Month: July 2019

Ray

IODPA Admin Testimonial
Ray

Ray is 56 years old, married and father to two adult children.

Following two duty motorcycle collisions in the late 1990’s, he required emergency spinal surgery and was eventually medically retired from the Police due to these injuries in June 2000.

His injuries were assessed to reduce his earning potential by 32% and he was given an injury pension based on that.

In 2002, his injury pension was reviewed and as there was no change in his condition it was left unaltered.

In 2004, his injury pension was reviewed again. This time, although it was stated that there was no medical change in his injury, his assessed earning potential disablement was reduced to 0% and his injury pension reduced to the lowest possible level.

Since his pension was reduced to the lowest possible level, he has not been called back to be reviewed again.

The justification given for the injury pension reduction was that, since medical retirement, he had been fully employed in a new career which made use of his engineering qualifications and knowledge, qualifications and experience as a traffic patrol officer.

He did well in his new career quickly progressing into a management position.

As his actual earnings had risen to a similar level to his previous police salary, it was decided that his earnings were no longer adversely affected by his injury.

In about 2016, he found out about the Injured On Duty Pensioners Association (IODPA).

Having studied their blogs and discussed his situation with other members he soon realised that the justification for his pension reduction was based on an incorrect interpretation of the Police Injury Pension Regulations.

The regulations require an assessment of uninjured earning potential based on ALL of the individual’s qualifications and experience which must be compared to realistic injured earning potential.

The 2004 review did not look at his skills and qualifications gained before and during his police career or make any comparison between his injured and uninjured earning potential, but merely showed his actual earnings were comparable to his old police pay.

The Police Federation funded a specialist solicitor to write to his former police employer, detailing judicial reviews which demonstrated that the 2004 review was contrary to the regulations.

A few months later, he received over 13 years worth of injury pension underpayment with interest and was reinstated at his previous level of injury award.

Unfortunately his back has now deteriorated to a point where he cannot walk up or down stairs, he can only walk short distances slowly using crutches and cannot sit upright for more than about an hour.

As a result of this deterioration in his duty injury his new employer ended his career last year, following a report from an Occupational Physician who found that as a result of his spinal injury that he is now unfit for any work of any description.

This doctors report renders him unemployable, so effectively his earnings disablement should now be 100%.

He knows that being unemployed and on the lowest level of injury pension, he would have struggled to pay his bills and so is very grateful that IODPA were able to provide him with knowledge and support, so that he received what he is entitled to.

He hopes that this article will help to spread the message to injured officers and those who know injured officers, that IODPA may be able to help those who are unaware of their rights under the injury pension regulations.

He would also like to express his thanks to the Police Federation for funding a solicitor with specialist knowledge of the judicial reviews and regulations governing police pensions who were able resolve the situation for him.

The Government Responds To The Public Service Pension Challenge

IODPA Admin newsflash
The Government Responds To The Public Service Pension Challenge

Last December a group of judges and firefighters won a Court of Appeal case against the government.

The Court decided that changes made to their pension schemes were age discriminatory.

Both cases were ruled together, as they dealt with similar issues and had previous contradictory outcomes.

The Supreme Court refused permission for the government to appeal the judgment.

On July 14th Elizabeth Truss, who is the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, issued an announcement which included this statement:

The matter will be remitted to the Employment Tribunal in respect of the litigants in the firefighters and judicial pension schemes. It will be for the Tribunal to determine a remedy. Alongside this process, government will be engaging with employer and member representatives, as well as the devolved administrations, to help inform our proposals to the Tribunal and in respect of the other public service pension schemes.

The Government has stated the reasons for the 2015 reforms remain and that the judgment does not alter their commitment to ensuring that the cost of public service pensions are affordable for taxpayers and sustainable for the long term.

It now seems the government accepts the court’s ruling will have wide-reaching effects, which will impact, we hope favourably, on police pensions.

The full Government statement can be read here.

 

Has Your Force Been Deducting Too Much From Your Injury Award?

IODPA Admin newsflash
Has Your Force Been Deducting Too Much From Your Injury Award?

Following the recent case brought by David Lock QC and Cartwright King Solicitors and the decision of the Court of Appeal in Evans & Ashcroft v Chief Constable of South Wales Police, it has come to light that many forces may have been deducting too much from injury pensions since 2010 for those in receipt of certain social security awards, namely Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit (‘IIDB’).

We have included a copy of the decision as well as a very useful circulation provided by the Police Federation.

In short, injury pensions and social security awards are normally increased by the same annual increments, which means that as each rises annually by the same percentage increase forces are entitled to deduct the whole amount of IIDB from your injury pension. However, in 2010, due to an Up-rating Order, the Secretary of State was entitled to increase benefits (including IIDB) at at rate higher than the general level of prices, which is what they did. The result of this was that IIDB increased at a rate higher than injury pensions.

The PPA continued to just deduct the total received in IIDB from the injury pension causing a detriment to the officer and in contravention of sub-paragraph 7(2) of Schedule 3 of The Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006.

Officers in receipt of IIDB are encouraged to write to their forces asking whether they have been unlawfully reduced.

Here is the court decision

 

Here is the Federation circulation

 

 

Court rules that there are two sides to every story

IODPA Admin caselaw, newsflash, pmab, police injury award
Court rules that there are two sides to every story

IODPA would like to congratulate David Lock QC and Ron Thompson of Haven Solicitors for another successful judgement that was handed down last week by the High Court in the case of R (Michaelides) v Police Medical Appeal Board [2019] EWHC 1434 (Admin).

We have included the full judgement at the bottom of the article for you to read.

Robin Michaelides moved to Scotland in 2001 from South Africa where he was a police officer, and joined a Scottish force. He did well there, and passed the promotion exam for the rank of Sergeant, before transferring to Merseyside Police.

He was promised by Merseyside that his promotion qualification would be accepted, but that promise was soon broken. Robin also faced numerous incidents of racial abuse and discrimination from his fellow officers in Merseyside. Senior officers did nothing to address the concerns he raised and seem to have instead viewed him as a troublemaker.

Robin was given no assistance in getting up to speed with English law, and was posted to CID without any appropriate training.

His health suffered under the persistent abuse, and eventually in 2015 after several periods of sick leave he was made subject to an Unsatisfactory Attendance Procedure, the stress of which only served to worsen his mental health. Robin was retired from Merseyside by the Chief Constable in August 2015.

His application for an injury award was rejected, and Robin appealed the decision to a Police Medical Appeal Board, where it was again refused.

The matter was successfully challenged, and the decision of the court is that the matter should be remitted back to a (preferably new) PMAB.

 

David Lock QC had the following to say about the case –

“The court affirmed (albeit on an obiter basis) the approach of the Court of Appeal in Boskovic to the Evans/Doubtfire point.  That, of course, may or may not remain good law depending on the outcome of the application for permission to appeal in Boskovic to the Supreme Court (which awaits a decision).

However, perhaps more significantly, the claim was successful because the Court affirmed the need for the PMAB to act as a proper fact finding tribunal where there are disputed facts.  Thus a PMAB which fails to act as a proper fact finding tribunal before exercising its medical decision making function will act unlawfully.”

 

This is an important case because there are often two version of events presented to an SMP or a PMAB, one from the officer, and one from the force. What it instructs the medical authorities to do is to consider all the evidence available regardless of the source and give sufficient consideration before dismissing one version or the other.