27th November 2010
For the attention of:
The Chief Executive
Northamptonshire Police Authority
Copy to: Chief Constable
Request for reconsideration of the PMAB’s final decision
Regulation 32 (2) of the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006
Appealing PMAB decision use para 1
1. On [ INSERT DATE] a Police Medical Appeal Board heard my appeal
against the medical opinion of the SMP, concerning the statutory review of the
degree of my disablement. I have now became aware of facts suggesting that
the PMAB may have erred in Law, and as such I hereby formally request a
reconsideration of that decision under Regulation 32(2) of the Police (Injury
Benefit) Regulations 2006.
Appealing SMP decision use para 2.
2. Alternative to para 1 On [INSERT DATE] a Selected Medical Practitioner
(SMP) decided the degree of my disablement. I have now became aware of
facts suggesting that the SMP may have erred in Law, and as such I hereby
formally request a reconsideration of that decision under Regulation 32(2) of
the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006.
Paragraph 23 of Section 1 of the Home Office Guidance on Police Medical
Appeals clarifies the application of Regulation 32 (2) of the Police (Injury
Benefit) Regulations 2006. It advised as follows, “Internal Review of a
medical decision - Both the decision of the SMP, if no appeal has been heard,
and the decision of the appeal board may be referred back to the medical
authority which took it by agreement between the officer and the police
authority. Such a procedure will normally be followed where there is a
reasonable prospect that further consideration of the issues will resolve
the matter without need for an appeal hearing in the case of an SMP’s
decision or need for Judicial Review in the case of an appeal board’s
decision. Where the medical authority which took the decision is unwilling or
unable to review it, the officer and police authority may agree to refer the
issue to another SMP or board, as the case may be.”
The purpose of this letter is to make application that the Chief Constable, as
the delegate of the police authority agrees to the SMP/PMAB reconsidering
its report in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 32(2) of the Police
(Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006.
Since that date 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 Ombudsman’s determination in the case of AYRE and Humberside
Police Authority. These cases have further clarified that the PMAB erred in
law when the SMP determined my assessment on the XXXXXXXXXX
The decision in the Laws Court of appeal case further confirms the way in
which a proper IOD Review should be conducted, and it is our case that the
reviews carried out for those listed upon the Schedule were not carried out in
accordance with the Regulations.
Circular 46/2004 has been very strongly discredited as a basis for carrying out
the IOD reviews, and I hope that if a review of my IOD award is to proceed
then the review will be carried out in accordance with the Police (injury
Benefit) Regulations 2006, and not any Home Office Guidance.
It is certainly not right to elevate the status of Home Office Guidance to that of
law, that approach is clearly wrong.
We therefore ask whether or not you are prepared to simply reinstate the
officers to their previous bandings, and backdate the difference in payments
between Band 1 to their original Banding prior to the unlawful review taking
It does seem to us that merely carrying out a 32(2) reconsideration would be a
paper exercise, and one that, if conducted correctly, could lead to significant
savings in legal costs, as opposed to progressing towards a Judicial review.
I would be grateful if you could arrange for me to be provided with a full
response to this further application, with full reasons for any decision, within
14 working days of the date of this letter so that, if appropriate, an application
for a Judicial Review can be made.