Police Injury Pensions Reviews Request For a Reconsideration of the SMP's Decision

Below is a suggested outline letter for use by police injury pensioners. Any disabled former officer who has suffered a review that resulted in an apparently unlawful reduction in the degree of disablement has various ways of contesting the decision. Unfortunately, there is a time limit on initiating an appeal to a Police Medical Appeal Board, and for requesting a Judicial Review. A complaint to the Pensions Ombudsman must normally be made within three years, and will usually only be accepted for investigation after a two-stage Internal Resolution Procedure has been completed with no satisfactory resolution. There is no time limit on making a request under Regulation 32-(2) of the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 for a reconsideration of the decision of the SMP. The Police Authority and the pensioner must both agree to a reconsideration, but the PA would need to have a very good reason to refuse. A growing number of injury pensioners, in several force areas, have used Regulation 32-(2) with complete success. For Police Authorities, a reconsideration is a fast and inexpensive way of putting right any error by the SMP. Any comments on the letter, or reports by pensioners using Regulation 32-(2) would be gratefully received at atebion2me[AT]gmail.com

Former officers in receipt of an injury pension may wish to know that help, advice and practical assistance is available to them. A web site has been set up as a contact point for former Police Officers who have had to retire prematurely owing to injuries received in the performance of their duties and are now facing significant reductions in their injury pensions following the introduction of advice contained in Home Office Circular 46/2004. This is unfair and is a betrayal of people injured, through no fault of their own doing a valuable and essential service. Many former officers have suffered stress, financial uncertainty and maladministration. Forces and Police Authorities have been reluctant to admit any wrongdoing and are slow to move to correct the situation. There is no need for anyone to face and fight this injustice on their own. Go to www.pipin.org.uk - it is free, friendly and informal. Note: PIPIN is complementary to but completely independent from NARPO and the Federation but it recognises and applauds the sterling work done by those organisations.

[Your Address] [Contact Details] [Date] The Chief Executive [Insert Your Local] Police Authority [Address] Copy to: Chief Constable

Dear [Name] Regulation 32-2) of the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 Request for reconsideration of the SMP's decision

On [Date] a Selected Medical Practitioner (SMP) decided the degree of my disablement had substantially altered and my injury pension was revised accordingly. I have now became aware of facts suggesting that the SMP may have erred in Law, and I therefore formally request a reconsideration of that decision under Regulation 32-(2) of the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006. Regulation 32-(2) states: 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, or as the case may be it, for reconsideration, and he, or as the case may be it, shall accordingly reconsider his, or as the case may be its, decision and, if necessary, issue a fresh report, which, subject to any further reconsideration under this paragraph or paragraph (1) or an appeal, where the claimant requests that an appeal of which he has given notice (before referral of the decision under this paragraph) be notified to the Secretary of State, under regulation 31, shall be final. A reconsideration will have, I believe, a reasonable prospect of resolving the issue without need for further action such as an Internal Dispute Resolution Procedure or a complaint to the Pensions Ombudsman. I note that the Home Office has advised that where the SMP who made the decision is unable or unwilling to review it, the former officer and police authority may agree to refer the issue to another SMP. I also note that there is no limitation on time within which a request for a reconsideration need be made.

Home Office Circular 46/2004 has been very strongly discredited as a basis for carrying out reviews, and you will be aware that legal authority has made it clear that Home Office guidance cannot override the Regulations. There have been a number of cases determined in the Administrative Court which have clarified the injury pension re-assessment process, not least the cases of POLLARD and TURNER and also in the Pensions Ombudsmans determination in the case of AYRE and Humberside Police Authority. The decision in the LAWS Court of appeal case further confirms the way in which a proper review of a police injury pension should be conducted, and it is my contention that the review conducted on my degree of disablement was not carried out in accordance with the Regulations. You will be aware that High Court and Appeal Court cases are universally binding. Determinations by the Pensions Ombudsman are binding on the parties concerned but should be taken as indicative. Finally, I would point out that although the Home Office advised, in a letter dated March 2010, that all reviews be suspended it placed no such restriction on Regulation 32-(2) reconsiderations. I would be grateful if you could arrange for me to be provided with a full response to this request, with full reasons for any decision, within 14 working days of the date of this letter.

Yours faithfully