Disproportionate Effect of Low Banding .
The way Injury Pensions are calculated depends on a number of factors summarised in the chart below. It can be seen that a reduction to the lowest band will have a disproportionate and significant effect on the incomes of those former officers who were injured and retired early in their service.
When the forces which adopted the now outlawed and unlawful guidance suggested in Home Office Circular 46/2004 and reduced their IOD pensions to the lowest banding, it had a particularly serious effect on those former officers who had suffered permanent injuries when they were early in service. In these cases, the officer would not have accrued sufficient service to provide a 'normal' police pension and the total pension including the IOD award would have been already at modest levels.
Thus, in these cases, the level of IOD pension is extremely important.:
The ex officer has lost their police career through injury.
The ex officer is therefore unable to accrue a 'normal' police pension.
Permanent injury means that the injury will affect the officer for the rest of their lives and will undoubtedly have an impact on their work related capability.
It is very likely to adversley affect their ability to build up a further occupational pension after retiring from the police.
Where the officer was forced to retire many years ago, the pay levels would have been much lower thatn present day pay. Although index linked, the pension will not reflect the true cost of living increases over the years and does not benefit from pay awards in the intervening years.
In these situations, because of the way the the banding system works, reduction to band one would have a disproportionate effect compared with those who had retired later in service. This was recognised in HOC46/2004 as follows:
"It seems to us that whereas it is reasonable for most cases to be reviewed at the compulsory retirement age stage, not all such cases need to be reviewed again at age 65. A police authority would, after concluding the review at compulsory retirement age, be entitled to judge it reasonable not to review a case further where the injury award is already small. This will normally be the case with former officers who were retired injured early in their career. "
It appears that very few police forces took any notice and reduced this particularly vulnerable group of pensioners to the lowest level regardless of the consequences.
Furthermore, as police officers we would have been 'contracted out' and would therefore be entitled to the basic state pension at state retirement age. Contacting out benefited the employer with lower National Insurance contributions and this was a mitigated by the provision of a 'Minimum Income Guarantee'. However, in the case of IOD pensions the MIG appears to be worthless – as described in Annex C of HOC46/2004:-
"We do not think we can create a specific "minimum" minimum income guarantee under the Police Pensions Regulations in their present form. Each case will have to be considered on the basis of its individual circumstances."
HOC46/2004 may have been unlawful but the die has been cast and forces will still try to gain pecuniary advantage at the expense of their most vulnerable pensioners.
The way Injury Pensions are calculated depends on a number of factors summarised in the chart below. It can be seen that a reduction to the lowest band will have a disproportionate and significant effect on the incomes of those former officers who were injured and retired early in their service.
When the forces which adopted the now outlawed and unlawful guidance suggested in Home Office Circular 46/2004 and reduced their IOD pensions to the lowest banding, it had a particularly serious effect on those former officers who had suffered permanent injuries when they were early in service. In these cases, the officer would not have accrued sufficient service to provide a 'normal' police pension and the total pension including the IOD award would have been already at modest levels.
Thus, in these cases, the level of IOD pension is extremely important.:
The ex officer has lost their police career through injury.
The ex officer is therefore unable to accrue a 'normal' police pension.
Permanent injury means that the injury will affect the officer for the rest of their lives and will undoubtedly have an impact on their work related capability.
It is very likely to adversley affect their ability to build up a further occupational pension after retiring from the police.
Where the officer was forced to retire many years ago, the pay levels would have been much lower thatn present day pay. Although index linked, the pension will not reflect the true cost of living increases over the years and does not benefit from pay awards in the intervening years.
In these situations, because of the way the the banding system works, reduction to band one would have a disproportionate effect compared with those who had retired later in service. This was recognised in HOC46/2004 as follows:
"It seems to us that whereas it is reasonable for most cases to be reviewed at the compulsory retirement age stage, not all such cases need to be reviewed again at age 65. A police authority would, after concluding the review at compulsory retirement age, be entitled to judge it reasonable not to review a case further where the injury award is already small. This will normally be the case with former officers who were retired injured early in their career. "
It appears that very few police forces took any notice and reduced this particularly vulnerable group of pensioners to the lowest level regardless of the consequences.
Furthermore, as police officers we would have been 'contracted out' and would therefore be entitled to the basic state pension at state retirement age. Contacting out benefited the employer with lower National Insurance contributions and this was a mitigated by the provision of a 'Minimum Income Guarantee'. However, in the case of IOD pensions the MIG appears to be worthless – as described in Annex C of HOC46/2004:-
"We do not think we can create a specific "minimum" minimum income guarantee under the Police Pensions Regulations in their present form. Each case will have to be considered on the basis of its individual circumstances."
HOC46/2004 may have been unlawful but the die has been cast and forces will still try to gain pecuniary advantage at the expense of their most vulnerable pensioners.
