Injury on Duty Pensions and Sec. 61 Equality Act 2010.

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Injury on Duty Pensions and Sec. 61 Equality Act 2010.

Post by Beachcomber on Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:08 am

Employment Judge Rules That The Equality Act Applies To Injury Awards

More on this from IODPA...

The Judgement

The result of this judgement is that Section 61 of the Equality Act 2010 applies to Injury on Duty pensions and the immediate consequence is that Section 61 is a gateway that allows discriminatory action to challenged in an Employment Tribunal, when it occurs in the administration of injury awards.

Section 61 Equality Act 2010

The claim can now proceed to full trial. If Northumbria appeal the preliminary judgement then it will be heard before an Employment Appeals Tribunal and become a stated case.

avatar
Beachcomber
Admin

Posts : 161
Join date : 2015-01-22

http://www.pipin.org.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Injury on Duty Pensions and Sec. 61 Equality Act 2010.

Post by Beachcomber on Tue Oct 24, 2017 7:22 am

That word 'vexatious' has cropped up quite a lot with regard to IOD issues, The latest use of the word is in the Curry case which establishes that Section 61 of the Equality Act 2010 applies to the administration of IOD pensions. In this case Northumbria failed to strike out the claim party on the basis that it is 'scandalous or vexatious'.

Defination:
 vexatious
adjective

1. causing or tending to cause annoyance, frustration, or worry.
Synonymsof vexatiousabrasive, aggravating, bothersome, carking, chafing, disturbing, exasperating, frustrating, galling, irksome, irritating, maddening, nettlesome, nettling, peeving, pesky, pestiferous, pestilent, pestilential rankling, rebarbative, riling, annoying, vexing

2. LAW
denoting an action or the bringer of an action that is brought without sufficient grounds for winning, purely to cause annoyance to the defendan
t.

Some of our forces will undoubtedly apply these terms to our opposition to their attempts to cut our IOD pensions.  Our PPA's have introduced policies that they expect us to accept, even though they are seriously flawed, badly administered and treat us with arrogant disdain.  They work on the assumption that we  because they have authority, their course of action must be right. If that is indeed the case, then it follows that any challenge will be aggravating, bothersome frustrating etc. to them.  Therefore it follows further that sny challenge must be vexatious or frivolous and we have seen how one force solicitor was once quoted as saying that an appeal had no chance of success and therefore the claim was 'frivolous or vexatious'. This was a blatant attempt to intimidate pensioners into not appealing.

As police officers we are all very familiar with dealing with frivolous or vexatious complaints in the course of our duties. As we all know,  although it might be bothersome, frustrating or irritating, on many occasions the complaint is quite genuine and that it may be irksome or irritating doesn't obstruct access to the appropriate legal process.

In the reality, although the PPA's and their predecessors have tried to dismiss or deflect our opposition, we have had huge success and IOD policies have resulted in many finding of maladministration and unlawful conduct which should indicate to the PPA's that they might just be doing something wrong. But no, they carry on with more of the same. The administration of IOD pensions has not been the finest hour for those authorities who have been intent on reducing our IOD pensions.

A great many IOD's complain that they have been treated badly by the system, It is not just those who make the policy but HR people and SMP's who, of all people, should know better. IOD's report  unnecessary demands for information, threats to remove IOD pensions if their demands are not met – demands which have no basis in the Regulations. There are often complaints of offhand, rude or offensive SMP's and all too often it is clear that the SMP's are biased in favour of the PPA. Forces and their minions attempt to intimidate and harass pensioners, many of whom are vulnerable and there are many cases where health has been adversely affected. The situation is such that IOD's do not expect fair treatment and there has been little that we could do, other than  follow the correct procedures through PMAB and then process in the Administrative Court or through the Pensions Ombudsman.  IDRP procedures have produced little satisfaction for aggrieved IOD's and as these procedures are not independent and operated 'in house' by the same organisation that is the cause of the problem, it is quite clear that decisions are weighted against the pensioner and hence we cannot have any confidence in the system.

But this latest case changes things somewhat. It has been ruled that Sec. 61 of the Equality Act 2010 applies to IOD pensions.

Section 61 relates to a Non-Discrimination Rule and provides protection from such things as harassment and victimisation and it is clear that, PPA's will have to change – However, I don't think many of us expect to see a change in the attitudes of those involved with the administration of IOD pensions and we can expect to see frequent use Sec. 61.
Section 61 Equality Act 2010
avatar
Beachcomber
Admin

Posts : 161
Join date : 2015-01-22

http://www.pipin.org.uk

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum