Claims query...Your knowledge required please!!

[WOODERS]

Having been informed that I've been given LOA when I wasn't entitled... I've been going through all my pay statements to see what other delights I may have in store.
I've noted that I have a few FIA payments missing from 2007/2008. I'm aware that the military can go back 6yrs to chase us for pay 'blunders', but how far back can we go to claim what hasn't been paid to us?!
If I can claim my FIA back it should cancel out the little LOA problem!! Cheers!

 

[JPABitch]

Wooders you can go back up to 6 years generally, but JSP 752 does state that for specific allowances the period may be shorter. Have a look at JSP 752 Ch1 Sect 1 para 01.0121.

 

[SgtScribbly]

you may find the gaps in your FIA relate to dets or other absences from your unit so dont presume you are owed it.

 

[CC]

Sorry I don't know the exact ruling on this but surely if they can go back 6 yrs then we should be able to or is that just seeing things too simplistic?

 

[Nuts]

you may find the gaps in your FIA relate to dets or other absences from your unit so dont presume you are owed it.

Yep you can go back 6 years and it could be due to dets but if my memory serves me right, I dont think FIA is stopped unless the det is expected to be more than 61 days so unless you have done an OOA then I doubt it should have stopped.
I got exceptional authority once to go back further than 6 years - that was for an Air Com though so think the rules are different lol

 

[busby1971]

Now Now

Now Now

Sorry I don't know the exact ruling on this but surely if they can go back 6 yrs then we should be able to or is that just seeing things too simplistic?

Well that seems fair, so isn't probably the right answer.

 

[WOODERS]

Thanks for all your advice! I'll be taking my stack of pay statements down to the admin office and no doubt ruining some poor buggers day with my request!!

 

[WOODERS]

"Mistake of law”: the Court of Appeal in Holt v Markham 1923

Has anyone tried this defense against LOA and other claim/payment cock ups? It basically states (in law!!!) that....


'money paid in a mistake in law is not recoverable’ and explains that if an employer decides an allowance applies to an individual, and therefore awards the payment but later finds out the payment was incorrectly awarded, and the individual receiving the payment should not have been in receipt this, there is clearly a ‘mistake in law’ and the individual should not be held responsible for recovery of the incorrect payment.


I'm interested to know what you think as I'm going to give it a shot!

 

[4everAD]

Did some more reading on this as your point grabbed my interest. Seems to me that you were given this payment by the RAF, you had no reason to question its legitimacy as it seemed reasonable that you received it (i.e. you were serving temporarily abroad and LOA would/could be reasonably expected?) After all I presume you didn't apply for this allowance and it was paid without your prior knowledge straight through your pay. I assume also that believing that the money was paid to you correctly and not as the result of an error you spent it?

You have then acted within the spirit of the law, and in my uneducated opinion have a good defence, at no time did you believe you were spending money you were not entitled to.

The mistake was the RAF's not yours, as long as you honestly believed you were entitled to the incorrect payment.

This is an emotive arguement at the moment as technically the MP's are using the same arguement but with a few subtle differences: They were not acting within the spirit of the rules and in some cases(4 I believe) they did not act within the law according to the CPS.

 

[WOODERS]

I've been told by a sgt in A1 that i can only use a legal precedence if it has been used within the military before (otherwise it doesn't count...!)
i knew it sounded to good to be true!!
Is this correct and has anyone used this legal case before to fight a JPA cock up?!

 

[yorkieterrier]

I've been told by a sgt in A1 that i can only use a legal precedence if it has been used within the military before (otherwise it doesn't count...!)
i knew it sounded to good to be true!!
Is this correct and has anyone used this legal case before to fight a JPA cock up?!

then nobody can ever use a legal precedence? because how can the first person have used it to set a precedence? and if its never been used in the military before, is that because its never happened?? if its never happened before, then how can somebody have set the precedence the first time????

aaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh im so confused!!!:S

 

[Chirpy Chiefy]

I posted this some time ago on a different thread. The exact circumstances may be different in your case but it does work if your case meets the criteria.

A note about the RAF claiming money back that was incorrectly paid. There is a legal defence of estoppel which could (in the correct circumstances) apply. This is based on mistakes of fact by the paying party (the RAF):

Firstly, if it is established that the overpayment resulted from a mistake of fact, there may be an obligation to repay some or the entire amount overpaid.

However, To argue successfully against repayment, the payee must be able to show the following:

• They did not contribute to the error, for example by providing incorrect information to the employer. This may scupper you claiming for something that you could have known by reading the JSP was not yours to claim.

• They believed in good faith that the money was really theirs. This will be easier to argue successfully where a relatively small amount was paid over a period of several months. An additional £5.53 paid every month for two years could more readily be argued to meet this criterion than, for example a one off bonus of £2,000, which the payee could reasonably be expected to notice and query.

• That the payee, believing the money to be rightfully theirs, has “changed their position” i.e. spent it. It should be possible to show that the money has been spent on day to day expenses and incorporated into the payee's general budget.

If the payee meets these criteria it can be argued that the employer is “estopped” from deducting the amount overpaid from the payee's salary.

Estoppel is recognised in government accounting and this worked for a SAC who whilst working for me had been overpaid due to an admin cock-up, when they tried to claim it back the Chf Clk helped him draft the letter and the 800 odd quid was written off.

There is a legal precedent in the case of Avon County Council v Howlett (1983).

I hope this helps, and as I say, I know it works - I have seen it (and have a copy of the letter sent to the SAC confirming it).

Good luck.

 

[WOODERS]

Thanks so much, you're a star!

I posted this some time ago on a different thread. The exact circumstances may be different in your case but it does work if your case meets the criteria.

A note about the RAF claiming money back that was incorrectly paid. There is a legal defence of estoppel which could (in the correct circumstances) apply. This is based on mistakes of fact by the paying party (the RAF):

Firstly, if it is established that the overpayment resulted from a mistake of fact, there may be an obligation to repay some or the entire amount overpaid.

However, To argue successfully against repayment, the payee must be able to show the following:

• They did not contribute to the error, for example by providing incorrect information to the employer. This may scupper you claiming for something that you could have known by reading the JSP was not yours to claim.

• They believed in good faith that the money was really theirs. This will be easier to argue successfully where a relatively small amount was paid over a period of several months. An additional £5.53 paid every month for two years could more readily be argued to meet this criterion than, for example a one off bonus of £2,000, which the payee could reasonably be expected to notice and query.

• That the payee, believing the money to be rightfully theirs, has “changed their position” i.e. spent it. It should be possible to show that the money has been spent on day to day expenses and incorporated into the payee's general budget.

If the payee meets these criteria it can be argued that the employer is “estopped” from deducting the amount overpaid from the payee's salary.

Estoppel is recognised in government accounting and this worked for a SAC who whilst working for me had been overpaid due to an admin cock-up, when they tried to claim it back the Chf Clk helped him draft the letter and the 800 odd quid was written off.

There is a legal precedent in the case of Avon County Council v Howlett (1983).

I hope this helps, and as I say, I know it works - I have seen it (and have a copy of the letter sent to the SAC confirming it).

Good luck.

 

[fed_up_scribbly]

I've read all the above with interest and tried to use the "Estoppel" ruling back in the early noughties when I worked in P2 at Brize trying to write off an overissue of flying pay caused by a cock-up at PMA. At that time I was referred to Government Accounting Procedure (GAP) 17 which got rid of the right of estoppel (otherwise known as monies received in good faith) as long it was proven that the overpayment was indeed made in error. Basically they have closed this option.......

 

[WOODERS]

I've read all the above with interest and tried to use the "Estoppel" ruling back in the early noughties when I worked in P2 at Brize trying to write off an overissue of flying pay caused by a cock-up at PMA. At that time I was referred to Government Accounting Procedure (GAP) 17 which got rid of the right of estoppel (otherwise known as monies received in good faith) as long it was proven that the overpayment was indeed made in error. Basically they have closed this option.......

Spoil sports! Technically this wasn't an error in the form of pressed the wrong button but someone deciding that we were entitled to it and then someone else 3 yrs later deciding we weren't! I'm still going to have a go. As a nurse I am the only person responsible when I make a mistake and hurt someone, so why is the person who made this mistake not responsible?!