Regulation 33

Bad Law (Appeal For Justice)

IODPA Admin caselaw, Regulation 33, Regulation 37, selected medical practitioner
Bad Law (Appeal For Justice)

Bad law, or a bad law, or bad laws may refer to:
– A law that is oppressive
– A law that causes injustice
– Dumb laws, those laws which are particularly bizarre

 

Appeal for Justice

Please support our appeal for crowdfunding for this very important cause.

Make NO mistake, this ruling affects EVERY force in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, every pensioner in receipt of an injury award, and EVERY serving officer who may find themselves, being injured on duty.

This appeal is for all serving police officers, all retired officers (with or without an injury pension), the families, friends and supporters of the police service and for anyone else that recognises the dangers that officers face on a daily basis. It is also for those, in the legal profession who recognise bad law, and the implications of allowing such law to remain unchallenged.

A recent court ruling places thousands of police officers up and down the country forced to retire through injury in a position where they have no option to consent on a regular basis to their forces trawling through their personal or private medical data from birth, or risk having their pensions reduced their lowest level. Those injured officers are now leading the fight on behalf of ALL future injured officers and those who are currently retired.

Police officers, on a daily basis, selflessly put themselves in harms way to protect life and property. We have all heard the expression of police officers running into danger when everyone is running away from it. They do this regularly without thinking of the personal consequences to themselves, and thankfully in the vast majority of cases they escape without any serious harm. We know all too well from the news, that on some very sad occasions, officers lose their lives, and there can be a fine line between these officers and those, who survive but end up with life changing injuries.

Many, having dedicated their entire lives to policing, will be forced to retire early with ill-health retirement as they are no longer able to perform operational duties. If their permanent injures affect their future earning capacity, they may be granted an additional injury pension to compensate for their inability to earn what they may have been able to, were it not for those injuries.

This additional pension is paid under the The Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 (‘The Regulations’), and is only awarded after careful scrutiny by a doctor. There are four bands within The Regulations, with highest band being awarded to the most affected, and which in turn attracts a higher pension.

Once awarded, The Regulations allow police forces in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to periodically review these pensions to ensure that the correct level of award is maintained. We’ve yet to meet an injured pensioner who disagrees with being reviewed to ensure that they are given the correct level of award as long as the review is conducted properly, fairly and impartially. Sadly this is not generally the case and injured officers are mostly treated with contempt by the doctors.

The decision when to review is discretionary and down to each Chief Constable who act in a secondary role called the Police Pension Authority (‘PPA’). They appoint a doctor with a title of Selected Medical Practitioner (‘SMP’) to carry out a medical examination who have to determine whether there has been a ‘substantial change’ in the condition of the pensioner since their last examination. This period for consideration is already set out in existing case law.

We have, in recent years, seen a number of forces conduct a worrying trend of what can only be described as an unrelenting assault on these pensioners with review programs designed for only one purpose, and that is to reduce the pensions of these courageous officers in order to save money from their budgets.

There is notably a handful of Chief Constables, HR mangers, solicitors and SMPs who are constantly dreaming up inventive new ways to interpret, (or misinterpret we should say) The Regulations for no other reason than to reduce these pensions. How they sleep at night, we just don’t know.

We believe that members of the public would be shocked and disgusted, if they knew about some the way in which some of these unscrupulous individuals operate. The public seem to have this preconceived idea that police officers are well looked after by their forces should the worst happen to them and ‘they look after their own’. It causes us much dismay to shatter this illusion.

Whilst it is true that some pensioners, when no longer exposed to the policing environment may, to a degree recover, these are in the minority, and many have to battle with the scars of their physical and mental disabilities for the rest of their lives.

At the moment, it is a small number of forces that appear to have no respect for their former officers and one such force is Staffordshire. In April 2017, they sent out letters to every pensioner in receipt of an injury award, informing them that they were all to under go reviews. Despite this decision predating the appointment of a new Chief Constable it coincided with Gareth Morgan arriving at the force from the Avon and Somerset Constabulary who had themselves been conducting reviews for the previous three years. Was it any coincidence that as Gareth Morgan left Avon & Somerset, the new Chief Constable, Andy Marsh, brought reviews to a halt?

Despite The Regulations placing no obligation on the former officers under review to provide personal and private medical notes, Staffordshire Police demanded that they hand over a complete set of their doctors notes from birth. They also demanded that other personal and private information be disclosed in the form of a questionnaire.

The officers contested that these demands were wholly excessive and breached their human rights as they weren’t measured or proportionate to the purpose of the review. The only obligation that the regulations placed upon the pensioners was that they ‘submit [themself] to such medical examination or to attend such interviews’, which they all did by attending a prearranged medical appointment with a SMP. They also volunteered a letter from their own doctor stating that there had been NO change in their medical condition.

During the appointments, the SMPs (Dr’s Vivian, Yarnley and Nightingale) made NO attempt to medically examine the pensioners. They asked NO questions about their condition and for those with physical disabilities, made NO physical examination. All they demanded was access to full and non redacted medical records since birth. The reasons for this, we believe are three fold,

  • Firstly, Staffordshire police have LOST the medical records of many of these pensioners over a period of time, therefore they desperately need to obtain a replacement set, otherwise they knew nothing of the background and history of the pensioner.
  • Secondly, it has been common practice for some unscrupulous SMPs to forensically examine the entire patient history with to view to finding ‘something’ else that may allow them to reduce the pension.
  • Lastly, we believe that these SMPs were setting these pensioners up to fail.

In April 2009, the Home Office released a paper entitled ‘Review of police injury benefits government proposals’. Para 6.6. states,

Although this requirement ensures that the applicant must provide the police authority with an opportunity to have him or her examined and interviewed as necessary, it does not provide the authority with any express power to require the disclosure of relevant documents and medical records. Although it is not suggested that a police authority should be given such a power, it is clear that refusal to comply with such a request will oblige the police authority or the SMP, as the case may be, to consider the case on the available facts, and it is also reasonable for them to conclude in such circumstances that the claimant has something to hide which would damage his or her case.

 

The Home Office, further acknowledged this fact, when in 2011 they drafted a new set of regulations which suggested replacing this section,

Refusal to be medically examined

33. If a question is referred to a medical authority under regulation 30, 31 or 32 and the person concerned wilfully or negligently fails to submit himself to such medical examination or to attend such interviews as the medical authority may consider necessary in order to enable him to make his decision, then—

(a) if the question arises otherwise than on an appeal to a board of medical referees, the police authority may make their determination on such evidence and medical advice as they in their discretion think necessary;

with this,

Refusal to co-operate in medical examination

32.—(1) This regulation applies where a relevant medical question is referred to a medical authority under regulation 29, 30 or 31 and the person concerned wilfully or negligently fails to—
(a) submit himself to a medical examination;
(b) attend an interview; or
(c) consent to the disclosure of medical records
which the medical authority considers necessary in order to enable him to make his decision.

 

It’s worth pointing out here, that Staffordshire Police, have acknowledged that there is no legal obligation for these pensioners to hand over their most personal and private of medical notes. They wrote to one of the pensioners solicitors with the following,

“It has been explained to your client that he does not have to give consent for access to his medical records the consent form states “you can refuse to give consent if you wish”

 

In addition to this the ICO also had a view on this stating,

20th April 2018 and the 5th September 2018 – “Although consent is not defined by the DPA, it should be freely given. Where an individual has no option but to consent to the processing of their personal data, it is unlikely that consent has been freely given. This therefore raises fairness concerns and in our view we do not believe that consent is an appropriate condition to rely on for the processing of sensitive personal data.”

 

It is probably worth noting here, that in May 2018, the Information Commissioners Office (‘ICO’), became involved in Staffordshire Police’s poor handling of data, and made the following number of recommendations for corrective action,

Urgent Priority recommendations – 5

High Priority recommendations – 52

Medium Priority recommendations – 37

Low Priority recommendations – 7

 

Despite the forces seeming inability to securely retain sensitive personal data, one of the pensioners even took a set of their doctors notes along to the appointment for the SMP to read, but unsurprisingly, the SMP refused to read them.

With this background in mind, what pensioner in their right mind would voluntarily hand over the medical history to a force that clearly had no right to demand it, and had a dreadful history of failing to secure or protect the integrity of sensitive information? It also became clear following numerous correspondence with the force that some medical data that had been submitted to the force was being trawled through the by HR staff, who had no right to do so. This is a serious data protection breach.

Mr Morgan wrote to the pensioners involved with a view to having a meeting. He withdrew from that meeting when the pensioners requested that their legal representative be allowed to attend. Such a strange decision if Mr Morgan was acting in good faith throughout the process.

Despite all the pensioners complying with the letter of the law, the Chief Constable deemed that the pensioners had failed to comply with The Regulations and invoked punitive measures under a different regulation, this being 33, thereby dropping every pensioner that had a physical disability to the lowest band, and those with mental disabilities by one band. Some pensioners have lost over £1,400 per month.

Whilst regulation 33 allows the PPA to make a decision, it has to be made ‘on such evidence and medical advice as they in their discretion think necessary’. NO evidence has been provided by the PPA to support the punitive decision that they’ve made. The decision to reduce still falls under regulation 37(1) where a ‘substantial alteration’ has to be found, and there is no such evidence to support the reductions. Instead, the reductions seemed to follow a pattern rather than looking at each case individually, and the PPA decided that many of the pensioners could perform the same full time role within the force.

With the assistance of IODPA and the Police Federation, the pensioners challenged the decision, which was heard on 15th and 16th July 2020 by Mr Justice Linden in the Administrative Court of England and Wales. His judgment was handed down on 16th September 2020.

You can read a copy of the judgment here –
Goodland, R (On the Application Of) v Chief Constable Of Staffordshire Police [2020] EWHC 2477 (Admin) (16 September 2020)

Unfortunately, the case was lost and the consequence of the judgment provides all police forces the ability to make unrestricted demands from all officers undergoing a review or they may face an incontestable financial penalty without the right of appeal.

We feel as though the judge in this case has ignored all the evidence, that there is no obligation in law for these pensioners to hand over their medical records. Had the judge applied the letter of the law, he would have come to the same conclusion that this is the case. We accept that this may cause a dilemma for the force, but this is for the legislators to resolve.

If this judgment, which we consider as ‘bad law’ is allowed to stand, ALL those in receipt of an injury pension will be at risk in the future, even if your force is not currently reviewing, although we are aware that a number of forces are looking at commencing reviews following this case being eventually finalised.

As a result of this, we have decided that we have no option, but to appeal this decision on behalf of all injured police officers around the UK. We understand that the Police Federation will not be financially supporting this appeal, although we would ask them to please urgently reconsider their position.

To give those in receipt of an injury pension an idea as to what they may lose, if this new ruling is applied across every force in the country we need to look at the impact upon their injury pension. The monetary awards in each band is not linear i.e. a band 4 pension is not exactly four times that of a band 1, but this method of calculation is a pretty good guide.

So if you’re on a band 2, your pension would be reduced by half, if you’re on a band 3, your pension would be reduced by two thirds, and if you’re on a band 4 your pension would be reduced by three quarters.

Now compare that huge reduction each and every month, for the rest of your life, with trying to get this decision overturned?

This ruling may even affect those on band 1 and whose condition worsens, as we believe that they will find it more difficult to secure an increase in their banding. Ironically Staffordshire Police had initially decided not to review those in receipt of a band 1 award. The cynical amongst us would believe that it it not possible to reduce them any further, and therefore it was a pointless exercise. It was apparent that this would have been unlawful not treat everyone with a disability the same, and so the policy changed, and they embarked on reviewing the band 1’s. Strange though it may seem, when Staffordshire wrote to the band 1’s they and asked if there had been any change in their condition, they accepted their word for it, when they said that there was none. However, they wouldn’t accept the word of anyone in bands 2, 3 or 4. Draw your own conclusions.

As a result, we  have launched an appeal to raise £75,000 to cover the legal costs of taking this dreadful decision to appeal.

We have created a donation page, which we would encourage you to use and also, where possible, please indicate, if applicable that we can claim gift aid on your donation, which means that HMRC will give us another 25% on top of what you donate.

The page can be found here – https://iodpa.org/appeal-for-justice/

Please support our appeal, and more importantly please support all those officers that had to leave their much loved career end through no fault of their own. If serving officers were fully aware of the way in which some forces consider their former officers are merely a financial burden, they may think twice before putting themselves in harms way.

Injured Pensioner Wins Court Case Over Back Payment Of Pension

IODPA Admin newsflash, Regulation 33
Injured Pensioner Wins Court Case Over Back Payment Of Pension

IODPA 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).

Staffordshire Police Put The Brakes On

IODPA Admin newsflash, Regulation 33, Review
Staffordshire Police Put The Brakes On

Whoa!!!

— [Anonymous] 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.

Staffordshire – The Story To Date

IODPA Admin Regulation 33, Regulation 37, Review, smp
Staffordshire – The Story To Date

All the things I really like to do are either illegal, immoral, or fattening.

— Alexander Woollcott (1887-1943)

 

Elsewhere on our web site are numerous comments concerning the action taken by Staffordshire Police in reducing the pension payments due to a group of disabled former officers. The comments make clear the feelings engendered in reaction to this dramatic turn of events.

IODPA has refrained from making comment as the issue is undoubtedly going to be subject to prompt legal challenge.

However, we can give an account of what has happened so far.

Officers who are injured on duty to such an extent they can no longer perform the ordinary duties of a constable can be required to retire. They can be awarded a one-off gratuity payment plus a pension, payable for life, as compensation for no-fault injury.

The compensation scheme is governed by The Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006, which is secondary legislation made by a Minister of State under provision of The Police Pensions Act 1976.

The Regulations, specifically regulation 37, allow the question of degree of disablement to be considered from time to time, as appropriate, for it is recognised that the disabling effects of duty injuries may worsen or lessen. If there has been a substantial alteration, then the amount of pension paid can be revised accordingly.

On 26th April 2017 Staffordshire Police commenced a programme intended to review the degrees of disablement of the over 300 former officers who are in receipt of an injury pension.

The programme quickly ran into difficulties as pensioners raised issues questioning the legality of the programme, both in concept and in detail.

A major issue was the insistence of Staffordshire Police that it be allowed full unrestricted access to individual’s medical records, from birth, and to personal financial information.

A number of pensioners refused to give permission, on the grounds that their personal data enjoyed detailed protection under data protection law and that there is nothing in the 2006 Regulations to require a former officer to submit any medical records made by any other doctor to the force or to any doctor employed by the force.

A further concern expressed by some pensioners was that they had no confidence Staffordshire Police was capable of conducting the review process lawfully. The content of various policy and process documents created by Staffordshire Police concerning the review programme arguably contained misinformation and misrepresentation of law.

A number of reviews were held, and the doctor tasked by Staffordshire Police to decide whether there had been any alteration in degree of disablement reported that, in some instances, due to the absence of permission to access medical records, he could not make a decision. The doctor later withdrew himself from any further involvement in the review process.

In December 2017 Staffordshire Police published a letter which sought to apportion all blame on the difficulties being experienced to, ‘a small number of individuals’.

It emerged that in the majority of instances where pensioners had refused unrestricted access to their medical records no decision was made on alteration of degree of disablement, despite it being a requirement of the relevant regulation (regulation 30) that the appointed doctor is referred the question ‘for decision’.

Each of the individuals concerned had attended an appointment arranged by the force with the force’s doctor. They answered all questions which were put to them, and allowed themselves to be medically examined where this was requested. Some provided medical evidence showing there had been no alteration in their degree of disablement. in some cases, the pensioners were recalled within months to attend a second medical examination. Again, they fully complied.

On 26th November 2018, we reported that seventeen pensioners had had their pensions reduced.

This is the letter that was sent out to those who had refused permission for unrestricted access to their medical records. We reproduce a redacted copy of one of those letters here.

 

The letters announce that Staffordshire Police has turned to regulation 33, which it relies on as giving authority to reduce the injury pensions of those who had refused permission for unrestricted access to their medical and access to financial records.

It is worth reproducing regulation 33 here:

Refusal to be medically examined

  1. If a question is referred to a medical authority under regulation 30, 31 or 32 and the person concerned wilfully or negligently fails to submit himself to such medical examination or to attend such interviews as the medical authority may consider necessary in order to enable him to make his decision, then—

(a) if the question arises otherwise than on an appeal to a board of medical referees, the police authority may make their determination on such evidence and medical advice as they in their discretion think necessary;

(b) if the question arises on an appeal to a board of medical referees, the appeal shall be deemed to be withdrawn.

 

The letter indicates that Staffordshire Police has taken the view that it was not enough for the individuals concerned to have submitted themselves to such medical examination as had been arranged for them with the force’s doctor, and to have allowed themselves to be interviewed by the doctor.  Staffordshire Police appears to believe regulation 30 covers access to personal medical and financial information. Staffordshire Police thus claims there has been either a wilful or negligent refusal.

Consequently, a decision has been made by the force to reduce the pensions of the individuals concerned.

Moreover, the reductions are to be back-dated to the time when they saw the force’s doctor.

The letter is essentially identical to each individual. Each letter fails to give any reason or insight into how the decision to reduce the pensions was taken, or on what evidence.

IODPA understands that solicitors have been instructed in challenging this extraordinary action by Staffordshire Police.

We will provide updates as the situation evolves.

Mark Botham Appears In NARPO News

IODPA Admin newsflash, police injury award, regulation 32, Regulation 33, Regulation 37, Review
Mark Botham Appears In NARPO News

The “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

CC Morgan cancelled today’s IOD meeting at Staffordshire Headquarters

IODPA Admin newsflash, Regulation 33
CC Morgan cancelled today’s IOD meeting at Staffordshire Headquarters

We 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/

 

CC Morgan refuses pensioner’s legal representatives to attend a meeting

IODPA Admin Chief Constable, medical records, Regulation 33
CC Morgan refuses pensioner’s legal representatives to attend a meeting

We recently published a letter sent by Chief Constable Morgan of Staffordshire Police to  pensioners in our blog found here – https://iodpa.org/2018/07/13/chief-constable-morgan-sends-letters-to-vulnerable-pensioners/

He invited pensioners who are currently subject to an ongoing review to meet him, so that he may discuss his obligation to make a determination under regulation 33 of The Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006.

Any such determination under Regulation 33 is a legal decision and Mr Ron Thompson of Haven Solicitors who represents a number of the pensioners has quite rightly requested that he and his colleague Mark Botham be allowed to attend the meeting in order to represent his clients best interests.

Mr Morgan has refused to allow the vulnerable pensioner’s legal representatives to attend the meeting on their behalf on the basis that

 

…it was not not my intention for the meeting to be adversarial in any way.

 

We’ve been passed Mr Morgan’s response by one of the pensioners.

 

 

Chief Constable Morgan sends letters to vulnerable pensioners

IODPA Admin Chief Constable, medical records, Regulation 33
Chief Constable Morgan sends letters to vulnerable pensioners

Chief Constable Morgan of Staffordshire Police today sent a letter to former police officers, all of whom are disabled, either mentally or physically.

These pensioners have been under review for a considerable amount of time and have to date fully complied with The Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 which govern them.

They have been sent this letter by Mr Morgan who has given them a week to comply.

Our advice is that these vulnerable and injured pensioners should politely decline his offer.

 

 

Watch out for a more detailed blog on this letter shortly.

Henderson’s Precedent

iodpa caselaw, Pension Ombudsman, pmab, police injury award, Regulation 33
Henderson’s Precedent

“Don’t use the conduct of a fool as a precedent”
The Talmud.

Sometimes you read a decision handed down by an authority and are so appalled by the maladministration which is revealed by the light of justice in action that you miss the obvious.

The 2011 Pension Ombudsman’s decision in Mr Henderson’s complaint is one such example. North Yorkshire Police Authority (NYPA) had foisted upon this poor medically retired police officer a level of injustice concerning his pension such that anyone with a grain of common sense would have recognised as the actions of fools.

(Note that, in another example of foolishness, when the old Police Authorities were scrapped, the Government decided that each Chief Constable should be the police pension authority. In other words, they now not only are the injury pension scheme managers, but are also supposed to be their own oversight agency. Given that many of them have not a clue about the Regulations, and nor do their so-called professional HR people, it is no wonder that NYPA could make such an almighty cock-up – and then not even have the good grace to put things right without the need for the directions of the Pensions Ombudsman.)

Download: Mr M Henderson V North Yorkshire Police Authority (NYP)
View:
(if it fails to open in google docs, try again.  It will work eventually!		 Mr M Henderson V North Yorkshire Police Authority (NYP)

Mr Henderson was retired in 1991, following an assessment by a Dr Givans of permanent disability caused by,

‘. . . problems [that] consist of pain and stiffness in the left knee and right hip with associated weakness of the legs’.

He was awarded an injury pension on band four – the highest level, which is described in the Regulations as, ‘very severe disablement.’

Mr Henderson’s degree of disablement was reviewed in 1993, when it was decided there was no change to his circumstances.  Some fourteen years passed, during which time Mr Henderson struggled on with no ability to work and earn, then, in 2007 he was reviewed for a second time. NYPA performed a complete reversal from the 1993 review and this time, for reasons unknown, thought he could be a personal security co-ordinator, a scrutiny officer or a rent recovery officer.  This is someone who had been a band four for 16 years.

His injury pension was reduced by NYPA from a band four to a band two. We can only imagine the huge shock and upset this must have caused the poor man, who had never been fit to work since leaving the police.

He appealed, but, amazingly, the PMAB magnified his torture by reducing him further from a band two to a 0% band one.  The (cough) ‘wisdom’ of the PMAB was they thought Mr Henderson’s right hip problem was not related to the injury on duty.

So far, so bad.

Mr Henderson turned to the Pensions Ombudsman for some sane insight into the situation.

Fortunately, (and inevitably) the PO upheld Mr Henderson’s complaint and found against both the PMAB and NYPA. The PO directed that North Yorkshire Police Authority had to refer Mr Henderson’s case back to the PMAB for review and to make it clear to the PMAB what it was to consider.

The PO concluded that:

‘[NYPA had unlawfully] invited the PMAB to reconsider the original decision and expressed its concerns about Dr Givans’ decision’

As readers of our pages will know, it is, and always has been, unlawful to revisit any final decision on the cause of disablement when conducting a review of degree of disablement. NYPA and the PMAB were apparently blithely unaware of this. So much for professionalism. Or is it that neither actually cared a damn, and just did what they wanted to do, regardless of the law?

Before we jump ahead and talk about an important implication of the PO’s decision, we need to have a crash course about some legalese.  Hold on though as the punchline will be worth it.

The legal doctrine of precedent has a Latin term: stare decisis – ‘standing of previous decisions’ as the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent.  It means that Judges must follow past decisions to ensure certainty.

William Blackstone (English jurist, judge and Tory politician of the eighteenth century) opined that judges do not create or change laws. The law has always been that way and the Judge’s role is to discover and declare the true meaning.  Since it is discovered by the Judge that the law has always existed in the way he or she rules then this means that case law operates retrospectively.

There is a hierarchy of precedent that starts from the Supreme Court, goes down through the Court of Appeal, High Court, Crown Court, County Court all the way to Magistrates and tribunals.

Obiter dictum translates to “said in passing” and this exists in the doctrine of precedent covering decisions by legal authority lower in the hierarchy than the Courts themselves.

In legal-speak the Pension Ombudsman is a ‘persuasive authority’.  In plain language this means that, although a PO decision is final and binding on both parties (and an appeal of a determination of the Pensions Ombudsman can only be lodged at the High Court on points of law or questions of fact), the decision does not set a definitive precedent onto judgements made by a higher court.

But, as a persuasive authority, any given PO decision is one which any higher the court can, and will, consider and may be persuaded by it.

It is also a decision which any police pension authority, and any PMAB ought to take due notice of, as to act contrary to it is sure to attract challenge and appeal.

Now we have talked about the persuasive precedent of the PO, let us return to the decision made in Mr Henderson’s case.

In the conclusion of the decision the Ombudsman stated this:

NYPA shall refer Mr Henderson’s case back to the PMAB for review and make it clear to the PMAB what it is to consider. NYPA shall restore Mr Henderson’s injury benefit to its previous rate until such time as a final decision is reached.

The PO decided the decision of the PMAB would be quashed.  It must be readdressed – this time correctly – and no reduction to rate of injury benefit shall occur until it is all over.

In other words, until there is finality – until all appeal avenues have been exhausted – the injury award of Mr Henderson must not be altered.

Persuasive precedent.

Bully boy tactics by civilian so-called medical retirement officers, director of resources or other such non-medical technocrats should please take very careful note of the PO’s conclusions in the Henderson case.

Such people have been known, with intent fuelled by self-interest, to casually make unlawful threats to disabled former officers of suspension of their injury award or punitive reduction to a band one.

These threats are made just because there is no capitulation to their wrongful orders for disclosure of medical records since birth or non-completion of an odious and irrelevant questionnaire asking for sensitive personal information which no PPA has a right to demand.

They need to be reminded that not only does Regulation 33 not apply in such circumstances (decision upon the available evidence if there is a failure to attend a medical examination), but the PO has made it very clear that any reduction in pension payment, whether made lawfully or not,  has to be suspended until all avenues of appeal are exhausted.

It rather takes the wind out the sails of their threat doesn’t it?

PPAs and their HR managers – and compliant (‘Show me the money’) SMPs should take note that if the sanction of reduction of pension has been performed without any medical evidence an appeal is clearly inevitable.

Taking the precedent to it’s logical conclusion, any punitive unlawful threat to ‘do this, or else!’ is meaningless.  All that is being achieved is to take the decision out of the hands of the police pension authority and into the remit of an appeal.  The reduction can not be enforced until the appeal process has finalised.

It seems to us in IODPA that the system is well and truly broken. Chief Constables and their staff lack the necessary expertise to understand the Regulations. In some areas, they see injury pensions as a drain on resources, so throw their PPA hat into the bin and clap on their ‘I’m concerned about the budget’ hat and set about scheming how they can manipulate the review process so as to reduce injury pensions.

PMABs, if anything, are worse. They are a panel of medical professionals whose knowledge of the Regulations is based on out of date Home Office guidance, which has no legal authority and which has been roundly discredited by the Courts. They struggle with the niceties of legal protocol. To them the rules of precedent are a dark pool into which they prefer not to venture.

So, PPAs, PMABs, HR types, SMPs and all the other acronymic twerps who are currently the bane of the lives of disabled former police officers continue to act according to their own vacuous precedents, rather than to legal precedent. They keep on repeating, and elaborating on, their own woeful mistakes.

They are truly fools, one and all.

 

 

 

 

Project Fear

iodpa medical records, morale, Regulation 33, Regulation 37, Review
Project Fear

“never to admit a fault or wrong; never to accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time; blame that enemy for everything that goes wrong; take advantage of every opportunity to raise a political whirlwind”
– page 219 Analysis of the Personality of Adolph Hitler: With Predictions of His Future Behaviour and Suggestions for Dealing with Him Now and After Germany’s Surrender, by Henry A. Murray, October 1943

Merseyside’s Project Fear has evolved into Project Threat.  We’ve tried to point them onto a righteous path but they  still do not understand that they cannot threaten to remove an injury award just on the basis of whether or not a questionnaire is completed.

Let us be quite clear for the umpteenth time.  There is no power to punitively revoke an injury award.

Regulation 33 of the Police (Injury) Benefit Regulations states that if there is a negligent or wilful refusal to be medically examined then a decision can be made on the available evidence.   It does not say an award can be taken away as punishment.  In any case this  does NOT apply  to Regulation 37(1) — Reassessment of injury pension — so far as it relates to the statutory duty  placed upon a police pension authority to ‘consider’ whether there has been substantial alteration after a suitable interval.

Only after the police pension authority having considered whether the degree of the pensioners disablement has altered, and a suitable interval has occurred, it MUST then and only then refer the statutory medical question under Regulation 30 (2) (d) –  degree of disablement -to an SMP and, a result, it is only then that Regulation 33 can feasible ever apply.

This is an extract from a threatening letter being sent out to disabled former police officers written by Chief Superintendent Chris Markey, who evidently has never read the Regulations in his life.

remove award

The obvious reply to such a threat is to ask ‘under what power will you use to suspend my injury award?’.    Chief Superintendent Markey would not be able to answer this without either by telling the truth and admitting there is no power or without lying by saying there is and the Regulations permit him to do this (which if you are still in doubt – they don’t). Why would a senior officer debase himself this way?  Would he tell an untruth in a criminal investigation to get what he wants?

The questionnaire is a work of pure villainy.

Such guff deserves an appropriate response:

Dear Chief SuperNintendo Markey

I recently received a letter from you. Every two years or so I get one. This one suggested that there was an urgent requirement to address the problem of my lack of a questionnaire.

I am sorry, but after all these years my medical condition has not changed, and now I have run out of patience. I understand your need to ensure that people who have an injury award should be considered if there has been substantial change to see if the correct band is being paid, but as someone who never receives a nice and pleasant letter from you just asking ‘how I am and can you help’, I think it’s time you cut me some slack.

I think this and the tone of your letter, and threats of taking my award away, and suggestion that in some way I am a liar is what finally got my goat (I do not actually have a goat either. This is an expression in common usage, although even if I did have a goat I do not believe this amounts to substantial change.)

The questionnaire that you demand of me is rather confusing.  You first ask what my injury is.  Don’t you know?  This seems rather strange.  If you need me to explain it then something is amiss already.

If I answer NO to question 2 and declare that there has been no change then is this farce then over?  Surely you can’t send me to see a SMP if there there  has been no change.  The ‘review’ for all it’s purposes is in effect over.  Or won’t you believe me?

You then ask me to declare medical interventions.  Have you not heard of Chatham House rules? or more colloquially:  What is said to my doctor stays with my doctor.  Putting confidential medical information on a questionnaire that can be read by all and sundry does not seem to the correct way to process personal and confidential information.  The Data Protection Act can be very serious when it comes to medical information.

Throughout the questionnaire you jump from reference to  reference.   Does “your condition” reference back to the “medical condition” referred to at question 1?  Are you surreptitiously trying to determine apportionment in a review!?  Don’t you know you can only consider the degree of disablement.  I hope you aren’t already trying to declare that an unrelated medical condition has overtaken the index injury – in a tatty questionnaire.  Oooh! you are awful!

You then jump to the term “disability”.  Does that phrase simply refer back to the “medical condition” or is it meant to encompass something broader?  If so, what?  You are like a jumping bean, all over the place.

Out of interest have you ever seen the ESA50 form used by the government?  This is to do with applying and reapply for a benefit.  As you know an injury award isn’t a benefit – it is an award for life and the last decision made by the medical authority is final.  But the point is in the ESA50 they don’t just use YES/NO like you’ve done.  They have a ‘it varies’ option.  This is much nicer.  Can I suggest you add it for next time?

I am very puzzled with precisely what way my current ability to drive or ride a motor vehicle or use sporting equipment is relevant to the questions falling for consideration under the Regulations?  I would love it if you could explain this to me.

In like terms, please clarify the relevance of any current annual salary  to the relevant issue for consideration under the Regulations?

At this point I need you to post to me the last questionnaire I filled in and sent you. I can’t remember ever doing this but I may be mistaken.

I would like to see the answers I put. You must have a copy – how else can you compare what I’ve written then to what I might write now?  I do hope you have a copy.  Otherwise this might all be a fresh assessment. And that will be a very naughty thing to do.

Is the question of salary limited to income earned from employment or self-employment or is it meant to encompass income from any source (such as investments)?  This puzzles me. I’ve read and reread the Regulations and can’t see anywhere, anything that gives you authority to be entitled to that information, and how it touches upon the relevant statutory question.

My Great Aunt Bessy died last year (god bless her) and she bequeathed me her house.  I now rent this out.  I can’t see how this affects my capacity to earn.  Sure the rental income is income, but it isn’t earned income.  Could you please help me out with this sticky problem?

As you can see Chief SuperNintendo Markey I do have loads of questions.  I herewith give you 21 days to reply.  If you fail to reply I may take action to suspend any doubt that you are an idiot.

This is not an action that I would usually wish to take

Yours Sincerely and with love

XX