iodpaLeaks

iodpaLeaks is IODPA’s investigative columnist, serving up the latest exposures and breaking news. Email tips to leaks@iodpa.org

2024-08-17On 29th July 2024 the Information Commission’s Office (‘ICO’) issued enforcement notices on Devon and Cornwall Police and Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals NHS Trust for failing to meet basic information request requirements, as set out under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). We have copied the action taken against Devon and Cornwall Police as published by the ICO – Devon and Cornwall Police In 2023, as part of our routine work to monitor public authorities’ compliance with the legislation, the Information Commissioner found Devon and Cornwall Police to be performing poorly in terms of their obligation to provide responses to information requests. It was revealed that between 2022 and 2024 the percentage of requests responded to within the statutory FOI timeframe of 20 working days was consistently low (between 39% and 65%). Their rate of response to internal review requests was also poor, averaging between 0% and 22%. The Force had a backlog of older FOI requests which had increased from 77 in December 2023 to 251 in June 2024. Our enforcement notice orders the Force to devise and publish an action plan in the next 30 days which must detail how they will comply with their duties to respond to information requests in a timely manner. The Force has been given six months to clear the existing backlog. The full press release can be found here – https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/media-centre/news-and-blogs/2024/07/ico-takes-action-against-two-organisations-for-risking-public-trust-by-failing-to-respond-to-public-requests-for-information/ [...]
2024-05-17It has been brought to our attention that the Police Service of Northern Ireland (‘PSNI’) have released a consultation paper on changing the long established “POLICE SERVICE OF NORTHERN IRELAND AND POLICE SERVICE OF NORTHERN IRELAND RESERVE (INJURY BENEFIT) REGULATIONS 2006″. We say long established because the regulations have been in their current form one way or another for 50 years. It appear as though the consultation is driven by a paper released by the Northern Ireland Audit Office (‘NIAO’) entitled “Injury on duty schemes for officers in the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Prison Service” dated 10th March 2020. The driving force behind this review is unequivocally money and complains that the scheme is not sustainable in its current form. The NIAO paper complains about the costs of back-dating awards without exploring the reasons why injured officers are not being paid the correct level of pension to start with. It goes onto to complain (on three occasions) that an officer with an injury award may have a pension that is larger than an officer that has completed their service uninjured, oblivious to the fact that the pension is designed in this way as it has to take into account the future loss of earning capacity, whilst the uninjured officer can seek unfettered future employment. The consultation ends on the 17th June 2024, and IODPA has drafted a response on behalf of our members in PSNI. We’d be pleased to hear your comments on the nine questions posed. Please put your thoughts in the comments.   Read the consultation here –     Read the NIAO paper here –   [...]
2023-06-22We are extremely pleased announce that James Austin HETHERINGTON, known as Austin has been awarded a Medallists of the Order of the British Empire (BEM) in HM King’s first Birthday Honors List. Austin was the equivalent of IODPA in Northern Ireland working tirelessly to seek justice for police officers that had been injured on duty. He spent many years and expended a great deal of his time and energy supporting officers and pensioners before finally retiring approximately 6 months ago Members of IODPA had the great pleasure of travelling to Northern Ireland in 2017 where Austin and some of his members graciously looked after us. We cannot think of a more deserving person for this great honor, well done Austin! [...]
2023-06-17The Police Federation of England & Wales victimised and discriminated against officers involved in police pension claims, tribunal finds. The Police Federation of England & Wales (PFEW) discriminated against and victimised members who previously made claims against the Government after being moved onto pension schemes with reduced benefits, a tribunal has ruled. The case centered around the refusal of the federation to challenge the Government over their introduction of the Police Pension Regulations 2015 which was subsequently found to be unlawful on the basis of age discrimination. After reviewing the PFEW’s decisions and communications regarding the police pensions claims, the East London Employment tribunal found: The PFEW understood from the outset that that there was a ‘possibility’ of age discrimination; Its messaging was ‘unfailingly supportive’ of the transitional provisions; It did not provide its members with a ‘rounded understanding’ of the ‘likely outcomes’; instead it provided a skewed and misleading narrative, emphasising unlikely outcomes, with the overriding objective of protecting the transitional provisions; General Secretary Ian Rennie had no training in equalities law, for the majority of the time, there was no one who was responsible for equalities issues at its head offices, and there was no evidence that the equalities sub-committee was tasked with examining issues relating to pensions or the PPC; There was no consultation of the membership at large, and little evidence that the bodies charged with deciding/reviewing policy were consulted in a meaningful way; Consideration was not given as to whether there was any less discriminatory way of redesigning the scheme so as to be fairer to younger officers. Read more at Leigh Day – https://www.leighday.co.uk/news/news/2023-news/police-federation-of-england-wales-victimised-and-discriminated-against-officers-involved-in-police-pension-claims-tribunal-finds/   [...]
2023-02-18Two former PSNI officers have won a High Court battle over being refused enhanced injury awards. A judge quashed a decision by the Northern Ireland Policing Board to reject independent medical assessments on the level of their disablement. Mr Justice Scoffield held that the authority misdirected itself on the meaning of relevant regulations and signalled that both cases should be reconsidered. The Policing Board’s Resources Committee considered the IMR reports but refused the appeals, stating that the process applied was not consistent with current guidance. Lawyers for the two officers claimed the decision was unlawful and irrational. Ruling on the challenge, Mr Justice Scoffield held there was an obligation on the Board to treat the relevant medical practitioner’s certificate as determinative and to give effect to those decisions. As reported by: Belfast Telegraph – https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/courts/ex-psni-officers-win-court-battle-over-injury-award-refusal/1232935568.html   [...]
2022-01-21IODPA member Keith Henderson has committed to an endurance walking challenge to raise funds for two charities, IODPA and Prostate Cancer UK. In a public post, this is what he wrote –   As some of you know, I had a crazy idea for a fundraiser. No one has tried to talk me out of it (some friends you are ). 45 MILES IN 24 HOURS – ENDURANCE WALK Prostate Cancer UK & Injury on Duty Pensioners Association ENDURANCE WALKING CHALLENGE FOR TWO CHARITIES On Saturday 29 and Sunday 30 January 2022, I will be walking the Deeside Way from the Ballater Police Office, where I served as a young officer, to the old Police HQ in Aberdeen, a distance of 45 miles. The walk is non-stop and to be done within 24 hours. The Deeside Way roughly follows the old railway line that Queen Victoria used when travelling to Balmoral Castle. Chuck in the January weather, lengthy night time walking, some navigation and the distance involved, it is a proper endurance event that will test me (I’m wrong side of a bus pass). I will be carrying my own kit, food and doing it ‘solo’ (no one else is walking the distance start to finish though friends have offered to accompany me for sections). All costs in arranging, travelling etc. are mine and every penny donated goes to the following charities. Prostate Cancer UK www.prostatecanceruk.org The first charity I am walking for is Prostate Cancer UK. It is very personal to me with both family and friends being affected by this illness. One in eight men will be diagnosed in their lifetime. Research, diagnosis, treatment and patient support all need funding. They are having March for Men Endurance events from January to October 2022 and my walk is also in aid of this. Donations can be made here: www.justgiving.com/Keith-Henderson7 Injury On Duty Pensioners Association www.iodpa.org No one wants to end their police career on ill-health. Unfortunately, many do, including me. The Injury On Duty Pensioners Association is the only dedicated organisation that supports police officers who have been injured on duty through no fault of their own. Injuries can be mental, physical, and on occasions, both. The IODPA advises officers, who are going through the ill health retirement process, are applying for an injury pension, or are having their pension award reviewed. Decisions can be made by Forces that are detrimental to officers seeking an injury pension and the IODPA is there to give advice and assistance to overcome those problems. The IODPA is a small charity and relies on membership and donations. Therefore a ‘crowd funding’ page is necessary on this occasion to take donations. The link is: https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/keith-hendersoniodpa Thank you for reading. I hope you can support me by donating to either charity. Thanks, Keith Henderson Everyone within IODPA wish Keith the very best for his challenge and we hope the weather stays kind to him! It is an incredible feat to do at any time but in the middle of winter takes it to a whole new level. We are very humbled that Keith should choose us as one of his chosen charities and thank him from the bottom of our hearts. If you can spare a pound or two, please consider supporting Keith. [...]
2021-11-19The Court of Appeal today handed down judgment in the case of Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, R (On the Application Of) v Kelly & Anor EWCA Civ 1699 (19 November 2021)   On the 5th June 2005, Mr Kelly was required to retire as a serving police officer due to permanent disablement from South Yorkshire Police. Whilst Mr Kelly was granted an ill-health pension, the force did not consider whether he was entitled to an injury pension under The Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 due to the injury being caused on duty. They also did not inform him that he may make an application. On the 25th July 2017, Mr Kelly became aware of injury pensions, and made an application, which was subsequently granted. South Yorkshire Police however only agreed to apply the pension from the date of the application rather from the date of retirement, a difference of 12 years worth of back pension. The matter was heard twice, in the Crown Court, where Mr Kelly was successful. South Yorkshire appealed the matter to the Court of Appeal, who today handed down judgment in favour of Mr Kelly. The judgment agreed that Mr Kelly should be paid from the date of retirement and is also entitled to interest on his money. [...]
2021-06-03The NHS has plans to scrape all your personal and medical data into a huge silo, which they plan to share (read sell) to commercial companies. The plan is to anonymise the data, so what could go wrong? If you wish to stop your data leaving your own GP practice, you need to take positive action to prevent this from happening. You have until the 23rd June 2021 to do so. Here are the methods by which you can opt out. Opt-Out – hard copy form – https://nhs-prod.global.ssl.fastly.net/binaries/content/assets/website-assets/data-and-information/data-collections/general-practice-data-for-planning-and-research/type-1-opt-out-form.docx National Data Opt-Out – hard copy form – https://assets.nhs.uk/nhsuk-cms/documents/Make_and_manage_your_choice_or_your_childs_choice_PDF_224kb.pdf National Data Opt-Out – online form – https://your-data-matters.service.nhs.uk/ [...]
2021-05-19In 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.     [...]
2021-03-31It appears that Essex Police intend to recommence injury pension reviews from April of this year. The official decision can be found here – https://www.essex.police.uk/foi-ai/essex-police/lists-and-registers/essex-police-pension-board/essex-police-pension-board-scheme-manager-notice-to-injury-benefit-pensioners/ A briefing note can be found here – https://www.essex.police.uk/foi-ai/essex-police/lists-and-registers/essex-police-pension-board/essex-police-pension-board-degree-of-disablement-assessment-regulation-37-briefing-note-to-pensioners/ There is also an example letter – https://www.essex.police.uk/foi-ai/essex-police/lists-and-registers/essex-police-pension-board/essex-police-pension-board-degree-of-disablement-assessment-letter-to-pensioners/ 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. [...]
2021-02-15The Government have released a new response to the fiasco that is the enforced transfer to The Police Pension Regulations 2015 of a large number of serving officers that were previously on The Police Pension Regulations 1987, or The Police Pension Regulations 2006. If you have been following the case, you will know that the Government lost an appeal by the Fire Brigades Union Over a similar scheme.   The paper, signed off by RT HON STEVE BARCLAY MP,  Chief Secretary to the Treasury, proposed …the introduction of a ‘deferred choice underpin’ (DCU) as the way to remedy the identified discrimination. This approach will enable eligible members, when they retire with a pension, to choose whether the legacy or reformed schemes would be better for them for the period between 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2022.   It is clear that the Government intend to reintroduce the scheme (or similar) on 1 April 2022, at which point every serving officer will transfer. In the meantime, serving officers who have retired, or who will retire between 1 April 2015 and 31 March 2022, will have the choice as to whether they wish to receive benefits from the relevant legacy scheme or to instead receive the benefits that would have been available from the 2015 scheme. Those who have already retired and/or received a pension award will be offered a choice as soon as practicable after necessary legislative and process changes can be made.   Here is the document – [...]
2020-09-16The Goodland, R (On the Application Of) v Chief Constable Of Staffordshire Police judgement was handed down today. An appeal is currently being considered. Goodland, R (On the Application Of) v Chief Constable Of Staffordshire Police EWHC 2477 (Admin) (16 September 2020)   [...]
2020-09-06Many of our members, have over a period of time, used the free pension calculator on the Emergency Lounge site, which can be found here – http://emergencylounge.com/police/pension_calculator/ The site has been a long supporter of IODPA, and we have been working together to bring their calculator up to date which originally only catered for calculations under The Police Pension Regulations 1987. It now caters for calculations across multiple schemes including part-time working and is undoubtedly the best calculator available. With the Home Office indicating that those who were forced onto the 2015 pension scheme, will be given the option to switch back to their original scheme, it is important that members understand the financial implications of doing so. We’ve had no indication that pension departments will provide these calculations for you in a timely manner. It is important to note, as stated on the Emergency Lounge site, that the calculations are for illustration purposes only, and that official figures should be obtained before making any financial decisions, but they will provide you with an accurate prediction. We’ve been beta testing this new calculator for the site, but if you find any problems with it, please let us know, or the site directly. [...]
2020-07-18The Home Office have released a consultation document providing remedies and a way forward over the age-discrimination issues that came out of the forced imposition of the Police Pension Regulations 2015. In summary, it appears as though the HO is proposing that all legacy schemes for affected public sector workers will come to an end on 1st April 2022. Those already affected (transferred) will have the option to transfer back until this new date. You can find a copy of the paper here – https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/900766/Public_Service_Pensions_Consultation.pdf Or read it below,   It seems that the proposals will not be without issue as contribution rates are different, some officers will have already retired under the new scheme with multiple pension pots, and there could be further appeals regarding ill-health retirement. David Lock QC from Landmark Chambers has produced a blog on the issue, which can be found here, Government publishes consultation document on resolving £17billion problem of age-discrimination in public sector pensions       [...]
2020-07-15The Daily has today run an article about the Staffordshire Police judicial reviews which is due to be heard at Birmingham Administrative Court today and Thursday. It summarises the situation regarding injury reviews very well, highlighting the unjust process and how forces are conducting reviews for no other reason than to save money. We wish the pensioners affected by this court hearing only one thing – justice! Here  is a link to the article – [...]
2020-06-10The UK’s leading authority in police pensions, David Lock QC, is releasing a number of podcasts, providing an in depth discussion of all the current police pension schemes including The Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 and how they should be administered. Mr Lock has produced these extremely informative podcasts with accompanying documentation, alongside his colleague and fellow QC, Samantha Broadfoot, both of Landmark Chambers in London. Our very grateful thanks goes to Landmark Chambers for producing this these useful guides which can be accessed by police, legal representatives and officers alike. Please click on the link below which will go directly to the Landmark Chambers website where the podcasts can be found. https://www.landmarkchambers.co.uk/resources/guide-to-the-law-on-police-pensions/ Guide to the law on police pensions [...]
2020-05-17Further to our news item and the thoughts David Lock QC on the discriminatory nature of the Police Pension Regulations 2015, here is a link for those who may have been affected. https://www.polfed.org/news-media/latest-news/2020/pfew-to-launch-compensation-claim-against-government/   [...]
2020-05-14David Lock QC gives an interesting insight into a number of conflicting cases and how recent case law has been shaped. The conflict is between Laws/Evans on one hand and Doubtfire/Boskovic on the other. Hopefully we will have a defining correction at some stage in the future. You may read his article here, https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/confusing-cases-bad-law-meaning-effect-decisions-made-david-lock-qc/ Alternately, you may read a copy here. [...]
2020-05-11David Lock QC has released a new paper over the financial disaster that was imposed on some police officers by the forced implementation of the Police Pension Regulations 2015. The Government have indicated that they will remedy the unsatisfactory situation, but it is not yet known how they are planning to resolve the issue, or when. This is going to be a complex matter to unpick because retrospective changes to ill-health pensions will have a knock on effect to the calculated value of injury pensions as well. You may read his article here, https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/pension-rights-police-officers-who-suffer-losses-result-david-lock-qc/ Alternately, you may read a copy here. [...]
2020-04-21The Government have capitulated over the granting of psychiatric injury awards when faced with a looming court challenge. Regulation 12 of The Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 allows for an additional ‘Disablement gratuity’ to injured officers where it could be shown that within 12 months of so receiving their injury, they become or became totally and permanently disabled as a result of that injury. It was successfully argued that the regulations discriminated against officers with mental health conditions such as PTSD, as often the full extent of these types of injuries are not fully recognised until after the 12 month time limit. This will provide parity for officers with mental health injuries compared to those with physical injuries. The Government have also agreed to review this part of the regulations. Congratulations to Ron Thompson of Haven Solicitors, David Lock QC and Leon Glenister of Landmark Chambers for bringing this successful case. Here is the press release –     [...]
2020-04-20On 2nd October 2019, we published a news item regarding concerns over substantial underpayments of ill-health pensions by the Police Service of Northern Ireland (‘PSNI’). You can read the original article here – https://iodpa.org/2019/10/02/possible-pension-miscalculations-in-psni/ In summary, a number of officers who had joined under the Police Pension Scheme 1988 (‘PPS 1988’), and retired under the Police Pension Scheme 2015 (‘PPS 2015’) thought that their pensions appeared on the low side. After making contact with us, we recalculated their pensions, which PSNI subsequently confirmed were closer to their true value. We understand that two officers alone had back payments in the region of £80,000 between them. Disappointingly, last week, we were contacted by another former officer over the same issue. We calculated that they too had been under paid and were due a back payment of approximately £20,000. PSNI confirmed our findings and agreed to put matters right in their May 2020 pension payment. These are not small sums of money and as this matter was first brought to the attention of the PSNI over five months ago, we are truly shocked that they don’t appear to have either identified those pensioners that may have been affected or written to those former officers to inform them that they may have had their pensions miscalculated. We have written to the Finance and Support Services Department of the PSNI asking them to expedite this matter.       [...]
2020-03-18Gareth Morgan commented on the decisions he’s made:  “I’m fairly unapologetic about it” Chief Constable Gareth Morgan, has taken part in a new BBC documentary, “Cops like us”, following police officers in Staffordshire. He was reduced to tears when talking about some of the decisions that he’s had to make, but concluded by saying “So, it may well be surprising. I’m fairly unapologetic about it.” The program shows the scale of challenges that the officers face on a daily basis and are a constant reminder that some officers can become seriously injured through no fault of their own. PC Keri Inskip said, “While violence has always been prevalent in the areas I’ve worked in and I’ve always been in city centre policing where there has been high levels of violence, it’s more dangerous now than I’ve ever known.” Last year Gareth Morgan reduced the pensions of seventeen former officers injured on duty. A judicial review is expected later this year over that decision. Cops Like Us aired at 9pm on BBC Two and is available on BBC iPlayer. https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/stoke-on-trent-news/bbc-cops-like-us-staffordshire-3960394 https://inews.co.uk/culture/cops-like-us-police-stoke-austerity-cuts-2461984 [...]
2020-03-11A report released by the Northern Ireland Audit Office into Injury on Duty payments to officers is “disappointing and unfair” according to the Police Federation of Northern Ireland. A report entitled “Injury on duty schemes for officers in the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Prison Service” by the Northern Ireland Audit Office has been heavily criticised as it fails to take into account the unique policing circumstances in Northern Ireland. The response to the report (published below), can be found here – https://www.policefed-ni.org.uk/media-centre/2020/march/pfni-says-injury-on-duty-report-is-unfair     [...]
2020-03-05Home Secretary Priti Patel has launched a consultation on a new covenant to recognise the service and sacrifice of the police. The Police Covenant will enshrine the rights of serving or former police personnel. It is designed to enhance support and protection for officers, staff and their families. The consultation, which will run for eight weeks, is being launched to seek views on implementing a Police Covenant in England and Wales. It covers the themes of physical protection, health and wellbeing and support for families, as well as the scope and wording of the covenant. You can take part in the consultation process by visiting this link – https://www.homeofficesurveys.homeoffice.gov.uk/s/NC12Z/ Please take part in the survey and mention IODPA when and where you can! More information can be found here – https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/police-covenant-for-england-and-wales and the Government press release can be found here – https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-launches-consultation-on-covenant-to-protect-police [...]
2020-02-09Lloyd Kelly case establishes an injured police pensioner’s right to a police injury pension from the date of retirement, even if the pension is awarded in subsequent years. In a decision which will have significance for other injured former police officers, the High Court has confirmed that an injured former police officer should be paid a police injury pension from the date of his or her retirement, even if the officer is only awarded the injury pension many years later.  Thus, all injured former police officers who qualify for an injury pension are entitled to “back pay” going back to the date of their retirement. The issue arose in R (Chief Constable Of South Yorkshire Police) v The Crown Court At Sheffield & Anor  EWHC 210 (Admin) where Mrs Justice Jefford accepted the former officer’s legal arguments that Regulation 43 of the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 meant that an injured former police officer is entitled to a pension in each year after the date of his or her retirement, even if the award is only made a number of years later. The High Court Judge also confirmed that a former officer can challenge any such non-payment by a simple application to the Crown Court instead of having to follow complex procedures under the Civil Procedure Rules.  The Judge also decided that the 2006 Regulations has no provision for the payment of interest and so no interest was payable on overdue awards. Mr Kelly had retired in 2005 with serious PTSD arising out of his police duties, but was not advised at the time by the Force that he could be entitled to an injury pension.  He only found he was being short-changed on his pension rights in 2016.  He applied for an injury award and was found eligible for a substantial additional pension.  However the Chief Constable refused to make payments of this pension from the date of his retirement in 2005. Mr Kelly, supported by the Police Federation, appealed to the Crown Court to secure his “back pay” and won in 2018.  The Chief Constable challenged the decision of the Crown Court in the High Court but, in a judgment handed down on 6 February 2020, the Chief Constable’s challenge on the backdating issue failed. The Chief Constable was refused permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.  He could still try to appeal by asking the Court of Appeal for permission but, absent such an appeal, the law now appears to be clear on these points. UPDATE: We understand that South Yorkshire Police are now appealing this decision. ** David Lock QC represented Mr Kelly before the Crown Court and in the High Court, instructed by Slater and Gordon. [...]
2020-01-20Thanks to the generosity of Staffordshire entrepreneur, Ian Draper of Draper Vehicle Solutions Ltd, Brentwood, Staffordshire, we have taken possession of a sponsored vehicle, which will greatly assist IODPA to continue to support injured officers. The vehicle was received on the charity’s behalf by our patron, entertainer Pete Conway, better known as the father of the famous singer, Robbie Williams. Pete said “I am very grateful to Ian, of Draper Vehicle Solutions, for his support to the charity to which I am Patron. Injured officers who have lost their vocation, leave with ongoing physical and mental health problems and often feel isolated and abandoned by the society they served. This vehicle will allow the charities volunteers to support those in need throughout the UK.” Ian Draper, Director said “Our deliveries side of the business has grown over the last 5 years with the support of a number of retired police officers, so I am absolutely delighted to be able to give something back. I have the greatest respect for the Police who have a tough / near impossible job in the present climate.” We are am grateful to Stephen Rice at Robin & Day Citroen North Birmingham for the fabulous deal, Matt Nation at Personalised Nation, Burntwood for the car sign writing, and Natalie Draper, general manager of classy Lichfield bistro, 55 Wade Street, for hosting the hand over event. Please contact Ian if you are considering leasing a vehicle as he has expert knowledge, competitive rates, and a great range of vehicles with huge discounts available as a result of manufacturer’s over production.   Draper Vehicle Solutions Website: www.idfsuk.co.uk Facebook: Draper Vehicle Solutions Email: ian@idfs.co.uk [...]
2019-12-22We are pleased to report that on Friday 13th December 2019, David Lock QC has been successful in his application in the Administrative Court in Birmingham to have secured a full judicial review on the decision of the Chief Constable Gareth Morgan to reduce the pensions of a number of injured pensioners. The case has two elements, firstly, whether Mr Morgan (pictured right) was entitled to reduce the pensions of those concerned without medical evidence of a substantial alteration in their condition, despite them all attending a medical assessment with a doctor. Secondly, the force, in 2008, ‘promised’, in collaboration with the Federation and Narpo, that Staffordshire Police pensioners would never be reviewed again. Pensioners were called to review in 2017, despite this formal agreement. This agreement is now being challenged. It is anticipated that there will be a two day hearing in the Spring/Summer of 2020. Mr Lock was instructed by Ron Thompson of Haven Solicitors and Angela Giannotti of Penningtons Solicitors. [...]
2019-10-02We were recently contacted by a retired officer from the Police Service of Northern Ireland (‘PSNI’) regarding an ill-health pension calculation from two years ago. The officer had joined the service under the Police Pension Scheme 1988 (‘PPS 1988’), and retired under the Police Pension Scheme 2015 (‘PPS 2015’). A calculation had been given to the officer in question who immediately thought the sums given appeared on the low side. They had already contacted the force once and were informed that the figures were correct. The officer had been given figures for a combined pension under the two aforementioned schemes of just a little under £12,000 p.a. We provided them with our calculations, which revealed that the true figure should have been £18,000 p.a. This was a staggering difference of some £6,000 p.a. since they started receiving their pension. Of course this figure not only affected their annual pension, but would also make a significant difference to any commutation taken. Now armed with what we believed to be the correct calculation, the former officer contacted the force again, and we are pleased to say that the force now conceded that they had miscalculated this officer’s pension. The officer is to receive back payment of the missing amount. This begs the question, has every pension calculation since the introduction of the PPS 2015 been wrong? And it may not just be under this scheme alone, ordinary and deferred pensions may have been miscalculated as well? If anyone else would like to do a calculation for them, can you please complete the form found here – https://iodpa.org/contact/ Here is a list of standard questions that we’d need answers to in order to work out your figures – What type of pension i.e. ordinary, deferred or ill-health Date of joining Date of leaving Date of birth Whether you brought any pensionable service from a previous occupation Which police pension you joined under (PPS 1987, NPPS 2006) Which police pension scheme you retired under (PPS 1987, NPPS 2006, PPS 2015) If now a member of the PPS 2015, what date you transferred to this scheme (the default date is 01/04/2015) If now a member of the PPS 2015 the value of your pension pot in the 2015 scheme (if not known, I’ll estimate it) If retiring under the NPPS 2006 or the PPS 2015, whether you were granted upper or lower tier ill health retirement Annual salary upon retiring Whether you took a commutation, and if so what percentage (1-25) If awarded an injury pension, what band were you given We have already had a number of enquiries over this matter, so please allow us time to respond. UPDATE: We have confirmed a second case of maladministration, where the pensioner has now recovered tens of thousands of pounds.     [...]
2019-08-08In a recent court case, several recently retired officers from Essex Police and the Avon and Somerset Constabulary brought a joint action by way of judicial review against a decision made by the Pensions Ombudsman. The Ombudsman had received numerous complaints that both forces had incorrectly told them their retirement lump sums (commutation) would be tax free. The individuals concerned had retired on full ordinary pensions, and had then taken up new employment within one month of leaving their force. The Finance Act of 2004 penalises people under certain conditions for taking pension benefits where they have retired under the normal minimum pension age, this being 55. The pensioners found themselves liable to pay a substantial tax charge on the lump sum as well as their annual pension until they reached the age of 55. The Home Office had issued a circular on the issue, and HMRC had published the changes in their Registered Pension Scheme Manual and so the respective forces should have been well aware of the tax implications to their ex-employees. The High Court found that the Chief Constables were not liable for the adverse tax consequences, but the Police and Crime Commissioner for Avon and Somerset Constabulary was in their particular case. Additionally, due to the fact that certain papers submitted in the Avon and Somerset case, were found to be missing in the Essex case, the Judge remitted the case for the Essex Police and Crime Commissioner back to the Pension Ombudsman for a decision. The Judge concluded that had the unseen Essex papers been found to be similar to those of Avon & Somerset, then he would have made the same decision for the Essex claimants. The case is Corsham and others v Police and Crime Commissioner for Essex, Hazel and others v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Police and others (2019) EWCA Civ 676, a copy of which may be read here –   [...]
2019-07-18Last December a group of judges and firefighters won a Court of Appeal case against the government. The Court decided that changes made to their pension schemes were age discriminatory. Both cases were ruled together, as they dealt with similar issues and had previous contradictory outcomes. The Supreme Court refused permission for the government to appeal the judgment. On July 14th Elizabeth Truss, who is the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, issued an announcement which included this statement: The matter will be remitted to the Employment Tribunal in respect of the litigants in the firefighters and judicial pension schemes. It will be for the Tribunal to determine a remedy. Alongside this process, government will be engaging with employer and member representatives, as well as the devolved administrations, to help inform our proposals to the Tribunal and in respect of the other public service pension schemes. The Government has stated the reasons for the 2015 reforms remain and that the judgment does not alter their commitment to ensuring that the cost of public service pensions are affordable for taxpayers and sustainable for the long term. It now seems the government accepts the court’s ruling will have wide-reaching effects, which will impact, we hope favourably, on police pensions. The full Government statement can be read here.   [...]
2019-07-06Following the recent case brought by David Lock QC and Cartwright King Solicitors and the decision of the Court of Appeal in Evans & Ashcroft v Chief Constable of South Wales Police, it has come to light that many forces may have been deducting too much from injury pensions since 2010 for those in receipt of certain social security awards, namely Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit (‘IIDB’). We have included a copy of the decision as well as a very useful circulation provided by the Police Federation. In short, injury pensions and social security awards are normally increased by the same annual increments, which means that as each rises annually by the same percentage increase forces are entitled to deduct the whole amount of IIDB from your injury pension. However, in 2010, due to an Up-rating Order, the Secretary of State was entitled to increase benefits (including IIDB) at at rate higher than the general level of prices, which is what they did. The result of this was that IIDB increased at a rate higher than injury pensions. The PPA continued to just deduct the total received in IIDB from the injury pension causing a detriment to the officer and in contravention of sub-paragraph 7(2) of Schedule 3 of The Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006. Officers in receipt of IIDB are encouraged to write to their forces asking whether they have been unlawfully reduced. Here is the court decision   Here is the Federation circulation     [...]
2019-07-03IODPA would like to congratulate David Lock QC and Ron Thompson of Haven Solicitors for another successful judgement that was handed down last week by the High Court in the case of R (Michaelides) v Police Medical Appeal Board  EWHC 1434 (Admin). We have included the full judgement at the bottom of the article for you to read. Robin Michaelides moved to Scotland in 2001 from South Africa where he was a police officer, and joined a Scottish force. He did well there, and passed the promotion exam for the rank of Sergeant, before transferring to Merseyside Police. He was promised by Merseyside that his promotion qualification would be accepted, but that promise was soon broken. Robin also faced numerous incidents of racial abuse and discrimination from his fellow officers in Merseyside. Senior officers did nothing to address the concerns he raised and seem to have instead viewed him as a troublemaker. Robin was given no assistance in getting up to speed with English law, and was posted to CID without any appropriate training. His health suffered under the persistent abuse, and eventually in 2015 after several periods of sick leave he was made subject to an Unsatisfactory Attendance Procedure, the stress of which only served to worsen his mental health. Robin was retired from Merseyside by the Chief Constable in August 2015. His application for an injury award was rejected, and Robin appealed the decision to a Police Medical Appeal Board, where it was again refused. The matter was successfully challenged, and the decision of the court is that the matter should be remitted back to a (preferably new) PMAB.   David Lock QC had the following to say about the case – “The court affirmed (albeit on an obiter basis) the approach of the Court of Appeal in Boskovic to the Evans/Doubtfire point.  That, of course, may or may not remain good law depending on the outcome of the application for permission to appeal in Boskovic to the Supreme Court (which awaits a decision). However, perhaps more significantly, the claim was successful because the Court affirmed the need for the PMAB to act as a proper fact finding tribunal where there are disputed facts.  Thus a PMAB which fails to act as a proper fact finding tribunal before exercising its medical decision making function will act unlawfully.”   This is an important case because there are often two version of events presented to an SMP or a PMAB, one from the officer, and one from the force. What it instructs the medical authorities to do is to consider all the evidence available regardless of the source and give sufficient consideration before dismissing one version or the other.   [...]
2019-06-25Some 3,750 officers and support staff in the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) have won a class action over how holiday pay should have been calculated. They claimed holiday pay should be calculated on the basis of actual annual working days, rather than on the 365 days divisor which the force had been using. A tribunal hearing initially went against the claim, but this was overturned on appeal. The affected officers and staff now can expect to be paid monies owed from back to 1998, and the total bill is likely to top £40 million. Lawyers for the Chief Constable had argued that payment was only due for three months prior to the case being brought, but this was dismissed by the appeal court judges, who accepted that the Chief Constable would be ‘unjustly enriched’ were this argument accepted.   [...]
2019-04-10IODPA member Angie McLoughlin has successfully won her hearing which was heard at Leeds County Court on Thursday 21st March 2019. Following a regulation 32(3) review under The Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 in which Mrs McLoughlin had her original injury award changed from a band 1 to a band 4, her former force West Yorkshire Police, refused to back pay her the loss of her pension for a number of years. The case was fought on her behalf by Ron Thompson of Haven Solicitors and David Lock of Landmark Chambers. Here is their press release –     Here is full copy of the judgement –    Our congratulations to Angela, Ron Thompson and David Lock as this case has huge implications for injured officers who are considering challenging a previous injury award under regulation 32(2) or 32(3). [...]
2019-01-18Thames Valley Police (‘TVP’) lead the way in how Injury on Duty reviews should be carried out and if they do indeed, follow the process as described by their National Association of Retired Police Officers Secretary (‘NARPO’), they should be applauded and praised. We are extremely pleased to read this publication from TVP’s NARPO Secretary.  NARPO and the Federation have been involved from the outset and it appears that Reg 37(1) reviews will be conducted in exactly the way we have been campaigning for. TVP IOD pensioners have been well represented by both organisations and we thank them wholeheartedly. IODPA have never had a problem with reviews being held as long as they are conducted fairly, compassionately and in accordance with the Regulations and all relevant caselaw. We are delighted that it seems that TVP are going to do just that. Thames Valley NARPO have released a circulation explaining how the process will be carried out, how the procedure was agreed following consultation with NARPO, the Police Federation and the Force administration. Here is the relevant section of the NARPO newsletter –   We commend the approach by Chief Constable Habgood (pictured above) and his team for showing the way the review process should be carried out. We are forever hopeful that other reviewing forces will take note. If anyone is concerned at any impending reviews, please contact us at using our contact form above where we will be able to support and assist. [...]
2018-12-31The Firefighters’ Pension Scheme 2015 saw thousands of younger firefighters compulsorily transferred into a scheme where they have to work until 60, pay more and work for longer only to receive a pension that is greatly reduced in value. Firefighters younger than age 45 on 1 April 2012 were unfairly penalised as they were forced into a worse scheme whereas older firefighters were allowed to remain in their original scheme. Sound familiar? The Police Pension Scheme 2015 was introduced by the Government which changed the pensions of many serving officers that had previously been in the Police Pension Scheme 1987 or the New Police Pension Scheme 2006. The PPS 1987 was a two thirds final pension scheme where the officer had to complete 30 years to qualify, whilst the NPPS 2006 was a half final pension scheme whereby the officer had to complete 35 years. The PPS 2015 is a Care Average Revalued Earnings (‘CARE’), whereby officers accrue annual increments to their pension pot based on 1/55.3 of their annual salary. The normal retirement age under the PPS 2015 is 60. Needless to say that each subsequent pension scheme costs more to contribute to with less final rewards. Ordinarily, new pension provisions cannot be introduced for existing members that would be worse, but the Government introduced new primary legislation to circumvent this restriction. As with the fire service, there was a complex set of rules as which serving officers should remain on their existing pension plans and those who should be moved across to the new scheme. Tapered protection was provided to those with more service, whilst those with less service had no choice. The Police Federation sought legal advice, and here is a summary of the conclusion, the full text of which can be found here – All possible challenges have been considered including: Public law as primary legislation was used to introduce the CARE scheme judicial review was not available. European law and  Human Rights law (in several recent cases the European Court of Human Rights has not been swayed by arguments that those on the public service have had to bear the brunt of economic reform) Discrimination. (The key challenge here considered was whether these pension changes would be age discrimination: however, the law states that age discrimination can be justified as a proportionate means to a legitimate end, and it is likely to be considered as such in this instance). At this time, we will therefore not be challenging the introduction of the Police Pension Scheme 2015. However, we will continue to monitor how the scheme operates in practice and we maintain an open mind should circumstances change that give rise to a potential successful legal challenge.   The Fire Brigades Union (FBU) however took their own legal advice, and following pension claims from over 6,000 firefighters, the FBU launched a significant age discrimination legal challenge against the government. A number of employment claims were made, but the crux of the matter hinged on the two following points – Whether the Government could discriminate (by introducing the transitional protection) as long as they have a “legitimate aim”, and Whether that discrimination was a proportionate means of achieving a “legitimate aim”. Disappointingly, the original Employment Tribunal found in favour of the government and against firefighters. The FBU lost both points and the ET concluded that the introduction of the new pension scheme was a social policy aim of the Government, affecting all public service employees, and European law allows member States a wide discretion when deciding their social policy objectives. However, a similar Employment Tribunal, at around the same time, but affecting judges, found in favour of the judges. The FBU appealed the finding against the firefighters. The government also appealed the finding that was in favour of the 210 judges. Both cases were tied together in a new joint Employment Appeal Tribunal. The EAT was held between 11th and the 14th December 2017 at which point, judgement was reserved. The decision was handed down on 29th January 2018 whereby the EAT overturned the original decision of the ET in favour of the FBU. The case was then heard in the Court of Appeal between 5th and the 9th November 2018 following a further challenge by the Government, again combining both cases. The court has determined that there is only one possible answer to the question as to whether the government was pursuing a ‘legitimate aim’ when it introduced the transitional protections. On the evidence produced by the government, the answer is, “No”. Because the FBU won on this first question, the court determined it did not need to go into the second question. The government has asked for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. This is not an automatic right and they would need permission either from the Court of Appeal or from the Supreme Court to do so. To get permission they would need to show that there is an arguable point of law of general public importance. The court also ruled that the other side (government) should pay the FBU legal costs, which is an additional victory. The case itself hinges not on whether the Government can introduce such a scheme, but the transitional arrangements for members of existing schemes. If the current ruling is not overturned it is likely that the FBU members would demand to be put back on their original pension schemes. So, what is the relevance of this on police pensions and injury pensions? Firstly, there are many thousands of officers that have been affected in a similar manner by having to transfer to the PPS 2015. For some, this means working for an extra 10 years, paying higher pension contributions and eventually leaving with a much smaller pension. It also affects those retiring today under the PPS 2015 with an ill-health pension as they are calculated across two schemes with a lower pension as a result. In addition those transferring from the PPS 1987 are finding that the SMP’s are having to consider whether to place the pensioner in a lower or upper/enhanced tier which didn’t exist in their original scheme. Again, this may result a lower ill-health pension. As injury pensions are partly calculated using ‘other’ pensions received, this too would affect the value of injury awards, which in turn may have to be re-calculated. After the ruling, Alex Duncan , the National Secretary of the Police Federation made the following statement – This remains a complicated issue, with no certainty over how the government will choose to address the ruling. Today’s announcement seems like good news, but we need to digest the full judgement and of course we will continue to keep our position under review. We will keep you updated of any further developments. Some interesting times ahead! [...]
2018-12-18Whoa!!! — command to stop or slow down, usually horse or vehicle We have breaking news… Staffordshire’s Chief Constable, Mr Morgan, has thrown the gears of his review truck into reverse. A few weeks ago Mr Morgan took the extraordinary step of deciding that failure by IOD pensioners to allow access to their medical records amounted to a failure to attend a medical interview or examination. His stance was that full access to medical records was a necessary step in any medical examination or interview. Seventeen of our members had received letters just four weeks prior to Christmas from Mr Morgan advising that because they had refused access to their medical records he would be reducing their injury pensions and the reductions would be backdated, indicating that they would also claw back the money from the affected pensioners. Mr Morgan’s decision was robustly challenged by Ron Thompson and Mark Botham of Haven Solicitors, and Mark Lake of Cartwright King Solicitors, acting on behalf of the IOD pensioners concerned. Pensioners have now heard from Mr Morgan’s solicitors that he, in his role as Police Pension Authority (‘PPA’), accepts that the letters notifying pensioners of his decision to reduce their pensions, . . . did not sufficiently explain the reasons for the decisions. Further, the decisions should not in the circumstances have had retrospective effect.   Our solicitors have been told that Mr Morgan, . . . proposes to provide each of the proposed Claimants with further decision letters, containing a fuller explanation of the reasons for the decision taken in each case…   Meanwhile no reductions in injury pensions will be made at this time. IODPA can not comment in detail on the issue as the legal arguments will be continuing, and may be heading for the Administrative Court should the PPA wish to see his interpretation of regulation 33 tested. However, we can say that all of the IOD pensioners affected by Mr Morgan’s threats to reduce their injury pensions can now have a peaceful Christmas without the extreme fear that any future decision by CC Morgan will not allow him to backdate any pension payments. [...]
2018-11-28  Gareth Morgan (pictured) has sent out letters to seventeen Staffordshire police pensioners informing them he is dropping their injury pensions based on his interpretation of Regulation 33 of The Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006. He is also intending to back date his decision. We cannot comment on this any further for legal reasons, but here is what Staffordshire Police have posted on their website –   [...]
2018-11-22David Lock QC has released a paper – “Police Ill-health and Injury Pensions: A guide through part of the maze”. The original article can be viewed here – https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/police-ill-health-injury-pensions-guide-through-part-maze-lock-qc Please visit the article and leave an appropriate comment. All copyright owned by David Lock QC [...]
2018-11-08The “November 2018 | Issue 96” edition of the monthly NARPO magazine contained this full page article by Mark Botham. Mark is the Managing Director of Botham Solutions which provides training, a health and safety consultancy and advises on matters such as police pensions. He is an ex Yorkshire Police Federation rep of nineteen years and spent ten as chairman of the county branch. He holds a BA Hons, Post Graduate Diploma in Law, Post Graduate Certificate in Law, Post Diploma in Law and Master of Law and currently works for Haven Solicitors. It is great to see some sound legal advice being published for all officers that have been injured on duty. Here is his article –     This article has been reproduced by kind permission of Mark Botham and the National Association of Retired Police Officers. Mark can be contacted via Haven Solicitors – havensolicitors.co.uk NARPO can be contacted via their website – www.narpo.org [...]
2018-07-25We recently reported that Chief Constable Gareth Morgan had invited vulnerable pensioners to Staffordshire Police Headquarters to discuss the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 and in particular Regulation 33. He also rejected the offer for the pensioners legal representatives to attend in order to represent their clients. We understand that the meeting scheduled for today was cancelled. We can only assume that there were no takers to his invitation?     If you didn’t see them, here are the original blogs – https://iodpa.org/2018/07/13/chief-constable-morgan-sends-letters-to-vulnerable-pensioners/ and https://iodpa.org/2018/07/23/cc-morgan-refuses-pensioners-legal-representatives-to-attend-a-meeting/   [...]
2018-07-20Court holds that Chief Constables are under positive legal duty to refer permanently disabled police officers to an SMP for IOD assessment on retirement if the officer “may” have an entitlement to a police injury pension. In a ruling on 20th July 2018, that may have significance for many other disabled former police officers, HHJ Moore has decided that Chief Constables who require a police officer to retire on the grounds of permanent disablement can be under a legal duty to refer the officer to an SMP to decide whether the officer is entitled to a police injury pension.  The Judge decided the legal duty will arise in a case where the SMP report contains information which indicates that that the officer may have a right to a police injury pension.  This positive duty means that the Chief Constable is required to take the initiative by making an SMP referral in appropriate cases, and cannot just wait until the officer makes a request. This important principle was decided in the case of former Sergeant Lloyd Kelly who was serving with the South Yorkshire Force.  After a long career of public service, Sgt Kelly was required to retire after developing a permanent medical condition in 2005.  The SMP report showed his condition was clearly duty related, but no referral was made by the Chief Constable to an SMP to make a decision whether he was entitled to an enhanced police injury  pension.  Police pension rights are complex and, as with many officers, Sgt Kelly was unaware that he may have been entitled to an IOD award as well as his standard ill-health pension and so did not request an SMP referral. In 2016, Sgt Kelly learned that he may be entitled to an injury award and so applied to West Yorkshire Police to have his case considered by an SMP for the first time.  He was assessed by a new SMP and awarded a substantial police injury pension.  But contrary to Regulation 43(1) of the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 (“the 2006 Regulations”), the Chief Constable refused to pay a backdated award from the date of his retirement.  Sgt Kelly, supported by the Police Federation and Slater and Gordon Lawyers, appealed that refusal to the Sheffield Crown Court under Regulation 34 of the 2006 Regulations. On 20th July 2017, HHJ Moore 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. However the case has wider significance because the Judge also decided a Chief Constable has a positive duty to refer disabled police officers into the IOD system if they may have a right to a pension, and cannot simply wait until the officer makes a request.  He reached this decision based on: the duty on the Chief Constable to make a decision as to what pensions were owing to the former officer under Regulation 30(1) of the 2006 Regulations, the common law duty the Chief Constable owes to police officers, the requirement to make reasonable adjustments in favour of disabled officers (now under the Equality Act 2010), and to give effect to the officer’s rights under Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR. The Judge also followed the cases of Tully and Schilling in deciding that the police pension system provided for back-dated pensions payable from the date of retirement for officers who were permanently disabled on retirement, even if the pension award decision was taken at a later date. The Court ordered the Chief Constable to pay all of the former officer’s legal costs. [...]
2018-04-29David Lock QC has released a paper following his highly successful win at the high court in a Judicial Review against Cheshire Constabulary in the Manchester Administrative Court on the 14th March 2018. The original article can be viewed here – https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/implications-police-injury-pension-scheme-decision-r-evans-lock-qc/ Please visit the article and leave an appropriate comment. All copyright owned by David Lock QC [...]
2018-04-26Our congratulations to David Lock QC and Ron Thompson of Haven Solicitors who have won another very important Judicial Review against Cheshire Constabulary in the Manchester Administrative Court on the 14th March 2018. It centres around whether an SMP who is considering an injury award can revisit the same questions already answered during the ill-health retirement process. IODPA receives a lot of correspondence over this issue, and the judgement reinforces the rights of injured officers and should provide some certainty to those who have been ill-health retired and are seeking an injury award. The case involved Mark Evans an officer from Cheshire Constabulary, who in 2007 following a number of on duty incidents was deemed to be disabled by reason of (i) mechanical back pain, and (ii) post-traumatic stress disorder, and that that disablement was likely to be permanent. Evans was not ill-health retired, but retained on non-operational clerical roles. In 2015, the force reconsidered whether that state of affairs should continue and an assessment by Dr Pilkington, a new SMP concluded that he was permanently disabled on the basis of “significant degenerative changes in his right shoulder“, but that his PTSD “would not be expected to constitute a permanent incapacity“. He was required to retire on the grounds of permanent disablement. Evans then applied for an injury on duty award, and his case was referred to a third SMP, Dr Walsh. Dr Walsh concluded the claimant had a permanent disability as a result of “significant degenerative changes in his right shoulder joint“, but again rejected the claim of PTSD. Evans was awarded band 1. Evans appealed the decision to the PMAB, who disagreed that he had any permanent disablement at all, and therefore he did not qualify for an injury award. The case hinged on whether following the initial determination of Dr Hutton, the PMAB were entitled to reconsider under the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006, the following questions that had already been decided under the Police Pension Regulations 1987, (a) whether the person concerned is disabled (b) whether the disablement is likely to be permanent Mr Justice LANE quashed the decision of the PMAB stating “police officers who are required to retire on the grounds of permanent disablement are entitled to a degree of finality in respect of their entitlement to pensions. A police officer who has to retire as a result of what is then considered to be permanent disablement caused in the line of duty should not be at the mercy of a subsequent medical assessment, that he or she was not, in fact, permanently disabled“. You can read the full judgement here – http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/952.html Ron Thompson from Haven Solicitors has provided the following press release.       [...]
2018-04-22Another interesting development regarding the use of injured pensioners data by Northumbria Police and complaints that have been made to the Information Commissioners Office (‘ICO’). IODPA believe that a number of police pensioners have made similar complaints regarding their former force attempting to coerce them to hand over their private and sensitive data (medical notes). Many of them have taken the step to complain to the ICO, who have now issued advice to them. The complaints have been centred around consent being freely given when considering releasing medical notes, the retention of medical notes and Subject Access Requests. The upshot is, that it is “unlikely that NP are complying with the first principal of the Data Protection Act”, which states that personal data should be processed fairly and lawfully. Please note, this is advice from the ICO as opposed to a formal decision notice and it is for individuals. We would imagine that the ICO would come to the same conclusion for any pensioner with a similar complaint, regardless of force. Of course this is not the first time that the ICO have provide advice in relation to Northumbria Police – https://iodpa.org/2017/11/24/northumbria-police-federation-wins-ico-advice-notice/ If you believe your data is being processed unfairly, please get in touch with the ICO – https://ico.org.uk/     [...]
2018-03-03Reduction of Employment and Support Allowance (‘ESA’) from injury pensions finally gets put on to the statute books.     Our advice to our members remains the same. You will need to make an application to the DWP for ESA and also Industrial Injuries Disability Benefit (‘IIDB’), as both are now deductible benefits from an IOD award. If successful with an application, the equivalent amount of money will be taken off your injury pension. They may only deduct money in relation to your qualifying injury. If unsuccessful with the DWP, please do not worry. Forces will not deduct any monies, but they will need to see that pensioners have applied and failed, so please ensure that a copy of your refusal from the DWP is forwarded to your force. [...]
2018-02-03Mr Justice KERR recently handed down a judgement in the case of BOSKOVIC v. Chief Constable of Staffordshire Police. The matter was heard in Manchester Administrative Court on the 31st October 2017. The claimant, now 42, left the employment of Staffordshire Police in 2002 with an ill health pension by reason of permanent disablement consisting of psychiatric injuries. An application was made for an injury on duty award, which was refused by Staffordshire Police following a number of psychiatric reports. The claimant was so unwell that she withdrew her application before it reached PMAB. She left the UK, returning in 2006. In 2015, after reading an article by IODPA, she submitted an application to Staffordshire Police to have her application reconsidered under Regulation 32(2). In Haworth v. Northumbria Police Authority, regulation 32(2) was described as follows,   96. I am persuaded that Mr Lock must be correct in his submission that regulation 32(2) should be construed as a free standing mechanism as part of the system of checks and balances in the regulations to ensure that the pension award, either by way of an initial award or on a review to the former police officer by either the SMP or PMAB, has been determined in accordance with the regulations and that the retired officer is being paid the sum to which he is entitled under the regulations. It must be the overall policy of the scheme that the award of pension reflects such entitlement and I see no reason why regulation 32(2) should be construed simply as a mechanism to correct mistakes which might nonetheless be able to be corrected by some other means. 97. In other words I am persuaded that in the light of the statutory scheme as a whole, there is no reason not to construe regulation 32(2) as in part a mechanism (and indeed an important mechanism) to correct mistakes either as to fact or as to law which have or may have resulted in an officer being paid less than his full entitlement under the regulations, which cannot otherwise be put right, which is this case.   Staffordshire Police refused her request on the basis that her claim was “frivolous and vexatious”, and the matter eventually ended up in front of Mr Kerr. Mr Kerr has refused the application on three grounds. He had difficulty with the wording of regulation 32(2) which states the following, “The police authority and the claimant may, by agreement, refer any final decision of a medical authority who has given such a decision to him”. He believes that there must be an agreement by the PPA and that there is NO obligation to refer a matter back for reconsideration. Secondly, he accepted that the length of time that had passed made it unlikely that the claimant would get a fair reconsideration, and that Staffordshire Police were within their rights to consider this when making a decision. This was despite the fact that the original medical reports were still on file, and even if the original psychiatrists were no longer available to reconsider the case, regulation 32(3) allows for another SMP to be appointed. Lastly, whilst it was acknowledged that any subsequent costs i.e. payment of an injury pension award should the applicant be successful cannot be taken into account, Mr Kerr accepted that costs associated with the application and review process itself could be, particularly with regards to the cost to the public purse. Translated, this means that it is acceptable for Staffordshire Police to spend £50,000 of public money fighting this application in a Judicial Review in order to save the huge cost of £750 instructing an SMP for two hours. Of course there would be additional work for HR employees, whose salaries have to be paid anyway. Mr Kerr gave leave for an appeal and we await “Round Two”. The full judgement can be read here http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/14.html [...]
2017-11-24Inspector Adrian Smiles, a Northumbria Police officer, and vice chairman of the Northumbria Police Federation has asked the ICO to rule on the matter of demanding full medical records from birth. The artificially high, SMP imposed,  glass ceiling of a PPA’s definition of attendance has been smashed and put beyond doubt by the Information Commissioner in the declaration that such demands of personal and sensitive data is excessive and a breach of the Data Protection Act.     [...]
2017-11-04Published on November 4, 2017 All copyright owned by David Lock QC David Lock QC  FollowFollow David Lock QC Barrister and QC at Landmark Chambers Medical reviews of former police officers on injury pensions: Is there any duty to provide medical records? There is a considerable debate at the moment about how far Chief Constables, acting as the Police Pensions Authority, (“the PPA”) and the Selected [...]
2017-10-25A former Metropolitan police officer who suffered post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) following an assault while on duty, but was dismissed by a misconduct panel who failed to take the PTSD into account, has been given the right to sue her bosses for discrimination at an employment tribunal. The officer – named in court only as ‘P’ – said the misconduct panel which ended her career in 2012 had been guilty of disability discrimination because it failed to take her PTSD into account. Previously, police officers could not bring proceedings in an  employment tribunal, to challenge the actions or decisions of the Panel, because it’s a judicial tribunal. The Supreme Court ruling on Wednesday over-ruled this.  The ruling is a game-changer that determines that police internal misconduct panels do not enjoy judicial immunity and victims of discrimination on the grounds of race, gender or disability can now pursue discrimination claims against the police at an employment tribunal. P (Appellant) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (Respondent) – The Supreme Court Case details It is apparent that this judgement has further implications on other professions, panels and tribunals, including Police Medical Appeal Boards (PMABs). The Supreme Court is highest authority in the interpretation of UK law and can not be appealed.  Such a judgement shines a light on the thought processes and current paradigm of our leading judges in how, and to whom, the Equality Act applies.   [...]
2017-10-18Northumbria Police has  failed in its attempt to strike out a disability discrimination claim against a former officer with an injury award who Northumbria wanted to continue a review under Regulation 37 despite the former officer being sectioned in a mental health institution. In perhaps the first judgement in employment law concerning the Police Injury Benefit Regulations, Employment Judge A M Buchanan (sitting alone) has ruled that the Regulations are an occupational pension in relation to the Equality Act 2010 (EqA).  Northumbria Police tried to persuade the court to dismiss the claim without a full hearing of all of the evidence on the basis the tribunal had no jurisdiction. The immediate consequence is that Section 61 EqA is a gateway that allows discriminatory action to challenged in an Employment Tribunal, when it occurs in the administration of injury awards. Judge Buchannen said; I consider there is every reason why a nondiscrimination rule should apply to the Scheme. It is a scheme which clearly provides benefits in the nature of a pension And he continued that the only forum to seek redress for such matters will be an Employment Tribunal; I conclude that the matters which are sought to be litigated in these proceedings are not matters which fall within the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court of the High Court or for that matter the Crown Court. The claimant does not seek to challenge the process per se but seeks to have a Tribunal adjudicate upon whether or not in doing what he has done the respondent has breached the provisions of the 2010 Act in the way he has carried out his duties. The claim can now proceed to full trial.   If Northumbria appeal the preliminary judgement then it will be heard before an Employment Appeals Tribunal and become a stated case. The full judgement can be read below: Mr DJ Curry v The Chief Constable of Northumbria Police: 2500281/2017 – GOV.UK Employment Tribunal decision. [...]
2017-10-02Our most heartfelt thanks to all our supporters who participated in our “Grand Prize Draw”.  With a huge amount of hard work and your generosity, we  have raised approximately £6130 !! Those lucky winners unable to collect their prize in person will have it sent to them.  Please give us 14 days to sort out the logistics. Here is the full prize list and the winning ticket for that prize: Prize Winning Ticket Number 2 Nights B&B Old England Spa 5999 Bottle Shoulder Monkey Whisky 12627 £20 dining Voucher 19862 Painting by the “animal artist” Andy Bibbins (illustrator for Rick Stein’s tableware)  9691 £50 M&S voucher 7153 Signed Book “A Job with Bite” 2290 Knot Board 731 Makeup Gift Set 5048 Necklace 4545 Purse 5608 Bottle of wine 5513 Makeup Gift Set 214 Teddy 14269 Bottle of Wine 5324 £20 Green King voucher 18444 Spa Hamper Gift set 14620 £20 dining Voucher 7169 Wine Selection 10807 2 Nights B&B in the Quantocks 12580 Bottle Old Pultney Single Malt Whisky 11067 Jewellery Set 5986 Pizza Express Meal for 2 voucher 2131 2 tickets British Motor Museum 1070 £40 Hotel Chocolat Voucher 18889 Bottle of Gin 1811 Autographed Phil Taylor T-shirt 9409 Bottle of Parachute Regiment Port 13522 £20 Restuarant card (Belle Italia) 10293 Sandy Twigg Memorial Price £50 UK wide garden centre voucher 169131 Car Dash Camera  16731 Bottle of Glen Moray Gin 2696 Knots presentation board 6411 £50 Carluccios restaurant voucher 16828 5 port desktop network switch 7612 £25 Odeon voucher 14068 Bottle Famous Grouse Whisky 1860 £25 Joh Lewis voucher 18766 2 nights B&B “old england” spa hotel Lake District 5999 Bottle of Shoulder Monkey Whisky 12627 £20 Mitchel & Butler diners card (Harvester etc) 19862 Three Paintings by A. Reid 14491 £20 Green King voucher 9574 Lancome Tresor ladies perfume 3269 £30 Amazon voucher 18502 Painting “A Winter’s scene” 7645 £25 Odeon voucher & £25 Restuarant voucher 646 Polaroid Compact Camera 373 1881 Cerruti Ladies perfume 8953 Assorted Wines 18302 £30 M&S Voucher 13098 Bottle of Noa perfume 4845 Bag of cosmetics 1822 Bottle of Famous Grouse Whisky 819 Bottle of Famous Earl Whisky 14111 £25 Argos voucher 3764 Bottle of Tanqueray Gin 5765 Bottle of Grants Whisky 4470 Basket of mixed alcohol 415 Bottle of Champagne 11067 Set of jewellery 2877 Set of jewellery 18586 Bottle of Jamesons Whisky 11373 Knot Board 8831 Rugby clock 3523 Knot Board 14176 Knot Board 8995 Makeup Gift Set 10592         [...]
2017-09-27Our www.CrowdJustice.com case Justice for Police Officers Injured On Duty Disabled, vulnerable former police officers who were injured in the performance of their duty are facing gross injustice in regard to their pensions. Some police forces are determinedly flouting the law. They are bullying and threatening pensioners. They are demanding access to medical records from birth, which is unlawful. They are threatening to take away the pensions of those who do not comply. That too is unlawful. These abuses are only the tip of the iceberg. Our campaign is to raise funds to allow expert solicitors to fight these injustices. We need to get the courts to order these rogue forces to comply with the law. Haven Solictors’ legal victory over Merseyside Police, on this very issue, is being deliberately ignored. Staffordshire Police is trying to twist the law by saying that if a pensioner attends a medical examination arranged by the force but does not also give permission for the doctor to access medical records from birth then they will reduce the amount of pension paid – regardless of the individual’s medical condition.  This is absurd. We need to raise funds to start to fight the injustice. Police forces can, and do, spend unlimited amounts of public money to attempt to defend their misconduct. Elderly, disabled former police officers on limited incomes can not afford to hire solicitors to help protect their pensions. A full press release will be circulated when the campaign goes live at 8am Friday 29th September. CrowdJustice – Crowdfund public interest law CrowdJustice is a crowdfunding platform that enables individuals, groups and communities to come together to fund legal action. Using the power of people to create change!       [...]
2017-09-25Following  our Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) live feed we are pleased to announce another step in our quest to be the authoritative source of all injury awards information. As of February 2017 recent Employment Tribunal judgements can be accessed via GOV.UK at https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions.  We have created a RSS feed to this database to extract decisions involving police forces that will be updated automatically as decisions are added. EATs have always been published on the British and Irish Legal Information Institute (BAILII) but anyone wanting to search or browse employment tribunal decisions had to attend in person at offices in Bury St Edmunds for English and Welsh decisions, and in Glasgow for Scottish decisions.  Employment tribunal judgements are first-instance decisions and are not binding on subsequent cases. However, decisions often provide a detailed account of the facts in a case, which can incentivise parties to settle rather than risk bad publicity. Judgements can also provide helpful examples of how tribunals deal with legal issues and fact situations You can find the link on the right side bar under Case Law: Not all decisions will be matters concerning the Equality Act and disability discrimination but you will be able to see patterns from certain police forces as repeated respondents.  We will blog about pertinent cases that overlap into injury awards and ill-health retirement. [...]
2017-09-01Injury On duty Pensioners Association has just received registration status from the Charity Commission and is now a Charitable Incorporated Organisation (CIO) with a Registered Charity Number 1174473 A CIO is a charity which is also incorporated. In law it is recognised as a legal entity. The trustees benefit from having limited liability. An Association CIO model means our membership has voting rights that can help determine the direction of IODPA. Charities are recognised publicly as being for the wider good (not just the good of their own members). Being a charity gives us that public recognition. The existence of IODPA – there to help those injured on duty – is a distinct realignment.   We do not exist to absolve chief constables in providing welfare and a safety net, but because chief constables have failed to provide.  The charity of our members, those themselves injured on duty, needs to take over where the ability of the police service to look after its injured has failed. We hope to not work in opposition to chief constables but in conjunction with them, to tell them what needs to be done for the public benefit by supporting those injured on duty.  A hard task when some chief constables block our message on social media, but not an impossible one. IODPA would like to thank its members and supporters to allow us to get this far.  This is the start of something new.     [...]
2017-08-29National Wellbeing & Engagement Forum –  June 2017 didn’t happen! A brief trawl of the Foreign Office’s travel advice for HR types thinking of paying a visit to Newcastle City Centre Police Station, Newcastle Upon Tyne Friday 9th June 2017 at 10am probably didn’t warn people that’s it’s not the best idea to attend a NWEF conference hosted by Northumbria police – with the ever present threat of catching a serious infectious disease which, once it has control of a person, causes them to spew forth incoherent babble from the bowels of the voicebox. National Wellbeing & Engagement Forum – NWEF (Formerly NAMF) JUNE 2017 – a Freedom of Information request to Northumbria Police Please provide full disclosure of the following: National Wellbeing & Engagement Forum – NWEF (Formerly NAMF) – Northumbria Police The meeting was held Friday 9th June 2017 at 10am, Newcastle City Centre Police Station, Newcastle Upon Tyne. Of course, we don’t think the the meeting was cancelled due to a contagious lurgy.  All HR minions love to go on an extravagant all-expenses paid junket.  So why didn’t the June 2017 NWEF-fest go ahead?  Apparently no-one wanted to go! In response to your request above, The National Wellbeing and Engagement Forum (NWEF) meeting scheduled for June 2017 was cancelled due to the limited availability of members.Northumbria Police Data Protection and Disclosure Advisor Perhaps the acolytes of Wirz are becoming disbelievers…       [...]
2017-08-25Welcome to our new Pensions Ombudsman Update. These updates are designed to help you get to grips with the Ombudsman’s thinking, to keep track of decisions on matters concerning police and fire service injury awards and non police related injury benefit schemes and to identify underlying trends. Published in our “news” section, we will try to summarise the interesting decisions of the past three months or so. John Lewis Partnership Pension Scheme (PO-11695) Mr N has complained that the Trustee did not take the decision to cease his ill health retirement pension in a proper manner. In particular, he considers it placed too great a reliance on the advice from its own occupational health physician and did not give reasons for preferring her advice. In PO-11695 Mr N (17 May 2017) the JOHN LEWIS PARTNERSHIP scheme trustees decided (having used the Trustee’s occupational health physician, Dr Eraneva, to consider medical evidence) that the member’s ill-health pension should be suspended as his condition was not permanent, despite the trustee having decided in 2009 and 2012 that it was. The Ombudsman’s Adjudicator was unable to find evidence of any change in the member’s condition or proposed treatments since those assessments. The decision made it clear that there is an underlying principle that a pension, once in payment, was payable for life. A natural reading of the John Lewis scheme rule provided discretion to vary, suspend or reinstate pension was one that looked for a rational basis for change. The trustee did not apply its mind to the specific question of whether it should remove the existing entitlement, but took an approach akin to requiring the member to make a fresh application for an incapacity pension. This was maladministration and the trustee was directed to re-consider the decision to suspend the pension. The Deputy Ombudsman accepted that the John Lewis scheme did not have to continue to pay an incapacity pension if this was no longer justified, but the trustee had to be able to point to a change in the member’s circumstances. The discretion to suspend was not an opportunity for the trustee to change its mind or interfere in its predecessors’ decisions. Mr N stated that the Trustees placed too great a reliance on the advice from its own occupational health physician (Dr Eraneva) and did not give reasons for preferring her advice. Whilst saying that it is not the role of the Ombudsman to review the medical evidence, the Deputy Ombudsman said; but I also have reservations about the standard of proof applied by Dr Eraneva Our Comment The John Lewis scheme is a discretionary scheme whereas the police injury benefit Regulations are a statutory scheme. This is not the first time that the Pension Ombudsman has been guided by a purposive view of scheme rules dealing with ill-health. In PO-9309 Mrs R (10 June 2016) the Ombudsman opined that the starting position, where an employer had a discretion to pay a discretionary ill-health enhancement, should be to pay it. All too often, because of the influence of , the selected medical practitioners used by police forces consider themselves as quasi-judicial and supposed “judges of fact”. In fully upholding Mr N’s complaint, the Pension Ombudsman is showing a pattern that the views of the scheme’s own occupational health doctor do not trump the person’s own clinicians.  This is inline with previous decisions, such as the ill-health early retirement of Mr Y (PO-13059) when it was found that the employer’s flawed decision over-relied on its own medical advisers’ opinions.       [...]
2017-08-01Oh dear. If you just read DCC Baker’s statement to Police Oracle, one could be forgiven for thinking that (a) Staffordshire never, ever would dream of doing “a Merseyside” and reducing a person based on the questionnaire’s answers (b) failure to fill in the questionnaire would never, ever mean that your injury award will be suspended or reduced. Force will not withhold pensions if ex-officers don’t fill in medical forms Solicitor warned others over the issue last week following legal action against Merseyside Police. A force which asks retired officers who were injured on duty to fill in medical assessments says the information will not be used to withhold pension payments. Staffordshire Police says it only asks for the process to be followed to make their… DCC Baker has offered a perfect example of  contrary rhetoric.   It’s very interesting to note what has changed on the Staffordshire website since Police Oracle published this story last week. Let us see how the Staffordshire website looked two weeks ago using our “wayback machine” – FAQs – Injury Benefit Reassessment – Staffordshire Police 18-07-17” taken from Google web cache.  Oh look! Note the threat to suspend the injury award    You will be given 28 days to reply… At the end of that 28 days your injury benefit pension may be suspended or reduced to band 1 if we have no satisfactory reply from you Oh my! A reply will not serve.  Staffordshire will punish you if you don’t reply “satisfactorily“.  Rather ominous. And how the same page looks as of today 1st August 2017 … In a brave new world of bunny rabbits and rainbows, you will now be sent a lovely reminder and then only a failure to attend a medical examination may mean a decision is made.  “As thought necessary” isn’t a concept in the Regulations by the way. Staffordshire was threatening vulnerable disabled former police officers that non-compliance of failing to return the forms will mean a suspension or an automatic reduction to band one.  They got caught. Now DCC Baker is telling Police Oracle that this is all made up and Staffordshire would never stoop to such lowly, despicable and unlawful practices. Hmmm … what were we saying about a perpetually shifting succession of imaginative falsehoods? [...]
2017-07-20Haven Solicitors has successfully won a judicial review against Merseyside Police.   Merseyside decided to give in, this is referred to as ‘conceding the case’ and a consent order has been issued. We would like to extend our sincere gratitude and appreciation for all of the hard work and dedication provided by Ron & Mark at Haven Solicitors. Haven’s press release: IODPA has been openly critical of Merseyside’s mass review methods since they reviewed 502 injury pensions in 9 months. Sometimes we are eerily prescient. We said Merseyside  ripped through the review process by bullying vulnerable people to wrongly having to self-justify their own entitlement to their award under the cosh of threats that their award will removed or suspended if the invented questionnaire is not completed.  The Merseyside questionnaire follows the same format as all questionnaires used in mass review fishing expeditions. You can read the offending questionnaire here: Merseyside Review Of Injury Award Questionnaire No person with an injury award shall never be forced to acquiesce to such invasion of personal and sensitive data again. Full Text: HAVEN SOLICITORS LTD Right against Might Commer House Tadcaster Enterprise Park Station Rd, LS24 9JF DD: 01937 837 708 Email: Merseyside police abandon unlawful suspension of former officer’s police injury pension, reinstate the pension and pay out legal costs. Merseyside police have abandoned an attempt to force a former police officer to disclose medical records and fill in a capacity questionnaire in advance of a police injury pension review. The former PC had agreed to be examined by an SMP and give limited disclosure of relevant medical records to the SMP but refused to hand over all his medical records to the Force or fill in a questionnaire about his health for the Force to review in advance of an SMP referral. He pointed out that the Force had no legal authority to demand copies of any of his medical records or force him to complete a Force questionnaire. The Mersey Force refused to back down, claiming they had discussed this approach nationally, and had support ( we assume from the National Attendance Management Forum) to do this. The force then suspended the former officer’s entire police injury pension to try to put pressure on him to disclose medical records and fill in their questionnaire. The former officer, with Police Federation support, also refused to back down. He instructed specialist solicitor, Ron Thompson of Haven Solicitors LTD. Mr Thompson instructed Landmark barristers David Lock QC and Richard Clarke, who promptly drafted Judicial Review proceedings to challenge this unlawful suspension. The result was that, just before the Chief Constable was due to file his “Defence”, he backed down and lifted the suspension, The Chief Constable will also pay all the former officer’s legal costs, meaning that the episode will not result in any cost to the former officer or the Police Federation. Ron Thompson commented on the outcome saying: “This was an unnecessary and totally avoidable dispute. All the Chief Constable’s staff had to do was to read the wording of the Regulations to see that they had no power to force former officers to hand over medical notes or fill in questionnaires, particularly in advance of any decision to make a referral to the SMP. The lesson from this episode for Forces is that no amount of misguided “advice” from the National Attendance Management Forum can change the meaning of the words of the Regulations. Any other Force that tries this tactic can expect to be served with the same type of legal challenge”   [...]
2017-07-11Our Grand Prize Draw October 2017 is now officially open and we are inviting our supporters to participate to be in with the chance of winning a multitude of brilliant prizes! As we progress with our charitable purpose of providing assistance to retired police officers and serving officers who are in need, hardship or distress who are disabled as a consequence of being injured on duty, we need your support more than ever to ensure that we can continue to support the rights of injured officers. Every £2 book of 5 tickets sold helps to make a real and lasting difference so enter our Grand Prize Draw today! Our fully functional internet shop has 900 books on offer. PayPal and credit cards are accepted.  Anyone can register as a customer at the shopping cart.  Members can use their membership login to access the shop. Access the shop by the above link or navigate to it on the main menu Good luck! [...]
2017-07-03On 28th June 2017, Companies House web-site posted a document Appointment of voluntary liquidator detailing the impending winding-up of Dr William Cheng’s business; Partners Occupational Medical Services Limited. This document shows that the Liquidator was appointed on 6th June 2017. This will have critical implications for Northumbria, Durham and Cleveland Constabularies, who had awarded a contract to Cheng’s (now liquidating) Company totalling £576,000 Once a Company is liquidated it would be unlawful for it to continue to trade in any way. A further document Special Resolution to Wind up  is currently being processed by Companies House and will be published on-line within 5 working days (of 28/06/17). The Unmasking of Cheng’s OHS Partners       [...]
2017-06-23Oh dear.  Nicholas Wirz, Northumbria’s solicitor, isn’t getting any love from his fellow legal practitioners.  Indeed they seem to totally contradict Wirz’s own interpretation of the Fisher judicial review, the one that he lost, and at the same time these real legal eagles agree with our own explanation. Let us remind you what we said: The Fisher Judgement & Uninjured Earning Capacity And here is what the unprofessional lawyer Wirz told NWEF delegates in March 2017: Ground 1 of the Fisher judgement related to comparator and the use of Police Salary, the high court judge quashed the PMAB determination for the reasons that the comparison between injured and uninjured earnings was not analysed sufficiently and there was no rationale as to why police officer salary was not used. Clarification is provided by this judgement that police officer salary would be the correct comparator where the former officer has only one qualifying injury and is otherwise healthy Sarah Simcock writes in UK Police Law Blog, a blog of the Serjeant’s Inn barrister Chambers, that it isn’t about being otherwise healthy as Wirz told the NWEF conference, and it clearly isn’t about always using the police salary as the uninjured comparator – like we say, someone could have been underemployed as a police officer and their uninjured earning capacity can be a lot higher.  We used an example of a maxillofacial surgeon. And if you read all of what Sarah and her fellow professionals of barristers and lawyers actual think … it’s fair to say you will decide that our explanation is closer to the truth. The Fisher decision does not obligate an SMP or PMAB to use the officer’s police earnings prior to injury in all cases, it merely stresses that they must form part of the consideration or act as a starting point. If there are good reasons in a particular case for a departure from that level of earnings it is permissible, but it must be objectively justified on the facts of the particular case and on the evidence available. What is crucial is that there must be sufficient reasons provided to justify a decision in relation to the level of a particular officer’s uninjured earning capacity.   Assessment of uninjured earning capacity in relation to a police injury pension The recent decision of the High Court upon an application for judicial review of a Police Medical Appeals Board (‘PMAB’) decision in the case of R (Fisher) v (1) Chief Constable of Northumbria (2) PMAB EWHC 455 (Admin) highlights the pitfalls in the assessment of a former officer’s uninjured earning capacity when reviewing the level of an injury pension under regulation 37 of the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006. We think people should stop listening to Nicholas Wirz.  Northumbria could save millions by paying him to stay at home in a locked broom cupboard.   [...]
2017-06-23Yesterday the Bristol Post rightly criticised Avon & Somerset Constabulary for wasting public funds and, even more tellingly, reported that the constabulary didn’t come clean with the paper by refusing to inform them of the total expenditure.  In an feeble attempt to cover their tracks freedom of information requests on this topic are now (unlawfully) banned by this police force. Police abandon ‘three years of hell’ pension reviews for injured officers Police officers injured in the line of duty do not have to fear their pensions being reduced after Avon and Somerset Police U-turned on a decision to review them. In a three-year ordeal, officers receiving the Injured on Duty Pensions were told their payouts would be reviewed, but that decision has now been abandoned by the force. It just so happens that previous freedom of information requests give a running commentary. We retweeted the Post that over £146,000 has been paid to one doctor – the selected medical practitioner, Dr Philip Johnson.  This figure does not include the money spent on legal advice and barristers defending pension ombudsman complaints or appeal boards. The latest figure up until the end of last year for the Doctor used (SMP) is £146,000. This excludes everything else inc. legal challenges https://t.co/Uc0Ay6FUsN — iodpaorg (@iodpaorg) 22 June 2017 Our blogs have been a constant update of the money flow.  In November 2015, just over  year into the mass review program, £46k was sent to Johnson’s business, Sarum Occupational Services. For the Love of Money By November 2016 the figure was above £120,000 Money Trail Now its over £146,000…       [...]
2017-06-13All injury on duty pensioners in Avon & Somerset have today received a letter from the, apparently outgoing, director of resources Julian Kern.  The letter says: After careful consideration, the Avon and Somerset Police Pension Authority has decided not to progress with their automatic review process of injury on duty awards. This is consistent with a number of other forces and we will not recommence these reviews until such time as there is a change in legislation and guidance from the Home Office. The Police Pension Authority will however continue to support and facilitate any reviews requested by a pensioner (in accordance with the relevant statutory framework) to enable injury on duty awards to be adjusted to reflect any change to the degree of disablement, or relevant earnings capacity in accordance with regulations. We understand that your review may already be in progress but have decided to stop these with immediate effect unless you advise us that you wish the review to continue. If this is the case you can contact us via email using the following email address: IODReviews@avonandsomerset.police.uk . Yours sincerely Julian Kern CFO and Director of Resources For three long years IODPA as been shouting about the illegality of the process conducted by this force as well Nottinghamshire, Merseyside, Northumbria and more recently Staffordshire.  It seems A&S have finally worked out that they could never be successful in buying a new vehicle fleet to the expense of those injured on duty and at last it has dawned on them that their legal costs would just keep on mounting. Note that A&S do not admit having done anything wrong. Gareth Morgan was the DCC of Avon & Somerset.  He has recently been appointed as the Chief Constable of Staffordshire.  We challenge Staffordshire to follow the lead of A&S and send out a similar letter. We will continue to place pressure on all the above forces to make them comply with the Police Injury Benefit Regulations.   [...]
2017-06-07Theresa May has hailed the ‘unbreakable spirit’ of Mancunians as she signed the book of condolences for those killed in the terror attack. The Prime Minister said that people would remember those who died and ‘celebrate those who helped’, insisting that ‘terrorism never wins’. “As we remember those who died, their loved ones and those who were injured, we will celebrate those who helped, safe in the knowledge that terrorism never wins, our country and our way of life will prevail.’ The PM’s letter is welcome public show of support for the emergency services. However, by way of sharp contrast, this is what one former Chief Constable wrote, in a letter which he no doubt never thought would be made public. It exposes a different, dark and sinister view of how police officers who daily face danger should be treated. It was penned way back in 2004 by the then Chief Constable of Staffordshire, John W Giffard and addressed to the Home Office. Giffard advocates that those injured on duty in criminal assaults, which would have included those injured in historical terrorist activities, both here on the mainland and in Northern Ireland, should have their injury pensions taken from them when they reached the age of 65.  So, just at the time when a pension would be most needed, this heartless figurehead proposes to have them taken away. This isn’t the spouting of a civil servant or an accountant.  This was a Chief Constable sending a message to his chums in the Home Office, agreeing to support whatever the Home Office was planning to do. Significantly, Giffard was not offering a personal statement. He wrote as the spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO). Thus his view can only be taken as the combined agreed view of all Chief Constables. They were proposing to go along with an unlawful reduction of police injury pensions. The cost of paying injury pensions had become a significant concern, so instead of finding ways to continue to honour the payments which the law set out, the Home Office and ACPO conspired to find underhand, unlawful ways to subvert the pension arrangements. Let’s make this as clear as we can. Elements in the Home Office conspired with ACPO to break the law. Giffard proclaims: We continue to think that at that stage anybody in receipt of an injury award should be dropped to the lowest band or possibly even completely dropped. Note well, he uses the word ‘we’ which confirms he speaks for all members of ACPO. Note also, ACPO wants injury awards completely dropped, removed, taken away.  If they can’t get their way, then they’ll settle to a reduction to the lowest band.  With total disregard to the law and the severity of the disability of those in receipt of an injury award. Giffard was not talking about some future, new, pension scheme. He was writing in respect of what would become, a few weeks later, the infamous advice from the Home Office, issued as Annex C to HO circular 46/2004 which advised all forces that injury pensions could be reduced to the lowest band at age 65. ‘Once a former officer receiving an injury pension reaches the age of 65 they will have reached their State Pension Age irrespective of whether they are male or female. The force then has the discretion, in the absence of a cogent reason otherwise, to advise the SMP to place the former officer in the lowest band of Degree of Disablement.  At such a point the former officer would normally no longer be expected to be earning a salary in the employment market.’ The Home Office felt confident in issuing unlawful advice as it had the assurance of ACPO that Chief Constables would not raise any objections. That was in 2004. The Home Office guidance has been declared unlawful in the High Court and has been withdrawn. Yet still we see Staffordshire and some other forces plotting to reduce injury pension payments, contrary to the law of the land. The current Staffordshire Chief Constable Jane Sawyers hands over her baton to none other than Gareth Morgan on the 19th June. Gareth Morgan, as we have mentioned in an earlier blog, comes from that other hotbed of injury pension abuse, Avon and Somerset. His well-fed and self-satisfied frame should fit in well in Staffordshire. The next time you read an ACPO level press release about the hard work of the emergency services, please remember the true thought processes of certain people who, behind the cameras, commit the most vile disservice to those who protect this country. We ask the simple question … When those who run towards violence aren’t protected for life when they suffer life changing injuries, then is our society broken?             [...]
2017-06-04The Staffordshire branch of NARPO has, quite correctly, asked the Police Federation of England & Wales (PFEW) about the “agreement” that was sent out to those as a consequence of being paper reviewed almost a decade ago.  Remember this “agreement” was signed at the time by the individual, local NARPO, local PFEW and Staffordshire police. Legal Advice March 2008 Agreement There is a stand-out point that seems to be missed here …  The test whether the contract is a stand-alone, legally binding thing of absolute validity is arguably the wrong question to apply.  It matters not whether the contract, on it’s own, is a legal document of authority.  What matters is the context underpinning how the signed paper came into being and the legitimate expectation such a document provides as a consequence of the processes that occurred before it. If the conclusion is flawed  (the “agreement“), then the process (a review conducted under Regulation 37) that led to that conclusion is compromised. So the real significance lies in the gap between the very start of process (including the motivation behind why it commenced) to the finality of the Staffordshire 2008 mass review program, the conclusion of such being the “agreement“. If the context of the “agreement” is flawed then it opens the fact that the paper review that underpins the “agreement” is unsound. All those mass paper reviews conducted a decade ago by Staffordshire, in an attempt to limit their exposure to the illegality of the 46/2004 Home Office guidance, were finalised without the knowledge contained in the later judgements found in the Pollard, Turner and Laws judicial reviews. A mechanism to fix such wrongs is a Regulation 32 reconsideration and the legal advice of the PFEW, however it is interpreted, is a gateway that brings to stark realism the judgement of Justice King in Haworth, R (on the application of) v Northumbria Police Authority   that a reconsideration … should be construed as a free standing mechanism as part of the system of checks and balances in the regulations to ensure that the pension award, either by way of an initial award or on a review to the former police officer by either the SMP or PMAB, has been determined in accordance with the regulations and that the retired officer is being paid the sum to which he is entitled under the regulations. …and that refusal of the police pension authority to allow such right to a mechanism to fix a wrong is: potentially unlawful interference with a ECHR right We could have saved the effort of the PFEW by telling those who asked that the “agreement” is not congruent with the “checks and balances” demanded by the Regulations.  Excuse the use of deliberate tautology, but the point is so important that it needs to be repeated with different words: the “agreement” is a dubious result caveated by Staffordshire Police’s 2008 mass review program that was itself, by its very nature, not congruent with “checks and balances” demanded by the Regulations. Before a person  starts to think they should ever acquiesce to any review there needs to be answers.  Not only shall the review be justified to the individual, a suitable interval needs to have elapsed and individual discretion applied based on that person’s circumstances.  The disabled former officer also needs to fix the damage done by any previous unlawful paper review. We will be pleased to field any questions you may have about the information contained in this post and the PDF above.  Either comment below, so others can benefit from the conversation, or email us for a private chat admin@iodpa.org [...]
2017-05-11Shared from our Facebook page. Australian police have the exact same problem as the U.K, in how they are treated once they are injured, particularly with PTSD. At least, the media have picked up down there that it is a national disgrace how officers are left on the scrap heap and disregarded. They also have a similar Facebook page, called Medically Retired Western Australian Police Officers Association Inc. Well worth watching this video.           [...]
2017-04-22Our investigative columnist has spent minutes in the labyrinth of long-forgotten archives and has discovered a contract that seems to rather undermine Staffordshire’s new found eagerness to recommence reviews. Click here to download: Staffordshire-Police-Injury-Awards-Agreement A promise made not to review. It seems to be saying that, as at 01/01/2008, anyone under state retirement age (SRA) and anyone over state retirement shall  “retain their existing injury award band“.  The former until SRA and the latter for life. In a benevolent wave of a wonky wand, apparently everyone is “entitled to at least a Band 1 injury award for life“.  Which is nice given that it would be unlawful not to provide the injury award for life. Home Office Circular 46/2004 couldn’t and didn’t change the legislation that defines a review under Regulation 37(1) of the Police (Injury) Benefit Regulations.  The statute and the discretional duty of the Regulation is the same now as it was then. So why, do we ask, are those same people who signed this contract back in 2008, now eligible to be reviewed in the present day?  And how can the arbitrary cut-off of August 2008 be defended as sound?  One rule for one, and another rule for others never sits well with equality law. Those with a band two award and above, in their fifties and so below SRA when their contract was signed, now face the traumatic shattering of their expectation to never be reviewed .  Some of this exact same cohort are now under the self-imposed age of 72 years and concurrently above state retirement age. They basically had a promise that they will never be reviewed. Ever.  The guff about cogent reason and the nonsense on steroids about a review just because someone reaches SRA, read today in 2017, is contrary to case law. Mr Justice Supperstone in the Simpson judicial review in 2013 made it clear that: there is no justification for adopting a different approach to regulation 37(1) in respect of a former officer who reaches the age of 65 than in the case of a review for former officers of a younger age. It was clearly known in 2008 that the 46/2004 circular was unlawful otherwise this Staffordshire contract would not have come into effect.  Staffordshire allowed it to come into being for it’s own self-preservation and as a means to get former officers to agree to the unagreeable.  What better way to reduce someone unlawfully when there is no invented cogent reasons stopping them, than to get that someone to sign a contract to agree that it’s OK to do it without the necessary substantial change to the medical condition demanded by the Regulations. Oh, how quickly their positive duty evaporates when it means defending a court claim. On the other side, it was an well-intentioned (albeit misguided) attempt by local NARPO and Federation to protect those retired with injury awards as best they could, all before the illegality of an automatic reduction at SRA and unlawfully invented so-called cogent reasons was judged by the Pension Ombudsman and in the High Court as being a travesty, and that actually the protection wasn’t needed. But what the agreement now does is raise two major issues and several corollaries. The first is Estoppel and the basis of reasonable expectation: Staffordshire is now asserting something contrary to what it has implied by a previous action or statement by them. The second is direct age discrimination that those with an injury award are to be treated differently depending on the abstract variable of whether they were retired before or after the 1st August 2008.  Those with ‘the pledge‘ have to be treated the same as those without ‘the pledge‘, given those without are by default younger. In other words, Estoppel stops those signatories from ever being reviewed and direct discrimination prevents anyone retired post this agreement from being treated differently. Oh, what a tangled web Staffordshire weave.   [...]
2017-04-19Oh Dear.  The force labelled by the Daily Mail* as “out of control” has decided to victimise those former police officers, now medically retired, who became injured on duty whilst serving for it. (*we know some people refuse to read the Daily “Fail” but occasionally it does serve a purpose for campaigning journalism  – Press Awards Newspaper of the Year for 2016). Staffordshire is infamously renowned for continually using the discredited and neither “lawful nor unlawful”  Police Earnings Assessment Matrix (aka PEAM) to make everyone, retired from it with an injury award, a band one. Don’t take our word for it, Staffordshire admit the Regulations don’t mention PEAM and that they use it in this freedom of information request: PEAM is used along with police staff earnings and appropriateoccupational earnings information to calculate potential earnings. It is not necessary for PEAM to be in the regulations as forces can utilise differing methods for calculating earnings.   PEAM and Bad Maths In an example of unprecedented lunacy, it seems  as though Staffordshire, with the current Chief Constable Jane Sawyer retiring, is looking at compulsory reviewing any former officer who ISN’T a band one! The irony is unparalleled given the degree of disablement of the  majority of Staffordshire injury awards were calculated using a flawed methodology and therefore falls foul of the Fisher judgement that ruled that any “thin in the extreme” reasoning and lack of individual application means the decision should not stand. PEAM by it’s nature removes individuality and covers all of those piped through it with a generic blanket of defaults – all variables predefined by a spreadsheet algorithm. So it amazes us that these people can’t read?  If only the HR minions of Staffordshire viewed our blogs.  The legal bill of paying thousands upon thousands of pounds could be avoided.  Equality law exists to prevent this discriminatory use of a discretionary duty. To give you a flavour of what unlawfulness to expect, look at the first line of their ‘policy’ here: https://www.staffordshire.police.uk/ibr The purpose of the reassessment of Injury Benefit (otherwise known as an Injury Pension or Injury Award) is to ensure that the recipient (the Injury Pensioner) receives the correct level of Injury Benefit. Wrong from the get-go. A review (under Regulation 37) is not a reassessment.  Only after evidence of substantial change can there be any revision to the degree of disablement and it is unlawful to calculate a new degree of disablement to find substantial change.  It absolutely has nothing to with regressing to the ‘correct level’ of benefit … whatever that is! We covered the ridiculous “goldilocks” syndrome some HR directors grasp hold of over a year ago- read the dismissal of it here. Someone in Staffordshire thinks they know everything there is to know about the Police Injury Benefit Regulations. https://www.staffordshire.police.uk/article/6977/Legal-Background Oh dear, Oh dear. Whilst every other force steps backwards, Staffordshire jumps into the breach.  They even think Regulation 33 can be used to force people to complete their invented questionnaire. https://www.staffordshire.police.uk/article/6981/FAQs—Injury-Benefit-Reassessment#answer6985 Interestingly Gareth Morgan, the Deputy Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset, will be appointed Chief Constable of Staffordshire next month. Let us remind you of the February 2017 press release this future Chief gave concerning the historical abuses conducted by a police doctor, and subsequently covered up by senior personnel. “Anyone requiring a police medical examination held on police premises by a police doctor should have had an expectation of being safe. It is clear that the conduct of some of these medical examinations fell well below this standard.Deputy Chief Constable Gareth Morgan Plausible deniability can not be argued by Mr Morgan.  He was in a senior post whilst Avon & Somerset thought mass reviews were a good idea.  He was also the senior investigative officer on the 2015 College of Policing’s scathing report on the horrors of ill-heath retirement. It looks like we will reporting extensively on Staffordshire and we will do whatever we can to show them the true path. [...]
2017-03-10BREAKING: Northumbria and PMAB’s Regulation 37 methodology DEFEATED in a judicial review. Fisher, R (on the application of) v The Chief Constable of Northumbria & Anor EWHC 455 (Admin) (08 March 2017) Nicholas Wirz, Northumbria Police’s principal solicitor as well as the self-declared legal advisor, has suffered a humiliating legal defeat over his unlawful interpretation of comparators used by many SMPs and PMABs to calculate earning capacity. A feature length blog on the implications of the Fisher v Northumbria judgement will follow soon.  This judicial review quashes the decision of a PMAB panel that, in 2016, reduced him from a band 3 to a band 1.  It is the culmination of a 11 year battle fought against Wirz and Northumbria police. Shockingly this isn’t the first time Mr Fisher has had his injury pension unlawfully reduced.  The Journal (along with The Chronicle, it is part of the North East’s most popular newspaper group) printed in 2008 a feature concerning the odious vendetta of Wirz against this former officer. In March 1998 The Journal reported that his injury pension had been reduced before, by £1200, only to be restored on appeal.  The article described how Mr Fisher was medically retired from Northumbria police after being called to the Kirkley Hall mink farm on the outskirts of Ponteland, Northumberland, to police an animal rights demonstration, when a cross-breed Rottweiler sank his teeth into his lower right arm. The animal had been fed on the remains of dead minks and Mr Fisher spent five days in hospital undergoing numerous emergency surgeries when the wound became infected. He needed almost 40 stitches to the gash and his injuries were so severe he lost full control of the fingers in his hand.  This incident was the culmination of fighting the symptoms of PTSD after being injured in an on-duty knife attack in 1992. The Chronicle recently published that on Wednesday 8th March, Mr Justice Garnham allowed Mr Fisher’s challenge against the Chief Constable of Northumbria and the PMAB: Bitten policeman battles off bid to slash his pension The grounds lost by Northumbria have implications on any SMP or PMAB decision where the earning capacity was based on comparative earnings as well as where the decision made fails to give sufficient reasoning to identify, at least, the basis for the medical authority’s conclusion on uninjured comparators. We will keep our readers up to date on the ramifications and discuss how a reconsideration, or the Pension Ombudsman, can be used to relook at unsafe historical revisions to injury awards. The decision of the PMAB has been quashed by Justice Garnham.  Points 1 & 4 (below) were won in favour of Mr Fisher and the PMAB decision has been overturned.  Points 2 & 3 failed but the judge made it clear in his judgment that a reasoned decision of uninjured earning capacity has to be made by the decision maker.  The corollary is that picking random jobs has to be justified and reasoned. The PMAB, as a delegated decision maker on behalf Of the Chief Constable, made the following errors in reaching this decision: The PMAB erred because it failed to use the Claimant’s potential police earnings as the uninjured earnings comparator; Further the Chief Constable erred in back-dating the effect of the decision to 27 February 2015 and thus claiming that the Chief Constable had overpaid the Claimant when, in law, the decision only took effect at the date that it was made by the PMAB and so there no back-dating.   [...]
2017-02-23“Anyone requiring a police medical examination held on police premises by a police doctor should have had an expectation of being safe. It is clear that the conduct of some of these medical examinations fell well below this standard.~Deputy Chief Constable Gareth Morgan Operation Hay Independent Investigation Report Operation Hay Avon & Somerset Police Response Independent report published into allegations regarding former police doctor – Avon & Somerset Police [...]
2017-02-10It takes a lot more than a change of name to restore the reputation of a damaged brand… Suppose you are eager to move forward with your determined but illegal mission to undermine secondary legislation but your plans have been hit by a series of serious high court losses. Not only illegality, but also  a spectacular juxtaposition of incompetence and malevolence on your part, mixed with gross lack of judgement. Plus hubris. And arrogance. And sheer bloody-mindedness. What are your options here?  Do you: a) Learn from your errors and seek to quietly, but determinedly, rebuild your group’s reputation? b) Put your group’s  ambitions on hold and invest in some capability-development training? c) Simply change the name of your clandestine organisation? But … a successful rebranding involves overhauling the goals, message, and culture – not just changing a name. Unfortunately, it seems like Lesley Ann Knowles, the chair of NAMF  NWEF didn’t get the memo. The Chair announced she had chosen the new title for the group from suggestions previously discussed and provided to her. The new name of the group being National Wellbeing and Engagement Forum (NWEF). A discussion was held around whether using the word engagement in the title of the forum may cause confusion. However it was agreed by the group that without engagement wellbeing may not be achieved, since effective engagement being important to receive and act upon the voice of the workforce. ‘Wellbeing‘ & ‘Engagement‘… Blurgh!! Should be ill-being & alienate. NAMF has chosen to rebrand themselves with a new acronym, the words of which mean the opposite to their true objective.  Words they’ve pulled straight out of the psychobabble and buzzwords prevalent in HR jargon. Read their December 2016 minutes here:   [...]
2017-01-21We recently posted that the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) discriminated against younger judges by forcing them to leave their final salary scheme while protecting older judges. View at Medium.com The ruling, which confirmed there had been age, sex and race discrimination, could cost the government up to £118m. The case could also have knock-on consequences for both public and private sector. The ET judge made this conclusion (page 36 of the judgement): Conclusion 125. By reason of the transitional provisions contained in Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the Judicial Pensions Regulations 2015 made by the respondents, the respondents have treated and continue to treat the claimants less favourably than their comparators because of their age. The respondents have failed to show their treatment of the claimants to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Employment Judge S.J. Williams Read the full ET transcript here mccloud-v-moj.pdf       [...]
2017-01-05During the festive period we didn’t waste valuable Quality-Street-eating or telly-gazing time.  Our investigative columnist was simultaneously scoffing chocolates and watching Dr Who whilst trawling our archives. We’ve dusted off a letter from Julie Spence, the former Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire.  As a Chief Constable she made the extraordinary claim was that the guidance in Home Office Circular 46/2004 was mandatory – that she had no choice but to reduce those over 65 years of age to the lowest award and zero percent disability because: that it is not our job to pick and choose the regulations that we will apply and the ones we will ignore In a letter written to the local NARPO magazine, Spence was attempting to justify her position, allegedly based on ‘legal advice’ she impudently claims, that the Home Office Guidance that said those over 65 years of age have no capacity to earn was compulsory and it is a cruel irony of life that people are complaining given she is just doing the good the work of restoring order from chaos.  Apparently. Here’s the full letter.  Also you can find the text of the letter at the bottom of the post. Nowadays Notts, Merseyside, Avon & Somerset and Northumbria are currently all following the rule of Spence.  Argue black is white and claim what they force upon disabled former and serving officers is mandatory.  When it clearly is no such thing. You might care to bear in mind that Julie Spence has a law degree, which would lead one to presume she should have known full well the true status of Home Office guidance, and if she was in any doubt about the status of HO guidance she had a telephone on her desk which she could have used to call the HO for clarification. Instead she decided to follow the same nonsense spouted by force solicitors such as Northumbria’s Nicholas “all SMP’s are judges” Wirz and Avon & Somerset’s Daniel “we can only imply threats to suspend awards” Johnson. In March 2010 she announced her retirement following repeated challenges over her claim and a matter of days after the Home Office advised all forces to suspend reviews – a clear signal of admission that the guidance she insisted was ‘mandatory’ was in fact unlawful. The unlawfulness of the guidance and the primacy of Regulations was reaffirmed in the Ayres Pension Ombudsman decision, and the judicial reviews of Crudace, Simpson and the consent order made in Slater. So the next time some HR Director says they have ‘taken legal advice’, just remember, as far as the quality of the advice goes, they would’ve been better off talking to the coffee machine. letter from our Chief Constable:   Dear Mr MaCallum  Congratulations your new role as Chair- man of Cambridgeshire NARPO. I am sorry that my first letter to you as Chairman is one in which I feel I  express my disappointment. I read with some surprise David Blake’s  goodbye message contained in the April  NARPO newsletter, and the criticism of me  that I “remain intransigent”. I am concerned  that this gives your members totally the  wrong impression. If by this it meant that I am bound by  statute, regulations or mandatory Home  Office guidance on the issue of the payments of injury awards, then I am. If it means that I Will not tax-payers  money where I do not have the authority to  do then I agree.   If it means that I Will listen , that I am  not prepared to explore avenues that others  have progressed, or that I do not appreciate  or understand all view points on this issue  then I reject the criticism.   As Police Officers each one of your  members understands, or should under-  stand, that it is not our job to pick and  choose the regulations that we will apply  and the ones we will ignore.   Sometimes we have to make tough choices  about the action we take. As a public  service, this is what is expected. NARPO have asked me to look at options  that other forces have used, and I have done  that. I have sought legal advice to explore  the extent of duty and authority that exists.  Further I have sought and received advice  about Home Office Guidance that NARPO  had advised allows discretion, and been told  very clearly that it is mandatory.   I do not call this call this intransigence.  I call this living with reality. It is a reality that should  have been gripped several years ago and the  fact that it was not is yet another symptom  Of the fact that Cambridgeshire for  many years a failing Force.   It is One Of life’s cruel ironies that we turn  on individuals who try their best to restore  normal good performance. In fact NARPO  would be better directing their criticism to  those who were part of the system that  allowed that dreadful mess to be created in  the first place.   I also need to let you know that despite what been written, every officer who  retires from Cambridgeshire Constabulary  may have a meeting with me. Many people  take up this opportunity, a small number  choose not to – that is their choice. If in the  future you want to check what the current  policy in the force is, please feel free to  phone my office and my staff will endeavour to provide all the help you need.   We need to work together and have an  dialogue, even over the tough times, where  we have to agree to disagree. said, I  truly do forward to supporting  NARPO and would be grateful if you could  rectify any misunderstandings your  members may currently have about the  force. If it would help please print this  letter in any upcoming newsletter.   Julie Spence OBE Bed LLB MA MBA  Chief Constable   [...]
2017-01-01Happy new year to all our readers! Under the Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties) Regulations 2011, police forces are listed bodies (under schedule 19) and are required to comply with the non-devolved general and specific duties under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA). The Court of Appeal has clarified that protection against victimisation contained in the Equality Act can be extended to former employees. In preparation of our 2017 series focusing on disability discrimination law, we are proud to publish another live connection to the British and Irish Legal Information Institute website. The new Disability Discrimination EAT Caselaw menu item can be found on the right sidebar: You will see each Employment Appeal Tribunal case (and new ones as soon as they are published) defined as relating to the Police (either as the named party in the case or referenced by the Judge as relevant to the law as established by the outcome of a former case). The above search of bailli.org using the terms ‘disability discrimination‘ AND ‘chief constable’/’commissioner of the Met‘ (as at 1st Jan 2017) returns 422 results for EATs.  A  cursory straw-poll of the results shows that 31 cases directly relate to a Police force as a named party in the title of the appeal – so 7.3% of these listed disability discrimination EATs directly involve a police force and the rest involve other employers where the judges have use the legal precedents found in the police related EATs or their subsequent Court of Appeal hearing. This frequency shows a revealing characteristic of how UK police services apparently fail in their obligations to the EqA given the appeal tribunals they defend are regularly quoted in otherwise non-police disability discrimination court proceedings.   Evidence of deep institutional failure or are forces the unfair victims of vexatious complaining? If the outcomes follow the same pattern of the judicial reviews, the majority of which are found against the police pension authoities, the former is more probable.  We intend to put a meaningful measure to the EAT results. Is horrendous treatment of those applying, or with an injury award, a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim?  Is the aim legitimate and are there no less discriminatory ways of achieving it?   Can police forces admit to discrimination but hide behind the defence of saying it is objectively justified? Over the coming months we will try to answer these questions and explain in easy terms how these cases relate to those with, or applying for, injury awards.   [...]
2016-11-24We recently exposed that Dr David Bulpitt has been tasked to review all the victims of an ongoing criminal inquiry: It was agreed that DBu would review all of the names that are on the Op Hay list to see if they had been given an illegal/incorrect award as a result of being seen by the individual who is currently subject of an investigation.Avon & Somerset OH Review meeting 23rd October 2015 Minutes We also know that Dr Philip Johnson has been named as ‘working’ on Operation Hay. It is safe to assume from this email that Bulpitt further instructed Johnson to do the work.  So how much money has the SMP, Dr Philip Johnson been paid? We’ve looked at the figures published on the Avon and Somerset PCC Openness Spend-over-£500 This only goes up to August 2016.  But we can calculate the missing monetary amount with the answer from this FOI request: Since 1st December 2015, how much has Avon and Somerset Constabulary paid to selected medical practitioners contracted to conduct reviews on injured on duty retired police officers? Please give the exact figure to today’s date with the number of days/hours  worked. The expenditure for selected medical practitioner is currently recorded as  £74,220. The number of days is recorded as 46 days.https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/costings_4#incoming-892664 From Dec/15 to Aug/16, the PCC shows a total expenditure to Dr Johnson (he invoices his work through his limited company of Sarum Occupational Health) as £54,600. So this means Sep/16 and Oct/16 saw an expenditure of £74,220 – £54,600 = £19,650. We’ve combined both months into one column in this chart that shows, by month, all the money that Dr Johnson has received from Avon & Somerset police. For almost two years Dr Johnson, whilst conducting the pilot review program, did not invoice anymore than £7200 with a monthly invoice average of £5,193. Then suddenly, once seven months had elapsed from the action log of the 23rd October 2015 OH review meeting – perhaps the same time it takes to review all the medical files of several hundred people – Dr Johnson bills the force £10,800, £17,820 and then over the two months of September and October 2016, £19,650. Since August 2014, this is a total of £120,887. £48,180, which is 40% of this total, was billed between June 2016 and October 2016.     [...]
2016-11-01A quick update from the dark-suited, shadowy world of the National Attendance Management Forum (NAMF). November 1st sees the start of the Mexican Día de los Muertos (the Day of the Dead), so is a suitable date to publish NAMF conference minutes. NAMF is nothing more than a vehicle for certain elements to put into practice “entryism”. Entryism (or entrism ) is a tactic in which the members of an organised group conspire to secretly join a larger organisation en masse, with the intention of changing the targeted organisation’s policies or actions. The NAMF contains a hard core of people of ill intent, with the others there to give an appearance of legitimacy and to be led like sheep by the inner circle. The June 2016 minutes state that “Don” Chris Rowson, Head of HR at West Midlands Police, has left his position of chairman of NAMF. Northumbria Mafia have pulled off a coup. The new Don Chair is Lesley Ann Knowles, Head of HR for Northumbria Police, with Steve Mitchell of Notts HR as Vice Chair. Mitchell has form in the maladministration of injury awards.  Along with the late Dr Ralph Sampson, he was the co-host of their rather despicable ‘all about the money‘ PowerPoint presentation performed to delight some cherry-picked NAMF delegates about the Notts mass review program. It’s rather ominous that the new chair comes from the force with the most judicial reviews in recent times … Crudace, Simpson and Haworth were all High court decisions won against Northumbria and it’s solicitor Nicholas Wirz by disabled former officers. Northumbria is a well known pit of despair and they now are the “Boss” of a cloak-and-dagger national cabal – a secret society that, even after a ‘search’, the Home Office has pretended they have no knowledge of it.   Gulp! Could it be that Health Management Limited (HML), the firm with the Home Office contract to run PMABs, no longer wants any part in NAMF because of those in charge can’t help themselves to muck things up? The above extract also from the June 2016 NAMF minutes show that HML will no longer be attending NAMF conferences. Of course, the burning question is why is it that the commercial company which has the current contract to run the PMAB hearings has only just realised that sending their employees to NAMF raises the conflict of interest for HML’s reputation for integrity, independence and contractual requirement for high standards, or may be reasonably perceived to do so. A sure sign that NAMF is careening off a cliff is when high-level staff start fleeing the sinking ship and begin to go back to their day job or even into business for themselves (e.g. former TVP Head of HR and NAMF delegate Chris Sharp). With Northumbria in charge, NAMF is in such terrible shape. Those going to the Tally Ho! conferences, seeking the elusive gold-standard best practise, will soon realise they won’t find it there and are in fact being misled by the false prophets of Wirz and Lesley Ann Knowles.  Like Mr Rowson, Mr Sharp and HML, they’ll also begin to plan for their own futures by disavowing themselves from the previously cosy NAMF relationship.   [...]
2016-10-30A new Ken Loach, Palme d’Or winning, film  stars actor Dave Johns who plays Daniel Blake, a 59 year old carpenter who finds himself unable to work in the aftermath of a heart attack.  1984 meets uncaring, capitalist Catch-22 Having suffered a heart attack at work, Daniel has been instructed by doctors to rest. Yet since he is able to walk 50 metres and “raise either arm as if to put something in your top pocket”, he is deemed ineligible for employment and support allowance, scoring a meaningless 12 points rather than the requisite 15. Constant employment for forty years means nothing as he has to navigate his way through the Kafkaesque impersonal benefits system. The similarity to a SMP ‘assessment’ is stark.  We don’t want to say Daniel Blake’s plight is exactly synonymous with those with, or applying for, an injury award – whether being reviewed or not.  The juxtaposition is the base medical pension is always there … there are exceptions, but those medically retired from the police usually aren’t users of food banks. What is the same is the  cruel system that pushes those caught up in its cogs to breaking point. The real Daniel Blakes …   [...]
2016-10-21Are you sure the report, the one the selected medical practitioner disclosed to you about your  permanent disablement and degree of disability, is the only report in existence? Could there be another report out in the wild? Did the force actually receive the ‘true’ copy? Maybe this second report was never intended for your eyes to see.   This hidden report is how the Human Resources director dreamt it to be.    Flawed, corrupted, damaged by the fevers, intoxication, hate and unforgiveness of it’s SMP author.  The report you never get to read tells the story of what the doctor truly thinks about your medical condition – how little your earning capacity is affected; how he doubts your symptoms. Such deviousness has a precedent.  In July 2016 The High Court granted insurance company LV= permission to bring committal proceedings against solicitors from a defunct law firm after two contrasting medical reports emerged in a road traffic case they were handling. Her Honour Judge Karen Walden-Smith, sitting as a High Court judge,described the differences between the two reports – one served on the insurer and the other included in the trial bundle – as “stark”. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2016/2590.html The contrast between the two reports is stark. In the report disclosed with the claim, Mr Iqbal had suffered whiplash injuries to the neck and to the wrist, with a 6-8 month recovery period; whereas the report included in the bundle sets out that Mr Iqbal had mild pain and stiffness on the day of the accident but the symptoms, due to a whiplash injury, resolved 1 week from the date of the accident. The diagnosis of a whiplash injury to the wrist does not even make sense. How does this relate to Police Injury Awards you may well ask? These minutes from a Thames Valley Federation meeting suggest not only does this practice happen to retired police officers, but a senior HR manager recently resigned because his involvement in this intentionally and consciously performed misdeed was found out. On page four there’s this quote: IHR’s It remains challenging to secure IHR’s as officers are increasingly asked to explore alternative treatment options. It has come to light that in some cases and at the instruction of the force legal team, that some officers seeking IHR but who have active or potential legal claims against the force, are having detailed capability reports prepared by the SMP, withheld. The force through the CHSS* have indicated that this practice has only been adopted in the last half a dozen cases. The CHSS has provided the full reports upon written request by officers. Haven Solicitors are coordinating the investigation into this practice and JW has made PFEW aware of this practice through the National General Secretary and Martyn Mordecai. Chris Sharp has resigned his position as CHSS, in part on the back of this nonregulatory practice. He will leave us in October. So just like the contrasting medical reports in the 2016 LV= case,  Chris Sharp the Head of Corporate Health and Pensions Manager at Thames Valley police seemingly commissioned and then withheld capability reports, resplendent in greater sensitive medical detail than the ‘other’ report, from the former officers.  This was performed with the blessing of the force’s legal services department. And he has resigned as a consequence. If this is true then the SMP and Thames Valley may have fallen foul of countless pieces of legislation from the Data Protection act to the Access to Medical Reports Act. In the LV= court case Counsel was perturbed by the existence of two reports.  Counsel was clearly concerned that there was a deliberate alteration of the report to put forward a stronger case for damages. In The Police Injury Benefit Regulations the qualified medical authority is asked to provide ‘A’ report.  Not two.  Not a ‘certificate’  A Report.  Singular. Is it the case that Thames Valley has been using the existence of two reports to ‘put forward’ (read bias) the case to reduce the award banding?  And by not disclosing the report benefiting by handicapping any future appeal? No, surely not…  it surely can’t be that the administration of injury awards is that rife with corruption!  (ahem)   [...]
2016-10-06A disabled police officer has won an Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) disability discrimination case against the Metropolitan Police after he was told to return to work despite medical evidence saying the enforced return was impossible. Mr Finlay Buchanan had been absent from work for eight months when the Met began to take steps under a procedure which bears the name Unsatisfactory Performance Procedure (“UPP”). http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2016/0112_16_3009.html “Mr Buchanan is a trained police motorcyclist.  He was assigned to the Diplomatic Support Group in 2002.  On 21 December 2012 he was involved in a serious motorcycle accident while responding to an emergency call. The accident was not his fault: the brakes on his motorcycle failed.  He made a good recovery from his physical injuries.  But he developed serious post-traumatic stress disorder. By April 2013 he was a disabled person for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 and by May 2013 the Metropolitan police knew or could reasonably be expected to know he had the disability.  He has never been able to return to work. At the time of the Employment Tribunal hearing in July 2015 medical retirement was under consideration.  That medical retirement has now taken place.” The original 2015 Employment Tribunal (ET) unanimously held that the steps to force Mr Buchanan to return to work by implementing the UPP amounted to unfavourable treatment because of something arising from the Claimant’s disability. But the 2015 tribunal found that the unfair treatment was justifiable  under section 15(2)(b) Equality Act 2010 that allows for a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.  In other words, because they concluded that, as the UPP was administratively correct in it’s over-riding procedures, the application of it had a defence of justification. However the  ET also accepted that the various items of treatment were because of something arising from the Claimant’s disability and that one member of the panel Dr Moher dissented to the ‘justification’ defence.  He argued that the justification defence must extend to the actual treatment.  He found that the defence was not established.  He said that alternative steps of extending the improvement notice or setting ill health retirement procedures in train should have been adopted.  The process was driven by a mechanistic desire to push on through the formal procedures. The 2015 ET decision was quashed in this EAT by His Honour Justice David Richardson. The judge said that the Met’s HR officers did not appreciate the extent of their powers under the Regulations or their discretion under the policies.  He also dismissed the relevance of the case law (Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes) that the Met relied upon saying it would only rarely be applicable to disability discrimination cases. This EAT case makes it clear that HR managers should not robotically follow UPP procedures and should not blindly use policy when it is not appropriate to do so. The question will always be whether it was proportionate to the Respondent’s legitimate aims to take a particular step under the UPP. In making that assessment it is of course relevant to take into account that Parliament has laid down a procedure to be followed before an officer can be dismissed on grounds relating to capability; so long as it is also appreciated that neither Parliament nor the Respondent’s own policies require a mechanistic application of the procedure. It is also relevant to take into account the impact of applying the procedure in a particular way on a particular officer.  I would, however, caution the ET to make careful findings as to the Respondent’s aims; I think the policies show they may have been more sophisticated than simply “to move in stages towards either a return to work or dismissal”.   [...]
2016-09-29The study of law is like eating an elephant. The best way to do it is one bite at a time. –  anon We’ve all heard the phrase “information overload.”.   Trying to categorise the case law concerning Injury Awards is a mammoth sized example. How can you tell whether the large mammal of a court transcript is the one in the room that you need, uselessly white or of the delirium-induced hallucinated pink variety? What do you do when there are too many elephants on your plate and it’s becoming overwhelming? Packing all elephant related analogies into the trunk (for now, at least), we’ve made the first known attempt to group related injury award High court decisions together. WiseMapping is a free online mind mapping program that anyone can use for brainstorming ideas. We’ve used it to try and map together all the decisions so you can focus on the ones that matter. *Edit. You might see a broken link below as the wisemapping security certificate may be invalid on some browsers. As we get this fixed pleae view the PDF version at the bottom of this page Use the cross-hair to move the map.  Click the attachment ‘paper clip’.  And then click in the thumbnail box to open the court transcript in another window. We’ve put the map on the caselaw RSS feed for your convenience. If you’ve noticed a relationship that we’ve missed, please leave a comment below.   [...]
2016-09-15Let us hope that the recently injured police constable, stabbed in the back several times while attempting to arrest a rape suspect, not only recovers quickly without any long-term physical or psychological after-affects but will not have the misfortune to come across the self-styled Medical Retirement Officer (MRO) of Merseyside Police. This MRO, a retired Chief Inspector named Peter Owens, has often stabbed medically retired officers in the back by unlawfully reducing or removing their injury awards. Parliament has long understood the reason why injury awards exist the way they do.  Back in 1978 another injured officer from Liverpool was discussed in the House of Commons. HoC debate 15 December 1978 Mr. Anthony Steen (Liverpool, Wavertree):My principal task this afternoon is to consider the plight of one young policeman, which illustrates the problem well. It concerns ex-police constable Turner, who lives in Liverpool and who was living in my constituency. … In 1974, at the age of 25, after six years in the force, he was on duty in Liverpool, standing on the pavement, when he saw a stolen car being driven towards him, pursued by a police vehicle with a blue flashing light. He was about to throw his truncheon through the windscreen of the car when it swerved and drove right at him, mowing him down. … I ask the Minister to see established the principle that those who protect the public should not be penalised if injured in the course of duty when such duty involves danger to their own life   The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summer-skill): A police pension is not reduced on account of any pay received from civilian employment. The combination of Mr. Turner’s salary in his new civilian post and the pension received from the police service meant that Mr. Turner suffered no loss of salary because of his changed circumstances. And in the present day … PMQs – 14th September 2016 Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab): I am sure that the whole House will join me, my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) and Jane Kennedy, the police and crime commissioner for Merseyside, in paying tribute to the police constable who was stabbed several times yesterday in the line of duty while trying to arrest a rape suspect in Huyton. We all wish him well and a speedy recovery. The Prime Minister: First, may I join the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the police constable who was stabbed in Knowsley? One of the events that I used to look forward to going to every year as Home Secretary was the Police Bravery Awards, because at that event we saw police officers who never knew, when they started their shift, what was going to happen to them. They run towards danger when other people would run away from it, and we owe them a great tribute and our gratitude Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab): May I join my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister and Jane Kennedy, the police and crime commissioner on Merseyside, in commending the tremendous bravery of the police officers involved in the stabbing incident in my constituency yesterday, who nevertheless apprehended the suspect? Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that, often in very dangerous circumstances, the police are being asked to do more and more with fewer and fewer resources?  The Prime Minister: I join the right hon. Gentleman in recognising once again the work of the individual police constable— I apologise—the three police constables who apprehended the suspect while being under attack. As I said earlier, our police officers bravely go where others would not go in order to protect the public. They do so much in the line of duty and, for some, when they are off duty as well. They are prepared to go and face danger in order to protect us. On the issue of resources, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we have protected police budgets over the period of the comprehensive spending review settlement, in the face of a proposal from his Front Benchers that we should cut them by 5% to 10%.  If only those who administer injury awards had the same goodwill towards those injured on duty than the above Members of Parliament. [...]
2016-09-02