Annex C – The Legacy

The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones.

— William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar

 

A while ago, back in 2004, a civil servant, name of John Alexander Gilbert, who was employed within the Home Office as Head of the Police Pensions & Retirement Policy Section put his signature to a document which caused a great deal of trouble, pain and cost.

Trouble and pain to disabled former officers, and cost to police forces – all of which continues to this day.

The document was Home Office circular 46/2004. It offered guidance to Chief Officers of Police.  Its full title was The Police Pension Scheme – Police Medical Appeal Boards/Role of Selected Medical Practitioner/British Transport Police Transfers.

There were three Annexes to the document. Annex C was the poisoned chalice from which Chief Constables were invited to drink.

 

ANNEX C

 

Annex C was a most remarkable document. It contained direct lies and unlawful distorted advice which sorely misdirected some Chief Constables and the doctors tasked with assessing the medical condition of injured former officers. It seems to have been the signal flag announcing the beginning of a dirty campaign intended to reduce or deny injured officers and former officers the pension rights conferred on them by Parliament.

Annex C caused an outcry, with voices raised from several directions, all questioning the lawfulness of the guidance. It took until 2012 for the Home Office to be compelled, at the doors of a court of law, into agreeing to withdraw the guidance.

Disabled former officers suffered for eight long years wherever Chief Officers followed the flawed guidance. Some had their injury pensions drastically reduced and all were thrown into a limbo of financial uncertainty and stress.

However, the suffering did not cease with the document’s withdrawal. Since 2004 injury on duty pensioners have witnessed and have been subjected to a most inventive, sustained and systematic course of aggressive activities devised by HR managers and Chief Constables, all intended to erode and deny pension rights. We don’t propose to analyse here why maladministration blossomed in the wake of Annex C, other than to say it seems to arise from a toxic mix of lack of knowledge and training combined with attitudes contrary to the welfare of disabled former officers.

Annex C has left a disturbing legacy and that is why it may be timely to look again at what was learned about the guidance in the hope that decent and more enlightened HR managers and Chief Constables may better understand the harm which results from maladministration. IODPA remains hopeful that the continuing lessons handed out to wayward forces by the courts will serve to curtail those who deliberately set out to cause harm and will encourage those who wish to manage police injury pensions lawfully and humanely.

We can start our brief lesson on Annex C where Annex C itself starts. It stated:

This Guidance is being issued to help ensure a fairer, more cohesive approach to the payment of injury benefits to ill-health retired officers who have reached the compulsory retirement age with their Force. A recent survey found that practice in this area was diverse. Some forces automatically reduced degree of disablement benefits to the lowest banding when this age had been reached – others continued to pay benefits at the same rate until the death of the Officer concerned.

 

That very first paragraph contained two direct lies.

Extensive research showed that no force had ever, ‘automatically reduced degree of disablement benefits to the lowest banding’ at any age or stage of retirement. In truth, no force had ever used an individual’s age or any stage of their retirement to reduce their pensions, whether automatically or otherwise.

The Home Office was invited to provide the names of the forces which it claimed had automatically reduced degree of disablement benefits to the lowest banding at what would have been compulsory retirement age. It was unable to produce any names. It could not, as all forces had revealed – to a former officer who conducted the research mentioned above – that none of them had ever taken such actions.

The ‘recent survey’ referred to was in truth a complete invention. There was no survey. The Home Office was asked to produce any evidence of the survey. It at first claimed that delegates to the National Attendance Management Forum (NAMF) had given their views in a single ‘round the table’ discussion on the topic – which is hardly an example of a survey on which life-changing advice ought to be based. When the agenda and minutes of the meetings of the NAMF were obtained there was nothing even hinting at any such discussion.

Moreover, the NAMF is not attended by representatives from all forces. Nor are any representatives of NARPO present. Police injury on duty pensioners views are entirely unrepresented. The NAMF was a talking ship for HR managers, and other employees of forces, and a platform for a certain Mr Nicholas Wirz to peddle his own warped view of the law. Notably, representatives of the Home Office were usually always present.

The Home Office then changed its story and claimed that the ‘survey’ was the result of several discussions and several NAMF meetings. Again, the agenda and minutes are absent of any reference to any such discussion.

The Home Office claimed in Annex C that there had been ‘consultation’ (with whom, it neglected to mention). Certainly there was no consultation with NARPO, as Deputy CEO Clint Elliot made very clear. (See below – in the full analysis of Annex C)

Annex C went on to disregard the Regulations with a virtuoso display of unsupported assumption. It said:

Once a former officer receiving an injury pension reaches the age of 65 they will have reached their State Pension Age irrespective of whether they are male or female. The force then has the discretion, in the absence of a cogent reason otherwise, to advise the SMP to place the former officer in the lowest band of Degree of Disablement.  At such a point the former officer would normally no longer be expected to be earning a salary in the employment market.

 

The Regulations are not to be administered on assumptions, but on provable facts. One can only wonder at the workings of the mind which could so assuredly make a statement so ridiculous as to be incredible, yet expect Chief Officers to swallow it hook line and sinker. According to the Home Office, at the stroke of midnight on the day before their 65th birthday, all disabled former officers are suddenly and completely divested of all capacity to work and thus earn.

There is a very full and thorough dissection and analysis of Annex C which reveals in detail the extent of the deceit and misdirection it contains.

 

Annex C Research

 

The reaction to Annex C spoke volumes about the negative and obstructionist attitudes of some Chief Officers and their staff. It had become very clear, very quickly, that the guidance was badly flawed. Chief Officers received objections from various quarters, including injury on duty pensioners and NARPO, which raised serious and well presented concern, which was more than sufficient to allow the Home Office to at least suspend its Annex C guidance whilst the issues were thrashed out.

The Home Office chose instead to bury its head in the sand and pushed all responsibility onto the forces. Of the 43 forces in England and Wales, only some 17 implemented some or all of the actions suggested in the guidance.

In March 2010 Mr Gilbert wrote to all forces and advised them to suspend reviews of degree of disablement, pending the outcome of an unidentified court case.

The case Mr. Gilbert referenced but did not name was that of Belinda Laws, a former Metropolitan Police officer who is in receipt of an injury pension. She successfully challenged the decision of the Police Medical Appeal Board, dated 17 March 2009, to reject her appeal against a decision of the Selected Medical Practitioner, that her degree of disablement for the purposes of her police injury pension should be reduced from 85 per cent to 25 per cent. The case was first heard on 12 November 2009 at the High Court of Justice. The decision was upheld at appeal on 13 October 2010.

The Home Office did nothing. It neither issued revised guidance nor withdrew Annex C.

The case of Simpson was held in February 2012.  His Honour Judge Supperstone held that part of the Home Office guidance contained in circular 46/2004 was unlawful, as was similar guidance contained in Part 5 of the Home Office’s longer, more detailed, Guidance on Medical Appeals.

At Paragraph 42 of the decision Mr Justice Supperstone opined:

In my judgement, the appropriate relief to grant in the circumstances of this case is a declaration that the section in the Guidance headed “Review of Injury Pensions Once Officers Reach Age 65” and paragraph 20 of the Guidance on Medical Appeals are inconsistent with the Regulations and unlawful. There is no justification for adopting a different approach to regulation 37(1) in respect of a former officer who reaches the age of 65 than in the case of a review for former officers of a younger age.

 

The Home Office then finally withdrew Annex C in its entirety.

It advised forces to amend its longer guidance, but left it in circulation. A copy of this guidance can be found here:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100408130906/http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/human-resources/PMAB_Guidance/index.html

In our view, this guidance has always been as flawed as was Annex C. It remains as a festering sore, and we believe it is still used by some SMPs to guide their actions. Space prohibits a full analysis of this guidance, but section 5 of the guidance contains an outstanding example of misdirection. Mr Gilbert writes:

How an injury award is calculated –

4. An injury award consists of a lump-sum gratuity and also a pension where, as is normally the case, the person’s other relevant income needs to be topped up to the level of his or her minimum income guarantee.

 

In truth, the injury pension is a form of guarantee that, if the individual, for whatever reason, whether through choice or through circumstances, earns no money through working, then the injury pension will provide a minimum level of income.

The way Mr Gilbert presented it, the minimum income guarantee – which is how Schedule 3 of the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 describes the injury pension – is a mechanism which restricts the total income, from whatever source, which a injury on duty pension is allowed to earn.

No wonder then that we see HR managers and some SMPs fixated on what pensioners earn. The plain fact is, what an individual earns is of no consequence to the Regulations. IODPA advises its members and all other injury on duty pensioners there is no need, nor any legal requirement, to divulge earnings to a SMP, a HR or Occupational Health employee, or indeed anyone else.

We would like to commend the forces who refrained from being bamboozled by the Home Office for their display of common sense – but we fear their lack of participation in the madness may have been due to inertia and indifference more than to insight and knowledge.

We should remind all concerned that Home Office guidance is not law. It does not have to be followed. Given the history of Annex C and the content of the longer guidance from the same author, anyone who follows Home Office guidance on the administration of pensions is at risk of sailing directly into serious difficulties. It took a lot of work, and courage, and a big stick waved by the courts, to have Annex C withdrawn. Annex C did nothing to bring about fairness, nor did it herald a more cohesive approach to the administration of injury pensions. It made matters much, much worse.

Annex C has gone. Its evil content is its legacy, which lingers on.

Annex C – The Legacy

33 thoughts on “Annex C – The Legacy

  • 2019-03-05 at 9:55 am
    Permalink

    I have been out of the job since 2011 and was part of the review process in 2014. I was only speaking the other day on how much easier life would have been if I had reached my full 30 years, no fear of reviews, no fear of the postman and an ability to just get on with life with a comfortable pension.
    Former officers and serving officers actually think that getting an injury on duty award is great for us! Have you heard anything more ridiculous? We are in a constant battle with HR, CC’s and PCC’s who are looking for anyway they can to reduce our awards. I can’t think of anyone who would have said “ today I will end my career and get a great pension”.
    There are those amongst us that think there is a conspiracy against us and our awards, we’ll just take a look at the history of the Home Office and forces that circumvent regulations and caselaw in attempts to reduce their injury award bills. Maybe conspiracy is not the right word but by god they are consistent in their pursuit of us and they have no thought for the damage and hurt that they do.
    We can only thank the Home Office and the respective forces for their constant bullying and pursuit of us for without them IODPA would not exist and pensioners would be picked off and abused forever. Now we are in a better position to challenge and fight for justice.

  • 2019-03-04 at 6:09 pm
    Permalink

    I was assaulted in 2009 arresting a suspect, he later pled guilty due to weight of evidence. Since I was injured on duty I have mistreated & subject to abuse of process & towards me with still no support, that was until I came across the IOPDA. Now approaching ten years since I was assaulted, which led to the end of my career I worked hard for, when I was deemed no longer useful I was abandoned with no support what so ever from any management. They have got too comfy sat behind their big desk, they will retiree with a very generous pension, with not threat of it being removed. They have a duty of care towards us, as does any police officer to public. We must be supported no matter, you most certainly don’t throw an injured officer away to save money. This is what they doing, just dumping us at the road side, hoping someone will come along. Why should I have to live in the constant threat of that once I get an IOD, it can be removed at any time. Do they have any idea what is like to live with PTSD, I don’t choose to have it, nor the the physical injuries that have been inflicted on me. I didn’t choose to be stamped on arresting a suspect, it is what happens when people don’t want to locked up.

    So why do I have endure protracted legal battles to get the IOD I am entitled too, I have been subjected to the abusive arrogant SMP Dr Cheng twice now, why is this creature allowed to rule over such important matters, the man is a coward. Along with the people that decide to remove pensions from injured officers.

    Don’t believe the lies the government is telling you, you cut police officer numbers, of course crime goes up, you cut the pay less people are going to want to join, remove the pensions of course it is going to cause bad feeling. Cut police numbers, less there are, more likely an officer is going to be injured. Most certainly the public aren’t getting the service they deserve. But what do they care? It doesn’t affect them as they are sat in office. Or as one senior officer did lock yourself in a car & drive off!

    It is this that totally undermines the confidence that officers can have in forces they work for, how can you go out on the front line doing your job with confidence if you aren’t going to be supported if your injured. They need have a long hard think about how they treat injured officers, get people back working after injury, support them if they can’t. It isn’t just officer that is affected, what about the effect on their families, this is someone’s son/daughter/wife/husband/their best friend. The pressure your under when you have no money, increased debt this isn’t because they have a lavish lifestyles. It is because they lost their career through injury, helping society, keeping the sticky bandage applied in place. With resources being cut across all forces the strain it cause it going to wear even more.

    Everyone should ask the question, should I join? I didn’t hesitate, but given how officers are now treated. Why would you? Why would you risk your well being, when you find that being injured is just start of what you are going to out through.

  • 2019-03-04 at 12:23 am
    Permalink

    It is getting to the stage where an iod takes Civil legal action against a Chief Constable personally. Probablu a PTSD. It will happen!

  • 2019-03-03 at 11:06 am
    Permalink

    MORGAN, your use of and interpretation of guidance won’t save you, read the Regulations and understand them; in short don’t take a knife to a gun fight. With luck those affected will put you and your cronies in the dock not to face guidance but the Law.

    14
  • 2019-03-02 at 3:46 pm
    Permalink

    Reading this, as someone who was not affected, I’m gobsmacked at the apparent sheer stupidity displayed by the Chief Constables who actually failed to see the Home Office guidance was flawed.

    There are many questions which remain unanswered.

    Where was ACPO? Where were the various highly paid legal advisors which each force maintains?

    And what of the Home Office itself? Surely someone other than Mr Gilbert had oversight of the guidance before it was issued?

    On the basis that it is hard to believe that so many people, so qualified, so experienced, could all fail to spot the sheer illegality of the guidance, I can only conclude that it was not stupidity that led to its issue and implementation. It had to be something else.

    A possibility is that all concerned colluded to break the law.

    Mr Gilbert, will you now please make a much-overdue apology to those whose lives your actions blighted? Will you now please tell us what was really going on? It is time for you to do the decent thing – or are you perhaps content to live out the rest of your life with the guilty knowledge which you must have?

  • 2019-03-02 at 2:39 pm
    Permalink

    It is obvious that the home office for some time has attempted to give backing the the CCs to reduce the bill for Policying and the bill for Police Pensions and pensions awarded to those officers injured whilst carrying out their duty to protect the public.The fight will carry on because when we close one door another will open eventually I believe HO will bring out legislation in attempt to get their way. It’s a good job that we have lawyers that are able to stand by us and fight the cause.

  • 2019-03-01 at 9:08 am
    Permalink

    My IOD/deferred pension journey began in 2005 when I was bluntly informed by my former forces FMO that unless I was unemployed and unemployable then I was not entitled to anything. After challenging this advice I was subsequently awarded a deferred pension but misled over entitlement to an IOD award. In 2016 following support and guidance from the IODPA I pursued my entitlement to an IOD award which was granted at band 3 which commenced in 2018, however I am currently pursuing with legal support from the FEW to have my award backdated to my entitled start date as intended by the regulations but being fought tooth and nail by my former force. I suspect they rely on many IOD entitled officers giving up through ill health or death given the length of time these cases take to progress through thier process or subsequent judicial reviews. They seem happy to spend a fortune of public funds on legal fees. What possible message does it send to our young new recruits who face greater physical danger serving on our ever thinning blue front line.

  • 2019-03-01 at 8:15 am
    Permalink

    I don’t believe in coincidences, those Forces ploughing on and using ‘the’ unlawful guidance seem to be very close. I am positive that there will be phone calls, emails galore to other Force legal advisors and HR heads, trying to drum up support and entangle them in their wicked web promising sheltering under a ‘Wellbeing’ unlawful umbrella. NAMF seems to have disappeared renamed but not publishing minutes? Why is this it show that the review process is not independent? A forum that legal advisors, HR, SMP’s, OHU would meet at Taxpayers expense to discuss the next tactics. In my opinion they are hardly being open, transparent and certainly conflicts of interest abound it what is supposed to be an independent process.

    What a mess!! Fortunately the majority of Forces have declined to join the warped rhetorical ramblings from those two Forces who still plough on with their unlawful interpretation of the WITHDRAWN guidelines that were never law. Some Forces continue and will only be satisfied when the iod pensioner is sitting on the pavement with their dog as they can’t afford the rent after having their homes repossessed.

    The next year will be extremely interesting, it’s all distastefully incestuos, staff members in some Forces will be challenged in court and the costs to those Forces will be eye watering. I do hope that they factored in those costs in their projected ‘savings’ that they hope to have made.

    I envisage, some will leave the sinking ship, before they are pushed, they will probably look for another Island to share their expertise in incompetence and maladmistration.

  • 2019-03-01 at 6:43 am
    Permalink

    The first thing that comes to my mind when I recall receiving a letter outlining 46/2004, and how it was to effect me, as an IOD, was dispare. How it must have inevitable tip some of my colleagues ‘over the edge’. The author, when putting this poison pen to paper, did irreplaceable damage to the health of retirees who had given so much, and the legacy this “Advice” has caused.

  • 2019-02-20 at 11:14 am
    Permalink

    Morgan, I make no apologies for not noting your title. Quite simply put, you do not deserve it.

    It is quite clear that you, your PCC and blinkered HR staff are plotting to save money, mixed with personal emotions and a vendetta against injured Officers. This is called targeting.

    If you really want to save money then I suggest you have a meeting with your PCC, Finance Director and a certain body from the Home Office, possibly a well versed journalist too.

    In this meeting you could discuss how many SMT members over the years have been promoted or “placed” in to Temporary / Acting higher ranks with their natural retirements in sight. Thus allowing them to achieve a substantial increase in their own pensions once retired.

    This goes on nationally, think of the money you could save just in your own Force. Instead you are blinkered by your own personal vendetta against injured Officers and their well deserved IOD Awards, which I’ve no doubt is loose change compared to the SMT promotions and their fruitful pension increases.

    Have a good think about how you are actually running your ship Morgan.

    15
  • 2019-02-19 at 10:22 pm
    Permalink

    This blog has a theme running through of history repeating itself. The Police Federation are not immune from this phenomenon. As mentioned, many years ago when injury awards were being threatened, the HO Pensions Unit was headed by a John Gilbert. He retired, no doubt with a very good pension, only to appear on the scene again as a pension consultant to the Police Federation. His tenure was rather short lived. Fast forward to today and there is apparently now another pension advisor in post at the Federation, in the form of Ian Rennie, former general secretary. Not sure what qualifications or authorisations he holds that equip him for this role, but I predict history will repeat itself again with another short tenure.
    Meanwhile, the best qualified and experienced experts are removed from the Polce Federation approved list.
    A strange world!

    17
    • 2019-02-20 at 11:28 am
      Permalink

      Rennie has a side kick too, another “expert” advisor by the name of Tony Barton. Earning a small fortune between them it appears.

      The Question is – why are qualified legal experts being replaced by these so called “expert” advisors with no legal qualifications”? It makes you wonder how cosey it actually may be at Leatherhead in the Civil Claims Dept.

      Just like Morgan, it currently appears they cannot be held accountable, especially since they are using the PFEW indemnity. It appears the whole system stinks and is well overdue a huge shake up.

      12
  • 2019-02-18 at 8:06 pm
    Permalink

    And here we are, fifteen years later, still fighting against forces who wish to target vulnerable members of society. The good thing is, we fight with the law on our side which is why we nearly always win at judicial review.
    Don’t these people learn anything? Or are people like Mr Morgan so arrogant that he truly believes he can get one over on us?
    Why is his hatred of injured cops so great? I know, in his warped mind, everyone is pulling a flanker. Everyone is trying to deceive him. Nobody deserves a pension as everyone is trying to manipulate the system.
    There is not one injured officer I know, that is attempting to do that. Everyone would have rather finished their thirty year careers with their head held high and the chance to go on to better things. Instead, they/we have been robbed of all the dreams we had.
    As a previous reader has commented, god bless the Home Office Guidance, as all those in Staffs would have had the chance to retain their pensions until then, rather than fight against having their pension reduced years earlier. How ironic is that?
    It all stinks.
    Hats off to those who fought the H.O Circular as what they did, benefited every single one of us. They took forces on and fought, with the help of Haven Solicitors and won. We owe them a debt of gratitude like we do with all those in IODPA who have now taken up the cudgels on the latest round of battles.
    Thank god we have a safe place that we can meet others and no longer be isolated. Our strength is together.

    Together, ‘We will fight them on the beaches…..’

    21
  • 2019-02-18 at 7:03 pm
    Permalink

    A ‘National Disgrace’ what is it that motivates these people to act in such a way. Is it a hatred of the Police, or perhaps some deficiency in their psychological make up. Perhaps these snivelling civil servants secretly wanted to be Police Officers but couldn’t quite meet the requirements. Before standards were consigned to the bin in the name of being ‘Inclusive’ you had to meet certain criteria.

    You didn’t need to have the mental capacity of brain surgeon but you did need to display a certain amount of character, common sense, good judgment, humour and a touch of courage. Oh I almost forgot, you had to be tall enough and Physically Fit in order to perform your duty. I distinctly remember the medical when I joined. So perhaps the vindictive nature these civil servants display is born of jealousy, they secretly wanted to be Police Officers but just couldn’t meet the standards.

    I’m sure there must be good and cleaver people at the Home Office and within Police Forces who do have respect and regard for the sacrifices some officers have to make but there again I am applying those qualities much needed as a Police Officer. The ability to place sound reasoning and a balanced approach, even compassion, to situations faced. I see very little of the above in the decisions made or policies adopted by ‘Civilian’s who now appear to dominate how a Police Service is run. In fact just the opposite. They appear to relish in exercising their power or hold over both serving and retired officers and often form these opinions at or are influenced by ‘Talking Shops’ such as NAMF. [Other fanatical groups are available]

    The Regulations concerning Injury Awards in my humble opinion were never meant to be adversarial, they were intended to convey to the Police Officer;

    “You perform your duty, fulfil the oath you took to protect life and property complete your service to the public without fear or favour and if you get hurt then we will take care of you”

    Call it a social or moral contract with society if you like or you can refer to it as an essential part of the service and conditions we all signed up to, but whatever you call it, it was never meant to be manipulated by civil servants to further their positions within the ever increasing empires created by HR, Occupational Health and the ‘Office of the Police and Crime Commissioners

    Now we cannot blame civil servants alone because we have past and current Chief Constables who have become so motivated by ‘Political Concerns’ that they also relish in taking pensions from people in order to maintain the empires within. Don’t for a second believe the bunkum that the savings will go to front line policing, its total ‘Hogwash’ It might go towards expensive travel arrangements, a nice Hotel or car for the ‘Executive’ who amass huge pension pots and treat the Police Service as if they are some highly important CEO of a corporation with an entitlement to a wage on a par with a Prime Minister but front line Policing give me a break.

    Any ‘Savings Made’ are more likely to go to awarding some lucrative contract to a private company to provide a computer system or advanced communications to enhance ‘Modern Policing’ except modern policing in Staffs means closing Police Stations and to record and detect crime via the phone, Skype or Twitter. Mr Morgan likes Twitter, he must do, he’s always bloody on there telling the world how good they are.

    Perhaps big savings could be made by abolishing the Office of the PCC. Now there is the perfect example of an Empire in construction. We have a PCC, a Deputy PCC, even a Chief of Staff no less [Very Presidential] Then there is a list of fancy titled Staff including a press liaison or some other ‘Bullshit’ positions who only exist to show how important the empire is.

    Back to the original subject of the blog which is 46/2004. We decried that ‘Guidance’ and quite right to do so. Unlawful, Disgraceful and Discriminatory. Totally agree needed consignment to the bin and someone should have faced serious consequences for it being issued. Well compared with what is currently going on in Staffs it looks like the best bit of ‘Guidance’ ever to be issued. At least you kept your band until you were 65 or other State retirement age. At least you got to your Old Age Pension. The Irony of it all is that 46/2004 was a better deal than the arbitrary application and perversion of the Regulations in Staffordshire. God Bless John Giffard, compared with Morgan, he looks like a bloody Saint.

    46/2004 essentially resulted in the Home Office withdrawing from involvement in directing Chief Constables about how and when they should instigate ‘Reviews’ or so they make out. You submit a request to them about Police Injury Pensions and ‘Reviews’ and its guaranteed you will get the stock answer that it is a matter for the individual Force to consider.

    So why the hell do they send there ‘Representatives’ to NAMF or whatever they call themselves these days and keep interfering by nefarious means. The whole process of Injury Pension Management is toxic and has caused a fundamental breakdown in having any trust or confidence with our former employers or the system of administration regarding IOD’s

    21
  • 2019-02-18 at 5:56 pm
    Permalink

    Strange that those charged with protecting and enforcing the law are those who enthusiastically try to circumvent it by any means possible by making up their own interpretation of legislation. In this they are advised by lawyers and groups who have lost every legal challenge put before them, yet still they pursue their insidious campaigns against those who have served – regarding them as nothing more that an unwelcome feature on their balance sheets.

    IODs who are unfortunate enough to fall under Morgan’s abusive power are treated with contempt, whereas in other forces, notably TVP, IODs are treated ethically, with respect, assuring them of deserved peace and comfort in retirement. Compare this with the stress, uncertainty and damage to physical and mental health being suffered by those being abused by Morgan, which has been going on for almost two years now. This is a wholesale abuse of their human rights. When will he and his cohorts learn that their way is not the right way?

    11
    • 2019-03-01 at 8:56 am
      Permalink

      Tvp adopted the home office circular with gusto. Refuting all arguments with the answer ” this is guidance from the home office, so we are following it”. They were very quick to inform all injury pensioners of the adoption of this guidance but have never bothered to inform that it’s been dropped.
      This round of reviews has only just started so it’s a bit soon to praise them, especially considering that how the process is meant to happen wasn’t how they thought it would. It took explanation and a stand being taken for them to back track to the planned method.

  • 2019-02-18 at 5:32 pm
    Permalink

    So we are now 15 years on and the Home Office are still trying to reduce IOD’s unlawfully. Their 2004 guidance was eventually ruled unlawful but now by unlawful means they have sponsored Gareth Morgan to push through IOD reductions in Staffordshire with a view to National rollout but this time with the unlawful use of regulation 37 and 33. When will they learn that all they have to do is follow the Regulations. This won’t save much money but it will stop them spending more taxpayers money trying to defend the indefensible in court.
    It’s time that they left disabled physically and mentally injured former officers to try and enjoy what’s left of their retirement without the constant threat of intimidation and reduction of what’s left of their pension.

    11
  • 2019-02-18 at 3:50 pm
    Permalink

    The Home Office circular 46/2004 actually opened a HUGE can of worms.
    Prior to that HO advice every IOD pensioner would have trusted that the pension they received was correct and that it was there until the end of their life.
    Prior to that HO advice all Police administration departments would have been trusted to handle IOD pensions properly.
    Prior to that HO advice Chief Constables would have been accepted as having earned that promotion and would be trusted to know what they were doing in that role.
    Then came that advice!

    Only certain police forces followed that advice! Others left well alone and knew that something was wrong. In certain forces EVERY IOD pensioner over the age of 65 had their IOD pension immediately reduced to Band 1, the lowest rate.

    Word soon got around those victim pensioners and they gathered! Remember these were police officers! They knew and had a talent for investigating crime! It took around 8 years before it actually got to a Court that found that the HO advice had been to commit an unlawful act. It was ordered that all pensioners should be put back onto their relevant banding and reimbursed what had been deducted from them.
    I personally have doubts that EVERY case was put right. There will have been pensioners that passed away in that time. I very much doubt if their families had received any reimbursements.

    Guess what though! During those 8 years and in the further 6 years following there have been a LOT of facts uncovered by a LOT of IOD pensioners where due to maladministration, misinterpretation of the Regulations, and, in some cases, HR bullying, they had been underpaid their IOD pensions for years. These are being put right on a daily basis. There are a lot of IOD pensioners who now have no further trust in their Forces dealings with them.
    Thankfully there is now IODPA.org, a charity with a team of lawyers and a wonderful Barrister that know the Regulations inside out, backwards and forwards, and are setting everything in order!

    Basically, where HO advice 46/2004 annex C is concerned, the truth has come out! so hats off to John Alexander Gilbert. If he hadn’t added his signature to that document then many IOD pensioners would have been getting ripped off for the rest of their lives. The dastardly Forces who took up the chance to save money unlawfully have ended up paying Court costs, large sums in compensation with interest added, and making sure that every move they make from now on will be subject to investigation and action taken to stop any further unlawful antics!

    Hopefully those responsible for maladministration and what could be described as deliberate fraud will be investigated under criminal law and brought to Justice that they have denied to IOD pensioners

  • 2019-02-18 at 1:44 pm
    Permalink

    When I was in the job, working on light duties in the Admin Dept. at FHQ due to injury on duty, I was asked by the boss to request a new computer, ‘before the end of the month’. That seemed odd to me, as the one I was using was fine and more than adequate.

    I pointed this out, only to be told, ‘Just put the request in. We need to spend money before the end of the financial year or they will cut our budget.’

    The concept was that all the money allocated had to be used, no matter whether that was necessary or not.

    Now times have changed, and the pressure is really on forces, with them having to make cuts, so it is no wonder that some despicable Chief Constables have turned their beady eyes on what they see as the soft target of police injury pensions.

    Bad mistake. Pensioners have the will and the means to fight back against any unlawful actions. The end result of attempting to conduct unlawful mass reviews can only be that the errant force will spend far more in its foolish than it might save.

  • 2019-02-18 at 8:15 am
    Permalink

    Parliament put the Police Injury pension Regulations into law and have chosen not to change them to suit the dubious attempts of some administrators to save money.

    Perhaps those administering injury pensions should accept Parliament’s clear intentions and stop trying to find loop holes.

  • 2019-02-17 at 9:34 pm
    Permalink

    It took 8 years to ‘outlaw’ that bloody HO guidance. How much, worry and pain did it cause? ……….We’ll never know for sure!
    The injustice just continues by those without conscience by focusing on something new to try and take away monies we are rightly due!
    I was the first one to break my family tradition of being a Northumbrian coal miner. My loyalties torn I did my police duty at the ‘miners strike’ but sadly receive no loyalty in return………….You know what as hard as it was……….sometimes I wish I’d followed my family down the ‘pit’!

    10
    • 2019-02-18 at 2:23 pm
      Permalink

      They have no idea, families torn apart (and over 30 years later stall and under lying current of hatred simmers in hardened mining villages) now they add in penolising the very people they sent in to keep the peace and keep the public safe.

      Once upon a time I would probably have supported any person, family member, friend to join up, that day has well gone.

      My advice to them another job (can’t call it a career anymore) a nice little 9-5 job, throw in some flexi time, 28 days (guaranteed) holiday for more money.

      I can envisage police officers, jacking in, finding new ways to feed their families. Why on earth would anyone in a sane mind take the risk of being injured on duty and having zero support from their Force. Beats me.

  • 2019-02-17 at 9:05 pm
    Permalink

    The official side that are in charge of the Price are vindictive, malicious and in some cases corrupt!

    They do not adhere to the regulations but expect everybody else to do so. They are a complete waste of space. I would not trust any of them.

    I was subject of a review where the CMO reduced my injury pension by 50% and it was done unlawfully! Yes, unlawfully!

    Fortunately that decision was overturned with the help of legal assistance from the Federation and I was reinstated.

    I regret ever joining the Police and would warn anybody considering applying to think long and hard about their future career.

    Think about what will happen to yourself and your family when/if you get seriously injured and the official side of the Police refuse to support you!

  • 2019-02-17 at 7:57 pm
    Permalink

    Certain PPA’s choose to follow the discredited 2004 guidance because it suits there purpose. They need to reduce there spending because of the financial restraints being imposed on them by central government. They see IOD’s as an easy target. Older vulnerable members of society unable to stand up for themselves. They are finding out that this is not the case. We can stand up and fight our corner and we will win because we follow the law, unlike them. When will they learn. It is going to cost them dear in the long run. In the meantime my health will suffer because of all the stress and anxiety it is causing me (and my family). Do they care about that. Of course not. They don’t give a damn.

  • 2019-02-17 at 7:17 pm
    Permalink

    No one will ever fully understand the full implications that this process is having on officers injured on duty doing something that they chose to do and loved unless you have been subject to this. The upset and stress that this creates in families is not healthy, Speaking from personal experience when I walked out of the Police Station as a ‘Mr’ through no fault of my own I lost more than a career, it is a day that I will never forget and although my injuries were physical, I can never get over the loss mentally. This process would stop immediately if the perpetrators had had an nth of the trauma…this I’m sure is no different for any other Iod. It is well overdue that Iods are treated fairly, within the law and regulations. This drip feed torture and insecurity needs to stop. The blog just goes to highlight how long standing this all is…

  • 2019-02-17 at 6:42 pm
    Permalink

    The problem seems to lie with police forces having their budgets cut severely and then need to find ways to save money. Unfortunately this coincided with the introduction of PCC’s who are in charge of the purse strings. They along with legal depts have then instructed HR to attack vulnerable injured on duty pensioners in a bid to save moneys.
    It is unbelievable that they can pick on the vulnerable without any recompense.
    They are a disgrace unfortunately although the CC’s are ultimately in charge of pensions it is the PCC who employs or sacks the CC’s so they are just puppets doing as they are told.
    It’s an absolute disgrace !

  • 2019-02-17 at 6:38 pm
    Permalink

    I lost my career, my income, my mind, and nearly my life in the line of duty. I am left with a pension far below that I would have drawn had I not been injured. Now they want to reduce that to the point where I cannot survive. Yet they sit in plush offices with six figure salaries and are in no danger. What happened to the social contract whereby those who put themselves between the public and danger were protected if injured as a result of that danger? What happened to fairness and honour among the leadership?

  • 2019-02-17 at 9:01 am
    Permalink

    I think the sentence ‘Disabled injury on duty officers and their families have suffered maladministration, stress, illness and financial loss as a result of implementing Home Office guidance’ sums the sorry state of affairs up completely. There are many vulnerable and isolated officers since 2004 who have had their pensions unlawfully cut by a few unscrupulous Forces. Forces will soon have to pay back pensions which will blow their ‘projected savings’ into oblivion, SMP’s, Chief Constables, HR managers will be all be called to justify their decisions in a court of law.

    An extremely sad state of affairs where many former injury on duty officers and their families have and are being picked off, either one by one or on mass, by some Forces, reduced without being informed that they have rights and what those rights are. More surprising is that some Forces have continued to review using guidelines that have been considered unlawful in a court of law. Simply telling those pensioners to seek legal advice, at a time in their lives when they struggle with everyday activities. How intimidating if you are a vulnerable, pensioner being told you can no longer pay your mortgage, rent or even put the heating on. Forces could not care less about the ripple impact that they cause. Staffordshire, Northumbria and any other Forces will be aware we are united to challenge every unlawful decision made and are actively seeking out pensioners who have had their pensions reduced. Making a 90 year old pensioner travel to Leeds to get his pension reinstated springs to mind……. shame on that Force!

    14
  • 2019-02-17 at 8:58 am
    Permalink

    “Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive” – I can’t remember who said that but it is certainly true of the faceless and seemingly unaccountable individuals behind this whole sorry saga. The difference between 2004 and 2019 is that we now have in place an effective network of united colleagues backed by an even more effective legal team. Belinda Laws won her victory virtually on her own but she managed it nevertheless. Anyone finding themselves in a similar position can now count on the support of our whole membership as we all recognise that each and every individual decision impacts on all of us. Thank you IODPA

    11
  • 2019-02-16 at 11:03 pm
    Permalink

    I was injured on duty and receive a smaller pension than a officer who is lucky enough to retire without an injury.

    I done my job as best I could and gave 100% to arrest naughty people and lock them away.
    Why should I know receive a lower pension when I reach retirement age than any other copper ?

    I was on the front line, hence a serious injury. I did not sit in an office, or went for an easy option as a copper.
    How can it be fair that a person who spends most.all of their time in a office based environment gets more money than a copper who joined the police to actually be on the streets of SE London answering 999 calls, and having to deal with anything and everything the police control room send them to ? I would have been better off just sitting in an office, then claim a FULL pension for life.

    What would the public prefer ?
    Sitting in an office, or be seen and respond to people who need urgent help ?

    I was injured just doing my job.
    I was not in an office and tripped over a wire, or slipped on a spilt drink in the canteen to have a full hour to be able to eat. Many times I had to leave my hot food to attend a call, while others just stayed where they were.
    Eventually got back to my food, cold and un eatable. No compensation from the canteen staff, or an offer of a fresh grub as I ran out to help a member of the public. Had to pay for fresh food again, and again had to leave it to answer another call.

    Fair ???????????????????

    13
  • 2019-02-16 at 10:00 pm
    Permalink

    Despite the overwhelming victory, earned following much stress to IOD’s by 46/2004, we continue to see specific forces continue to investigate ways to circumvent the decision, despite the Laws case.

    Most seem to start with that dubious group NAMF, or it’s latest derivative, often at the behest of Mr. Witz. Another leading combatant in this area is Gareth Morgan, the now Chief Officer of Staffs, but who has been active in this area since about 2012 and having attempted it in Avon & Somerset, brought his misery to Staffordshire.

    What links these two? Failure!

    Morgan failed in Avon & Somerset, but now fibs about his involvement. Witz has an even worse record regarding lost Judicial Reviews in Northumbria. Both seem to suffer from the subject in the quote from Jean Chretien……they don’t accept defeat gracefully, they just disappear under their slimy stones to plot and try again.

    We should pity them because they both lack what most Injured on Duty former police officers have in spades……compassion and a good moral compass! May they both come to rue their actions in the future.

    18
    • 2019-02-17 at 10:43 am
      Permalink

      Well said 👆 Who believes in coincidences!!? Which Force has had more JR defeats than others, which Force took the chairs role at NAMF? Which Forces exclude injury on duty pensioners from all communication or consultation? Where are the minutes from the ‘new’ national group published…………… Open and transparent………….until someone asks questions!

      15
  • 2019-02-16 at 8:01 pm
    Permalink

    Concise and informative history into the malpractice some forces have and still are trying to present as the regulations re “reviews”…When will they learn?

    13

Comments are closed.