AIP mispayment

[4everAD]

This is going to rumble on and on, I know it has been said before somewhere but surely this is covered by that ruling about receiving monies in good faith (escue? Spell?). I can't think of a clearer case than when you apply for something within the rules it then being checked and approved independently before payment begins, for it to have happened to hundreds rather than a few means it was a systemic failing not the individual's failing. The MOD do not have a water tight case and will no doubt be raped for more than the initial "debts" when it all goes to court and compensation is paid to individuals.

 

[Downsizer]

I think you're talking about estoppel. The crux of that being it is an employer error. MoD seem to be claiming it is the individuals error for misinterpreting the JSP or GAI or whatever.

 

[vim_fuego]

It sounds like a few of you that are affected should get together and collectively start talking to each other and a decent solicitor. If nothing else they can slow the whole thing down and start to pick holes in the Governments case...could take years.

Feel free to start up a specific thread on here if you wish to gain support etc. The Goat team will help you if we can... We as AEOps back in around '99 did a similar thing when a downbanding thrust was made by command. 100 of us paid an amount into a fund to get someone decent to represent us and we defenced our corner and stayed in the same band in the end.

 

[Downsizer]

I will be putting in an SC if they come after me.

 

[Barch]

I think you're talking about estoppel. The crux of that being it is an employer error. MoD seem to be claiming it is the individuals error for misinterpreting the JSP or GAI or whatever.

How the hell does the document become open to interpretation.

 

[4everAD]

Cheers Downsizer that's the word. So hundreds of people make exactly the same misinterpretation of the JSP? Maybe just possibly the JSP is misleading then? After all if HR experts misinterpreted it what chance would "normal" people have?

 

[Downsizer]

How the hell does the document become open to interpretation.

Because it said "or equivalent qualification". In my case the TS in 2009 approved it, the TS at the time of audit said no.

 

[Barch]

Because it said "or equivalent qualification". In my case the TS in 2009 approved it, the TS at the time of audit said no.

Was a list of 'equivalent qualifications' ever published?

 

[Dan_Brown]

Very random this - a person in authority ie the Trade Sponsor has signed off on the quals being acceptable and HR action this - everybodys happy.

Yet the next TS says they were wrong to do so? That doesn't detract from at the time it was correct! The TS has the authority to accept or decline a qual as evidenced by me recently attenidng a course and after approaching my TS they said it is acceptable and i am able to use the course as an AIP.

Get a solicitor and do a group action (pending Mondays 0900 brief that it is) and pass me the solicitors number as i may need it if this cluster is anything to go by.

 

[unruly1986]

Hopefully this will drag out; surely they will have to wait for hardship cases etc prior to recovery taking place?

 

[briggfairy]

let me get this right, the new pension comes into effect in a few months which will no doubt see a mass exodus by people who have done over 22.

now the slightly younger but still vastly experienced tradesmen who submitted AIP's are having to pay back money this year thereby enraging them which if it doesn't cause people to leave, will make them question their commitment to the cause.

wow. just wow. has anyone at the top heard of SQEP or even morale?

 

[muttywhitedog]

Because it said "or equivalent qualification". In my case the TS in 2009 approved it, the TS at the time of audit said no.

Then perhaps you need to take legal action against one (or both) of the TS, as clearly one of them is wrong!

 

[vim_fuego]

Surely the documentation that authorised your AIP is the only evidence you'll need to bust this wide open? You filled it out IAW the relevant docs, had it signed off by an appropriately empowered individual and happily tootled off a bit better paid...unless that documentation stated 'we might change our minds on this and claim it all back in the future' then even a solicitor straight out of college could get a win out of it?

 

[Downsizer]

Then perhaps you need to take legal action against one (or both) of the TS, as clearly one of them is wrong!

I'd imagine that the TS from 2008 probably isn't even in! I have no idea who he was.

Surely the documentation that authorised your AIP is the only evidence you'll need to bust this wide open? You filled it out IAW the relevant docs, had it signed off by an appropriately empowered individual and happily tootled off a bit better paid...unless that documentation stated 'we might change our minds on this and claim it all back in the future' then even a solicitor straight out of college could get a win out of it?

You'd like to think so wouldn't you. Where I fell down is I didn't keep the email sent to me from the TS saying yes, but why would I? I then forwarded it to PSF and they auth'd it, sadly they didn't print the email either and put it in the '445.

 

[Downsizer]

Was a list of 'equivalent qualifications' ever published?

Nope, because the list would have been a mile long.

What mine comes down to is in 2008 someone saw it as an equivalent, someone at audit didn't.

 

[Barch]

Nope, because the list would have been a mile long.

What mine comes down to is in 2008 someone saw it as an equivalent, someone at audit didn't.

One or both of those two need to explain their decision and the best place for that is in a court of law. Any explanations cannot be 'reworded' by the MOD (as it could be on an internal investigation) and a Judge will ensure that the truth and legal standpoint comes out in the open.

 

[Downsizer]

Probably a different TS now too.

 

[LilStill]

let me get this right, the new pension comes into effect in a few months which will no doubt see a mass exodus by people who have done over 22.

now the slightly younger but still vastly experienced tradesmen who submitted AIP's are having to pay back money this year thereby enraging them which if it doesn't cause people to leave, will make them question their commitment to the cause.

wow. just wow. has anyone at the top heard of SQEP or even morale?

I can assure you 'the top' have tried very hard to avoid this; the recovery is Treasury driven.

 

[Sniffer]

It was originally £200 on my payslip as GPD. This was reduce a year or so ago to £140. I believe this was to compensate for the income tax paid on the original sum but I could be wrong.

Mine was a fair cop. I was entitled to the AIP but was overpaid as they backdated it to my promotion date but shouldnt have. Not technically my fault but hey ho!

It did genuinely go unnoticed as at the time I lived in qtrs, have no kids and no financial commitments so no need to check either my payslip or bank balance.

 

[Highflyer]

Has anyone got any solid proof yet that we have to pay this money back? Or has anyone been approached yet and been told the money will be taken from them?