This week, IODPA was granted permission by the High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division (Administrative Court), to bring a judicial review concerning the Pensions Ombudsman’s decision (PO) to cease adjudicating on maladministration under The Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 (PIBR).
We believe that the PO that has incorrectly applied a ruling in the case of Nicola Clark & Michael Bell v the Chief Constable of Derbyshire, Chief Constable of West Midlands Constabulary & the Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWCA Civ 676 to the PIBR.
We have previously explained the case in more detail here – https://iodpa.org/2025/07/29/important-the-pensions-ombudsman-and-injury-pensions/
The judge summed our application up as follows –
Whether permission should be granted on Grounds 1 to 6 boils down to a single question: Is it arguable that the decision of the Court of Appeal in Clark & Anor v Chief Constable of Derbyshire Constabulary & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 676 can be distinguished in Regulation 11 cases? I consider that the point is at least arguable and that accordingly permission should be granted in respect of Ground 1 to 6
It is vital that members clearly understand the consequences if this decision is not overturned.
The following example illustrates what has previously happened to an officer called to a review of a Band 3 IOD award:
- A retired officer in receipt of a Band 3 award was subject to a review.
- After challenging the process, the force invoked Regulation 33. Rather than the Selected Medical Practitioner (SMP) making the determination, as required by the Regulations, the decision was taken by the Chief Constable.
- The Chief Constable decided to reduce their banding.
- As a result, the pensioner immediately lost £1,500 per month and was also required to repay £31,000 in overpaid pension.
- With no alternative right of appeal, the pensioner submitted a complaint to the PO, arguing that the Chief Constable had failed to follow both the Regulations and established case law—particularly in relation to identifying a “substantial alteration” under Regulation 37(1). The Ombudsman represented the final avenue for the decision to be independently reviewed and potentially overturned.
- However, following the Ombudsman’s decision to no longer adjudicate on IOD pensions, this individual is left with no route of appeal and continues to lose £1,500 each month.
- Had the Ombudsman ruled in the pensioner’s favour, the case could have been reconsidered. If successful, the original 2017 banding would have been reinstated, resulting in back payments of £1,500 per month plus interest—amounting to £144,000 excluding interest.
This example highlights why the Ombudsman’s decision is so significant.
Consider the impact of losing such a sum every month for the rest of your life.
We also want to take this opportunity to thank you sincerely for your continued support in our appeal against the PO’s decision.
The response from members has been both humbling and encouraging. Many of you have contributed to the appeal, through both large and small donations, and every single contribution is valued and appreciated.
If you’d like to donate, please go here – https://iodpa.org/donations/donate-to-iodpa/