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.
Join 7.5K others today

AIP mispayment

  • Following weeks of work, the E-GOAT team are delighted to present to you a new look to the forums with plenty of new features. Take a look around and see what you think!
Trending This Week
View More Trending

AIP mispayment

  • 0-250

    Votes: 21 45.7%

  • 251-500

    Votes: 4 8.7%

  • 501-1000

    Votes: 3 6.5%

  • 1001-1500

    Votes: 4 8.7%

  • 1501-2000

    Votes: 2 4.3%

  • 2001-2500

    Votes: 1 2.2%

  • 2501-3000

    Votes: 1 2.2%

  • 3001-4000

    Votes: 3 6.5%

  • 4001-5000

    Votes: 1 2.2%

  • 5001+ (Ouch!)

    Votes: 6 13.0%
  • Total voters
    46
Estoppel happens when an employee has no involvement in the overpayment. By signing the Gen App you are saying that you checked the JSP, you have all the correct ticks etc.

If the RAF gave you that money without you applying, that you had checked when the money came that it was yours with HR and you had spent it in good faith - that's Estoppel.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2
 
really

really

Downsizer said:
Pretty sure they are only going back as far as 2004 because that is when AIPs were introduced.
Click to expand...

I might be in trouble then as I put mine in in 2001? Maybe they made some changes in 2004 or it could tie in with keeping financial records for 7 years?
If they are having a review can I go back in time and submit my second AIP as I never got to use it!
 
Were they that long ago..?? Time flies when having fun....
 
Got an e mail from HR last week telling me one of my guys AIP was being reviewed and he was to re-submit evidence. The deadline to submit it was a couple of days and he's on resettlement as due out next month!
Finally got hold of him to pass on the gen and got an irate phone call back from him a couple of hours later as apparently he asked the question: 'what would have happened if I was already out of the RAF?' apparently the reply was nothing we would have left it?

Now I've only his word for that, but it did get me thinking about what the legal stance would be if they are only chasing people still in the service and a recovery is due. Then not bothering with those that have left. (or are they chasing those that have left?)
 
We have lads here that have been told they may have to repay £1500-£6000
The main mess up seems to stem from the submission of the qualification..........
SAC blogs finishes his NVQ at the point 12+ Months from leaving Phase 2 training
He submits his AIP at the same time as he gets QOPS and moves onto the higher payband
All seems well but due to an ambiguous interpretation most believe and were informed of the affirmative that:
They move up to High pay band THEN use the NVQ to boost a level

However if the NVQ is completed earlier than the QOPS date by up to 6 months the AIP is back dated and used at the lower SAC (T) non QOPS payband

So Hypothetically SAC blogs finished his NVQ at the 12 Months 1 day out of phase 2,
He gains his QOPS bang on the 18 month point and slams in his AIP at the same time
he's now on High Payband Level 2/3 instead of 1 as far as he knows jobs a good one

but what is actually now happening under the audit is the AIP should have been used at the lower level before QOPS so the SAC (T) on gaining his OPS only moves across to the relevant level
Now x amount of years later after earning at the wrong higher level rate there is a claw back of the overpaid difference.

or so its been explained to us here
 
I got told last week that an AIP i put in back in 2007 is one that is deemed as incorrect. I remember a few of us used this qualification as it had been discussed with approved by the Trade Sponsor once evidence was given to him/her. But of course now that qualification does not appear on the JSP list and I have no evidence to back up my claims from back then. I will definitely be putting in a Service Complaint if any monies are to be recovered.
 
Martin Blank said:
So Hypothetically SAC blogs finished his NVQ at the 12 Months 1 day out of phase 2,
He gains his QOPS bang on the 18 month point and slams in his AIP at the same time
he's now on High Payband Level 2/3 instead of 1 as far as he knows jobs a good one
Click to expand...
Myself and probably every other TG4 SAC did the same except my pay bands are different. I completed my NVQ, once my Q-Ops was in at my 18 month point I then put on my AIP so jumped from level 3 lower to level 6 higher in 24 hours. Almost everyone I was in trade training with was being told to do it by our instructors and our NVQ assessors in No1 RS and at Leeming and I'm guessing they probably still are if the audit hasn't changed the criteria for the NVQ.
 
Reading the application they want me to re-submit due to a missing certificate. It says nowhere that my signature is acceptance I have checked the suitability of the qualifaction I submit. On page 2 though it does have a section for "remarks and recomendations of unit HR". Confirming that AIP has not already been claimed; qualifaction not previously used and correct rank held for AIP. There is also a starred section for them to check the evidence meets the full requirements of the JSP, they must also include the edition number and date of the for the JSP.


Page three is for the decision off the chf clk and page four is for TG4's trade sponsors office approval. All other TG's don't need that approval.

So if any body has had notifacation of AIP mis-payment it is an admin f#ck up as the applicant does not have to check the criteria. It is the responsibility of clk and chf clk in most cases (not TG4) to ensure suitability, so they can stick it up thier hoop. As most people suspected, they applied in good faith and the well paid adminers create yet another mess. Well done.
 
Well despite complying with the rules at that time and asking the permission of the trade sponsor prior to putting in the AIP I was interviewed by the chief clerk and informed I put it in incorrectly! and possibly owe thousands, you can swivel, if my appeal is unsuccessful a service complaint will follow and I'll see you in court with a group action with the rest you've tried to fcuk over. no wonder people are leaving in droves. pathetic. now get me a beer!
 
Had a phone call today saying I've put an AIP in and now the trade sponser has decided its not good enough even though the pen pushers said it was fine. How the feck is that my fault?!

If I signed a 700 seris declaring one of the Nav Aids serviceable and it wasn't, I'd be up sh1t creek but not the adminers, no they get away with things even though they checked everything over!

Rant over
 
alwaysalecky said:
I got told last week that an AIP i put in back in 2007 is one that is deemed as incorrect. I remember a few of us used this qualification as it had been discussed with approved by the Trade Sponsor once evidence was given to him/her. But of course now that qualification does not appear on the JSP list and I have no evidence to back up my claims from back then. I will definitely be putting in a Service Complaint if any monies are to be recovered.
Click to expand...

I did the same in JUNE 2007 after reading in tradewise that I could and had approval from the TS prior to putting in the AIP, even listed his name and phone No on the AIP forms and they still say I was wrong and its gone to appeal.
 
ady eflog said:
Well despite complying with the rules at that time and asking the permission of the trade sponsor prior to putting in the AIP I was interviewed by the chief clerk and informed I put it in incorrectly! and possibly owe thousands, you can swivel, if my appeal is unsuccessful a service complaint will follow and I'll see you in court with a group action with the rest you've tried to fcuk over. no wonder people are leaving in droves. pathetic. now get me a beer!
Click to expand...

You're onto a winner IMO.
 
So can anybody clarify why some quals paid for by the RAF (BTECs/NVQs) are allowed whilst others (IMLC or other courses) aren't?
 
It ha to involve extra work. In theory the NVQ story boards Rex should be getting done after work or at break times. Q's earned on IMLC etc have no extra work involved and therefore don't count. That's the way I understand it anyway.
 
Downsizer said:
So can anybody clarify why some quals paid for by the RAF (BTECs/NVQs) are allowed whilst others (IMLC or other courses) aren't?
Click to expand...

Having not done JMLC yet this is probably a stupid question but do you get actual civilian recognised qualifications from them?
 
Joe_90 said:
It ha to involve extra work. In theory the NVQ story boards Rex should be getting done after work or at break times. Q's earned on IMLC etc have no extra work involved and therefore don't count. That's the way I understand it anyway.
Click to expand...

The old style TG1 fitters course presented a BTEC that required no extra work. Plenty of JTs I know submitted that no problem.... Strange.
 
techie_tubby said:
Having not done JMLC yet this is probably a stupid question but do you get actual civilian recognised qualifications from them?
Click to expand...

You can apply for the civilian equivalent from the Institute of Leadership & Management,
Chartered Management Institute or both if you want. Costs you though.
 
Downsizer said:
The old style TG1 fitters course presented a BTEC that required no extra work. Plenty of JTs I know submitted that no problem.... Strange.
Click to expand...
Which is what I did, back in 2002. Hopefully, those tossers in the Ivory Towers don't want any back from me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top