CM I seem to remember that when this started they tried to insist that for a joint bill you all had to have a copy with the bit you had highlighted (can you remember who had the rice?). After a bit of discussion the system agreed on a bill equally split but the concept seemed difficult to them at start.

In fairness a couple of years ago I seem to recall that exercises were covered by an SMA (like a rate but smaller).

As I said above it is the way that the system goes about trying to stop you reclaiming what you spent that annoys a lot of people. The example of a bill for 2p (over tipping) is not an isolated one. The idea of materiality seems lost on those who claim that they are only interested in the public purse. Other examples I have been the victim of include the auditor not knowing the difference between ie and eg ( and making an erroneous reclaim on the basis of their ignorance) and just not looking at the receipt properly.

As I say, it's the people that are there to support you that screw it all up, not the size of the allowances. All done in the name of economy. Reasonable?

The "system" doesn't really exist. It's the people you deal with.

BV - having gone away with groups of upto 50, for upto 4 weeks, it sounds like an RAF imposed cluster. We didn't do any of that.

AtG
 

You lucky so and so. You may well be right.

To the best of my knowledge 6 Sqn were the first unit to deploy for an overseas detachment after the advent of JPA. Having enjoyed several detachments before it was introduced the comparisons were not favourable.

Hopefully things have changed in the intervening years since I did a full Sqn detachment.

BV:O

I've been a jpa user on deployment and a wider use of mod equivalent systems. I fully get that the idea of why some people dont like having to get receipts, but its just part of life.

Ultimately jpa works reasonably well and its teething troubles are long gone (which by sounds of things is where some experiences here come from). Just because at one end giving cash out to user is easier doesnt mean the admin burden is reduced, it just shifts where it happens in a more visible way.

In a time of tight budgets i'd rsther reumburse actuals than just keep paying daily allowances greater than what is needed if that helps protect the front line. The military dont have an exclusive claim to deploying people at distance around the world and having to do admin. Other large groups manage perfectly well, so i just genuinelt cant see why the military needs to be different in this case?

Well, not quite, Jimlad.

JPA had a very difficult launch - but remember everything was so good that it was decided to skip the beta testing... ...and then it crashed - but that was never really the problem. Folk all over the world have continual problems with the difficulties created by the people that administer it, be they CS, mil or anything else I mentioned earlier.

This is supposed to be part of the support function, not an entity that simply creates problems for the people that are supposed to being supported.

Now, that may sound glib, but consider that people are being asked to do at least the same with smaller numbers. Be they at their base or deployed or on other overseas duties, it is not reasonable that they spend increasing amounts of time dealing with a "system" just because the people administering it seem to feel it's their job to continually challenge claims.

No, my experiences do not come from the early teething problems. And neither do those that others are describing.

While i understand some people get claims challenged, i really think we need to look the wider picture and ask how many claims get challenged overall.

Just looking here and on arrse, it seems that only a tiny minority of people get challenges, and talking widely with friends at all ranks, aain very very few have an issue with the system or the adminers supporting them. Now i could just be incredibly lucky with my sample group, but i do think that its a good system and that the overwhelming majority of claims go through without drama or problems. Perhaps thats why we seem to hear the same tiny number of stories about such specific claims - precisely because they are so unusual that it sticks in peoples memories?

Independent Pay Review
 

Jimlad.

As you have previously said we shall agree to disagree.

I am curious about one thing though. Have you ever operated on a rates system? You seem to enjoy/tolerate actuals but is that all you've ever known? I guess those of us that strongly disagree with you have simply seen both sides of the coin (as may you also) and have a clear preference. Not just for selfish reasons but from a genuinely objective perspective.

Anyway, I've been out of the JPA loop for over three years now but am due back at an RAF base in a couple of months. Maybe I'll let you know my thoughts about JPA whence I return.

BV

Independent Pay Review
 

I see we posted concurrently. I have been audited three times in the past. As a busy QFI it was, on each occasion, 1-2 hours of wasted time when you consider the trip to SHQ and back and the other elements. Doesn't seem like much you may say but it will remove me from the flying programme for a wave (unless I give up my lunch but oh no that's right PSF is never staffed at lunchtime so the flying programme will suffer after all). To non flyers you may just think so what. To a pilot that is a pain in the preverbial.

Anyway, as I said I'll desist until I have updated my JPA recency. Maybe the whole experience has become infinitely better in my absence.

BV

"Anyway, as I said I'll desist until I have updated my JPA recency. Maybe the whole experience has become infinitely better in my absence."

BV, Sorry to say it hasn't.

All my JPA admin is done via paper forms, scanned and sent to my parenting unit, GAU. Generally they are good although their ignorance of geography does have comedy value. Working in a part of the world where receipts share the veracity of a Party Manifesto (and, of course, are not in English), I do wonder what they make of them in Glasgie'.

I was back in the UK briefly recently and passed through a RAF StTation and went to PSF and asked to use a JPA terminal to check some claims and CEA stuff. I was told I had to go to the 'Training Development Centre' (oh, you mean Education Section?) to do an on-line sy-ops package before I could go near the JPA terminal. But only during certain times of the week. I didn't bother...


I also had to visit a contractor-run supply section to grab some uniform (MTP - the horror!). It took thee attempts: Wednesday afternoon closed for 'staff training'; thursday afternoon 'closed'; I made a special trip back on Friday to find that 'Closes at 1130'. I had arrived at 1129, and was luckily able to get my kit, although I feared that I would morph into Michael Douglas in 'Falling Down' at one point. And I had rung to ensure they were open but calls were never answered, messages never returned. The chaps were, when I finally managed to get to the clothing store, very helpful and friendly.

However, how can the Forces claim to be lean when so many sections seem to operate with the efficiency of British Leyland on a Monday? And this was after spending 10 minutes each time I entered stationexplaining my details to the Ghurka MPGS chap to get a vehicle pass (why oh why??) for a rental car.

So if that is the case, why do we still employ JPA auditors? I am convinced that the cost to the taxpayer of employing JPA auditors is far greater than the sum of monies they have ever recovered.

Just give the guys and girls the 28 quid (or whatever it is today) per day and let them spend it how they like.

I've had one of my claims audited, and I didn't make many, and I also seem to remember something along of the lines of that if you submit more than 3 claims in a 30 day period they are automatically selected for audit.



Jimlad's personal poll seemed to indicate few people get audited, in direct contrast most people commenting on here seem to be saying they have been - which is correct, or are they both correct?

On the subject of "Independant Pay review" I was taken with the brass necked Greening on Question time last night. A question was asked about the correctness of a 10% pay rise for MPs. She firstly stated that it was an "Independant" review board set up to prevent the accusation that MPs were "rigging" their own pay. Someone pointed out that the board, appointed by MPs to carry out this onerous task were in fact MPs, oh dear, is the MOD Independant pay review body made up of serving Officers, NCOs and Airmen with a similar vested interest. Having made the point that it was an "Independant" board, she pointed out that CaMoron had written to them demanding that at this time a 10% increase was not appropriate. Should CaMoron prove successful in his demands, how independant can this committee be ? Not very if influenced by external nuisances like politicians. Whatever, a good point was made that the service pay review board had recommended a 4% increase, which the government refused and reduced to 1%. What I see is a bunch of politicians who say that they can't interfere with the recommendations of an Independant parliamentary pay review body, and have to accept their recommendations, whilst doing exactly the opposite with the "independant" pay review boards of all other public services. Double standards in the least, but typical of the low life we seem to want to elect these days.

Smudge:ugh:

Smug,

It doesn't matter how independent the Pay Review Board is. It doesn't matter what they recommend. The Chancellor will still say 'No!'

Smudge,

Please don't read this as a personal attack, but I think you need to check some of your facts.

First of all there's IPSA, whose board is:

http://parliamentarystandards.org.uk...executive.aspx

Only one of these appears to be an ex MP, leaving parliament in 2010. Can you point to evidence to back the comment (which I admit was only passed on from what you heard on TV) that the board, appointed by MPs to carry out this onerous task were in fact MPs?

IPSA is independent, it says so on the tin, that's what the "I" stands for, and it is recommending something that MPs actually don't like...

By contrast the AFPRB isn't independent.

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...accessible.pdf

It never claims to be, indeed every year (page iii in 2015), in it's terms of reference it states:

In reaching its recommendations, the Review Body is to have regard to the following considerations:
• the need to recruit, retain and motivate suitably able and qualified people taking
account of the particular circumstances of Service life;
• Government policies for improving public services, including the requirement on the
Ministry of Defence to meet the output targets for the delivery of departmental services;
• the funds available to the Ministry of Defence as set out in the Government’s
departmental expenditure limits; and
• the Government’s inflation target.

So, you are complaining about double standards of the government in their response to 2 "independent" pay review boards, but one of them isn't independent at all, and never claims to be!!

If you want to complain that public service bodies don't have truly "independent" pay review boards, fair enough - but make that your argument. But then again, I don't see any private companies, Tesco, BP, ICI, etc, having "independent" external bodies setting the pay they give their workers!

All North American Sqn Exercises are back on rates and have been for a good number of years. Last time I did a ROPE form or actuals in NA must have been 2010?

Downsizer
 

Thank God common sense prevailed. As I conceded earlier I suspected I would be a little out of date. How can I be a dinosaur already at 38?!

BV:(

BV, I feel the same.

It is a "reduced rate" though, it's only about 75% of the amount allowed on receipts. Having done pre-JPA "rates", actuals, and current "rates", it's not as good as pre-jpa clearly, but I'll take a cut in BLATTs for the cut in hassle receipts are. I don't think we should though.

I had to slum the last Red Flag I did on only $40 per day :eek:

...$40 a day plus winnings!