Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Original poster

Major General Fraud

51 replies

C0rdelia · 27/03/2021 21:53

Any Army (or ex) wives got any thoughts on this? I was an Army brat and wife. Can’t believe he thought he’d get away with pleading not guilty.

OP posts:
mpsw · 28/03/2021 09:47

Everyone

skeggycaggy · 28/03/2021 09:48

We live near a marine base & the kids seem to all be in the local state schools. Seems like their parents are missing a trick!

Tommika · 28/03/2021 09:54

Everybody - but it’s a portion of the costs
So a young private and a young junior officer probably wouldn’t afford their share of school fees

But the criteria is the same for everyone

mpsw · 28/03/2021 09:55

To expand on my rather terse answer, it's everyone who is on a career path which involves frequent postings. If you are going to be at one base for years, as naval families may well be, then you are not eligible (though may become eligible if nature of role changes)

Some families prefer not to have their DC boarding, irrespective of allowances which cover much of the cost.

Or use CEA to pay for guardianship of the DC to remain at a day school if the family needs to move on at a really bad time (mid-GCSE, my perpetual example!)

Arbadacarba · 28/03/2021 10:00

What you earn honestly, before your offence, isn't stripped from you - same as any other occupation.

That's not the case in financial services - I've heard of people having their whole pension taken to repay fraudulently obtained gains (and rightly so).

GreenClock · 28/03/2021 10:08

The loss of job and pension is serious, and serves as a deterrent to other potential mendacious scumbags. Maybe several hours’ community service would have been more appropriate, I’m just not sure that prison was necessary. I wonder if the socially-ambitious wife will dump him now, and trade up? That would cause him further embarrassment and financial problems...the impact on his kids too....I just think that prison is a sledgehammer and nut response to this particular case tbh.

mpsw · 28/03/2021 10:12

In financial services there's an actual pension pot, though, isn't there? (pay levels are different partly because of who is finding what pension scheme and how)

For military it's a public service defined benefit scheme (no actual 'pot' as it's paid from taxation) and each year accrued counts as earnings of that year - this has been through the courts in cases of dismissal, and its implied earnings (is that the right term?)

I should have been more specific that it's all pensions of this type (not all pensions)

He's got to repay, and has to do that from his own assets.

2021Vision · 28/03/2021 10:12

I was surprised at this, i knew a number of army families who were taking advantage and abusing the system. One of these put their children aged 7 into boarding 5 miles up the road from their army house to take advantage of it. This guy must have really done something to piss the colonel off.

Anyway I've never really understood this allowance and waste of taxpayers money. If you join the army etc you know you will almost certainly get posted. The spouse, normally a woman, should just stay in one place and the family can decide how to educate their children. It's so 'wife and family following the man around 1950s'. Do these women not have their own careers/lives? Shove your kids in boarding school so that the wife can follow the husband (and I know that it happens tbe other way around).

Anotherlovelybitofsquirrel · 28/03/2021 10:13

Ex Army here. Don't feel a bit sorry for them.

She wrote in a text message: 'Perhaps they are daunted by Nick's rank, all of their husbands are two or three ranks below

She thought people were jealous. Well nobody is jealous now. Despicable thieving pair.

mpsw · 28/03/2021 10:16

I think your tale must be quite old, 2021

The minimum age for CEA has been 8 for a considerable time.

Your 'following hubby around' analogy breaks down when you look at

a) the number who do exactly what you say, but take a considerable hit
on family life, something which also matters
b) the number who put their DC into one school after another
c) the number of female officers using the scheme
d) the admittedly small number where both parents are in fully mobile jobs.

Ahbahbahbah · 28/03/2021 10:17

Their defence seemed to be that the rules were confusing and that they thought they were claiming correctly, can anybody comment on how likely that is? I mean is there any grounds for saying it was a genuine mistake or is that just impossible?

Sprig1 · 28/03/2021 10:21

The rules are complex but there is also a team you can call for help understanding them. This was no misunderstanding. I am ex-military and the vast majority of the people I know are disgusted by what he has done.

Aroundtheworldin80moves · 28/03/2021 10:23

Every regiment, HQs etc has people whose sole job is sorting out fiance's, expenses claims, allowances, etc, not to mention welfare departments, the military support charities and others. Plenty of people to ask if you don't understand something.

I seriously doubt you can get through Sandhurst, then Defense College, and whatever training it is for Colonels and above without knowing where to go if you want to check something.

They tried to play the system. They were caught. People have been caught before. The only reason this one is high profile is the rank

2021Vision · 28/03/2021 10:32

Mpsw - actually yes you are right, it was year 3, so aged 8.

I still think this is quite outdated. Many people move for their jobs now and have to make these choices. As I said i know a few who have gotten away with abusing the system, and they know they have.

skeggycaggy · 28/03/2021 10:42

@2021Vision

Mpsw - actually yes you are right, it was year 3, so aged 8.

I still think this is quite outdated. Many people move for their jobs now and have to make these choices. As I said i know a few who have gotten away with abusing the system, and they know they have.

I’m not military (in fact I’m a pacifist Grin) but I disagree. The difference is that these families are employed in the service of the country, without the choice about when or where to move that an individual citizen job hunting has.
allmycats · 28/03/2021 10:46

I think if they dig deeper they will find they are not the only ones. A woman who was a friend of mine, her husband did the same. He moved around every few years, and they had a house locally to me where she lived all the time, apart from a few trips to 'cover them. Both her boys went to private school around 6 miles from here. She even put both boys in childminders for school holidays.

iklboo · 28/03/2021 10:49

He is not the very model of a modern major general is he?

Arbadacarba · 28/03/2021 10:50

@iklboo

He is not the very model of a modern major general is he?
Grin Grin Grin
Ahbahbahbah · 28/03/2021 10:58

Just so I’m clear in my mind - if she’d actually lived mostly in Putney with him (and spent less than 90 days a year in their Dorset house) they’d have been fine? So he’s ended up losing his job and going to prison because she chose not to go to Putney often enough? I used to live in Putney, it’s pretty nice!

dementedma · 28/03/2021 11:00

I think the sentence was wrong. A man of that ability and skill set should have been put to community use, as well as paying back the money. He's hardly a threat to society and it will cost the tax payer more to keep him in prison.

mpsw · 28/03/2021 12:27

Putney has a patch of married quarters (houses big enough for families) I assume that's what they were 'living' in.

So as well as fraud on the fees, they were also depriving another family of one of those houses (demand always outstrips supply in London). They should have surrendered the quarter, and he should have moved into a Mess (if space available) or had a separate (smaller) flat rented for him

purpledagger · 28/03/2021 12:34

I've only just found out about this and have a question.

If they chose boarding schools which weren't near the family home, would they have been within the rules? Eg Major in London home, wife in Dorset house and children boarding in 50-60 miles away.

skeggycaggy · 28/03/2021 12:36

I read they had a 4 bed house on patch in Putney. Strange they didn’t do as you say mpsw as by my understanding this would have made it all legit.

LadyWithLapdog · 28/03/2021 12:43

@purpledagger I don’t think it would have made a difference. It all hinges on how long Mrs W spent in London, rather than how far the school was. That’s just from newspapers, I have no other understanding.

mpsw · 28/03/2021 12:44

purpledagger no, that would not be eligible, because the spouse is not accompanying the serving person.

It's not a general lifestyle choice, it's to mitigate the effects of frequent moves on DC's education. There have been studies which show that DC of mobile military families perform less well than expected educationally, and that is why they qualify for Pupil Premium in the state sector, and have slightly different rules in some circumstances in the Admissions Code (eg they, and those of other qualifying Crown Service families, are the only ones who can as a right apply for a future address if they have to move at just the wrong time)

If a Forces family chooses to set up a main home where one parent resides, then the DC will be expected to live in the family home and they get continuity from being settled there, just like anyone else.