AIP mispayment

[Fu Fu Valve]

I'm one of the guys it has affected. I have not been told the amount I am supposed to pay back but they will be lucky to get a penny out of me.I keep my finances in order and am not in any debt and now they come along and say "Sorry, we made a mistake 4 years ago, can we have our monies back!?" There is no way they can blame it on the individual, when we put the AIP requests (not claims!) we were told, "Yep, that's fine" and the Chief Clerk signed them off. As a SAC, you tend to go with the Chief Clerks word and don't debate it.

It's a good thought, it's what i said..... The answer from the legal team is there is a precedent and the MOD/Government can claim an overpayment back 50+ years after it happened. Thats in the letter the sent me. I got 2K back as they finally admitted they found the problem 2 years earlier but didn't do a full search so some slipped the net. So basically they cocked it up twice for me with some arguing i got 2 years of the cash back as it wasn't my fault they didn't do thier checks right.
Get all the details you can from PSF, PMA and the pay monkeys and look for anywhere they've cocked it up and use it to beat them with. It took years to sort my pay out and they still never added the AIP i allegedly couldn't use back onto the system so i lost one and never got the tax back either!

 

[Booga]

The bottom line is that the RAF AIP process failed. If they do try and pin it on the individual it may be a case of the RAF causing people finacial hardship and having a detrimental effect on their welfare, both of which go against what the RAF preaches.I will be taking this as far as I can as I will not be held responsible for something that is not my fault.

 

[The Masked Geek]

I will be taking this as far as I can as I will not be held responsible for something that is not my fault.

But, and I don't expect an answer on a public forum, did you know that your claim was wrong?

 

[mad_collie]

Some interesting comments here ref the AIP & also the last TG4 pay farce.

 

[RIGHTHANDSPANKER]

After completing a check into TG4 Pers AIPs I was shocked to see how many were "approved" by the Trade Sponsor. I am no way making excuses for those within my trade who should have done proper checks, but one guy that it has affected admitted he was sat with the clerk when they contacted the Trade Sponsor who approved the qualification. It transpires he is not entitled (confirmed by the current Trade Sposor).

 

[busby1971]

Precedents are set all the time and can be tied to a particular set of circumstances and a particular period of time. If an organisations own trained and authorised administration staff cannot process a claim correctly within the rules then how can they expect you to be able follow the rules without any training.

It also sounds like your trade sponsor was to blame in some way too, which if it was the fat controller, I'm not too surprised as he was an ex-peanut living a TG3 lifestyle.

 

[Fu Fu Valve]

If things go the way it did for me. You loose the AIP, therefore leading to a drop in the pay level you are on. Then they reclaim the money from you. You get paid less and have to repay what you've been overpaid at a rate that's (or not as in my case, no LOA or Bog Money for 2 years no choice in the matter i just didn't get it) agreed with PMA. You can have all the arguments you want about it being authorised, etc but their answer is 'it's tax payers money you have to pay it back'.

Good luck to everyone, i hope you don't have to pay it back if you don't i'd like to know as i'll claim back the years worth of cash the took off me in the end and there's other's who'd stick in a claim. I suppose my point is they can't treat you any different to how others were. As this has all happened before you'd like to think they'll do something about it and sort things out so everyone can understand the stupid system.

 

[Mug?]

individual cases

individual cases

I said before that i knew of people who pushed things through even though we were told they were not eligible quals due to no self study or level or whatever. That is wrong and not only should they pay back the money but I would like to see them punished for the fraud.
We all know the quality of a certain trade sponsor, and I find it scandalous that he got away with some of the stuff but guess that's been done to death already.

Each case will be different, if you have been stuck on a level for a couple of years then I would think you will have caught up and not owe that much.
Those that jumped pay bands will be worst hit, as there will be a bigger jump between levels.

 

[millie]

After completing a check into TG4 Pers AIPs I was shocked to see how many were "approved" by the Trade Sponsor. I am no way making excuses for those within my trade who should have done proper checks, but one guy that it has affected admitted he was sat with the clerk when they contacted the Trade Sponsor who approved the qualification. It transpires he is not entitled (confirmed by the current Trade Sposor).

This is pish poor for all involved, however, all AIPs where there was any uncertainty by it not being listed in the AP/JSP had to be passed to the Trade Sponsor for the once over where final authorisation was given. That authority should have been kept on the personal files for everyone who applied and by the individual applying. Pay 2000 also created major overissues and regardless of taking the monthly wage in good faith, it was clawed back years later, I imagine in this climate the same will happen. I think it is unfair to allow this to become another trade bashing argument, is not the fault of TG17, where TG17 completed the process correctly, and believe me on TCW it was. I'll stand by now for incoming, that doesn't need to get personal, but my post has a valid point, TG17 relied on your lords and masters for clarification.

 

[mad_collie]

This is pish poor for all involved, however, all AIPs where there was any uncertainty by it not being listed in the AP/JSP had to be passed to the Trade Sponsor for the once over where final authorisation was given. That authority should have been kept on the personal files for everyone who applied and by the individual applying. Pay 2000 also created major overissues and regardless of taking the monthly wage in good faith, it was clawed back years later, I imagine in this climate the same will happen. I think it is unfair to allow this to become another trade bashing argument, is not the fault of TG17, where TG17 completed the process correctly, and believe me on TCW it was. I'll stand by now for incoming, that doesn't need to get personal, but my post has a valid point, TG17 relied on your lords and masters for clarification.

I'm led to believe that this goes further than TG3/11/4,

So are the Trade Sponsors who were in post at the time across the RAF responsible for this feck up?

 

[millie]

I'm led to believe that this goes further than TG3/11/4 - so are the Trade Sponsors who were in post at the time across the RAF responsible for this feck up?

Yes I hear that too, if TS was approached and approved outside of what was printed then yes. If they weren't approached and it was listed as a qualifying entry then yes, the list came from Trade Sponsors. Lets put it another way, would the RAF really give out extra money and get it right? Is the RAF getting anything right? Pensions, SDSR, JSF to name very few. We are in a blame culture, this whole argument will go round in circles, it isn't going to make the overpayment go away. It is a cr*p situation.

 

[endgame]

Even though this appears to some as another chance to have a pop at those sitting in the trade sponsors office, I've seen nothing as yet on official communications that do the same. I did hear an anecdote about a member of a TS team ( not TG3 or 11) that approved a management qualification, only problem was that it was golf course management, and after spending all day climbing why not indeed!!

 

[Smudge1974]

AIP revoked - Good Gen from PSF

AIP revoked - Good Gen from PSF

Those that were incorrectly awarded an AIP, Q-PI-D will subsequently have this AIP removed. This action will in turn cause a debt which will soon show on the individuals pay slip. Once this debt appears, recovery action would normally start 2 months from the date it appeared on the payslip. However, recovery action has been suspended pending investigation. A reduction in pay may still be noticed by some when they are moved onto their correct pay scale due to the AIP removal. This is not part of the debt recovery. Once the debt has appeared on an individual’s payslip, they are then entitled to appeal against the debt in its entirety, believing that the debt is incorrect. This can be done through HR and will be submitted to Stn OC PSF. In addition The individual can put in a Hardship Case once the debt appears. This needs to be done through HR and will be submitted to Stn OC PSF. A detailed hardship case will need to be submitted listing individuals monthly ingoing and outgoing payments. Those individuals OOA will remain unaffected by the AIP review until they return to unit. IN A NUTSHELL - The recovery action has been suspended, meaning the debt will still occur for those who have had an AIP removed or possibly altered but no monthly repayment will happen until the suspension is lifted. This does not mean the debt is going to be written-off; it does however give individuals time to submit appeals or hardship cases through HR, which can be done as soon as the debt appears on a payslip.

 

[Dicky_morris]

..is this Gen or just rumour? Have we got it anywhere in writing that this is happening. I am sure that any overpayments made in a civilian job that need to be recovered are to be discussed with an individual before agreeing to a repayment plan? I think I am one of the many who need to pay back, but if they take 500 quid a month off me I will be on my ass.. I have a mortgage and a wedding I am in the middle of paying for which is booked.

 

[Dicky_morris]

I don't know if this has been mentioned either but when the new TG4 emerged I signed up on the premise that after 18mths we would get level 5 Higher, that didn't happen which is why a lot of the earlier courses threw them in, then at a later date they changed it to 18mths and then level 5 high. How will this effect those earlier courses who did use the 2 AIP compared to those on later courses who could have waited 18mnth and then smashed up to Level 7?

I don't know if that even makes sense

 

[miniboo]

Anyone heard anymore on this?

A couple of guys where I work have had npd's put on there payslips this month.

 

[muttywhitedog]

Its not just TG4 that are affected. I have an MTD who (legitimately) submitted an AIP for processing in Jun 06, which we discovered has never been paid, despite it being on JPA. It seems to me that some of the clerks who were putting AIPs on JPA at Leeming in 2006 clearly didnt know what they were doing!

 

[Shiney Scot]

It seems to me that some of the clerks who were putting AIPs on JPA at Leeming in 2006 clearly didnt know what they were doing!

MWD - you can see who actioned this to JPA so take the name, find them on JPA and then ask their current line management to take the appropriate disciplinary/admin action against them. After all, the Business Process Guide was there for all to use. There are no excuses for not following the laid down procedures.

 

[Max]

Its not just TG4 that are affected. I have an MTD who (legitimately) submitted an AIP for processing in Jun 06, which we discovered has never been paid, despite it being on JPA. It seems to me that some of the clerks who were putting AIPs on JPA at Leeming in 2006 clearly didnt know what they were doing!

I hope he's going to reimbursed fully then? and I know which situation I'd rather be in.

 

[muttywhitedog]

MWD - you can see who actioned this to JPA so take the name, find them on JPA and then ask their current line management to take the appropriate disciplinary/admin action against them. After all, the Business Process Guide was there for all to use. There are no excuses for not following the laid down procedures.

The individual whose name appears on the AIP app is no longer in the RAF. A submission has gone to PACC to have the backpay issued and I am monitering their JPA record on an almost-daily basis to see if it has been corrected.