GRAB BY DEPARTMENT

Chronicle (Levin), 23 November 1946, Page 4

GRAB BY DEPARTMENT

Money From Ex-Navy Ma?'s Gratujty Accpunt ' A glaring example of departmental iTLt.eri>r.euce .wrtb a 'f.qrruer serviyeman's post ,qffice» savings bank ^war gratiiity accoiint has been revealed in Auckland. The disquieting facts disclose that in the eyes of offi.ciald.om these accounts are not sacred to ihe individual. Tliis is a situation tpat will cause grave concern "among all fqrmer seryiceiuen and wonaen whost y, gratuities are lqd.'ged!"in the'post o^c'e^ savings banks. In their interests jthe !•- facts are set out in this article. Ten months after he had been dis.charg.ed from the Navy and jsix months after his post office ^sayings h'ank' war gratiuty accomit 'had hpen opened, a young petty officer received a' letter fropi the Nayy Office, Wel"lington, informing him.that after -hts discharge and after final settlenjynt of his pay account a dehit had heen received in the Navy Office from overseas, and had been . proyisionally charged againsf his gratqity accojint. The aiuoifut inyblye^' wagv£25. This communication was' in £he form of a circular, suggesting that the ex-Navy man's case was not an isolated one. On recpipt of this advice the petty # officer went to tne Auckland Post Office for the purpose of ascertaipjng whether his gratuuy account y^as still intact. He passe'd his hook jover tp a clerk so that it could he cheyked ytith the iedger. The clerk theu injtimafed that instructions to debit'the sum of £25 against the account had been received from the Director tof Ac.counts, vyellingtqn. lie ae.cordingly ma.de an entry in the young man's ' passbook, and dated it hack to" Augiist-^two months before the letter from jthe Navy Office was received. This entry was made in spite of his protests, according to the petty officer. Smarting under a sense of injustice, the ex-serVicejnan Tost no/time in consulting a solicitqr, with fhe result that a letter was sent to the Naval Secr.etary, reqiiesting him ' to take steps immediately to haive the matter rectified by re-crediting the sum involved. The letter pointed out that the petty officer was not aware that he had received any pay ab.bve what yras strictly due .to him, and that if it should he shown 'that' he had received such money he would, upon proof of the position — but not until theu — he prepared to make any refund that appeared proper. A copy of this letter was also aent to the Chief Postmaster, Auckland. Some days later a reply from the Navy Office gave details of the alleged debit. It stated that recovery of the amount was necessary, and snould the ex-petty officer de?ire to make a direct refund he could "deposit the £25 to tke credit of the Pnhlic Account at any branch of the Bank of New Zealand. ,Qn recpipt of the deposit slip the Navy Office would take immediate steps to have '"-.the amount re-credited in the war gratuity account. The Navy Office letter contained this further passage: ".7. should' repayment of the amount in a, lump sum cause Mr. financial emharirassment, it would he quite acceptable for the refund to he- made in the form of instalments he feels he could nieet regularly. ' ' The ex-petty officer's legal advisers replied that they did not regard this letter as satisfactory. They pointed out that they were not prepared to digcuss with their client at that stage whether a refund was .due to the Navy Department or got, and asked to be advised immediately whether it was proposed to refund the £25. ' •This letter having failed to draw an answer, the solicitors wrote again to tffe Navy Office two weeks later re.questing an urgent reply, and jast W.eek (the correspondence opened on .October 9) the Navy Office advised that tfie matter was receiving consideration and that a further communication would ' be f orwarded in the near futijxe. . • The outcome will'be awaited with interest. 1 - . The Post and Telegraph Department advised that war gratuity "accounts are funded under mstruccions trom the Director, Base Records, and that, upon advice frqm him. tnat anoverpayment has been made, the adjustment is effected. in .accordance with his instructions. This letter, which was from the Director of Accqunts, stated that the post office could d.o this if requested by the Director, Base Records, under claiise 8 (h) of the War fcservices Gratuity Emergency Regulations, 1945. This regulation certainly states that money due by a member of the service in respect of any period of his seryice piay be deducted, but that, surely, does not niean money can be graoued aiter a gratuity account has been qpened.

s Those, then, are the facts. The point at issue is not whether the petty officer ,owed this money or not — lie claims that he didn't — but what j rigpt ouicialdom had in arbitrarily j grabbing it from an account that l snouid be regarded ' as private and . personal. Ii such an action is-"per-I xnitted by the regulations, which is 1) . doubtful, it is time the regulations were drasticajly pverhauled to coni form vffth nqrmal business principles. The invidious position in wnich exservme personnel are likely to'find theniselyps a? a fesplt of these curious lnethods ad.opted hy the departmpnts will be readily appreciated. Suppose, ±or example, a nian committed himsejf to the extent of his xyar gratuity RO pay a deposit on a house or 'for some other purpose— -and then disco.vered that only a pprtion of the money he had budgeted on .was standmg to his credit. ' A poor lopk-out, indeed! ' Tffe pnly tjiing that will satisfy the many thpusands (of ex-servicepien and women with accounts m ppst office saving banks is a definite assurance by some un.disputed authority that bp/pq-ucratic mejihods will cqase fprthwith. Until that assurance is given no one ca'n alford to regard his gratuity as his own.