A review of the Quinquennial AFCS review

Given its importance to the serving and veterans community, the much-heralded Quinquennial AFCS review was published by the MOD last week to little fanfare. It wasn’t picked up by mainstream media and the service charities appear tight lipped too.

The scheme – A Reminder

The Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS) is not ‘compensation’ rather it is a no-fault industrial injury disablement benefit. The scheme is administered by Veterans UK, a government department within the MOD. 

The scheme covers all service-related injuries with effect from 6^th April 2005.  The injury or illness must have been caused by service or service is the predominant cause.  You do not need to have left the military before making a claim and you do not need to prove fault (negligence). 

You normally have 7 years from the date of the injury to claim. In the case of a late onset illness, which includes mental disorders, such as PTSD, you can usually claim outside this strict time limit. 

Most awards are lump sums.  If the lump sum reaches a high enough tariff, then you may also qualify for an award called a Guaranteed Income Payment (GIP). This is a monthly sum broadly based upon a % of your annual salary at the time of discharge. We are then talking about large, life improving sums of money. 

How to Claim an AFCS award

You should apply as soon as possible after the injury.  Money is set aside each year by the Government to compensate our injured troops and it is your right to claim (the reviewer agrees - see below).  You can prepare and lodge the application online yourself (good luck with that) or seek the assistance of Veterans UK, who cannot independently advise you upon the merits or otherwise of their decisions because it is they who are making the award.  They won’t tell you this though. You could also ask a reputable service charity to support you, for free, and hope they have someone available with the necessary depth of knowledge of the scheme. 

 If you are unhappy with the decision on your claim, then within 12 months, you can apply to Veterans UK for what is called a Reconsideration.  If that goes against you, then your only real hope of redressing the balance is to appeal to the First Tier (War Pension and Armed Forces) Chamber.

We have been instructed in several appeals this year.  In those which have been successful, we have been able to prove that Veterans UK and their (anonymous) medical advisors wrongly applied the law. However, of those which have been unsuccessful, and sadly there has been a handful, they each failed because the veteran wanted to ‘give it a go’, even though they had no actual grounds to appeal the decision in the first place. 

For the official line about the scheme, the link is here.

The Review

Back to the quinquennial AFCS review, which was carried out by an unnamed civil servant, presumably at the MOD.  The purpose of the review is stated to be as follows:

The purpose of the Quinquennial Review (QQR) is to ensure the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS) remains fit for purpose providing appropriate recognition and financial support to those members of the Armed Forces who are injured, become ill or die as a result of service, providing an opportunity for policy improvements’

The reviewer agreed with me that the scheme ‘should be renamed to exclude the word ‘compensation’, for example, the Armed Forces Injury Scheme (AFIS). This ensures a distinction between claims made against the MoD through the civil courts and entitlement to an award for injury based on the terms of service.’

Furthermore ‘all communications, such as guidance to claimants, and training guides should make clear that awards under this Scheme are to be understood as an entitlement by virtue of the recipient’s terms of service.’  

The report itself is some 155 pages in length and contains a whopping 67 recommendations for change, which is far too much for me to cover in this short blog rather, I have provided a link here to the joint statement of Dr Andrew Morrison MP, Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families and Johnny Mercer MP, Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, and which contains a PDF of the review. They have undertaken to provide the governments response to the review at the end of this year. 

The reviewer concluded that 'the objectives of the Scheme were not being met because there is: 

• A perceived lack of empathy on the part of the MoD in making decisions
• Inefficiency with regard to the effective but fair use of resources
• Inconsistency (therefore, unfairness) within the Scheme
• A lack of effort to ensure and safeguard transparency and independence in both the policy and decision-making processes
• A lack of resilience as the Scheme is insufficiently flexible in its ability to incorporate developments

Is AFCS fit for purpose? At the risk of repeating myself (see my blog here) the answer is no, far from it.  The scheme is weighted in favour of the MOD, not the injured veteran. It is clunky, ineffective, inefficient and near on impossible to navigate without legal representation and yet, Veterans UK openly discourages an applicant from seeking legal advice.  

To put it bluntly, military claims lawyers like me, working round for the clock for our sick and injured troops and veterans in the War Pension and AFCS tribunal are the gatekeepers and yet, of the 27 organisational respondents listed at the back of the review, not a single lawyer or law firm was asked to contribute. Neither can we expect to be invited to join the Operational Working Group (Recommendation 30), who, if the government accepts any of these recommendations, will be tasked to play a significant role in implementing change to this legislation. Why, you might ask. I can’t quite put my finger on it…  

Grant Evatt

24^th July 2023