Service complaints.
 

Can anyone shed any light (anecdotal or otherwise) on current problems, delays, process, decisions, SNAFUs etc in the system? Thank you.

wasn't there a thread on "Service Complaints" or something similar a few weeks ago

I submitted a Service Complaint in Oct 2011, Level 1 response Oct 2012 (rubbish - did not address the issue), Level 2 response June 2014 (dreadful - not only didn't address the issue but added fuel to the fire) so have escalated to Level 3 Army Board - paperwork all complete Nov 2014 so should have a response by late 2015 if I am lucky. Whatever happened to a 30 day response period for non- contentious issues and 60 days for the tricky ones?

If you are feeling optimistic, read the Service Complaints Commissioner's annual report and you will soon be ready to slash your wrists or dangle from your braces in the Mess bogs. The AF Ombudsman is the only way forward...

I had a Service Complaint in 2010. With documented evidence that was never meant for my eyes, I had the system bang to rights. It was effectively settled out of Court by Manning giving me the posting I wanted (Last tour of duty) in exchange for dropping the complaint.

The saga wasnt quite as simplistic as that but for sure that is the short version. The Service Complaints Commisioner is a shark with no teeth, and therefore a good if ineffective idea.

In the fullness of time, the Armed Forces will get a variation of a Union Represenitive theme. For that is the only way to achieve fair play. The 'offender' in my case got promoted and moved on to SO1 level without any blemish on his service career, leaving the new incumbant to pick up the train case he had created. That is also an unfair outcome.

Were it not for the Data Protection 'rights', I would not have got the evidence I needed to formulate a robust case. In days gone by it would have been "Man-up, lifes a bitch", so I guess progress is positive. However there is still a long way to go.

It is a complete waste of time and effort. Mine took over 4 years with 3 Stn Cdrs and it went nowhere. It is just a backside covering exercise by the CoC. What is needed is a union.

A complete joke!

Previous relevant threads
 

Previous ....

http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...ombudsman.html

http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...inst-afps.html

We didn't complain in my day :E. However, it's clear from the current examples that, like "Airworthiness", such stuff should be taken away from the internal CoC. Mind you, even with an independent external Ombudsman (or Tribunal) you'd have to work very hard to make anything stick. But on the face of it, an independent external process should be an improvement - that's what they'll promise you anyway.

LFH

Back in the day, 'Do you want a Union?' was a topic on Initial Officer Training, and we all laughed. In 12 years, on the two occasions I was 'shafted' by part of the system, the rest of the system recognised it and handed me so many good deals I was better off than if I'd been treated right in the first place. You had decent Senior Officers, Bosses right up to 2*, who looked after their troops.

When did it all change?

Good to see that parts of the MoD are moving with the times. While the SC system is still in need of fettling, and the move to the role of Ombusdman next year may see a shake-up of the obfuscation and delay that continue to frustrate complainants, we need to see a similar system introduced for civilian employees too. While there are pathways for those who provide an important support to the Armed Forces to achieve a resolution, such as Employment Tribunal, the MoD are adept at sitting on their hands until the ET time-frame expires, leaving the complainant to foot the bill.

On a number of occasions I sympathised with Servicemen over this. I recall one senior Army officer moaning to anyone who'd listen that it was so much easier getting to Colchester from London for a hearing, but a bitch now we'd moved to AbbeyWood. That, the "bastard" was guilty no matter what the evidence, simply because of the inconvenience. He was found guilty. To be fair, that senior officer was loathed but his ethos was adopted by his juniors in order to progress.

The CS system is so much easier. A senior grade simply rules that the issue does not constitute grounds for grievance, so there can be no grievance. (e.g. CDP Walmsley - a retired Admiral, which may be significant - when ruling fraud is not an offence, therefore one could not raise a grievance when disciplined for refusing to commit fraud). If you do pursue it, the "offender" is permitted to judge his own case. Exceptions are rare.

Al

Your PM inbox is full.

Sorted.:ok:

"Should we have a union...?" The Mull of Kintyre verdict, possibly the most high profile miscarriage of justice in recent times was overturned only by the intervention and determined support of the airline pilots union BALPA.

Kinda odd you're asking this on here! Why not use your CoC?!

Betty,

That to me? My CoC is currently out doing a food shop.. :E

I can't ever remember anyone getting a positive result from a service complaint, ever. Mass walk-away's, PVRs, disobedience and mutinies are the only language they understand, seriously listen or react to, for better or (generally) worse.
The rest is just palm off or fob off.

Hit the nail on the head:ok:

Procedures
 

A friend of mine is in the process of submitting a Service Complaint and together we've gone through the JSP 831 (https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...1_Issue3_0.pdf)

Is the action with the Complainant to choose whom to submit it to - ie to the 'CO' or to the SCC? Like me, he's not on a regular unit and the concept of a 'CO' is rather remote and abstract, and unlikely to have the leverage to rectify the situation. When he spoke with his support unit, there was a very unprofessional shrugging of shoulders...

My advice would be either to contact the SCC directly, or through a 'friend' if they would rather, as per JSP831, but using the report format from the SCC website.

http://armedforcescomplaints.indepen...ontactform.doc

I'd agree, although the more immediate chain of command will surely also have some measure of good faith obligation to not knowingly do anything that might disadvantage your mate. Directing it to the SCC can only result in a reply suggesting who you revert it to instead anyway so let them be your researchers. And if they suggest you do something that penalises you, you have a few 'whoops' credits in the bank with who it counts.