Regulation 24(2) Police Regulations 2003

William Old made this Freedom of Information request to Thames Valley Police

The request was successful.

From: William Old

6 February 2009

Dear Sir or Madam,

My enquiry relates to your force policy for the situation where an
officer has been “temporarily promoted” to a higher rank (i.e. is
not “acting-up”, thereby receiving a “temporary salary” as provided
for in Annex I to Regulation 27 of the Police Regulations 2003),
has in due course reverted to his or her substantive rank, and has
subsequently been promoted again (whether substantively or again
only temporarily).

My request is for:

(a) any force policy or procedure document from which it would be
determined whether such an officer’s salary would take account of
that previous period in the higher rank – in accordance with
Reg.24(2) – or would alternatively be re-started back at the lowest
salary scale point for the higher rank, at the commencement of each
and every period of service in that higher rank; and...

(b) any force policy or procedure document that reported,
considered or reviewed the implications of the decision in Gill v
Chief Constable of Merseyside [Liverpool County Court, judgement
given on 28 August 2007], in which unequivocal judgement was given
against Merseyside Police by HH Judge Platts because the latter
procedure (as referred to above) is unlawful and does not comply
with Regulation 24(2).

Yours faithfully,

William Old

Link to this

From: Information
Thames Valley Police

18 February 2009

Dear Mr Old

Reference No: RFI2009000133

Thank you for your request for information dated 06/02/2009 concerning
force policy or procedure documents relating to Reg.24(2).

This request will be dealt with under the terms of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.

Your request will now be considered and you will receive a response
within the statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act,
subject to the information not being exempt or containing a reference to
a third party. In some circumstances Thames Valley Police may be unable
to achieve this deadline. If this is likely you will be informed and
given a revised time-scale at the earliest opportunity.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your interest in
Thames Valley Police.

Yours sincerely,

M Hopgood
Freedom of Information Officer

Thames Valley Police Currently use the Microsoft Office 2002 suite of applications. Please be aware of this if you intend to include an attachment with your email. This communication contains information which is confidential and may also be privileged. Any views or opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of Thames Valley Police. It is for the exclusive use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s) please note that any form of distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error please forward a copy to: [email address] and to the sender. Please then delete the e-mail and destroy any copies of it. Thank you..

Link to this

From: William Old

7 March 2009

Dear Information,

I note that Thames Valley Police has failed to comply with its
statutory responsibilities under the Act, and I will now write to
the Information Commissioner to inform him of your failure to
comply and for a ruling on any enforcement action necessary as a
consequence.

Yours sincerely,

William Old

Link to this

From: Information
Thames Valley Police

10 March 2009

Dear Mr Old

Reference No: RFI2009000133

Thank you for your request for information dated 06/02/2009 concerning:

(a) any force policy or procedure document from which it would be
determined whether such an officer's salary would take account of
that previous period in the higher rank - in accordance with
Reg.24(2) - or would alternatively be re-started back at the lowest
salary scale point for the higher rank, at the commencement of each
and every period of service in that higher rank; and...

(b) any force policy or procedure document that reported,
considered or reviewed the implications of the decision in Gill v
Chief Constable of Merseyside [Liverpool County Court, judgement
given on 28 August 2007], in which unequivocal judgement was given
against Merseyside Police by HH Judge Platts because the latter
procedure (as referred to above) is unlawful and does not comply
with Regulation 24(2).

Your request for information has now been considered and I regret to
inform you that searches failed to locate any records or documents
relevant to your request based on the information you have provided.
Accordingly, I have determined that the information to which you seek
access is not held by Thames Valley Police.

However to assist you in this matter I have provided below a link to the
Police Negotiating Board website which publishes a circular to Acting
up, Temporary Promotion and CRTP and Pension arrangements.

http://www.lge.gov.uk/lge/aio/413360

Please contact me quoting the above reference number if you would like
to discuss this matter further and may I take this opportunity to thank
you for your interest in Thames Valley Police.

Yours sincerely,

M Hopgood
Freedom of Information Officer

Thames Valley Police Currently use the Microsoft Office 2002 suite of applications. Please be aware of this if you intend to include an attachment with your email. This communication contains information which is confidential and may also be privileged. Any views or opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of Thames Valley Police. It is for the exclusive use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s) please note that any form of distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error please forward a copy to: [email address] and to the sender. Please then delete the e-mail and destroy any copies of it. Thank you.

Link to this

From: William Old

10 March 2009

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews. I am writing to request an internal review of
Thames Valley Police's handling of my FOI request 'Regulation 24(2)
Police Regulations 2003'.

Firstly, the PNB Circular to which you refer in your response was
agreed by PNB at its meeting in February 2008, when the only item
of disagreement was the very issue that gives rise to my FoI
request (para.14 of the draft Agreement), and which remains
outstanding. The issue is therefore NOT addressed in the PNB
Agreement that you quote.

In May 2006, of the 43 forces in England & Wales, 30 were known to
comply fully with the requirements of Regulation 24(2). 11 (of
which Thames Valley Police was one) were known NOT to comply with
this Regulation, in that they refused to take previous service in a
higher rank (as the consequence of
temporary promotion under Annex J to Regulation 27) into account
for pay purposes on subsequent promotion (whether substantively, or
again temporarily), because of a minority interpretation of
Regulation 24(2). The other two forces refused to provide the
information sought, and both were therefore counted as failing to
comply with Regulation 24(2).

Since then, the unequivocal decision of HH Judge Platts (in the
case referred to in the second part of my request) has demonstrated
that the minority forces are erring in law, and liable to legal
proceedings (claims for unpaid salary) by any officers affected by
their force's unlawful policy. One of the forces that previously
refused to provide the requested information has since confirmed
that they do in fact comply, and of the 11 non-compliant forces, 4
have since acknowledged that their policies were unlawful and
reversed their positions.

This leaves 7 non-compliant forces, of which your force is believed
to be one, unless your force policy has changed since 2006. Given
that your force must possess some sort of guidance document that
sets out the necessary action by payroll staff when an officer
(with previous temporary service in a higher rank) is promoted,
that guidance - by definition - falls into the scope of my request.

You appear to have responded to the second part of my request, and
I will interpret your response as confirmation that Thames Valley
Police has never considered the implications of Gill v CC
Merseyside, highly relevant if any of your officers are affected by
your non-compliance with Reg 24(2) and pursue legal claims
accordingly.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/re...

Yours sincerely,

William Old

Link to this

From: Information
Thames Valley Police

16 March 2009

Dear Mr Old

Reference No: IR2009000005

I acknowledge receipt of your email dated 10th March 2009 requesting
that Thames Valley Police review its response to your request for
information concerning Force policy or procedure documents relating to
Reg.24(2).

The review will be conducted in accordance to Thames Valley Police's
review procedure and every effort will be made to have a response to you
by the 10th June 2009. However, if it becomes clear that the review
will not be completed by this date you will be contacted.

If you wish to discuss this matter prior to Thames Valley Police's
response please contact me.

Yours sincerely,

M Hopgood
Freedom of Information Officer

Thames Valley Police Currently use the Microsoft Office 2002 suite of applications. Please be aware of this if you intend to include an attachment with your email. This communication contains information which is confidential and may also be privileged. Any views or opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of Thames Valley Police. It is for the exclusive use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s) please note that any form of distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error please forward a copy to: [email address] and to the sender. Please then delete the e-mail and destroy any copies of it. Thank you..

Link to this

From: FOI
Thames Valley Police

28 May 2009

Attachment IR2009000005 2 R17 Internal Review Response 1.pdf
34K Download View as HTML

Dear Mr Old

Please find attached our response to your request for an internal review

M Hopgood

Freedom of Information Officer

<font bgcolor

Link to this

From: William Old

28 May 2009

Dear Chief Inspector Dunne,

Thank you for the result of the internal review, which confirms
that, although Thames Valley Police was not compliant with
Reg.24(2) in May 2007, your custom and practice has been reversed
since that time, and that the force is now compliant. This means
that any affected officers can now lodge claims for salary arrears
accordingly.

Yours sincerely,

William Old

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
Thames Valley Police only: