Veterans UK

4. Mr A complains that VUK did not clearly inform him about the time limit for applying for the Armed Forces Independence Payment (AFIP). He also says it did not provide any support or adjustments to help him with his application.

5. VUK, a division of the Ministry of Defence (MOD), oversees and assesses applications and claims by determining a link between service personnel’s conditions and their military service.

6. Mr A says as a result, he missed the deadline to apply for the backdating of his AFIP. He says this caused him to experience financial hardship, a worsening of his mental health, and a loss of trust in the system.

7. In bringing the complaint, Mr A is seeking a review and reversal of the decision not to backdate the AFIP, and compensation for the lack of support and impact on his health.

8. AFIP is an additional allowance which provides financial support for service personnel and veterans seriously injured through their service. To qualify, individuals must have been seriously injured on or after 6 April 2005 and have received a Guaranteed Income Payment (GIP) under Bands A – C of the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS).

9. GIP is a monthly payment designed to replace lost income for veterans affected by injury or disability, with payments based on the severity of their condition.

10. Mr A explained that he was medically retired from the Armed Forces following a serious service-related injury and that he suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). He told us his PTSD causes severe episodes during which he does not answer phone calls or open post.

11. PTSD is a mental health condition that can develop after experiencing or witnessing a scary, shocking, or life-threatening event.

12. In September 2023, Mr A became entitled to apply for AFIP following an award of GIP of over 50%, back dated to 2016. VUK sent him a letter including an application form, advising him to apply.

13. Mr A says he did not open or read the letter until early February 2024 because of a period of poor mental health caused by his PTSD. Upon opening the letter, which included a reference to the need for a "prompt" response, he contacted VUK. It advised him to submit the application form and explain the reason for his late submission, which it would consider.

14. Mr A returned the completed form within a few days of his February phone call. VUK reviewed his application and approved his AFIP. It explained it could only award payments from the date it received the application (February 2024), as this exceeded the three-month legislative time limit for backdating by 50 days.

15. Mr A complained to VUK in December 2024, stating that the letter had not mentioned the three-month deadline and it had not considered the impact of his PTSD or ability to engage with the process. He asked this to be reconsidered.

16. VUK responded to Mr A in February 2025, in a second-stage complaint response. It explained the AFCS legislation requires the form to be returned within three months for it to back date payments. It acknowledged Mr A’s concerns about the wording of the letter regarding “prompt” submission. It explained there are no legislative provisions for an appeal solely against the AFIP start date, even in consideration of Mr A’s PTSD and his circumstances.

17. It said ideally, it would have requested the VWS contact Mr A regarding the return of his AFIP form. It said it investigated this as part of his complaint with the Head of Armed Forces and Veterans Services, who apologised for this and authorised a consolatory payment of £600.

18. As Mr A remained unhappy with the outcome, he escalated his complaint through his MP, who wrote to VUK in April. VUK responded in June, having further reviewed the case. It concluded that it had taken the correct action regarding Mr A’s AFIP, and that it had acknowledged the oversight of VWS support.

19. Mr A and his MP complained to us in August.

22. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the events complained about had a negative effect which the organisation has not put right. Having done so we have found that VUK has done enough to address the impact of these events.

23. Mr A complains VUK did not clearly inform him about the time limit for applying for the AFIP or provide any support or adjustments to help him with his application.

24. Mr A says the form indicated a ‘prompt’ response which did not specify any timescale or deadline. He says because of VUK’s actions, he missed the deadline for back payment of AFIP, which then led to financial hardship, a deterioration in his wellbeing, and a lack of trust in the system.

25. GOV.UK explains, VUK will automatically issue a claim form to those who have an AFCS GIP which is in Band A - C. As AFIP overlaps with some other benefits and may affect existing benefit awards, the serving member or veteran makes a claim rather than receiving the payment automatically.

26. Section 64, 2a of the legislation states, where a person becomes entitled to AFIP, that allowance becomes payable on the date of claim, or where the date of claim is no later than three months after the date, an award of GIP has been determined or revised.

27. Our Principles of Remedy and Complaint Standards outline that organisations should acknowledge mistakes and take responsibility for these. They should also apologise, explain what went wrong, and take steps to promptly put things right.

28. From the information we have reviewed, we can see that VUK sent an application form to Mr A when he became eligible for AFIP, following his GIP award in September 2023.

29. Mr A told us when he initially called VUK in February 2024, it advised he needed to complete the form and to explain his circumstances around the late submission which it would consider as part of its review of his application.

30. The legislation outlines who qualifies for certain benefits, how it should process claims, and what rights veterans have under these schemes, to ensure a fair and consistent approach for everyone who seeks support.

31. VUK is required to act in line with legislation governing AFIP. This states that it can only back date payments where the claimant makes an application within three months of the claimant becoming eligible. Applications received beyond this timeframe must have payments start from the date of the submitted application. This is to ensure consistency and fairness in how claims are processed.

32. We can see when VUK received Mr A’s application, it considered his circumstances and reached a view that it would back date his payments to February 2024, when it received his form. This was because he made his application 50 days after the three-month time limit had expired. This appears in line with legislation.

33. The information shows VUK reviewed Mr A’s explanation and found no legislative provision allowing an exception to the time limit based on his circumstances. It wrote to Mr A and clearly explained the reasons he did not qualify for back dated payment.

34. Mr A contests that the claim form only states for a "prompt response". He also says VUK did not provide any support or adjustments to help him with his application or for this to be in time.

35. VUK acknowledged the claim form does not clearly define what is meant by 'prompt'. We consider ‘prompt’ would typically refer to the need for a quick reply without delay, or a response in a timely manner soon after being asked.

36. We can see VUK acknowledged in its responses that ideally it would have requested the Veterans Welfare Service (VWS) contact Mr A regarding the return of the form, and that it offered no welfare support at that time. It sincerely apologised for the oversight and explained it had asked its staff to ensure that in the future it referred AFIP cases to VWS.

37. VUK noted its records show that Mr A had mentioned using his family’s help previously during claims and appeals. It concluded it was reasonable to assume that Mr A could have sought their help to return the completed AFIP claim form within the three-month timeframe.

38. Mr A told us he does not open mail or answer phone calls during his periods of ill health. Mr A’s brother also initially brought Mr A’s complaint to us and explained his family has no access to his mail and so cannot access his correspondence during these periods.

39. We acknowledge this may have been a particularly difficult time for Mr A. His account shows how his PTSD and periods of ill mental health significantly impacted his ability to correspond and act in a timely manner. It is entirely understandable how such circumstances could affect his ability to respond.

40. Based on what Mr A told us, it appears likely that he would not have responded sooner than he did in February 2024, if the letter had included a specific deadline, or VWS had attempted to communicate with him, and so would not have changed the outcome. We have seen no evidence to suggest that VUK caused Mr A’s delayed application. It appears Mr A’s delayed response resulted from his personal circumstances at that time.

41. While we recognise the stress and frustration Mr A has endured in this process and the challenges he has faced because of his mental health, we are satisfied that VUK acted reasonably and in accordance with the AFIP legislation. It sent Mr A the necessary application form when he became eligible, evaluated his delayed application with consideration of his circumstances, and processed his claim promptly once it received his form.

42. VUK also acknowledged where its communication could have been clearer and where welfare support could have been offered to Mr A. It apologised for these oversights and implemented changes to ensure AFIP cases are managed with greater clarity and support in the future. In addition to these actions, VUK awarded Mr A a £600 consolatory payment.

43. We have assessed this against our Severity of Injustice Scale, which outlines proportional remedies for different levels of impact caused by errors or maladministration. Based on the available evidence, we consider Mr A experienced a Level three injustice, as he endured significant frustration and stress caused by administrative shortcomings during a time of particular vulnerability due to his mental health.

44. For Level three injustice, we expect a consolatory payment to typically range from £600 to £1,200, depending on the circumstances. Considering VUK’s acknowledgement of its mistakes, its apology, its implementation of improvements, and its recognition of the impact on Mr A through its £600 payment, we are satisfied this amount reflects the scale of the injustice and is sufficient to put right the impact of these events.

45. VUK’s actions are consistent with our Complaint Standards and Principles, which require organisations to take fair and proportionate steps to acknowledge, put right, and learn from its mistakes.

46. We recognise that this experience has caused Mr A understandable frustration and stress, which he says affected his mental wellbeing. We acknowledge the challenges he faced and thank him for bringing this complaint to us. Based on the information available, we are satisfied that VUK’s actions were reasonable and that it has done enough to put right the impact of these events.

47. For these reasons, we will take no further action on this complaint. We would like to reassure Mr A that his complaint has been logged in our system and will contribute to our ongoing monitoring of potential systemic issues involving VUK or similar cases. By systemic issues, we mean patterns or repeated complaints of a similar nature that may indicate wider concerns regarding the organisation or its processes.

48. While we understand that Mr A may be disappointed with the outcome of our assessment, we hope this explanation provides reassurance that his complaint has been thoroughly reviewed and considered in line with our standards. We wish Mr A well for the future.

1. We have carefully considered Mr A’s complaint about Veterans UK (VUK). We are sorry to hear about the difficulties he has experienced including the impact on his mental wellbeing, and the challenges he faced while trying to apply for additional financial support.

2. We have seen no indication that anything went seriously wrong in the way VUK handled Mr A’s case. While there were areas VUK could have done better, we can see it has already taken appropriate steps to address these and make improvements.

3. We will explain our decision in detail below. We hope this will help Mr A to understand our decision and give some reassurance about what happened.