regulation 12

Please take a couple of minutes to read this important article as a recent decision made by the Pensions Ombudsman (PO) may impact us all.

Let’s start with a brief introduction to the PO, including their role and responsibility.

The PO was set up under the Social Security Act 1990 and started to operate on the 1st April 1991 (that now seems apt!). Their powers are derived from the Pensions Scheme Act 1993.

For those of you, who are unaware of what the PO do, they are an independent body set up to arbitrate over both private and public sector pensions where it is believed that there has been disputes of fact or law and complaints of maladministration. The PO’s decisions (Determinations) are legally binding on all parties, subject to appeal on a point of law.

From their inception, they have always accepted complaints regarding the various Police Pension Regulations and also The Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 (PIBR).

The PO will publish their considered decisions on their website, and if you search for the words “police injury” you will return approximately 50 cases.

We believe that at the end of 2024 they had over 20 live complaints from pensioners regarding the administration of their injury pensions, some of these going back 3-4 years.

On the 19th June 2024 the case of Nicola Clark & Michael Bell v the Chief Constable of Derbyshire, Chief Constable of West Midlands Constabulary & the Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWCA Civ 676 was handed down. It ruled that the PO no longer has jurisdiction to adjudicate matters relating to Regulation 12 of the PIBR.

A Regulation 12 gratuity is a one off payment of up to five times an officer’s salary, where a person “within 12 months of so receiving that injury, becomes or became totally and permanently disabled as a result of that injury.”

[Admin note: this is not the necessarily same as those who are deemed to be 100% disabled and granted a band 4 injury pension.]

This case originated as an Employment Tribunal case on behalf of two pensioners who were denied a Regulation 12 gratuity as their determination for becoming totally and permanently disabled fell outside the 12 month window.

This is a longstanding issue that the Home Office put out for consultation in 2021 to various stakeholders, but the responses were considered inconclusive, and the process is continuing.

It was argued by the defendants (Derbyshire and West Midlands Police) that the PO did not have the authority to adjudicate this matter under the powers conferred to them under Section 1(5) of The Pension Schemes Act 1993.

Section 1(5) defines a pension scheme as follows –

1(5) In subsection (1) “pension scheme” (except in the phrases “occupational pension scheme”, “personal pension scheme” and “public service pension scheme”) means a scheme or other arrangements, comprised in one or more instruments or agreements, having or capable of having effect so as to provide benefits to or in respect of people—
(a) on retirement,
(b) on having reached a particular age, or
(c) on termination of service in an employment.

The question that arose, relating to section 1(5)(a) was whether a Regulation 12 gratuity means a scheme… having or capable of having effect so as to provide benefits… on retirement.

The Court of Appeal, decided that the trigger for payment was the date that permanent disability was determined and not ‘on retirement’.

The PO has subsequently decided that this ruling also applies to Regulation 11, the main regulation for injury gratuities and pensions.

The PO started sending out letters towards the end of the of 2024, stating that they were discontinuing cases as a Regulation 11 was also not payable ‘on retirement’.

We submitted our arguments back to PO and were concerned that not only were the PO upholding current case law, they were in effect, now, making it.

It was at this stage that we sought legal advice from counsel. Having discussed the case of Clark & Bell, and the position of the PO we were advised that we have an arguable case.

There was a further exchange of letters between the PO and some of the pensioners that were affected.

We believe that some of those letters are helpful to our case, and we, as a charity have instructed our legal team to draft a ‘letter before action’ to the PO. If this does not result in a resolution, then we will request that papers be filed for a Judicial Review.

There are a number of similar pension schemes to the PIBR and not only will retired police officers be affected, but fire fighters and possibly other agencies such as the Civil Service who have a similar scheme.

One of our members has submitted a freedom of information act request to the PO which can be seen here – https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cheif_constable_of_derbyshire_v#incoming-3071208

They have asked, which schemes have been affected by this decision, and at the moment it is the police and fire brigade, but that’s not to say that others won’t follow.

The Police Federation are aware and are monitoring the situation.

We are waiting to hear back from NARPO.

We have made contact with the Fire Brigade Union to make them aware of this decision and are hoping that they will support us with our fight.

A full judicial review will be costly, especially if gets appealed to the Court of Appeal as per the original case.

We obviously need your support, and rather then set a final target to cover all eventualities, we are asking our members, families and friends to donate as we go along.

To date, we have paid for the initial advice which cost £2,000 + VAT, and a further £2,000 + VAT for the ‘letter before action’.

Please consider supporting our cause by going to our donation page – https://iodpa.org/donations/donate-to-iodpa/

You can make a one off payment, or better still set up a recurring payment and donate something to us each month.

We can’t express just how important this issue is. Every single one of us is vulnerable. If forces decide to call us for review, there will no longer be any means of independent appeal should they not follow the regulations. This also applies to those on band one, whose condition may worsen and request a reconsideration.

Update (25/09/2025): The PO have refused to reconsider after serving them with a ‘letter before action’. We feel as though this is such an important point of law affecting potentially every serving and retired police and fire brigade officer that it MUST be challenged.

We have therefore instructed a barrister to prepare court papers for a Judicial Review at a cost of £8,000 + VAT, and in order to file the papers within the available timescales we had to spend another £7,000 + VAT to the get the bundles lodged at the Admin court and then served on all the interested parties, which we have done this week.