Month: May 2021

Home Office Consultation On Regulation 12 Of The Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006

IODPA Admin newsflash, regulation 12
Home Office Consultation On Regulation 12 Of The Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006

In 2020, following a successful claim by Ron Thompson of Haven Solicitors and David Lock QC of Landmark Chambers, the Government agreed a discretionary payment equal to a regulation 12 settlement for one of their clients.

It was accepted that regulation 12, being time limited to 12 months from the date of receiving an injury on duty was potentially discriminatory against officers whose injuries only manifested to total and permanent disablement some time later. This is particularly relevant to those who suffered a mental health injury.

As part of the settlement, the Home Office agreed to consult further on the issue, and has now released a public consultation paper, which we’ve reproduced here.

If you feel as though you have something positive to contribute to the debate, you may complete the online form found here –

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/regulation-12-of-the-police-injury-benefit-regulations-2006.

 

 

Essex Police Send Out Review Letters Before The Bank Holiday Weekend

IODPA Admin Review
Essex Police Send Out Review Letters Before The Bank Holiday Weekend

Essex Police have sent out their review letters a day before the Bank Holiday weekend. This was a common tactic used by police forces to cause maximum distress and upset to the recipient as they have nowhere to turn over the long weekend period to ask for advice and assistance. These methods were regularly used by Avon and Somerset Constabulary when they kicked off a programme of reviews back in 2014. After many complaints they agreed not to send correspondence before the weekend, thus allowing the pensioner the opportunity to seek assistance.

Essex police, it seems have learnt nothing from the experiences of others.

What is also particularly concerning is the fact that the letter informs the pensioner that the reviews will take place over a period of three years. So the pensioner now has to live with the prospect of further envelopes landing on their mat anytime over the next three years. How can this be conducive to their health and well being?

Finally, the letter quotes a recent court judgment by the name of ‘Goodwin’. Well, Essex Police may consider that for them and other unethical forces that it was a Good Win, but the pensioner concerned was called ‘Goodland’. If Essex police cannot even get the name of recent case law right, what hope is there that these pensioners will get a fair reconsideration of their pensions?

Questions have to be asked, who authorised this letter to be sent out in its current form? Was it BJ Harrington, M Gilmartin, or is this the work of Kevin Kirby, who appears conspicuously absent, but in all probability is still pulling the strings behind the scenes?

Here is a copy of the letter that has been sent.