NRPS - No Home to Duty Travel Payment Under JPA

Anyone seen the recently released chapter in JSP 752 - ref the above? - NRPS will no longer be paid any form of allowance for travel between home and duty, those currently receiving RILOR will be paid HDT until 31 Dec 2010, those joining after JPA is introduced will have no entitlement. I know of people who will be losing around £200 per month. I've heard all the arguments but when you apply for a job you look at the whole package on offer not just the salary - this is something rammed home during the resettlement process - to then be told you are to have £200 docked from your take home cash is not on. Does anyone have any thoughts on this matter???
Heard the duty rumblings about this. It first reared its head about a year ago and seemed to have been shelved. Once I have seen the definitive document I will be able to comment further, however at first glance this seems to be a penny pinching exercise which will only achieve a two tier system. The regular soldier and his TA counterpart will retain their travel allowance whilst the NRPS lose theirs. Seems unfair as this was not the terms of service (inclusive of RAA entitlement) which I joined up to in good faith. This amount equates to 10% of my salaried income. In light of all the increases with fuel, energy, council tax etc, I am sure a lot of NRPS will be seriously considering alternative options. It seems to be counterproductive to what the NRPS achieve with day to day continuity within units. I`m sure there will be more threads on this topic once this information is more widely known. To those that are not au faix with NRPS terms and conditions to quote my personal example, I moved to an area and purchased my property knowing that I fell within the 50 mile radius allowing entitlement under the regulations of army allowances. This now is a case of not changing the goalposts but changing the entire game. I never realised that I was a third class citizen in the eyes of the MOD!!!!!
See below Quote from JSP 752 (version 2)


04.1308. Ineligible Service Personnel - HDT (Private). The following Service personnel who travel daily to work from private accommodation are ineligible for HDT (Private):

a. Service personnel who occupy a privately owned or rented RWA 9 miles or less from their place of work.

b. Service personnel who have the option of using transport provided under Service arrangements for travel to and from work, whether or not they actually use it. They may, however, be eligible for HDT (Private) when the scheduled journeys of such transport do not reasonably correspond with their hours of duty (eg shift workers).

c. Service personnel who travel more than 5 times per month as passengers in a motor vehicle with a claimant of HDT. In these circumstances, the driver may claim passenger allowance in accordance with paragraph 04.1318. Where however, the passenger is a Service person who claims HDT in their own right, but chooses to travel as a passenger less than 5 days per month, they retain their entitlement to HDT and passenger allowance may not be claimed.

d. University, medical or dental cadets.

e. TA NRPS who are not serving in Central London. Existing claimants will, however, continue to receive payments up to 31 Dec 2010, provided their eligibility under the previous regulations continues. For the purpose of HDT (Private), serving in Central London is as defined in paragraph 04.1306b.

f. FTRS (LC) or FTRS (HC) personnel who are not serving in Central London. For the purpose of HDT (Private), serving in Central London is as defined in paragraph 04.1306b.

g. R IRISH (HSFT) personnel (see paragraph 04.1304c).
Paywog - many thanks for clearing that up; at least I retain my entitlement for a couple of years - £200 a month would have been a lot to lose immediately and, although I like my job, would have almost certainly caused me to look hard at the job market.

Seems the dear old MoD are really serious about doing away with NRPS - lets see how the TA (and plenty of Regular units) cope with P*ssed off long Service regulars instead.
boicey said:
Seems the dear old MoD are really serious about doing away with NRPS - lets see how the TA (and plenty of Regular units) cope with P*ssed off long Service regulars instead.
What? As opposed to P*ssed off long Service NRPS?
P*ssed off? Me? Sorry to disappoint - I LIKE the TA - and my job. Fair cop though, some of the NRPS I served alongside as a regular should have been culled.
Strange, I thought this topic may have generated a bit more interest - does this mean the majority of NRPS either don't get RILOR now or are so well off they don't need it?? There is a feeling amongst a number of NRPS that this is a "toe in the water" exercise; If this "pay cut" is accepted without question who knows what they will take away next!!!
Some of the NRPS I know have been aware this was coming for some time. Many have either moved closer to their workplace or are considering it as a sensible move. :?

The thing that will also drive NRPS out is the very real potential for the closing of TA sites due to things such as FAS & dwindling numbers/changes to the TA. :(
I don`t think it is a lack of interest, maybe just a lack of information perhaps. To put this into some form of perspective this would mean that I personally will stand to lose £33,000 if I continued my full NRPS engagement. (Not on the NRPS 05 contract as I signed up before this short term sh*te contract came into effect). Maybe the timeframe of losing this allowance in Dec 2010 is still to far ahead for peaple to consider!!!!! I will certainly be extremely vocal in my disdain for this penny pinching exercise and will also be writing numerous correspondances on this article. I thought JPA was an exercise to bring in Tri Service claims to simplify the pay side to allow individuals to claim via DII ( and the gradual demise in numbers of AGC pay support staff!!!! cost cutting again????), and not to single out individuals for pay cuts. Maybe it is down to a bitter and twisted RO who has a degree of jelousy with NRPS Terms and Conditions of Service, or maybe its as simple as someone pursuing an MBE at the cost of Investers in People. I am currently looking into my original terms and conditions of service alluded to in TA Regs and I am shocked at how open to interpretation they are.

Gas and Electric 40% increase
Council Tax 4.75% increase (on top of an increase in banding due to Wales Guinea Pig - England to follow)
Petrol 10% increase
Cost of misc goods increased by 3.5% average.

Pay rise 2%

Loss of HDT Minus 10% annual wage

Something here does not add up. I think it is called sustainability!!!!!

As a post script can someone explain to me why soldiers recieve 23 pence a mile in travel claims whilst our MPs recieve 47 pence a mile. Do they use doubly refined extra eco tree hugging friendly fuel or is this another case of them and us?????


Don't forget what we are to lose is a non taxable allowance, I would have to earn a total of around £45000 (at current rates) to cover my loss between the time we lose it and my planned retirement age!


Whilst the option of moving closer is obviously there why should we have to? The majority of us settled families down in a place selected for whatever reason then applied for NRPS based on the package available at the time - to then be told we are to lose a large chunk of take home cash is unacceptable to say the least!

I know the feeling of being grossly financially disadvantaged by this unconsulted and unrepresented decision. A lot of the NRPS in my Regiment are retiring within the next 4 years, subsequently they couldn`t give a rats arrse. This has caused a lack of response within my Regt. New Personnel will be contracted in on the NRPS 05 and it is my gut feeling that this will only be a stopgap for these personnel until the decent civvy job becomes vacant. The NRPS jobs will eventually be filled with non interested transigent workers and will inevitably be gapped for longer durations. A depressing scenario but one which I believe will happen due to fiscal shortsightedness.

Pay Peanuts - Get Monkeys!!!!!!
so, not only will NRPS boards only get applicants who are not looking for a second career - or at least a long term commitment - they will now only get applications from those who live on their doorsteps. How precisely does this benefit the Army/TA?
Pay wog, I'm certainly not advocating anyone moving closer to their unit. All I'm saying is that some I know have. I personally do not benefit from the allowance, but I'm in total agreement that it should not be cut for those currently in receipt of it.
If someone was already employed as NRPS prior to 2005 and applied for another post that was advertised as being under the new CONtract would they then have to be boarded every 5 years ?
No, stay on old style contract as u have "grandfather" rights.
On a slightly different angle, here is an extract from the MATTs FAQs as found on

At what level are NRPS required complete MATTs?

NRPS are TA Group B personnel and must pass MATTs ‘commensurate with the unit that they are part of ’
TA Regs Amendment 29 dated Nov 05 states ‘NRPS personnel are required to comply with the same mandatory annual training tests laid down in Army Training Directives as all other TA personnel. They are to attend training nights, training weekends and camp (whether at home or abroad) if required to do so by the commanding officer.’

Oh how this makes me giggle - most of them don't even have uniform! The thought of them being let loose on a range or doing any exercise other than walking 18 holes. I bet that will make some of the PSAOs less obnoxious when it comes to bounty time, if they have had to complete the same tests. It will be interesting how much integrety is shown by COs when it comes to enforcing this one, or will the usual blind eye be given as happens with the essential attenders - storemen, chefs, mess staff.

It will be a great improvement now the 5 year contract is in place, as the lazy will gradually be replaced by keen individuals who will work hard to ensure their contract is renewed.

Standing by.......
Just a few sweeping generalisations then Finklestein?

I do own a uniform - several in fact although yes I do spend time in civvies; usually when i am visiting one of the far flung sub-units in my Regiment. ITD's/MATT's?
I go where I am told and do what I am told and if my CO wishes me to cover other duties whilst his deployable soldiers are training then I can see the sense in that - can't you?
I have also spent plenty of my time assisting in training because I am well qualified to do so but, if I need to stand on the firing point instead of behind it I can and will.
As for this new contract getting rid of the lazy - the mechanism for doing that has always been in place, it is a command function to apply it where necessary so how will 5 year blocks change that? I know plenty of NRPS who are committed to what they do and see it as a second career; the '5-years and you're out appoach' simply means that such people will take their talents elsewhere.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
G Army Reserve 0
banana_man Army Reserve 1
P Army Reserve 110

Similar threads

Latest Threads