“File 13” is a euphemism for the trash can or waste paper basket.
Our attention has been drawn to a document entitled “Managing Police Officer and Police Staff Ill Health Retirement Policy (Surrey and Sussex) (542/2019)“, which can be found on the Sussex Police website. It is a joint force policy between Surrey and Sussex Police on the management of ill-health retirement, injury awards and subsequent reviews. This policy document is annotated on the bottom as belonging to the “People Services Department (Occupational Health)” of Surrey and Sussex Police.
You can find a copy at the following link:
Or you can read a copy, duplicated below.
There are so many things wrong with this document that it’s difficult to know where to start.
It is probably fair to say that the overall feel of this official multi-force policy is one of dislike or even contempt of injured officers, as is evident from its frequent references to any non-defined ‘failure to co-operate’ being met with punitive measures.
We’ve selected, replicated and highlighted some of the worst sections of this policy document with our comments under each section. However, we will begin with the one section which is uncontentious.
3.1 This is a sensitive issue with personal and financial implications for the individual and the force. It must be
administered with sensitivity, understanding and confidentiality
The policy starts off well and we agree with their sentiments whole heartedly. Sensitivity, understanding and confidentiality are all words we use when describing how forces should be treating their injured officers, but it all goes downhill after here.
3.10 An individual will remain on their current pay status (full/half or nil pay) once they have made their application for IHR, unless they fail to co-operate with the process. Once authority is given for the individual to be ill health retired, they will revert to full pay.
Note: Chief constables have the lawful discretion to reduce the pay of officers who are ill or injured and thus not able to perform the full ordinary duties of a constable.
There are two things wrong with this statement, the first is that the policy states that if officers have already had their pay reduced, they will remain on their current level of pay until they have completed the ill-health retirement process and it is confirmed that they are likely to be retired; secondly, there is clear intent within this statement that if the officer fails to co-operate with the process, they will be further reduced.
The circumstances under which an officer’s pay may be reduced derives from section 28 of the Police Regulations 2003, which allows the chief constable discretionary powers to retain or reduce an officers pay during periods of sickness.
Police Negotiating Board (‘PNB’) Circular 05/01 provides specific guidance to chief constables to grant discretionary sick pay to officers who have been on sick leave for more than six months.
Section 7 of this guidance reads –
7. Whilst each case must be considered individually, the PNB considers it would generally be appropriate for chief officers to exercise the discretion favourably where:
- The chief officer is satisfied that the officer’s incapacity is directly attributable to an injury or illness that was sustained or contracted in the execution of his/her duty or
- The officer is suffering from an illness which may prove to be terminal; or
- The case is being considered in accordance with the PNB Joint Guidance on Improving the Management of Ill Health and the police authority has referred the issue of whether the officer is permanently disabled to a selected medical practitioner
- The Force Medical Adviser advises that the absence is related to a disability as defined by the DDA* (*”A physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long term adverse effect on the ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.”) and the chief officer considers that it would be a “reasonable adjustment” to extend sick pay, generally speaking to allow (further) reasonable adjustments to be made to enable the officer to return to work.
Whilst there is no explicit statutory obligation on the part of chief officers to have regard to this guidance, in the case of Weed, R (On the Application Of) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2020], it was accepted that it would have been unlawful to ignore the guidance.
It is clear, under point three (above), that once an officer has been referred for consideration of ill-health retirement, the chief constable should seriously consider reinstating the officer to full pay.
What has to be realised here is that officers can become ill through no fault of their own with physical or mental injuries, or sometimes a combination of both. It is not uncommon with mental health injuries for the officer to suffer from severe PTSD. This can seriously impair their cognitive function and ability to comply with requests or process information. Despite this, it is clear in the policy that there is no compassion or support regardless of the officer’s injury, but instead there is a clear statement that that non-compliance will trigger a further reduction.
Our point is that non-compliance may not be deliberate, negligent or willful, but may well be caused by the effects of the injury or illness. The policy makes no recognition of this possibility
The PNB guidance goes on to say there should be monthly reviews of the officer’s situation. This policy document ignores the guidance as there is no mention of monthly reviews.
5.2
…
Where such claims are substantiated at a later date and the application has been made within a year of the date, of the last day of service, for the officer, payment of the injury award will be backdated to the day after, the last day of Service.
This section unmistakably implies that if an application for an injury pension is not made within a year of the retirement date of the pensioner, the force will not backdate payment to the applicant. We’d be interested to hear from Surrey or Sussex where in the regulations or current case law this approach is permitted?
Regulation 43 of The Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 (‘PIBR’), states that the pension of a member of a police force under these Regulations shall be payable in respect of each year as from the date of his retirement.
It is widely accepted (by most forces) that an injury pension is payable from the date of retirement, unless the date of injury cannot be established, in which case, it would be the date of claim.
If Surrey and Sussex police need further persuading, we suggest that they look at the cases of Tully and North Wales police and Kelly and Chief Constable Of South Yorkshire Police.
In Tully, The court decided, ‘First, we are satisfied that Parliament intended that, generally speaking, pension entitlements under these regulations should be payable from the date of an officer’s retirement unless or until that was limited or excluded by operation of an express provision to that effect elsewhere in the same regulations.’
In Kelly the court held that Sgt Kelly’s case ought to have been referred by the South Yorkshire Police Authority to the SMP in 2005 and that the chief constable was attempting to gain a windfall from his predecessor’s breach of its legal duty by failing to pay the back-dated pension. The Judge held that the scheme of the regulations provided that, once a police pension was awarded, it was payable for the life of the officer from the date of retirement. Hence, he directed the chief constable to pay the backdated pay in full and with interest from the date of the award
5.3
…
This is to be illustrated as the percentage by which the individual’s police salary would fall, in order to reach the level of salary likely to be commanded in another occupation despite the injury. The SMP in such cases may be the FMA.
The suggestion that the Force Medical Adviser (‘FMA’) may act in such cases is not good practice, and we don’t know why it has ever been suggested. The whole purpose of the Selected Medical Practitioner (‘SMP’) is that they are supposed to be non-partisan and independent.
Published on the 4 May 2007, a Home Office (‘HO’) paper entitled “GUIDANCE ON MEDICAL APPEALS” states the following,
5. Where the police authority decides to refer the case to the SMP it should normally be via the force medical adviser (FMA). The purpose of the FMA’s advice is to inform not determine the assessment by the SMP on whether the officer is permanently disabled.
Yet again, it seems as though the author of this paper is blissfully unaware of any of the HO or PNB guidance.
Note: Police Pension Authorities would be negligent if they failed to consider guidance, but guidance is not law and need not be followed. Surrey and Sussex’s policy makes no reference to any guidance, so we are left in the dark as to whether it was considered or not. We add that certain Home Office guidance has in the recent past been determined to be flawed, to the point of being unlawful. PPA’s need to be cautious of blindly following guidance to the same degree that they need to be sure to consider it. The various Regulations are the law which PPA’s must abide by, and this policy document is deficient in that respect.
Surrey and Sussex’s policy casually departs from statutory limitations. Bells and whistles are added with no apparent rationale, and devoid of legal underpinning.
6.1 When an officer disagrees with the decision of the PPA not to accept a claim for ill health retirement or injury award and to refer questions to an SMP, the officer may appeal the decision to the Crown Court (PPR and PIBR refers). In such cases the police officer will be asked to complete an appropriate medical records consent form and such records will be sought from the officers GP.
Whilst it is correct that if the Police Pension Authority (‘PPA’) refuse to admit a claim for an injury award, the officer may refer the matter to the Crown Court for arbitration, there is no provision under the PIBR for forces to be able to demand medical records as a consequence. We have to question why the force would only be requesting the necessary medical records at this stage? Surely they would have needed them in order to have made a balanced decision to refuse the application to start with?
6.2 Where the officer is considered permanently disabled, the SMP will complete a report, relevant to the questions raised by the PPA in accordance with the relevant PPR that affect that officer and the officer will be formally notified of the decision in writing, by the PPA.
Medical reports completed by the SMP should be released to the officer first, who should be able correct any factual errors before it is released to the PPA.
7.3 Where an injury award is payable, the PPA shall consider whether the degree of disablement has substantially altered in accordance with the advice of the SMP who determined the injury award and if it has, the award will be revised accordingly in accordance with PIBR.
In determining the degree of disablement in this process, the PPA shall refer the matter to an SMP (the FMA may act in this role), who will be required to deal with it in accord with PIBR and will issue a report accordingly.
Let’s compare what has been written in the policy with the actual PIBR. The policy states “the PPA shall consider whether the degree of disablement has substantially altered“, whereas regulation 37(1) actually says “the police authority shall, at such intervals as may be suitable, consider whether the degree of the pensioner’s disablement has altered“.
A small, but important omission, as the PPA is not entitled to conduct a reassessment of an injury pension unless there has been a suitable interval. A suitable interval is not defined, but in “The Queen on the Application of Turner v The Police Medical Appeal Board” it was said “suitable intervals suggests that this is not a matter which should be revisited every year, nor is it.”
This means that it is not open for the force to simply review at will without due consideration as to whether a suitable interval has passed. The policy thus puts the cart before the horse. It intimates that a SMP will exercise a remarkable ability to predict the future by recommending to the PPA when a disabled officer’s degree of disablement might alter substantially. The plain fact is that nobody, not even a doctor, can tell what the future holds.
The policy places a fetter on the discretion required of PPAs as to whether or when to consider the matter of substantial alteration in degree of disablement. It commits the PPA to a future action, based on nothing more than the opinion of a SMP.
This latter section, again suggests that it is appropriate for the FMA to act in the role of the SMP, when it is not. See the answer we gave to 5.3
7.5 The final part of the review process will involve an assessment by the SMP who will initially address the apparent disablement of the individual being reviewed, if necessary during private consultation and examination.
Reading this one line caused us outrage. The use of the word ‘apparent’ is highly offensive and clearly speaks volumes of how these two forces value and think of their injured and disabled pensioners. One dictionary definition of ‘apparent’ is ‘seeming true but not necessarily so’. So their obvious suggestion here is that pensioners are ‘pulling a fast one’ and there are no real injuries or illnesses.
Let us also point out that this approach is also unlawful. Once an SMP makes a determination in relation to a pensioners level of disability, that position is a given, and any subsequent reviews are a comparison exercise between that stated position and today. No ifs, or buts, you cannot question or revisit previous decisions or conduct a fresh assessment.
7.7 An individual subject to a review and living abroad, may be directed to see an SMP within reasonable travelling distance of their homes, after consultation by the OHWD with British Authorities overseas (e.g. Embassies, Consuls, Armed Forces). Alternatively, the individual may be advised to attend a meeting with the SMP within the UK. Failure on the part of the individual to co-operate may be addressed in accordance with the PIBR.
Firstly, this section suggests that the force has the right to ‘direct’ the pensioner to do things, which is not the case. They are no longer serving officers taking orders. More importantly, it suggests that pensioners who may be living abroad can be made to return to the UK for a medical consultation. We’d be interested to see where in the PIBR it allows forces to order pensioners to return for the purposes of a medical examination? Yet again, there is the threat of consequences if they fail to co-operate, so what are those consequences?
8.1
…
If the individual wilfully or negligently fails to submit to a medical examination, or to attend such interviews as the SMP may consider necessary in order to reach a decision, the PPA may make their determination on such evidence and medical advice, as in their discretion, they think necessary.
We have already mentioned in section 7.3 how the omission of a word from the regulations can change their original meaning. With that in mind, lets look at what has been written in the policy “the individual wilfully or negligently fails to submit to a medical examination“. That’s not what the PIBR say. What it actually says in regulation 33 is the the following “the person concerned wilfully or negligently fails to submit himself to such medical examination“.
Have you spotted the difference? The word “himself” is missing. So what is the significance of this? The word “himself” implies “the person” i.e. the pensioner should attend in person where they may be questioned or examined about their current level of disability. The statement “failing to submit to a medical examination” is far broader than just the person. It implies and could be argued that the medical examination also includes the authority to demand and examine medical records or other medical information about the pensioner which is not a requirement of the regulations.
SMPs can request, but not demand, access to medical records. They can ask a pensioner any relevant questions they think necessary to their task. However, we see nothing in the Regulations that allows anyone, SMP or other, to require or demand access. Nor do we see any legal authority in any other legislation which allows access without express informed permission from the data subject.
8.2 To assist with this determination, individuals who fail to co-operate, or only co-operate conditionally, will be provided with an appointment to see the SMP at their clinic, or other location specified by the PPA.
This section is absolutely nonsensical. It’s suggesting that pensioners whose injury pensions are being reviewed that are not co-operating will be referred to an an SMP in order to assist the PPA make a determination under regulation 33.
However regulation 30(2)(d) is clear, that if the PPA is considering revising an injury pension, the PPA has an obligation to refer the matter to the SMP,
30(2) Subject to paragraph (3), where the police authority are considering whether a person is permanently disabled, they shall refer for decision to a duly qualified medical practitioner selected by them the following questions—
…
…
…
(d) the degree of the person’s disablement; and, if they are considering whether to revise an injury pension, shall so refer question (d) above.
This means that the PPA should have already referred the pensioner to the SMP for the purposes of regulation 37(1), that being the case, why would they then refer the pensioner in order to determine regulation 33? If our understanding of this section is right, and they wish to refer the pensioner to the SMP purely for the purposes of regulation 33, then we’re happy to inform them that there is no such authority.
8.3 If they attend but have not completed a medical review questionnaire as supplied by OHWD, they will be provided with one by the SMP and asked to complete it forthwith. Once completed the SMP will conduct the consultation and examination but will delay any decision until the information on the questionnaire is examined by the OHWD and the appropriate report completed.
What!??? They will be “asked to complete it forthwith“. Once and only once they complete it will the SMP conduct the examination. Let’s make it unequivocally clear to the chief constables of Surrey and Sussex, there in no requirement under the PIBR to complete any medical questionnaire. Furthermore, the disclosure any of such medial questionnaire to the Occupational Health and Welfare Dept (‘OHWD’) as suggested is a series breach of ‘special category’ personal data under the General Data Protection Regulations (‘GDPR’) and will make the force liable as the data controller for this serious breach.
Let’s make it perfectly clear to Surrey and Sussex Police, a 37(1) reassessment of an injury pension is a medical decision, and as such can only be made by a medical practitioner. It is our view, that medical data should ONLY be requested and viewed by the SMP. There is no authority or provision in the regulations for OHWD staff to paw over the personal, sensitive and private medical notes provided by a pensioner. Is this clear enough?
8.4 Should the individual fail to attend any meeting with the SMP, or fail to co-operate at all, the injury award percentage will be reduced to 0%, unless there are clear and unequivocal reasons for not doing so. Any subsequent appeal will be defended, or the case may be reassessed if the individual is then able to co-operate
Wow! Let’s say that again, WOW! What regulation allows the PPA to reduce the injury award to 0% if the pensioner fails to attend an SMP meeting or if they fail to co-operate at all? This is fantasy land stuff and is UNLAWFUL. Again, we believe that this is clear indication as to the contempt in which they hold those in receipt of any injury award. They should bow their heads in shame!
9.1 An individual will remain on their current pay status (full/half or nil pay), once the PPA have granted permission for the IHR application to proceed, unless the individual fails to co-operate with the process. Once authority is given for the individual to be medically retired, they will revert to full pay from the date the PPA authorised the ill health retirement.
In closing, we would draw your attention to the comments we made in relation to 3.10 (ante).
Clearly someone has taken a lot of time and effort in producing this dreadful document, and we can only assume that the Chief Constables of Surrey and Sussex have viewed and authorised this policy.
 |
 |
| Chief Constable of Surrey – Gavin Stephens | Chief Constable of Sussex – Giles York |
We started this blog by saying that “File 13” is a euphemism for the trash can, and we’ve found a prime candidate for the use of such a receptacle.
We’d love to hear the hear the conversation between one of the chief constables and the author of this policy document when they’re summonsed to his office.
Chief Constable: “So how long did it take you prepare this policy?”
Author: “About a week.”
Chief Constable: “Well, that’s how long you’re not going to be paid for!”
Author: “Oh, okay. What do you want me to do with the policy?”
Chief Constable: “Put it in file 13, on the way out!”
Over the many years of my service I read the statements of alleged offenders and knew that they would be disproved and debunked when matters came to court. The prosecution would pick them apart line by line and expose all the lies, misleading ‘facts’ and misinformation.
Those prosecutors would feel an immediate sense of deja vu if they were to read this shady, shameful policy document, and they would have no difficulty in disproving and debunking it.
It has been written and approved by those who are constantly wrong but never in doubt.
If challenged, they will ‘stand by’ the policy, sing its praises and claim ownership of what they will propose as its many virtues. They will be wrong to do so, not just on factual grounds but on moral grounds. What we, as IOD pensioners, are facing is a police service infested at the topmost levels by small-minded, spiteful and arrogant petty-politicos whose sole concern is the continuation of their own careers and to hell with anyone else. They simply cannot bring themselves to ever, ever, admit they might have got something wrong.
See you in court fellas.
Having read all the comments of which I mostly agree, you have to wonder at the intelligence of the person/people behind this policy. It is dreadful but have they never heard of David Lock who must read stuff like this and rub his hands with glee at the stupidity of committing this to paper.
As someone commented Judicial Review.
I can’t believe they keep on in this unlawful manner and expect to keep getting away with it…
if we as officers bent the laws to suit
The offenders/situations we were dealing with we’d have been straight up the dole office ..
The PCC role needs abolishing and police forces need to take back the running of the force instead of letting these maggots rule and ruin the service …
Completely agree.. I’m certainly not defending any (executive officers.. Hate that pompous assumption they are any better than anyone else).. Any chief Constable in this.. No cc should have the dual role of managing pensions for injured officers and appeasing their crime commissioner who appointed them.. Look at what a complete arse is going on in Staffordshire police.. Then again look who is running the circus.. A clown.
Yet another example of abuse which would thrive behind closed doors – were it not for the Honest, Integrity and Strength of IODPA.
So much of what I have seen and experienced since I went through the ill health retirement process has confirmed how Institutionally Biased so much of the Police actually is: One becomes psychologically injured – one is treated by various officers of rank and the Force medical officer automatically like one is lying or exaggerating.
One tries to challenge them for THEIR mistakes and one is treated like a trouble maker and a leper – different story though when the shoe is on the other foot in which case you are an easy target for them to gather some more evidence for their next promotion. Hypocrites of the highest order.
No questions asked by them to find out what is actually going on – just immediate Prejudice from Pre-Judging and never asking why/finding out the facts. Covering up their mistakes with lies to protect their peers when if one did that they’d sack you. I now totally understand why Hillsborough, Stephen Lawrence happened – not honest and big enough to admit their mistakes and humanity – most people would actually respect them more if they did: That is what a true “leader” asthey like to call themselves actually does. Not many of those in the modern Police force.
Very true. I received an injury award which I eventually agreed with but had to fight for it. That was over 30 yrs ago. I also sued the Police for negligence which caused the injury and after 9 years of being given the run around and “lost” paperwork of which luckily I had copies they settled out of court at 3pm the day before the hearing was listed. Thanks to the Federation who backed the case and were instrumental in me starting it in the first place, I won, but privately I would have had no chance, after 9 years I would have run out of money.
Even if you retire normally once you are out you are out, you are not recognised as a retired officer. A friend went to his retirement do at a station he had served at for years, he was to receive his retirement certificate and a present collected for by his colleagues. He was made to fill in a visitors form and wear a visitor badge. He point blank refused and left for the local pub where his real friends joined him. What a way to treat a recently retired colleague. So what chance if you are trying to get a medical pension out of them. In the USA it is totally different or was until recently, I hate to think what it is like now.
It is infuriating that every force around the UK has their own interpretation of how this should all be “managed” and it results in injured officers suffering far more from the injustice of making the rules up to fit. The stress caused by this maladministration of the regs is a further assault on injured officers, the corrections of such false interpretations takes years to correct. It is time one policy was set out for all forces to follow as they cannot be trusted interpreting the regs for themselves.
I can easily imagine this load of waffle was written by some poor chump who has been promoted beyond the level of their very low competence.
It is nothing more than the disjointed random thoughts of someone who has no grasp of the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations, their requirements and limitations.
If that is the case, then he or she has an illustrious career ahead of them, for they are proof that you can fool some of the people some of the time. The author of this exercise in fantasy has managed to fool two Chief Constables, who are either easily fooled or have no idea this document exists.
Perhaps IODPA should write to these two Chief Constables and ask them if they are aware of the document, and if so, do they confirm it as valid policy.
I’ve puzzled over this policy document. It is a mixture of misinformation and made-up ‘law’.
As the article says, there is just so much wrong with this confused and confusing document that it ought to be binned.
Here’s one paragraph that makes no sense whatever:
‘8.1 Where an individual fails to co-operate with the review of a pension, the PPA will consider the case in accordance with PIBR and will write to the individual, explaining the process and again seek their co-operation. ‘
What on earth does ‘fails to co-operate’ mean? Or more pertinently, what will a) the HR, Occupational Health or SMP think it means and b) what could a disabled, crocked-up, befuddled with prescription medication, stressed out with PTSD, police pensioner think it means?
It’s an open invitation for those in a) above to make it mean whatever they want. For example, a pensioner says their injury prevents them from traveling any distance, yet the PPA insists they take a flight from their new home in Spain, back to the UK, to be seen by the SMP. Is that failing to co-operate? Or, the SMP says he wants full access to a pensioner’s medical history from birth – records which will include mention of family members, illnesses which had no impact on the pensioner’s disability, etc., etc. Is it a failure to co-operate if the pensioner refuses full unrestricted access?
Let’s be clear on this – the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 make no mention of ‘fails to co-operate’.
What the Regulations do say is this:
‘Refusal to be medically examined
33. If a question is referred to a medical authority under regulation 30, 31 or 32 and the person concerned wilfuly or negligently fails to submit himself to such medical examination or to attend such interviews as the medical authority may consider necessary in order to enable him to make his decision, then—
(a )if the question arises otherwise than on an appeal to a board of medical referees, the police authority may make their determination on such evidence and medical advice as they in their discretion think necessary;
(b) if the question arises on an appeal to a board of medical referees, the appeal shall be deemed to be withdrawn.
So, anything other than wilfuly or negligently failure to submit to a medical examination or to attend interviews is not covered by the Regulations and therefore can not be stated in policy as a failure to co-operate.
It follows that a PPA can not form any adverse opinion or take any adverse action which would be against the interests and lawful rights of a pensioner in any circumstances other than the one specified in regulation 33. The PPA can not, ‘consider the case in accordance with PIBR’. What case? Do they mean the alleged failure to co-operate, or do they mean the pensioner’s degree of disablement? Nor can the PPA write what would amount to a threatening and coercive letter to the pensioner. To do so would be beyond the regulatory remit of the PPA.
The obvious inference we can draw from this single paragraph in the policy is that it is maliciously intended to create an atmosphere of fear – to make vulnerable disabled pensioners think that dire consequences will result unless they abandon their rights and deliver themselves and all their personal information up without restriction to anyone who the PPA chooses.
I find it incredible that police services can issue a policy document which encompasses the use of unlawful processes. Either their Legal advice is deficient or they have a total disregard for the law in relation to the review process.
They really are their own worst enemies.
This policy document, if followed, will inevitably lead both forces straight to the doors of a judicial review.
Their audacity is simply breathtaking. If a Sergeant or PC misrepresented legislation to a MoP so grossly they’d find PSD all over them like a rash, but the scrambled egg ranks and HR departments seem to do it at will and without consequence.
I read this and despair, Police Officers put themselves in harms way every day, whilst everyday the powers that be plot to erode their rights to provided for should they get injured whilst performing their duty. 😡😡
This is typical as how vulnerable injured on duty police officers are being treat with total contempt.
Police forces are trying everything to save money from their budgets and have no regard to whom it is taken away.
Money talks an absolute disgrace
Can you imagine your insurance company presenting you with a policy document worded like this one?
It is outrageous. The whole tone of the document is superior and pugnacious. It is confrontational. Clearly written by someone who has an entirely corrupted view on the purpose of the various police ill health and injury regulations. Instead of seeing these schemes as necessary and appropriate arrangements put in place to ensure that officers and former officers so not have to worry about the financial fallout of becoming unfit for duty due to long term ill or injured on duty, the author of this document seeks to pervert the intentions of Parliament.
These two Chief Constables are a disgrace and should resign.
I wonder is it really the Chief Constable or rather an elected Police and Crime Commissioner’s HR department trying to save money. Chief Constables may be “the responsible body” under the regulations but they no longer control the purse strings and a PCC can sack a Chief Officer. As long as we go for Chief Officers the PCC’s will hide behind that. Can we find out the author and if the PCC signed this off. Delayed Elections coming up next year for PCCs so maybe we should be going for them
This document shows that covid is not the only virus circulating the country. The Wirz virus is still out there and local outbreaks will continue to occur. Thankfully the IODPA track and trace system will always root it out.
Question 1. Who is the actual author of this document?
Question 2. Did either of the 2 Forces Legal Departments have any involvement before the publication of the document?
Question 3. If so, can either of those Legal Departments explain their reasonings in supporting its publication?
Question 4. At what stage was the Police Federation provided with a copy of this document to therefore allow the Federation’s own legal vetting of its content?
Question 5. Does either Force intend to conduct re-assessments using this document to support the process or will common sense prevail?
Another vile specimen of a policy and shows the scorn and bile aimed at police officers, who have done nothing wrong but to have been injured whilst on duty. What must those officers think in those two forces, in this day and age we are living in, with all the protests, all the COVID-19 problems, all the street fighting, that if they get seriously hurt, they will be screwed?
Time these two forces followed the law rather than making up their own policy to fit their agenda.
Their Policy does NOT replace the Regulations , not quite sure when the PPA’s will all realise that !!
This sounds more like a Police and Crime Commissioner’s instructions to HR than a Chief Officer who may just have to do what he is told. These days a PCC can sack the Chief Constable so how many fight back?
Expect nothing less from forces these days. They have no idea of the regulations and quite obviously dont care. They write anything they want in an attempt to save money and then wonder why they get dragged through the courts when former officers stand up for there rights to ensure the regulations are followed correctly. They dont learn from past mistakes but one day hopefully they will wake up and do the right thing for men and women injured on duty. We are not leeches on your purse strings. We are people who were sadly injured on duty, many seriously, who were just doing there duty. It is time Chief Constables did there duty and started treating injured ex officers correctly.
Maybe it is time Chief Constables stood up to Police and Crime Commissioners who are behind this. Then have a massive publicity drive if they are disciplined over it. Chief Officers are Police Officers and should stand up for their troops but we all know now they are a load of PC wimps themselves playing a political game because that is how they got where they are in the first place.
Boy oh boy, Surrey and Sussex have really managed to corner the market on ignorance. This is no more than yet another example of how Police forces would like the regulations to be, instead of how they actually are. Thankfully our legal team have exposed the forces which make it up as they go along.
One wonders just how many injured officers have been conned out of their due rights, and how many have had to settle for the lowest of awards, and out of those who have been retired how many are hassled into accepting reduction in bandings in so called reviews which are unlawfully conducted.
Thank goodness for the IODPA who continue to shine a light into the dark and murky corners of HR departments and SMP’s who conspire to do their worst.
Degree of disablement? As a long retired on injury award, former Police Officer I am confused as to what “degree of disablement” now means. While your actual injury may not be totally debilitating and may only make you unsuitable for Police work, the very fact that your CV includes “retired on ill health/injury award pension” puts the vast majority of prospective employers off. Why employ a liability when there are plenty of fit and healthy people after the same job. This results in having to accept a very reduced pay in civilian life, way beyond the “degree of disablement” assessed by a medical practitioner. In fact how can any medical person assess your likelihood of any gainful employment with that as the only certificate for many many years of service. This must apply to the Military and Fire Service as well. In my case and most of my colleagues cases we had no alternative but to go self employed in whatever task we best felt able and qualified to do. In some cases that meant no employment until qualifications had been obtained and at a time when children were growing up and becoming more expensive. Only when we had established a work ability outside the service were we able to gain any employment elsewhere. Maybe a re-training scheme, on full pay, should be offered to officers so retired. In the end that could save the force money and the ex officers self esteem would be restored with a decent job if they were in fact able to hold one down. As for me, I qualified, started my own business and finally did OK so was in those days satisfied with the award I received.
Chris, a very well reasoned post. I returned to law school and starting at the bottom is completely different from working your way through the promotion system guaranteed pay etc.
The retraining element could benefit all, also there would have to be a case by case assessment as some individuals are never able to work again.
In the days when police ‘banter was allowed, traffic officers used to refer to their CID colleagues as someone who “tells lies, carn’t be trusted, works well under supervision, therefore good CID material”. I’m sure old CID colleagues, will no doubt have suitable responses to that statement that are as equally good for their traffic counterparts. Hence the acerbic, but good natured banter of those now lost days.
However, that term could be reused now, not for Traffic, or CID, but for the author of this awful policy. “Tells lies, carn’t be trusted (by Injury On Duty police pensioners), would possibly work well under supervision, (If that supervision can also be trusted), good HR/OH personnel maybe!
There is a truth underlining this, as modern police services, (we have lost the old term police forces), seem to fall into two camps these days…….those that distort the truth, apparently like Sussex/Surrey in this case or, alternatively, fail to tell injured police officers, either facing the loss of their careers, or those having their injury pensions reviewed, any, or all of the relevant information they need. I’m not sure of those two, which is worse, but if truth be told, neither should be even on the table.
Let’s hope that that at least one, or both of these Chief Constables mentioned above, have the integrity to not only address these blatant errors and remove this abomination of a policy. Afterwards, to follow this with the determination to ensure that a proper fair and honest document soon takes it place.
I’m sure IODPA will continue to watch this issue to see if that happens.
Obviously written by a traffic wanker, or maybe just a wanker?
Not called for, we should be all fighting together not ripping ourselves apart. As a detective on a specialist unit I and a couple of others did the Met 3 week Traffic Patrol Course, skid pan and additional towing, qualified as a class 1 driver and was authorized to drive plain clothes high performance vehicles with hidden blues and twos. The Traffic Patrol/Driving School Instructor was great. How he as a PC put up with three Detective Sergeants for three weeks is beyond belief. OK we still referred to them as “Black Rats” because of the way they popped up on their motor cycles all dressed in black but it was good humour as the original contributor said but W****r takes it too far for me.
I’m sure you haven’t meant to be disparaging to CID officers, but it’s hard not to take offense. I get the overall jist of what you are saying and I agree with it. Surry and Sussex Police seem to have gotten away with it so far, maybe that time is now running out and I do admire IODPA for their tenicity in finding these terrible wrongs. Likening it to what traffic officers thought of CID is not neccessary. Having been both in my time, I value all those officers in the two departments and their was no need to have this ‘banter’ on here. Know your audience is my last bit of advice.
I note one of the CC’s is a Giles Tristan YORK. The same York who i was in a class with at Ashford PTC. The same YORK who informed me he got on to the graduate accelerated promotion scheme because one of his buddies had the interview a week before him and told him the questions. The same YORK who later became ACPO’s lead on the same accelerated promotion scheme. Say no more i would hazard an educated GUESS in fact better educated than said CC that poor GILES does not understand the PPR regulations nor give them a second thought having been spoon fed throughout his career and knowing that he would nor never have been in a position to sustain injury. I would advise Giles to read the regulations, understand them and realise that as the PPA his advice is likely to cost his force dearly in the future
Dr Yardley I think this matter should be investigated as the circumstances you describe would amount to integrity issues if proven. A bit of case law Salter v CC Dorset which states that dismissal is the starting point for operational dishonesty.
The proverb ‘A Little Knowledge Is A Dangerous Thing’ derived from the essay by Alexandra Pope in 1709 means a person is sharing their views with others and doesn’t have enough knowledge of a particular subject, especially medical, religion, or education field, it can lead to dangerous situations. People with limited experience can often mislead people. Innocent people or people with a lack of information may easily believe the person pretending to know everything because most of the time, they are very convincing. A person with a little information and knowledge can also become a cause of suffering and even death due to their overconfidence.
This is quite clearly what has occurred with the author of the unbelievable joint policy by Surry and Sussex Police.
It just beggars belief that two organisations who are responsible for upholding Law and Order can have a policy which is so far outside what the law of the land, passed by Parliament and Given Royal Accent actually says. The probable truth is that whoever penned this work of fiction has been highly influenced by the unsavory characters working for the likes of Staffordshire and Northumbria.
The truth will out. The PPA’s of Surry and Sussex must surely realise that they have been led up the garden path, and must act to remove unlawful policy from their organisation.
The fact is that the Police have to Police by consent. Once the trust has been questioned then they are on dodgy ground. If the public know that they will ride roughshod over their own former officers, how can they trust them to uphold the law without fear or favour. The ball is firmly in their court.
I read the policy and was agog.
Several thoughts sprung to mind, unlawful, discriminatory and morally bankrupt.
If I was subject to this policy I would seek Polfed advice and an Employment Tribunal for disability discrimination or a Judicial review would ensure. These two forces want to walk in Northumbria’s footsteps.
So how does that end ?
Look at the following cases involving Northumbria:
Crudace
Simpson
Howarth
Fisher
All above are Judicial Review cases
Curry v CC Northumbria
Employment Tribunal claim. Guess how many Northumbria won, yes you got it zilch, zero, dinada.
Typical contempt that they hold for iod’s. Would they disregard the laws such as PACE when dealing with a prig? Absolutely not. I hate the fuckas.