BBC Radio 4’s File on 4 recently aired "The Final Battle: Veterans Fighting for Compensation”. The programme gave a striking insight into the hurdles faced by British military veterans and service personnel seeking compensation for injuries and mental health issues arising from their service. If you haven’t listened, please do so here.
The programme transcript (available here) was typed from a recording and not produced from an original script. The time in brackets is the quote’s location in the programme. This post focuses on the first statement made by the Ministry of Defence.
MOD statement 1
“The Ministry of Defence has told us that those who have an illness or injury as a result of service receive the compensation they are entitled to...” (10 min, 55 sec)
This is perhaps the most potent MOD claim. It sets the scene, guiding us to believe those injured on duty get what they’re entitled to.
Whilst it doesn’t use the word “all”, it can be assumed. Does the MOD seriously believe it can prove that ALL those harmed by service received the compensation they’re entitled to? Using the MOD's data, we can easily prove that to be false. Why would they make such a blatant misrepresentation?
The MOD’s response demonstrates that it has yet to show a genuine willingness to recognise its failings.
We call on the Ministry of Defence to adopt and implement a policy of candour, "the quality of being honest and telling the truth, especially about a difficult or embarrassing subject”.
How can we say the above with such certainty?
Since 2005, 8685 out of 117,145 AFCS claims have been reconsidered or appealed, and the award has increased.
Those cases demonstrate that the MOD’s original or earlier decision was not at the level to which the claimant was entitled.
At least 8685 cases prove that the MOD claim above is false.
Some may say the figures above show that ‘only’ 7% of claim decisions were erroneous.
But ‘only’ 5% of sub-postmasters were convicted of theft, fraud and false accounting because of the Post Office’s actions… and their plight shone a spotlight on one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in British history, one that extended far beyond ‘just’ those 900 or so cases.
That 7% is what we can prove. The reality is much higher. Thousands of additional increased awards lie within:
- 100,000 who never challenged their initial AFCS offer
- 12,000 reconsideration decisions that weren’t appealed
- Tens of thousands who never put in a claim in the first place (be it due to ignorance, capacity or poor advice)
Tens of thousands of service personnel and veterans have received lower AFCS awards than they are entitled to if anything at all.
Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS) Statistics
The MOD publishes annual statistics for the Armed Forces Compensation and War Pension schemes.
- AFCS annual statistics: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/armed-forces-compensation-scheme-statistics-index
- War Pension Scheme annual statistics: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/war-pension-recipients-index
- The latest statistics are due to be published on 18 July 2024 (twice delayed)
In 2023/23
- 8,306 new AFCS claims
- 1,908 new War Pension claims
- AFCS paid out: £116 million
- War Pension Scheme paid out: £600 million
AFCS (2005-2023)
- Total paid out: £1.2661 billion
- Total claims: 117,145
- Total claims receiving an award: 61,740
- 22,843 AFCS reconsiderations
- 10,215 AFCS appeals
- c.50% of claims get an award,50% get paid nothing
- Average payout: £20,000. However, the most significant AFCS awards are substantial sums and pull the average much higher than many claimants receive. If anyone on the MOD statistics team is reading this, please publish the median AFCS award. That will tell us the figure above which 50% of claimants receive more and below which 50% of claimants receive less; i.e. the actual “middle”. Knowing this figure would better enable claimants to manage expectations. Some non-MOD articles claim it is nearer to £6000.
We will soon return to the annual statistics. For now, we'll end this discussion with:
The Ministry of Defence's annual AFCS statistics show that more than 8000 AFCS awards were not at the correct level and needed to be corrected. This demonstrates that at least one MOD statement to File on 4 was fundamentally incorrect.
The Veteran Law Project asserts that tens of thousands of AFCS awards are likely lower than they should be. We call on the MOD to acknowledge its flawed decision-making and explain in detail how it plans to fix its systems.
