Mileage allowance is up to 10,000 miles pa at 45p a mile then IIRC down to 25p a mile thereafter. If you claim about that then you really are well stupid. Why bring HMRC down on you.
1 Like
Iām afraid I have to disagree here. Itās not fair at all, and should be 45p/mile, for us volunteers at least. The wording used around the 25p/mile says something to the effect of āthis isnāt meant to fully cover SP expenses, but to help towards the costsā. Thatās obviously as this is aimed at SP. Weāre not SP, so there no reason why they couldnāt introduce a separate rate for us.
1 Like
Weāre not employees and theyāre not employers. There should be no expectation on RAFAC to reimburse us for something weāre volunteering to do over and above what weāre already entitled to.
2 Likes
Currently if I claim the mileage for a full tank of fuel I get more from the MoD than I actually paid - I think that reasonably fair particularly as my car is not used primarily for MoD purposes.
Out of curiosity how large is your fuel tank & how many miles do you get out of a full tank?
There absolutely should be that expectation. Itās an entirely common and reasonable expectation for a volunteer to be able to claim reasonable expenses for their volunteering. Unless you mean VAā¦
2 Likes
Quite right, missed a bit. No expectationā¦over and above what weāre already entitled to.
1 Like
That has serious variables such as distance against urban, fuel type driving style, weather etc.
1 Like
Iām one of the lucky ones with a reasonably economical car. About 20p/mile actual cost.
As an example for me though. Work is 5 miles away, cadets is 17. So on an average week, I do 50 miles to work and back, and 68 miles to cadets and back. Work 5 times a week and cadets twice. Lets also remember I canāt claim those full 68 miles, only 56 dues to the 3 mile each way āvoluntary contributionā. This also doesnāt include any/all off squadron activities.
Although I am lucky and my fuel costs are covered, the actual driving costs are far and above that of just fuel. I just paid about Ā£3000 to have my suspension replaced front and back. I get a service annually. Tyres need replacing every 3 years, as do brakes. Plus insurance, the extra cost of the extra miles I do with cadets. And there is plenty more. Driving is not cheap, and I do about 50% cadet mileage, 50% personal. That used to be more like 70% cadet 30% personal, but I do a lot less cadet stuff than I used to do.
This website seems to suggest the actual cost per mile is approx 47p. (on average) Thatās the first one that comes up on Goggle so who knows. But from my experience, that seems about right once you take in to account all actual costs.
When Iāve volunteered elsewhere, Iāve been given 45p/mile reimbursement.
3 Likes
At the risk of pulling the topic back to my main point. The change in economic circumstances may mean that many valuable volunteers no longer have the capacity to carry the costs of volunteering, which in other easier times they were happy to do until claims were paid and will be happy to do so again in the future.
Make the payment of whatever thay would historically have expected in advance rather than in arrears.
Who gets what, why and for what are debates that are valuable but this was not my intention to debate them again.
4 Likes
No, itās questioning the economic impact on the volunteer of volunteering in the current climate. Many, even those eligible for VA, are reducing what they do as money has to prioritised to their personal needs.
It is unavoidable CIs come up in any discussion on this matter as they are the most impacted group, as they get sod all for their efforts except, in the main, receipted expenses, but due to staffing requirements, without CIs how many activities would happen.
The impact of prevailing economic circumstance is not peculiar to us in the volunteer world.
Itās a shame some in the Air Cadets some get too caught up with the monetary side of our world putting an overly simplistic viewpoint, overlooking that it aināt that simple, is flawed, limited and comes with too many conditions and expectations.
3 Likes
Are you talking H2D or 1771/Accts4?
Thereās no reason a Sqn CWC canāt either front the cost or at least immediately reimburse the expense and then carry the wait for the HQAC payment.
Itās not the same as a committee taking the expense on completely as they will get it back and are probably less disadvantaged by the initial expenditure.
Right. Controversial opinion follows:
Weāre too cheap.
Put subs up, at all levels. By a significant amount, as well - say 50%. Weād still be cheaper than most youth clubs. Remember that if we donāt put subs up by 10% this year, weāre cheaper than we were last year.
Use the additional revenue to allow expenses to be fully paid, including increased mileage allowance.
Invest in IT so we can reduce admin staffing at region/corps, and then have more even money available for the above.
Make financial support from civ coms at Sqn and Wing level normal - destigmatize it - for both cadets and staff.
Use whatās left to keep our buildings in better condition and fund nicer equipment.
6 Likes
The assumption being the CWC have the money in the bank and following 2 years of the lack of fundraising opportunities maybe the case.
2 Likes
If I have understood the line of arguement the suggestion is that non-public money ( charity money) should be utilised to directly compensate for delays in the public funded provision.
I know that charity money is used to fill in gaps but the issue of delay is different.
In the wider RAFAC context would you ask non- public funds to advance a loan for glider repairs as the accounting system canāt pay in time?
The retention and support of volunteers of all hues is at least as important as the provision of kit but I would guess we would never expect non-public funds to compensate for delays there.
Careful what you wish for.
If HQAC look at this idea and itās feasible, bet they will look at options for all expenses to come from CWC.
If that would happen, how long before squadrons go under for lack of cash 
2 Likes
Except this isnāt the committee bearing the burden of the expense - except in a temporary fashion - and is the committee fulfilling its duty of supporting members of the unit to ensure opportunities are available. The implication of what you say is that a volunteer should personally bear business costs instead of the organisation - the committee is part of the organisation and specifically designed to prevent individuals directly funding equipment and activities.
Your slippery slope suggests that because committees will fund (without reimbursement) part or all of camp fees or qualifications that HQAC would stop subsidies or increase costs.
2 years that also included reduced costs and followed by at least 12 months of opportunities and subs. I would be questioning a committee that has done nothing in that time and doesnāt have any kind of contingency fund available - it would also suggest going into lockdown with minimum available funds or a committee that has subsequently spent big without a plan to replace.
It should be seen as an operational expense and not a personal expense - the committee is responsible for operational expenses, not individuals. If we didnāt have Clarity, would the volunteer be expected to spend out of pocket?
And CWC members or would that be a long term aim of HQAC.
If this works, fantastic.
Public funding is great, but maybe we rely on it too much?
Unfortunately we wouldnāt be financially viable if you removed the public funding. Very few Sqns would be able to self finance
Majority of subs that cadets pay on our Sqn goes straight into Wing & HQ payments with the remainder paying standard charge such as internet etc.
Unfortunately it is the case that in times of economic hardship volunteers focus on day job & not doing things for free. There is no obligation for people to volunteer nor on HQ to provide volunteers. If people arenāt able or wanting to do something in a volunteer organisation then it doesnt happen.
You could look at returning the air cadets to the air league so it runs similar to the SCC but that also may reduce the Sqns as I imagine there would be quite a brutal rationalisation of resources.
1 Like