NAMF – A coven of vipers.

NAMF:  The National Attendance Management Forum.

A committee of HR managers, finance managers, force medical officers made up from a large number of police authorities throughout England and Wales, that meet up to discuss how they can ‘deal’ with those entitled to and in receipt of Injury on Duty awards.  After the Home Office’s guidance was declared unlawful, the meetings provide a convenient avenue for the Home Office to drip feed advice to the forces, instigate a culture and then set the fuse for the encouraged HR managers to go off and work themselves up into a feeding frenzy.

NAMF is semi-clandestine because IOD pensioners generally remain unaware of it. The Forum does not advertise its existence, whilst not exactly attempting to keep itself secret. References to it do occasionally appear on force documents but it does not routinely publish its agenda or minutes. If you Google the Forum you will see that most references to the NAMF result from Freedom of Information Act requests.

The National Attendance Management Forum meets at premises provided by West Midlands Police at their Tally Ho! training centre. Meetings are held every three months.

The Forum comprises representatives from c. 35 forces from across the service, including Scotland and Northern Ireland. A unique feature is the mix of professional skills and background of representatives, which include Lawyers, Personnel Professionals, Doctors and Occupational Health Practitioners. Colleagues from the Home Office and NPIA also attend.

The mix of disciplines allows the Forum to debate and progress a wide variety of work from across the occupational health, legal and HR fields. The views of IOD pensioners are never sought by the Forum.

The NAMF is infamous for being used by the Home Office in its attempts to circumvent the Regulations. A steadfast regular attendee was none other than John Gilbert – the civil servant author of Annex C to Home Office circular 46/2004.

As to the ‘lawyers’ the list of delegates shows Nicholas Wirz (Northumbria), whose legal advice to his force seems to have been somewhat lacking as he was the instructing solicitor to Johnathan Holl-Allen, QC in the case of Crudace V PMAB,  decided that significant parts of the Home Office guidance were unlawful. Written evidence supplied by Wirz to the Haworth case was equally unconvincing. Wirz was the gentleman who wrote threatening letters to 45 of the 70 disabled former officers whose injury pensions had been reduced in one afternoon on 20th February 2009 by SMP Dr. Broome. The 45 pensioners had given notice of appeal, and Wirz’s letters effectively threatened them with having to pay the £6,200 costs of any appeal and also contained his opinion that any appeal would be hopeless. Northumbria is the force listed in several judicial reviews and pension ombudsman decisions.

Rather worryingly given his track record Wirz now provides guidance to selected medical practitioners who attend NAMF functions: MR+NICHOLAS+WIRZ+PRESENTATION+(1)

The paradox is that despite the guidance that NAMF churns out having no legal basis and no substance that it is in harmony with the regulations, shamefully forces now use it as a badge of honour when conducting a review – basically saying ‘Its OK we’re following NAMF guidance’.  In fact what they should be saying is ‘It’s OK – we’re following the regulations to the letter’.  NAMF guidance is now being used as the Injury on duty equivalent to the Nuremberg defence.

There seems to be little doubt that the NAMF is the source of poor and ill-thought out information which can be readily seized upon by lazy and ignorant HR and OH ‘professionals’ who can’t be bothered to read and understand the Regulations and stated cases for themselves. It is also a platform for a small number of people whose motives are suspect and who seek to manipulate opinion. As a showcase for the talents of the people who are entrusted with the administration of police injury pensions the NAMF is more of an example of a group of people with which to frighten your grandchildren than to inspire them with role models.

NAMF – A coven of vipers.

2 thoughts on “NAMF – A coven of vipers.

  • 2016-02-01 at 5:09 am
    Permalink

    I had not read the presentation by Nicholas Wirz. It is certainly an interesting read and is written in such a manner that it appears they are trying to justify what they have done in the past and what they are still trying to do. Many, if not all, injury on duty pensioners were injured or suffered life altering experiences that would be well documented but Mr Wirz writes as if we are some insurance fraudsters making bogus claims of whiplash following dubious motor vehicle accidents. As Home Office Circular 46/2004 was introduced much of the mutual trust and respect between Forces and their injured former officers went out of the window.

    In my own case my earnings were compared to the National Average Earnings without me being seen by the Selected Medical Practitioner. This would be known as a paper sift I think. But having gone through the first stage (paper sift) I would have thought that I should have been medically examined to determine whether there had been any change in my MEDICAL condition. After all that is the basis on which my injury on duty pension was based.

    At point 1.3 in Mr Wirz presentation he writes that the SMP, “may exercise discretion to consider the case on the papers if management, THE OFFICER, and the FMA are all content with this”. I wasn’t consulted.

    It seems that they have been making things up as they go along. Prior to the Home Office Guidance being issued and the forming of Police Medical Appeal Boards I do not think that there was ever such an effort exerted by Police Authorities to review injury on duty pensions. It was only because of the introduction of this Guidance that everything changed. The Guidance has been declared unlawful and yet some Forces are still intent on trying ways to reduce pensions by any means instead of conforming to the Regulations.




    0



    0
  • 2015-03-08 at 9:35 am
    Permalink

    Not forgetting that David Wallington, who is lead doctor on PMABs, also attends these NAMF meetings. A doctor who should be completely independent as he presides on medical boards where an IOD will contest the findings of the P.A/SMP.




    0



    0

Comments are closed.