It appears that Essex Police intend to recommence injury pension reviews from April of this year. The official decision can be found here –
A briefing note can be found here –
There is also an example letter –
There are 272 Essex pensioners that are in receipt of an injury pension. We would urge those pensioners that are not IODPA members to make contact with us.
Essex Police To Recommence Injury Reviews
Hi IODPA. I am currently in receipt of band 3 injury award. I do expect that my force will contact me soon for a review as it’s been three years since my initial assessment. Curiously my initial injury pension report was endorsed that I was 100% disabled from police duties. I also receive a monthly payment from the DWP. Three months later, the same SMP endorsed my IOD application that I was 69% disabled. A massive reduction in three months. Based on his assessment, had he waited 6 months I could probably be sent back to full duties,. That save the force some money I’m sure. I fully expected that my condition will significantly improve when I’m next reviewed. My question would be if the SMP reduced me to 50% or even 10%, could I ask for my old job back? I’m sure that the police would not want to re-train me or have to pay me full rate when I would only be able to fulfil a restricted role.
One has to wonder if the home office is behind forces conducting reviews, Government have spent a lot of reserves lately and it is common to seek savings from those least likely to raise objections or be noticed if they do.
My own experience being in the system for over seven years now suggests they know they can’t refuse me but as long as they don’t ever conclude the process I cannot take the matter further and show up the wrongdoing of the Northern Ireland Policing Board.
What was telling for me was that two local solicitors declined my case with one admitting his firm would never go up against our Department of (in)Justice.
I requested that the IMR review his decision back in Dec 2018 and still await a decision as to whether or when this might happen, surely if I had no case it would have been dismissed at the time. As it is the Pensions Ombudsman is now involved so we will see where that takes us.
Why would they use Dr Cheng when he is the subject of so many complaints to the GMC? He’s not reputable.
There’s only one reason to employ Cheng and we all know what it is, rubber stamping decisions already made. The only good thing is that he can’t be employed by every force in the country, also the appeal may well throw a spanner in his works!
As far as I know (somebody please correct me if I am wrong), the purpose of a Reg 37 review has always been to consider whether there has been a substantial alteration to the degree of disablement. The original assessment and award are a given and cannot be ‘re-assessed’, even if the reviewing SMP disagrees with it. The only function of a reviewing SMP is to establish whether there has been any alteration since the last review or award. The term ‘reassessment’ implies the ability to alter the decision of the original award which is clearly unlawful. The choice of Cheng as SMP will more or less guarantee that the reviews will be contentious at the very least.
My thoughts and sympathy go to all the affected IOD pensioners ………Here we go again.
The title of regulation 37 is “Reassessment of injury pension”, which is quite misleading.
I would ask Essex to explain the rationale for choosing Dr Cheng.
My understanding is that he is involved in a disporoprtionate number of PMAB claims, he has also been subject to GMC complaints.
My old force do not use Dr Cheng but having spoken to serving/retired officers who have been sent to him all have felt traumatised.
given Dr Cheng’s reputation, If I was was a former Essex Officer who was disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act which is likely given IHR and IOD status can I ask for a reasonable adjustment ?
If someone due to see Dr Cheng asked not to see him because of the thought of being seen by him has exacerbated their mental health, has caused foreseeable and preventable harm would Essex Police make reasonable adjustments or would they end up at Employment Tribunal like Northumbria (curry v CC Northumbria) or Avon and Somerset. Essex if you’re reading this, quick heads up CC Morgan was DCC and involved in the A and S job.
I have never served in any of these forces but a effective research can yield substantial information.
What annoys me about this Essex letter and subsequent information is that they state that it is not about saving money? Why even mention anything about saving money all they had to say was they were reviewing.
Something that has always bothered me is the “independent” doctor issue. How can they be fully independent when they are being paid by Essex and therefore will be in contact with them and duty bound to act on the behalf of the force not the IOD?
The stress and anxiety caused by the mere mention of reviews Is catastrophic to some former officers. I believe that every appointment with Cheng should not only be recorded but filmed and have an independent assessor in with them as well because he is vile.
I have been through this crap and dread to think I may be subjected to it again! Good luck to those in this and we have your back.
Is Cheng local to Essex? If not what are the reasons for choosing him?
If he not local, are they really saying that there is no one in Essex who they could ask to carry out the reviews?
I somehow doubt that.
Which leaves the question hanging, what is it about him that has persuade Essex to contract him???
It just makes me scared, frightened, highly anxious. Can we never escape the erosion of our lives by the Police forces we served in . I thank God for the IODPA uniting us as one voice. At least we are not alone as we’ve often felt.
Well, we knew it was likely but hardly justified. It seems as though they have looked at the future in relation to Staffs and its CC and decided that he is going to win the forthcoming court case. How they could come to such a conclusion I can only guess!!!!!
It’s good to know that both the PFEW and NARPO branches in Essex are fully aware of the situation and are going to support their members to the fullest extent (they are, aren’t they?. I should think so too. I know that the Staffs branch of PFEW has been fully supportive of its members who have been subjected to what I believe to be a Criminal Act (Blackmail – Making a unwarranted demands with menaces) by their chief. Surely to demand medical information from retired officers, to which he is not entitled and coupling this with the stated intention of reducing all of those who (justifiably) refuse to allow access to their medical history prior to their police service, to the minimum possible injury benefit, with no reference/acknowledgement of the injuries/disablement suffered by those same people, to me amounts to a clear menace.
I’m now waiting to see whether or not, Essex will follow the same pathway.
With all of the hearings and outcomes which have preceded the present situation I am left wondering why the Home Secretary, HMIC, NARPO or The Police Federation of GB are NOT taking these ‘forces’ to task, especially as many have been involved in the, not insignificant financial costs, all of which have resulted in losses to their respective budgets. Thankfully, The IODPA exists and is supported by some very able and dedicated legal minds. What I really need to know the truth about, is WHY was it necessary for it to exist in the first place, when we already have 2 organisations whose main reason for existence being to represent the best interests of their members. As far as I’m aware, it’s not the lack of finance in either case so what is it??
I note that Essex have already stated that it is not a cost saving exercise so what is their reason for carrying out such a review when they must be aware of the ongoing situation elsewhere in the country and the outcomes of previous such exercises! Even if they are advised that they should carry out such exercises occasionally, why would they choose to do it right now and what do they expect to achieve ??????
The stress this is causing is beyond belief. The once proud Forces that we all served and were prepared to put our lives on the line for, are long since gone. Having to fight for what is due as lives are never the same again and our families have to watch and are suffering too. “Man’s inhumanity to man” I don’t think is too strong a phrase to quote, when you think of the stress, uncertainty, harassment, when you know that there is a hidden agenda and ulterior motif. This situation is bad enough now and sadly will only get worse for those who are still serving. IODPA are our lifeline, none of us can fight this on our own, we all have to support each other in any way we can.
Out of interest, I had a few injuries on duty, including at least one that was registered with the then Department of Social Security and attracted a ‘disability percentage allowance’ Or whatever they called it.
I just wondered if that might make me eligible for anything as I joined at 18 and my pension is not index linked until I reach 55. .
It is possible Paul, can you please contact us at admin? admin@iodpa.org or use the ‘contact’ link.
.will there be any advice on how to proceed when the letter comes ,l still dont understand what we have to give them now since the staff case was lost .
Hmm – Cheng? For Chrissake….
Thanks for the update
The sad fact is that they can, and legally speaking, they are required to do this. The argument is about a fishing trip or a change in circumstances that warrant a review. lets hope it is fair and not driven by cost reduction instruction whether targeted or not.
It would be interesting to see what a freedom of information request would show about the decision making process as to why this is happening now before the Staffordshire case is finally decided.
Disgraceful behaviour by another Uk force … money saving exercise under the guise of a pension review . Shame on you … thank god for IODPA , keep up the fight people …
This is going to happen nationally. Essex are clearly emboldened by the Staffordshire case, as they are keen to point out more than once, they make no mention of the fact that there’s an appeal ongoing.
I find the creeping use of the word ‘reassessment’ by first Staffordshire and now Essex as opposed to the commonly used ‘review’ to be a form of gaslighting. The actual wording of the regs is ‘…consider whether…’
Essex go further by using the term ‘an independent assessment of your degree of disablement’. Anyone receiving this letter without the benefit of the knowledge they have gained from iodpa could easily be forgiven for believing that the whole issue of their injury is being reassessed, starting from day one, a whole reconsideration of the original award.
I’m sure this is quite deliberate, the intention being to cause a feeling of unease in the recipient. Why change the wording to reassessment – even to include ‘commonly referred to as injury award review’, when the common usage of the word ‘review’ has been understood from the outset?
Once people without the benefit of iodpa begin to understand this as a ‘reassessment’ they’ll start to comply with anything else that’s required of them, whether lawful under the regs or not. After all, we all once believed that our forces were always acting our best interests, didn’t we?