Email just sent to LaSER, ref the transition to doing VA and 1771 by email:
Good afternoon,
I am writhing to you all as I have processed a large number of mileage and VA claims over the past week approximately half of which have been rejected by me and returned to the originator. This not only delays your payment but it means I have to reprocess the form when resubmitted which adds to the workload and backlog. I had hoped that the user guide sent to you all by COS and the notes we put in the Newsletter last week would ensure a smooth transition. As this has not worked for everyone I have made a few notes below which I trust you will find helpful, please take time to read them as this should ensure that you only have to submit your claim once.
Very well worded, and absolutely nothing against the sender. They are being really helpful with this email and the detail.
But my god, if over half of the claims had to be rejected, I seriously think the system is not fit for purpose/too complicated. Itâs not âuser errorâ if over half are wrong. Itâs system error.
Depends on certain factors, is it all the same error or os it lots of different ones? How many claims are we talking about? Itâs end of the financial year, so if one person has got 10 claims wrong it can easily make it seem like loads.
Well, SW region have sent another weekly update and whilst good for comms, the execution of this change is now another week behind meaning weâre told not to do anything until mid June. The funny bit is the email opens with:
Work continues to understand and resolve the challenges to standing up the three functional pillars with minimum disruption to volunteers and cadets in SW Region.
I cannot see how they can claim itâs âminimumâ disruption when youâre stopping huge amounts of activity for 3 months.
The below text has started appear in the confirmation of receipt responses for FOI requests relating to RAFAC on whatdotheyknow.
âPlease be advised that, due to the
high volume of FOI requests that we are currently processing in relation
to Royal Air Force Air Cadets and reduced resources, we may not be able to
provide you with a response within the statutory timescaleâ.
While I know nearly every government body breaches the statutory timescale for a response. Itâs still a statutory requirement to respond within the timescale. How do government bodyâs get away so often with breaking the law.
Well mine was one of the ones rejected because apparently i was over my 28 days⌠ive not been able to log into my defence gateway for 2 months so i have no idea how many days i was on.
But surely the process begins with the claimant. You canât blame WHQ if the originators canât get it right. And if done via the paper route, LASER werenât part of the ePilot, then whereâs the OC Sqn check before sending to WHQ.
PS canât be blamed for everything, the CFAV are also to blame with their âfire and forgetâ mentality
Focus group and beta testing exists for this exact reason.
Does this work for the intended demographic?
At the moment it seems like itâs not working, despite beta and apparently a load of notes.
âA load of notesâ⌠I donât know what they were, but they shouldnât be necessary; a 1771 or a 80 shouldnât be complicated enough to need them - a well designed form should be intuitive.
Itâs âsimpleâ - but not so simple - as having the e-F1771 saved with the correct nomenclature to match the header in the email of submission.
Surely the F1771 should be the primary item? If it has come from CFAV Bloggsâ RAFAC email (& the name matches that on the F1771), why do things have to match? The counter/signing person is checking the identity / validity of the claim anyway.
Just cracked a tooth eating pork scratchings Looks like I need to try and register with an NHS dentist tomorrow. From a quick Google, that doesnât look simple!
