Abuse of CEA-Forces families

[AJSH]

Am I the only person relieved that the MOD is tightening up on CEA entitlement? For those that don't know, Continuity of Education Allowance is paid to service personnel to enable, as the allowance suggests, continuity of education (boarding school) for their children who may otherwise have to move schools frequently due to postings.

Well I must repeat that - as someone who has worked abroad for long periods and in both the public and private sector - I do entirely agree that some form of allowance is necessary. (And also add that I think its a bummer that school fees have risen so much and so rapidly as to make this whole issue so difficult and controversial for everyone.)

Anyway - off to my half term duties.

Actually if a Lt Col had 3 children at Eton his take home pay would be wiped out what with the SFA charges as well!

Thank goodness for schools with decent service reductions/packages

We're just beginning to look at Senior schools for our eldest and tbh there is a very limited choice of what we can afford even with the CEA. The senior rate does not come anywhere close to the 90% limit - sometimes not even 50%.

We're on a Sgts salary and have 2 children to consider. I dont work atm. Its the age old Forces wife story of not being able to find a job atm. We are moving again in a matter of weeks so am hoping the next posting will be better for job hunting than the 18 months we have spent here (me out of work the whole time .

Dont get me wrong - I am not moaning at all. I too am grateful that the CEA means that my girls can be settled atm and with the next move immimnent and still no new actual address I am so relieved I dont have the worry of which catchment/estate will we be on and will there be any places - we have had all that in the past.

We have made a shortlist of BS we like the look of on paper and 3 of them are state schools which to be honest the lower fees will be a relief and put us back on track adding to our house fund for when DH comes out.

OH looked for the paperwork on the new rules today and could find nothing. Am not too worried for us as we have never been more than 26 months anywhere since 2001.

Had a chat with DH when he got home tonight and he's very against CEA payments at all and seems to think that the RAF and Navy have different rules and get CEA even if they live in their own home. And actually, he said why should 'Mr Smith' get say 13 grand a year per child when we, because we send our kids to a state school, don't get a penny. He thinks CEA should be scrapped completely other than for foreign postings and the extra money put into all service personnel wages to spread the wealth.

RN and RAF do not have different rules, some have just slipped through the net due to the nature of their postings, however rules are being tightened up, it could take a while though.

What job do you do AJSH?

Luciemule- civil servant, so I do like to follow rules and regs . Not fully conversant on all CEA rules though, spoke to CEAS Upavon about a query I had over entitlement and living in your own property and they explained that they are trying to tighten up rules. Interesting to hear others views. I have only just joined MN...fun!

CEA Eligibility
As CEA is currently under the spotlight, and is being reviewed as an allowance, there have been some enquiries, and comments, with regard to the definition of ?serving accompanied? and any circumstances that would be deemed acceptable if a spouse was not living in the family home full-time. To clarify this CEA is for accompanied service only, the definition of this can be found in JSP 752 chapter one section 2 paragraph 01.0202, with additional guidance in Annex a. However if a partner works a small percentage of time away from home, then families can make a case to SPVA PACCC. Their case is considered on the evidence provided, and each case is different, therefore there is no hard and fast rule as to whether or not this will be accepted. The only other potential exception to this is if there are contractual obligations that a spouse is legally bound to fulfil made prior to posting, in this case they need to make a case to SPVA PACCC for INVOLSEP Authority - see JSP 752 chapter one section 2 annex b para 3d.

As previously stated CEA is for accompanied service only unless an exception has been granted. If families do not inform SPVA PACCC and are intentionally, regularly spending significant amounts of time away from the family home, e.g. 4days a week or more, then they are ineligible for CEA and this is regarded as fraud. The penalties for this include repaying all of the allowance that had previously been paid and the potential for prosecution.

There is an anonymous fraud helpline, 0800 161 3665, for those who feel that they are aware of incidents of inappropriate claiming of CEA, however it is recommended that any concerns are first reported to a line manager or CO, they can then be put up the chain of command, investigated and referred to the service police if required.

I'm not relieved about this measure as I work in an independent schoolw hich relies on full boarders and we have a fair number from service families.

However, I don't think it is necessary for most of the forces families we get - the majority of the mothers are static and could easily have the children at home.

I do have one little girl in my class whose father AND mother are in the forces and divorced. She is a kid who really needs stability and has been boarding since she was 7. That's the kind of situation where I really think the entitlement is needed.

My aunt and uncle on the other hand - uncle massively high up in the forces, aunt a barrister, beautiful 6 bedroom house near the top public school their two boys board full time at with forces reduction (I think). That situation is not necessary.

If one parent is static, then the families don't qualify for CEA. You have to be living in Service-provided accommodation and moving with your spouse's every accompanied posting to qualify.

A "Forces reduction" is something offered by the school.

"CEA" is a payment for continuity of education paid by the Government.

Our CO has been claiming CEA for his DD. His wife has just been offered a fantastic job, which would mean the DD can now live at home and be a day pupil, this obviously means they are now no longer a mobile family so he did the right thing and straight away informed CEAS of their decision and asking to be removed from the CEA scheme. He got the response that he could remove himself but would need to repay the fees he had claimed so far as he is now no longer eligible for CEA (as he isn't mobile). He felt like they had accused him of fraud because his circumstances had changed!! Then people wonder why there is fraud within the system as the benefits of being honest are not rewarded.

Luciemule have just told my DH not to bring the subject up with your DH when they next see each other as their views are totally opposite. We think CEA is a life saver after our experience at the start of this academic year, stability is needed here !! :)

Mum of 2G 2Bs that is awful. It shows now that even if you try to be truthful, they can twist it round..... It is mad as if she is going to be a day girl at the same school they are following the continuity of education principle but not asking the military to pay for it. I hope the CO appeals and hopefully wins. Good luck to him!

Comments:

You don't know you'll be in one place for 4 years, so how can you plan your child's education? Naval appointing has never worked like that.

The cost of an international school can be far more than the CEA cost if overseas. I know, believe me.

'As previously stated CEA is for accompanied service only unless an exception has been granted. If families do not inform SPVA PACCC and are intentionally, regularly spending significant amounts of time away from the family home, e.g. 4days a week or more, then they are ineligible for CEA and this is regarded as fraud. The penalties for this include repaying all of the allowance that had previously been paid and the potential for prosecution.' I don't understand this - so x could be posted to Fas Lane, let the family home out and everything moves to Scotland. CEA claimed. However, only available job for spouse is in Inverness - spouse dosses on friends floors 3 nights a week, coming home on night 4. This makes them ineligible when the MQ is the only family home they have? Why? It is still accompanied.

Luciemule - the rules and regs for CEA are the same whichever Service you are in. I don't know any RN personnel who live in their own home and claim CEA - it doesn't happen. They, like us, paid the fees for private day themselves. Not worth losing the pension over.

Its a shame that Navy personnel have been rather naughty with regard to fees at Bolitho gems,Culdrose is not a happy place...

goinggetstough he has said he wants to appeal and his DD will still be at the same school, he could have not told them now (they still have 18 months) left in this posting and the commute for his wife and DD would not have been too bad but he thought he was doing the right thing in being honest and trying to save the MOD money. Shows how tight they must be if they are going after people who are saving them in the long run. Think it may be the last straw for him, the redundancy package is looking very good in their house at the moment.

I'd like to see the actuality of what's happening at the Bolitho and what the RN personnel are really supposed to have done wrong. As I said above, it is not worth losing your pension and lump sum over it.

It also seems to be who is interpreting the rules as well. We will be applying for CEA for sixth form, as we are due back in UK at the end of Year 12, so are planning on boarding for sixth form. We have been abroad in one place, but with three consecutive appointments round the bazaars since 2006 for ds and I and longer for dh. Regardless of the fact that moving ds to state boarding will save MoD in excess of 16,000 euros pa, they say we may not qualify. Go figure!

scaryteacher it may be as many children change schools for 6th form anyhow they consider it to not be a continuity of education issue, or could just be that you haven't been mobile enough the new rules say you can't have more than 2 consecutive postings in the same place and claim CEA. Do wonder if they have thought this through how many people will end up going to their manning personnel and saying no you can't post me there as I will loose my CEA.

Scary-claims for children as boarders when they arent, is my understanding..

Scary, I know a family who were refused CEA for sixth form as they were moving their DC to a new school, when DC could have stayed at the old one. MOD said you will be static for 2 years, the same as a sixth form education so no requirement for CEA and the continuity principle was broken. Then they banged on about CEA being for continuity not quality of education. Good luck.

Mumof2g2b I agree people will refuse a posting if it affects the CEA. Plus the changes in no annual flight for uni children makes a difference too. MOD say that after 18 they are independent but the government says they dependent as loans/grants depend on parents' income!! Just wish they'd agree, rather than pick and choose depending on the government department.

We had an argument over continuity of education when we were posted to the states. Our DS was about to go into reception so the MOD said they would pay for him to go to a private school in the states as he wouldn't be eligible for education there (the state we were in didn't start formal education until the year they turned 6 in) they then said that the next year we would have to pay 1/3 of his fees if we wanted him to stay at the private school as he could then goto the state school (to repeat what he had done in the private school). They argued that there was no need for continuity of education at his age, moving would not affect him and repeating the year would be ok. However they also said that any child over 5 could go to a private school and they would pay 2/3 of the fees as the standard of education was worse than that in the UK. So basically they were saying that it was ok for a child to have a substandard education but not ok for them to be out of school when our system says they should be in school. We were lucky that there was a good private school near to our house, which took all 4 of our children and moved them up year groups so that they were where they needed to be academically rather than age wise. This was a classic "we aren't really interested in the logic behind our policy just making sure we are ticking the boxes covering the fact that your child should be in full time education". They said that we needed to prove that the education received in the state school was significantly worse than in the UK, we told them how in Oklahoma by the time you are 7 you need to be able to print your name, count to 20 and know the alphabet. The woman in the embassy (who was American) said that that was not significantly different to the UK as by the time they are 18 they have caught up, great we were only there for 2 years slowly falling way behind!!

'scaryteacher it may be as many children change schools for 6th form anyhow they consider it to not be a continuity of education issue, or could just be that you haven't been mobile enough the new rules say you can't have more than 2 consecutive postings in the same place and claim CEA.'

It's different here as we are abroad and have the fees paid for day school, but it is not CEA. It will be our first CEA claim when ds goes to sixth form.

They also can't use the 'you've been posted in one place for too long' argument as we are abroad, and won't be here for the two years of his sixth form, so we do need it for continuity as you can't move a student mid sixth form.

Scary; I understand that you are in BE (been there too), but its not the actual changing of schools or countries but the fact that when you are in your new location if your DH job is for 2 years+ in the same location when you get back to UK as most jobs are, they ' the MOD' say that you don't need CEA or a boarding education as your DS can go to the local sixth form college or similiar at no cost to the MOD.
I am not saying I agree with it either, but that is the argument that the have used before and sadly won unless a DH can show that he might be moved during that two years and even then the DW has been allowed to stay in their quarter until the DC has completed their exams.
Basically they are currently only concerned about saving money and not about the DC!

Following this with interest (DH bean stealing, DCs currently getting continuity by my staying put) and wondering what on earth it'll be like if we want them to board later.

Surely they wouldn't expect a trailing spouse to stay for a year overseas, taking up accommodation and allowances there so the DC can complete 6th form when there is a known move coming up at end of lower 6th (Y12)? It seems completely insane to me! I can't see it saves the public purse (just shifts money between subheads), and is an administrative nightmare, both personally and for housing/welfare.

As someone whom works with forces wives there are some blatant abuses of this.

One colleague lives in a private owned house very close to big base. She has owned it for at least 10 years and lived in it full time least 6. They were posted within the uk before that. The bought it when last posted to this area- it is where she is from originally- don't know about him.

Quite by chance we were passing a local public school about 20 miles away. She said both her children boarded. She was not allowed to see that at weekends as it would affect this. Her husband lived with her in the house until about 2 years ago- he is now in another uk posting. She made him move so they didn't lose the school.!

It is an area with outstanding state schools. It just seems wrong to me that the tax payer is privately educating her children when she has always been in the uk, owns a house, and doesn't move with her husband. It is a very expensive school.