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/
Where are the Federation in all of this? Late to the party again?
Pretty disgusting, leaving it to a small charity to fund all of this – perhaps they’ll claim victory after the event just like the pension challenge?
You may well ask Johnny.!! You could even make the same comment about NARPO. Despite making a direct request to NARPO (as a member) my communication was seemingly ignored by them111
The PO is now my only glimmer of hope. I’ve been retired 24 years and although I should be, am not in receipt of an injury pension. Thanks to some very dedicated professionals, the fight continues. But I’m weary, mentally exhausted and feel I’ll be 6 foot under before my case is resolved. I’m bitter and angry, have to battle daily with the demons and triggers. Neither am I in the financial position of being able to support this cause as I’d like, I receive a very modest medical pension. The PO must continue to be able to act, not to do so is unjust. Thank you for all that you’re doing
Well done IODPA bringing a challenge to the Nicola Clark and Michael Bell ruling and the consequences thereof. The PO’s shift removes a powerful, independent and free oversight body from the process and directing disputes to the Courts, which is risky and costly to the applicants. The only bodies that gain benefit are the PPA’s, it covers the recourse for the PPA’s maladministration, the PPA’s financial liability is reduced and it gives them a free hand to reduce injury pensions with little or no recourse to maladministration and without the PO the pensioner must resort to JR or the Courts which the PPA’s know is limited, expensive and risky. What is despicable is that the Pol Fed are aware of this and are not willing to support IODPA. On a final note without the PO the public record of PPA maladministration will be diluted, lost or not developed significantly further. The Pol Fed are under severe criticism ove their past decisions which have appeared in the Employment arena to their loss over their stance. I was under the impression the Pol Fed where wanting to be become a more professional and accountable organisation by appointing a CEO to oversee its function, it seems that this CEO and a couple of his cronies where arrested on suspicion of fraud by abuse of authoriety, how can such an organisation be trusted to safe gaurd its members when it cannot safe gaurd its self. This unrelenting assault must stop or be curtailed to the benefit of pensioners and existing officers amd again well done IODPA for leading this unsupported challenge.
Those who run this effective charity need a medal. They saw this decision by the P.O as extremely important to thousands of police officers, both serving and retired. What other organisation had this foresight?
Shame on those other organisations who have let this tiny charity carry the can for everyone.
Completely agree Nigel.
You are right. Somebody should nominate the Trustees for an OBE for all their hard work!
The IODPA judicial review appears to fall directly within NARPO’s stated purpose, mission, Articles, history, pension remit and welfare rationale.
The IODPA email says permission has been granted for a High Court judicial review challenging the Pensions Ombudsman’s decision to cease adjudicating on maladministration under the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006. It gives a practical example of an IOD pensioner losing £1,500 per month, being required to repay £31,000, and being left without an appeal route if the Ombudsman will not adjudicate.
That is not peripheral to NARPO’s purpose. NARPO’s Articles state that it exists to safeguard members’ rights and promote welfare, particularly regarding police pensions; it may represent members’ interests, liaise with other bodies, make representations to authorities/government, and promote or assist legislation in the interests of pensions, welfare and care. Its 2025 Annual Report says NARPO’s primary concerns are pensions, wellbeing and a fulfilled later life, and that police pensions are continually a key concern, with support through advice and assistance being one of the Association’s main objectives. NARPO’s own finance report shows consolidated cash/cash equivalents of £4,716,541 and accumulated assets/net assets of £7,068,107 at 31 December 2024.
**Why NARPO should be asked to support this judicial review**
The IODPA judicial review is not a narrow private dispute. It concerns whether retired police officers receiving injury pensions under the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 will continue to have access to the Pensions Ombudsman where maladministration has occurred.
That issue sits squarely within the purpose and mission of NARPO.
NARPO’s Articles of Association state that the Association exists to safeguard the rights of members and promote measures for their welfare, with particular regard to police pensions. The Articles also allow NARPO to protect, promote and represent members’ interests, liaise with other bodies on matters of common interest, make representations to police representative bodies, authorities, government and ministerial departments, and promote or assist measures in the interests of pensions, welfare and care.
NARPO’s 2025 Conference Report and Annual Report state that NARPO’s primary concerns are pensions, wellbeing and a fulfilled later life. The same report states that police pensions are continually a key area of concern among members, and that support to members through advice and assistance is one of the main objectives of the Association.
The IODPA judicial review directly concerns all of those matters. If the Pensions Ombudsman does not adjudicate on maladministration under the Police Injury Benefit Regulations, retired injured officers may be left without a meaningful independent remedy where forces, pension authorities, SMPs or administrators act unlawfully, unfairly or maladministratively.
That is a pensions issue. It is a welfare issue. It is a retired-officer rights issue. It is precisely the type of issue NARPO was created to address.
NARPO also has substantial resources. Its 2024 financial documents show net assets in excess of £7 million and significant cash reserves. Nobody suggests that NARPO should fund every individual case or become a general litigation funder. However, this judicial review is different. It is strategic litigation with potential benefit for all retired officers receiving or relying upon injury pensions, and for all members who may need access to independent pension maladministration remedies in the future.
IODPA members are being asked to donate because the case matters. It would therefore be entirely reasonable for NARPO to be asked to provide financial assistance, strategic support, public endorsement, or at least urgent formal consideration by its National Executive Committee.
A successful judicial review would not merely assist IODPA. It would protect a route of redress for retired injured police officers across England and Wales. That is directly aligned with NARPO’s history, mission, Articles and purpose.
The sharper strategic point is this: NARPO does not need to accept every IODPA argument in advance to recognise that the issue is squarely within NARPO’s pensions/welfare remit. It only needs to accept that loss of Pensions Ombudsman jurisdiction over PIBR maladministration would materially affect retired injured officers’ rights, remedies and welfare.
A DRAFT LETTER TO NARPO
Dear NARPO President, Chief Executive Officer and National Executive Committee,
**Request for NARPO support and funding: IODPA Judicial Review concerning the Pensions Ombudsman and the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006**
We write on behalf of the Injury on Duty Police Association (“IODPA”) to request urgent formal consideration by NARPO of financial and strategic support for IODPA’s judicial review concerning the Pensions Ombudsman’s decision to cease adjudicating on maladministration complaints under the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 (“PIBR”).
IODPA has been granted permission by the High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division, Administrative Court, to bring this judicial review. The issue is whether the Pensions Ombudsman has wrongly applied the Court of Appeal decision in *Clark & Anor v Chief Constable of Derbyshire Constabulary & Ors* [2024] EWCA Civ 676 to PIBR cases.
The consequences for retired injured officers are grave. If the Pensions Ombudsman will no longer adjudicate on maladministration under PIBR, retired officers may be left without a meaningful independent remedy when police pension authorities, Chief Constables, SMPs, administrators or others fail to follow the Regulations, established case law, or proper process.
This issue falls directly within NARPO’s constitutional purpose.
Article 2.1 of NARPO’s Articles of Association states that:
> “The Association exists to safeguard the rights of Members and promote measures for their welfare with particular regard to police pensions.”
The judicial review concerns exactly that: the rights, welfare and police pensions of retired officers.
Article 2.2 further provides that NARPO may protect, promote and represent the interests of its members; provide a channel through which members can express their opinion; establish liaison with other bodies on matters of common interest; make representations to police representative bodies, authorities, government and ministerial departments; and promote or assist measures in the interests of pensions, welfare and care of members.
Article 3 gives NARPO broad powers, in furtherance of its objectives, including making charitable and benevolent donations, carrying out activities for the benefit of members as the NEC may decide, and doing all lawful things incidental or conducive to the pursuit or attainment of NARPO’s objectives.
Article 4.2 provides that NARPO’s income and property must be applied solely in promoting the Association’s objectives.
The IODPA judicial review is plainly consistent with those objectives. It concerns the preservation of an independent remedy for retired injured police officers affected by maladministration in injury pension matters. It is not a private dispute of narrow individual interest. It is strategic litigation with implications for retired police officers nationally.
NARPO’s 2025 Annual Report and Conference material also make clear that NARPO’s primary concerns are pensions, wellbeing and a fulfilled later life. The same report states that police pensions are continually a key area of concern among members and that support to members through advice and assistance is one of the main objectives of the Association.
The matter also aligns with NARPO’s history. NARPO was founded to safeguard the rights of retired police officers and to promote their welfare, particularly in relation to pensions. The present judicial review goes to the heart of that historic purpose.
We therefore ask NARPO to consider the following urgently:
1. Whether NARPO will make a financial contribution towards IODPA’s judicial review costs.
2. Whether NARPO will publicly support IODPA’s challenge, recognising its importance to retired injured police officers and the wider retired police community.
3. Whether NARPO will invite IODPA to brief the NEC or relevant NARPO pensions/welfare leads on the implications of the Pensions Ombudsman’s position.
4. Whether NARPO will circulate information about the judicial review to branches and members, so that retired officers understand the potential consequences.
5. Whether NARPO will consider becoming involved as an interested supporter, stakeholder, or strategic partner, subject to legal advice.
We understand that NARPO may not ordinarily fund individual litigation. This request is different. The judicial review concerns a systemic issue affecting access to redress for retired injured officers nationally. It directly concerns police injury pensions, pension maladministration, welfare, retired officer rights, and the integrity of the statutory injury benefit framework.
NARPO’s financial position also appears to show that it has the capacity to consider meaningful support. Its published financial documents record net assets in excess of £7 million and substantial cash reserves. A modest contribution to strategic litigation of this nature would be entirely consistent with the application of NARPO resources for the benefit of members and in furtherance of its pension and welfare objectives.
We respectfully request that this letter be placed before the President, CEO, NEC, relevant pensions lead, welfare lead, and any committee responsible for member services, legal expenditure, benevolent expenditure, or strategic policy.
Given the current judicial review timetable and the importance of the issue, we would be grateful for a substantive response within 14 days.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
[Role]
For and on behalf of the Injury on Duty Police Association
[Contact details]