Oh Dear. The force labelled by the Daily Mail* as “out of control” has decided to victimise those former police officers, now medically retired, who became injured on duty whilst serving for it. (*we know some people refuse to read the Daily “Fail” but occasionally it does serve a purpose for campaigning journalism – Press Awards Newspaper of the Year for 2016).
Staffordshire is infamously renowned for continually using the discredited and neither “lawful nor unlawful” ©NAMF Police Earnings Assessment Matrix (aka PEAM) to make everyone, retired from it with an injury award, a band one. Don’t take our word for it, Staffordshire admit the Regulations don’t mention PEAM and that they use it in this freedom of information request:
PEAM is used along with police staff earnings and appropriateoccupational earnings information to calculate potential earnings. It is not necessary for PEAM to be in the regulations as forces can utilise differing methods for calculating earnings.
In an example of unprecedented lunacy, it seems as though Staffordshire, with the current Chief Constable Jane Sawyer retiring, is looking at compulsory reviewing any former officer who ISN’T a band one!
The irony is unparalleled given the degree of disablement of the majority of Staffordshire injury awards were calculated using a flawed methodology and therefore falls foul of the Fisher judgement that ruled that any “thin in the extreme” reasoning and lack of individual application means the decision should not stand.
PEAM by it’s nature removes individuality and covers all of those piped through it with a generic blanket of defaults – all variables predefined by a spreadsheet algorithm.
So it amazes us that these people can’t read? If only the HR minions of Staffordshire viewed our blogs. The legal bill of paying thousands upon thousands of pounds could be avoided. Equality law exists to prevent this discriminatory use of a discretionary duty.
To give you a flavour of what unlawfulness to expect, look at the first line of their ‘policy’ here:
The purpose of the reassessment of Injury Benefit (otherwise known as an Injury Pension or Injury Award) is to ensure that the recipient (the Injury Pensioner) receives the correct level of Injury Benefit.
Wrong from the get-go.
A review (under Regulation 37) is not a reassessment. Only after evidence of substantial change can there be any revision to the degree of disablement and it is unlawful to calculate a new degree of disablement to find substantial change. It absolutely has nothing to with regressing to the ‘correct level’ of benefit … whatever that is!
We covered the ridiculous “goldilocks” syndrome some HR directors grasp hold of over a year ago- read the dismissal of it here.
Someone in Staffordshire thinks they know everything there is to know about the Police Injury Benefit Regulations.
Oh dear, Oh dear.
Whilst every other force steps backwards, Staffordshire jumps into the breach. They even think Regulation 33 can be used to force people to complete their invented questionnaire.
Interestingly Gareth Morgan, the Deputy Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset, will be appointed Chief Constable of Staffordshire next month.
Let us remind you of the February 2017 press release this future Chief gave concerning the historical abuses conducted by a police doctor, and subsequently covered up by senior personnel.
“Anyone requiring a police medical examination held on police premises by a police doctor should have had an expectation of being safe. It is clear that the conduct of some of these medical examinations fell well below this standard.Deputy Chief Constable Gareth Morgan
Plausible deniability can not be argued by Mr Morgan. He was in a senior post whilst Avon & Somerset thought mass reviews were a good idea. He was also the senior investigative officer on the 2015 College of Policing’s scathing report on the horrors of ill-heath retirement.
It looks like we will reporting extensively on Staffordshire and we will do whatever we can to show them the true path.