AIP clawback
 

Any other ground trades or NCA dudes get stung today with debt payback notices?

I've heard some run into 20k plus :eek:

Not heard of NCA being impacted - what has triggered this?

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.

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.

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.

What's an AIP?

CG

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.

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.

Nothing is happening to PSFs, nor anything against the OCs who signed as approved (I don't think they should be blamed, they're the same as the applicant IMO, non-SMEs), and nor the Trade Sponsors who approved some individual qualifications that subsequent Trade Sponsors at the time of audit said weren't sufficient.

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.

Is there a plausible case for a good faith/bad faith defence?

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.

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.

This is a copy of a letter that was posted on FarceBook.

http://i59.tinypic.com/dxil9f.jpg

"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"

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

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.

Glad I left 4 years ago - but feel for the guys that stayed.

Is there not a 2 year claim limit?

The managing public money document from the treasury issued with the letter say 6 years from the overpayment.

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.

So if you stayed in your screwed and face a bill if you bailed you don't get a bill?

Great way to reward loyalty...

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.

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.

Wilkman Chapman Lincoln solicitors will take your case on they're offering effected service folk to contact them . IMHO one of the best in their field.

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. :ugh:

Bang on Circle Kay.

solicitors
 

:ok:

Close enough for government work without getting into advertising trouble ;)

:ok: :ok:

LFH

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.

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

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

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

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?

With that kind of attitude you must be one of the VSOs staring at their shoes hoping the whole thing will blow over.

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

You are spot on Chug!

S-D

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.

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

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

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.

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.