We are pleased to hear from The Times that MoD ministers have reportedly intervened in the case of former Afghan interpreter Rafi Hottak who was refused compensation over a paperwork issue with no opportunity to submit alternative evidence.
We trust that this will be a review of ALL cases similarly refused under the relevant scheme.
UPDATE: According to today's story by Defence Editor Larisa Brown:
"The Times understands that ministers intervened this week and are now re-examining similar cases that were rejected because of the wrong paperwork.
Defence ministers told the MoD team responsible for applications to apply a 'more reasonable and common sense approach' to such cases."
The story appears to confirm that instead of giving Mr Hottak the opportunity to submit a utility bill instead of the council tax bill which they have rejected, his compensation claim was rejected outright and could not be resubmitted with corrected evidence, because the deadline for applications had passed.
We know that applicants under this kind of scheme, unfamiliar with UK requirements and wishing to give their claim the best possible chance of success, sometime submit generic evidence which doesn't directly relate to them and is at best a waste of everybody's time. That is plainly not what happened here. The council tax bill submitted by Mr Hottak didn't come within the rules but presumably related both to him and to the address stated in his application.
Of course mistakes happen, but one wonders what was in the mind of the official or contractor responsible for issuing a final non-appealable rejection of this application. Perhaps working from the comfort of home, they presumably had no conception of the danger, pain and injury which this compensation scheme was intended to address.