Incidental Expenses

#1
Here's a question for those that really like to get stuck in the regulations:

Given that JSP 756 defines Duty personnel as:

Those who are members of a unit or organisation’s Duty Staff for a period of at least twenty-four hours and as a result are required to sleep in accommodation specifically allocated for this task. Such personnel are deemed to have a ‘night out of bed’ at their RWA. Those whose duty is on call and not absent overnight from their RWA are not eligible for the award of duty SS.

Do you think this means if you are on a sleep in Duty, you do, or do not have an entitlement to claim IE, given that "IE are designed to cover necessary personal incidental expenses actually incurred when an overnight absence in a hotel or temporary Service single accommodation is occupied."

My thoughts, as always, remain in favour of the soldier/officer, but I am intrigued as to opinion of the Guru's out there.
 

Legs

ADC
Book Reviewer
#3
You must be away from your Station to claim IE. Duty personnel (Guards/BOO/BOS etc) cannot claim IE.
 
#4
Legs said:
You must be away from your Station to claim IE. Duty personnel (Guards/BOO/BOS etc) cannot claim IE.
I can't find anywhere that says this, no matter how hard I look. I was rather hoping those saying no entitlement would be able to preach DPSI2102/20/1/a/v states etc etc.
 
#6
Under ineligible personnel in 752:

l. When shift workers undertake their normal duties at their permanent duty station. They may, however, have an entitlement to MMP (see Section 3 of this Chapter) and/or MOA (see Section 4 of this Chapter).

We are classed as shift workers when placed on duty, no MMP as we are PAYD and sldrs get their food for free as on duty.
 
#7
If you are duty staff you can claim as long as you meet the time and RWA criteria.

Now for singlies this is a bit of bad news because, if you live in the same location as the duty (which 9/10 probably do) you fail to qualify on the RWA rule. If you are a pad and have to sleep on duty (in a duty bunk for instance) you pass the RWA rule. Winner! Eh, not quite.

The clever wee bit about claiming 'IE on duty' is the 24 hours or more rule. How many duties officially run for more than 24 hrs and require you to spend the night away from your RWA? Very few I'd imagine.
 
#8
Sangreal said:
Now for singlies this is a bit of bad news because, if you live in the same location as the duty (which 9/10 probably do) you fail to qualify on the RWA rule. If you are a pad and have to sleep on duty (in a duty bunk for instance) you pass the RWA rule. Winner! Eh, not quite.
How is a pad in a duty bunk different from a singly in a duty bunk?

Sangreal said:
The clever wee bit about claiming 'IE on duty' is the 24 hours or more rule. How many duties officially run for more than 24 hrs and require you to spend the night away from your RWA? Very few I'd imagine.
If it IS a "24 hours OR more rule" then surely a 24 hour duty counts???
 
#9
As you can only claim IE after 24 hours, a 24 hour duty doesn't mean you can claim. For a 48 hour duty, if there is one that doesn't include being on the end of a phone, you can only claim for the second 24 hours.
 
#10
cuckingfunt said:
Sangreal said:
Now for singlies this is a bit of bad news because, if you live in the same location as the duty (which 9/10 probably do) you fail to qualify on the RWA rule. If you are a pad and have to sleep on duty (in a duty bunk for instance) you pass the RWA rule. Winner! Eh, not quite.
How is a pad in a duty bunk different from a singly in a duty bunk?

Their Residence at Work Address is different: Singlie = same as work; pad = SFA

Sangreal said:
The clever wee bit about claiming 'IE on duty' is the 24 hours or more rule. How many duties officially run for more than 24 hrs and require you to spend the night away from your RWA? Very few I'd imagine.
If it IS a "24 hours OR more rule" then surely a 24 hour duty counts???

Absolutely, and if you get the RWA tick as well you're quids in.
 
#11
Hope none of you bods have been criticising MP's for troughing and maximising the expenses system, because that would be ever so slightly hypocritical would it not?
 
#12
Sangreal said:
cuckingfunt said:
Sangreal said:
Now for singlies this is a bit of bad news because, if you live in the same location as the duty (which 9/10 probably do) you fail to qualify on the RWA rule. If you are a pad and have to sleep on duty (in a duty bunk for instance) you pass the RWA rule. Winner! Eh, not quite.
How is a pad in a duty bunk different from a singly in a duty bunk?

Their Residence At Work address is different: Singlie = same as work; pad = SFA
But if they are in a duty bunk, it's not. They are not at "home", with home comforts like their TV Service, internet, phone...


Edited to add inverted commas to "home"!
 
#13
old_n_fat said:
Hope none of you bods have been criticising MP's for troughing and maximising the expenses system, because that would be ever so slightly hypocritical would it not?
Not even comparable. So, I'll quite happily continue criticise MPs.
 
#14
Sangreal said:
old_n_fat said:
Hope none of you bods have been criticising MP's for troughing and maximising the expenses system, because that would be ever so slightly hypocritical would it not?
Not even comparable. So, I'll quite happily continue criticise MPs.
Trying to work out what is the maximum claimable within the rules, no not comparable at all.
The fact that the amounts are smaller does not change the principle.
 
#15
old_n_fat said:
Sangreal said:
old_n_fat said:
Hope none of you bods have been criticising MP's for troughing and maximising the expenses system, because that would be ever so slightly hypocritical would it not?
Not even comparable. So, I'll quite happily continue criticise MPs.
Trying to work out what is the maximum claimable within the rules, no not comparable at all.
The fact that the amounts are smaller does not change the principle.
Just to Clarify then, you feel claiming IE for a sleep in duty, given that IE is designed to cover the cost of a phone call etc(which you better make or your toast when you go home the next day), is comparable to having your Moat cleaned???

And it's not trying to work out what the max within the rules you can claim is, it's trying to work out, are you entitled, are you not.

I also would be inclined to think PADS or Singlies no matter how far they live from camp should be able to claim as the 756 makes no mention of this. It just says that you must spend a night out of your own bed to qualify for Separated Service.
 
#16
"....
Just to Clarify then, you feel claiming IE for a sleep in duty, given that IE is designed to cover the cost of a phone call etc(which you better make or your toast when you go home the next day), is comparable to having your Moat cleaned???..."
Sorry I obviously misunderstood. I didn't realise that pay was currently so poor that you would need to make a claim to cover the 20p required to make a phone call home. All is now clear, crack on and try and get those claims in. They are obviously nothing to do with the desire to get some cash. They are vital to marital cohesion and who am I too stand in the way of that.
 
#17
old_n_fat said:
"....
Just to Clarify then, you feel claiming IE for a sleep in duty, given that IE is designed to cover the cost of a phone call etc(which you better make or your toast when you go home the next day), is comparable to having your Moat cleaned???..."
Sorry I obviously misunderstood. I didn't realise that pay was currently so poor that you would need to make a claim to cover the 20p required to make a phone call home. All is now clear, crack on and try and get those claims in. They are obviously nothing to do with the desire to get some cash. They are vital to marital cohesion and who am I too stand in the way of that.
It's no different from you claiming your dole money.
 
#18
Sangreal, sadly your comment reveals that a nerve has been touched. I am not on the dole, I joined the Army at sixteen, left at 27 joined the police support staff, left at 31 joined the civil service where I work today. Had one days unemployment in my life.
Now would you care to address the substantive point of my comment?
 
#19
old_n_fat said:
Now would you care to address the substantive point of my comment?
Being?
 
#20
jt9563
The rank hypocrisy of people on this thread and the public in general regarding politicians and their claims. The vast majority of people with access to the ability to submit claims do so to the maximum extent that the rules allow.
This thread proves that when given the opportunity to make a claim people will do so.
I don't dispute that the rule the MP's were working to are cr4p and should never have been allowed. However some of the righteous anger of people who would and in some cases do exactly the same is a little sickening.
I have made numerous claims in the past across all the jobs I have had. I never at any point said, hang on that out of pocket expense claim I am entitled to more than covered my actual expenditure I will give some back. I strongly suspect there are very few people on here who have done so either.
As for the constant reference to "duck houses etc" they never actually got paid as they fell fowl (did you see what I did there?) of the rules.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
kc1982kc Army Pay, Claims & JPA 24
polar69 Army Pay, Claims & JPA 8
Dewi_Sant Army Pay, Claims & JPA 14

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top