Outrage? take a look at the Guardian....

#2
I know this is going to sound incredibly harsh but this isn't money to which he was entitled - the MOD makes it clear that:

"As this over-issue was made to you from public funds, and you were advised almost immediately that this was money paid in error to which you are not entitled, I am obliged to seek recovery.""

It was an error, it isn't his money, and the MOD is asking for it back. I am really sorry he is injured, and I hope that he is well looked after, but fundamentally he is trying to hold onto money which isn't his, which isn't linked to his claim and which he has no entitlement to.

I appreciate MOD screwed up, and that isn't good enough, but someone else was probably due that £48K payment and now doesnt have it thanks to this chaps actions.
 

Sixty

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#3
I'd agree with Jim, to be honest. I hope Pte Clowes has a fantastic rehabilitation but this wasn't his money to use. You don't clear your mortgage off in an afternoon so it was premeditated and he should pay it back, possibly with the sum slightly reduced due to the MoD error in the first place.
 
#4
I agree and hope he recovers soon.

If he hasn't had his compensation for his injuries then surely the easiest way, since he has already paid off his mortgage, would be for MoD to take the amount from the said sum that is due him. If he has been paid then pay up the money he wasn't supposed to have.
 
#5
I have a question. Has the fcukwit(s) who overpayed him been disciplined?
I suspect it's just 'one of those things' eh?

Strikes me that this is yet another government department cock-up but let's concentrate on the naughty man who won't give the money back.


I think he missed a trick though, he should have flipped his main residence... Oh, sorry, government ministers only, silly me.
 
#6
when crapita over paid me by several hundred quid they just cut my pay the following month, without so much as an apology, so certainly don't expect anyone to get disiciplined.

Trotsky
 
#7
Well is not as if this soldier as is not paying the money back ,He is offering to pay it back at the rate of £120 a month over 23 years.
A spokeswoman for the Mod said the payment was "an administrative error so its their fault not this soldiers fault .
For The Service Personnel and Veterans Agency to refuse his terms this week and cancel his £14,300 medical discharge award and to cut his pension from £920 to £620 a month. And also to take £10,000 of his £13,000 savings. This is totally disgraceful and the TSPAVA should be more understanding towards this injured soldier .
 

Schaden

LE
Book Reviewer
#8
I have no issue about the guy paying it back - he should - but it wasn't his error and the heavy handed confiscation and "Do not talk to the media" means somone needs to have their knuckles rapped rather harshly.
 
#9
"Well is not as if this soldier as is not paying the money back ,He is offering to pay it back at the rate of £120 a month over 23 years."

In 23 years time, the 48K will be worth a lot less than this.

The bottom line is really simple - he was given money to which he was not entitled. Rather than clarify this and make sure it was his, which is what I'd do if a random sum of £48k turned up in my bank account, he chose to spend it, despite being warned that it was not his to spend. He owes the MOD £48K that he chose to spend, rather than make one simple phone call to say "Boss, why is there £48K in my bank account and can I spend it".

He chose to spend the money, he has to accept the consequences of his actions.

Quick edit to add - I have more than a sneaking suspicion that this has been a long running affair. I've been overpaid in the past, and it doesnt go from 0-100MPH in terms of threats and "don't talk to the media" just like that. There iis usually a fairly tortuous process involved, and I would suspect it went something like

Overpayment Made - MOD asks nicely for money back
Chap refuses - believing money to be his
MOD starts to get a bit more strident saying "give money back"
Chap refuses, tries to negotiate
MOD says No - you owe us X and we're recovering it at source
Chap threatens to go to media - MOD says "not allowed under various regulations etc"
Chap ends up in Guardian paper singing story of how nasty MOD is trying to shaft him.
 

Tankie2ndrtr

Old-Salt
Kit Reviewer
#10
To Jim;

"but someone else was probably due that £48K payment and now doesnt have it thanks to this chaps actions".

Are you serious ?, you think that the army coughed up 48k to the wrong person and that its now skint and cant pay another injured soldier ???? The Army is a big company, they can afford it!

however agreed so called "Clerical errors" shouldnt happen in the first place but if some useless civvy or AGC C**T overpays a soldier by X amount in my eyes thats his now ! or as "PE4rocks" says the muppet responsible should be held accountable. I bet there would be fewer "clerical/JPA Errors".

Maybe im not as clued up about this exact case but it wasnt a "random sum of 48k" like Jim said but deposited after an application for more money as the injury worsened.

113k for his injury is a joke, I know legally the 48k wasnt his, but im with him on this.
Good Luck
 
#11
jim30 said:
Overpayment Made - MOD asks nicely for money back
Chap refuses - believing money to be his
MOD starts to get a bit more strident saying "give money back"
Chap refuses, tries to negotiate
MOD says No - you owe us X and we're recovering it at source
Chap threatens to go to media - MOD says "not allowed under various regulations etc"
Chap ends up in Guardian paper singing story of how nasty MOD is trying to shaft him.
Good for him, the money is his by right of the MoD being fcuking useless, not paying him enough in the first place (113K!?!WHF!) and yet AGAIN picking a PR battle that not only will they lose but will enable the next Govt to abolish the MoD and start over as a crowd pleaser. You will be reapplying for your job in a year Jim30 whever or not that is justified or not. I hope you get it as you seem to be a real asset to the UKAF but most of your collegues can and will be junked.

All you t*ssers who say 'but but but he should have asked if he could spend it because I do when I am overpaid' have probably not sustained life threatening injuries while shelf stacking or polishing a chair with your over weight arrse.

Getting The Guardian involved is a smart move on his part as they have their outrage bus off and away on this tied into the issue of insufficient compensation for all wounded. I have a lot of problems with the Guardian but when they focus on something like this that offends common decency they always get a result.

He will keep the money, he will get an apology from the MoD, he will also be offered some very good jobs on the back of this, I wish him well and thank him for his service to the British people.
 
#12
It was an error on the MoDs behalf, and the soldier now does indeed owe themthe money back.

He spent the money. As has been noted above, it wouldn't have been a quick thing to do, did he expect teh £50,000? Wounded or not, I have little sympathy for him. EVERY soldier should know by now, if an extra bit of cash floats in to your account that you can't recognise the reason for, don't spend it.

And £50k is a pretty big lump.

Can't help thinking he has tried to pull a fast one here.

There must be some solution to this that allows him to pay the money back AND receive a healthy pension.

Or, we could just go to the desk monkey that paid him too much, and get the £50,000 from them.
 

Mr Happy

LE
Moderator
#13
personally i think he showed great responsibility in paying off his mortgage so quickly and I might add, that he's clearly done the right thing.

Now the paper work that came with the award, depending on what it said, may, or may not, make it recoverable to the MOD. I personally hope that it isn't. Firms learn best by making expensive mistakes and in effect this is similar to American punitive damages (as in MacDonalds too hot coffee, $50 for a new blouse, $3m for not having a coffee temperature standard or something like it).

I expect that this soldier is well in his rights to go to court and insist on a court settlement taking into account his income and expenditure. The court - I believe - cannot make him take out new debt (e.g. another mortgage) and the MOD is being unreasonable in its requirement for its money back. And whilst they might not grant pnly 120 GBP a month, it probably won't be far off. It makes me smile.

UK debt info, what you can do and they can't is here: http://www.nationaldebtline.co.uk/england_wales/debt_advice.php#6

No need to run to the press though..

I'm not an expert on MOD payments and so on but the over-award should have nothing to do with the actual correct award and his monthly income. The three things are unrelated and should be treated as such.
 

Mr Happy

LE
Moderator
#14
chocolate_frog said:
It was an error on the MoDs behalf, and the soldier now does indeed owe themthe money back.

He spent the money. As has been noted above, it wouldn't have been a quick thing to do, did he expect teh £50,000? Wounded or not, I have little sympathy for him. EVERY soldier should know by now, if an extra bit of cash floats in to your account that you can't recognise the reason for, don't spend it.

And £50k is a pretty big lump.

Can't help thinking he has tried to pull a fast one here.

There must be some solution to this that allows him to pay the money back AND receive a healthy pension.

Or, we could just go to the desk monkey that paid him too much, and get the £50,000 from them.
I would love to see, how, if, payments into your account made legally are dealt with differently for Soldiers, than, say, the rest of the world. The legal world of gifts, tax ability, is quite interesting.

I know there is a right to ask for repayment and a case of reasonability. But if ever anyone here gets a 50K lump. Pay off any debt you have immediately but expect some conseuquences like this.
 
#15
He's offered to pay the money back in installments,what's the problem?
There are plenty of slum dwelling scum in the country who are allowed to pay their fines at the minimum weekly rate,so why not this lad?
Good on him.
 
#17
Rudie said:
He's offered to pay the money back in installments,what's the problem?
There are plenty of slum dwelling scum in the country who are allowed to pay their fines at the minimum weekly rate,so why not this lad?
Good on him.
Because he is a hard working UK tax paying type and not a lazy bone idle cnut who has pulled the wool over the eyes of some magistrates. :roll:

This is an absolute sham and a complete non issue. The fact that they're chasing after this fella like he's a criminal yet actual criminal repay some of their fines at a rate of £3.50 a month is worthy of the outrage bus exploding. Some don't bother paying their fines at all for several years as they're deemed unable to due to not being in suitable employment.

He summed it up though. Some more than likely fat gipper who drives a desk and has never been anywhere more dangerous than the office paintballing trip will just treat him like another number.

Nobody is asking for the debt to be written off. ONly that it can be repayed in a reasonable manner. What a nice touch it would be for this bloke to get his wish and be treated with some respect. I'm sure that £120 a month payments on his loan would be alot more affordable than any mortgage he could get and would make the rest of his life that little bit easier to live.
 
#18
"an administrative error and not related to his armed forces compensation scheme claim". says it all.

Jobsworth A in Silo X has fcuked up bigtime and is trying to reverse out by the book with no regard to bigger picture.

Jobsworth B in Silo Y dealing with Compensation claim has no concern with bigger picture: not his/her problem.

Sad it but true that in too many areas of Government activity it takes a press splash like this to arrive at any hope of an intelligent solution with regard to bigger picture and human impact.

There is no reason why this could not be sorted out in 10 minutes if the right people are on the case.
 
#20
Tankie2ndrtr said:
but if some useless civvy or AGC C**T overpays a soldier by X amount in my eyes thats his now
Yeah, but not legally. Don't think I don't emphasise with the guy - if the MOD said they were gonna give £1 Mil to every soldier sustaining life changing injuries, then I'd probably still think it wasn't enough.

BUT, this is a completely seperate argument and a completely seperate lump of cash. Take the cashpoint example - if you try and take £10 from a cash point but it gives you £100 instead, you don't get to keep it. It's theft. Just like picking up cash in the street - that, too, is theft.

As I say, I can completely understand his woe, and I'd love him to get to keep the money. But if this goes to court, he's probably****ed.

And no, offering to pay it back at a few quid a month doesn't count as giving it back. If someone stole your car, you wouldn't accept getting it back bit by bit, would you?

(Don't kid yourself into thinking it's any different)
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads