AIP mispayment

[The Bishop]

From what I have been briefed if you have been overpaid, for whatever reason and irrespective of who is to blame, then you have to pay the money back. My understanding is that this covers a multitude of trade groups and goes back as far as 2005.

Not quite true, it seems different units are being briefed different things. Just yesterday, our SNCO HR told our guys no debt should have gone on pay statements until a decision has been made, yet it was that same HR section that put the debts on this months pay statements - go figure? When this was pointed out to them, stressy would be an understatement and a course in customer relations wouldn't have gone a miss!!

Trust me, i feel it in my water that the confirmation of repayment in the affirmative will come either the day we break for Xmas or the day before.....its their way of damage limitation!!

The Audit was 100% for all trades and all services, dating back to 2004.

As for whether there is anything we can do - YES - but it has to be done legally though, as has been stated on here already, the MOD just trundles along like a machine until its told to do something different, morals, compassion, welfare and logic does not feature.

In this case, double standards apply, the JSP to award AIP was either non existant, wrong, ignored or misinterpreted (but thats ok) but the JSP on recoveries is rigid and must be followed to the letter.....funny that isn't it.

 

[muttywhitedog]

All the recoveries I have instigated (around 5%) have been either for personnel having the AIP backdated 6 months to a random date that was not the date of qualification, or in the case of one person, using an NVQ L3 for a Q-PI-D. In all of these cases, the rule was in place that applications could only be backdated 6 months, providing the qualification was gained in that 6 month period. None of my personnel have a leg to stand on, as they shouldnt have applied to have it backdated. True, HR shouldnt have backdated it either, but two wrongs do not make a right. I have told each one that if they wish to make a SC, then they are free to do so, but it wont get them the money back. Only one has chosen to take his case to PACC, as he had actually submitted a request for backdating at the time, which PSF hadnt submitted to PACC - they'd just gone back 6 months and applied the AIP. The remainder have grumbled and been very vocal, but have now accepted the findings and await recovery.

For those of you who have used civilian qualifications, gained outside of work, in good faith - you may have a case and I wish you good luck in your quest for justice.

 

[Smoggy_in_peace]

Not quite true, it seems different units are being briefed different things. Just yesterday, our SNCO HR told our guys no debt should have gone on pay statements until a decision has been made, yet it was that same HR section that put the debts on this months pay statements - go figure? When this was pointed out to them, stressy would be an understatement and a course in customer relations wouldn't have gone a miss!!Trust me, i feel it in my water that the confirmation of repayment in the affirmative will come either the day we break for Xmas or the day before.....its their way of damage limitation!!The Audit was 100% for all trades and all services, dating back to 2004. As for whether there is anything we can do - YES - but it has to be done legally though, as has been stated on here already, the MOD just trundles along like a machine until its told to do something different, morals, compassion, welfare and logic does not feature. In this case, double standards apply, the JSP to award AIP was either non existant, wrong, ignored or misinterpreted (but thats ok) but the JSP on recoveries is rigid and must be followed to the letter.....funny that isn't it.

Bishop, i am a Army HR working in a tri-service unit and having been watching this thread with interest. There are a couple of points that need clarifying You mentioned in an earlier post that the Army had mucked it up initially with the changes of trades etc.. This is incorrect, since the introduction ofAIP, Army personnel can only get them at 2 defined points in their career, Class 2 trade qualification and Class 1, no confusion, no audit,they are not part of the audit as they cannot be awarded at any other time, the Navy Audit was not only AIP but overpayments of LSA. Whichever SNCO HR told their unit nothing would appear on statements until a decision is made needs to give their head a shake! If you roll back the incrementson JPA it will automatically create a gross public debt where salary is concerned. What SPVA have done is then suspended that recovery until a decison is made. Before my account was activated, someone made the point that appeals have to be in ASAP. Direct from the AIP team yesterday, the 60 day appeal process will start when the decision has been made, this was implied in the initial audit paperwork. As for a decision, as as yesterday the audit was still only 80% complete,and supposed to be with the ministry by Xmas.AFAIAW the total figure being looked at was in excess of £20m, take a conservative % estimate and you have your self a large hot potato.I think that is enough for a first post!!

 

[The Bishop]

Thanks for the correction smoggy_in_peace, the Army info came from an ARRSE thread...

At least you have provided some up-to-date info which is more than most RAF HR's seem to be doing, so may thanks for that, perhaps if you wouldn't mind, just keeping an update going as you hear anything??

 

[millie]

Thanks for the correction smoggy_in_peace, the Army info came from an ARRSE thread...

At least you have provided some up-to-date info which is more than most RAF HR's seem to be doing, so may thanks for that, perhaps if you wouldn't mind, just keeping an update going as you hear anything??

Bishop, as Pers Spt I am getting pretty p***ed off with your constant slur on our trade. Wait out until you know the facts as to why this happened, it will come to fruition. In the meantime put your money where your mouth is and take the RAF to the cleaners if you believe you have a case and stop the mis-information on here, this is crew room bullsh*t. This is a lot of money to a 'company' that is hanging on by the skin of its teeth. I am not convinced you will be successful. There are sh*t hot Pers Spt out there, and there are some poor ones, but I can say the same for all the trades across the RAF. Like I've said previously on another AIP thread, this is pish poor for all involved.

 

[Rocket_Ronster]

Who do you mean by `company` ?

 

[LilStill]

While I disagree with Millie, in that I can see why most people blame HR, I would really like to know what you want us to tell you TB? The information given by Smoggy is one part Army related - the pre-defined points where an AIP is awarded (which I'm sure has come up before in this thread) - and one part explanation of the debit on a payslip that has also been explained previously in this thread.

Beyond that - what exactly do you want HR to tell you? You seem to be aware this audit is a directive from CAS after questions in Parliament. **** hot clerks or otherwise, not one of us is going to put words in big Steve's or Parliaments mouths - are we?

 

[briggfairy]

Bishop, as Pers Spt I am getting pretty p***ed off with your constant slur on our trade. Wait out until you know the facts as to why this happened, it will come to fruition. In the meantime put your money where your mouth is and take the RAF to the cleaners if you believe you have a case and stop the mis-information on here, this is crew room bullsh*t. This is a lot of money to a 'company' that is hanging on by the skin of its teeth. I am not convinced you will be successful. There are sh*t hot Pers Spt out there, and there are some poor ones, but I can say the same for all the trades across the RAF. Like I've said previously on another AIP thread, this is pish poor for all involved.

I think you'll find the slur on your trade is coming from the fact that the certificates had to be checked by two members of the trade and signed off as correct before the AIP was approved, for it to be this widespread it seems more likely to be a systematic failure rather than personal failings.

in techie terms the plane crashed because the ap was wrong no matter how good or bad the people were!

as for the company holding on by the skin of it's teeth maybe if it treated it's people a bit better they wouldn't have a potentially massive human factors issue bubbling away under the surface

 

[millie]

I think you'll find the slur on your trade is coming from the fact that the certificates had to be checked by two members of the trade and signed off as correct before the AIP was approved, for it to be this widespread it seems more likely to be a systematic failure rather than personal failings.

in techie terms the plane crashed because the ap was wrong no matter how good or bad the people were!

as for the company holding on by the skin of it's teeth maybe if it treated it's people a bit better they wouldn't have a potentially massive human factors issue bubbling away under the surface

In reading the majority of posts I've seen a TS connection or agreement the qual could count, the representational TS is not an adminer. How would HR know the difference in various technical quals? What training were they provided with to know the difference? In my place of work if it was not clear, off they went to the TS, who was a specialist within the trade for approval or decline.

Planes do crash, kit does fail, peoples lives are lost, there are BOI for these, so what I say is wait out to its conclusion and cease blaming HR. God forbid you would ever point the finger at an individual until an investigation was carried out.

As for the company and I use that term purposely the RAF appear to be losing sight on what is most important and that is its personnel. I'm just sticking up for the trade, it is not bad thing to have pride in it, any of you would do the same. Just stop the witchhunt and do something about it sharpish, they will claw it back otherwise.

 

[Tubby]

My problem, other than the lost certificates, is that my second AIP was a level 3. This should have been stopped in its tracks before it left the clk, never mind the chf clk. I will be starting a witch hunt, I will get the names of the clks and start a service complaint against both of them. I will also report the loss of my certificates (copies) to the information commissioner as the loss of personal information show's a complete lax attitude to itsstaff.

Although I do believe some of these problems are down to poor training, even with all those afternoons off. I firmly do not believe I or others should be counting the cost of the RAF’s mistakes. It is the clks sole responsibility to check the eligibility of the application and take appropriate action from there, be it approve or decline. That is why I will go for the 2 responsible for my situation.

As for wondering why the admin staff are getting the blame for this. Well, if your flight home is delayed because of a snag, who do you blame. I bet it isn’t Thompson for selling sh1t radio’s or Rolls Royce for giving us engines that have not been tested due to them having no test bed, nope, it is the techies. Well this is your bag, deal with it. The root of this problem lies somewhere behind your trade, it is an “admin” problem after all.

I am currently having posting problems so please bare with me on the crap word spacing

 

[Tubby]

Apologies for my poor spacing, I am having to type in to word first and the copy and paste in to the goat isn't great at the moment.

 

[busby1971]

Apologies for my poor spacing, I am having to type in to word first and the copy and paste in to the goat isn't great at the moment.

Always laying the blame elsewhere, go on take responsibility for once, after all you did submit a NVQ level 3 when as you state the rules were very clear.

 

[Tubby]

Always laying the blame elsewhere, go on take responsibility for once, after all you did submit a NVQ level 3 when as you state the rules were very clear.

I do believe it says MY poor spacing. But true, clear they are. But as someone who was still reasonably new to the RAF at the time I trusted the admin staff would do admin type jobs. As I now know this not to be the case, I now take quite some time away from maintaining your flights home to ensure I know my position with any admin queries I might have. That is why I also know that regardless of what I or others did or did not know prior to application, it was the SOLE responsibility of the clk.

 

[millie]

Apologies for my poor spacing, I am having to type in to word first and the copy and paste in to the goat isn't great at the moment.

Why didn't you keep a copy too? I have my at attestation papers, bet you have too, I have all my certs from schooling, bet you have too, I keep copies of pay statements, sjars, further service apps, jpa expenses, quals from phase 2 trg and so on and guess what I bet you have too. I personally don't blame techies for delays I blame the airframe for being too old or not enough spares, combined with high operational tempo and lack of personnel to share the pain.

 

[Ghandi's Flip-Flop]

Why didn't you keep a copy too? I have my at attestation papers, bet you have too, I have all my certs from schooling, bet you have too, I keep copies of pay statements, sjars, further service apps, jpa expenses, quals from phase 2 trg and so on and guess what I bet you have too. I personally don't blame techies for delays I blame the airframe for being too old or not enough spares, combined with high operational tempo and lack of personnel to share the pain.

Apologies for my poor spacing, I am having to type in to word first and the copy and paste in to the goat isn't great at the moment.

Why didn't you keep a copy too? I have my at attestation papers, bet you have too, I have all my certs from schooling, bet you have too, I keep copies of pay statements, sjars, further service apps, jpa expenses, quals from phase 2 trg and so on and guess what I bet you have too. I personally don't blame techies for delays I blame the airframe for being too old or not enough spares, combined with high operational tempo and lack of personnel to share the pain.

I suspect if you have every piece of paperwork generated by the service since you joined, I can only suspect you haven't been in for very long.

I retain payslips etc for the past three years (However I have gone paperless with everything possible) but seriously the amount of paperwork generated during a full career would require me to have a significantly larger quarter than that afforded to me currently.

Why on earth someone would still have paperwork retained for something submitted up to 8 years ago and which hadn't been highlighted as a problem in those intervening 8 years is beyond me. I would also suggest expecting an individual to have done so is quite frankly laughable.

A company which has to adhere to stringent Data Protection laws on the other hand, maybe not so ridiculous.

 

[Tubby]

I do, but why help them to cover thier tracks. They can have it when I am ready to give it to them.

 

[Tubby]

I have all my certs from phases 1+2, school, college, q courses etc. Further service paperwork, currently in those years so it’s a bit late to stop it, Expenses? Is it really worth trying to claim for a bag of chips in cyprus

 

[can't an SAC do it?]

I remember a PSF up north used to print out a full service record and mail it to you so you could personally check it yourself. It had everything on it, leave taken, detachments etc. That was on SAMA though...

 

[millie]

I suspect if you have every piece of paperwork generated by the service since you joined, I can only suspect you haven't been in for very long.

I retain payslips etc for the past three years (However I have gone paperless with everything possible) but seriously the amount of paperwork generated during a full career would require me to have a significantly larger quarter than that afforded to me currently.

Why on earth someone would still have paperwork retained for something submitted up to 8 years ago and which hadn't been highlighted as a problem in those intervening 8 years is beyond me. I would also suggest expecting an individual to have done so is quite frankly laughable.

A company which has to adhere to stringent Data Protection laws on the other hand, maybe not so ridiculous.

Urm because it's to do with money, pension that's why on earth I would keep it. Not served too long, just 17 years, a whipper snapper. I'll get some time in.

 

[Tubby]

Urm because it's to do with money, pension that's why on earth I would keep it. Not served too long, just 17 years, a whipper snapper. I'll get some time in.

Do you not trust your PSF? Have you had a bad experience too.