General ‘confused’ over school fees 90-day rule

ASENIOR Army officer accused of dishonestly claiming boarding school fee allowance for his children has said any breach of the regulations had been caused by his “confusion” about the rules.

Major General Nick Welch is on trial at Bulford Military Court accused of one charge of falsely claiming £48,000 to pay for his children’s boarding schools between December 2015 and February 2017.

The prosecution says the 57-yearold two star general had 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.

The Continuity of Education Allowance (CEA) was claimed to allow their children to stay at the £37,000-a-year Clayesmore School and the £22,500-a-year Hanford School.

The payment, which covers 90% of fees, 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 as they are posted to different locations.

But the prosecution claims that his wife, Charlotte, 54, actually spent most of her time at the cottage in Blandford Forum, Dorset, close to the two schools, rather than at their stated military accommodation in Putney, London.

The CEA rules say the spouse must not be away from the residence at work address (RWA) – which was in Putney for the Welch family – for more than 90 days per year.

The investigation was launched in February 2017 after a neighbour alerted the authorities about his family’s absence from the London home.

Welch said that at that time he had not been aware that his wife had breached the 90-day residence at work address rule.

He said that her absences from the RWA included leave and weekends and time to care for her disabled mother in Gloucestershire, as well as to pursue her career as a freelance consultant.

He added: “As I understood accompanied service, we were together and we were allowed to be where we wanted to be for leave and weekends.”

He said that his “interpretation of the rules” meant he thought this would have been in compliance with the rules and any breach had been caused by the “confusion I had about the regulations”.

Welch said that after the complaint was made, his family had changed its pattern of life to spend more time at the Putney address, including his wife registering to vote in London rather than Dorset, in order to ensure compliance with the CEA rules.

He said he did not consider Dorset to have been the principal home and added: “I think that’s where we spent the weekends and perhaps the holidays.”

He said that he had not felt he needed to alert his human resources department about a possible change in his living circumstances, because “I was confident I was living accompanied within the 90-day rule. Sadly, sitting here now, I did”.

Sarah Jones QC, defending, has told the court that the CEA rules were a “mess” and the defendant and his wife had not acted dishonestly.

Welch denies the charge and the trial continues.