AIP mispayment

[Ghandi's Flip-Flop]

Excuse me the Qualification used to gain an AIP and the accompanying Gen App form are linked to your pension and as such are something you should keep?

What a load of Horlicks, I suspect most people will keep a copy of the form until it has successfully transited Handbrake House in case of the usual misplacement. But what grounds after that would there be for keeping an AIP application?

Especially as it should be correctly stored in your personnel file by the so called professionals.

 

[smith2001]

After the CASWO brief i attended today on my swing shift, 0830 hrs. He brought the AIP thing up. he stated that its more to do with a certain TS saying it was ok for a course such as JMLC to be used as an AIP and some (back handed motion) was happening. He never mentioned anything to do with admin being responsible as he did state it was up to US to check and that is the way it is. He stated that he suspects it will only affect a small amount of people who knowingly put them in and knew it was wrong. I still suspect alot of 13000 odd people will get stung. on a side note he also said that SFA and SLA will go up in cost to encourage us to own our own houses and the LSAP would increase to help the amount being based on how long you have left, your rank and if they wish to retain you past your current contract.Extenstions of service will be based on the needs of the trade and not automatic for promotion, i.e. an SAC being offered 22 years if there is a requirement for that specific job i.e. Cyber (new trade he muted of TG4 and police)Pay will be probably moved to 1 pay band (no higher or lower) with specific job compantancies attracting more pay. He didn't elleborate as its only being discussed with the new "employment model".

 

[smith2001]

Sorry about the grammer, it again seems to have ignored my enter key line spaces.

 

[TheSaintsGoMarchingIn]

I must admit, Im not involved with all this as my AIP was submitted 2001 ish. However this thread makes excellent and interesting reading and helps mycountdown of 197 more weekends left in the RAF go a lot quicker!

 

[SORRY CJ]

I must admit, Im not involved with all this as my AIP was submitted 2001 ish. However this thread makes excellent and interesting reading and helps mycountdown of 197 more weekends left in the RAF go a lot quicker!

I'm with you on this....and out the mob already with all the paperwork now in storage, but I'm still not gonna hold my breath. Who knows what they are going to do next?

Mr SCJ

 

[muttywhitedog]

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.

Tubby, if you are talking about having submitted an NVQ L3 for a Q-PI-D, then start the witch-hunt at the individual who submitted the application....and stop there.

NVQ L3 was never permitted for a Q-PI-D, and to submit an application could potentially be construed as fraudulent.

 

[unruly1986]

MWD - If it was so obviously fraudulent, why were applications such as these submitted and APPROVED across the whole of the airforce?

The pers spt tradespeople approved these. If they simply carry out our requests, why have them? We should be able to liaise with JPAC on an individual level.

Pers Spt are meant to be THE experts on admin (this includes pay) matters. That is the crux of many complaints here.

 

[muttywhitedog]

MWD - If it was so obviously fraudulent, why were applications such as these submitted and APPROVED across the whole of the airforce?

The pers spt tradespeople approved these. If they simply carry out our requests, why have them? We should be able to liaise with JPAC on an individual level.

Pers Spt are meant to be THE experts on admin (this includes pay) matters. That is the crux of many complaints here.

Submitting a claim, knowing it to be fraudulent, doesnt make it right just because it is then approved.

 

[unruly1986]

Submitting a claim, knowing it to be fraudulent, doesnt make it right just because it is then approved.

Well this is the whole issue - we didn't know, you didn't know (we thought you did!), nobody knew!

Its like us saying 'can I claim for this' and PSF saying 'no'.

in this instance, they said 'yes, and we will check and sign it all off for you, here's a payrise'.

 

[muttywhitedog]

You dont get it do you? Q-PI-D was always for a NVQ L4 or above, and that is very clearly stated in the JSP and always has been.

I wouldnt claim for plain clothes allowance just because I fancied a new suit every year - there is a criteria for claiming an allowance, and if you dont fit the criteria, you dont claim.

 

[unruly1986]

You dont get it do you? Q-PI-D was always for a NVQ L4 or above, and that is very clearly stated in the JSP and always has been.

I wouldnt claim for plain clothes allowance just because I fancied a new suit every year - there is a criteria for claiming an allowance, and if you dont fit the criteria, you dont claim.

Yes I yet what you are trying to say, but why was it approved if it was so obviously incorrect? Surely the admin pers across the RAF should've said NO.

if you tried to claim for plain clothing allowance, you would be told where to go if not entitled. Why didn't this happen with the AIPs?

Did anyone at your unit approve one?

 

[The Bishop]

I've been away for a few days so catching up again with this thread, its doing exactly what i hoped it wouldn't, slanging matches and insults.

The reason i started this thread was for some fact finding, some people have obviously taken it personally judging frm their responses. I think i pointed out quite a way back in this thread that it wasn't a witch hunt and i didn't balme HR as there are some pretty danming factors involved regarding no JSP's or training at the launch, so the bitchers out there can climb down from their high horses. On the other hand, i do blame HR's for some very poor attitudes. I appreciate they may be under some pressure, but as a customer based section, the reaction is apalling, pulling the shutters down and being VERY unhelpful does p**s people off, FACT!

'Daring' to take legal action also provoked some reaction, do you watch the news? A certain SAS Sgt locked up for 18 months by the unwavering Militayry system? Challenging wrong decisions is what is all about, you don't challenge, you don't change anything. Stop bleating and provide the facts for a decent case, again i said it before, some cases are blatantly wrong, some are so ambiguous you have to challenge that.

A big company on its knees? Don't make me laugh, there are a 1000+ ways of saving money in this organisation but instead of diverting 1000's of man hours looking at that, they divert it to upset the very personnel that make the 'company' work in the first place.

The fact is, a large mistake has been made and yes it needs to be dealt with. I just hope its sensibly as the debts could potentially push people into serious hardship.

Extract fro the AP1 Service Ethos:

Financial Management. All of us in the Royal Air Force are expected to
manage our finances responsibly. Such matters are usually regarded as
private and personal. However, where the Royal Air Force becomes directly
involved, for example through Service funds or by a legitimate complaint,
then administrative or disciplinary action might be taken. Unmanageable or
irresponsible indebtedness displays a lack of judgement and self-discipline.
It may also create an administrative burden, or could lead to an individual
becoming a security risk and might impact on a person’s future employment
in the Royal Air Force.

Some of these debts could easily bring this into play through no fault on the individuals part....That's all i'm saying.

 

[Chad Norman]

Quite a thought provoking thread this one, and I'm not even in the mob now!

What a cluster fcuk? Agree with some of the admin comments but on the other hand, I always thought that our scribblies were there to provide some sort of check and balance to protect colleagues who were less converse with the various AP's etc.

rumours, some ill informed but well meaning SNCO/boss, too quick a glance at the rules etc. have all probably paid a part here in submitting an application which wasn't 100% correct. To quote fraud is a bit over the top IMHO.

I really feel for the guys and girls who might be hit with this. I had a fantastic scribbly (not in a Jimmy S kind of way!) in my last couple of years being parented by Wyton, thanks Adam if your watching. He wasn't adverse to giving me a slap and saying no, you can't have that, isn't that the whole point?

good luck people.

Chad

 

[The Bishop]

JSP 754 - Extract AIP

JSP 754 - Extract AIP

For anyone interested in the JSP that hasn't managed to find it yet: Read the responsibilites below. My understanding is its my responsibility to submit my AIP (in good faith) and HR do the rest? Again, i'm not in a bun fight with HR, but this is part of my defence, and perhaps you can see where i'm coming from and why people are getting peeved......If this wasn't printed or taught when AIP came along its easy to see where things went wrong. If it was, then this failure in procedure is a £3K+ mistake to me so of course i'm not going to roll over and just accept it!!!

Policy
JSP 754 Chapter 3 Sections 5 & 6

Responsibility
The RAF and RN Service Personnel are responsible for submitting an application for AIP to their Unit HR Administrator.

The Unit HR Administrator is responsible for determining if the Service Person is entitled to an AIP in accordance with current regulations.

 

[SORRY CJ]

Policy
JSP 754 Chapter 3 Sections 5 & 6

Responsibility
The RAF and RN Service Personnel are responsible for submitting an application for AIP to their Unit HR Administrator.

The Unit HR Administrator is responsible for determining if the Service Person is entitled to an AIP in accordance with current regulations.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
So this should be an "open and shut case"

ADMIN ERROR????

Mr SCJ

 

[Downsizer]

There appears to be a number of different strands here...

Those that submitted an AIP that with a qual that had to be approved by the TS at the time(and were approved) with the current TS saying no...
Those that submitted an AIP with a qual that wasn't valid for that AIP be it maliciously or not....
Those that have a backdating error....

Have I missed any? The whole thing stinks.

I for one am sure that the money will be taken back. Why? Because they've had to shell out money they owed, so that has to be recovered somehow...

 

[robson]

Damm right SC, it's as simple as that!!! Their fault!!!
In my job if I give someone something their not entitled too, and something happens I get in the s€$t, not them, me because I am the SME!!!
As for training, if they were not qualified to do it then thats easy, they don't do it!!
We wouldn't allow a techie to fix an aircraft without training, a nurse to do nursey things without training so why we're admin allowed to a job without training!!!
massive case of sloppey shoulders, which from what I have read on here they are getting away with!!!::/:

 

[Mika rearsgoingnowhere]

Damm right SC, it's as simple as that!!! Their fault!!!
In my job if I give someone something their not entitled too, and something happens I get in the s€$t, not them, me because I am the SME!!!
As for training, if they were not qualified to do it then thats easy, they don't do it!!
We wouldn't allow a techie to fix an aircraft without training, a nurse to do nursey things without training so why we're admin allowed to a job without training!!!
massive case of sloppey shoulders, which from what I have read on here they are getting away with!!!::/:

Robson, I am admin and I totally agree that we should not be allowed to do a job without training, but that is what happened when JPA rolled out. Not trying to slope shoulders, those who have messed up should be held accountable (not sure what mechanism, a service complaint would not be an avenue). Bishop is right, techies should not start bashing adminers, conversely adminers should realise how emotional this issue is and not pull the shutters down and start being defensive. We should all work together to get this issue sorted to the right conclusion. Incidentally, I have never approved an AIP and a PD Clk would never approve it. At the end of this audit, there will be some cases where HR have been fault, but the trade sponsors, JSPs and lack of training will be significant factors. Better to use this forum for constructive purposes rather than run a campaign against a single trade. I can assure you in my 20+ years in, The majority of unit HR I have seen have been professional, don't tar us all with the same brush. Enough said, I am not anti techie, all trades have good and bad members, I think some of us are losing sight of this.

 

[woody]

If the young PD clerk starts to get Service Complaints levelled at them, maybe they should could consider a Service Complaint due to lack of training. Is it fair to send someone out to Dow job they are not trained in? I am sure I wouldn't send out one of my staff to do something they were not trained in.

 

[muttywhitedog]

Yes I yet what you are trying to say, but why was it approved if it was so obviously incorrect? Surely the admin pers across the RAF should've said NO.

Did anyone at your unit approve one?

Not that I'm aware of, but an individual at my unit has had recovery action taken against him because he submitted a request for a Q-PI-D as an SAC using an NVQ L3 at another unit. He'd already submitted the NVQ L2 in the same subject, which was perfectly acceptable.

He complained a bit until I pointed out that he'd effectively made a fraudulent claim by signing that declaration, and whilst he might not like it, he owed the firm money.

So, in answer to your question Unruly, if someone submitted one like that on my watch, they'd be asked if they have read the respective leaflet. If they said yes, then they'd have a 2nd @rse ripped in them with a potential reporting for attempted fraud for good measure.