Suitable Interval
Before a review, or a “reassessment of injury pension” can take place under regulation 37(1),the Police Pension Authority (‘PPA’) must firstly consider whether a suitable interval has elapsed. This is the first part of Regulation 37(1) –
37.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part, where an injury pension is payable under these Regulations, the police authority shall, at such intervals as may be suitable…
A suitable interval is not defined in the regulations, but was touched upon in ‘The Queen on the Application of Turner v The Police Medical Appeal Board’ –
para 23 – There is no question of relitigation and, of course, suitable intervals suggests that this is not a matter which should be revisited every year, nor is it.
Each case should be considered on its own merits as to whether a suitable interval has passed. In our view, it may be, due to the severity of a pensioners injury, that a suitable interval may be determined as ‘never’.
If it is obvious that a injury will never get better, there is NO such thing as a “suitable interval” ie, Lost leg/arm.
PTSD a different matter, it is not visible and therefore each person on a case by case scenario.
It cannot just accept what the injured officer is telling the police, due to the pure nature of PTSD itself.
I would suggest every 2-3 years due to the nature of PTSD and how it effects different people in different ways.
Anyone which is so obvious will never grow an arm or a leg back, should get it for live, NO reviews.
PTSD, every 2-3 years, or earlier depending on the person and their daily activities and any work they have managed to get.
I know a lot of people will not agree with me, but it is MY view. Same as every other injured copper !
Some forces have for many years misused regulation 37 (the ‘review’ regulation) by conducting reviews to a schedule.
For example, my old force had a written policy which set out intervals dictating when reviews would be conducted. This policy stated that reviews would be conducted ‘every two years’. It was created in 1993 and was in existence up to 2004, when a newer version, still with a schedule for regular reviews was brought in.
No individual consideration was therefore given as to whether a review was appropriate or not for each individual injury pensioner.
The lack of individual consideration is shocking enough, but it was discovered that some 30% of injury pensioners had been told they would never be reviewed. Hence, the force was ignoring its own policy. It is not known why some pensioners were excused reviews.
I suggest that many other forces have been conducting reviews without applying the obligatory individual consideration as to whether or not a suitable interval has passed.
The Regulations, supported by subsequent case law, clearly intend that the decision on degree of disablement should be a final one, and should only be revisited by means of regulation 37 where there is some clear and valid reason to believe there may well be found to be a substantial alteration in an individual’s degree of disablement.
A police pension authority is not entitled to conduct reviews as ‘fishing expeditions’ to discover whether there is some or any alteration.
Any injury pensioner who is informed they are due to face a review should ask their police pension authority (the Chief Constable in all but the Met, the City of London and the PSNI) the simple questions – ‘What is the rationale for your decision to conduct a review?’ and, ‘Please explain why it is thought that a suitable interval has passed since the time of the past, final decision, on my degree of disablement?’
A “suitable interval” may be never if the injury is one that will always persist. The loss of a limb or other serious injury which no amount of “therapy” will correct should and probably does qualify for never. Once you have been in receipt of an injury award or medical discharge you should stay on the level approved unless you are deemed to have recovered in which case you should be reinstated at full rank, service and pay with your pension reinstated totally. Bet they wouldn’t review cases so easily if that were the regulations. We all know that will never happen so the problems arise now that having got over the loss of employment income and learned to live with your disability you have that threatened with reduction. How can you possibly live with that threat hanging over you every day? We need certainty. However I suggest that reviews are often carried out if someone dismissed on medical grounds is found to have a decent job on decent pay; is that actually the reason for a review? Treated like you are on sickness benefit and started working without telling them. I had no choice but to start my own businesses, (no one wanted to employ an injured ex copper), but should I be reviewed because that turned out to be a success? My injury is and was permanent and I lost my job after 26 years through no fault of mine. Without that injury I could have stayed doing a job I loved, on top pay for another 9 years, seeing my children out of university and my mortgage paid but I had to sell up and move out of London during the 80’s recession. I was compensated with an injury award pension and that should be and actually was that. It would have been nice if someone had said sorry that happened but of course the Police service never says that to anyone do they. Once you are out it is like you never existed as far as serving officers are concerned.