The talk of Essex

The world always makes the assumption that the exposure of an error is identical with the discovery of truth – that the error and truth are simply opposite. They are nothing of the sort. What the world turns to, when it is cured of one error, is usually simply another error, and maybe one worse than the first one.

H. L. Mencken (1880 – 1956)

 

Clever Cat, Stupid Cat

Police pension authorities, and the employees who act under their instruction, have consistently demonstrated a remarkable ability to make errors. Over the last few years we in the IODPA have seen some prime examples, and have sadly heard of the damage they’ve caused to disabled former officers and their families.

It is said that if a cat jumps up onto a hot stove, it will never do it again. Well, we can say with a good degree of certainty that some police injury pension scheme managers are nowhere near as clever as cats.

No sooner has one PPA or another had its errors corrected by a judicial review or by the Pensions Ombudsman, than another pops up and repeats the very same errors, or invents completely new ones.

 

A Most Unpleasant Letter

Essex have decided to conduct a programme of reviews of the degree of disablement of some of its disabled former officers who are in receipt of an injury pension. So, Mr Kirby, the Head of Governance & Compliance for Essex police pension authority, took on the task of writing to them. Which presents us with the opportunity to dissect his extremely unpleasant and inaccurate letter and point out the errors it contains. The letter can be read in all its full glory here.

 

Letter from Essex call to review

 

Scalpel Please, Nurse.

Let’s make the first incision by reminding ourselves, and Mr Kirby, that the letter is addressed exclusively to disabled people. Some of whom will have physical impairment, some will have mental impairment and some both. We see no signs this appallingly constructed glob of officialese was written by someone who gave any thought to its possible impact on the recipients.

It is not hard to imagine the sense of doom, the panic, the lonely desperation welling up in the minds of those who are made vulnerable by the symptoms of a mental or physical injury when this letter landed on their doormats. We know, because we get told these things, often, and know the mere sight of a letter on police headed notepaper can be enough to destabilise some pensioners. Yet Mr Kirby addresses them all as though they are not only fit and well, but also fully conversant with the intricacies of the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006.

We understand the main target of the proposed reviews are pensioners in band four. That is the highest degree of disablement, identified in the Regulations as ‘Very serious disablement’. Surely someone gave some thought to the impact of the letter on this group of people?

Before we go further we should assure Mr Kirby that we mean no personal insult to him. He may be a pawn in a larger game, and only doing what he has been commanded to do. He may be understaffed, untrained and unsure. He could be under pressure to produce results. However, he put his name to the letter and must take responsibility for its contents.

 

Apologise and Withdraw

If Mr Kirby has any moral core he will immediately apologise for sending out his letter, and the questionnaire and Appendix which came with it. He will withdraw it all, and sit down with local NARPO, Federation and injury pensioners, to consider very carefully the implications to the force and to the injury pensioners should the PPA continue on the disastrous course his letter has set.

IODPA has no issues with lawfully held reviews but we have to speak out when a PPA announces its intention to act outside the confines of the Regulations. This blog is intended to be as much an encouragement to Essex to realise its wrongheadedness and to think again, as it is a crib sheet for injury on duty pensioners, giving them points to use to challenge and question their police pension authority.

Mr Kirby’s letter contains so many errors and muddled inaccurate information that it is going to take more than one blog to deal with it and the accompanying Appendix and Questionnaire.

Mr Kirby’s letter begins with the phrase,

As you are aware . . .” and mentions the Regulations and something he calls an intention to “. . . review your degree of disablement earnings related capacity.”

We very much doubt pensioners are aware. In our wide experience it would be a rare individual who would know the detail of the Regulations or what a review might involve. If they were to think the letter would explain, in simple easily understandable language, what the PPA is aiming to achieve, they would be disappointed.

 

Fools Rush In

The letter seems to have little or no grasp of the Regulations. Yet it is written with a confident style which is misplaced and in terms which display inadequacies.

There is no mention of a ‘review’ in the Regulations. That word does not appear. ‘Review’ has become generally accepted shorthand, for those who deal with injury pension issues on a daily basis, for the process which is mostly set out in regulation 37 of the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006.  Police injury on duty pensioners can not be assumed to know what a ‘review’ is. Thus, the first error of the letter is a failure to properly explain what Essex PPA intends.

Nor is there any mention in the Regulations of reviewing something called a ‘degree of disablement earnings related capacity’. Now, this is something which IODPA would very much like to see Mr Kirby attempt to explain. We have no idea what he is referring to and neither will any pensioner, because it is an invented term which has no bearing on the Regulations.

Let’s get things straight. Regulation 37 confers a conditional power of discretion, not a duty, on police pension authorities to do this, in this order:

 

  1. For an individual pensioner, positively identify that a ‘suitable interval’ has passed since the time of the last final decision on degree of disablement.
  2. ‘Consider’ whether the individual pensioner’s degree of disablement has altered.
  3. If a police pension authority has good reason to believe it has altered, so that the pension payment may need revising, up or down, then refer for decision the question of degree of disablement to a ‘duly qualified medical practitioner’.
  4. If the selected medical practitioner decides there has been a substantial alteration, they can determine what the degree of alteration is, by setting the amount of alteration against the established degree of disablement and thus arrive at a new percentage degree of disablement.

Now, of course, there is much, much more to the process that this brief aide-memoire provides. There are many ways a police pension authority can come unstuck. However, to assist Essex and guide them away from the current disastrous approach we should just mention that it is vital that any ‘review’ is an individual process for an individual person. A PPA simply can not decide en bloc to ‘review’ a group of pensioners.

 

A Misplaced Sense Of Duty

We should also mention what Mr Kirby’s letter describes as,

‘. . . a duty as part of good governance to periodically review the degree of earnings capacity of pensioners in receipt of an injury award.’

We will return to ‘good governance’ in the next blog, but we need to deal with ‘duty’ first.  The duty placed on a police pension authority under regulation 37 is it, ‘. . . shall, at such intervals as may be suitable, consider whether the degree of the pensioner’s disablement has altered . . .’

Essex is not the first police pension authority to use a misreading of the Regulations to support a false claim that it has a ‘duty to review’. It is true there is a duty to ‘consider’ at ‘suitable intervals’ whether there is any alteration in degree of disablement, but forces divert from the intention and purpose of regulation 37 when they leap ahead of this simple, restricted, conditional duty.

Mr Kirby’s letter tells us,

‘. . . the process requires the involvement of the pension authority’s selected medical practitioner’ and ‘In order to assess the degree of disablement the selected medical practitioner will need to take account of your skills and qualifications and what kind of employment you could undertake . . .’

Now to be fair to Mr Kirby, it could be that he genuinely, but mistakenly, thinks that the PPA can only properly ‘consider’ matters as per regulation 37 if it gathers in all the information it asks for in the questionnaire and gets their SMP involved in analysing it.

Trouble is, Mr Kirby is asking, sorry, requiring, pensioners to hand over information the PPA has no right to demand. Nor can he involve the SMP until the PPA is in a position to be considering revising an injury pension. As things stood at the time Mr Kirby wrote his letter, the PPA could have no reason at all to think that any pensioner had experienced an alteration in their degree of disablement.

A PPA has no legal authority, or ‘power’ as Mr Kirby would describe it, to require any information from former officers.

IODPA advises any Essex pensioner who has received the above letter, questionnaire and Annex from Mr Kirby not to respond to hand over any information, or give the permissions asked for.

The talk of Essex
Tagged on:     

28 thoughts on “The talk of Essex

  • 2018-02-10 at 10:41 pm
    Permalink

    I could almost feel sorry for Mr Kirby as he attempts to initiate a series of reviews, when he clearly has little knowledge of the regulations which parliament put in place to protect the financial welfare of permanently disabled police officers. Unfortunately for him, some of his would be victims of his clumsy attempt to administer injury pensions are well aware of their rights.

    Mr Kirby should realise these regulations are to protect injured officers and he should perhaps concentrate on those receiving the lowest level of pension first, to ensure that their condition does not require an increase. That would of course be true if this was an honourable process as opposed to a money saving scheme at the expense of people permanently disabled whilst serving the public.

    Reply
  • 2018-02-10 at 6:43 pm
    Permalink

    What is most apparent when reading these comments is the legal knowledge now held by so many of us being reviewed, of the review process, the regulations and how a review should be legally conducted. We have all come together nationally, we meet, we share 24/7 . We are empowered by the legal knowledge, legal and emotional support that we have all gained by being members of the IODPA who take on these police forces, challenge their illegal practices and win.

    These reviews are illegal, they always have been, the illegal way they are decided on, the illegal way they are conducted and the illegal bending and twisting of the pension regulations by police forces to illegally take away rightfully deserved medical pensions from our injured colleagues.

    This letter is disgusting and we see again a police force trying to give credibility to a misleading document and authority to an illegal review by claiming its association (rightly or wrongly) with the police federation. I hate to think of the many innocent, trusting, vulnerable, isolated iods who have never heard of IODPA being conned into completing this illegal questionnaire because they think it is federation approved.

    National FED and NARPO need to do more to educate every IOD of these illegal review practices in their mags and letters, use their voices on national media, lobby mps, distance themselves from illegal reviews, do more to fight the injustice and challenge these illegal reviews.

    Reply
  • 2018-02-09 at 7:10 pm
    Permalink

    When will these police forces learn. They all send delegates to NAMF or what ever it is called these days , Mr Wirz spins them aload of utter rubbish and the rest is history. We will reduce the pensioner from the highest band to the lowest and then pull some thin evidence from the clouds to justify this.

    This approach is and all cost Essex police more tax payers money in the long run rather than saving money. Its all about the saving of the money.

    Its a very saddening sign of the times.

    Reply
  • 2018-02-07 at 9:29 am
    Permalink

    Sadly it’s only a matter of time before this hateful, heartless, unlawful and menacing conduct by Essex Police will have dire consequences, because the worry and stress of this action will be the final straw for one of their seriously ill former officers and then it will all be too late. It is well known that mental health illness is the one condition that regularly causes sufferers to kill themselves. Essex Police have sent this out to their most seriously sick former officers, some of whom they will know are suffering from mental illness. The fact they have done this by bending the rules in order to give them a better chance of reducing the compensation payable to these former officers is both sickening and hateful. Forget the spin about having a duty to do this and all the rest of their bullshit, everyone knows the truth behind their actions but they do not care. What a sick society we live in now, poorly, disabled, brave former officers being picked on because the police have no money and a few green eyed monsters think they are getting too much! It is truly disgusting and rotten to the core! So I now say come on Mr Kavanagh let’s hear you say something about this as your silence is deafening. Prove me and everyone else wrong, show us you do care and admit you have got this all wrong. Let’s not risk the unthinkable here, let’s act with kindness and decency and in accordance with regulations and case law and your conscience can be clear. Have some respect for your former colleagues and re-direct your frustration about your budget shortfall to those directly responsible. I suspect that may seem more difficult for you but I would contend otherwise. You have the power to stop this nonsense now, I hope you also have the courage to do so.

    Reply
  • 2018-02-06 at 4:11 pm
    Permalink

    Spot the Mistakes

    It seems almost incredible that anyone, let alone a Head of Pension Governance and Compliance, could send out such a poorly written and constructed letter. It is full of mistakes. Here is my list. Can anyone spot more?

    1. The letter begins in bold, capital letters and underlined. That’s bad manners as it seems like shouting.

    2. There is mention of ‘DEGREE OF DISABLEMENT EARNINGS CAPACITY’ which is impossible to understand, for it does not feature in the Regulations.

    3. Kirby writes, ‘The scheme manager (chief constable) of the pension authority is responsible . . .’ Confusing. There is no such thing as ‘the pension authority’. There is a police pension authority, and that is an office vested in the Chief Constable. The ‘scheme manager’ is the police pension authority and thus is the also the Chief Constable. So why didn’t Kirby simply write, ‘The Chief Constable, acting in his role as police pension authority is responsible . . .’?

    4. I note Kirby gives his own title in initial capitals, but denies his boss, the Chief Constable the same respect.

    5. Kirby mentions reviewing degree of ‘earnings capacity’ ‘periodically’. Well, ‘periodically’ means recurring at intervals of time. In other words, regular reviews, held at set intervals. Kirby is wrong, for as pensioners well know, a review can only be held ‘at such intervals as may be suitable’. This implies there must be a review only when it is suitable to do so, not at regular intervals. If an interval is thought to be suitable, then the PPA would need to provide its reason for thinking it was suitable. Clearly, Mr Kirby has ignored that, as he proposes reviewing a whole batch of pensioners.

    6. Next, I read that ‘the scheme manager is also supported by the local police pension board . . .’ and then goes on to say, ‘The local pension has been fully consulted . . .’ He is probably referring to the police pension board, but has failed to check his letter through before sending it, so has missed a rather glaring error.

    7. Kirby tells us that, ‘The purpose of the review is to consider your current level of disability related earnings.’ This is complete rubbish. The purpose of regulation 37 is for the PPA to consider whether the degree of the pensioner’s disablement has altered, not to consider current degree of disablement. Mr Kirby can’t even use the correct term – degree of disablement – even though it appears in regulation 37 and throughout the Regulations. Instead he has invented a meaningless term of his own, and thus risks confusing pensioners. Worse, when Essex PPA ends up in the Administrative court as respondent in a judicial review, this letter will be read out as evidence of the lack of knowledge and professionalism which no pensioner should be expected to have to try to decipher.

    Well, there’s seven errors, or seven deadly sins for you, and the end of the first page not yet reached. I’ll stop there, and if I haven’t lost the will to live will gird up my loins later and have another wade through Kirby’s Slough of Depond. I feel sure the Slough is going to do to Kirby as it did for Christian – he will sink in the morass.

    “This miry Slough is such a place as cannot be mended; it is the descent whither the scum and filth that attends conviction for sin doth continually run, and therefore is it called the Slough of Despond.”

    Reply
  • 2018-02-06 at 2:07 pm
    Permalink

    The trouble with the likes of Kirby and Co is that they spend their time bossing Police officers around like the over promoted civilians that they are. Well NEWSFLASH “we are not scared of you, we don’t have to comply with your dreamt up rules, we are not Police officers. Your force policies and procedures mean nothing to us, just stick to the rules that’s all”

    . Why don’t you speak to your counterpart in Avon and Somerset and ask them what it was like to eat dirt, or are you too arrogant and think that you know more than them.

    The problem with people like you is that you only seem to take notice when a judge is explaining it to you.

    . Have you asked your head bean counter how much money has been set aside for the future JR’s and court cases then set that amount against what you think you will actually gain or has your arrogance once again ruled your head.

    Essex need to wake up and smell the coffee, if you think IODPA are going down without a fight then you are so wrong.

    Reply
  • 2018-02-06 at 1:56 pm
    Permalink

    I am ex A and S and have been subjected to the bullying nature of HR and finance officers. I have been brought to tears again by this letter and it does not apply to me but I know what these letters do to your mind and mental health. IODPA are right behind you former Officers from ESSEX,STAFFS and any other force that attempt these unlawful bullying tactics to go on.
    We must remember as well we are no longer police officers and we are civilians and we do not have to obey orders and we will be treated as any other member of the public. The likes of Kirby and Colley are insignificant in this debacle and they will have to answer for their actions one day and hopefully that day is coming.
    KIRBY are you the one that said”Band fours are a thing of the past” if that was you then come out and justify that comment in public, we all know that you won’t because you haven’t got the equipment(balls)to do so and you should be ashamed of even thinking that.

    Reply
  • 2018-02-06 at 1:54 pm
    Permalink

    I can only imagine the result of receiving such a letter from their Force, after how many years of being an IOD pensioner and hearing nothing whatsoever previously, will have on each and every pensioner who has no clue about meanings of ‘reviews’, or ‘bandings’ or anything else about rules and regulations of IOD pensions. They will have trusted that their IOD pensions were paid at the correct rate from the beginning of their IOD award.

    It is now being discovered that a lot of that trust has been misplaced!! Thanks to Iodpa.org the truth is coming out. The forces doing mass reviews are not doing anything lawfully and are deliberately misinterpreting the ACTUAL rules and regulations of IOD Pensions. This was caught out by HO46/2004 as being found in the High Courts as unlawful, and it seems that forces are now nibbling away at wording and meanings of the IOD Pensions Rules and Regulations ever since.

    Their goal is to reduce IOD pensions as much as they can get away with and remain unchallenged. They are being challenged on a much higher level now thanks to Iodpa.org. IOD pensioners are now becoming more aware of those rules. Essex will get busted quickly because now NARPO have got involved too! The ones I feel so sorry for are the IOD pensioners who are not IODPA or Narpo members and have no other way to discover how dishonest the authorities are being, and will be cheated out of their correct level of IOD pension!

    Reply
  • 2018-02-06 at 7:49 am
    Permalink

    Mr Kirby, why don’t you actually make contact with IODPA and ask how reviews should be conducted? I am not being tongue in cheek nor being sarcastic. It’s a genuine comment made with sincerity. I know you and your equivalents in other forces don’t want to recognise IODPA for who they are, but one day you will. They study these Regulations, they study caselaw. They understand the Regs like no other body.
    You conduct reviews lawfully without trying to mislead your injured officers, and you would find that pensioners would engage in any lawful process.
    You try to demand them to do things which are unlawful and you can be guaranteed that you will be challenged. And quite rightly so.

    Mr J.B.W

    Reply
  • 2018-02-06 at 6:24 am
    Permalink

    Another great blog. Unfortunately forces are making mistake after mistake. When will they learn? And if they don’t learn should be very much held to account

    Reply
  • 2018-02-05 at 11:45 pm
    Permalink

    Misconduct in public office.
    But I would suggest the CC is culpable as he is in control.

    Reply
  • 2018-02-05 at 11:19 pm
    Permalink

    In his book ‘Blue’, now-retired Chief Superintendent John Sutherland writes:

    “One of the Deputy Assistant Commissioners is on the phone – Steve Kavanagh. He’s a good friend and, refreshingly, he’s not actually asking me for anything, He’s checking that I’m alright and asking whether I need anything. I appreciate the call.”

    This account suggests that now-Chief Constable Steve Kavanagh is capable of acting in a caring and compassionate manner towards ill and injured colleagues.

    Mr Kavanagh now has a perfect opportunity to prove that John Sutherland was right and not simply describing a case of RHIP (Rank Has Its Privileges).

    Come on Sir, prove John Sutherland right. Retract the letter and the questionnaire, educate yourself and your team and do things in accordance with the Regulations.

    Reply
  • 2018-02-05 at 10:47 pm
    Permalink

    The regulations are very specific, they are not open to interpretation, however much it serves your purpose Mr Kirby. The law will decide who is right and who is wrong, but if you need a hint Mr Kirby, however many words you write between the lines will not change what is actually written on the lines!
    Aside from preying on the lack of understanding of Pensioners who have given almost everything they had ‘for the job’ you have damaged them further as a result of being in receipt of your communication Mr Kirby.
    Maybe you can look in the mirror Mr Kirby, what you’ll find looking back is something heartless and happy to cause harm to others. How does it feel? Like an injustice?

    Reply
  • 2018-02-05 at 10:44 pm
    Permalink

    What an absolutely disgracful letter to send out to disabled people!

    Essex IOD’s, you are being abused!

    Essex Police you are a disgrace.

    Essex IOD’s, you are not on your own! Essex Police have escalated what Avon & Somerset, Nottinghamshire & Staffordshire have, or are trying to do and failing miserably.

    Through our joint IODPA efforts, we will not allow this blatent mususe of power to succeed.

    Stay strong, your ex colleagues throughout the UK are behind you.

    Reply
  • 2018-02-05 at 10:27 pm
    Permalink

    Oh dear Mr Kirby…I think you believe you are talking to ‘joe public’ here…..not people who have the intelligence you see exactly what a load of rubbish your letter is! It sounds something more like a script from Joey Essex to me…Essex IOD’s and indeed any other force IOD, please contact IODPA for support and help
    Mr Kirby…dream on!

    Reply
  • 2018-02-05 at 9:49 pm
    Permalink

    John and Baz please stay strong. Easy for me to say as I don’t have a psychological injury.
    How can organisations like Essex and Staffordshire Police behave in such a way. Well they are doing it because they hope to save money by carrying out these illegal reviews. I do have sympathy for their reducing budgets but the easy answer should be for the Chief Constable and PCC’s to challenge the Government. But this would mean them putting their heads above the parapet and we know how they want to keep their over inflated salaries and expense accounts. No they will take the easy option and attack those who they deem to be easy targets. Well you have been found out. We are not easy targets. We have fantastic support from IODPA and Essex NARPO and we will not allow you to get away with this draconian illegal review. Take note Kirby and Kavannagh your days are numbered.

    Reply
  • 2018-02-05 at 9:25 pm
    Permalink

    The people who are organising these reviews should first and foremost read and fully understand the law behind governing these reviews. Once they fully understand the legislation then they should conduct these reviews in a proper lawfull manner. There would be no problem with that. Can you imagine if serving police officers made up the law as they went along. There would soon be an outcry and a stop put to it. It is no different. Treat these men and women correctly. They deserve it. They put there lives, careers and health in danger for you and this is how you treat them. I was seriously injured 30 years ago stopping a man from attacking a police surgeon and have been unable to work since. Ironic that whilst saving one doctor another one wants to hurt me. You should be ashamed of your actions….

    Reply
  • 2018-02-05 at 9:02 pm
    Permalink

    Mr. Kirby, when I comment on these blogs I point out the unlawful mistakes but I am usually polite. In your case I cannot be because of the sheer incompetent and malicious way you have written this letter.

    You are a fool, a complete imbecile! You conjure up a load of written rubbish hoping to bully injured pensioners into complying with you. The letter has no factual backing whatsoever. Please go and read the Police Regulations and then make an attempt to write another letter.

    The author of this blog has corrected most of your mistakes. I would like to suggest another one. You write “A relevant consideration is whether you could manage a job full time or would have to work part time”

    This sentence is overly presumptive, don’t you think? What about the many pensioners like myself that have been assessed by your SMPs as 100%, i.e. unable to work at all. The DWP also assess us as unable to work at all! My life was ruined when I was severely injured in uniform trying to protect a member of the public. That member of the public could have been you, your wife, your mother! You have the cheek to send out rubbish like this to pensioners like myself.

    You will get nothing further from me. All I will do is attend the SMPs interview as required by the regulations.

    Reply
  • 2018-02-05 at 9:02 pm
    Permalink

    Misconduct in a public office?

    Reply
  • 2018-02-05 at 9:00 pm
    Permalink

    So when did the Regulations say that a review was about disability related earnings? I have just read and reread the Regs and can find nothing of the sort. Mr Kirby, me thinks that you have been overzealous with the ‘truth’ on what is actually required on a review. You require openness and transparency. Bit rich coming from you, with all what you have written. This threatening and intimidating letter is just awful. How many pensioners have you sent this to, who are suffering from mental health issues? Have you given them any thought whatsoever? I can’t imagine CC Kavanagh could possibly approve this vitriolic letter to people that would have been his police officers. Prepared to lay their life down for him and the general public.
    Essex pensioners, please do not be afraid nor be intimidated into doing anything rash. I implore you to contact IODPA who will be there to suppprt you.

    Reply
  • 2018-02-05 at 8:58 pm
    Permalink

    The only question a PPA is entitled to ask of an IOD pensioner is “Has there been any alteration to your degree of disablement”. If, as is likely in the vast majority of cases, the answer is “No”, then that is the end of the matter and the PPA has discharged their ‘duty’ under Reg 37, and is not entitled to intrude any further on the private life of the individual.
    A further point is that at suitable intervals (according to individual circumstances) the PPA should be asking the same question of ALL IOD pensioners, including those on the lower bands as there is just as much likelihood that their degree of disablement may have altered. Of course, this may result in one or two having their pensions adjusted upwards…….so maybe we shouldn’t hold our breaths.

    Reply
  • 2018-02-05 at 8:36 pm
    Permalink

    This one is the most abominable so far. It twists and alters the regulations into something which Mr Kirby would have the reader to believe is ‘LAW’. As a Staffs IOD and now fully engaged (thankfully) with IODPA I have can fully empathise with John. This entire unfair, illegal and unjust situation is having a terrible effect on the welfare and wellbeing of everyone who is being subjected to it. Mr Kirby’s letter is as bad as it gets.

    Reply
  • 2018-02-05 at 8:27 pm
    Permalink

    Having read Mr Kirby’s letter, I can’t believe that Chief Constable Kavanagh could have been aware that such a pile of rubbish was being put out in his name. It is complete drivel.

    Utterly shocking. This bloke Kirby must have lost complete control of his senses. It is an outrageously insensitive and aggressive way to apply the Regulations.

    I hope that anyone who has had this letter immediately complains to the Chief Constable about Kirby’s bullying authoritarian tone.

    Kirby needs to wind his neck in. He should be made to apologise for his disgusting behaviour.

    Reply
  • 2018-02-05 at 8:10 pm
    Permalink

    The letter should be withdrawn and they should review their whole approach to IOD Pensions, don’t forces talk to each other about this, they either don’t keep abreast of current Judicial Reviews regarding IOD’s, or they just don’t give a shit and do what they want.

    Reply
  • 2018-02-05 at 8:01 pm
    Permalink

    Another example of a police force trying to bully and coerse its former officers in an attempt to save money. It amazes me that police forces are treating former officers so badly. Officers that were proud to serve there forces and probably received life changing injuries that ultimately ended their careers. If only they knew the effect this has on former officers. And then to treat them so badly is unforgivable. I hope that in due course this type of treatment is shown to be unlawful and that forces reconsider how they treat former officers.

    Reply
  • 2018-02-05 at 7:42 pm
    Permalink

    As an Essex IODP with PTSD, I can assure you that this letter arriving on my doormat certainly has caused me harassment alarm and distress. Finding myself sinking into a black hole one thing I can be certain of is my condition is now far worse than it was before Kirby wrote to me…..

    Reply
  • 2018-02-05 at 7:01 pm
    Permalink

    When are idiots like Kirby going to be punished for their cavalier attitudes to the regulations?
    Fools like him will keep on coming, unless there is a suitable example made, to act as a deterrent.

    Reply
  • 2018-02-05 at 7:00 pm
    Permalink

    As an iod pensioner suffering with ptsd, a letter such as this -as you have rightly pointed out- would cause me a good deal of distress. Your advice to not respond to such unlawful requests for information would leave me facing four weeks of worry. Assuming I didn’t respond, what further mind games could I expect from my force – who at the miner are not carrying out reviews? Would I be wise to consult a solicitor should a letter such as this drop on my doorstep?

    [If you are in need of advice, please email us – admin]

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *