This is disgusting

[NorfolkAYA]

I have a lot of friends that have been affected by this and I think it is an utter discrace.

 

The problem with this is that they submitted there 'technical qualification' for an increment in there annual salary that was signed off by at least 3 senior people in there chain of command. So the people in question submitted it in good faith and told they were allowed to. X amount of years later the MOD decide they got it wrong and trying to reclaim the money even though it was signed off by 3 senior admin people.

 

There's a lot of controversy about this as it was submitted in good faith and signed off, apparently from the people I have spoke to who have involved lawyers, the MOD don't have a foot to stand on!!

The point is it wasn't by accident they were told they were entitled to it!!

[Vince Green]

 

 

 

At the end of the day it's public money,

 

As someone says above, if it was overpaid benefits people would up in arms if they just wrote off the debts.

 

The trouble is, that is what they do with most overpaid benefits, unless its a small amount, because there is no way of reclaiming it in any practical way.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Vince Green

[Bobba]

Pay, a multitude of allowances and differing conditions of service are not always easily understood by those calculating wages and salaries. Military personnel cannot be expected to know all the subtle nuances of pay calculations. They do not calculate their own pay. They did not get it wrong. They accept it in good faith and have a legitimate expectation to believe that those who calculate the pay get it right. The reduction of pay down to its correct level will most likely cause some financial hardship and having to repay overpayments from reduced circumstances compounds that effect.

Paymasters are obliged to ask for the return of the overpayment. But the military have a right to refuse, cite all of the above, and require the overpayments to be written off as a charge to public funds.

[Scully]

My take on all of this is that if anyone is mistakenly paid more than they are entitled to for whatever reason, then it should be paid back. I can't see what the issue is here. I don't care if they are serving or ex-serving. I don't see what anyones occupation has to do with being overpaid.

There are many instances of people in all walks of life being overpaid income they thought they were entitled to, and are then told that it must be paid back; why do some think armed forces personnel should be exempt?

I have the utmost respect for those who join the armed forces, knowing what that can entail, and they do a fantastic job with not always the best of kit nor leadership, but they weren't forced to enlist, they volunteered. Many in previous generations didn't have that choice.

I get quite annoyed when some start bleating on about how they deserve this and they deserve that, and we should all be giving to Help for Heroes etc etc because of the sacrifices they made for us and their country, but at the end of the day, they weren't forced to join.They were all perfectly aware of what the consequences of their decision to join could lead to. How about all those serving and ex-serving police and firefighters, traumatised by what they've experienced or invalided out due to injuries received in their work? Are they any different? The PC confronted by Raoul Moat was left blind and eventually committed suicide; two female police officers were lured into a trap via a call and shot and killed. They all joined fully knowing that they could be confronted by all manner of unknown situations at any time, and would be expected to do so unarmed. What about them and those they left behind?

I totally agree that our armed forces personnel deserve this that and the other, and certainly more than they currently receive, but that is what we pay our taxes for. It is any governments job to ensure our serving men and women get what they are entitled to,and that includes the care they need post event.

You can give all you want to meaningful charities, but if you want to make a real difference, and you REALLY CARE, then get off your backsides and march down to Westminster and make DEMANDS. I'm sure the media would back you all the way. Anyone can drop a quid in a charity box, that's the easy option, as is having a pop at those who don't agree our armed forces should be treat any differently.

If anyone wants an inkling of how successive governments and the MOD treat their (especially wounded) ex-military, then have a read of 'Tumbledown' by Robert Lawrence; a real eye opener.

Looking after our armed forces is not only a question of funding, but bureaucratic attitude.

[fenboy]

 

Are you actually serious in your post fenboy? No different to any other walk of life? No different to overpaying benefits to civilians? Do you know any people who have served in the forces at all, let alone in actual combat where their life is on the line? For combat troops, there is an enormous glaring difference sir. Their priority is living to see another day, not whether or not they checked their payslip.

 

This is a very sad post in my eyes as you clearly have little to no understanding on what on earth these people go through in serving our country, a country which includes both you and I.

 

I would urge you to reconsider. I just cannot believe someone could honestly believe there is no difference. :(

 

What the hell has happened to our country? I am really at a loss to understand some of the comments here.

 

Yes I am quite serious , it also seems I am in the majority so not quite sure why my post was singled out for attention .

In any other walk of life you would have to pay the money back , why should it matter what you CHOOSE to do for a living ? as far as I am aware conscription is no more .

 

I know plenty of people in the forces thanks and I am very proud of those who serve our country and only Saturday I put £20 in a charity tin to help those soldiers that really need help, as I often do ,but do i think those currently serving should be treat differently to Joe public err no.

 

It also seems that some of our forces members agree with me on here .

[Zapp]

I'm ex Army, have done active duty service etc.

 

They were overpaid and so should pay it back. It happens all the time, it actually happened to me once where the clerks ballsed my pay up on the back of a misrecorded technical qualification and I ended up having to pay it back over time. It's rubbish being in that position at the time, but it is a fact of military life that is well known, and it was taxpayers money that I wasnt entitled to. This is just the papers doing what papers do in whipping up some outrage to sell copy.

 

This constant sentimentalisation and portrayal of our services as perpetual victims of some injustice or other worries me. I still work with uniformed military staff and a great deal have a sense of entitlement which wasnt there up until a few years ago.

 

What they havent realised is that political and public opinion is very fickle, and that the endless conveyor belt of guaranteed promotion, pay rises, awards and adulation simply wont carry on forever. When it stops, and I guarantee it will the moment politicians perceive that there are no more votes in being nice to soldiers, a lot of them will struggle to adapt to being in either a peacetime military with real underfunding and junk equipment, or to function back in civvy street.

[shaun4860]

My niece worked for the RAF

 

she was overpaid in allowances,

 

Had to pay it back,

 

Agreed a payment plan where both parties were happy

 

She then worked for the NHS left on maternity leave but decided not to go back after the baby was born (to pursue a uni course leading to becoming a children's nurse)

 

Now because she didn't go back after maternity leave she had to pay back money owed paid after baby was born.

 

Again agreed a satisfactory repayment plan.

 

Now are you saying that she shouldn't have to pay back the RAF money because she was in the forces but should pay back the NHS money?

 

Both amounts of money were public money and paid wrongly,

 

She has no qualms about paying it back, maybe not happy but agrees it wasn't hers.

 

*tin hat on*

 

As an aside, years ago I was taxed wrongly for around a month (not enough, but not my fault)

 

I had to pay it back

 

[notsosureshot]

 

Yes I am quite serious , it also seems I am in the majority so not quite sure why my post was singled out for attention .

In any other walk of life you would have to pay the money back , why should it matter what you CHOOSE to do for a living ? as far as I am aware conscription is no more .

 

I know plenty of people in the forces thanks and I am very proud of those who serve our country and only Saturday I put £20 in a charity tin to help those soldiers that really need help, as I often do ,but do i think those currently serving should be treat differently to Joe public err no.

 

It also seems that some of our forces members agree with me on here .

 

Sorry, I didn't mean to single you out, just happened to click quote on your post.

 

I respect your right to your opinion but I disagree for many reasons. When a young 18 year old signs up for say, the marines, they most likely have no understanding of how it would feel to go into combat and what potential long lasting effects such an experience may have. The choice is made blind in that regard, until you've been there and done it, or are very close to someone who has, it's impossible to even have a basic understanding. If nobody chose to do the job, then we would end up with conscription or defenseless, I'm assuming none of those options are particularly appealing to most. A lot of young men have suffered through their career choice and continue to suffer in various ways. Not all, but quite a lot, especially those who actually took part in fighting.

 

I just don't think it is appropriate, for the sake of a couple of million quid, to place additional stress on people who are often under extreme stress as it is, particularly when this was not even their blunder. Why not simply let them buy a couple of extra Christmas presents for their kids which they haven't seen for months on end? A tiny thank you from the tax payer.

 

Someone made a comparison with the police, fire service and other emergency services. With the exception of our brave firefighters, who it can be considered risk their lives on a daily basis, I see no comparison. Even then, firefighters live at home and are not asked to travel half way around the world for months on end, often away from their families. The police do perform valuable public service and so do other members of the emergency services, but they also live at home and see their family, do not expect to be shot at or have RPG's fired at them, don't need to be worried about IED's, have probably never witnessed a colleague and friend having their legs blown off. The list goes on.

 

I think they should be treated differently to Joe Public because many of them have placed themselves at extreme risk to protect British interests. They don't ask for special treatment, but the best people never do. I would support the fire service, police and ambulance and other emergency services in a similar situation, just for the record. This would be tax payers money well spent in my opinion.

 

Regardless of the human aspect, it will probably cost more than was actually paid out in error, to correct the situation.

[Berettacocker]

Let them keep the money, they're not paid enough money anyway!

[CharlieT]

I'm ex Army, have done active duty service etc.

 

They were overpaid and so should pay it back. It happens all the time, it actually happened to me once where the clerks ballsed my pay up on the back of a misrecorded technical qualification and I ended up having to pay it back over time. It's rubbish being in that position at the time, but it is a fact of military life that is well known, and it was taxpayers money that I wasnt entitled to. This is just the papers doing what papers do in whipping up some outrage to sell copy.

 

This constant sentimentalisation and portrayal of our services as perpetual victims of some injustice or other worries me. I still work with uniformed military staff and a great deal have a sense of entitlement which wasnt there up until a few years ago.

 

What they havent realised is that political and public opinion is very fickle, and that the endless conveyor belt of guaranteed promotion, pay rises, awards and adulation simply wont carry on forever. When it stops, and I guarantee it will the moment politicians perceive that there are no more votes in being nice to soldiers, a lot of them will struggle to adapt to being in either a peacetime military with real underfunding and junk equipment, or to function back in civvy street.

Excellent post Zapp.

Wholeheartedly concurr.

[notsosureshot]

I'm ex Army, have done active duty service etc.

 

They were overpaid and so should pay it back. It happens all the time, it actually happened to me once where the clerks ballsed my pay up on the back of a misrecorded technical qualification and I ended up having to pay it back over time. It's rubbish being in that position at the time, but it is a fact of military life that is well known, and it was taxpayers money that I wasnt entitled to. This is just the papers doing what papers do in whipping up some outrage to sell copy.

 

This constant sentimentalisation and portrayal of our services as perpetual victims of some injustice or other worries me. I still work with uniformed military staff and a great deal have a sense of entitlement which wasnt there up until a few years ago.

 

What they havent realised is that political and public opinion is very fickle, and that the endless conveyor belt of guaranteed promotion, pay rises, awards and adulation simply wont carry on forever. When it stops, and I guarantee it will the moment politicians perceive that there are no more votes in being nice to soldiers, a lot of them will be adapt to being in either a peacetime military with real underfunding and junk equipment, or to function back in civvy street.

 

 

My niece worked for the RAF

 

she was overpaid in allowances,

 

Had to pay it back,

 

Agreed a payment plan where both parties were happy

 

She then worked for the NHS left on maternity leave but decided not to go back after the baby was born (to pursue a uni course leading to becoming a children's nurse)

 

Now because she didn't go back after maternity leave she had to pay back money owed paid after baby was born.

 

Again agreed a satisfactory repayment plan.

 

Now are you saying that she shouldn't have to pay back the RAF money because she was in the forces but should pay back the NHS money?

 

Both amounts of money were public money and paid wrongly,

 

She has no qualms about paying it back, maybe not happy but agrees it wasn't hers.

 

*tin hat on*

 

As an aside, years ago I was taxed wrongly for around a month (not enough, but not my fault)

 

I had to pay it back

 

 

I'd say it comes down to the individual circumstances of the error. In this case, they were sent on additional courses, which may or may not have been elective, and awarded a pay rise as a result. This was approved by their superiors. They subsequently will not have been aware of the error until long after and the money will probably have been spent since many of them are on lower end pay and have family.

 

This is not the same as spending money deposited in your bank account in error, or under paying for tax, or receiving too much allowance. The individual would normally be aware of these things. The article reads as though these payments were specifically approved. They could not have known that the money they were spending was not rightly theres. Their superior officer told them it was the result of additional qualifications and there was obviously paperwork to support it.

 

I do agree that the press is attempting to whip up a storm for their own benefit though.

Edited March 9, 2015 by notsosureshot

[Zapp]

 

I'd say it comes down to the individual circumstances of the error. In this case, they were sent on additional courses, which may or may not have been elective, and awarded a pay rise as a result. This was approved by their superiors. They subsequently will not have been aware of the error until long after and the money will probably have been spent since many of them are on lower end pay and have family.

 

This is not the same as spending money deposited in your bank account in error, or under paying for tax, or receiving too much allowance. The individual would normally be aware of these things. The article reads as though these payments were specifically approved. They could not have known that the money they were spending was not rightly theres. Their superior officer told them it was the result of additional qualifications and there was obviously paperwork to support it.

That's exactly what happened to me - sent on a course I didnt elect to do, overpaid and then hit for it sometime later. Of course I moaned and was most upset, but I paid it back.

 

I wasnt, however, moaning or being upset for the rest of the time I was in, being well paid, sent on expensive training courses for free, pretty much unlimited access to sports and adventure training, clothed, housed and fed for a fraction of the actual costs and getting more money on top whenever I went anywhere unpleasant.

[notsosureshot]

That's exactly what happened to me - sent on a course I didnt elect to do, overpaid and then hit for it sometime later. Of course I moaned and was most upset, but I paid it back.

 

I wasnt, however, moaning or being upset for the rest of the time I was in, being well paid, sent on expensive training courses for free, pretty much unlimited access to sports and adventure training, clothed, housed and fed for a fraction of the actual costs and getting more money on top whenever I went anywhere unpleasant.

 

If you chose to pay it back and were in a position to do so, then good for you. I'm sure many would choose to do the same. I'm just saying that forcing it is immoral considering the job they do and the circumstances of the "error". Some of these lads and lasses wont be in a financial position to pay it back and will be faced with taking out a loan. It is wrong to put them in that position.

[keg]

 

What if they already sent it home to their families without realising? What are they supposed to do if it was spent paying the bills? Checking finances is the last thing on your mind if you're deployed.

Agreed, it needs to be done sensibly.

[johnnythefox70]

My take on all of this is that if anyone is mistakenly paid more than they are entitled to for whatever reason, then it should be paid back. I can't see what the issue is here. I don't care if they are serving or ex-serving. I don't see what anyones occupation has to do with being overpaid.

There are many instances of people in all walks of life being overpaid income they thought they were entitled to, and are then told that it must be paid back; why do some think armed forces personnel should be exempt?

I have the utmost respect for those who join the armed forces, knowing what that can entail, and they do a fantastic job with not always the best of kit nor leadership, but they weren't forced to enlist, they volunteered. Many in previous generations didn't have that choice.

I get quite annoyed when some start bleating on about how they deserve this and they deserve that, and we should all be giving to Help for Heroes etc etc because of the sacrifices they made for us and their country, but at the end of the day, they weren't forced to join.They were all perfectly aware of what the consequences of their decision to join could lead to. How about all those serving and ex-serving police and firefighters, traumatised by what they've experienced or invalided out due to injuries received in their work? Are they any different? The PC confronted by Raoul Moat was left blind and eventually committed suicide; two female police officers were lured into a trap via a call and shot and killed. They all joined fully knowing that they could be confronted by all manner of unknown situations at any time, and would be expected to do so unarmed. What about them and those they left behind?

I totally agree that our armed forces personnel deserve this that and the other, and certainly more than they currently receive, but that is what we pay our taxes for. It is any governments job to ensure our serving men and women get what they are entitled to,and that includes the care they need post event.

You can give all you want to meaningful charities, but if you want to make a real difference, and you REALLY CARE, then get off your backsides and march down to Westminster and make DEMANDS. I'm sure the media would back you all the way. Anyone can drop a quid in a charity box, that's the easy option, as is having a pop at those who don't agree our armed forces should be treat any differently.

If anyone wants an inkling of how successive governments and the MOD treat their (especially wounded) ex-military, then have a read of 'Tumbledown' by Robert Lawrence; a real eye opener.

Looking after our armed forces is not only a question of funding, but bureaucratic attitude.

Took the words right out of my mouth! Top marks to this man and well said.

[Scully]

 

Sorry, I didn't mean to single you out, just happened to click quote on your post.

 

I respect your right to your opinion but I disagree for many reasons. When a young 18 year old signs up for say, the marines, they most likely have no understanding of how it would feel to go into combat and what potential long lasting effects such an experience may have. The choice is made blind in that regard, until you've been there and done it, or are very close to someone who has, it's impossible to even have a basic understanding. If nobody chose to do the job, then we would end up with conscription or defenseless, I'm assuming none of those options are particularly appealing to most. A lot of young men have suffered through their career choice and continue to suffer in various ways. Not all, but quite a lot, especially those who actually took part in fighting.

 

I just don't think it is appropriate, for the sake of a couple of million quid, to place additional stress on people who are often under extreme stress as it is, particularly when this was not even their blunder. Why not simply let them buy a couple of extra Christmas presents for their kids which they haven't seen for months on end? A tiny thank you from the tax payer.

 

Someone made a comparison with the police, fire service and other emergency services. With the exception of our brave firefighters, who it can be considered risk their lives on a daily basis, I see no comparison. Even then, firefighters live at home and are not asked to travel half way around the world for months on end, often away from their families. The police do perform valuable public service and so do other members of the emergency services, but they also live at home and see their family, do not expect to be shot at or have RPG's fired at them, don't need to be worried about IED's, have probably never witnessed a colleague and friend having their legs blown off. The list goes on.

 

I think they should be treated differently to Joe Public because many of them have placed themselves at extreme risk to protect British interests. They don't ask for special treatment, but the best people never do. I would support the fire service, police and ambulance and other emergency services in a similar situation, just for the record. This would be tax payers money well spent in my opinion.

 

Regardless of the human aspect, it will probably cost more than was actually paid out in error, to correct the situation.

 

I think the only part of this I can agree with really is the inexperience of 18 year olds, but that is how it works I'm afraid. Governments and their departments like the MOD aren't going to commission recruitment posters displaying images of traumatic amputation or the smear of what was once a person veneered over a field. Recruitment advertisements are designed to be exciting, and all things suitable to attract the attention of young, indestructible teenagers. No one wants to know the truth.

I remember at the age of 16 when in Newcastle being interviewed by a recruitment Sergeant of the Royal Marines how I felt about going to Northern Ireland, suddenly realising it wasn't anything I'd thought about. Naive or what?

Many a young lad answered the call in 1914 for what they were led to believe was going to be a boys own adventure, and a good jaunt in which they'd give old jerry a jolly good thrashing and be home in time for christmas. The reality was somewhat different.

These days the internet can leave no doubt as to what war is all about, but again, the ever immortal youth is invincible, until they're not. But I doubt even the most naive 18 year old believes they'll be home each night. The freedom to make that choice is theirs.

How does that quote go?: 'As a youth there was many a cause I would have killed for; growing older means I'm so glad I didn't'.

Campaign for better money and conditions on leaving service for our armed forces by all means, but to claim they are entitled to special circumstances because of their ordeals I just simply think is irrelevant.

A lad from Hartlepool who once worked with us was ex-forces. He was a grand lad and a great laugh but totally useless without someone getting him up each morning. He was late every morning and had recently lost HGV work due to being 7 hours late making a delivery for a local haulage contractor because he couldn't get out of bed.

He had no money as he was always taking days off, and would constantly cadge off us and others around town, until it became obvious no one was going to get their money back, but we tried to look after him cos he was one of us and didn't have a nasty bone in his body; a canny lad who just couldn't seem to care for himself. I would go and pick him up from his caravan each morning in time for work so he wasn't late, but he just started making me late also, so that got knocked on the head.

He was claiming benefits also for whatever reason that we never knew, and he gradually got more and more into debt around town and got into a bit of drugs and went steadily downhill. He left us one morning after emptying the kitty we have for snacks and taking another workmates fags (which we thought was hilarious) and we never saw him again.

The owner of the caravan site however, who is local, kept us in touch with his exploits.

He ended up back in Hartlepool with his parents, but they couldn't handle him so talked him into re-enlisting to keep him out of trouble, which he did. He was driving some sort of troop carrier when it hit an IED and everyone in the vehicle was killed except him. He was badly injured and according to his parents simply placed in a normal ward in hospital, but they could see he was mentally effected by his ordeal. He was found walking around the grounds during the night on more than one occasion in his pyjamas, and despite his parents protestations to the MOD that he needed psychiatric help he was simply treat for his physical wounds and released. He committed suicide shortly afterwards.

We were stunned when we found out. He was just one of the lads who liked a good laugh like all the others. He was only in his early 30's. Absolutely tragic.

It has been like this for as long as there have been politicians willing to spend the lives of contemporary youth for political expediency, and I see no indication it will ever change.

Paying back money one is not entitled to is a non-story compiled to generate revenue, and irrelevant compared to the bigger issues raised in this thread. Above and beyond their cynical ploy to gain revenue off the back of this story, does the media really care? What do you reckon?

[notsosureshot]

I can't speak for the media, but I would imagine their focus as a business is raising readership by any means. Although I am sure there are individual journalists who would view the story from both points of view.

 

You told a very sad story in your post Scully. It is an all too common occurence for young lads to return from active duty a shell of their former selves. I've seen it myself and continue to be in a position where i see it day in day out.

 

My real worry is that placing additional financial burden on someone who is at risk, like the lad you describe, is only going to serve to push them closer to the edge. Since it is almost impossible to identify those affected by the overpayments that are also vulnerable, I think it is the duty of the MOD to remove this burden which they themselves created.

 

Financial troubles alone can lead to suicide, nevermind in someone suffering from PTSD. How do we know it wont if they force repayments?

 

Why not make the administrative staff pay it out of their wages instead? I am sure they would be more accurate in their work in the future, saving everyone time, money and grief.

Edited March 9, 2015 by notsosureshot

[STOTTO]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/british-army-soldiers-must-pay-5288205

 

They shouldn't have to pay it back.

 

Military operational logistics in full unbridled motion

SNAFU. Don’t you just love the Yanks!

 

Let them keep it and take it out of the ‘Foreign Aid Budget’, after all most of the politicians got away with their overpaid expenses (public money), an “Oversight on their part” and those that paid it back had to be, shall we say, encouraged!

[shaun4860]

Agreed, it needs to be done sensibly.

And it will be,

 

They won't turn up and demand payment in full,

 

They will reach an amicable agreement that both parties can afford.

 

I also agree that the papers blow things like this up to sell copies,

 

Same as TV companies with the likes of benefit street and immigration stuff.....

 

[keg]

The media has never let facts get in the way of a good story

[Twistedsanity]

If this was a mistake by the benefits office most folk on here would be shouting about how it's taxpayers money and they should be forced to pay it back, this is also taxpayers money so I don't see how it's "disgusting"? So long as there are some sort of payment plans in place and they don't expect it all at once I fail to see an issue here? Nobody forced them To join the forces or spend the extra money did they

[Scully]

I can't speak for the media, but I would imagine their focus as a business is raising readership by any means. Although I am sure there are individual journalists who would view the story from both points of view.

 

You told a very sad story in your post Scully. It is an all too common occurence for young lads to return from active duty a shell of their former selves. I've seen it myself and continue to be in a position where i see it day in day out.

 

My real worry is that placing additional financial burden on someone who is at risk, like the lad you describe, is only going to serve to push them closer to the edge. Since it is almost impossible to identify those affected by the overpayments that are also vulnerable, I think it is the duty of the MOD to remove this burden which they themselves created.

 

Financial troubles alone can lead to suicide, nevermind in someone suffering from PTSD. How do we know it wont if they force repayments?

 

Why not make the administrative staff pay it out of their wages instead? I am sure they would be more accurate in their work in the future, saving everyone time, money and grief.

I can totally understand where you're coming from and I can agree with almost all of that, especially as you've made the point 'financial troubles alone can lead to suicide'.

My brother in law lost his farm through no fault of his own and had a nervous breakdown and was on 'suicide watch' for a time. it was never suggested his debts were written off to alleviate the chances he may take his own life.

I'm of the opinion that having a two tier special dispensation policy for armed forces would be totally unfair, but can see why some would think otherwise.

Ensuring admin' staff would be accountable via their own salaries would mean low recruitment uptake I would think, but applaud the idea.

[Scully]

 

They will reach an amicable agreement that both parties can afford.

 

 

Yep, as above. I received a demand for 8oo quid for overpaid Child Tax Credits, but as the money had never gone to me I swiftly handed it to my OH, ( generous to a fault, that's me ) who had of course, already spent it.

We didn't receive it as a lump sum so weren't expected to pay it back as a lump sum.

[discobob]

If they were fraudulently claiming it - and knowingly so - Yes - pay it back with a stretch in the glasshouse thrown on for good measure.

 

However, they were not, they went through all the official processes and this got added to their pay. There is not a self service portal where you go and tick "I have completed xyz" to generate and extra £1K on salary or an extra £100 in your packet.

 

Going back before Pay as you Starve, mistakes would happen around your food etc... and that would be claimed back (or paid back when pointing out you had been on leave) - that would be a simple administrative cock up - fair enough.

 

But these guys (and girls) followed everything by the book - but now they have changed the book.

 

Legally Correct - Mirky (taking into account MP's expenses which really isn't a good analogy as most MP's knew they shouldn't be doing it)

Morally/ethically correct - not a hope.

 

Perhaps the compromise that should be taken would be only for the past financial year to be repaid as the previous years books have been balanced??

[notsosureshot]

I can totally understand where you're coming from and I can agree with almost all of that, especially as you've made the point 'financial troubles alone can lead to suicide'.

My brother in law lost his farm through no fault of his own and had a nervous breakdown and was on 'suicide watch' for a time. it was never suggested his debts were written off to alleviate the chances he may take his own life.

I'm of the opinion that having a two tier special dispensation policy for armed forces would be totally unfair, but can see why some would think otherwise.

Ensuring admin' staff would be accountable via their own salaries would mean low recruitment uptake I would think, but applaud the idea.

 

When it's a struggle to take care of your own well being, you can't maintain relationships and you're in deep depression, being burdened financially is the last thing you need, especially when it could feel like they are being punished for the mistake of others. The problem is, a lot of people with PTSD don't actually know or refuse to acknowledge that they have it and it can take years for them to seek help, if they ever do. In my view, without knowing the full facts about each affected individual, it would be irresponsible to burden them for the sake of such a small amount of money. £3.1m is almost nothing in terms of total tax payer funds and if this course of action pushed just one person over the edge, how would we feel about it then?

 

Not sure about your statement regarding low recruitment uptake. I thought, for example, bank tellers are responsible for the money they handle and similarly, shop workers. If the till is off, do they not pay out of their own pocket? If so, why not the administrative staff responsible for the error?

Edited March 9, 2015 by notsosureshot