The Scandal in Staffordshire

Alea iacta est”  (“The die is cast”) — Julius Caesar on January 10, 49 B.C as he crossed the Rubicon river

November 9th 2017 was a black day.  It was the day Staffordshire police, Andrew Colley and Charles Vivian crossed the Rubicon.

The answer will be found in the courts and injustice will be vanquished, as it always is, but still Staffordshire police wants test their ruinous interpretation of the law whilst ignoring the collateral harm it is deliberately causing to those injured in their police service.

Why are we here and why wasn’t this stopped when the wickedness was embryonic?  What follows is a timely reminder.

Lionel Shriver’s 2003 novel “We Need to Talk About Kevin” describes how when behaviour worsens, those with the power to do something go on the defensive, convinced there is always a reasonable explanation for why what they could have stopped was done to others.

On the 7 June 2017 at court room in North Shields, employment Judge Buchanan heard how David Curry, a former police officer retired on a pension awarded for disabling brain injury suffered in the line of duty had been pursued since 1998 by his former force. Mr Curry had his injury pension reviewed in 1989, 1991, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2010 and continually from 2016 to 2017. The fact that he was sectioned and admitted into a psychiatric ward wasn’t enough to persuade his former force there had been no change in his capacity to earn.

David’s experience is sadly not an isolated instance. The charity Injury on Duty Pensioners Association (IODPA)1 has gathered a large and growing body of personal accounts by the victims of maladministration. So much is wrong with so many aspects of police injury pension management that the situation is little short of a national scandal, which requires the attention of Police and Crime Commissioners.

Disabled former officers such as Mr Curry can never be free from the police.  The new £7.5m Police Federation of England and Wales (PFEW)  welfare fund is helping those serving but neglects those already injured and retired.  Ill-health retirement is sadly an acrimonious and bureaucratic process and this doesn’t cease once permanence has been proved and the warrant card handed back. Every time the postman drops a letter through a letterbox carries the risk of adversity; a letter from the force causing the injured to relive the trauma of how they left the police.

Through a fluke of mailroom efficiency, often these letters drop on a Saturday when week-day mental health support has closed. No other occupation has such a toe-hold on those leave through medical retirement.  They are being treated as though they are cheats or liars. Some, including those with severe mental injury, have been subjected to hours-long aggressive ‘medical inquisitions’ by doctors appointed by their former force throughout their life outside of the police.

When a force wants to review the principles of the Data Protection Act are often forgotten. As are the Access to Medical Reports Act, and General Medical Council and Faculty of Occupational Medicine guidelines. Pensioners are facing unlawful demands for access to their medical records and see reports written by said doctors, which contain gross errors in fact and law, delivered to HR departments without their permission. Pensioners have been threatened with stoppage of their injury pensions if they fail to complete questionnaires demanding sensitive financial and medical information having no relevance whatever to the management of their pensions.

Age can never be a factor.  Slavishly following a “policy” is unlawful.  It is never justifiable to threaten compliance or consent. A SMP can’t have a predetermined decision based on averages of prognosis for the general population.  Causation can not be touched upon  It is not about earnings.

All these things happened in Staffordshire on the 9th November 2017.

Those injured and disabled have to contend with pension scheme administrators who have little to no understanding of the Regulations which govern police injury pensions and whose automatic reaction to any enquiry or query concerning mismanagement is to circle the wagons and to deny, delay, obfuscate and obstruct. Complaints are brushed aside, and are labelled as vexatious, or an abuse of the complaints system.

Of major concern is a widespread misapprehension by senior officers and Police and Crime Commissioners that the Regulations permit regular mass reviews of the degree of disablement of injury pensioners. Mass reviews have been held, in some forces areas, causing very great worry and inconvenience to disabled former officers and their families. Mass reviews are unlawful, as decisions made on degree of disablement are intended to be final and only subject to review where the PPA consider that there has been an alteration in the pensioner’s degree of disablement.

There are 43 regional police forces in England and Wales. The picture is mixed, with the majority of forces not conducting reviews, whilst others have actively set about wholesale abuse of the discretionary power to conduct reviews. IODPA has been told by pensioners in these areas that they fear they are caught up in a grotesque game, where a handful of people on a mission are using them to test the boundaries of what they think they can get away with – all with the misplaced and illusory objective of saving money.

IODPA has no objection to lawful reviews, which it insists should be rare events, triggered when the PPA consider that there has been an alteration in the medical condition of any individual. Research conducted on behalf of IODPA produced data on reviews held covering the five year period 2010 – 2015 revealing that 83% of all reviews held resulted in a decision there had been no alteration in degree of disablement, and thus no revision of the amount of injury pension paid. Some 10.29% of reviews resulted in a decrease in pension, whilst 6.82% were increased. Just six forces accounted for the majority of the reviews, conducting 781 out of the total of 806. Merseyside alone conducted a staggering 502 reviews, all of which are believed to have been unlawfully held.

It can be concluded from the research that some forces wasted a great deal of public money conducting unnecessary reviews, which cost around £2500 each, with other, more substantial costs resulting from appeals and legal challenges.

Avon & Somerset has paid one SMP, a Dr Phillip Johnson, £94,500 in twelve months from August 2016 to August 2017.  Add this to the £54,600 paid to Johnson from December 2015 to August 2016 and the £146,667 between June 2014 to November 2015, and the sum totals just under three hundred thousand pounds.  Given Johnson works as the force medical officer for Dorset police and Avon & Somerset already pays a salary of over £150k per annum to Dr David Bulpitt, the scales of money exchanging hands is staggering.

In one force3, pensioners were selected for review by what was essentially an automated lottery, with no evidence whatever to believe their degree of disablement had altered. In one force a civilian member of staff was given free access to the medical records of police injury pensioners. It seems this force allowed, even encouraged attempts to reduce injury pension payments. The civilian’s job description2 commenced thus:

Job Purpose. To manage the investigation and process of police and support staff retirement on the grounds of ill health. To ensure maximum savings to the force budget through the robust investigation of injury award applications, injury award reviews, medical appeals and reviewing permanently disabled officers who have been retained in service.

It seems this force has wrongly tied what should be the administration of injury pensions within the content, scope and purposes of the Regulations to the management of the force budget. Disabled pensioners are to be subjected to ‘investigation’ rather than be treated with respect and consideration.

The fact of the unlawful reviews is cause enough for concern, but there is a widespread and justified belief among pensioners that the reviews are motivated solely by a misplaced desire to save money from hard-pressed police budgets.

There is also uneasiness regarding the unhelpful attitudes of HR staff, the some doctors, and senior officers, some of whom are politely aggressive, or arrogantly dismissive of pensioners’ concerns.

It is unacceptable that that the rights of injured on duty pensioners should be trampled on by the failures of those responsible for the legitimate management of the scheme. Retired disabled officers deserve better. Attitudes need to change.

When a police officer is injured on duty, to such an extent they can no longer perform the ordinary duties of a constable they can be compulsorily medically retired. Injury can be physical or mental, or a combination of both. The retiring officer can be awarded a one-off gratuity and an injury pension, which is payable for life. The test for qualification for the award is whether the person concerned is disabled, whether the disablement is likely to be permanent and whether the disablement is the result of an injury received in the execution of duty.

The injury on duty pension scheme is governed by the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006. The explanatory memorandum3 to that legislation makes it clear that injury awards, ‘. . . are in effect compensation for work-related injuries.’

In making provision for injured officers to receive a pension, successive Governments have consistently acknowledged that entitlement to a police injury pension is a key element of the remuneration of police officers to enable them to undertake their role with confidence. Officers need to know that if they have to be retired due to disabling injury they will not suffer financial detriment. Currently, that certainty is slipping away, and if this trend continues, then morale of serving officers will suffer.

If there was no injury pension scheme, it is reasoned that Chief Officers would inevitably find themselves subjected to litigation, with allegations of negligence, and claims for compensation for injury. Given that there are currently over 12,000 former officers retired with an injury on duty, the potential cost of litigation should there have been no injury award scheme could well have run into thousands of millions.

No amount of pension can ease the difficulties retiring injured officers face. The consequential mental trauma of injury can be severe. There is the loss of an occupation which for many officers is seen as a vocation more than a means of earning a living. There is the loss of the comradeship, and loss of the sense of belonging, of being engaged in a worthwhile enterprise with noble aims and purpose. With the shock of injury and retirement comes the need to construct a new life. Some disabled former officers manage the transition with minimal difficulty. They find a new job or a new career. They adapt to the restrictions the disablement brings.

However, for many, especially those with very severe disablement, IODPA is well aware that transition to life outside the police can be a lengthy and distressing experience. Despite positive changes in attitudes by employers, encouraged by anti-discrimination legislation, disabled former officers, especially those with a mental injury, may well find themselves to be unemployable.

The Regulations governing police injury pensions are not concerned with these problems. They address only the one issue, that of providing a minimum income guarantee in retirement, and on that issue they are adequate for purpose. An injury pension scheme is only effective where it is properly managed. The Regulations are not hard to understand. Yet they are being woefully misunderstood by some who have responsibility for managing the police injury pension scheme.

In November 2013 the College of Policing arranged a review of forces’ management of ill health Retirements, injury on duty awards and police medical appeal boards4. Amongst other conclusions, the resulting report found that:

Many forces are struggling due to the lack of expertise within their organisations.’

The structure of some force HR facilities do not support the management of the process. When managed by shared service pools rather than through specific dedicated individuals, personnel are unable to build up experience in dealing with these case.’

The above issues are compounded by a lack of dedicated subject matter experts across the service and training opportunities.’

We have to look back to 2006 to see the origins of this sad state of affairs. Due to a change in tax legislation, and to preserve the tax-free status of injury awards they were separated from the general police pension schemes. The injury pension scheme became a non-contributory scheme, and award payments now stand to be met from the budget of each force.

This immediately brought about a focus on the cost of meeting existing injury pension payments. Some chief officers sought to reduce what was seen as a burden on scarce resources by manipulating the review provision.

Then the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 abolished police authorities, which had hitherto held the legal obligation to administer the police injury award scheme. In practice, authorities had delegated the administration to Chief Constables, but they continued to provide an important oversight. The 2011 Act created the office of police pension authority and vested it in the sole personages of each Chief Constable.

There seems to be a built-in conflict of interest in having Chief Constables, who must dutifully manage their budgets, having to attempt to set aside all considerations of cost when acting as the police pension authority. The Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 do not say that a pension can be reviewed because a Chief Constable is concerned about the cost of paying it. Some Chief Constables have failed to make the necessary separation of their duties, to their great shame and to the detriment of disabled, and often vulnerable, former officers.

In Lionel Shriver’s novel, it was too late to save Kevin and those he massacred. The opportunity to make things right had passed. It is not too late for disabled former officers like David. IODPA suggests that Police and Crime Commissioners urgently should look closely at the human and financial cost of these issues and help ensure that police injury pensions are managed within the law.

1 https://iodpa.org/

2 See: http://iodpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/000.JDQ-Medical-Retirement-Officer.pdf

3 See: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/injury_on_duty_reviews_the_next#outgoing-510456

4 See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/932/pdfs/uksiem_20060932_en.pdf

5 See: College of Policing Review of Force Management of Ill Health Retirements, Injury on Duty Awards and Police Medical Appeal Boards

The Scandal in Staffordshire
Tagged on:         

19 thoughts on “The Scandal in Staffordshire

  • 2017-11-17 at 3:07 pm
    Permalink

    How is it possible that David Curry, retired on a pension awarded for disabling brain injury suffered in the line of duty, has been pursued since 1998, reviewed in 1989, 1991, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2010 and continually from 2016 to 2017? A brain injury is a permanent injury. It would have had to be considered to be such at the time of retirement to be awarded the IOD pension in the first place. A review is only supposed to take place if there has been a substantial alteration in his condition, and then it is more than likely that the pensioner would be asking for a review. I am guessing he was Band 4. This is the sort of activity the police are taking unlawfully and it is harassing and bullying to Mr Curry. This case for one ought to be bringing criminal charges against the force, not just appeal and JR.

    IODPA is doing such a wonderful job in bringing these cases to light and assisting in getting them dealt with legally when necessary.

    What I cannot accept is that, because the forces involved are bringing mass reviews, they need to use an agency to select the SMP’s in large numbers. There are a few of these agencies that actually belong to the actual SMP. That way they can charge higher costs than an individual! Sneaky! To deal with so many reviews the forces will need to have higher numbers working in HR departments! Because they are now discovered to be using unlawful tactics and are being continually challenged on their decisions need to have larger legal departments too! ALL unnecessary costs if the actual Inured on Duty Pensions Rules and Regulations were being followed correctly. It is high time that a government investigation was done to worm out all the Forces hired liars and cheats working for as much as they can get from the Forces no matter what they have to do to get it!

  • 2017-11-16 at 8:59 pm
    Permalink

    This is a scandal that has been going on for far to long. The likes of Mr Coley and Mr Vivian are just a replication of vile administers of this illegal process that other forces have suffered for years. Look at Mr Coley. Where has he come from. His job title is a HR assistant but an assistant on £36k a year. Every time anyone asks any questions about him through FOI requests they get Staffordshire Police’s favourite reply “vexatious” It is suspected that he at one time was employed by the Home Office so maybe he is a plant to try and press home the illegal reviews and if successful role them out to other forces also keen to target the most vulnerable Pensioners purely in an attempt to save money. We know he attends the NAMF meetings together with the other mentioned cretin Mr Vivian. He likes to call himself Dr but he just doesn’t fit my long held belief of how a Dr should act.
    * Respect people, healthy or ill, regardless of who they are
    * Support patients and their loved ones when and where they are needed
    * Always ask courteous questions, let people talk, and listen to them carefully
    * Give unbiased advice, let people participate actively in all decisions related to their health and health care, assess each situation carefully, and help whatever the situation
    * Be proactive advocates for their patients, and really care for them.
    Well this doesn’t sound a bit like Mr Vivian
    We know what you are both doing. We know who you are and we are coming for you.It may need the GMC to put Mr Vivian back on the right track and it may need criminal law to stop the nefarious activities of Mr Coley but it will happen. Listen messers Coley and Vivian.

  • 2017-11-16 at 10:06 am
    Permalink

    D.I. raises an excellent point, one that no doubt has crossed many IOD pensioners’ minds. We’ve all had those horrendous letters which cause alarm and distress in themselves, and have experienced the bullying, disprespectful and downright unlawful behaviours of many individuals.
    Not being an expert on Class actions (collective redress, or other labels for this type of litigation) I Googled the term and found a useful summary: (Ref – Slater Gordon)
    “Group actions are becoming far more regularly used in the UK as they are a way for individuals with similar complaints to join together against the wrongdoer and avoid pitfalls that can be associated with individuals having to make their own separate claim each time. In short they offer strength in numbers and a saving on legal costs.

    Entering into litigation can be a daunting experience for individuals and in the past people who have had perfectly valid complaints have been put off going to the courts because of the risk of litigating against a Defendant who are often very large and well resourced. This is where group litigation redresses the balance. You become a strong well resourced one too. David matches Goliath.

    By joining together as a group, individuals can benefit from collective strength in the commonality and sharing of knowledge, and the sharing of the risks and costs. These benefits are invaluable and allow access to justice when otherwise individuals might be denied it.

    That final sentence says it all.

  • 2017-11-16 at 12:37 am
    Permalink

    As a detective I don’t really understand why this saga is not being investigated as a crime. I see evidence enough to suspect ‘conspiracy to defraud’ . Possible corrupt doctors, admin staff and engagement/knowledge of a chief Constable ! I would consider a police officer ‘in neglect of duty’ if he failed to arrest and detain in order to gain further evidence. Has a criminal complaint been made ?

  • 2017-11-14 at 8:40 am
    Permalink

    Staffordshire Police you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Those officers were injured whilst acting in your name. You should be looking after them not treating them like this. Every dog has its day and as we all know if you wait patiently our day will come when justice will finally be served and Staffordshire Police will be proved wrong yet again. Keep the faith to those officers concerned the wave of support for you is growing day by day. You are not alone.

  • 2017-11-14 at 7:33 am
    Permalink

    Stomach churning reading, the total disregard for the health and welfare of those IOD officers, and the amount of money being spent on SMP’s etc beggars belief.

  • 2017-11-13 at 8:59 pm
    Permalink

    I am a taxpayer.

    When Vivian gets his bottom spanked by the Courts I expect Staffordshire to reclaim all the fees he has charged as well as associated costs including 8% statutory interest for backdated payments.

    I also expect him to be refered to the IPCC and GMC.

    Vivian you quack my force suggested I see you but your reputation refused and I turned them down!!!!

  • 2017-11-13 at 10:37 am
    Permalink

    The more I learn about the way forces are treating their retired injured officers the more I am disgusted. These brave, honourable, men and women were injured whilst carrying out the duties of a police officer and after being medically retired the individual forces are treating them no better than the scum they used to lock up!
    The SMP”s are an absolute disgrace to the medical profession, motivated only by their own huge financial gain.

  • 2017-11-11 at 1:27 pm
    Permalink

    History teaches us valuable lessons. Some of then most heinous examples of inhumanity and evil are well documented.

    History is NOT a study of the past. As the country fell silent today on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th day we remembered the self sacrifice, the bravery, I reflected on the evil that had gone before. We should never forget.

    It is from the lens of history Of wish to view the Staffordshire reviews. The CC Morgan was part of a management team that caused immense distress and financial uncertainty to brave men and women whose careers where lost to them in Avon and Somerset.

    A and S wasted Hundreds and Thousands of pounds of taxpayers money in paying SMP’s. These questionable medics are chosen from a small pool, a pool that is tainted. The decisons of these individuals have been challenged and Northumbria Police have wasted huge sums on Barristers fees.

    CC Morgan is engaged in what can only be described as a crusade against pensioners as a result of his ill conceived attempts to punish them.in A and S where he failed.

    Will A and S be asking Vivian for a refund and compensation when the High Court finds him wanting.

  • 2017-11-11 at 5:24 am
    Permalink

    ”Through a fluke of mailroom efficiency, often these letters drop on a Saturday when week-day mental health support has closed”.

    An interesting observation btw, my letters from the DWP arrive in exactly the same manner, I used to think it was coincidence, but I’m more certain than ever that the PPA etc are using similar tactics employed by the DWP (my emails from Kier arrive around 5.30pm on a Friday evening lol), no coincidence the common theme here being SMP’s, I do wonder how many have a work history with the DWP.

    At first glance, many may see that as not being a particular issue, personally I beg to differ, their training is based around finding fraudulent claims, benefit scroungers etc etc, it’s little wonder imo that they approach our reviews with a similar mindset.

  • 2017-11-10 at 4:30 pm
    Permalink

    Another well written and informative blog.
    Those it is directed at should realise and understand that the Regulations were written and agreed upon in order to look after and compensate retired injured Police Officers. This includes Reg 37 which deals with reviews and which is intended as a further safeguard to ensure that the pensioner is properly compensated in the event of a deterioration of his/her level of disablement.
    It is not, and never has been, nor ever will be a tool to be used to aggressively bear down on pensioners in order to reduce pressure on Force budgets, and to those who continue to try and deliberately misrepresent and misinterpret the Regs, there can only be one response – “SEE YOU IN COURT”

  • 2017-11-10 at 4:22 pm
    Permalink

    Its very saddening to hear the horror stories that are being transmitted particular from the Staffs force area. Only the other day the CC Mr Morgan talked about being open and transparent Blah Blah. So whilst 3 current serving officers faced a Gross Misconduct hearing to which no doubt was a ‘witch hunt’ – it appears that Mr Morgan and DR Vivien can do what the hell they like.!!! Well is it another case of one rule for one and another !!!.

    Staffs police are completely ; off their trolleys’ and its about time that the legal system protects the injured officers. Mr Morgan – you are a laughing stock of a CC and whilst I suggest that you get a grip of your staff and I just hope and pray that these IOP who have fallen victim of your cost costing actions take firm action and seek justice. This is a fight you will wish you have never started. – You need to make 11 million pound savings – well it will cost you more, in illegal practices.

  • 2017-11-10 at 2:33 pm
    Permalink

    Very well written, and very frightening too. My heart goes out to 3 IOD officers from yesterday’s debacle ! I too will no doubt be in the same position, but thank goodness for IODPA, who will be with us every step of the way, and hopefully sense will soon prevail, and greedy SMP’s will have their just desserts, together with Forces who are intent on ruining people’s lives, when they do not have a lawful power to do so!

  • 2017-11-10 at 12:07 pm
    Permalink

    That job description is nothing short of a disgrace and it sets a certain ‘tone’ for the successful applicant from the outset !

    In any case, that’s a great read IODPA and thank you, especially the parts about it being more than just the loss of your ‘job’, for a great many of us, being a Police Officer defined us as an individual, coping with that is a huge burden and struggle when it’s gone, and I think the powers that be all too often forget that.

  • 2017-11-10 at 11:46 am
    Permalink

    This is shocking, disgusting and shameful. It truly is a national scandal.

    Police Forces are aggressively pursuing former officers, bending, circumventing and blatantly ignoring relevant regulations and case law simply to save money.

    Dr’s are doing exactly the same simply to make money.

    Dr Vivian, you should hang your head. The first principle of your role is to make the care of your patient your first concern. I wonder if you also try to circumvent this principle like your colleague, Dr Jonathan Broome, who justifies his despicable behaviour by claiming that the former officer is not his patient – I would say he needs to go back to Med School and be reminded of his role, but actually, he needs to go to prison because he knows exactly what he’s doing and he purposely causes harm to former officers in order to get the result he (and the Force) requires.

    For too long, Forces, HR staff and SMP’s have behaved exactly how they have wanted and done what they wanted in relation to Injury on Duty Awards and those in receipt of them.

    More often than not, this has resulted in the despicable treatment of former officers and unlawful actions and decisions. While the legal experts have enjoyed success after success at Judicial Review, overturning these corrupt decisions, there is no consequence or punishment for those individuals who blatantly breached the law in the first place.

    Individuals need to be personally accountable. HR managers unlawfully requesting medical records and completed medical questionnaires by putting their names to letters threatening reductions in bandings if not received are causing devastating stress and anxiety to former, ill, officers. It is not good enough for them to tow the party line. They are personally responsible.

    The same applies to the SMP’s. They are personally responsible for their behaviour and treatment of former injured officers and pretending that they are in a role other than that of a medical practitioner in order to justify breaches of GMC guidelines is simply not going to wash at court.

    There is a host of evidence regarding the vile and shocking behaviour of Dr Jonathan Broome’s treatment of police pensioners currently being collated. I know that a judge in any personal injury claim would be horrified that a so called medical practitioner could treat a human being the way he does.

    I am not sure how new to this corrupt SMP role Dr Vivian is, but he must surely have considered the manner in which Staffordshire Police are behaving.

    I hope, Dr Vivian, that you have fully considered how you are behaving and feel absolutely comfortable with your conduct and decisions because you are being forewarned that they will be challenged.

    Furthermore, you personally will be in the firing line for putting former officers through this stress and anxiety if your behaviour or decisions are wrong.

    The tide is turning. This charity has the knowledge, legal support, weight and passion to take these corrupt individuals to task. They have got away with breaching the law with no repercussions for too long.

    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

  • 2017-11-10 at 10:57 am
    Permalink

    For Whom the Bells Toll

    The above post is a straight from the hip tale, of just what is happening regarding IOD Officers.

    The job in recent years has not become harder, it has become more complex, but the equipment that is dished out to Police Officers nowadays is far superior.

    No longer a whistle, an intermittent PR, a cape and a piece of wood, and some cuffs, and off you go boy, so was it any wonder that Police Officers got injured? Of course not.

    Did I, or anyone else for that matter, actually think that we might get injured, while pursuing hi powered stolen vehicles, in a family car, with roof bar strobe lights, or when we were dispatched on foot patrol on your own, in some pretty volatile areas, no of course not.

    It didn’t actually enter your head.

    The POLICE as we were all told at training school was a big family, where you would be looked after, no matter what.

    ABSOLUTE COBBLERS!

    That is the biggest lie of all.

    Drop in the Kack or get injured, and watch them running for the hills, like rats jumping from a sinking ship.

    Originally when IODA’s were separated from the relevant Pension Schemes, these were funded directly from the Home Office, and latterly changed by the Labour Government in 2000.

    Prior to that, some Forces, most notably the Avon and Somerset Constabulary took financial accountability of the situation, and ” Dismisssed ” 311 Officers with IODA over a period of two years from 94/96. Unfortunately for them the 2000 decision, was a Paddy Pants Down moment in which they paid the price. This resulted in the now infamous letter of Mounstevens the PCC to Damian Green, the then Home Office minister in 2014, when she berated the number of IOD’s the A&S had, in relation to similar sized Forces.

    Well, Mountstevens, if you hadn’t sacked them all, you would not have inherited such a large bill!

    Dismissal from the Police with an IOD, is a stigma, that the IOD will never escape. To the people that remember in the Job, those in HR, and those above, you are a lead swinging scrounger.

    To the IOD, the loss not just of his or her career, pension rights, and comradeship is something that he or she may never get over.
    Loneliness, is one of the biggest and most silent of killers.
    It is one of the biggest factors, and causes of dementia.

    The POLICE ( Yes the Police Family, remember that one do you ) are now actively pursuing IOD Officers, despite being regularly admonished in court, on a regular basis.

    They have become the School Bully in the playground, where nothing applies to them.

    They continually request full medical notes going back to birth, while also retaining others.

    The FACT is that the Police Forces, do NOT have the right to retain sensitive, Medical or Personal Data, without the express permission of the Data Subject, which is why in 2006, one Force wrote to a number of IOD’s requesting permission to retain the notes, because they recognised they did not have the necessary permissions.

    Of course, the principles of the Data Protection Act, are not so much forgotten, but plainly ignored, because despite countless complaints to the Information Commissioners Office, none are upheld.

    Unfortunately, the quango that is the ICO, placed there for the security of everyone’s data, are a toothless Tiger, with seemingly little or no appetite for any form of confrontation with the playground bully, the POLICE.

    The POLICE for their part have become Teflon Tony, and now hide behind S14 of the DPA, and label any hard, taxing or worrysome enquiry regarding injury on Duty awards as vexatious.

    However, the issue of immediate financial penalties, is perfectly reasonable in the Teflon world, if an IOD refuses to complete a questionnaire, that he or she is NOT obliged to complete.

    The Regulations are themselves very easy to understand, in fact too easy for the Staff side, which like a cheat in Cluedo, the rules of engagement are interpreted completely differently.

    There is no need for new Home Office guidance, or any new legislation. The regulations are fair, and if the POLICE followed them correctly then no one would have anything to write about, or complain about.

    But, the Teflon POLICE want to WIN the game, so cheat they must….. apparently.

    Cheats never prosper.

  • 2017-11-10 at 10:29 am
    Permalink

    This is so sad to read. When you join the police, all keen and raring to go, no one will ever tell you that if you’re injured then you’ll be on your own and unsupported. Had I known back then what I know now, I’d have stood back and probably not done my job properly! I joined to help people, to catch criminals and have a career. Ten years in and I’m disabled through no fault of my own, from doing my job. No support from HR, and had to fight for any help at all, being put onto action plans for being poorly.. essentially a punishment. It sickens me that officers who more than often have put their own lives on the line are treated in this manner! Joining the police should come with a health warning! Thank god for IODPA, the David to take on Goliath on our behalf!

  • 2017-11-10 at 10:11 am
    Permalink

    IODPA fantastic, well done. This is another example of a light being shined in the dark arts that SOME – NOT all PPA practice.

    I have never worked for Northumbria but how comes this force has fought and lost so many JR and now an ET, what is the Chief officer team doing ? I’m half tempted to put in an FOI and find out how much they have spent on legal fees, PMAB, SMP fees.

    Lawyers litigate and Chief officers manage, why have you allowed sone in your organisation to waste huge sums of money on what can only be described as a Crusade.

  • 2017-11-10 at 9:41 am
    Permalink

    A very interesting and informative read thank you. Difficult to get through as it re kindled some of the anger and frustration I feel for my force (Gwent) and in particular Capita, who I would not pay in rusty washers!

    I retired in April 2017 and an still awaiting the bean counters at Capita to start paying my injury pension? They even suggested that I needed to apply to the DWP for a REA reduced earnings allowance, even though my injuries had occurred after 1990 and I was therefore not eligible to apply? All so I could get a DWP letter stating I would not be entitled?

    They then sent a letter to this effect to my home address and in it they included the pension and personal details of some poor woman in London???

    I have therefore instigated complaints with capita for breaching data protection and for the way they are processing my case and low and behold, within days they replied to me stating that I had been all sorted out and payment would commence on the November payroll? We shall see????

Comments are closed.