Then they can take it from your future pension. The get out clause in the letter above is "Payments were authorised by your unit P-Staff in good faith"
good faith from who? totally absolves PSF from any mistakes.
Welcome to E-Goat :: The Totally Unofficial Royal Air Force Rumour Network
Join our free community to unlock a range of benefits like:
- Post and participate in discussions.
- Send and receive private messages with other members.
- Respond to polls and surveys.
- Upload and share content.
- Gain access to exclusive features and tools.
Trending
This Week
View More Trending
Then they can take it from your future pension. The get out clause in the letter above is "Payments were authorised by your unit P-Staff in good faith"
good faith from who? totally absolves PSF from any mistakes.
I, one of the accused, but cleared still got a punch in the nose at £300 out of pocket for the inconvenience. I feel so sorry for the lads out there that owe thousands, but dont worry lads the RAF still love you, until SDSR2015 at least. C0ckfest.
Did you get confirmation of clearance?
Trampoline
LAC
- 5
- 0
- 0
Im confused to what i have done incorrectly. I was awarded my Pay|Q PI A|RAF| by using my NVQ Level 3.
It clearly states in the JSP :
The trade apprenticeships and NVQs linked to RAF trade training listed in
the criteria table below are eligible for AIP
So why do i owe money back?
It clearly states in the JSP :
The trade apprenticeships and NVQs linked to RAF trade training listed in
the criteria table below are eligible for AIP
So why do i owe money back?
- 4,114
- 83
- 444
Get printed copies, soft copies, backups of the soft copies and backups of the backups, then store them safely in separate places.
Edited to add.
Get screen grabs also.
Last edited:
Dicky_morris
LAC
- 70
- 0
- 0
I've been going through the documentation referenced in the letter I received... A few things I've picked up on that was pointed out in the letter, I suppose I'm clutching at straws at the moment but will find out more when I go to work in the morning.
a. Good Faith -A4.11.5 The decision on how far recovery of an overpayment should be pursued in a
particular case will be influenced by whether the recipient has acted in good or bad
faith:
where recipients of overpayments have acted in good faith, e.g.
genuinely believing that the payment was right, they may be able to use
this as a defence (though good faith alone is not a sufficient defence);
So as I see it, we provided the NVQ/AA/Whatever qualification it was on good faith, but not good faith alone, we had an SME who signed it off and then a counter signature from another qual'd person. The argument I believe is that Q-PI-D requires an additional NVQ assessors qual to accompany it. Surely the individual signing the job off as true to fact would look to see if this qualification was in place before processing? Therefore this is not simply 'Good Faith' but an error by the person signing off as saying we have all the appropriate quals for the Q-PI-D?
Estoppel
A4.11.15 A recipient who has changed his or her position may also be able to rely on
the rule of evidence estoppel if the paying organisation misled the recipient about his or
her entitlement, even if the overpayment was caused by a fault on the part of the
recipient. However, a mistaken payment will not normally of itself constitute a
representation that the payee can keep it. There must normally be some further
indication of the recipient's supposed title other than the mere fact of payment.
Surely Estoppel plays a part where personnel have approached PSF and the admin staff have confirmed they can in fact use the qualification. If someone tells you that you can use it, is this not by the very nature misleading? Just looking at the dictionary definition highlights this..
mislead
mɪsˈliːd/Submit
verb
cause (someone) to have a wrong idea or impression.
a. Good Faith -A4.11.5 The decision on how far recovery of an overpayment should be pursued in a
particular case will be influenced by whether the recipient has acted in good or bad
faith:
where recipients of overpayments have acted in good faith, e.g.
genuinely believing that the payment was right, they may be able to use
this as a defence (though good faith alone is not a sufficient defence);
So as I see it, we provided the NVQ/AA/Whatever qualification it was on good faith, but not good faith alone, we had an SME who signed it off and then a counter signature from another qual'd person. The argument I believe is that Q-PI-D requires an additional NVQ assessors qual to accompany it. Surely the individual signing the job off as true to fact would look to see if this qualification was in place before processing? Therefore this is not simply 'Good Faith' but an error by the person signing off as saying we have all the appropriate quals for the Q-PI-D?
Estoppel
A4.11.15 A recipient who has changed his or her position may also be able to rely on
the rule of evidence estoppel if the paying organisation misled the recipient about his or
her entitlement, even if the overpayment was caused by a fault on the part of the
recipient. However, a mistaken payment will not normally of itself constitute a
representation that the payee can keep it. There must normally be some further
indication of the recipient's supposed title other than the mere fact of payment.
Surely Estoppel plays a part where personnel have approached PSF and the admin staff have confirmed they can in fact use the qualification. If someone tells you that you can use it, is this not by the very nature misleading? Just looking at the dictionary definition highlights this..
mislead
mɪsˈliːd/Submit
verb
cause (someone) to have a wrong idea or impression.
They change their mind.....When I applied for home to duty back in 2002 they said I couldn't because my pic needed to change (change job location) or get promoted, this was according to the AP.
I did change my job (instructor airfield to instructor AFTS and the pic changed) also I got promoted, so I applied for home to duty IAW AP Blah ......Anyway the clerk said that if I got it it would be at the discretion of the WO PSF.....WTF.
So I filled in the paperwork along with quotes of the AP and photocopies of said document with the pertinent points highlighted.
Anyway I got my home to duty. However, I know that this is not the same as you Tramp, but you can see that even if it is included within the covers of AP Blah there is always someone who takes it onto themselves to try and go against what is written.
Mr SCJ
unruly1986
Sergeant
- 734
- 28
- 34
So who owes the most?
Dicky_morris
LAC
- 70
- 0
- 0
Tubby said 5.5K earlier I believe. Although someone on the phone today mentioned public debt of 20K, something to do with LSAP although I don't know how LSAP sits on your payslip...
unruly1986
Sergeant
- 734
- 28
- 34
I've heard a WO owes 11k was just wondering what the figures were across the RAF. LSAP is shown as a separate balance and is not included in this mess (I have LSAP and a GPD).
Trampoline
LAC
- 5
- 0
- 0
I know someone that owes £19,000. Ouch
techie_tubby
Warrant Officer
- 2,050
- 0
- 1
There's a lucky sod out there who owes 18p lol.
unruly1986
Sergeant
- 734
- 28
- 34
Secret group on face ache; pm for details.
Not sure but I'd like to know if all that 'owe' have already been told. I'd hate to get a letter in the future from SPVA!
Well I have been out now as you can see below,,,,,and over the last two years of this sh1t I have heard nothing.
Mr SCJ
I was initially picked up when it kicked off a couple of years ago but never had the GPD put against my payslip and wasn't pulled into the office today. I put my BTEC NC in as an SAC when I got my Q-Ops taking me to level 5 and then 6 respectfully. I was told I had to pay back the 2 months backpay as I put the AIP in once I had thr Q-Ops confirmed on paper and had the AIP backdated, aplarently that wasn't allowed. Once I got my tapes then I put in my 2nd AIP, I guess one counts as a Q-PI-A and a Q-PI-B. The people that have been stung have put the A and B in at the same rank which wasn't allowed I believe?
Yeah, after the chief clerk interview, I produced the letter and email from the trade sponsor stating I could use the qualification. So they rescinded the debt but still screwed me £300 taking it off as they back date your pay to the original claim (2007 in my case) so my tax was over £1000. Just glad they ain't screwing me for the full £1500.