assignment unit, Service personnel will continue to pay for any retained accommodation at the permanent station.

c. When Service personnel serving in the permanent garrison in Northern Ireland are absent from the Province on a temporary assignment they become liable to pay accommodation charges under normal rules.

Personnel on Temporary Assignments

09.1009. Personnel Paying Food Charges on a Continuous Basis. Personnel who are paying food charges on a continuous basis at their normal/permanent duty station/parent unit who proceed on a temporary/ detached assignment will continue to pay the relevant food charge, if applicable, at the temporary/detached assignment. This includes those temporarily assigned to a PAYD unit, where they will be eligible to receive the Core Meal.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but basically it's in the regulations, and has been for a while now, so you're going to have to pay.

"09.0108.For Service personnel serving on temporary assignment accommodation charges will be raised as follows:

a. When public accommodation is used at the temporary assignment unit:
(1) Service personnel who occupy SLA at the place of temporary assignment will, unless otherwise exempt under the terms of these regulations, pay the charge appropriate to the SLA occupied."

So can someone just clarify a point here. Prior to going OOA, for example, you have to do a few pre-deployment training courses. Now if you live in a quarter or your own house, you end up having to pay for food and accommodation. just for the priviledge of going to the sandpit.....thanks a million.:ugh:

It seems utterly riduculous, it's bad enough for me at my rank, let alone the poor chaps in the ranks who are hardly paid buckets.

Oh well, with these constant erosions of quality of life it won't be to difficult to maintain the reductions in manpower.

It's true what they say "if you want loyalty......buy a dog".

CBTL

I also thought this was the case. The MOD has no insurance they just accept that if you right a car off mass pile up etc they take it on the chin. How you stand if you get hurt god knows!! I know for a fact Stn Cdrs can bend MT rules as it suits but it is all taken on risk.

I have to say that this has always been my understanding of how the MoD 'insurance' works. I have, on a number of occasions, asked to see the insurance policy (normally in response to someone saying "you can't do that, you won't be insured") - never has such a thing been produced. Most of our MT regs seem to be written by junior MT personnel who complicate their own regs purely to justify their own existence and allow them to say "no" more often.

As for you Chutley, you should be ashamed. Do us all a favour will you and Foxtrot Oscar - no need to wait 4 years, 6 months should do it, though your last line (if you have the balls to say it publicly) might earn you a CM, to the benefit of all.:mad:

STH

Gent's, having raised many a F34 to write-off MT vehicles damaged beyond repair, ISTR that an insurance company did act on behalf of MOD only if there was a third party claim in that particular incident (it may have been General Accident, but I stand to be corrected). If there was no third party interest, then MOD took the hit. The write-off was, in any event, classed as a stores loss and set against the appropriate category - i.e. culpable/non-culpable.