All injury on duty pensioners in Avon & Somerset have today received a letter from the, apparently outgoing, director of resources Julian Kern. The letter says:
After careful consideration, the Avon and Somerset Police Pension Authority has decided not to progress with their automatic review process of injury on duty awards.
This is consistent with a number of other forces and we will not recommence these reviews until such time as there is a change in legislation and guidance from the Home Office.
The Police Pension Authority will however continue to support and facilitate any reviews requested by a pensioner (in accordance with the relevant statutory framework) to enable injury on duty awards to be adjusted to reflect any change to the degree of disablement, or relevant earnings capacity in accordance with regulations.
We understand that your review may already be in progress but have decided to stop these with immediate effect unless you advise us that you wish the review to continue. If this is the case you can contact us via email using the following email address: IODReviews@avonandsomerset.police.uk .
Yours sincerely
Julian Kern
CFO and Director of Resources
For three long years IODPA as been shouting about the illegality of the process conducted by this force as well Nottinghamshire, Merseyside, Northumbria and more recently Staffordshire. It seems A&S have finally worked out that they could never be successful in buying a new vehicle fleet to the expense of those injured on duty and at last it has dawned on them that their legal costs would just keep on mounting.
Note that A&S do not admit having done anything wrong.
Gareth Morgan was the DCC of Avon & Somerset. He has recently been appointed as the Chief Constable of Staffordshire. We challenge Staffordshire to follow the lead of A&S and send out a similar letter.
We will continue to place pressure on all the above forces to make them comply with the Police Injury Benefit Regulations.
Well done to all IODPA for their personal courage and perseverance it perusing the goal.
“Rejoice not that he is dead you men, for though the world stood up and stopped the bastard the bitch who bore him is in heat again”
Bertolt Brecht. As quoted by General Patton on hearing his men’s celebrations on the news of Hitlers death May 1945.
They have capitulated and ran with their tails between their legs, this is great news!
Now is the time to pursue these wrong doers with vigour to ensure that they never even think again of such unlawful acts
This is fantastic news for all IODP’s in A&S. What a relief for deserving people and I have no doubt that IODPA have been influential in their decision. Let us hope that farces like Northumbria and others take heed as surely there should be consistency in applying reviews? In the current political, social and economical climate, bad karma exists for those who were instrumental in the decision making process regarding shafting police officers (Home office past and present!!)
I would imagine that despite the presence of home office civilians in the NAMF (whatever they call themselves this week), the government ( which we don’t yet have) has too many pressing issues than to make pension reviews a priority.
I will celebrate by being naughty , running through fields of barley and wheat just like the princess of darkness !
Hooray!!!!!!! Its only taken 3 hard years for the “penny to drop”
I can’t seem to see any form of apology on that letter.
The good stood up and were counted and stopped, for now, evil being done. There is strength in numbers and the solidarity created by IODPA.
I am extremely grateful for all the hard work that administering this charity has required by a few and am in no doubt that their concerted efforts have brought this to pass. I wish that I could have done more in the fight but am proud to know you and count you friends.
At last. Isn’t it so sad, that former officers who had to finish because of work related injuries, have had to fight the Forces they served for so long to arrive at this point.
Wonderful news! Great work IODPA for sure!
I agree with CM’s comment, let’s pin them down and get to those responsible for all the unlawful results of reviews and have them held to account. That is the ONLY way to guarantee that these criminal acts cannot happen again!
There is still a lot of damage that has been done that will need repairing and still IOD pensioners that are not receiving the correct banding.
Brilliant news a real result for the IODPA, it just goes to show how much good work it has done.
“This is consistent with a number of other forces and we will not recommence these reviews until such time as there is a change in legislation and guidance from the Home Office”.
That’s the bit that concerns me, almost like they’ll go away, regroup, get their act together and come back with a better (more sinister) plan.
In any case, quite clear they’ve been given a bloody nose, no doubt down to yourselves and your associates, so thank you Iodpa.
Having been permanently disabled by way of an injury on duty this is a very decent step forwards. As stated not in favour of the officer more about hard cash. I never thought the service I loved for 28 years would resort to these tactics and hopefully many of the so called regional forces including my own take note and leave well be.
I had to fight so hard to be recognised and awarded my injury award it was embarrassing.
I still have fondness in my heart for my police service but sadly not for the people now employed who continue to meddle and disturb our final years after serious injury. Well done IODPA, thank you.
Very well done, IODPA. You took a lot of flack en route but, as the saying goes:
Avoid criticism – say nothing, do nothing, BE NOTHING.
I’m not sure what they mean by “we will not recommence these reviews until such time as there is a change in legislation and guidance from the Home Office.”
Surely, the problem all along with certain forces wasn’t the Regs themselves, but the flagrant disregard of the Regs? Afterall, IODPA (and its legal team) has a firm grasp of the Regs, as do, it seems, other forces. So why not those named forces and their legal teams? They have absolutely no excuse whatsoever.
Maybe it’s because I’m totally jaded, but this letter leaves me thinking that, because they were onto a hiding with their unlawful implementation of the current Regs, they may push for an alternative approach through “enhanced” retrospective Regs and directives to give them another bite of the cherry to try and reduce/remove our pensions.
Many of us were kicked out through injury and put on the scrap heap with no chance of getting any employment, no matter what imaginary jobs they felt we could do. Our employability hasn’t changed one jot by abandoning reviews but now, hopefully, we’ll be allowed to have the security we deserve and be rid of the past malicious inhumane approach they foisted upon us to save pennies. It destroyed lives and families.
Great job, IODPA, but I fear they need watching like a hawk.
That is fantastic news and vindication of your actions to take them to task and support all the officers affected by their unlawful approach. I hope other Forces now follow this.
Well done IODPA. Your hard work and tenacity is transforming lives.
Excellent news – a major battle won – but not the war. And remember that some battles get fought more than once. This decision (as noted by a previous comment) was certainly made, not “in the intersts of fairness” but on cold, hard financial grounds. It could be reversed by a later management team – sorry to be negative but that’s how I see it. But I am sure that this decision would not have been reached without the efforts of IODPA. So WELL DONE and THANK YOU!!
Staffordshire, Northumbria, Merseyside, Nottinghamshire – take careful note.
It costs more to hold reviews than not to hold reviews.
Holding reviews will never result in savings.
Holding reviews will always result in expensive litigation whenever the Regulations are abused – and as forces lack the expertise to ensure that only lawful reviews are held then the obvious conclusion which any sensible Chief Constable can make is not to hold reviews unless one is requested by the pensioner.
Most reviews result in a decision that the degree of disablement remains unaltered.
In the five years 2011 to 2015, even with the impact of unlawful reviews, only 10.29% resulted in a reduction in pension payment. Many of those decisions were later overturned.
There is no ‘duty’ to hold reviews – there is a wide power of discretion over whether and when to review.
Reviews should only be held when there is some reason to believe there has been a substantial alteration in degree of disablement.
It is unlawful to review to discover if there is any alteration in degree of disablement.
The Regulations intend that reviews should be rare events, and that the original decision on degree of disablement should be a final decision, subject only to a substantial alteration in degree of disablement.
Disabled former officers deserve respect and consideration. They do not deserve being hounded by their former employers. Reviews, and the anticipation of reviews cause huge distress and inconvenience to people who have paid a huge price for doing their job.
Some forces have employed corrupt, unpricipled, unprofessional, uncaring, and plainly incompetent doctors to make medical assessments. Shame on you.
Some forces have employed idiotic, unprofessional HR managers who know nothing about the Regulations, yet who would never admit it. They would insist they were right whilst knowing they were not right. Shame on you.
It is time that Nicholas Wirz, Dr Cheng, Dr Nightingale, Peter Owens and others who have been castigated in these blogs were required to pack their bags and disappear back into the obscurity from which they arose.
Right will always prevail.
Hi CM, We will always keep on, keepin’ on …even when we’ve achieved our goal we will be here to maintain the harmony
Excellent news! Great work by IODPA!
Now, a question…do you go in for the kill and try to pin them down and extract some form of admission for their reasoning in the first place?? Identify the individuals involved and have them held to account, as an example?