AIP mispayment

[Trusty Adjusty]

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.

The particular case you state is fine MWD, however, whilst the SAC at your unit submitted a request for Q-PI-D, by definition, if he is having recovery action then SOMEONE in YOUR trade approved it! BOTH parties are to blame. As for the attempted fraud you mention - I hope you are as up for ripping a 2nd @rse as you call it, into all your trade brethren who have financially affected those who acted in good faith. Start looking at this from someone else's point of view other than your own - your one-sidedness on this issue is exactly what is grating people the most with this whole issue. No one is trying to lay ALL the blame for this at your trades door, but your blatant attempts to blame anything or anyone bar your own trade (trade sponsor/no JSP/fraudulent individuals) is offensive to those who did act in good faith and are being left with potentially thousands of pounds in debt hanging over their heads over the Xmas period.

 

[Mika rearsgoingnowhere]

The particular case you state is fine MWD, however, whilst the SAC at your unit submitted a request for Q-PI-D, by definition, if he is having recovery action then SOMEONE in YOUR trade approved it! BOTH parties are to blame. As for the attempted fraud you mention - I hope you are as up for ripping a 2nd @rse as you call it, into all your trade brethren who have financially affected those who acted in good faith. Start looking at this from someone else's point of view other than your own - your one-sidedness on this issue is exactly what is grating people the most with this whole issue. No one is trying to lay ALL the blame for this at your trades door, but your blatant attempts to blame anything or anyone bar your own trade (trade sponsor/no JSP/fraudulent individuals) is offensive to those who did act in good faith and are being left with potentially thousands of pounds in debt hanging over their heads over the Xmas period.

Trusty, you are spot on, I think getting entrenched into clks vs applicants is helpful to no one. From an admin point of view, my take on it is if the individual applied and it was approved by HR/trade sponsor, then the money should be written off, full stop, no debate! If there was no entitlement, this should have been picked up at the time. Not trying to get a rise among my own trade, but you cannot call an application fraudulent if HR knew there was no entitlement but approved it, that makes them complicit in the fraud. I know from past experience dealing with allowances, I have had to make a judgment call on the rules in the JSP. I have had the situation where 4 of us in PSF have come up with 4 different interpretations of policy. It may be the case that Chf Clks have approved these, thinking there is an entitlement (I cannot believe all HR involved have just signed without checking), it may simply come down to misinterpretation of badly written regs. I understand this is an emotional issue, but those trading insults need to refrain as it is diverting focus away from resolving the issue. One last point, I could swear that CAS once said people are our most important asset, perhaps he has forgot this!

 

[The Bishop]

Lets hope he remembers soon and gives everyone involved a 'nice' xmas present to stop the worry and stress over the festive period, attentions can then be focussed on families and not potential financial ruin!!!

 

[busby1971]

Lets hope he remembers soon and gives everyone involved a 'nice' xmas present to stop the worry and stress over the festive period, attentions can then be focussed on families and not potential financial ruin!!!

Unfortunately he also remembers that people are his most expensive asset.

 

[3wheeledtechie]

Jesus, what a prize cluster.

As I recall I submitted my 2 AIPs, one as a JT using the NVQ L3, and one as a Cpl using my HNC. First one was probably in about 2003, and I was certainly under the impression, on advice received from Cosford, that if I bothered my arse to get on with and complete the NVQ (plenty didn't) it could be submitted. It also took Cosford months to assess it, I then had to do a couple of jobcards for a few bits I hadn't covered satisfactorily, and then eventually they issued the cert.

No idea if I submitted under Q-PI-D, but sounds familiar. Can anyone tell me what the score is, as to whether correctly submitted or not? Have a certain sympathy for the adminers as the introduction of JPA was a monumental clusterf*ck, IIRC.

Frankly as I've left and now am no longer in the country, they can kiss my hairy swingers for any claim, as I claimed in good faith on the basis of the knowledge/advice I had at the time.

 

[Tubby]

Mutty, I didn't know the JSP back then. I went to PSF for advice, he, the clk said it was valid after checking his cheat sheet. I signed it, they approved. As I have said earlier it could be down to poor training with the introduction of JPA and I have mentioned that in my service complaint. But if it is shown that the clk and chf clk should have known better then I hope they get strung up. If they want to try and pin fraud on me then try it, both clk's where clearly compliant in it by allowing, as you call it, a "fraudulent" application. But I can tell you if did not and would not knowingly steal from the RAF, other than being wrong it is just not worth the it. If we can't seek advice from the admin staff then where can we go?

 

[muttywhitedog]

As I recall I submitted my 2 AIPs, one as a JT using the NVQ L3, and one as a Cpl using my HNC.

Your firs would have been a Q-PI-A and your 2nd would have been Q-PI-B. Q-PI-D's are only awarded when you either submit a 2nd AIP at the same rank as your previous (AC/Cpl/Sgt), or if you are a Chf Tech or above.

That rule has been in place since AIPs were introduced - well before the birth of JPA, so claiming ignorance of it really wouldnt wash.

 

[Realist78]

Surely, the salient fact is that these were signed off somewhere in the HR chain. To then claw back cash from the individuals is a fcuking disgrace IMO. Glad I'm out of it.

 

[The Bishop]

Service Complaint

Service Complaint

Just reading back through the thread regarding Service Complaints, my SC will not be citing any individual. I will be challenging the system. The reason for getting copies of AIPs, copies of JSP statements and advice from legal sources such as 'Promissory Estopple' is simply to back up the SC with proof that the system failed miserably by lack of training, printed literiture and maybe ignorance?

You have to keep in mind, like you, i'm no legal beagle but on the flipside, the Officer tasked to investigate your SC will probably not be one either! So i would say the onus will be on the MOD to prove you are wrong as apposed to you proving you are right. It will be a brave Officer to dismiss it out of hand without legal advice or investigation as they will then leave themselves open to legal challenges or perhaps a SC????!!!!

We have people out there thinking challenging individuals will solve the problem, I tend to agree with most posters that this may well prove fruitless and just harm servicemen / women within HR who are caught up in this along with you and i.

Just remember, no decision has been made yet, just keep passing the info on here and be prepared for worst case scenario. If we do get a 'Happy Christmas' from CAS, at least we can say we had an interesting debate about it and acknowledge there is always two sides to every story!

 

[Keyser Söze]

It would be probable that the MoD will have sought legal advice prior to starting on this route to recover monies. There are a bunch of lawyers at the MoD. Of course they could have assumed that servicemen and women would roll over and accept the judgement without challenging their policy.

On a personal level this is a complete debacle and shows the MoD in a very poor light. Good luck to those affected by this cock-up, lets hope common sense prevails. But thank feck I've left.

 

[Realist78]

MOD seeking legal advice before acting? Pregnant WRAFs?

 

[ady eflog]

A lot of TG1 pre-07 used ILM qualification and through the RAF paid £50 to get LCGI and swiftly banged it in as AIP, as was the rules at the time, hey presto pay rise. This "loophole" which it was, closed in June 07 and in TRADEWISE JUNE 07 it stated that you could still use LCGI provided that it was not done through the RAF scheme. I personally contacted the Trade Sponsor and asked if this was true, to which he replied it was, so I put it in, the clerk spoke to the TS to confirm eligibility and was told yes and now they say I am wrong and want £xxxx's back. I could do with a copy of trade wise 07 to make my case watertight. whats your take on that one mutty?

 

[Downsizer]

I too used a qual that a previous TS ok'd but current is poo-pooing.

 

[MontyPlumbs]

How can they tell that you gained it through the RAF? Maybe you just applied for it on the basis of your experience?

I have a LCGI in Engineering through the Engineering Council, but it makes no reference to that fact anywhere on the certificate.

 

[RIGHTHANDSPANKER]

From the AIPs that I checked, 90% of the problems were caused by previous Trade Sponsors approving a qualification and the present incumbent stating that it is not valid. Two examples were the individual was sat next to the clerk when the qualification was confirmed by the Sponsor. Another Trade Sponsor came back the with the reply of "Fu*k him, qualification is not authorised as it is not in the JSP" (this is despite the previous guy approving it). As someone has said this is a complete cluster, and in my opinion recovery action should be written off.

 

[Smoggy_in_peace]

RHS - you have hit on a good point there. I am at a Trg unit and we have 2 RAF trades who instruct here, all were audited for an AIP using the samequalification. Trade sponsor for one put up all as recoveries, the other approved the course!!!What is the point when it just a subjective matter of opinion by one person

 

[muttywhitedog]

My take Ady is that if it is in writing with a name and post attributed to it, then its official and should be honoured.

I was aware of some people submitting (or trying to submit) AIPs based on service-funded courses (My UMO on 1(F) tried submitting an AIP for a fork-lift course he'd done at Brize!), but I personally never put an AIP on if it wasnt listed unless they produced something official, in writing, saying it was acceptable. I also expected the individual to provide all the evidence (inc TS approval if required) as they were the ones who were applying, and this would have been all kept together in their personal docs. I'd therefore be surprised if any of my former TG1 & 2 colleagues from 1(F) Sqn have an issue with an AIP, other than perhaps the backdating over 6 months rule.

I had never dealt with a TS until this Sep, when all hell broke loose!

 

[steamengineguy]

lets stick together

lets stick together

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

I think the point is, those that submitted claims, did so because they were told they could. Not because they were after defrauding the RAF and it is unfair to say otherwise.
But on the admin side I do believe that the admin staff were doing what they thought was right. (not the same as doing the right thing) be it through insufficient training or incorrect information. It is unfair to sugest that all adminers were trying to do it wrong.
This is a prime case of the muppets that should have our interests at heart trying to push more and more burden onto our shoulders for no increase in pay and having it back fire due to ill thought out schemes.
They should put this down to experience, prevent it happening again (continuous improvement) stop wasting tax payers money trying to save a few coppers, and give us back a proper admin support to help prevent this sort of thing.

 

[ady eflog]

Im looking at circa £4k for a AIP I put in good faith and was checked with the TS prior to application, in accordance with the version of the JSP at that time, signed off by the TS and checked again by the clerk with the TS. so why am I getting punished. After 3 years of what is essentially a pay cut, I am skint and couldnt afford 1 days pay yet alone 4 days pay back and due OOA in the new year with this hanging over my head. If I have to pay it back I aint going down alone.

 

[muttywhitedog]

Have you tried a FOI request for the MOD to provide you with a copy of that document Ady?