Chief Constable Kavanagh of Essex Police responds to IODPA

Following the recent announcement of Essex Police to start reviewing injury pensions, and after reviewing documentation sent out by Kevin Kirby, we were sufficiently disturbed to formally write to the Chief Constable, Mr Kavavagh. Here is a copy of the letter that we sent.

 

Letter to Essex CC

 

Here is the reply that Mr Kavanagh provided.

 

CC Kavanagh Reply

 

We are grateful to Mr Cananagh for taking the time to reply, but still feel as though there are lot of unanswered questions.

Chief Constable Kavanagh of Essex Police responds to IODPA
Tagged on:     

29 thoughts on “Chief Constable Kavanagh of Essex Police responds to IODPA

  • 2018-04-01 at 10:56 pm
    Permalink

    To answer Anon for obvious reasons,

    You’ve posted a fair question.

    Firstly nobody is against reviews, but ALL the evidence available points towards the fact that none of the forces that are conducting them are doing them fairly and in line with the regulations and current case law. That is the crux of the matter. In fact this extends to the granting of the original injury award too.

    The injury award is there to ensure that an officer who will have sustained a permanent disability, and has lost their job and career in the line of duty, is financially compensated for not being able to obtain the same employment as the next person because of the disability.

    In ideal world, it would work as you suggest, but there are clear statements from the forces who review their pensioners with the sole intention of saving money from their budgets. They are not done because they are fulfilling a duty, or to ensure that the pensioner receives the correct amount of injury pension.

    Here are some examples of the ways in which forces conduct their reviews,

    a) Target only those on the highest bands because they can make the most savings if they are are reduced.
    b) Ignore those on the lowest bands because their award can only go one way, and that is up.
    c) Pensioners are called repeatedly, even though there is clear evidence that they will never get any better.
    d) Intrusive and excessive demands are made for all sorts of personal and financial records to which there is no entitlement in law.
    e) Threats are made to unlawfully reduce or remove an award, for failing to comply with the force’s demands.

    Many of the doctors used are not specialists in any particular field, and yet are making medical decisions, in specialist areas. Also, if they are being paid for each review (approx £750 a time), they cannot possibly be independent.

    You also have to realise that each and every pensioner has a disability of some description, whether physical or mental, and living under threat of constant scrutiny is not conducive to their well being.

  • 2018-04-01 at 2:44 pm
    Permalink

    Well done IODPA! It’s astounding that this whole process of reviewing awards is a pure money saving venture.
    A selective venture at that. Made clearly obvious by focussing on bands 3 and 4 only.
    I agree that a forceful insistence be made to have your original questions answered.
    Again, well done!

  • 2018-04-01 at 11:57 am
    Permalink

    I know this is not going to bear well will anybody who is a member of this charity/group, but here it goes.

    IF you do suffer the same injury, what is the problem with being checked again ? I’m sure there may be a few who have got better but still claim their injury money. If you are unfit/unwell to carry on being in the police, and you still have that injury, what is the problem ?

    On the other hand, if your injury/health has got worse, I have been advised you could get more money. Win win situation.

    For the people who still have the same injury and nothing has changed, police doctor checks it out and you stay the same.
    IF you have got better and earning more money, why should you still get the same money as someone as someone who is not better ?
    IF your condition has got worse, you get more money/help !

    Unless you have anything to hide, I don’t see the problem. However if you are now better than when you were medically discharged (and got a lump sum pension, plus the injury award) then the money should be given to other people who you are stopping getting.

    I agree that EVERYONE should be checked over a period of a few years, even if it is just a letter from a GP/Consultant to state what your health.
    Negative thoughts ?

  • 2018-04-01 at 9:32 am
    Permalink

    I wonder if Mr Kavanagh ever played cricket??? He’s done a great job of batting off the original questions …all I will say to any Ex Essex officers reading this, is listen to the advice of IODPA, you will have a tremendous amount of help and suppprt from not only the trustees, but other like minded folk too, who they have helped…
    What a fantastic letter again from IODPA…pity the reply is shi**.

  • 2018-03-29 at 9:34 pm
    Permalink

    My freedom of information request still hasn’t been answered, I have a feeling it’s because Kavanagh will incriminate himself by doing so. It’s clear Essex are discriminating against injured officers based on their age and degree of disablement.

    This is the tip of the iceberg, Essex police are currently discriminating against injured officers with mental health injuries, arguably the most vulnerable. Injury pensions for mental health issues no longer exist in Essex due to discrimination.

    Mssrs Kavanagh, Kirby and Cheng the net is closing!

  • 2018-03-15 at 2:35 pm
    Permalink

    His reply is short and without substance and no admission of wrongdoing. If this happened without his knowledge is he worthy of the rank. If it did then I suppose the question remains the same. In my opinion smacks more of “S**t they have had our pants down,time to regroup” Call me cynical but I see a cynic as a realist with experience. Just my views though and it is better than that given by that oik in Staffs

  • 2018-03-15 at 10:30 am
    Permalink

    The IODPA letter of 5 February 2018 is an unambiguous request for information. Section 1(1) of Freedom of Information Act 2000 required Chief Constable Kavanagh to provide the information as requested. It matters not that the original IODPA letter did not specify that the request was being made in accordance to the Freedom of Information Act. The requirements of Section 8 of the Act have been fully met. The IODPA letter of 5 February 2018 is a de-facto request for information. The letter is by the definition of the Act a lawful request made in accordance with Section 1(1).
    Section 10(1) of the Act requires Chief Constable Kavanagh to provide the information (or to detail his specific reasons for not doing so) within twenty working days of its receipt (that is by 6th March 2018). Chief Constable Kavanagh has failed to provide the information requested. He is therefore in breach of Freedom of Information Act.
    Complaints of failures by police forces to comply with the Freedom of Information Act are investigated by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO has the power to; Issue Enforcement Notices, require offenders to sign an Undertaking to Comply, and/or Issue a Monetary Penalties against those failing to comply . The ICO also publicly names (on the ICO web-site) those failing to comply with the Act. To date, nine such Chief Constables have been named and shamed for their failures.
    It is absolutely clear that Chief Constable Kavanagh has breached the Freedom of Information Act. All that is required now is a formal complaint to the ICO who will ensure that the information requested within the IODPA letter is provided.

  • 2018-03-15 at 8:21 am
    Permalink

    The superb letter sent by IODPA which asked some robust questions and dealt with pure facts has been answered with a rather short, woolly and disappointing response. The CC uses the words ‘clumsy’ and ‘distressing’ which do not adequately describe the contents of his force’s letter. Withdrawing the requests was the right and only thing he could do when challenged by IODPA. What is disappointing is the lack of any other content. Where are the answers to the questions? If this letter had been sent to him from another registered charity or, say, the ICO, would he be able to ignore the content and just send out a few words that they wanted to hear? Not one question has been answered and that’s just bad manners. Whilst his response may be welcomed, I for one would like to see those questions posed by IODPA all answered.

  • 2018-03-15 at 3:42 am
    Permalink

    I think this all smacks of ignorance and arrogance. It appears more than ever that Chief Kavanagh and his admin man Kirby didn’t have a clue about the latest case law, recent events and distinguished legal opinion. This was identified in the original iodpa blog on this matter where the author said…. “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.” I think this is the truth and although Chief Kavanagh and Kirby have now been educated they will also know that ignorance of the law is no defence. So whilst it is in some ways decent of Chief Kavanagh to admit the Kirby letter was either clumsy or distressing he has not gone anywhere near far enough to repair the damage already done. This letter may have been clumsy AND distressing but it was also corrupt and unlawful. The fact Chief Kavanagh knows this to be true is the real reason he will not address the questions asked of him in the letter sent by iodpa. Crucial questions remain unanswered, not least of which is who instructed Kirby to reduce the pension bill and who knew he had messed with the wording of the regulations in a deliberate attempt to deceive disabled former officers?! Sorry but this whole affair still stinks, and the fact they also intend to use Cheng, who they know Is the subject of investigation, only adds to the evidence of this most distasteful attempt to further destroy lives of former officers in an effort to save a relatively small amount of money by dishonest means. I do not think for one minute that this is the end of the matter, it is only the beginning, and I suspect it will all end up before a Judge, as the small handful of forces who are conducting reviews seem incapable of playing by the rules. Only then will Chief Kavanagh and Mr Kirby be forced to explain themselves. Here we have Ignorance and arrogance all on display in the name of power. Sometimes I wonder about the sick world we all live in. Is honesty and fair play really too much to expect these days?! But maybe Chief Kavanagh will prove me wrong and restore my faith. Maybe Mr Kirby will be disciplined or dismissed for his actions. And maybe Chief Kavanagh will answer all the questions put to him and then apologise for all the distress and damage already caused and guarantee that any future reviews will be conducted fairly and in full accordance with the law. Only then would my faith be restored.

  • 2018-03-14 at 11:39 pm
    Permalink

    Well done, it appears the Chief Constable has taken your concerns on board. While I am sure he wouldn’t say so, was this review undertaken at the request of the Police and Crimes Commissioner? It has the smell of that sort of interference as I can’t see any Chief Officer treating his injured troops in the way alleged.

  • 2018-03-14 at 9:24 pm
    Permalink

    Well sadly this is a common tactic used by police forces across the UK. Whilst it gives me great a little relief to see the CC having the courage to say nope this is wrong he’s stop short of saying the hardest word in the world Sorry!! I suspect that it’s because nationally the police are under the spotlight operations under that NAMF or what ever it’s called now. They are the lead driving force behind the unlawful process driven by Northumbria police which included the magic trio of miss Lesley Anne knowles, Nicholas Wirz and Dr Broome. It’s no coincidence that all these persons are encouraging forces to twist and circumvent the injury regulations driven by financial savings. If Essex and Staffs continue on this glide path it will in fact cost more than any saving perhaps the CC Kavanagh should speak to Northumbria CC and see what plan they should ‘boil’ next.

  • 2018-03-14 at 7:54 pm
    Permalink

    Such a mealy mouthed response, let’s be frank here Mr Kavanagh, if it wasn’t for IODPA, you and your ilk would still be walking all over us and brushing us aside without a care in the world, well, unfortunately for you, they are and you lot have been found out, so watch your step !

  • 2018-03-14 at 7:48 pm
    Permalink

    What would have been nice would be for the CC to have said that the matter would be investigated fully and those who authored the letters etc will be dealt with accordingly.
    The good to come out of this is that IODPA is started to be listened to and people are taking notice. Well done IODPA keep up the great work.

  • 2018-03-14 at 7:11 pm
    Permalink

    I have to say it is a matter of trust and confidence in relation to this review process however from what I’ve seen most bridges have been well and truly burnt by most of the forces involved. How to rebuild is a different matter.
    Well done IODPA, but I am dubious when I read the reply from the CC, on the face it the reply sounds positive but when looked at more closely it says very little and I echo previous replies and wonder is this a calm before a storm ? I sincerely hope I’m wrong and this is a way forward for IODs and not a lull before a regroup and further attack when the CC is better appraised.

  • 2018-03-14 at 6:24 pm
    Permalink

    Well done to IODPA for taking the time to write such a well authored letter. Your endless help to pensioners is incredible.
    I also applaud CC Kavanagh for replying. However, there are many questions that still need answering. I will admire this CC even more if he does respond to the very relevant questions that IODPA have asked.

    Good work guys.

  • 2018-03-14 at 6:02 pm
    Permalink

    I originally thought “Well Done CC Kavanagh” when I saw that the reply to Essex NARPO on their website. At last we here have a PPA who is caring and compassionate and really does want to support the entire policing family. I then see the very accurate and searching letter from IODPA which asks some questions that really need answering, and highlights evidence of malpractice at least, and malfeasance in all probability, that he and Kevin Kirby need to answer. So what does CC Kavanagh do? He replies to IODPA with a copy of the letter he sent to NARPO.

    All Essex have done is put their wagons in a circle while they dream up the latest way to try and assault the livelihood of injured disabled former officers who through no fault of their own were medically retired having been injured on duty. Shame on you. Shame on you!!!

  • 2018-03-14 at 5:46 pm
    Permalink

    CC KAVANAGH’s words are appeasing however his lack of knowledge still shines through, what is a SENIOR MEDICAL PRACTITIONER!

  • 2018-03-14 at 5:36 pm
    Permalink

    My concern is that the CC is back peddling as he knew the actions were unlawful and is regrouping in order to act in a more lawful manner in the future. While there was a matter of law at point the federation would fund the legal process. If the CC regroups and eliminates the question of law then the federation may withdraw such funding? I do not know this to be fact but fear it could be the reason. How would an officer have financial support if the fed funding was withdrawn?
    The treatment by forces amounts to mental torture its an utter disgrace.

  • 2018-03-14 at 5:35 pm
    Permalink

    It proves that Chief Constables are getting a bit jittery at the speed that IODPA are moving.It won’t be long before we get under the skin of CC Morgan as well as Essex.

  • 2018-03-14 at 5:32 pm
    Permalink

    Good work IODPA. I strongly suspect that the revocation is due to legal advice being followed. It is still a success, however, I await the alternative offering that is no doubt forthcoming. I will not be directly affected (although we all are in some way or another). If I was, I would not co-operate except to say that I will comply with the Regulations and only the Regulations. I wish that decision makers would do the same.

  • 2018-03-14 at 5:31 pm
    Permalink

    It is extremely heartening to read that a Chief Constable can admit when their Force have got something wrong. This ‘something’ was very damaging though, to the health and well-being of many police pensioners.

    I do think that the Chief Constable would have found the questions posed by the IODPA very difficult to answer, and my suspicious side does wonder if he hopes that this admission and display of support for the “police family” is enough to make us happy and not worry that he hasn’t answered the very important questions.

    That said, I will hold on to his apology and await his next move, because that will truly show the metal of the man.

  • 2018-03-14 at 5:28 pm
    Permalink

    At last a small sign of integrity within the modern police service! The Essex Chief Constable is to be applauded re his decision, although anyone conscious would realise the cost, in both financial and reputational terms to have continued on the current path. I trust he will honor his promise to do reviews lawfully, if at all.

    I hope other Chief Officers take note, especially Staffordshire’s Chief Constable Morgan, who could do with showing a little compassion, if some not integrity, regarding the disgraceful letters with a direct threat already sent out to some of his Injured on Duty pensioners. Later forced to amend the letter, or face legal proceedings, the new slightly amended version now in use, still comes with a veiled threat!

    However, if his past track record in Avon & Somerset is to be considered, then his current stance indicates that this is very unlikely and those Staffordshire IOD pensioners next to be drawn into this unlawful mass review, will continue to be threatened and bullied.

    Essex Chief Constable, please pass the message to him and other police chiefs.

  • 2018-03-14 at 5:25 pm
    Permalink

    Well done IODPA. I hope that you will be responding to CC Kavanagh, to respectfully request that he provides answers to ALL of the original questions put to him?
    His reply thus far, albeit a positive step, does not address any of the issues raised.

  • 2018-03-14 at 5:20 pm
    Permalink

    You have secured a tangible and effective result here. Well done.

    The other matters can be addressed later but, for now, you got his attention and he withdrew the requests and submissions received.

    Bloody good effort IODPA!

  • 2018-03-14 at 5:12 pm
    Permalink

    Well done yet again to the IODPA to have taken this matter up and succeeded in getting Essex Police to withdraw this disgraceful and downright damaging letter.
    The mind boggles at just how certain individuals involved in the drafting of this document could ever had thought the language used was ever appropriate considering they were aimed at disabled and vulnerable human beings?

    Well done also to Chief Constable Kavanagh for recognising the damaging impact of this and immediately calling a halt to any further correspondence being sent out. That is strong leadership and clearly from now on he will have to keep a closer eye on those employees of his who were responsible for the letter and who so obviously lack his morals or genuine compassion.
    Its never easy to admit youre wrong especially in a position such as his, other Chief Constables such as the loathsome Gareth Morgan from Staffordshire could do well to follow his example and learn something from this.

  • 2018-03-14 at 5:09 pm
    Permalink

    Onnthe face of it, the CC has taken on board the IODPA observations and taken steps to correct the illegal processes. It remains to be seen if this is honoured. Nice one IODPA.

  • 2018-03-14 at 5:08 pm
    Permalink

    Hes especially and conveniently left the part out about why all the focus is on bands 1 & 2?!

    • 2018-03-14 at 5:25 pm
      Permalink

      yes, because to answer that question would leave him open to possible prosecution under the Equality Act

  • 2018-03-14 at 5:04 pm
    Permalink

    It is good to see that The Chief Constable has stepped in to stop the unlawful requests but why has he not answered the valid questions that have been raised. This isnt the only force using these tactics and it needs to be stopped. The regulations are there for all to comply with. Why do some police forces think they are above these regulations and can act outside of them with no recourse. Officers have sacrificed themselves in the line of duty some recieving horrendous injuries and some forces are trying to target them thinking they are an easy target. It is disgusting!

Comments are closed.