Rule ‘broken’ by major general accused of swindling taxpayer out of £48,000 to send his children to private school ‘was not strictly enforced and was set to change’
- Nick Welch, 57, accused of falsely claiming money to pay for children’s schools
- He allegedly applied for allowance as he and wife wouldn’t be living near schools
- Prosecution claims Welch’s wife spent most of her time close to the two schools
- But the rules were ‘set to change’, according to internal MoD email read to court
- Welch denies charge and his barrister had told court that CEA rules are a ‘mess’
The rule ‘broken’ by a major general accused of swindling the taxpayer out of £48,000 to send his children to private school ‘was not strictly enforced and was set to change’, according to an internal Ministry of Defence (MoD) email read to court.
Nick Welch, 57, is alleged to have falsely claimed the money to pay for his children’s boarding schools between December 2015 and February 2017.
The prosecution states that the senior Army officer, who is on trial at Bulford Military Court, applied for the allowance on the basis that both he and his wife would not be living close to the children’s schools in Dorset.
This was in order to claim for the Continuity of Education Allowance (CEA) to allow their children to stay at the £37,000-a-year Clayesmore School and the £22,500-a-year Hanford School.
Nick Welch (pictured left and right), 57, is alleged to have falsely claimed the money to pay for his children’s boarding schools between December 2015 and February 2017
The payment is aimed at allowing children of service personnel to remain at the same schools to enable their serving parent to be accompanied by their spouse when they are posted to different locations.
But the prosecution claims his wife Charlotte actually spent most of her time at a cottage in Blandford Forum, Dorset, close to the two schools, rather than at their stated military accommodation in Putney, London.
The current policy states a soldier would be ineligible to claim CEA if their spouse is away from the registered military home for more than 90 days per year, which the prosecution suggests Mrs Welch had done.
But the court was read an internal MoD email concerning the implication of the CEA rule which stated: ‘We will introduce more flexibility to allow (absences) beyond the 90-day point.
‘In practice we are already doing this in casework.’
Explaining the email, Andrew Beer, CEA desk officer and member of the MoD’s remuneration allowances policy team, said: ‘This email is a discussion internally that could result in a policy change.
Bulford Military Court (pictured above) was read an internal MoD email concerning the implication of the CEA rule which stated: ‘We will introduce more flexibility to allow (absences) beyond the 90-day point’
‘The 90 days is a guide to the commanding officer (CO) to locate the person’s accompanied status, there will be a lot of occasions where it’s perfectly appropriate for this to exceed 90 days and the CO can make a decision on that accordingly.
‘If we put in 90 days as a limit then the whole system would become unworkable.
‘The service person is encouraged to seek advice from HR when they are not sure, the worst thing they can do is come to the conclusion they are eligible because their colleague is, it would be a foolish thing to do.’
Welch denies the charge and his barrister, Sarah Jones QC, has told the court the CEA rules were a ‘mess’ and he and his wife had not acted dishonestly.
The trial continues.