The response to a Freedom of Information request on low flying has revealed the extent of low flying compensation claims paid out by the Ministry of Defence.
A recently answered Freedom of Information request asked:
“How much compensation Ministry of Defence has the paid to complainants affected by low-flying aircraft since January 2017?
Can you please say how many individual claimants there were and list them by name and detail how much they received? Can you please say what the single largest payout was and say who this was to?”
The response read:
“Since January 2017 (until 23 October 2017) the MOD has paid 45 individual claimants a total of £129,357.86 for compensation claims arising from military low flying activity. The single largest payment in this period was £17,088.72. Individual payments are attached.
In 2016 the MOD paid 37 individual claimants a total of £275,469.68 for compensation claims arising from military low flying activity. The single largest payment in 2016 was £102,250.00. Individual payments are attached.”
Names were not provided due to Data Protection Act legislation.
The MoD also said:
“The MOD takes the issue of safe low flying extremely seriously and understands that military low flying can be noisy and unpopular but is an essential part of operational training.
The MOD is constantly striving to ensure that such disturbance is keep to an absolute minimum and that the burden of noise pollution is as evenly distributed as possible throughout the UK Low Flying System as a whole.
In order to ensure that military low flying is as accountable to the public as possible the MOD provides the Low Flying Complaints Enquiry Unit, located at RAF Wittering, which allows the public to report low flying incidents which have raised concern.”
This figure is not even a single bird seed.
Fair enough, if farmers livestock die they should be compensated.
At the same time, the MoD has the right to practice low flying over certain areas, which is not discriminate like some moaners suggest, but takes place in designated low flying areas.
Those who complain about this training would do well to remember why it is necessary, but probably wouldn’t considering it is not their arse on the line.
“Indiscriminate” sorry.
In the US you can only be compensated if you’re windows are broken or similar damage is done, and if YOU bought the house BEFORE the base was there. Otherwise the legal system takes the view.“The base was there when you bought it. You were duly informed, the jets were not invisible or quiet during the transaction.” So no money for you. Support your local VFW.
The “Airforce Bases” that most of these fast jets are from, are no where near the low fly areas so the US method wouldn’t work here.
Agree. This springs to mind whenever I read complains about Heathrow, which of course contributed to the development of communities around it.
Is this really newsworthy??