What we’ve got here is failure to communicate.
― Cool Hand Luke (1967)
It seems there has been a rush of blood to the heads of certain people in the higher echelons of Essex Police. For reasons as yet unknown to the Police Pension Authority, which is an office vested in none other than the sole personage of the Chief Constable, Steven Kavanagh (pictured), has decided to commence a programme of reviews.
For anyone who has not kept up with ongoing events in the long drawn out and sorry saga of police injury pension maladministration which has blighted the lives of far too many disabled former officers, here is a brief recap.
A ‘review’ is shorthand for what happens when a Police Pension Authority (PPA) exercises a power of discretion conferred on it by Regulation 37 of The Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006. A PPA decides to check whether the degree of disablement of an officer, retired with an injury pension, has altered.
It sounds simple, and it is simple. All a PPA has to do is follow the Regulations and be familiar with the ample case law which provides clarity should explanation be needed. Or, if they fancy a lighter but no less helpful read, HR managers could do no better than study the blogs which IODPA has thoughtfully provided to help educate them.
Yet despite this ready access to information PPAs have consistently managed to muck things up. You would think they were doing it deliberately.
In Essex, it is almost as though everyone who has had a hand in setting up this programme of reviews has been secured in a bubble, kept separate from the rest of the world, so they have no idea whatsoever about recent events.
Events such as the disaster in Avon and Somerset, where much public money was wasted in attempting to hold a review programme, which in our opinion was unlawful.
Events such as the Information Commissioner’s advising that Avon and Somerset and Northumbria had no right to continue to hold excessive historical personal information about retired officers.
Events such as the binding opinion of the Honourable Mr Justice Supperstone in the 2012 case of Simpson v. Northumbria Police Authority and others, where he made it very clear that,
‘The statutory scheme requires an assessment as to whether there has been an alteration in the degree of disablement first. A further quantum decision on the present degree of disablement is only permissible if the police authority, acting by the SMP, have first decided that there is a substantial alteration in the former officer’s degree of disablement.’
So, what is going on in Essex? What has prompted the idea to review batches of injured pensioners? And why has nobody – absolutely nobody – in management had the common sense and nous to look at the regulations and case law to see why their plan is likely to spectacularly fail.
It is indeed a failure to communicate on an epic scale.
More than a failure of communication, it is a failure of awareness, a failure of reason, a failure of professional competence, a failure of decency, a failure of knowledge and a total failure to treat disabled former officers with respect and consideration. There is so much wrong with what Essex is doing that in the space of this blog it won’t be possible to cover all aspects. We can, however, focus on a few elements which demand special attention due to their sheer crassness.
Let’s look at the letter and questionnaire which Kevin Kirby, Head of Pension Governance & Compliance has sent to the first of the injury pensioners who have been selected to undergo a ‘review’. Just who does he think he is, and just who does he think he is talking to?
He writes,
‘We will require a full update on your medical status since your retirement which requires you giving consent for release of your GP records.’
No, you can’t do that Mr Kirby. A review must only determine if there has been any alteration in the specific disabling effect of the recorded duty injury or injuries. One’s ‘medical status’ does not come into it. And neither does the record of a pensioner’s health since retirement.
He writes,
‘Please observe that the pension authority has full powers under the above regulations to undertake this review. It requires openness and transparency concerning your requirement to provide the pension authority with your consent and accurate information.’
Wrong again Mr Kirby. What are you talking about? The PPA has ‘full powers’? What do you think the PPA is – the dictator of some backward country bogged down in the Middle Ages? The only, very limited, power a PPA has, under regulation 37, is to ‘consider whether the degree of the pensioner’s disablement has altered.’ Where is the individual consideration in your sending out of letters and questionnaires to multiple recipients, all of whom are in the highest bands and thus represent the best prospect for the PPA to make reductions?
You can’t have your SMP make any assessment until you have carefully considered, in each individual case, whether a suitable interval has passed which will give good reason for the PPA to think a review is appropriate. You have not done that. Instead, you have gone straight to a process which is obviously intended to allow an unspecified someone to decide whether there has been an alteration in degree of disablement, largely on evidence of employment and earnings.
We do not think you have an inkling what degree of disablement is, or how any alteration is to be determined. Here is a clue for you. It is a medical matter, not a financial matter.
IODPA suspects that pensioners will be all too familiar with the authoritarian tone of a man who thinks he is in a position to order people to do his bidding. Pensioners, however, will know that he has no such authority. He has no power whatsoever to require anything of any private citizen, which is what all former officers are. He can ‘draw attention’ to the police pension regulations as much as he likes but even the most detailed reading of the regulations will not reveal anything which confers on a PPA the power to ‘require’ a single thing from any injury pensioner.
The questionnaire runs to six pages. IODPA will return to this most ill-intentioned document in full later. But for now, be amazed at how misguided the man is who thinks it is his business, his right, to ask you for details of your earnings, and then, astoundingly, requires you to sign consent to let him have HM Revenue hand over all details of your tax position, earnings and employment – since the date you retired.
To bolster up his empty demands for information, Mr Kirby then sees fit to issue what is an all too familiar nasty, and equally empty threat. He provides an Appendix A with his letter in which he seeks to tie his demands for information with a blatant but totally erroneous indication that failure to comply with all of his requirements will result in your pension being dropped to band one.
So, let’s round this up. We know that we are wasting our breath in trying to shock Mr Kirby into realising that he is just so very wrong in so many respects. He will, like all his colleagues across the country who have trodden this rocky road, go automatically into full defensive intransigent position at the first signs of any questioning of his plans. The only thing which will move Mr Kirby is when the PPA and SMP are ‘required’ to attend as respondents in a judicial review. And as sure as eggs are eggs that’s where Mr Kirby is taking his PPA and SMP.
Instead of trying to educate those who are deaf to reason and blind to accurate information, let’s close this by advising all injury on duty pensioners in Essex to file away Mr Kirby’s letter, questionnaire, and Appendix A for future reference. On no account complete the questionnaire. On no account give signed permission for the PPA to obtain medical or financial information.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbHPTPUpQ1I
Alone we are weak together we are strong (with apologies to Ridley Scott)
Remember the home office circular 46/2004? It was an attempt to get ALL IOD pensioners reduced to Band 1 when they reached the age of 65, (normal retirement age.) What a circus that started and it went on for years! It was then found in High Court to be unlawful and everyone was (supposed to be) returned to their original banding. The HO decided not to give out any more pension advice after that. There is a saying that out of all evil comes good, true in that case because what happened as a result was that IOD pensioners became aware that not all was right about IOD pensions and started gathering in a group called PIPIN. That group is what helped to get things put right. Following that ‘episode’ it seems that the practice of mass reviews started to occur among some Forces. This has led to the birth of the IODPA.org, a charity, which helps any and all IOD pensioners to be protected from the unlawful demands of the Force they had worked for, and to stop the bullying and harassment that comes along with those intended reviews.
The worst thing for those Forces was that ALL IOD pensioners are now becoming aware of all that is going on! They are educating themselves into the Police IOD Pension Rules and Regulations so can now identify the peculiar little changes that each Force seems to be attempting in order to save a few pennies from IOD Pensions! I wonder if the truth will ever be known about the extra costs of legal fees and SMP costs and appeal costs involved and if there has been/ will be any profit made from all these attempts?
Wake up Essex CC and smell the coffee! You have circulated the worst contact so far in notifying an IOD Pensioner that they are to be reviewed. You MUST adhere to the rule that the review is to determine if there has been any substantial change in any ones condition FIRST! I sincerely hope that ALL Band 1 and Band 2 Pensioners demand to have their cases reviewed! Medical Science has learned a lot these days and you may have a lot of Band 1’s who were retired for depression many years ago discovering that they actually have PTSD!!!!.
Is this CC so used to having everyone succumb to his demands that he thinks he can act outwith the law? That no one will notice? He can throw around his unlawful questionnaires with their ‘demands’ and their ‘requirements’ and not give any consideration to the detrimental affect it will have on officers injured in the line of duty? Targeting those with higher injury awards is discrimination.
I hope he will be held personally accountable for his actions and justice will prevail.
Im saddened but not surprised the Essex ACPOO and HR chums have gone in for a little bit of lets bully the ex vulnerable police officers many of whom suffer from acute mental and physical Illness. Most who read these pages know its unlawful but the plod just have to come back for more in a effort to save a few quid, the reality is they will save nothing and incur huge costs while Cheng and friends fill there fat bank accounts with more public money. I feel sick when I see how ACPOO behave and am disgusted that such people wear the uniform I was once proud to serve in. Its no surprise then that crime is on the way up, retention is awful and morale at rock bottom. UK plod PLC is now run by arrogant bullys, not leaders, the bullys only last so long and end up with failing organisations. You guys in Essex stay strong don’t be bullied by these arrogant, self obsessed, ego driven, loons.
Has anyone had information of a personal nature taken from them as a result of a deception? Personal sensitive information is property.
Has anyone had a threat issued and as a result parted with their information?
Has anyone suffered victimisation? Bullying or Harassment? Disability Discrimination?
Has anyone felt threatened by the communication’s issued by the Pension Authority?
Has anyone received a communication that contains an unlawful process or demand?
IF SO PLEASE TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTION:
Make a criminal complaint to the issuing authority of Fraud, Theft, Bullying & Harassment, Section 5 (Publication) & Victimisation under the Equality Act 2010.
Then make the same complaints (preferably as a group but as an individual if unable to register as a group) to the Equality Advisory Support Service.
Then make similar complaints to your MP.
Don’t forget your local councillors.
Write to the PCC and inform him/her of the complaints and how s/he is the supervising authority so will be held to account for the malfeasance.
Ask your local NARPO & Feds to seek legal advice for prosecuting the offences as they were derived from pension maladministration/misfeasance.
Then send a Subject Access Request (SAR) to the PPA to release ALL information held by any organisation or department electronically or hard copy the force has or intends to use.
At the same time issue a Cease and Desist notice for the use of all medical/personal information & demand its immediate return to you.
When you have done all that have a cup of tea, sit back and watch as you are described as vexatious, see how the force squirms to avoid releasing information.
Keep up the battering you may need to apply to get some legal support for the criminal offences. Good Luck all IOD’s in Essex.
Not a surprise in all honesty, when you consider how I was treated by Kavanagh, Kirby and Kheng it was more a matter of time.
This is standard unethical practice for these individuals and surely an offence of misconduct in a public office.
What’s to gain, Kavanagh reduces cost to his force and appeases the PCC. Kirby a protected individual who survives despite many complaints being brushed under the carpet gets a pat on the back from his boss. Best of all Cheng gets loads more money for conducting the unlawful reviews and subsequent PMAB’s.
About time the IPCC were contacted about this and a criminal complaint made about all three of them.
It seems that certain Chief Officers and their HRs and maybe even their ‘legal advisors’ exist in some parallel universe where they think that the Police Injury Pension Regulations and the associated case law just never happened. Unfortunately it means that once again the most severely disabled Police Pensioners have to endure a period of additional and unnecessary stress and anxiety until those responsible are made to see the error of their ways.
Advice to all Essex IOD’s. Stay strong, don’t let them bully you. Any help and advice you require is here on the Iodpa web site. I have been a member for the past few months and the information you gain and the advice given is priceless. At the start you think you are the only one in this process but then you realise just how many of us are in the same boat. Strength in numbers. Keep strong and don’t be afraid to ask. Somebody will know the answer….
I received my letter and naively had it filled out and back in the post within an hour. I can’t tell you how upset and embarrassed I am , to the point of tears, that some geezer in an office now knows that I wee through a stick and have had porridge shoved up my bum ( by a dr!!) to investigate why my bowels don’t work. I make light of it here but seriously?? My husband is so angry that he hasn’t protected his wife from having to share this with a man who has tricked me into sharing such personal information. I don’t want to complain because I don’t want to be an individual, I’d rather be in the crowd, but how?? Just how is the Chief allowing this to be sent out? How is this man allowed to run free with his clearly voiced vendetta against officers receiving an IOD Pension? He actually told my colleague how wrong the system is that we receive ‘so much’. I’m asking How but I already know the answer to why.
Withdraw your consent Kerry, or get your NARPO rep, Roy Scanes to do it on your behalf. Contact your GP and advise them EP don’t have your consent to have copies of your medical records. Likewise with the Inland Revenue.
I love this ‘I have the power’ quote from a small man with no power whatsoever.
An absolute disgrace that yet again forces are trying to save money by attacking the most injured. Are band 1s being contacted for review? If not, then surely this is discrimination. I hate what the job has become. Supposed to be a ‘family’. Yeah right..kiss my ass.
Very informative as usual, but don’t these forces actually communicate with each other, at least they would all be on the same page and realise what they can and can’t do.
The pure arrogance of these people is unbelievable
It may be they communicate via NWEF run by a solicitor called Wirz. Suspected to be funded or supported from the Home Office. (No substantial proof but lots of circumstantial evidence)
Oh dear, here we go again, another example of corporate bullying towards what they consider to be soft targets. They will of course hand out the same old line about having to ensure the pension scheme is appropriate and fair but then why go about this in a way which is inappropriate and completely unfair?!
Well we all know the real reason for this, it’s as Mr Kirby has been reported as saying, namely that he has been set a target to reduce pension payments and he thinks band 4 injuries are a thing of the past. Yes, read that again, good revealing evidence I would suggest to support the concerns of the most severely injured and vulnerable former officers now being selectively targeted in this most unlawful, dishonest, threatening way. It is an absolute scandal if Mr Kavanagh the chief constable can be allowed to continue in office unless he puts a stop to this sickening abuse of authority with immediate effect. We are on to you Mr Kavanagh and your civilian henchman, the very ignorant and ill advised Mr Kirby. It is really very simple, you have a choice. Either conduct the reviews lawfully and fairly in accordance with regulations and legislation, there is no problem with that, or continue with your illegal, threatening, bullying approach and face all the consequences. For at the end of this justice will be done and you will both be called to account. You will have no defence as your actions are illegal. What is it that you fail to understand here? So please, tear up all your illegal letters, pro-formers, action plans and policy documents and start again. Focus on acting within the law and you will have no problems. If you need guidance there is plenty of help out there. Failing that as I have said above. carry on as you are, waste tens of thousands of pounds of tax payers money and then deal with your own ultimate failure and ruined reputation. Oh and by the way during your own retirement you might then have time to reflect on all the many lives you will have pointlessly disrupted and damaged through your own most evil, unlawful and sickening conduct.
there is sense or whiff of Wirz’s NUMPTY Circus loose within Essex s HR system.Now However, Essex HR have gone one better an d are creating glorious names for themselves, I have one for you!
As with Staffs Police-being dragged into areas of creative law threats and human rights abuse it now spreads to Essex like a virus. The virus will move to Notts and on and on it spreads
Essex and other IODs , the SERVICE does not care or respect you, it’s hard to believe but it’s true. You will find how much very soon.
Please please , call liaise with IODPA, your local NARPO ask for help and assistance, they do make a difference, a big difference. Keep your force at arms length
If Essex wanted to save money stop their CC from eating, how much has he claimed,!!
Questions over earnings hmmmm. You could quite easily be band 4 100% injured and have inherited a portfolio of private rental properties which pay you in excess of £250k per annum. Absloutely nothing to do with Earning capacity. Amongst other iligitimate Questions, the Regs do not say anything about Income….
Acting well outside of Rules and regulations is a huge damaging act for those who professionally upheld law, rules and regulations. The act of stepping outside wgat is legitimate and lawful is hurrendously distressing and exasperating to ill health and particularly mental health problems. If indeed you are one of those who become so badly affected with your stress levels due to such criminal acts then get to your GPS and consultants to explain the tremendous negative impact of these actions rendering you unfit for work. If you are signed off then any decision at review has to be the “here and now”. If you have been managing part time hours of some description but now feel so targeted and wrongfully abused then your substantial change is part time hours to zero hours faster than one can state “Breach of Regs”!
Looks like the tables have turned Mr Powers in your best Dr Evil voice……
As a Staffs IOD the phrase déjà vu comes to mind. The entire Essex debacle so far is a mirror image of the Staffordshire Police attack on IOD pensioners. The characters could be clones of their counterparts in Staffs – from Chief constable through to the chap named Kirby whose gestapo sounding title of ‘Head of Pension Governance & Compliance’ is a Photostat copy of Staffordshire’s Andrew Coley.
Both of these two upstarts seem to be rather too big for their boots with ambitions for more power leading to ill-advised and overzealous attempts to appease the rantings of a chief constable who seems to have been easily led by others and not capable of considering alternatives to his force’s financial difficulties – it woz the Government wot done it Mr Kavanagh, not the IODs! Why not take them on rather than bullying battered bobbies? Too difficult? Too likely to affect your higher climb up the ladder? You know what they say about the monkey – the higher he climbs! Well you’re already up there now and the higher you climb the harder you hit the deck.
The shocking disregard of case law and understanding of the regulations is spelled out with blinding clarity in Kriminalkommissar Kirby’s ‘Orders’… (orders which must be obeyed at all times). Well it reads like something from Fawlty Towers doesn’t it!
My heart goes out to all my Essex colleagues who now seem set to have their lives and futures blighted by this. I am heartened by the fantastically forthright attitude of your NARPO Secretary Roy Scanes and feel saddened that we have not had the same level of courage, knowledge, foresight and willingness to say it so candidly as it really is.
It’s now up to the IODs of Essex who are already part of IODPA to track down old colleagues far and wide. These unprotected individuals will likely be your force’s first ‘easy targets’ and some may already have filled in questionnaires and consent forms. Get on facebook, get on the phone, scratch your head and contact people.
Mr Kavanagh unfortunately like a few other Chief Constables really thinks that he’s in charge of a Banana Republic where any demand that he can dream up becomes law.
To all Essex IOD former officers out there, you really need to get assistance from IODPA who have considerable experience, in advising how to properly deal with these bullying, threatening and plain unenforceable demands.
You are not alone in this, not at all. IODPA is there to help.
On my review they may have made a new spine for me, or found a way to stop my serious spinal injury (which will only get worse) magic away the discs and replace everything in my back. Either that or just ask my GP. Email is free, or a letter/form which would cost 50p to post out. How much is a full review going to cost the taxpayer ? More than a stamp I would have thought ! Who knows my condition the best, myself, GP and treating consultants, or someone (not a spinal specialist) who has never met me, does not know my background but states they can assess me in 30 minutes in an office ?
KAVANAGH and KIRBY what a pathetic pair of bully boys, are you really so stupid that you do not understand the regulations and the potential consequences of your intended maladministration. KIRBY has a lot to learn in his jack booted capacity of “head of pension governance and compliance” last year he endorsed an Essex pension board meeting as, “low level of IDRP and PO activity for 2016-17”, wake in you half wit because things will change in 2018!
26 Corrupt or other improper exercise of police powers and privileges
(1) A police constable listed in subsection (3) commits an offence if he or she—
(a) exercises the powers and privileges of a constable improperly, and
(b) knows or ought to know that the exercise is improper.
(2) A police constable guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years or a fine (or both).
(3) The police constables referred to in subsection (1) are—
(a) a constable of a police force in England and Wales;
(b) a special constable for a police area in England and Wales;
(c) a constable or special constable of the British Transport Police Force;
(d) a constable of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary;
(e) a constable of the Ministry of Defence Police;
(f) a National Crime Agency officer designated under section 9 or 10 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 as having the powers and privileges of a constable.
(4) For the purposes of this section, a police constable exercises the powers and privileges of a constable improperly if—
(a) he or she exercises a power or privilege of a constable for the purpose of achieving—
(i) a benefit for himself or herself, or
(ii) a benefit or a detriment for another person, and
(b) a reasonable person would not expect the power or privilege to be exercised for the purpose of achieving that benefit or detriment.
(5) For the purposes of this section, a police constable is to be treated as exercising the powers and privileges of a constable improperly in the cases described in subsections (6) and (7).
(6) The first case is where—
(a) the police constable fails to exercise a power or privilege of a constable,
(b) the purpose of the failure is to achieve a benefit or detriment described in subsection (4)(a), and
(c) a reasonable person would not expect a constable to fail to exercise the power or privilege for the purpose of achieving that benefit or detriment.
(7) The second case is where—
(a) the police constable threatens to exercise, or not to exercise, a power or privilege of a constable,
(b) the threat is made for the purpose of achieving a benefit or detriment described in subsection (4)(a), and
(c) a reasonable person would not expect a constable to threaten to exercise, or not to exercise, the power or privilege for the purpose of achieving that benefit or detriment.
(8) An offence is committed under this section if the act or omission in question takes place in the United Kingdom or in United Kingdom waters.
(9) In this section—
• “benefit” and “detriment” mean any benefit or detriment, whether or not in money or other property and whether temporary or permanent;
• “United Kingdom waters” means the sea and other waters within the seaward limits of the United Kingdom’s territorial sea.
(10) References in this section to exercising, or not exercising, the powers and privileges of a constable include performing, or not performing, the duties of a constable.
(11) Nothing in this section affects what constitutes the offence of misconduct in public office at common law in England and Wales or Northern Ireland.
There can be no excuse for the actions being taken by the Essex Chief Constable, the ‘Regulations’ are clear and there is too much decided Case Law for them ‘NOT’ to understand what is required. The intended process appears to fit perfectly under section 7 (The second Case) and also appears to meet ‘Misconduct in Public Office’ Obviously he has no knowledge of the Human Rights Act regarding ‘The Right to a Private Life’ and the requirement that his ‘Public Body’ is legally obliged to fully comply with that particular legislation but I guess the need to save money by picking on his Injured ex Officers is a more attractive proposition than reducing his expenses? Perhaps IOD’s in Essex need to contact the Equality and Human Rights Commission and highlight the abuses of their rights by this dictatorial stone age organisation.
“You cannot be serious!” John McEnroe was known to have a bit of a temper on occasion.
I just can’t imagine what he would make of the latest step by our once beloved and respected police services. They seem to think that because we once took orders we will continue to do so, what a surprise for them that it’s no longer the way things work.
Many of the IOD’s being targeted were trained in the days when training was at it’s best. We learned a great deal about justice, evidence, diligence and the truth. We are not the sort of people to forget that grounding and pour skills may have eroded a little but they’re still there, willing and able to play their part.
I hate injustice and people who bring about injustice towards others really are the lowest of the low. The thing they forget is that they might find the boot on the other foot one day and as they aren’t IOD’s they won’t be supported by IODPA. Justice will happen and we have right on our side.
Back in the day, police officers and police forces were able to refer to the Manual of Guidance. The MOG was published by Her Majesty’s Stationary Office in hard copy and updated on a regular basis. It was a comprehensive tome, filled with law and regulations about every aspect of policing. Obviously, it weighed a ton.
Every officer from Sergeant to Chief Constable had s copy because it was impossible to pas the Police Promotion Exams without it. Many constables had a copy because it contained the Law and was therefore essential reading.
I imagine that every HR Department in all 43 police forces in England & Wales held multiple copies of the Manual because it was the definitive guide to Police Regulations and proper procedures.
The Manual of Guidance was withdrawn from publication in the mid-90s. It was replaced by a range of flimsy paperback study guides. These were aimed at officers sitting the multi-choice part of the now-defunct OSPREY promotion exams. Compared to the MOG, these guides were hugely abridged summaries of law and procedure. These were little use to HR teams.
The loss of the MOG means that no singularly definitive hard copy guide to police regulations now exists. It appears that very few people in very few police HR departments and Police Command suites have read the Police Pension Regulations. What makes this even more shocking is that we live in the Information Age, where anyone can access information about anything at any time from anywhere in the world.
As a police officer, you couldn’t expect to put a prosecution file together without knowing the definitions and being fully aware of the Points to Prove for the alleged offence. As a Chief Constable, you shouldn’t expect to run a police force without knowing the Police Regulations (or having at least one person in your team who Kew them well enough to advise you).
Perhaps it’s time to bring back the Manual of Guidance.
Ps, if anyone from an HR department or Command team is reading this, the Police Pension Regulations are available online and have been for s very long time.
I always thought that discrimination based on disability was unlawful in the UK.
Hopefully the same proportion of each band of pensioner is being called to review, otherwise if say a larger proportion of the most seriously disabled pensioners are being reviewed than those less disabled, whoever is responsible for selecting those to be reviewed should be reported for disability discrimination.
I don’t believe that trying to make savings for the police budget would be seen as acceptable in court, during a discrimination case. Hopefully the Police Federation will be proactive and investigate this process and if unlawful discrimination is found report the head of HR and Chief Constable for any offences which are being committed. While on that subject are there any laws about making unlawful threats which cause harassment, alarm or distress!
I am a former police officer. I was injured on duty and my disability has been devastating to my life and that of my family.. Essex Chief Constable is so grateful for my service and so keen on his duty of care to me as an injured Essex police pensioner that he intends sending me a letter saying if I don’t give him access to all of my medical history from birth, give him details of my taxes, tell him what car I drive and allow him to talk to various organisations about me then he will reduce the pension award I am entitled to – to the very lowest amount he can. I understand that Essex Police need to check in on their pensioners. It’s only right. Some may have experienced improvement. I’m sure a lot of them will have worsened over time as a result of what happened to them at work and the injuries they received. But what I would really like to know is where Essex Police get off threatening and bullying their police pensioners. And worse, lying and blackmailing them. It is sick. Really sick.
Another car crash PR exercise about to be made public due yet again to a nasty sneering little HR manager who likely started their career despising serving officers and then found that this could be continued against disabled and injured ex officers.
Im still amazed as to the level of humanity and depth of ignorance displayed by these people, they honestly think that injured ex officers are somehow being given some kind of perk?
The unlawful and threatening demands contained in this letter must be made public and must be met with legal action now.
I feel sorry that Kavanagh has compromised his integrity and morals with this action, Policing has truly entered its darkest period when it deliberately targets those who gave and lost so much in the line of duty.
There are some truly wicked people in charge of once decent organisations and an even greater number prepared to turn a blind eye to their behaviour.
Oh dear here we go again. It seems to me that H.R. staff, and indeed chief constables, are confusing ‘injury pensions’ with ‘benefits’ given to the public for unemployment or disability etc. I believe this because the D.W.P. act in a similar fashion. When I was injured in the course of my police duty and medically retired I was granted an ‘INJUURY AWARD’ not a ‘benefit’. Now this was some years ago and the award was never described or considered as a ‘BENEFIT’. Please tell me, I may be a dinosaur, has this changed ?
This confuses me too, when did a police injury award become a benefit ?
Could / would it be worthwhile launching a campaign in Essex & Staffs & Avon for all Band 1 officers to request a review in line with the Regs and 2012 Case? Health tends to deteriorate with older age.
Shame on you Kavanagh, I wonder what your highly respected ex serving now retired father will think about this? I also ask the same question to the police crime commissioner, or whatever the complete waste of money individual calls himself, as his father also served in the police. I wonder if you would both still step aside and allow this ignorant fool Kirby to send out unlawful and menacing demands to severely injured and disabled former officers if it was your father who had seen his life changed for the worse by simply doing his duty to protect others?!
You are all a disgrace, far worse than any low-life now ruling the streets without fear, owing to your weak and ineffective leadership. I guess you think you can do better if you can now save a few bob by hounding sick and disabled retired officers. You really need to think again as you are heading towards disaster with this. You have sold out to your political masters and you really should feel thoroughly ashamed of yourself for picking on what you think are weak targets. I will remind you again that this current action done in your name is unlawful. And so very soon you will be exposed, and named and shamed for your unlawful attempt to discriminate and threaten a group of civilians in our society who were just unfortunate to have been injured whilst serving in your ugly force. You will not save money by doing this, trust me, this will cost your tax paying public tens of thousands of pounds. Ask around, do a bit of research, get Kirby to start reading up on this, and you might save face just in time. But your wicked actions will never be forgotten. That will be your legacy, certainly not a case of like father, like son, why not ask him how he would feel, it might bring you to your senses?!
Blatant abuse of authority and IOD pensioners. NARPO Secs. letter sums it up well. Will it take another JR for these PPAs to understand their role?
You would think that this Chief Constable would be the last person to start unlawful reviews! He has just been splashed across the papers and media for his exorbitant wages and expenses claims! Yet, this Force are reviewing the most seriously injured officers because they supposedly have no money! It’s not surprising when these “fat cats” are milking the system! Has this C.C ever been out on the street? Has he ever faced an angry man? Has he ever been seriously injured and had his life ruined?
Chief Constable Kavanagh
Publicly explain exactly where in legislation and pension regulations it allows you the discretion to reduce a disabled officer’s banding to the lowest level if they don’t do exactly what you say (as you describe in your letters to disabled pensioners).
You won’t publicly explain because there is no such discretion.
You are shameful. Threatening, bullying and blatantly lying to former police officers who served your Force, disabled by being injured on duty.
Select only those paid the highest award (because they are the most severely disabled) in order to have the best option for saving money. A bit rich when you’re claiming from the budget for your lunches!
Shameful, bullying fool. That is all.
When will forces realise that the regulations were written with the IOD in mind and not for forces and HR departments to beat IOD up with. IODPA have tried and tried to get the message out ” Do it right or don’t do it at all” they must be pretty stupid if they can’t see that if it was done right there would be no appeals and no court cases and therefore they would save money in fact if they didn’t carry out reviews then they would save money.
IODPA will keep fighting for the rights of IODS and those who are at the sharp end are true hero’s and shinning lights in the fight to get forces to comply with the regs.
I must also say that Essex NARPO have come up trumps with their letter to the CC of Essex at last NARPO are starting to climb aboard.
What an absolute shambles this country’s Police Forces are becoming….trying to intimidate people who have served for them, put their lives at risk for them, and how do they re pay them…like they are nobody’s!!! We were just a number when serving, and are now just a nuisance !.. well Mr kavvanah and Kirby you have a fight on your hands …
iODPA will educate you as the forecoming months ‘drag on’ for you ex Police officers…
All I will say to any Ex Essex IOD officers reading, is stay strong, don’t let them grind you down, and have faith in the fantastic IODPA team…
The Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 intend that the ‘review’ provision should only be used rarely. It comes into play only when a police pension authority has good reason to believe there has been a substantial alteration in the degree of an individual pensioner’s disablement. The review provision is not there to allow for a mass fishing expedition, intended to discover whether any pensioner has experienced a substantial alteration in degree of disablement.
Essex are targeting disabled former officers on band four – classed as ‘very seriously disabled’. This is unfair discrimination and reveals the motivation for the reviews. Essex hope to find a way to reduce the pension payments of as many very seriously disabled people as they can.
A police pension authority has a duty to see that the correct level of pension continues to be paid. It can be adjusted should a former officer experience a substantial alteration in degree of disablement – and that can be a worsening or an improvement. All who are on band four can’t be paid any more pension even if their condition has worsened. They can be paid less pension if their condition has improved substantially. And that is what Essex is hoping to discover.
Unfortunately, they are prepared to put all on band four through the mill – cause them financial uncertainty, stress and upset in the hope a few pensions can be reduced. That is just plain wrong and is no way to treat disabled people.
So here’s a suggestion CC Kavanagh. Why don’t you write a polite, personal letter to ALL of your injury on duty pensioners, thanking them for their sacrifice in the line of duty and promising only to consider whether their degree of disablement has altered when you have some good reason to think it might have? You could remind them to ask for a review if they think the disabling effects of their duty injury has substantially worsened. You could also remind them to let you know if they think the disabling effects of their duty injury has improved substantially.
Think of the money this simple approach will save.
I thought Staffordshire Police’s attempt to obtain masses of unrelated confidential information was bad enough, this being more or less a copy of the others….Merseyside, Avon & Somerset, Nottingham etc.
They too made threats to withdraw pensions for non-coperation, but yet again when faced with the prospect of a JR, quickly found reverse! Interestingly, they never sent a follow up letter advising retired officers that they had done this, obviously hoping that the naive ones would still complete the forms and sign their own ‘death warrants’.
However, Essex seem to have raised the bar on this disgracefull bullying to a new unbelivable high! Through these threats and intimidation there is a common theme here with HR Heads. Another forces HR Head wanted to replace the forces fleet of aging cars through Injury on Duty pension reductions, Essex go further with their HR Head apparently stating he has a financial target to meet and that a Band 4 award is a thing of the past! Current Essex officers should note this and ask if when being assaulted, if the offender can please stop once the injuries reach Band 3!
It’s about time one of these HR Heads was made to pay for the consequences of their actions, personally, instead of moving on without jepardy. The coats to the force and the public purse of the appeals against decisions, the JR’s, legal fees etc., ought to be reasons for disciplinary action against them. If one HR Head suffered financially as a result of their unlawful actions, these practices woukd soon stop. It won’t happen unfortunately, but I do hope Karma remembers you Mr. Kirby. I’m sure the retired Essex IOD’s and IODPA will!
It appears to me, and no doubt so many others who read this site that these PPA’s act as an independent dictator state, having no regard to ‘Case Law’ or the ‘Regulations’, put in place to safe guard not only the recipient of an Injury Pension(self explanatory), and the PPA. It beggars belief that the CC acting as PPA would stick their head above the parapet before a visit of current legislation. Failure to do so not only leaves them subject to being popped at, but may subject their funding to be reduced by having to pay out for a legal defence and/or compensation…….
It costs them next to nothing to read……….failure to do so could cost them(or rather their rate payers) a considerable amount in money, and bring into question their confidence and competent to manage.
I hope that all IOD pensioners in Essex are aware of this site and the excellant work it does.
It should give them the confidence to refuse to complete the illegal questionnaire. Hope the Essex Federation are on board and contacting all the IOD Pensioners to give suitable advice.
Same shit different force, doesn’t anyone talk to each other these days, doesn’t anyone bother to read the regulations?. It’s no wonder they can’t find criminals, they would have difficulty in finding their own asses with a flashlight.
Here we go again, another force thinking they can bully their former officers into releasing information that the force are not entitled to have.
How many pensioners have been called to review from Essex? If I hear right, and it is only band threes and fours, is this discrimination? It’s clearly to save money, that bit is obvious.
I have been reading your blogs and following everything you produce for some time now and I need to ask…does Essex attend those NAMF meetings, or whatever it is called nowadays?
I am guessing so, considering they are demanding the same stuff as Staffordshire and Avon and Somerset and Merseyside before them. How have any of those other forces fared by ordering pensioners to release medical notes and insisting that the questionnaire is completed? Not very well.
It’s a case of another force taking up the cudgels and thinking they will be the ones to achieve success. Wrong. VERY WRONG.
Glad to see you are there IODPA, ready to support those in Essex straight away.
You just can’t imagine what goes on in the corridors of power in places like Essex and Staffordshire Police HQ. Apart from the likes of CC Kavanagh munching his way through his publicly funded lunches they must really think they are living in the Dickensian age where they can dictate to disabled former officers what they will and won’t do in their misguided attempt to save money by the illegal use of Reg 37(1). It’s time for them to wake up and smell the coffee. Oh and by the way I’m sure CC Kavanagh would even put an expenses claim in for the coffee. Essex IOD’s you need to stay strong. IODPA are here to guide you through this worrying time just as they have in Staffordshire and elsewhere. No IOD object to the review process so long as they are carried out in accordance with the Regulation and case law. Yes Chief Constables in accordance with the law which even you are not above.
Another example of intimidation and bullying of former officers. I hope that in the fullness of time these Cheif Constables will be proved wrong.