Armed Forces Compensation Scheme Review

#1
Do injured Service personnel get paid the right compensation? Official Independent Review seeks your views.

Members of the public and Service personnel can now submit their views on how the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme should compensate for injury, illness or death caused by service.

The views will be taken into account as part of a widespread and thorough review into the scheme, which is being chaired by former Chief of the Defence Staff Admiral The Lord Boyce.

This was posted by the Ministry of Defence. More information here.
 
#2
NO, why did the people injured in Northern Ireland and the Falklands get shafted over the PTSD claims

Or is this a Wah, FFS The MOD on Arrse?
 
#3
You really have to ask, when an upset rug muncher gets over £100k for being upset and civvies get more for having their Human Rights infringed and a squaddie who loses limbs/sanity for serving their country gets a pittance in return then NO.
 
#4
This,it would seem is not a Wah, The MOD realy want to hear what we have to say,So lets have a sensably debate and get our points and feelings across
 
#5
REVIEW COVERAGE
The Review will look at a range of issues including (but not limited to):
1. The fundamental principles underlying the compensation scheme
2. The overall level of compensation, including for dependants
3. What the compensation is for and its relationship with other state benefits
4. Comparisons with other compensation in the UK and internationally
5. Issues raised by the Court of Appeal judgment
6. The circumstances of injury, illness or death
7. The claims and adjudication process
8. The burden and onus of proof
9. The time limit on claims and the treatment of deterioration
10. The compensation paid for mental illness
11. The compensation paid to individuals with multiple injuries
For those of you that are interested (and that should be anyone who has , is or is about to serve where hot jaggy bits of metal fly about) here is an extract on what the review will report on.

My view (synical one) is that the AFCS 05 was written well in advance of it's implementation in parliament (or what not). The government did not anticipate the level of casualties that we are experiencing from the conflicts in the middle east and are now looking at how they can reduce the financial burden on the tax payer. Comments about 'upset rug munchers' aside (agree with the sentiment) aren't really pertinent as said 'rug muncher' was not compensated from AFCS05.

Those who take the greatest risks and make the greatest sacrifices (in terms of injury) should recieve the most money/ care. Those families who lose everything should never want again. Simplistic but not that unrealistic.
 
#6
When has the MOD compensation ever been fare, if we were civilians we would all be very well off, but we just get a war pension and a life time supply of Paroxotine,The Veterans agency are pretty rubbish and the whole system stinks, why should an ex serviceman have to proove any thing when it is all on record, and to say that a war pension makes up for not getting compensation is an insult to every soldier who has ever been wounded, If the thieving shite who frequent the houses of Parliment can milk the system as they do, where is the justice for ex-service men who put their lives on the line following the orders of these gutless Cnuts
 
#7
I cant comment on the war pension as i am on AFCS therefore when i leave will get a GIP, i do think it's unfair that Soldiers injuried before Aug 05 are stuck on the old scheme,ie (war pension). The GIP is far better , it works out depending on your level of injury, your salary and your age then you get a tax free monthly income for life.

As a case example:

Soldier A loses a leg due to operational reasons:
This comes in at tariff level 5, so thats £115,00 paid out tax free straight away.

Soldier A is a Sgt and is aged 36 and taking home 35k a year therefore if he was to leave he would also get:


Salary x GIP factor, ie £35,000 x 0.799 = £27,965
As the injury is in tariff level 5 he will receive 75% of the full GIP ie £20,973 per year. This is tax free
 
#8
I think this is important so Bump
 
#9
tropper66 said:
I think this is important so Bump
This time it is for PE four
 
#11
BUMP... I know we have stickies but with something as important as this subject perhaps there is a mechanism to "auto bump" say every 4 hours?
I'm sure the technicalities are within the ability of resident computer geeks [with the CO's and moderators acquiescence of course].
 
#13
I know this has been covered before, on a different thread, but why should a clerk receive 400K+ for RSI and a serviceperson 115K for a lost limb?

Puts it into perspective does it not?
 
#14
heidtheba said:
I know this has been covered before, on a different thread, but why should a clerk receive 400K+ for RSI and a serviceperson 115K for a lost limb?

Puts it into perspective does it not?
Yes but we have not had HH MOD on the threads before, so some one just might hear what we are ranting this time
 
#15
They want proper responses - not just rants - hence the link and not an invite to vent spleens. Tropper - you don't speak for the serving man - let either the Mods / management highlight it or let the 'natural selection' here do the business. I certainly don't need you telling me what I should read.
 
#16
heidtheba said:
I know this has been covered before, on a different thread, but why should a clerk receive 400K+ for RSI and a serviceperson 115K for a lost limb?

Puts it into perspective does it not?
Although it is wrong it is 2 different matters altogether. The serviceman who loses a limb in action will have been paid out through the armed forces compensation scheme whereas the clerk with RSI will have pursued a civil claim through their own solicitor which has then gone through the courts who will have decided that the MOD is in someway at fault.

The serviceman even though he has much worse injuries cannot do this unless the MOD can be proved to have been negligent in some way. To date im pretty sure nobody has managed to sue the Taliban.

Unfortunately that is the way it is, it is wrong but how can it be fixed?

The RSI case payout will be based on similar matters from civ div and seeing as the forces have to comply with the H&S at work regs then they are going to have to pay out should a court decide that the RSI has been caused through the course of the person's employment.
 
#17
Mag_to_grid said:
heidtheba said:
I know this has been covered before, on a different thread, but why should a clerk receive 400K+ for RSI and a serviceperson 115K for a lost limb?

Puts it into perspective does it not?
Although it is wrong it is 2 different matters altogether. The serviceman who loses a limb in action will have been paid out through the armed forces compensation scheme whereas the clerk with RSI will have pursued a civil claim through their own solicitor which has then gone through the courts who will have decided that the MOD is in someway at fault.

The serviceman even though he has much worse injuries cannot do this unless the MOD can be proved to have been negligent in some way. To date im pretty sure nobody has managed to sue the Taliban.

Unfortunately that is the way it is, it is wrong but how can it be fixed?

The RSI case payout will be based on similar matters from civ div and seeing as the forces have to comply with the H&S at work regs then they are going to have to pay out should a court decide that the RSI has been caused through the course of the person's employment.
A very fair explanation and it may be worth adding that the RAF typist had been a serving member of the armed forces, not a civil servant. The crucial point as you rightly say is that her award (whether the actual figure is justified or not) was fault-based whereas awards under the AFCS do not require fault to be proved on the part of the MoD.
 
#18
Mag_to_grid said:
heidtheba said:
I know this has been covered before, on a different thread, but why should a clerk receive 400K+ for RSI and a serviceperson 115K for a lost limb?

Puts it into perspective does it not?
Although it is wrong it is 2 different matters altogether. The serviceman who loses a limb in action will have been paid out through the armed forces compensation scheme whereas the clerk with RSI will have pursued a civil claim through their own solicitor which has then gone through the courts who will have decided that the MOD is in someway at fault.

The serviceman even though he has much worse injuries cannot do this unless the MOD can be proved to have been negligent in some way. To date im pretty sure nobody has managed to sue the Taliban.

Unfortunately that is the way it is, it is wrong but how can it be fixed?

The RSI case payout will be based on similar matters from civ div and seeing as the forces have to comply with the H&S at work regs then they are going to have to pay out should a court decide that the RSI has been caused through the course of the person's employment.
BUT people injured in the past have been prevented from having their day in court, because the amount of money involved would be vast, there are many injured ex-service who have been given no compensation at all and were told that their measly War Pension was all they would get, it is far from a fare system and to make matters worse some of the Terrorists we fought against almost got compensation recently for being stupid enough to get killed by HM Forces which realy rubs salt into the wound, and when one see the leaders of the enemy now lording it in Stourmount it makes a mockery of our service in Ulster
 
#19
hackle said:
Mag_to_grid said:
heidtheba said:
I know this has been covered before, on a different thread, but why should a clerk receive 400K+ for RSI and a serviceperson 115K for a lost limb?

Puts it into perspective does it not?
Although it is wrong it is 2 different matters altogether. The serviceman who loses a limb in action will have been paid out through the armed forces compensation scheme whereas the clerk with RSI will have pursued a civil claim through their own solicitor which has then gone through the courts who will have decided that the MOD is in someway at fault.

The serviceman even though he has much worse injuries cannot do this unless the MOD can be proved to have been negligent in some way. To date im pretty sure nobody has managed to sue the Taliban.

Unfortunately that is the way it is, it is wrong but how can it be fixed?

The RSI case payout will be based on similar matters from civ div and seeing as the forces have to comply with the H&S at work regs then they are going to have to pay out should a court decide that the RSI has been caused through the course of the person's employment.
A very fair explanation and it may be worth adding that the RAF typist had been a serving member of the armed forces, not a civil servant. The crucial point as you rightly say is that her award (whether the actual figure is justified or not) was fault-based whereas awards under the AFCS do not require fault to be proved on the part of the MoD.
I understand both replies and knew as much, however, as you both point out, it is wrong.

Just pointing out the glaring differences in such cases.

Tropper, FFS, stop scribbling on this thread and stop bleating about NI.

You were not the only one to serve in the province.
 
#20
heidtheba said:
hackle said:
Mag_to_grid said:
heidtheba said:
I know this has been covered before, on a different thread, but why should a clerk receive 400K+ for RSI and a serviceperson 115K for a lost limb?

Puts it into perspective does it not?
Although it is wrong it is 2 different matters altogether. The serviceman who loses a limb in action will have been paid out through the armed forces compensation scheme whereas the clerk with RSI will have pursued a civil claim through their own solicitor which has then gone through the courts who will have decided that the MOD is in someway at fault.

The serviceman even though he has much worse injuries cannot do this unless the MOD can be proved to have been negligent in some way. To date im pretty sure nobody has managed to sue the Taliban.

Unfortunately that is the way it is, it is wrong but how can it be fixed?

The RSI case payout will be based on similar matters from civ div and seeing as the forces have to comply with the H&S at work regs then they are going to have to pay out should a court decide that the RSI has been caused through the course of the person's employment.
A very fair explanation and it may be worth adding that the RAF typist had been a serving member of the armed forces, not a civil servant. The crucial point as you rightly say is that her award (whether the actual figure is justified or not) was fault-based whereas awards under the AFCS do not require fault to be proved on the part of the MoD.
I understand both replies and knew as much, however, as you both point out, it is wrong.

Just pointing out the glaring differences in such cases.

Tropper, FFS, stop scribbling on this thread and stop bleating about NI.

You were not the only one to serve in the province.

You show your ignorance and stupidity. I along with a number of other scribblers and the Royal British Legion have been fighting for forces to get compensation for over thirty years, when we started this the MOD did not even recognise PTSD and to get a war pension was like finding rocking horse crap. In that time we have caused the government to start the Veterens Agency as before the War pension system was run by the Benifits Agency and was a complete shower of shite, and get the current system running, but it is not good enough. why shouldn't the NI,Falklands,Cyprus,Aden, vets get the same treatment as the younger disabled, All I would like to see is for these people tp be allowed there day in a court of law. which the Government has consistantly blocked, even now War Pensioners, are told that if they apply for a Tribunal they may loose the pittance they recieve if they loose their appeal, it is just not good enough
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads