Armed Forces Compensation Scheme simply not fit for purpose and needs overhauling

Hilary Meredith-Beckham is founder and chair of Hilary Meredith Solicitors, and is a visiting professor of Law and Veterans’ Affairs at the University of Chester.

She wants the Government to see through its promise of improving the lives of veterans and service personnel, in particular those who have been injured or made ill through their service.

Veterans who have made huge sacrifices for their country are being consistently failed by the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS).

The AFCS provides compensation for injury or illness caused or made worse by service, or where death is caused by service in the UK Armed Forces on or after 6 April 2005.

Scrutiny of the scheme is provided through the Quinquennial Review (QQR) process, under which arrangements are independently reviewed every five years to ensure they remain fit for purpose.

In the latest QQR of the AFCS, published last year, the Government accepted some of the changes proposed to the presentation of information about the AFCS and the claims process, as well as the need for improving communication with claimants throughout their claim journey.

It also said steps would be taken to empower caseworkers so they were better equipped to successfully fulfil their role.

To date, I have seen absolutely no progress whatsoever. The AFCS remains understaffed, under-resourced and in desperate need of wholesale reform.

The most fundamental issue is that the scheme is managed by Veterans UK, which is run by the Ministry of Defence.

The conflict of interest and lack of transparency is clear for all to see.

Veterans UK has been described in Parliament as putting “cost-cutting above its duty to protect veterans’ lives and livelihoods”.

“It perpetuates a culture of distrust towards veterans and sees many as dishonest and unworthy of compensation.

“It operates under an assumption that veterans will not get their compensation – a case of ‘guilty until proven innocent’.

“It overrides medical and professional opinion to claim that injuries were not caused by time in service.

“And it hides behind a lack of transparency around its medical advisers.

“Most of all, however, it completely disregards the debt that society owes to our veterans.”

A survey by the All-Party Parliamentary Group of Veterans exposed the miserable experiences of veterans trying to make a claim under the AFCS.

The survey found some veterans were made to feel like criminals and had even contemplated suicide.

The All-Party Parliamentary Group survey found 75% of veterans rated their experience of the AFCS as poor, while 84% said not enough consideration had been given to their mental or physical health.

The research follows on from a survey by our firm, Hilary Meredith Solicitors, which suggests thousands of valid claims to the AFCS are being rejected in the first instance, with veterans forced into a lengthy, unnecessary and protracted appeals process.

In Veterans UK’s recent customer satisfaction survey regarding the AFCS, only 13% gave any sort of positive rating above five.

Meanwhile, half of veterans rated their satisfaction at one, which was the lowest possible option.

More generally, the dissatisfaction rate with the Veterans UK claims process was a shocking 80%.

Veterans in dispute with the MOD should be able to turn to an agency in a different Government department for support, to avoid the current conflict of interest.

I believe a commission should now be formed to overhaul the whole process in line with the Government’s commitment to the Armed Forces Covenant to take proactive steps to improve the lives of veterans and service personnel by liaising and collaborating across Government and sectors to safeguard their interests.