AIP mispayment

[muttywhitedog]

muttythedog has poduced a legal gem right there, the Audit as i understood it, was for ALL AIPs submitted back to 2004, if the ex-service, discharged have not been audited, poses another juicy legal question!

I didnt say they havent - I just said that they didnt appear on my unit list. However, I'd be amazed if they have gone to TNT and paid big bucks to have every F445A returned to somewhere for an audit - and it begs the question as to where they have drawn the manpower to audit all these ex-servicemen. You'd be talking about a team of 100 TG17 working 12 hour shifts for about 3 months to sort it out - how much would that cost and how much would they recover?

I maintain that the cost to the public purse for the task of auditing AIPs for ex-HMF personnel would far outweigh the amount recovered.

 

[techie_tubby]

I didnt say they havent - I just said that they didnt appear on my unit list. However, I'd be amazed if they have gone to TNT and paid big bucks to have every F445A returned to somewhere for an audit - and it begs the question as to where they have drawn the manpower to audit all these ex-servicemen. You'd be talking about a team of 100 TG17 working 12 hour shifts for about 3 months to sort it out - how much would that cost and how much would they recover?

I maintain that the cost to the public purse for the task of auditing AIPs for ex-HMF personnel would far outweigh the amount recovered.

It would cost them no more then employing them for standard 8 hour days on unit. The MOD could be running the gamble of paying to get the docs out of storage knowing that they will be recovering more from the servicemen and women.

 

[Weebl]

It would cost them no more then employing them for standard 8 hour days on unit. The MOD could be running the gamble of paying to get the docs out of storage knowing that they will be recovering more from the servicemen and women.

3 points.

1. The existing TG17 bods already have a job, they could not take on and absorb such a massive job without detriment to their primary role. So either people would have to be hired, or existing services and support would have to be compromised.

2. Since when had it become standard RAF practice upon being shat on to point at others who may or may not also have been shat on and bleat about it not being fair because they are not as worse off as me. That will not resolve your situation, or put more money in your pocket, it will just bugger more people up.

3. They cannot suddenly decide they have overpaid people years after they left and dip into a pension fund to recover their losses, no matter how much you might like them to.

 

[Odie]

You'd be talking about a team of 100 TG17 working 12 hour shifts for about 3 months to sort it out - how much would that cost and how much would they recover?

Knock off that time the afternoons they'll be away for PT and staff training.

My initial AIP goes back to the time they first bought them in. If some clown in the line approved it, me having submitted it in good faith, and now some other clown has changed their interpretation of the rules (or changed the rules and is applying said change retrospectively - which would be very dodgy legal ground) they can go whistle for it now I'm out. DT_Xtremez_32:

 

[The Bishop]

Are you sure that was from AIP overpayments?

There were pension adjustments made where people had too much (and too little) money initially put into their pension funds due to the MOD taking too long to sort out the proper pension figures for commutation after the law changed on what could be commuted.

That was a legal requirement, applicable to any pension fund.

I know for a fact if they went to all the expense of getting my documents out of storage, and then audited them they would end up with a net loss.

Nope, not a 100% sure, was just going by the thread title of JPA AIP Error...as i said, the thread didn't come to any conclusion, just relaying what i read.

 

[The Bishop]

So, now we have a broader idea and scope of the problem, and we can see where some errors may have occurred and certainly some ambiguity in the audit, i return to my original first post....

Anyone affected by this can PM me, I have found out that a Barrister will cost around £500 to review the situation and decide if a case can be mounted. Early legal advice is suggesting we do have a case due to the amount of loopholes, but a barrister will have the final say if we should proceed. The more on board, the less it will cost us. 50 of us, tenner each for peace of mind or we just suck it up and pay the debt?......or if the group in Lincolnshire wish to team up, again PM me.

 

[muttywhitedog]

3 points.

1. The existing TG17 bods already have a job, they could not take on and absorb such a massive job without detriment to their primary role. So either people would have to be hired, or existing services and support would have to be compromised.

That is exactly what has happened at my unit. PSF has shut every afternoon since July to get this done, and I imagine its the same at most other places. All management checks have stopped and things that used to get done have been chinned off because CAS says do this audit.

Hey-ho, on Monday, we can all start fixing the pay items that have gone wrong since July....

 

[Spearmint]

Do you know what?

Even if on checking my JPA, I find that I'm not getting bummed dry by those diabolical ****s in Ivory Towers, I would still be quite happy to throw some money in the pot for Legal representation as it is one of the most disgusting tricks I've known to be pulled. Taking away (What was fairly gained) from those who cannot afford to lose it.

 

[The Bishop]

Lets see now.....since AIP came in 2004.....

Continue endless rotation deployments due to no manpower....check

Endure said deployments with inadequate kit.......check

Two rounds of redundancies...........check

Take on 100% extra commitments with 50% manpower....check

No pay rise for a few years........check

Cover Olympics debacle.....check

Leave ban for all troops through summer 2012 for standby Op Olympics.....check

Cover Firemans Strikes....check

Cover Foot & Mouth.......check

Rejig everyones pensions to screw more money from them........check

Take back money from hard pressed low moral troops....check

All Air Ships, AMPs et all get big awards in the Honours lists........check

I've probably missed some but hey......Happy Christmas everyone!!!!

As i said already, this months pay statements are just the first wave, more debts to follow in December and possibly January....

The decent thing to do would be for the MOD to hold their hands up, say hey, our mistake, write it off, draw a line in the sand and promise to get it right in future.....that's the decent thing, but everyone knows what's coming because the MOD wouldn't know a decent thing if it slapped em in the face........just my opinion.

 

[bitter123]

Do you know what?

Even if on checking my JPA, I find that I'm not getting bummed dry by those diabolical ****s in Ivory Towers, I would still be quite happy to throw some money in the pot for Legal representation as it is one of the most disgusting tricks I've known to be pulled. Taking away (What was fairly gained) from those who cannot afford to lose it.

I agreed with you all the way until the fairly gained comment. They are a bunch of ****s in ivory towers, however say one person claimed an aip with a qualification which wasn't on the approved list and got additional money over so many years and another person attempted to make a claim with the same qualification at another unit and got knocked back as psf did their job properly at that unit, then you have to say the former person has unfairly gained additional money.

 

[Robby]

AIP Start date

AIP Start date

As I mentioned earlier the AIP system came in prior to 2004, so i'm not sure why they have selected that date?
It was part of Pay 2000 so any time after 2001 it could be claimed for, is this a JPA issue or an AIP issue?

What exactly was the CAS audit for, the interrpretation of the JSP or the way it was implemented on JPA?

 

[woody]

Maybe worth getting local MP's involved!

Especially someone based at Brize.

 

[The Bishop]

As I mentioned earlier the AIP system came in prior to 2004, so i'm not sure why they have selected that date?
It was part of Pay 2000 so any time after 2001 it could be claimed for, is this a JPA issue or an AIP issue?

What exactly was the CAS audit for, the interrpretation of the JSP or the way it was implemented on JPA?

Robby, the audit is only for AIP awards. Don't get me wrong, some of the claims are a complete feck up and justifiably being looked at. To mention one i know of, the individual submitted the same Q twice in the same year, once as an SAC then again when he got promoted to Cpl. The ARMY in particular have completely cocked it up when their guys were changing trades again and again and claiming every time (and which i stand to be corrected if wrong) caused this audit in the first place.

The issue here is that the audit has gone beyond the obvious cock ups and expanded onto every possible glitch even down to wording. For example: My AIP for Licentiateship ILM C&G Level 4 is in the JSP 754 word for word under TG5&6 but loosely mentioned as Supervisory Management C&G Level 4 or equivalent under my TG when essentially its the same thing. This should have been questioned by the HR person checking and signing it off at the time and any queries should have been directed to TS for clarification - 'It is the responsibility of unit HR staff when checking to ensure the application is correct- All clearly stated instructions in the JSP. When it was awarded, I assumed this has been done. I'm told it was rejected as this Q is obtained thru service courses, when it is not. I did use my IMLC course work toward the ILM but it is certainly not service supplied or awarded. I did it separately, 18 months after my IMLC with guidance from Halton and paid for it myself, So the ambiguity is, how come in the JSP TG5&6 have it printed as a word for word legit AIP and allowing it to be obtained using IMLC coursework and my TG doesn't?

My gripe is, had the HR done the checks, perhaps my TS may have rejected it and i wouldn't be here now fighting my corner, on the other hand, if they didn't get the correct training or understand the JSP, its not their fault either?

This could be another angle to examine, the JSP may have failed the HR staff spectacularly, perhaps they couldn't understand it? They operated without it for a number of months to begin with. This could be true as the problem is service wide and not just an individual at a particular unit. The CAS has chosen to ignore this fact and the whole audit has become a farcical moneypit that will affect hundreds/thousands and then clog the system again with all the service complaints hint, hint, (JSP 831 Annex F) that will no doubt follow.

 

[unruly1986]

I will happily chuck £10 into the pot. If any potential legal representation is approached, maybe their name could be put on here/pm'd so that payment can be sent?


If the JSP specifically says that it is the job of unit HR to check the qual then how can it be our fault?

Seriously considering a service complaint as well.

 

[Mika rearsgoingnowhere]

Lets see now.....since AIP came in 2004.....



The decent thing to do would be for the MOD to hold their hands up, say hey, our mistake, write it off, draw a line in the sand and promise to get it right in future.....that's the decent thing, but everyone knows what's coming because the MOD wouldn't know a decent thing if it slapped em in the face........just my opinion.

This is spot on, it should be written off. The total debt will be tiny compared to other waste within the MOD. All it needs is some moral courage at the top. As an adminer myself, who has never used or handled an AIP application, I am sure that no clk has wilfully been negligent. The JSPs are vague, trg was almost non-existent. Yes, unit HR may have misinterpreted rules, as have trade sponsors, but this issue needs to be resolved rather than be used as an opportunity to berate adminers.

 

[The Bishop]

unruly1986 - I will happily chuck £10 into the pot. If any potential legal representation is approached, maybe their name could be put on here/pm'd so that payment can be sent?

Don't worry about money at this point, i'm checking options on how to do it. The more we get on side, the less it will be, 500 will be a quid each!! and of course, there has been no official decision made, but rest assured, when its announced and its not in our favour the crusade will be ramped up considerably!!!

We have several little individual groups forming and it may well work better to get the groups together, but this is for later....keep the info flowing, as you can see on this thread so far, you can see where things have gone wrong and where the legal route can go.

 

[The Bishop]

but this issue needs to be resolved rather than be used as an opportunity to berate adminers.

Agreed whole heartedly, I started out blaming the HR empire for all the woes but as this thread has developed some very interesting facts have emerged, especially regarding training and no JSP at the start. My opinion has changed and a nice legal case is coming together.

You are also correct about vagueness of the JSP, i have pretty much been in and out of the JSP 754 & JSP 831 for the last few weeks and its a minefield to be negotiated and very much open to individual interpretation (Not like the old AP's which were concise) - The only thing not in your favour is the devastating one liner at the start of the 754 stating that HR are responsible for checking the accuracy and signing off any applications.

We need the adminers onside to get accurate info.

 

[Harry B'Stard]

I hope this all gets sorted out for the guys affected by this and I hope the RAF bites the bullet and climbs down on trying to recover any of it.

With everything else going on, this is yet another straw to add to the huge pile on the camels back and I know some of the people who are affected by this are saying it'll be the one that breaks it. They're already planning their 'Out' strategies for the moment they get told to pay it back.

I'm lucky, when I submitted mine it was turned down, although they did remove an AIP from me.

A couple years later when I was given special pay acting rank, JPAC went through everything to do with my pay as they couldn't see why I only had one AIP but not received the increase, I had a couple of months of screwed up pay and the AIP re-instated, which was preferable to if they were to contact me now asking for some of it back!

Best of luck guys.

HTB

 

[smith2001]

Not posted in a long while but I had to with how big this is.I myself was called into PSF May time ish I think, for a chat about the AIP’s I had submitted. They asked me if I had the certificates as they were not in the paperwork they had. Of course they had taken copies back in April 2010 but of course they had lost them. I was told no decision had been made and they were just collecting info. At my post there were a few ex TCW lads so they also were found in the audit.I put mine in, in April 2010 as I expected to be booted out after a visit to a certain Essex facility but low and behold a very old Lincoln barrister saved me and I was able to keep my job. I used my NVQ or BTEC for my first one (before the known high pay band ruling) and then the actual advanced apprenticeship that is awarded once we have done all of quals 18 months out of trade. I didn’t know if it qualified so that’s why I asked HR who in turn contacted the trade sponsor.The JSP was so vague that the SAC admin had to email the trade sponsor, a certain ‘slow’ WO who after a while granted it. I was later told by my base HR that he had infact authorised it however the email (yes they had a copy) didn’t state if it was for the AIP A or D. This is where mine I guess will become tricky. No debt has appeared this month but as its been stated there is still time. No idea how much it will be though.I’ll also put in money for the barrister if required. I have met the Lincoln one, even got some mail recently letting me know they are moving to a new address. Smith.Apologies for the grammer it seems IE6 doesn't like using enter to add a line.

 

[FootTapper]

Does anyone know any figures for how many people are affected by the "debt" or recovery after the audit?

I know we have some fine HR staff on here who might have ballpark figures for number of people affected at their own unit? Or anyone who's got an idea of total number of people affected so far?


Just interested to get an idea of the scale of the issue really.