This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'Special Service Info'.


 
 
 Security Classification:  
 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED 
 Disclosable under FOIA 2000: 
 Yes  
 
 
 
Association of Chief Police Officer of England, 
Wales & Northern Ireland 
 
 

 
PAYING THE BILL 2 
 
ACPO/APA GUIDANCE ON CHARGING 
FOR POLICE SERVICES 
 
 
 
Status: 

This ACPO/APA guidance which provides 
comprehensive advice on cost recovery in respect of 
policing events common to most forces has been 
developed by the Finance & Resources Business Area 
and has been approved by ACPO Cabinet on the 7th 
July 2010. This guidance is fully disclosable under the 
Freedom of Information Act 2000 and has been 
registered and audited in line with ACPO requirements 
and is subject to copyright laws. 
 
 
 
Implementation 
Date: 

   
June 2010
 
 
Review Date: 
 
June 2011
 
 
 
Copyright © 2010.  All rights reserved.  Association of Chief Police Officers of 
 
England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Registered number: 344583: 10 
 
Victoria Street, London. SW1H 0NN.
 
 

v.27 
1

 
Foreword 
 
There are many competing demands on police resources and it is important that 
managers recognise that meeting those demands often has a significant cost 
implication. The key principle of this document is ensuring that Forces can 
properly balance resources to provide a level of policing that is fit for purpose by 
making appropriate decisions on when and what to charge for police services. 
 
For the most part policing is part of centrally and locally tax-funded services. In 
this way the majority of policing is provided as a public service.  There are some 
functions that police officers perform that are provided beyond day to day 
policing, and in some of these cases there are powers in law for a Police 
Authority to recover the costs of this additional policing under the provision of 
“Special Police Services.” 
 
In other areas, there are opportunities for the service to provide goods and 
services which are relevant to their roles and skills. 
 
The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) first issued guidance on 
charging for police services in 2005.  Working in consultation with the Association 
of Police Authorities (APA), this original document has now been updated to set it 
within the wider landscape of policing in and within communities, and to reflect 
necessary adjustments to the charging regime as a result of recent case law.    
 
In March 2006 the case of Reading Festival Limited v West Yorkshire Police 
Authority was heard at the Court of Appeal. This followed a dispute between the 
police force and a festival organiser over the cost of policing an event. 
 
Subsequently, in 2007 and 2008 another significant case (Greater Manchester 
Police vs. Wigan Athletic AFC Ltd) added to the overall set of implications that 
need to be taken account of in charging for police services. 
 
This guidance is intended to offer a clear charging framework that will be of value 
both to police resource managers and to organisers of events, who may incur 
costs connected with policing.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
v.27 
2

 
 
PAYING THE BILL 
 
Chapter One 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
 
1 Background 
 
The police service is generally provided out of public funds for the benefit of the 
public at large. However there is a limited range of activities where it is appropriate 
for the service to make charges to individuals or organisations to recover costs. 
Ensuring that charges are levied effectively in such circumstances will protect the 
public police provision and contribute to the overall funding of the service.  
 
Historically, charges levied have been variable between police authorities and within 
police forces. Some variability may be legitimate but consistency should be achieved 
where possible to secure credibility and confidence in the charging processes and to 
ensure that proper cost recovery across the service is not undermined. 
 
The service is increasingly implementing charging policies on a delegated basis 
within forces. Delegation requires an agreed framework of policies and procedures to 
ensure that individual decisions at different points in the organisation are made on a 
consistent basis and in accordance with the corporate requirements of the police 
authority and force. 
 
In pursuance of these objectives the original version of Paying the Bill, which was 
published as ACPO guidance in 2005, was aimed primarily at police service 
managers. This current version has been revised in association with the APA and is 
addressed at police authority members as well as police force managers. 
 
In addition this revised version provides guidance following legal judgements (the 
‘Mean Fiddler’ case, and latterly GMP vs. Wigan Athletic AFC) affecting the charging 
for special police services.   
 
2 Scope 
 
The ability to charge for police services is generally determined by statutory 
provisions. This guidance covers four main areas: 
•  The provision of special police services at the request of any person under 
s25 of the Police Act 1996 which makes such services subject to payment of 
charges as determined by the police authority. Special police services 
generally relate to policing an event, e.g. a pop concert, or series of events, 
e.g. football matches. S26 of the 1996 Act applies similar requirements to the 
provision of police services overseas.  
 
•  S18 of the Police Act 1996 extends to police authorities the powers of the 
Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 to supply goods and 
services to other bodies or persons. This may include services provided in 
competition with other providers, e.g. training or vehicle maintenance, where 
charges will reflect market rates, or services as a by-product of core police 
activity such as provision of collision reports. 
•  The provision of police services to other agencies such as the UK Border 
Agency or the prison service. 
v.27 
3

 
 
•  The provision of Mutual Aid to other forces. 
 
 
3 Responsibilities 
 
The Police Authority has statutory responsibility for the overall finances of the police 
force. It approves an annual budget and sets the local precept. The Chief Constable 
is responsible for the subsequent financial management of the force under delegation 
from the Authority. The Police Authority should therefore approve in consultation with 
the Chief Constable a framework of financial policies and regulations within which 
that delegated responsibility operates, including policies and processes for charging.  
 
The Chief Constable is responsible for agreeing the services to be provided. This will 
normally be in accordance with a risk-based assessment. The Chief Constable will 
assist the Police Authority in determining charging policy and is then responsible for 
implementation of that policy within the agreed terms of delegation. Individual force 
managers will have delegated responsibilities as agreed by the Chief Constable. 
 
4         Costing Methodology 
 
Charging relies on the accurate recording and appropriate allocation of costs. The 
sound financial systems operated by the police service provide a firm foundation in 
this regard. There are then two principal issues to address in establishing the cost 
base for charging purposes. 
 
Firstly, it is desirable to have a standard approach across the service which means 
that any variations in costs, and therefore charges, reflect real cost differences 
between forces. The costing model set out in Section 2 of this guidance therefore 
incorporates standard approaches for the following items: 
•  police basic pay and allowances 
• police 
overtime 
•  relevant ancillary costs 
•  general overhead recovery 
•  productive hours and deployable time 
 
Secondly, a decision has to be taken as to which elements of cost will be reflected in 
the charges for services delivered in different circumstances. Charges could be 
restricted to recovery of actual direct costs only or, at the other end of the scale, 
could be based on the full economic cost. The costing model therefore allows the 
derivation of costs according to different definitions which can then be applied 
appropriately within the charging policy. 
 
5          Charging Policy 
 
Each police authority should set its own charging policy having regard to its local 
circumstances. However a number of key principles have been identified which 
should underpin the policy. 
• 
Charging policy should have regard to the requirements for stewardship of 
public funds 
• 
The policy should be set in the context of the overall funding position of the 
authority 
• 
Charging policy should have regard to and reflect national guidance 
v.27 
4

 
• 
Charging policy should have regard to the authority’s overall policing 
objectives 
• 
Charging policy should reflect proper accountability and ensure that costs are 
met by the body responsible for the purpose for which the service is being 
delivered 
• 
Private persons/bodies should not be able to profit at the expense of the 
police service 
• 
The policy should be clear and transparent to both providers and receivers of 
the service, and all decision-making within the policy should be transparent 
• 
The charging policy should be consistent in its application, including where 
discretion is allowed 
• 
Charges should be based on a robust and sound costing methodology 
• 
The basis of cost calculations should be consistent, so that significant 
variations in charges are explained by local circumstances rather than 
methodology differences 
• 
There should be a clear understanding of how the charging policy and costing 
methodology are to be applied by practitioners. 
 

Special Policing Services (Policing of Events) 
 
The definition of special police services and the conditions for charging at events 
have been the subject of a number of legal cases, including Reading Festival Limited 
v West Yorkshire Police Authority (the ‘Mean Fiddler’ case) and latterly GMP v Wigan 
Athletic AFC.  
 
In these cases, an event is an occurrence, out of the normal activity that takes place 
to provide an experience or defined activity to commercial or non commercial 
reasons.  Special police services are police services provided over and above core 
policing at the request of a person or organisation.   It can be provided to a place or a 
defined locality by agreement with the organiser.  The nature and definition of locality 
can vary widely, depending on the event concerned.  Payment for the services is the 
subject of a contractual arrangement with implications for prior agreement on both 
sides. 
 
It is the Chief Constable’s responsibility to determine the level of policing required for 
each event on the basis of a risk assessment.   This assessment will normally cover 
both crime and disorder and public safety issues and when taken with the event 
promoter’s responsibilities towards the safety of the event concerned, form the basis 
of the required policing deployment.  This should then form the basis of the 
contractual arrangement between the force and the event organiser.   
 
To ensure that the Chief Constable’s view is given due weight in the event of 
disagreement, the police authority and the force should maintain good relations with 
the safety and licensing bodies in their area. 
 
Charging policy needs to distinguish between different categories of event, in 
particular: 
•  Commercial events, intended to generate private profit 
•  Non-commercial events, ie charitable or community events 
•  Statutory events reflecting constitutional rights or processes. 
v.27 
5

 
 
Authorities are strongly recommended to charge the full economic cost of special 
police services provided for commercial events. It is essential that this approach is 
adopted consistently across the country to ensure that legitimate recovery of police 
costs is not undermined. Any departure from this principle should only be made on 
exceptional grounds and with the specific approval of the police authority. 
 
It is appropriate to consider abating charges for non-commercial events.   The trust 
and confidence of local communities are fundamental to the success of modern 
policing, both in respect of neighbourhood policing and securing cooperation and 
information to address serious crime and terrorism, and this is a proper factor to take 
into account in considering the policing of community events and any charges. 
 
Whilst charitable events may generally be viewed favourably, police authorities need 
to give careful consideration to their policy on charging for police services. Some 
major events may require substantial policing and can generate large sums albeit for 
charitable distribution. A reasonable contribution towards police costs as a necessary 
part of the organisation of the event is both desirable and feasible. Non recovery of 
costs represents a subsidy from public funds and authorities should satisfy 
themselves that they are supporting appropriate charitable purposes in this way. 
 
The detailed guidance describes a model for determining levels of charge for non-
commercial events based on an evaluation of relevant features of the event. This 
model should be adopted by police authorities to fit their own circumstances and 
policies. For events where policing requirements are small then a de minimis level 
applies so that no charge is levied. Above this level, a charge is normally set, 
although abated by reference to the model. Police Authorities may alter this in 
exceptional cases where such an approach can be justified. 
 
Policing of statutory events is part of core activity and no charges should be made. 
 

Provision of Goods and Services to Third Parties 
 
Potentially police authorities could provide and charge for a wide range of goods and 
services. Indeed the statutory support for this has been strengthened recently by the 
application to police authorities, as best value authorities, of S93 of the Local 
Government Act 2003. 
 
However in practice the scope is limited in a number of ways. First any service or 
activity has to be supported by police authorities’ statutory powers. In effect such a 
service must spin off from normal police activity or be an activity which is incidental to 
the provision of the police service. The level of chargeable services must also be 
reasonable and proportionate to the services required by the police force itself. 
Chargeable activity should ultimately support and not undermine the core purpose of 
providing a public police service. 
 
There are services which are common to all police forces and unique to the police 
service, such as the issue of firearms certificates or the provision of copies of 
accident reports, for which the guidance sets out standard rates of charge which 
should be applied across the service. 
v.27 
6

 
 
Other services which support the police service itself have a market-competitive 
dimension. These include for example training in particular skills or vehicle 
maintenance. Where such services are provided to other bodies the charges will 
have to take account of market rates. The general principle should be that, as a 
minimum, charges should recover the costs of supplying the service. Where market 
conditions permit charges could be levied up to the full economic cost in order to 
contribute towards overheads. 
 

Charging for Services to Government Agencies 
 
The police service increasingly provides a range of services for, and with, other 
government agencies. These are often part of central government such as the UK 
Border Agency, but they may also be arms-length agencies with a quasi-commercial 
status. 
 
Even where the purpose of particular activity supports the responsibilities of a 
separate government body or service, the police force may be securing benefits 
towards it own objectives. Recovery of costs should be based on direct employment 
and other specific costs incurred. 
 
In the case of quasi-commercial activity, assessment of charges should start with the 
resource cost, ie direct costs and direct overheads, and increase up to full economic 
cost subject to any market constraints. 
 

Provision of Mutual Aid to other forces 
 
Mutual aid under Section 24 of the Police Act 1996 is the provision of policing 
assistance to another police force.  It is usually provided in response to or in 
anticipation of a major event.  The general principles of direct cost recovery should 
apply.  It is recognised that this is a complex area, and a separate guidance 
document, ‘Guidance on Charging for Police Services: Mutual Aid Cost Recovery’ 
has been produced. 
 
 
This revision to the original Paying the Bill Guidance will be the first of annual 
amendments produced at the start of each calendar year in advance of the new 
financial term. The timing of these revisions will capture the impact of the annual pay 
settlement and the current rate of inflation. The market forces and legal precedent 
that determine appropriate charging are subject to change and this will also be 
reflected in subsequent revisions.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
v.27 
7

 
 
Chapter Two 
 
CHARGING FOR POLICE SERVICES 
 
SECTION 1 
PRINCIPLES AND CHARGING METHODOLOGY 
 
 
1.0   Background 
 
1.1    Police services for which charges are raised represents a small part of overall 
police activity.  By far and away, the majority of budgeted police resource is 
used in the statutory duty to police the community.  This is funded in the main 
by the national taxpayer, with a small but increasing proportion funded by local 
taxpayers. Businesses also contribute indirectly through redistributed business 
rates. 
 
1.2    There has, though, evolved circumstances where police time and expertise can 
be charged to third parties.  Powers exist to make charges and a summary of 
these are shown at Appendix 1. These powers have also evolved and been 
interpreted over time to make a clear delineation between core policing activity 
and chargeable services.  
 
1.3    The nature of the policing services has also changed over time.  There is still a 
significant amount of direct policing (described as "Special Police Services “) 
charged for - predominantly, to police events.  This can be single events e.g. a 
pop concert or agricultural show, or a number of linked events such as policing 
football or other sporting matches.  Other examples though would now include 
policing shopping malls or entertainment complexes and, potentially, 
pubs/clubs. For these events, charges reflect the provision of services over a 
period of time or for a number of occasions. 
 
1.4    There are now a range of 'customers' for policing services. Well established 
users include professional football and rugby clubs.  Other users include 
commercial promoters and non-commercial organisations including charities, 
and local authorities. It should be noted that the mere designation of an event 
being charitable does not itself negate the charging of legitimate operating 
costs, including the provision of special police services.  Latterly, there has 
been an increase in forces providing policing services to other Government 
agencies - notably the UK Border Agency. 
 
1.5    There is one other area to be considered under the general heading of charging 
for police services.  This is the charge applied for providing services by one (or 
more) force to another force. 
 
1.6    In addition there is now a range of other activity relating to the use of expertise 
of officers and police staff that can be provided as a service to 3rd parties. This 
falls into the more general category of income generation and uses particular 
sections of the Police Act. Finally, there are some services that relate to the 
provision of information, say, collision reports, etc. 
v.27 
8

 
 
1.7   Policing events now has an enormous range of scale to consider.  From local 
festivals to Grand Prix; from lower league football to the FA Cup final - all are 
events which need consideration.  In general, the police service exists to police 
local communities and its resources are structured to achieve this.  Few would 
argue that part of this involves policing small scale events, as part of the role of 
visibility and public reassurance. But, this is far removed from policing 70,000 
supporters in Manchester converging on a small locality to watch a football 
match, or over 100,000 people attending a 3-5 day pop festival.  
 
 
2.0   Responsibilities 
 
2.1   The police authority has a statutory responsibility for the finances of the police 
force. The Chief Constable is responsible for the financial management of the 
force under a general delegation from the police authority. In general terms 
therefore the police authority should approve the framework of financial policies 
and procedures within which that delegated responsibility operates. 
 
2.2  In the general context of the police service’s overall financial arrangements, it is 
the police authority’s responsibility to approve policies for charging for police 
services. In the case of special police services there is also a specific statutory 
requirement under s25 of the 1996 Police Act which permits the Chief 
Constable to provide special police services at the request of any person 
subject to the payment to the police authority of charges on such scales as may 
be determined by that authority. 
 
2.3  The police authority’s responsibility for setting charging policy, particularly in 
relation to special police services but also chargeable services generally, 
includes the following elements: 
•  Establishing, in consultation with the Chief Constable, and approving the 
overall policy 
•  Agreeing the scope of delegation to the Chief Constable 
•  Determining exceptional cases 
•  Monitoring implementation through annual reports 
•  Reviewing the policy periodically 
•  Supporting actions agreed with the Chief Constable. 
 
2.4    The Chief Constable is responsible for determining the police services to be 
provided in chargeable circumstances. This will normally be according to a risk-
based assessment. In the case of special police services provision should be in 
response to a request. The Chief Constable will need to decide whether he/she 
can support an event proceeding in the light of the services requested or in the 
absence of a clear request, and consider appropriate action. 
 
In terms of charging for police services, the Chief Constable’s responsibilities 
include: 
•  Engaging the Police Authority in establishing the charging policy 
•  Determining responsibilities and levels of delegation within the force 
•  Ensuring that exceptional cases are consulted and agreed with the police 
authority 
•  Providing periodic reports to the authority 
•  Identifying where there may be difficulty in recovering charges and 
consulting the police authority on action proposed in exceptional cases.  
v.27 
9

 
 
 
3.0 Charging Policy - Key Principles 
 
3.0    A number of key principles have been identified which should underpin the 
charging policy. These are: 
a) 
Charging policy should have regard for the requirements for stewardship 
of public funds 
b) 
The policy should be set in the context of the overall funding position of 
the authority 
c) 
Charging policy should have regard to and reflect national guidance 
d) 
Charging policy should have regard to the authority’s overall policing 
objectives 
e) 
Charging policy should reflect proper accountability and ensure that costs 
are met by the body responsible for the purpose for which the service is 
being delivered 
f) 
Private persons/bodies should not be able to profit at the expense of the 
police service 
g) 
The policy should be clear and transparent to both providers and 
receivers of the service, and all decision-making within the policy should 
be transparent 
h) 
The charging policy should be consistent in its application including where 
discretion is allowed 
i) 
Charges should be based on a robust and sound costing methodology 
j) 
The basis of cost calculations should be consistent, so that significant 
variations in charges are explained by local circumstances rather than 
methodology differences 
k) 
There should be a clear understanding of how the charging policy and 
costing methodology are to be applied by practitioners 
 
3.1   The document uses these principles to establish guidance for charging for 
services for: 
• 
The policing of events 
• 
The provision of goods and services to third parties 
• 
Charging for services to Government Agencies 
• 
The provision of mutual aid to other police forces 
 
 
4.0    Definition of Cost 
 
4.1    The cost of a service and the charging for the service are clearly linked.  But, 
the cost of a particular service can relate to the purpose of the usage.  For the 
purposes of this approach, the following basic costing approaches are defined:- 
 
•  Employable Cost
This represents the basic actual cost of the service providers, including 
on-costs but with no allowance for the recovery of overheads. 
 
•  Direct Cost 
This is the cost of an officer including a standard overtime recovery 
element. 
 
 
 
v.27 
10

 
•  Operational Resource Cost
This represents the cost of the resource employed in the provision of the 
service.  Here, the direct costs and the direct overheads are included. 
 
•  Full Economic Cost. 
This calculation includes all properly attributable costs, including 
contributions to administrative and general overheads.  However, this 
indirect overhead recovery must relate to the relevant overhead base. 
 
4.2    Clearly, these cost bases are used for different purposes and will achieve 
different results.  There must therefore be clarity in how they are used and how 
they are applied.  
 
4.3    The normal application of costing policing for charging purposes should reflect 
full economic cost recovery.  This is particularly true for commercial purposes, 
where a special police service is being provided using police resource.  There 
are potentially some circumstances where the other cost bases will lead to 
alternative cost recovery charging.   
 
4.4    The model for charging for services should reflect the cost structure involved in 
service delivery. Individual components of the model reflect this. There is a 
consistent construction of direct costs i.e. those costs required to deliver a 
given police service at a particular location. The costing methodology then 
provides a basis for the recovery of general overheads for an organisation. 
 
4.5    A key principle is that whilst charges should reflect local characteristics of cost 
e.g. London weighting, the methodology seeks to minimise undue variations. A 
number of variables in the calculation of costs have that potential and, by using 
force averages or in some cases, national averages, these undue distortions 
can be minimised. 
 
4.6    The costing model set out in section 2 therefore forms the basis of calculating a 
productive hourly rate for police officers (and police staff) providing the service.  
 
 
5.0   Charging for the Policing of Events 
 
5.1    S25 of the 1996 Police Act applies to the policing of events. The Chief 
Constable is responsible for agreeing the special services to be provided and 
the Police Authority for determining the charges to be made.  
 
5.2  The Chief Constable will determine the policing need in discussion with the 
event organiser and in accordance with the circumstances of each event or 
request. Within the agreed scope of delegation, this will usually lead to agreeing 
the basis of the associated charges although significant or exceptional events 
will be subject to consultation with the police authority in accordance with its 
policy.   
 
5.3  The Police Authority will also agree annually the charges that will be set for 
goods and services provided under both S25 and S18 of the Police Act. (See 
Section 7) 
 
 
 
v.27 
11

 
5.4    A Police force has a responsibility to assess the safety requirements in liaison 
with all partner agencies of an event.  It often works with a local Safety Advisory 
Group but, in some circumstances, this may not be available.  The force will 
review the nature of the event with the organiser in order to minimise the risk to 
the assessed safety requirements.  The safety of the event is primarily that of 
the event organiser. 
 
5.5    However, safety is only part of the role.  There is normally an important 
secondary element of assessing the direct community effect of the potential 
impact on crime and disorder and in some cases traffic management, occurring 
within the community, as a result of the event. Based on that overall 
assessment, it may be agreed that special police services are needed to 
support either a safety certificate or licence.  There must be an agreement 
between the event organiser and the police of the need for special police 
services, which must be requested by the event organiser and accepted by the 
police. Police services would then be supplied to:- 
 
• 
Increase aspects of core policing over that which would normally 
be required in the locality to address crime and disorder issues 
arising from the staging of the event. 

 
• 
Provide additional policing services to increase the overall level of 
safety to an adequate level relative to the risk assessment and, 
therefore, the safety requirement. 

 
5.6    Based on an adequate risk assessment, the level of police resource can be 
determined for each event.  This will normally be achieved by direct 
communication with the event organiser, but may also be undertaken through a 
Safety Advisory Group, if required. 
 
5.7    There are a limited number of events for which, although a formal safety 
certificate licence is not required, the event includes a range of characteristics 
that would imply that policing services should be supplied and charged for. The 
criteria for this are set out later.  
 
5.8    Policing an event involves providing special policing services to an event 
organiser.  Although, predominantly, this involves police officer time, it can also 
require other elements of a specialist nature, including vehicles, consumables, 
specialist equipment and support functions as part of the service provision.   
 
5.9    It should first be recognised that core service provides a level of policing within, 
and for, communities.  It is, therefore, important to acknowledge that many 
small scale local events can be policed with a relatively low input that may 
represent a public reassurance role within the overall framework of risk 
assessment.  The methodology needs to allow for this and provide some 
discretion on who should be charged, and under what circumstances.  
 
5.10 A principle has been established within mutual aid arrangements, that a de-
minimis level should be agreed so that a small police input below the threshold 
is not chargeable.  This principle can be extended into policing events.  
 
 
 
 
 
v.27 
12

 
5.11 A second general principle can also be established.  Charges for policing 
services should be made to the event organiser.  He/she should then be able to 
take these into account when planning an event.  Event organisers should 
consult with their local force early in the planning process.  Forces should then 
assess the policing needs of the event so the level of resources and the likely 
charges that will apply can be identified well in advance of the event. 
 
5.12  Cases heard in 2006 in the Court of Appeal (Reading Festival Limited v West 
Yorkshire Police Authority) and 2007/08 (GMP vs. Wigan AFC) have impacted 
on the approach to be taken in providing Special Police Services. The legal 
case is discussed in greater detail at Appendix 5. 
 
5.13 The judgements clarified that a Police Authority cannot charge for Special Police 
Services in the absence of an agreement between the event organiser and the 
police of the need for such services. Special Police Services need to be 
specifically requested by an event organiser, promoter or individual.  This may 
be a clear explicit request (or in some limited cases an implied request). Both 
cases severely limited the circumstances in which such a request would be 
implied.  For instance, a condition on a premises licence relating to the need for 
Special Police Services will not necessarily be sufficient to constitute a request 
for Special Police Services since there may not have been an agreement 
between the organiser and the police of the need for such services. Police 
forces are therefore advised to secure a clear basis of understanding as to the 
services that are to be provided for any event. 
 
5.14 The cases also identified a clear issue in agreeing the size and scale of the 
services to be provided. The tactics in respect of police deployments in support 
of an event are a matter for Chief Officers. There is however a requirement for 
a meaningful discussion on the availability of valid alternative provision that 
may influence the scale of Special Police Services that will then be provided. 
 
5.15  Some of the alternatives to provision of police services are relatively clear in the 
context of the above. The provision of stewarding or traffic management 
consultancy can mitigate the requirement of police involvement in the safety 
element of the policing role, thus reducing the consequent requirement for 
Special Police Services. This may also be the case in considering the 
management of the Crime and Disorder elements of policing. The overall 
necessity for policing deployment in managing crime and disorder, and in 
consultation with the organiser the overall safety of the public is a matter for 
Chief Officers to consider. Policing comprises a wide range of relevant activity, 
from visible patrol to other deployable and specialist support roles. The key 
issue is to ensure that an organiser or promoter is made properly aware of the 
nature and options that might exist in the circumstances of an event so that a 
transparent and mutually understood request for special police services can be 
made. 
 
5.16  It is strongly suggested that police resource managers draw up a written 
agreement and statement of intent when planning policing of events with event 
organisers. This in turn will form the basis of subsequent charges, subject to the 
possibility that deployment requirements might be changed by mutual 
agreement. 
v.27 
13

 
 
5.17 Such an agreement should resolve to respective parties understanding of the 
relevant Special Police Services and charges involved. In some circumstances 
there may be a failure of the parties to agree. This would in turn lead to a 
circumstance where the organiser would not make a request for Special Police 
Services. Chief Officers must then review the event in the light of a clear 
community based risk assessment together with other statutory partners. 
 
5.18  The Chief Officer’s judgement must review the ability of the force to provide a 
suitable police response in line with their duty to the general public and 
contingency arrangements, including their ongoing ability to provide appropriate 
policing to the remainder of the police force area. This will determine whether a 
Chief Officer, (and for significant events the Police Authority), can support the 
event taking place. 
 
5.19 There are a range of measures that can be introduced to ensure that events are 
conducted in a responsible manner. It should be noted that there are significant 
variations in the approach of organisers to promoting an event in a responsible 
manner and accordingly, the level of intervention that is necessary. A Safety 
Advisory Group has influence over the planning of an event although the 
structure and role of the Safety Advisory Group varies with each Local Authority 
Area. There is no legal requirement for an event organiser to refer an event to 
the Safety Advisory Group but local impetus should be generated to develop 
such referrals as best practice amongst organisers.  
Assessment of the need for police attendance and action at public 
events will be principally based on the need to discharge their core 
responsibilities which legal advice indicates are as follows:  
• 
Prevention and detection of crime.  
• 
Preventing or stopping breaches of the peace. 
• 
Activation of a contingency plan where there is an immediate 
threat to life and co-ordination of resultant emergency service 
activities.  
• 
Traffic regulation within the legal powers provided by statute, a 
Road Closure Order (TPCA 1847) or a Traffic Regulation 
Order (RTRA 1984).    
Traffic regulation is not to be confused with the management of the 
road closure.  Responsibility for applications for Traffic Regulation 
Orders and Road Closure Orders and the management of the same 
are the responsibility of the Local Authority.  Where police resources 
are requested to assist the Local Authority to police such road 
closures, they will be considered to be Special Police Services. 
 
5.20  The Licensing Act 2003 gives a range of powers to the relevant licensing 
authority to allow an event to proceed. The use of the term ‘Licensing’  
suggests that the powers are related only to the supply of alcohol. This is far 
from the case and there are in fact a wide range of activities that require a 
Premises Licence to be granted under Section 12 of the Licensing Act 2003. 
Regulated Entertainment includes: 
v.27 
14

 
 
 
• 
Exhibition of plays 
• 
Exhibition of Films 
• 
Indoor Sporting Events 
• 
Boxing or Wrestling entertainment 
• 
Exhibition of live music 
• 
Exhibition of recorded music 
• 
Performance of dance 
 
5.21 Given the range of activities that fall within Regulated Entertainment, the       
Licensing Act 2003 is a powerful tool in ensuring the responsible conduct of an 
event. It is the responsibility of an event organiser to prepare an Operating 
Schedule when applying for the grant of a relevant Licence. The schedule must 
include details of how the manner of the event will promote the four licensing 
objectives of: 
 
•  The prevention of crime and disorder 
• Public 
safety 
•  The prevention of public nuisance 
•  The protection of children from harm 
 
An objection to the Operating Schedule can be made by a police force and it is 
strongly suggested that where necessary the grounds for such an objection be 
supported by a Senior Police Officer in consultation with Force Legal Advisors. 
Police forces (and authorities) should ensure that strong and effective relations 
are established and maintained with licensing authorities and safety bodies so 
that the service’s views are fully taken into account in licensing decisions. 
 
Charging for Events 
 
5.22  Where the event is at a single location e.g. concert, festival etc, the service 
should be based on the concept of servicing the additional policing required - 
over and above that which would have normally been used to police the 
location. For a truly “Greenfield” site this is nominal, but in other circumstances 
the service provided is potentially added to a base level of existing policing. All 
direct policing costs, but also all specialist support, consumables and support 
costs involved in providing the service should be recovered. 
 
5.23  In a number of cases, the location is less easily determined and the concept of 
locality needs to be considered. There are occasions where the character of the 
immediate locality is substantially or significantly altered by the event itself and 
agreement is needed on the basis of the definition of locality to be used for 
Special Police Services. Locality in this context can include private land and 
also, where relevant, public land that is controlled for the purposes of the event 
and for the benefit of the event organiser.  This is an important issue in relation 
to understanding the organisation of an event and needs to be clearly identified 
and agreed by both the organiser and force as part of the agreement. 
 
 
 
 
 
v.27 
15

 
5.24 The locality should be defined to encompass the need to properly protect or 
benefit the persons organising the event or their attendees. It should not be 
determined on the basis of a need to protect the general public at large as a 
consequence of the event.  Where a commercial event attracts protestors who 
protest outside the locality of the event, event organisers would not be expected 
to pay for the policing of those who attend to protest.  However, organisers 
would still be liable to pay for the deployment of officers for other duties 
associated with the event. 
 
5.25 It should also apply to established sites where a series of events will take place 
– e.g. sporting events such as football, cricket, rugby etc. This is subject to the 
current application of S25 of The Police Act 1996. (see Appendix 1). 
 
5.26 The policing of all events should be costed on a full economic cost basis in 
accordance with the methodology set out in Section 2.  This will form the basis 
of the charge in some cases (see below), and, where the charge is to be abated 
or there is a nil charge, it will demonstrate the impact of that decision in terms of 
potential income foregone. 
 
 
5.27 In determining a charging policy it is helpful to distinguish a number of 
categories of events, as follows: 
 
i) Commercial Events 
 
Events where there is a financial gain or profit to the organiser/company/ 
organisation without specific community benefit – usually but not exclusively 
through members of the public having to pay an entrance fee to gain access to 
the event. 
 
ii) Non Commercial Events 
 
a) Charitable Events 
Events where, although there is a financial gain, the surplus is for charitable 
distribution. These may be local charities but in some circumstances reflect a 
wider charitable status. 
 
b) Community Events 
Those events not for personal or corporate gain but are for community or local 
interest purposes or to raise funds for local community institutions. 
 
c) Not for Profit Community Events 
Events where, although a minimal fee for participation is charged, it is 
generated only to cover organisational costs and not to raise a profit.  Those 
organising events do so on a voluntary basis for the benefit of participants and 
spectators. 
 
iii) Statutory Events 
 
Events where there is no financial gain to the organiser and which reflect 
constitutional rights, or a cause of royal, national or defined public interest. 
 
The chart in Appendix 2 gives some examples that could apply in each 
category. It is not exhaustive. The level of charge does not simply depend on 
the category but, clearly, should depend on individual circumstances – including 
the ability to charge in law. 
v.27 
16

 
 
5.28  The principal characteristic of a commercial event is that it is intended to secure  
private financial gain or profit. The other categories may be described as non-
commercial, but some specific events may exhibit many of the features of a 
commercial event, eg a large charitable event. 
 
5.29 The policing of statutory events is generally regarded as part of core policing 
which is not chargeable. In certain circumstances authorities may receive 
specific funding from the Government but statutory events should be excluded 
from authorities’ charging policies. 
 
Commercial events 
 
5.30 The concept of a commercial activity is no longer straightforward.  There are 
many models or structures used in the organisation of events.  As guidance, 
commercial activity will be characterised by the securing of a site(s) and, 
usually, requiring payment for entry to the event. This can be private land, or 
land that becomes controlled for the purposes of and benefit to the event.  It is 
normally further identified by the existence of a promoter or equivalent. Clear 
examples of this are pop festivals and sporting matches. (For the sports 
matches the “promoter” can generally be seen to be the professional club 
involved). 
 
5.31 The term 'Agricultural Show' is broad in nature and would capture low level 
community based events such as village fairs, but would equally describe an 
event that is of a significant size and/or substantially commercial nature. 
Similarly, charitable events vary from locally based, small scale fundraising 
events to large set piece events that charge, have significant concessions 
trading on the site and attract significant numbers of visitors. 
 
5.32 The police service should consider the characteristics of each event in deciding 
if an event should be regarded as commercial. An example might be a county 
showground hosting an event that attracts fee paying visitors generating a 
significant income, coupled with exhibitors paying for the opportunity to promote 
their products. This would be operated by either a company or the “trading arm” 
of the relevant charity operating the showground.  A further example would be a 
large-scale, commercial funfair where the fair operators charge people for using 
their rides and attractions, with no charitable proceeds or benefit to the 
community.  The fact that such fairs often operate on ‘public land’ is no bar to 
recovering costs, because for the duration of the fair that public land is being 
controlled for the purposes of the event and for the benefit of the event 
organiser. Where an event is considered to be substantially commercial, it 
should meet the cost of additional policing required.  Previous instances of non-
recovery of charges should not prevent charges from being levied in future. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
v.27 
17

 
5.33 The principle which should be applied in the charging policy is that, where an 
event is categorised as commercial, the organiser should be charged the full 
economic cost of the special police services provided. This approach is based 
on the premise that private persons or organisations should not be able to 
enhance their profits at the expense of the public funds supporting the police 
service. It is also essential that this principle is applied consistently across the 
country. Commercial event organisers will often be involved with events in 
different parts of the country and they will inevitably compare the practices of 
different forces. Any significant variation between authorities’ policies could 
undermine the capacity of the service as a whole to make legitimate recovery of 
its costs. 
 
5.34 Nevertheless it has to be recognised that there will be circumstances when 
questions are raised as to whether full cost recovery should be pursued. Any 
decision to depart from the general principle of charging full economic cost to a 
commercial event should only be made on exceptional grounds and with the 
specific approval of the police authority on the basis of a full report of all the 
relevant issues.  Charging issues around small-scale events are discussed 
further in paragraph 5.43 below. 
 
Non commercial events 
 
5.35 Community events need to be considered in the context of community policing 
in the broadest sense. In particular the need for fostering and maintaining good 
relations between the police and local communities is increasingly recognised 
as important for achieving policing objectives.  The policing of community 
events, and any charges levied, may help or hinder the achievement of these 
broader policing objectives and it is appropriate to take this into account, 
together with other relevant considerations, when determining a charging policy 
for special police services provided to community events. However it is 
essential to adopt a transparent and consistent approach to determining the 
levels of abatement of possible charges in that context. 
 
5.36 Some charitable events may have a particular local dimension which makes 
them akin to community events. Tests to determine this should include a clear 
“registered charity” status and that the event is meeting the aims of its 
charitable mission as set out in its registration requirement. These 
characteristics, linked with the potential benefits for the local community, can 
provide a basis for abating policing charges. Others may be large scale events 
very similar, except for their purpose, to commercial events. In any case, not 
recovering the full cost of associated policing represents a subsidy to the 
charity concerned. Police forces and authorities should therefore satisfy 
themselves that particular charitable purposes are ones that they can support 
by way of reduced charges. 
 
5.37  Some non-commercial events do not fit into the community or charitable 
definitions outlined above, but are organised on a voluntary basis and generate 
revenue only to cover organisational costs, such as amateur cycling or running 
events.  It is appropriate to recognise that these events are substantially 
different in nature to commercial, profit-making events when determining levels 
of abatement. 
 
 
 
 
v.27 
18

 
5.38  In order to assist authorities and forces in determining their charging policy in 
relation to events, an approach has been developed that involves assessing 
events against a range of criteria.  These criteria are shown in the table below.  
A score is applied to each criteria on a sliding scale and then totalled.  
Depending on the overall score, either a full charge, an abated charge or no 
charge should be made. This should create a transparent approach with clear 
decisions on charge levels taken on a consistent basis.  It should be noted that 
the scoring process to determine whether a full, partial or no charge should be 
made for an event is separate to the process for determining the number of 
police resources subsequently required.     
 
Criteria Assessment 
Range 
of 
Scores 

Identified 
The existence of a promoter clearly 
0 to 5 
promoter 
identifies a commercial event. This can 
also be an organiser of a significant non 
commercial event and can also be implied 
– e.g. for sports matches. 
Premises 
Most large defined events require a 
0 to 5 
Licence / Safety 
Premises Licence or a Safety Certificate 
Certificate 
to operate. Detail of the event capacity 
required 
and the licensable activities are strong 
indicators of a significant event.  
Stewards used 
This also characterises a major event – 
-5 to 0 
but can also be the basis of a reduction in 
police input leading to reduced charges. 
Payment at 
A key determinant of a commercial event. 
 0 to 10 
event 
It can also be a factor of a major non 
commercial event. 
Performers paid 
Can also underline a commercial event or 
0 to 10 
a major charitable/ non commercial event. 
Trader 
A secondary indicator of the size of an 
0 to 10 
concessions 
event – one anticipating a large number of 
attendees. 
Nature of the 
Commercial for profit, not commercial or a 
0 to 10 
event 
private event / function. 
Proceeds to 
This is an indicator of possible abatement, 
-5 to 0 
charity 
depending on other safety issues and the 
size of the event. 
Detrimental 
This is how a community will be affected 
0 to 10 
Community 
by the holding of the event such as 
Impact  
increased traffic flow, disruption and 
disorder. 
Community 
This covers the reasons that an event 
-10 to 0 
Value 
should go ahead. An event that has strong 
traditions or promotes the values of 
community cohesion will have added 
community value. 
Additional 
This can give an indication that 
0 to 10 
policing 
significantly more policing than the norm 
is required. 
Normal 
This would, in conjunction with the above, 
-5 to 0 
deployment 
give an indication of the level of additional 
chargeable policing resources provided. 
 
Total Score 
 
Less than 6 
 No charge   
6-30  
 
 Part or abated charge 
31+  
 
 Full cost recovery 
 
v.27 
19

 
 
 
5.39 Examples of different types of events and how the scores may be applied are 
summarised in the table below and worked through in more detail on pages 23 
to 31.  These examples are illustrative and not a definitive interpretation of how 
the characteristics of any event should be assessed. Rather they show the 
framework of issues to consider and a range of values that could be applied to 
each.  Police Authorities in consultation with Chief Constables need to 
determine how the criteria are weighted and valued, and the level of abatement 
which should be applied where appropriate. It is therefore presented as a model 
which can be used to suit local circumstances. 
 
5.40 Once it has been established that an event needs policing, the deployment 
required will normally be the result of a risk based assessment of the event in 
question.  For professional football matches a structured approach has evolved 
over a period of time.  The principles contained within this approach can be 
applied to other events.  Such an approach may include: 
 
 
a)  The nature of the location or locality for the event. 
 
 
b)  The nature of the boundary to the location, together with access and  
              egress for the anticipated attendees. 
 
 
c)  The size and nature of the event – performers, time including time of day. 
 
 
d)  The nature of the trading activity including alcohol sales etc. 
 
 
e)  An assessment of the number / nature of the attendees. 
 
 
f)  The history of the event in question and recent events of a similar nature. 
 
 
g)  Updated intelligence regarding risk and threat to the performers, venue or  
              attendees. 
 
 
h)  Mitigating factors such as bought in security, physical controls, cctv etc. 
v.27 
20

 
 
 
 
 
 
l 
y
 
 
 
r's
e
o
c
estiva
a
 
y
 
  
 
 
ll
 
 
l Authorit
t 
t 
t 
ir
a
ba
nge
 
sic F
 
 
 
 
 
 
estival
Criteria 
Ra
of  
Scores
Mu
Cycle R
Loc
Even
Community
F
Lord Ma
Parade
Major Charity 
Even
Major Private 
Even
Foot
Match
Commercial 
Funfa
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Promoter 
0 to 5 

        1 







Premises 
 
 
License /SC 
 
 
required 

to 
5 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 
Stewards 
     -5 to 0 
-5 -3 -2 0  -2 -3 -1 -5 -3 
Payment at 
 
 
event 

to 
10 10 
2 3 0 0 10 
0 10 

Paid 
 
 
performers 

to 
10 7 0 7 0 0 7 8 10 

Trader 
 
 
concessions 

to 
10 5 2 6 5 4 8 2 8 10 
Nature of the 
 
 
event 

to 
10 8 2 0 0 0 0 10 
10 
10 
Proceeds to 
 
 
charity 
-5 
to 
0 0 0 0 0 0 -5 0 0 0 
Detrimental 
 
 
Community 
 
 
Impact 

to 
10 5 4 4 2 6 8 4 7 7 
Community 
 
 
Value 
-10 to 0 
-5 
-3 
-5 
      -9 
    -7 
     -7 

-5 
-2 
Additional 
 
 
policing 

to 
10 5 6 6 5 9 9 8 10 

Normal 
 
 
Deployment 
-5 
to 
0 0  0  -2 -2 -2 -1 0  -5 -2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total score 
40 11 27 1  8  31 31 50 32 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Full Cost 
 
 
Recovery 
√ 
 
 
 
 
√ 
√ 
√ 
√ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Abated / Part 
 
 
Cost 
Recovery 
 
√ 
√ 
 
√ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
No Cost 
 
 
Recovery 
 
 
 
√ 
 
 
 
 
 
Scores 
Less than 6  
No charge   
6-30  
 
Part or abated charge 
31+  
 
Full cost recovery 
v.27 
21

 
 
5.41 The range of abatement should be 25 - 75% in normal circumstances, but this 
may be extended in exceptional circumstances. Any abatement will be a Police 
Authority decision, normally taken in consultation with the Chief Constable. 
Small scale events, identified below, are an example of where the local 
confidence and reassurance can be provided within core services and therefore 
at no additional cost to the organisers.  Generally, the levels of abatement of 
charge and methodology should be followed to provide a consistent service 
wide approach.  
 
5.42  The associated assessment criteria are included to help structured decision 
making with regard to the deployment of officers. All events need to recognise 
the factors within the assessment criteria. However, in a number of cases local 
Commanders may expect to police to a level as part of normal policing 
requirements. The chargeable element would then depend upon the number of 
additional officers / support needed to provide the policing roles described 
above. In this case, the de-minimis level (see below) is exceeded due to overall 
policing requirements and the total policing cost may then be abated in line with 
the model. 
 
5.43 Charging for large-scale, commercial funfairs has been discussed in paragraph 
5.32.  Where a small funfair is operated as part of a community event, then the 
event as a whole needs to be considered in the context of community policing 
in the broadest sense.  Whether charges should be made for such events 
should be assessed on an individual basis using the criteria described in 
paragraph 5.38. 
 
Small scale events 
 
5.44 Police forces remain with a duty to police local communities. Where an event is 
assessed as requiring the equivalent of 48 police hours (however deployed) or 
lower, Chief Constables should treat such deployments as part of the visibility 
and local re-assurance components of local policing.  For small scale events, 
these decisions can be taken at BCU level.  As such, policing of small scale 
events under these conditions should then attract no charge.  
Where the 
event is commercial in nature or the force is supplying services under 
commercial (SPS) or market conditions, then even small deployments can, 
however, be charged at the discretion of the Chief Officer.  
 
5.45  The examples shown seek to provide guidance about the use of abatement as 
a concept.  While these cannot be exhaustive, it is intended to provide a 
framework for decision making.  One of the important elements is a need to 
present a clear, consistent and transparent approach to the charging for 
services.  Wide variations in practice will undermine this requirement. 
 
5.46 It is good practice to keep a register of the events policed and a record of the 
decisions on policing levels and any abatement decisions taken.  This will 
provide a validated and transparent trail to cross reference future decisions and 
provide public accountability. It is wholly appropriate that professional bodies 
will compare operating costs of their businesses. Variations in costs relating to 
policing need to stand scrutiny. 
 
 
v.27 
22

 
Examples of using Decision matrix: 
 

Music 
Promoter 
Licence / SC 
Stewards 
Payment at 
Performers 
Traders 
Festival 
Required 
Used 
Event 
Paid 
Concessions
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Police 
an 
Yes Yes 
 Yes Yes Yes Yes 
event on a 
Premises 
Greenfield 
Licence 
site 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Nature of 
Proceeds to 
Detrimental 
Community 
Additional 
Normal 
Charging 
Event 
Charity 
Community 
Value 
Policing 
Deployment 
Policy 
Impact 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Commercial 
No Moderate 
Moderate 
Yes No Full 
Cost 
for Profit 
Recovery 
 
 
The above example relates to the policing of a music festival on an open-air Greenfield site.  This event has a promoter in place and requires a 
premises licence due to the exhibition of live music.  Stewarding is provided which mitigates some of the need for additional police resources.  
Payment is required for entry to the event, in which most of the performers are paid, giving a clear indication of the event’s commercial status.  
A number of trader concessions are on the site.  None of the proceeds are given to charity.  The adverse impact on the local community is 
moderate, with some increase in traffic congestion, and a moderate increased risk of disorder in the vicinity of the event.  There is some 
moderate community value associated with the event due to increased benefits to the local economy.  Some additional policing is required at 
the event, which would not otherwise have a police deployment. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
23
 

 

Cycle Race *  Promoter 
Licence / SC 
Stewards 
Payment at 
Performers 
Traders 
Required 
Used 
Event 
Paid 
Concessions
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Provide 
No – but a 
No Yes Nominal 
by 
No Yes 
policing to the  voluntary 
participants 
event 
organiser 
only 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Nature of 
Proceeds to 
Detrimental 
Community 
Additional 
Normal 
Charging 
Event 
Charity 
Community 
Value 
Policing 
Deployment 
Policy 
Impact 
 
Not for Profit 
No 
Local  
Moderate 
Yes 
No 
Abated 
charge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The above example relates to an event such as a British Cycling Premier Calendar event.  The event has no promoter, rather a voluntary 
organiser and it does not need a licence or Safety Certificate.  Some stewards are provided by the event organiser, which reduces the amount 
of the police resources that are required.  Payment is not required to spectate at the event, rather the competitors will pay a small entry fee.  
There are a number of traders concessions selling merchandise connected to the event for their own financial gain, not that of the event 
organiser.  The event is not for profit and non-charitable, with entry fees being used to cover the costs of staging the event.  There will be some 
local detrimental community impact due to traffic diversions, and a moderate amount of community value associated with the event.  Additional 
policing is required to ensure the event is able to proceed safely. 
 
* Many small-scale club organised cycling events take place which require no policing or a level of policing below the minimum threshold and 
therefore will attract no charge.  Some high-profile, large scale events, such as the Tour of Britain, are run by commercial companies and 
therefore would attract full cost recovery.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
24
 

 
 
 
 
 
 

LA ‘Event in 
Promoter 
Licence / SC 
Stewards 
Payment at 
Performers 
Traders 
the Park’ 
Required 
Used 
Event 
Paid 
Concessions
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Provide 
Yes  
Yes  
Yes Yes Yes Yes 
policing to the  Local 
Premises 
event.  
Authority 
Licence 
Commander 
decides extra 
policing is 
required. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Nature of 
Proceeds to 
Detrimental 
Community 
Additional 
Normal 
Charging 
Event 
Charity 
Community 
Value 
Policing 
Deployment 
Policy 
Impact 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Not for Profit 
No 
Local 
Medium 
Yes 
Nominal – 
Abated 
say 4 
charge  
 
The above example relates to the provision of additional policing at an event organised by the local council such as a ‘Party in the Park.’  The 
Local Authority is the promoter and a premises licence is required due to the exhibition of live music.  Some stewards are used which mitigates 
some of the need for additional police resources.  A small payment is required to attend, the performers are paid and there are a significant 
amount of trader concessions.  However, the event is not for profit, and none of the proceeds go to charity.  There is some local detrimental 
community impact due to traffic congestion and increased risk of disorder.  This is offset by the event having considerable community benefit.  
A moderate amount of additional policing is required in addition to the low level of policing that is provided as part of normal community policing 
of the area where the event is being held. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
25
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Community 
Promoter 
Licence / SC 
Stewards 
Payment at 
Performers 
Traders 
Festival 
Required 
Used 
Event 
Paid 
Concessions
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Police a local 
No No No No No Yes 
festival on 
highway and 
local park 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Nature of 
Proceeds to 
Detrimental 
Community 
Additional 
Normal 
Charging 
Event 
Charity 
Community 
Value 
Policing 
Deployment 
Policy 
Impact 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Not 
No 
Minimal High 
Yes 
Minimal No 
charge 
Commercial 
 
 
The above example relates to the provision of policing to a local community-type festival on a highway and in a park which attracts several 
hundred visitors.  There is no promoter and no licence or safety certificate is required.  No stewards are employed, payment is not required to 
attend and there are no paid performers.  A moderate number of small-scale traders attend, but the event itself is not for profit.  No proceeds 
are given to charity.  There is very low detrimental community impact as a result of slightly increased traffic congestion.  This is more than offset 
by the event having considerable benefit in terms of community cohesion.  A moderate amount of additional policing is required in addition to 
the low level of policing that is provided as part of normal community policing of the area where the event is being held. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
26
 

 
 
 
 
 
 

Lord 
Promoter 
Licence / SC 
Stewards 
Payment at 
Performers 
Traders 
Mayor’s 
Required 
Used 
Event 
Paid 
Concessions
Parade 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Policing 
the 
No No Some 
No No Yes 
event through 
streets  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Nature of 
Proceeds to 
Detrimental 
Community 
Additional 
Normal 
Charging 
Event 
Charity 
Community 
Value 
Policing 
Deployment 
Policy 
Impact 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Not 
No Moderate 
 
High 
Yes Minimal 
Abated 
Commercial 
charge  
 
 
The above example relates to the provision of policing to a Lord Mayor’s Parade through a town centre. There is no promoter and no licence or 
safety certificate is required.  Some stewards are employed, which reduces the number of police resources that are required.  Payment is not 
required to attend and there are no paid performers.  A moderate number of small-scale traders attend, but the event itself is not for profit.  No 
proceeds are given to charity.  There is moderate detrimental community impact as a result of increased traffic congestion and increased risk of 
disorder.  This is offset by the event having strong traditions within the community.  A high level of additional policing is required due to the size 
of the area that requires policing, in addition to the low level of policing that is provided as part of normal community policing. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
27
 

 
 
 
 
 
 

Major 
Promoter 
Licence / SC 
Stewards 
Payment at 
Performers 
Traders 
Charity 
Required 
Used 
Event 
Paid 
Concessions
Event 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Provide 
Yes No  Yes Yes Yes Yes 
policing to a 
major event 
or tattoo 
promoted for 
charitable 
purposes 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Nature of 
Proceeds to 
Detrimental 
Community 
Additional 
Normal 
Charging 
Event 
Charity 
Community 
Value 
Policing 
Deployment 
Policy 
Impact 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Not 
Yes Major 
High Yes Minimal 
Full 
Cost 
Commercial 
Recovery 
 
 
 
The above example relates to the provision of policing at a major event promoted for charitable purposes.  There is a promoter but no premises 
licence or safety certificate is required.  Some stewards are employed, which reduces the number of police resources that are required.  
Significant payment is required to attend and there are a large number of paid performers.  There are a significant number of traders 
concessions selling merchandise connected to the performers.  The event itself is not for profit, with all proceeds after the payment of costs are 
given to charity.  The detrimental impact on the local community is high due to high levels of traffic congestion, some noise pollution and 
increased risk of disorder in the vicinity of the event.  There is a large amount of community value associated with the event due to its charitable 
nature.  Significant additional policing is required at the event, due to the large number of people attending, in addition to the low level of 
policing that is provided as part of normal community policing. 
 
 
 
 
 
28
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Major 
Promoter 
Licence / SC 
Stewards 
Payment at 
Performers 
Traders 
Private 
Required 
Used 
Event 
Paid 
Concessions
Event 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Provide 
No No Some 
No Yes Some 
policing to a 
major party or 
private 
entertainment 
function 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Nature of 
Proceeds to 
Detrimental 
Community 
Additional 
Normal 
Charging 
Event 
Charity 
Community 
Value 
Policing 
Deployment 
Policy 
Impact 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Private 
event 
No Local 
No Yes No Full 
Cost 
Recovery 
 
 
 
The above example relates to the provision of policing to a major private party that is not open to members of the public.  There is no promoter 
and no premises licence or safety certificate is required.  A small number of stewards are employed, which partially reduces the number of 
police resources that are required.  No payment is required to attend.  There are a large number of paid performers and a small number of 
traders concessions.  The event itself is privately financed and not for profit.  There is no charitable element involved.  There is a local 
detrimental impact on the community due to a moderate amount of traffic congestion.  There is no community value associated with the event.  
Significant additional policing is required at the event, due to the large number of people attending, which would not otherwise have a police 
deployment. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
29
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Football 
Promoter 
Licence / SC 
Stewards 
Payment at 
Performers 
Traders 
Match 
Required 
Used 
Event 
Paid 
Concessions
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Provide 
Yes Yes 
 Yes Yes Yes Yes 
policing to a 
Safety 
professional 
Certificate 
football 
match 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Nature of 
Proceeds to 
Detrimental 
Community 
Additional 
Normal 
Charging 
Event 
Charity 
Community 
Value 
Policing 
Deployment 
Policy 
Impact 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Commercial 
No Moderate 
Moderate 
Yes Yes Full 
Cost 
for Profit 
Recovery 
 
The above example relates to the provision of policing at a professional football match.  The club is the promoter and a safety certificate is 
required for the stadium.  A large number of stewards are employed which reduces the number of police officers that are required.  Significant 
payment is required to attend the event, where the performers are paid.  There are a large number of trader concessions at the ground.  The 
event is for the profit of the club itself, and none of the proceeds go to charity.  There is a moderate detrimental community impact caused by 
traffic congestion and an increased risk of disorder, but also moderate community value as a result of the positive impact on the local area from 
the club’s activities as a whole.  Large numbers of additional resources are required in addition to those that are provided as part of normal 
community policing. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
30
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Commercial 
Promoter 
Licence / SC 
Stewards 
Payment at 
Performers 
Traders 
Funfair 
Required 
Used 
Event 
Paid 
Concessions
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 To 
provide 
Yes No Yes No No Yes 
policing at a 
large 
commercial 
funfair 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Nature of 
Proceeds to 
Detrimental 
Community 
Additional 
Normal 
Charging 
Event 
Charity 
Community 
Value 
Policing 
Deployment 
Policy 
Impact 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Commercial 
No Moderate 
Minor 
Yes Minimal 
Full 
Cost 
for Profit 
Recovery 
 
 
The above example relates to the provision of policing at a large commercial funfair.  There is a promoter but no licence or safety certificate is 
required.  Some stewards are employed which reduces the number of police officers that are required.  No payment is required to attend the 
event, and there are no paid performers.  There are a large number of trader concessions, and the event is for the profit of the traders that 
make up the fair, with none of the proceeds going to charity.  There is moderate detrimental community impact caused by traffic congestion and 
an increased risk of disorder.  There is also some minor community value as a result of increased community cohesion and tradition associated 
with the event.  Significant additional policing is required at the event, due to the large number of people attending and the increased risk of 
disorder, in addition to the low level of policing that is provided as part of normal community policing.
 
 
31
 

 
6.0   Charging for Football 
 
6.1    Football matches can be seen as a series of planned events occurring in a 
Force area.  In this circumstance the promoter is the Chief Executive of the 
football club.  The general principles for the basis of providing the special police 
services are the same as those for commercial events, but have been 
sharpened by recent case law (GMP vs. Wigan AFC 2007 and 2008).  
 
6.2  The provision of policing for football matches reflects both operational policing 
requirements and special police services (SPS) provided at the request of the 
club.   
 
 
The key criteria for the provision of SPS to clubs include:  
 
a)  A formal agreement between the club and the force which includes a 
request for service. 
b)  A common clear understanding of the chargeable amount that relates to the 
immediate locality i.e. “the footprint”. 
c)  Clear and transparent policing deployment both at the ‘footprint’ and away 
from that locality.   
d)  Agreed rates for police charges for different categories of matches. 
 
6.3  A charging agreement represents the codification of the overall request for 
policing services across the football season.  Within the agreement, provision 
should be made to vary the request for an individual match or to add an 
additional request e.g. a cup match.  Such changes need to be identified to and 
agreed with the club prior to the provision of SPS. 
 
6.4  The policing provision depends upon a number of roles, some of which are 
determined as core policing for the purposes of the match.  These can be 
supplemented by further partial deployments and/or specialist roles. 
 
6.5  The core policing component would cover all phases of the match which 
extends to a period before and after the match itself.  The methodology in this 
instance sets a six hour chargeable period to reflect: 
 
 
a) 
Parading at a station 
 
b) 
Briefing and equipment allocation 
 
c) 
Transport to locality 
 
d) 
Policing “Phases 1 to 3” – a period before, during and after the match. 
 e) 
Debrief 
 
f) 
Transport to home station 
 
        6.6 
Some of the operational policing resource will be deployed in the footprint for 
part of the overall period of the match.  These deployments may vary in length 
between the phases of the match.  In order to maintain consistency, partial 
deployments should be charged based on an average three hours deployment.  
Where deployment is wholly away from the footprint, e.g. wholly in the town 
centre, then this will not be chargeable. 
 
 
31
 

 
 
        6.7 
Nationally the policing requirement for football matches is set by categories that 
reflect an assessment of the risk and threat relating to both crime and disorder 
and public safety.  It is important that all local assessments are structured and 
objective to support the policing need.  It is good practice to share such 
assessments with clubs as part of identifying the basis for any request for 
service.   
 
6.8  In common with other commercial events, full economic cost recovery should 
be used to recover the costs of the officers and staff for the period of their 
service supplied. 
 
  
6.9  Occasionally, mutual aid from other forces is requested to police certain 
matches, as allowed for under S24 Police Act 1996.  In this context, the host 
force is, in effect, contracting additional officers under S25 Police Act 1996 to 
provide the service.  Special duty rates should, therefore, apply and the 
providing force reimbursed for the service provided. 
 
6.10  Further advice is given in more detail in a separate document, ‘Guidance for 
Football Deployment and Cost Recovery.’  
 
 
7.0    Provision of Goods and Services to 3rd Parties 
 
7.1    The provision of goods and services will cover services such as the provision of 
training in particular skills, the provision of information from police databases, 
etc. and goods which can range from memorabilia to old equipment, etc. 
  
7.2    The situation here is conceptually different in that the goods and services are 
provided and sold in market competitive conditions.  As such, pricing policy is 
largely discretionary to an individual Force/Authority.  Forces can be in 
competition with all other suppliers, including companies, non-profit 
organisations and other Forces. 
 
7.3    Some areas of service, such as the provision of certain information, can be, de 
facto, a national or local monopoly in that only the police service can provide 
the service.  As a general principle, it can be difficult to justify in the service 
widely varying costs for say, the provision of Road Traffic Information.  At the 
least, it creates an overall problem for the service, in terms of credibility to 
sections of the business or other communities.  
 
7.4    It is, therefore, proposed that a set of common service wide goods and services 
be developed and standardised. These are shown in more detail in Appendix 3. 
 
7.5  Under the Notifiable Occupation Scheme, forces have an obligation to disclose 
certain information.  Initial disclosure is without charge and sufficient detail will 
be provided in the first instance to allow the regulatory or governing body 
concerned to conduct an adequate risk assessment in terms of the risk that 
may be posed to children, vulnerable adults, national security and probity and 
administration of justice.  On occasions, the regulatory or governing body will 
request further supporting information to aid their own internal investigations as 
to whether the individual is still fit to practise in their profession.  Dealing with 
such requests requires information to be retrieved and decisions made about 
what information should be disclosed.  The majority of these requests will take 
no more than 2 hours to complete.  Any requests that take longer than 2 hours 
 
 
32
 

 
will incur further costs at an hourly rate.   If an emergency disclosure was 
required by a regulatory body/authority due to immediate risk to children 
or vulnerable adults, this would be performed urgently at no cost.
 
 
7.6    Appendix 3 shows a range of items, both “goods” and services” that evidence 
has shown that the majority of forces supply, with an associated charge. A 
review of the charges has shown that some items have little variation across 
the country whilst for others charges can vary significantly.  It is recommended 
that the charges shown at Appendix 3 should be applied for the current year but 
should then be updated for inflation from then on. The nature and level of 
charge should then be re-assessed at 3 yearly intervals to review their 
continuing relevance and their link to the cost base. There have been some 
items updated as a result of such reviews in this revision.  It is recognised that 
some forces will incur additional costs in retrieving documents that are held in 
off-site commercial archives.  Also, from 1st April 2010 forces will be required to 
pay £100 for obtaining historical criminal records from the microfiche library.  In 
these situations, it is acceptable for these costs to be passed on to the body 
requesting the information.    
 
7.7    No charges should be made to the Motor Insurers Bureau for the provision of 
collision reports (in line with HO Circular 163/1 953).   
 
7.8  No charges should be made to Responsible Authorities (such as Local 
Authorities, Health Authorities, Fire and Rescue Authorities, Primary Care 
Trusts, NHS Trusts, Probation Committees and Registered Social Landlords) 
due to the requirement within the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 for such 
partners to work together to combat anti-social behaviour. 
 
7.9    For those areas where the service is provided in open market conditions, 
then a general principle should apply that charges should, at least, 
recover the costs of supplying the service.
  For this to be able to be 
achieved, Forces should be clearly able to identify the investment (start up) and 
running costs of the service and then set charges accordingly.  This should be 
based on the model for calculating direct costs. But the charges made will 
clearly depend on the nature of the market and local pricing decisions. 
 
7.10  On some occasions, pricing policy may dictate a marginal costing approach 
initially being taken.  Here, the employable cost identified in the costing model 
should be the baseline for consideration.  Beyond this, Forces should then have 
a clear understanding of the contribution requirements to direct overheads and 
set up or other investment costs, in order that they can demonstrate the 
adequate recovery of costs. 
 
7.11  It is clear that pricing policy and market conditions can affect the level of 
charges.  It is important that, in those conditions, all Forces should be able to 
validate charges set.  The costing model can provide a basis for this to be 
undertaken.  In certain conditions, Forces are taking advantage of their spare 
capacity.  It is important in these circumstances that Forces can demonstrate a 
strong "value for money" rationale to the use of the resources applied. 
 
 
33
 

 
 
7.12  In other circumstances, the ability to market and benefit from an area of 
expertise needs pump priming or investment - often in support activities.  It is 
expected that charges should be set that will recover all the supporting costs, 
including the pump priming or set up costs within a reasonable investment time 
period. Charges can exceed the overall level of cost recovery and therefore 
provide a net income stream where market conditions allow. But forces should 
be prepared to identify and justify pricing policies if required. 
 
 
8.0   Charging for Services to Government Agencies 
 
8.1    The police service increasingly provides a range of services for, and with, other 
Government Agencies.  Many of these are elements of Central Government, 
such as the UK Border Agency.  Some, however, are quasi commercial 
activities having Agency Status. 
 
8.2    In the first category, Police Forces are providing often core policing service as a 
support to the wider public sector delivery of Government objectives - e.g. 
addressing potential illegal immigrants.  Although this can be seen to be akin to 
special policing services, there are other issues that need to be considered in 
these circumstances. 
 
8.3    A guiding principle here is that in providing the service, a Force often gains an 
element of self help towards its overall strategic plan.  The cost of the resource 
usage needs to be recovered in that light. 
 
8.4    Where police or support staff resource is used in providing the service, then the 
employable cost of the staff used should be recovered.  To this should be 
added any overtime incurred and additional specific direct costs incurred 
e.g. consumables, travel and expenses, accommodation etc.
  This can 
either be actual cost, if quantifiable, or can be an average cost calculation, 
where it is unlikely that differences will be material. 
 
8.5    In a number of cases, the provision of the service includes the use of a police 
provided facility e.g. custody suite, interviewing facilities, etc.  A contribution to 
these overheads can be added to the direct costs used. This can either be by 
means of a calculation of the direct costs incurred – rent, utility costs etc. or, 
where in practice this would be difficult or onerous to obtain, by the addition of a 
general overhead recovery element.  In this circumstance, the recovery should 
be in the range 10% - 15% of the direct costs incurred. The range allows some 
discretion in the amount of administrative support incurred in providing the 
service. 
 
8.6    In certain circumstances, police support to a Department or Agency may be 
more long term or require a number of instances of service provision. Here it 
may be more appropriate to either agree a specific rate based on projections of 
anticipated costs – based on the resource cost model or special policing rates 
as an alternative. 
 
 
34
 

 
 
8.7    In the second category – the quasi commercial activity, the service provided is 
much more akin to operating in market conditions. Here the same principle 
should apply. The charging methodology should use the calculation for 
resource costs as the starting point for identifying the costs of the 
service. 
To this should be added all associated specific costs incurred in the 
provision of the service and a contribution towards overheads. Market 
conditions will either provide a practical constraint or allow full economic 
recovery to be utilised.  
 
8.8    It is important to understand the police role in such activities. In most cases, the 
skills and experience of officers and staff are being used to enhance another 
Government based service. Where this is outside of the normal policing role, 
then there should be the aim of covering all recognised costs together with the 
appropriate contribution to overheads. 
 
8.9  The VAT element of charging for Special Police Services is a complex matter 
and in all cases of doubt, advice should be sought from Force VAT experts or 
HMRC. Secondment of Police Officers does not normally attract VAT although 
this is not the case with Police Staff. There are various rules governing police 
services overseas. It is prudent to seek expert guidance in individual cases. 
 
 
Cost recovery under grant funding regimes 
 
8.10  There is now a range of occasions where police officers (and some police staff) 
are supported by public grant funding or other external funding streams. The 
key principle in these cases is to properly identify and recover relevant costs. 
Where a police officer post being supported is delivering a direct policing 
service, then recovery should be based on Resource costs. Where, however, 
the role is utilising police experience or expertise, rather than providing direct 
policing, then the cost recovery should use total Direct Cost less the overtime 
premium – equating to employable cost plus the “employers pension 
contribution” for an officer. 
 
 
 
35
 

 
 
9.0   Provision of mutual aid to other police forces 
 
9.1    Mutual aid is the provision of policing assistance to another police force. It is a 
formal arrangement and is similar to the provision of Special Police Services.  
As such aid is usually provided in response to or in anticipation of a major 
event.  
 
9.2    Mutual aid activity ranges from small scale, inter-force support, through reacting 
to a significant or serious incident to, in some cases supporting a force or 
government department in a large pre-planned event. 
 
9.3  By its very nature, mutual aid is incident based, and therefore likely to be 
extraordinary to the normal policing arrangements in the area. 
 
9.4  The general principles of direct cost recovery should apply, but it is recognised 
that this is a complex area, particularly with regard to the framework of police 
regulations.  
 
9.5  For detailed charging arrangements for mutual aid, a separate guidance 
document, ‘Guidance on Charging for Police Services: Mutual Aid Cost 
Recovery’ has been produced.   
 
 
 
36
 

 
 
SECTION 2:  COSTING METHODOLOGY 
 
 
1.0   Background  
 
1.1   The cost of a service and the charging for the service are linked. The cost 
recovery model seeks to provide a consistent basis for calculating recovery 
charges. But, the cost of a particular service can relate to the purpose of the 
usage.  For the purposes of our approach, the following basic costing elements 
are defined:- 
 
• 
Employable Cost 
This represents the basic actual cost of the service providers, with no 
allowance for an overtime premium or the recovery of overheads.  
 
• 
Direct Cost 
This is the cost of an officer including a standard overtime recovery 
element.  
 
• 
Resource/ Operational Cost. 
This represents the cost of the resource employed in the provision of the 
service.  Here, the direct costs and the direct overheads are included. 
 
• 
Full Economic Cost.   
This calculation includes all properly attributable costs, including 
contributions to administrative and general overheads.  However, this 
indirect overhead recovery must relate to relevant overheads. 
 
1.2    The normal application of costing policing for charging purposes should reflect 
full economic cost recovery.  This is particularly true for commercial purposes, 
where a special police service is being provided using police resource.  There 
are potentially some circumstances where the other cost bases will lead to cost 
recovery charging.   
 
1.3   The model, shown at Appendix 4, builds up to the full economic costs in logical 
stages. These are aimed to provide stability but at the same time recognise true 
differences in the cost base of forces.  The basic mechanics are set out below:- 
 
1) 
Define relevant Resource cost = Employable cost + direct overheads; 
 
2) 
Apply relevant contribution to administrative and general overheads; 
 
3) 
Derive standard or average productive hours; 
 
4) 
Calculate productive hourly rate (per rank). 
 
5) 
Apply deployment hours for “core” and “supplementary” policing / support. 
 
6) 
Identify and include all ancillary costs related to the provision of service 
e.g. consumables. 
 
 
 
 
 
37
 

 
2.0   Application 
 
2.1   The calculation resulting in the hourly rate of employable resource costs has 
been revised and updated.    
 
2.2    There are a number of factors that have to be addressed in determining 
elements of the overall calculation and approach.  The major ones are set out 
below:- 
 
• 
Average or actual cost for officers. 
• 
Deriving the cost of allowances within police pay. 
• Pensions 
cost. 
• 
Accounting for overtime working. 
• 
Identifying relevant ancillary costs. 
• 
Calculating general overhead recovery. 
 
2.3    Variations in the approach by a Force to these issues can and have led, in the 
past, to the relatively wide variation in charges.  This had led, in turn, to queries 
being raised about the relative level of those charges. The aim of the model has 
been to reduce these variations where possible, without undermining the need 
to recover costs according to those borne locally.  
 
Average versus Actual Cost 
 
2.4    There is a clear difference in deriving a cost and charging methodology. Actual 
costs should be charged where possible.  However, there is confusion in what 
this means when applied to a costing regime.  In practice, police officers are 
generally still costed as an average by rank. These are now normally also 
budgeted at cost centres but these vary between forces. There are also 
variations in the cost of individual officers, in the past from Rent / Housing 
Allowance and currently by the application of police pay reform elements (see 
below). It is, therefore, acceptable practice to identify an estimate of the 
average cost per rank, as the basis of both cost and charging.  The model 
derives a force average to apply in all cases. 
 
2.5    The cost of allowances has also been a significant cause of variation in police 
employable pay.  If maximum allowances are included in the calculation as 
some forces have done, the resultant hourly rate is higher than other 
approaches. 
 
2.6    The calculation for any allowances should reflect the average (budgeted) cost 
per rank, per Force.  This will provide both a transparent and realistic view of 
the employable cost of an officer.  It should be seen in the context that the cost 
recovery exercise addresses other overheads separately within the overall 
framework.   
 
Pension Costs  
 
2.7    Police Pensions costs are now reflected by an annual force contribution to a 
separate pensions account. It represents an employable cost overhead for the 
purpose of charging out to third parties.  
 
 
 
 
38
 

 
2.8    The pension overhead calculation is made at national level. In line with 
approaches elsewhere, our work was to identify a general percentage to be 
used. Work at GAD has shown that for a range of forces the current in year 
service cost of pensions is on average 36% of the police pay budget for 
members of the Police Pension Scheme (PPS) (for officers who joined before 
April 2006) and 28.5% for members of the New Police Pension Scheme 
(NPPS) (for officers who joined after April 2006).  Allowing for 11% pay 
contributions from officers in the PPS and 9.5% for officers in the NPPS, the 
current recovery rate of 24.2% should be used calculated on police basic pay.  
This will be reviewed every three years (in line with the re-evaluation of pension 
contributions) within the overall cost model framework. 
 
Accounting for Overtime 
 
2.9    This remains a difficult issue and there are options to be addressed.  Forces 
have varying approaches between including in the base calculation an 
estimated element of overtime working within the "standard productive hours" 
or, calculating a base figure, excluding overtime, and then quoting a premium 
hourly rate for either extended, rest day or public holiday working. 
 
2.10  The approach of the police service has changed.  In the cases where charging 
for police services is relevant, the policing resource should be considered to be 
in addition to the normal duty time resource required to police the community.  
In this case, a basic element of rest day working should be assumed as part of 
direct costs (and an additional 50% is included in the model to accommodate 
this).  This can then be used in the planning of both the service in the area and 
the event concerned. 
 
2.11  Where short notice working becomes necessary, due to circumstances related 
to the event, then an additional premium is applicable - to reflect the additional 
direct cost involved. Similarly, policing on public holidays has an additional cost, 
to be recovered by the appropriate additional premium charge. 
 
 
Relevant Direct Overheads 
 
2.12  The direct overheads are designed to reflect the other costs attributable directly 
to the cost of providing the service at the point of service.  This can involve 
utility costs, premises and equipment hire and, of course, the provision of 
catering/subsistence.  In most cases, this will be a directly measurable cost, 
but, in certain cases, involves the apportionment of a Force provided service 
e.g. communications centre for the period of the service delivery. For certain 
specialists e.g. dog handlers, an additional overhead calculation to include the 
average additional costs of the dog can be added. It is expected that only 
separate, truly measurable additional costs should be added to the modelled 
overhead recovery. This should, however, be considered separately from the 
recovery of administration or general overheads and is capable of justification 
as supporting the point of service delivery. 
 
Recovery of Administrative General Overhead 
 
2.13  Full economic cost recovery includes a properly attributable element of 
contribution towards the general overheads of administration and infrastructure.   
 
 
 
39
 

 
2.14  There has been a significant variation in the level of general overhead recovery 
rates currently used. A general methodology has been created but it, too, 
provides significant variations. In these circumstances, a view has been taken 
on the need, particularly in high profile charging arrangements like policing 
football, to maintain consistency. 
 
2.15  It is therefore proposed to use an average rate nationally. The incumbent rate 
was set at 29% based on an assessment of the overheads of a representative 
sample of forces.  A recent review of this rate has identified that 30% should 
now be used as a national average.   This rate will be periodically reviewed in 
support of the cost model. 
 
 
Productive hours 
 
2.16  Research shows that there are at present various different models to determine 
the number of chargeable hours across the country. These depend on a local 
view taken of abstractions. It has been noted that a relatively small difference in 
this part of the calculation leads to a variation that then becomes problematic to 
explain in comparison with others. The methodology proposed is to use a 
standard determination of average abstraction, leading to a consistent number 
of chargeable days per rank. This is set out in Appendix 4(2). It is recognised 
that this reduces the determination and inclusion of local factors but the debate 
in this area has to date been unhelpful for the service. This will be reviewed as 
part of a future update of the methodology. 
 
 
Deployable Time 
 
2.17  This has also been the cause of variations in application across Forces in the 
past.  Generally, the police service provided to a third party is planned in 
advance.  There is, therefore, a core service that is agreed to be provided.  This 
core service can be measured in hours or productive "days", where a day is a 
defined number of hours.  Clearly, the deployment time for the service must 
include all relevant components, from initial parading and briefing, travel time 
included to and from the service point, the actual policing service itself and de-
brief. 
 
 
3.0    Police Staff and Ancillary Costs 
 
3.1   Most events will have a period of core policing service and a transparent 
approach should be taken in identifying this with the promoter/organiser.  This 
will also give clarity to the police managers at the point of delivery. 
 
3.2    At some events or occasions, the core police service will be augmented by an 
additional resource for a period of time.  In this case, the supplementary 
resource should be added as additional direct cost - for a relevant number of 
hours.  (An hour, or multiples of an hour, should be the minimum time unit 
used). The charging model should still be applied in the same way but for a 
different amount of deployed hours, allowing a transparent approach to be 
taken for the use of supplementary resource at an event. 
 
 
 
 
40
 

 
3.3   The Special Constabulary forms a resource that is capable of providing part of 
the policing service. They are a trained supplementary police resource, 
generally deployed to provide “small event” policing or to augment policing at 
larger events. Specials incur a range of costs in uniform/ equipment, travel and 
subsistence, training, and the use of police vehicles and control equipment. 
There are no direct employable costs. 
 
3.4    It is important that the use of this resource is not distorted - (by the supplier or 
receiver) by using the charging methodology. On the one hand, specials have 
the powers of a constable and can therefore be deployed as a recognisable 
police resource. On the other, the cost base of the specials is demonstrably 
lower than regular officers. To reflect that it is recommended that a ratio of 2:1 
is used for both deployment and charging regimes. i.e. 8 specials would score 
as a deployment of 4 constables and would be charged as 4 constables.  
 
 
Other Police staff 
 
3.5    PCSOs represent a different element of the extended police family. Their role is 
complementary to police activity.  They are capable of being deployed to 
augment the service and provide visibility and re-assurance (e.g. small scale 
events), and should be included at the police staff direct charging calculations. 
 
3.6   There are increasingly circumstances where specialist police staff provide a 
front line service as part of special police services. Where police staff have 
relevant powers and are acting in a core role then they should be included 
within the direct cost of service calculation. 
 
3.7    Care should be taken in making this assessment.  This charging methodology 
includes the majority of a force’s support staff as part of the overhead recovery 
and it is therefore important to be clear and transparent in the use of specialist 
police staff. 
 
3.8    However, it is often the case that police staff can and are used in the delivery of 
services outside of S25 arrangements. These staff then form part of the direct 
cost of service delivered and should be included as part of the direct service 
cost element.   
 
3.9    Appendix 4 sets out guidance on the basis for including individual cost 
elements in the model. It is not exhaustive and there will be some variation in 
how budgeted information is held by forces. It should be remembered that there 
is a balance to be struck between precision and materiality, whilst striving to 
maintain a consistent approach to the charging methodology. 
 
3.11  Additional specific items of cost can also be calculated by use of average actual 
cost. Examples would include the specific use of vehicles for which an average 
cost of depreciation, average cost of service/repair and consumables can be 
calculated as appropriate. 
 
 
41
 

 
 
 
  
         Appendix 

 
Powers for the Charging of Police Services                                           
Police Act 1996 
 
 
Section 25 Special Policing Services 
 
Provides the basis of the provision of direct policing. 
 
“The Chief Constable of a force may provide, at the request of any person, special policing 
services at any premises or in any locality in the police area for which the force is 
maintained, subject to the payment to the Police Authority of charges on such scales as 
may be determined by that Authority” 
 
The Chief Constable of the British Transport Police Force may provide special police 
services at the request of any person, subject to the payment to the Strategic Rail 
Authority of charges on such scales as may be determined by that Authority. 
 
 
Section 18 Supply of Goods and Services 
 
Provides the basis for supplying goods and services other than direct policing to any 3rd 
party. 
 
“Subsections (1) to (3) of section 1 of the Local Authorities Goods and Services Act 1970 
(supply of goods and services by local authorities) shall apply to a police authority [and to 
the Metropolitan Police Authority] established under section 3 as they apply to a local 
authority, except that in their application to a police authority the references in those 
subsections to a public body shall be read as references to any person.” 
 
 
Section 26 Provision of advice and assistance to international organisations 
 
 
Subject to the provisions of this section, a police authority may provide advice and 
assistance-  
  
to an international organisation or institution, or 
to any other person or body which is engaged outside the United Kingdom in the carrying 
on of activities similar to any carried on by the authority or the chief officer of police for its 
area. 
 
The power conferred on a police authority by subsection (1) includes a power to make 
arrangements under which a member of the police force maintained by the authority is 
engaged for a period of temporary service with a person or body within paragraph (a) or 
(b) of that subsection. 
 
(3) The power conferred by subsection (1) shall not be exercised except with the consent 
of the Secretary of State or in accordance with a general authorisation given by him. 
 
 
 
42
 

 
(4) A consent or authorisation under subsection (3) may be given subject to such 
conditions as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate. 
   
(5) Nothing in this section authorises a police authority to provide any financial assistance 
by-  
  
making a grant or loan, 
giving a guarantee or indemnity, or 
investing by acquiring share or loan capital. 
 
(6) A police authority may make charges for advice or assistance provided by it under this 
section. 
 
Amendment 
   
Sub-s (7): repealed by the Greater London Authority Act 1999, ss 325, 423, Sch 27, para 81, Sch 34, 
Pt VII. 
 
Date in force: 3 July 2000: see SI 2000/1648, art 2, Schedule. 
 
(8) The provisions of this section are without prejudice to the Police (Overseas Service) Act 
1945. 
Amendment 
 
Sub-s (8): words omitted repealed by the International Development Act 2002, s 19(2), Sch 4. 
 
Date in force: 17 June 2002: see SI 2002/1408, art 2. 
 
Section 92 Grants by local authorities. 
 
Provides the ability of a force to receive a grant towards policing costs from a local 
authority above normal precept arrangements. 
 
(1) The council of a county, district, county borough or London borough may make grants 
to any police authority established under section 3 whose police area falls wholly or partly 
within the county, district, county borough or borough. 
  
(2) The council of a London borough, county, or district, which falls wholly or partly within 
the metropolitan police district may make grants for police purposes to the Metropolitan 
Police Authority. 
 Amendment 
Reference to the Receiver repealed by the Greater London Authority Act 1999 
 
(3) Grants under this section may be made unconditionally or, with the agreement of the 
chief officer of police for the police area concerned, subject to conditions. 
  
(4) This section applies to the Council of the Isles of Scilly as it applies to a county council. 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
43
 

 
 
Appendix 2 
Charging for Events 
Matrix for assessing abatement of charges. 
 

Type Event 
Charge 
 
Category 
Commercial 
 100 

 
Professional sporting events 
 
 
Music Concerts / festivals 
 
 
Commercial bonfire / fireworks 
 
celebrations 
 
Car boot sales 
 
 Motoring 
events 
 
 Game 
Shows 
 
 
Showground events – principally 
 
commercial in nature 
 
Tattoos / military events 
 
 Animal 
shows 
 
 Horse 
racing 
 
 
Events on private property 
 
 
 
 
Non-Commercial 
 0-75% 
      Charitable 
Charity road races – running / 
 
cycling 
 
Charity events – bonfires etc. 
 
 
Charitable sho ws – wholly or 
 
substantially charitable in nature 
Community 
Town Centre events/markets 
 
 
Local Authority events 
 
 Carnivals 
 
 Community 
fairs/celebrations 
 
 Religious 
Parades 
 
Not for Profit Community 
Amateur cycling races 
 
 
Amateur running races 
 
 
 
 
Statutory Events  
 0 
 Ceremonial 
parades 
 
 
Remembrance Day parades 
 
 Jubilee 
events 
 
 Constitutional 
events 
 
 
 
 
 “De 
minimis” 
events 

 
Assessment Criteria 
1 Promoter 

Safety certificate /Premises licence requirement 

Stewards used (H&S assessment) 

Payment at event 
5 Performers 
paid 
6 Traders 
concessions 

Nature of event 

Proceeds to Charity 

Detrimental community impact 
10 Community 
value 
11 
Level of normal deployment 
 
(Small scale event – de minimis) 
 
 
44
 

 
 
 
Appendix 3 
Charge Rates for Common Items 
 
Previous 
 
Revised 
2009/10 
 
2010/11 
£ 
Accident Reports £ 
80.50 
Copy of Accident Report (full extract up to 30pages) 
82.60 
3.50 
Additional pages for  same incident (per page) 
3.60 
28.70 
Limited particulars (RT  Act details) 
29.40 
28.70 
Copy of self reporting / minor accident form 
29.40 
346.00 
Fatals - Accident Investigation report 
354.90 
69.00 
Fatals - Reconstruction video 
70.80 
23.00 
Rough Data (per page) 
23.60 
34.50 
Copy of Scale plan -other than in collision report 
35.40 
Copy of Police vehicle examination report (unless 
57.50 
provided as full extract) 59.00 
Copy of Collision Reconstruction Report (unless 
57.50 
provided as full extract) 
59.00 
Copy of Collision Reconstruction Report (unless 
3.50 
provided as full extract) per page (max £50) 
3.60 
 
Copies of Photographs  
 
17.20 
from Digital camera (per disc) 17.60 
17.20 
A4 Index sheet (digital) 
17.60 
23.00 Photographs 
(first photo) 23.60 
2.50 
Each subsequent photograph 
2.60 
 
Copies of statements - other than in booklets 
 
29.60 
(per statement – up to 3 pages) 
30.40 
3.50 
Additional pages (per page) 
3.60 
Copy of witness statement (witness agrees to 
34.50 
disclosure of personal details) 
35.40 
Copy of witness statement (witness not agreeing 
46.00 
to disclosure of personal details) 
47.20 
114.90 
Interview with Police Officer (per Officer) 
117.90 
Request for a statement to be written by Police 
114.90 
Officer  
117.90 
23.00 
Copy of PIC Sheets (2nd copy ) 
23.60 
Copy of interview record 
46.00 
(only where prepared during investigative process) 
47.20 
69.00 
Copies of VHS videotapes (provision for CJS) 
70.80 
      Copies of audio tapes  
28.70       (provision for CJS) 
29.40 
17.20 
Copies of CDs/DVDs 
17.60 
 
Cancellation charges 
 
REFUND 
if request is cancelled prior to search 
REFUND 
28.70 
if search is made prior to cancellation 
29.40 
69.00 
if search is made and documents ready for dispatch 
70.80 
28.70 
Abortive search 
29.40 
 
Fingerprinting Fees 
 
65.00 
One set 
66.70 
32.50 
Additional sets thereafter (each) 
33.30 
 
 
45
 

 
Appendix 3 continued 
 
Charge Rates for Common Items 
 
 
Requests for Disclosure of Information 
 
n/a 
Request for information (up to 2 hours work) 
75.00 
Hourly rate for work above 2 hours (including 
n/a 
redaction) 25.00 
 
Other common items 
 
n/a 
Crime Report 
75.00 
n/a 
MG5 
30.00 
n/a 
MG3 
30.00 
n/a 
Incident Log 
30.00 
n/a 
PNC Convictions 
30.00 
n/a 
Caution Certificate 
20.00 
n/a 
Domestic Violence Report 
45.00 
n/a 
Occurrence Summary 
15.00 
n/a 
Custody Record 
15.00 
 
 
46
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appendix 3 continued 
 
Charge Rates for Common Items 
 
 
 

Statutory   
 
Charges £ 
Certificates 
Firearms Certificate issue 
50.00
Firearms certificate renewal 
40.00
Firearms certificate replacement 
9.00
Shotgun Certificate issue 
50.00
Shotgun Certificate renewal 
40.00
Shotgun Certificate replacement 
8.00
Shotgun Certificate (co-terminus with Firearms Certificate) 
10.00
Visitors Permit (Single) 
12.00
Visitors Permit (6+) 
60.00
Home Office Club approval 
84.00
Registered Firearms Dealer issue 
150.00
Registered Firearms Dealer replacement 
150.00
Registered Firearms Dealer – Temporary Transfer In 
12.00
Firearms Museum Licence 
200.00
Aliens Certificates 
34.00
Pedlars Certificates 
12.25
 
 

It should be noted that these charges are set by reference to Statutory Instruments and 
differ to the increased charges that were proposed in the first iteration of the charging 
guidance.  Current charges for these items should be confirmed at the time of charging.
 
 
47
 

 
 
 
Appendix 4 
Costing / Charging model 
 
 Key 
Data Proposed 
Calculation 
A Direct 
Costs 
 

Basic Salary 
Average salary per rank 

Rent/ Hsg. allowance 
Total Budget (inc. Comp grant) weighted by rank/no. 
of officers 

Police reform payments 
Average CRTP, SPP and Bonus payment per rank 

Subsistence 
Total force budget / no. of staff (weighted) 

Regional allowances 
Total budget weighted by rank no. of officers 

Other allowances / benefits 
Total budget / no. of officers 

National Insurance 
Total of 1-6 , calculated as per NI model 

Pensions cost 
Net In year service cost per FRS 17, allowing for 
officers contributions – estimated at 24.2% 

Total employable cost 
 
 
 
 

Overtime premium 
Rest day on-cost at 50% of basic pay 
= Total 
Direct 
Cost 
 
 
 
 
B Direct 
Overheads 
 
10 
Uniforms / equipment 
Total Budget /no. of officers 
11 
Insurance 
Total Budget /no. of officers 
12 
Transport 
Total Budget /no. of officers 
13 
Training 
Dept. budget + devolved budgets / no. of staff 
14 
Call Handling 
Call answering, crime recording, incident handling / 
no. of officers 
15 
Communications infrastructure 
IT infrastructure, voice services & operational 
applications / no. of officers 

Total Operational Resource 
 
Cost 
 
 
 
C Indirect 
Overheads 
 
16 
General overhead recovery 
Average indirect overhead recovery @ 30% 
(estimated national average) 

Full Economic Cost 
 
 
Costing/ Charging direct Police staff 
 
 Key 
Data Proposed 
Calculation 
A Direct 
Costs 
 

Basic Salary 
Average salary per mid point of grade 

Employers NI 
Average by grade 

Employers Superannuation 
Force calculation to Superannuation Fund 

Uniform 
Average cost per relevant staff (where applicable). 

Employers Liability insurance 
Average cost per relevant staff (where applicable). 

Total employable cost 
 

Overtime premium 
Where applicable – at appropriate rate 
 
 
 
= Total 
Direct 
Cost 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
48
 

 
Appendix 4 (1) 
 
Example Calculation Revised for pay award September 2009/10 and 2010/11 
 
Direct Costs & Direct Overheads Calculation 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PC 
Sgt 
Ins 
C Insp 
Supt 
C Supt 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
£ pa 
£ pa 
£ pa 
£ pa 
£ pa 
£ pa 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Basic Salary 
31,044 39,685
49,327
53,051 67,753
75,335
Competence 
348 583
537
433 
Special Priority 
357 357
357
357 357
357
Bonus Payment 
44 44
44
44 44
44
Subsistence 
76 76
76
76 76
76
       Rent /Hsg Allowance 
667 1,716
2,930
2,353 3,770
4,504
Regional Allowances 
0 0
0
0 0
0
Healthcare Scheme 
0 0
0
0 0
0
Other Misc Allowances 
23 23
23
23 23
23
 
32,560 42,485
53,295
56,338 72,024
80,339
National Insurance 
2,433 3,424
4,808
5,197 7,205
8,270
In Year Pension Cost net 
7,597 9,745
12,067
12,945 
16,396
18,231
Employable Cost 
42,590 
55,653
70,170
74,478 95,625
106,840
 
 
 
Overtime premium 
15,522 19,842
 
Total Direct Cost 
58,112 
75,495
70,170
74,478 95,625
106,840
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Direct Overheads 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Uniforms 
360 360
360
360 360
360
Insurance 
249 249
249
249 249
249
Transport 
1,071 1,071
1,071
1,071 1,071
1,071
Training 
1,031 1,031
1,031
1,031 1,031
1,031
Call Handling 
4,482 4,482
4,482
4,482 4,482
4,482
Communications  
Infrastructure 

1,895 1,895
1,895
1,895 1,895
1,895
 
 
 
Direct Overheads 
9,087 
9,087
9,087
9,087 
9,087
9,087
 
 
 
Resource Cost 
67,199 
84,583
79,257
83,565 
104,713
115,927
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
      
 
 
49
 

 
 
 

Appendix 4 (2) 
 
Example Calculation Revised for pay award September 2009/10 and 2010/11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PC 
Sgt 
Ins 
C Insp 
Supt 
C Supt 
 
£ pa 
£ pa 
£ pa 
£ pa 
£ pa 
£ pa 
Employable  Costs 
42,590 
55,653
70,170
74,478 95,625 
106,840
Overtime Premium 
15,522 19,842
 
 
Total Direct Cost 
58,112 
75,495
70,170
74,478 95,625 
106,840
Direct Overheads 
9,087 
9,087
9,087
9,087 9,087 9,087
Resource/Operational 
Cost 

67,199  84,583
79,257
83,565 104,713 115,927
Indirect Overheads  
15,503 
19,422
23,777
25,070 31,414 34,778
Full 
Economic 
Costs 
82,702 104,005
103,034
108,635 136,127 150,705
 
 
 
 
Available  Productive 
Hours 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Standard Calculation to 
be used throughout 
PC 
Sgt 
Insp. 
Ch. Insp. 
Supt 
C Supt 
Total 
Days 
365 
 365 365 365 
 365 365 
less :  
 
 
 
Rest Days & Weekends 
104  
104 
104 
104  
104 
104 
Annual Leave 
26  
27 
29 
29  
31 
31 
Average 
Sickness 
11 
 
10 9 9 8 8
Training Days 
8  
8
7


6
Bank Holidays 
8  


8  


Net 
Days 
208 
 208 208 208 
 208 208 
 
 
 
 
Productive hours per shift 
7.25 
 7.25 7.25 7.25 
 7.25 7.25 
Total 
Hours 
1,508 
 1,508 1,508 1,508 
 1,508 1,508 
Net 
Days 
208 
 208 208 208 
 208 208 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PC 
Sgt 
Insp. 
Ch. Insp. 
Supt 
C Supt 
£ per 
£ per   
£ per 
£ per 
£ per 
£ per 
 
hour 
hour 
hour 
hour 
hour 
hour 
Direct Costs 
28.24 36.91
46.53
49.39 63.41 70.85
Overtime Premium 
10.29 13.16
 
 
Total Direct Cost 
38.54 
50.06
46.53
49.39 63.41 70.85
Direct Overheads 
6.03 
6.03
6.03
6.03 6.03 6.03
Resource/Operational 
Cost 

44.56 56.09
52.56
55.41 69.44 76.87
Indirect Overheads  
10.28 
12.88
15.77
16.62 20.83 23.06
Full 
Economic 
Costs 
54.84 68.97
68.33
72.03 90.27 99.93
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Short Notice Additional 
£ per 
Premium 
hour 
£ 
per 
hour 
    
less than 5 days notice 
10.29 
13.16
 
 
 
 
Public Holiday rate 
30.88 
39.47
 
 
 
 
 
There is a differing net effect on forces for payment of rest day working at double time compared with 
payment of public holiday working, albeit this rate is also paid at double time. 
A short notice RD requirement to work is simply paid at double time as the officer would not actually be 
paid for their rest day, had they been allowed to take it off. The net effect of requiring an officer to work 
a short notice rest day is that the force pays twice the flat rate. 
 
 
50
 

 
If an officer is scheduled to work on a public holiday but takes the holiday entitlement then they are still 
paid a normal monthly salary. Where an officer is required to work a public holiday then they are paid at 
x hours at double time. This is in addition to the normal monthly salary they would receive. In effect 
forces face a three fold increase on flat rate every time an officer works a public holiday. 
 
 
 
51
 

 
Appendix 4 (3) 
 
Example of Police Staff cost recovery – for pay award September 2009/10 and 2010/11 
 

 
Band A-C 
Band D-E 
Management 
PCSO 
SOCO 
 
SCP 13 
SCP 32 
SCP 53 
SCP 20 
SCP 29 
 
£ pa 
£ pa 
£ pa 
£ pa 
£ pa 
Employable Costs 
22,904 
38,789
63,798
26,566 
35,450
Overtime Premium 
8,951 15,944
-
11,078 14,735
Total Direct Cost 
31,856 
54,733
63,798
37,644 
50,185
Direct Overheads 
1,031 1,031
1,031
9,087 1,031
Resource/Operational 
Cost 32,886 

55,764
64,828
46,731 
51,216
Indirect Overheads  
7,181 11,946
19,448
10,696 10,944
Full Economic Costs 
40,067 
67,710
84,276
57,427 
62,160
 
 
 
Available  Productive 
Hours 

 
 
 
 
 
Standard Calculation to 
be used throughout 
Band A-C 
Band D-E 
Management 
PCSO 
SOCO 
Total Days 
365 
365 
365 
365  
365 
less :  
 
 
Rest Days & Weekends 
104 
104 
104 
104  
104 
Annual Leave 
26 
27 
29 
26 
27 
Average Sickness 
11 
10 

11 
10
Training Days 

8
7

8
Bank Holidays 



8  

Net Days 
208 
208 
208 
208  
208 
 
 
 
Productive hours per shift 7.25 7.25  7.25 7.25 
 
7.25 
Total Hours 
1,508 
1,508 
1,508 
1,508  
1,508 
Net Days 
208 
208 
208 
208  
208 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Band A-C 
Band D-E 
Management 
PCSO 
SOCO 
 
£ per hour 
£ per hour 
£ per hour 
£ per hour 
£ per hour 
Direct Costs 
15.19 25.72
42.31
17.62 23.51
Overtime Premium 
5.94 10.57
-
7.35  9.77
Total Direct Cost 
21.12 
36.30
42.31
24.96 
33.28
Direct Overheads 
0.68 
0.68
0.68
6.03 
0.68
Resource/Operational 
Cost 21.81 

36.98
42.99
30.99 
33.96
Indirect Overheads  
4.76 7.92
12.90
7.09 7.26
Full Economic Costs 
26.57 
44.90
55.89
38.08 
41.22
 
 
 
 
 
 
Short Notice Additional 
Premium 

£ per hour 
£ per hour 
£ per hour 
£ per hour 
£ per hour 
less than 5 days notice 
11.88 
21.14
14.70 
23.64
Public Holiday rate 
17.82 
10.57
22.05 
11.82
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
52
 

 
Appendix 5 
 
 

Case Law – Charging for Special Police Services 
 
 
Case law offers helpful material and the key points considered in the case of Reading 
Festival Limited v West Yorkshire Police Authority 2006 (Para 4.14 – 4.16) are reproduced 
below:   
 
Reading Festival Ltd v West Yorkshire Police Authority 2006 [2006] EWCA Civ 524 
Court of Appeal 
Over a period of four years W had provided special police services to R for the running of a 
three-day music festival for which each year a fee was agreed and paid. In the particular 
year in question W did not wish the festival to take place due to the increase in violence at 
the event in previous years. At a meeting to agree matters prior to the festival taking place 
parties had failed to reach an agreement. R wished W to police the event as before but W 
made it clear that they would not put significant numbers of officers on the site. The event, 
however, took place with W having a lower profile than in previous years but with officers 
based in the surrounding community who could be called upon if necessary and R hired 
security staff to maintain site safety. W wished to claim payment for special police services 
under section 25(1) of the Police Act 1996. 
The trial judge held that R had requested special police services under section 25(1) of the 
1996 Act were provided and accordingly gave judgment for W. 
Held  
Appeal Allowed. 
Rs hope that W would police the festival did not amount to a request for special police 
services under section 25(1) of the Police Act 1996 and even if it had W provided an 
entirely different service anyway by provision of low profile backup in the surrounding area 
should they be required. The provision of those officers in the surrounding area was not 
required in order for the festival to take place. 
The parties had not agreed and therefore Ws claim had to fail because section 25(1) 
cannot operate without a contract being in place. It had been for R to decide what services 
it required and for W to decide how they would be provided. 
No special services had been provided, as the main purpose of the deployment had been 
the protection of the public despite that being as a result of the festival taking place and 
despite the operation being for the benefit of W and R, it had not specifically been 
requested by R. 
Although it is difficult to fully define what were special police services because it was 
dependant upon the circumstances there are some key features that would tend to 
suggest they were present, 
The services would have been requested but over and above that which the police would 
see as fulfilling their public duty, or 
The services would have to be provided by the party requesting them from the police if the 
police did not provide them. 
The services would be something that was requested and whether provided privately or 
publicly property would likely to be a strong factor behind it. 
 
 
53
 

 
Section 25(1) of the Police Act 1996 replaced section 15(1) of the Police Act 1964 which 
was in identical terms. The 1964 Act placed on a statutory basis what had previously been 
recognised at common law since Glasbrook Brothers Limited v Glamorgan County 
Council
 [1925] AC 270.  
Glasbrook. 
In that case a colliery manager applied for police protection of his colliery during a strike. 
The police superintendent was prepared to provide what, in his opinion, was adequate 
protection by means of a mobile force. The manager insisted the colliery could only be 
efficiently protected by billeting men on the premises. This, the superintendent was only 
prepared to do if the manager agreed to pay for the men at the specified rate. The colliery 
sought to resist recovery of the sum of £2200 which they had agreed to pay for the cost of 
the police services specially supplied. The House of Lords by a majority of 3 to 2 held that 
there was nothing illegal in the agreement nor was it void for want of consideration.  
Glasbrook affirmed the principle that there is a fundamental obligation on the police to 
keep law and order and that this is paid for through general taxation.  
Viscount Cave L.C.                   "No doubt there is an absolute and unconditional obligation 
binding the police authorities to take all steps which appear to them to be necessary for 
keeping the peace, for preventing crime, or for protecting property from criminal injury; and 
the public, who pay for this protection through the rates and taxes, cannot lawfully be 
called upon to make a further payment for that which is their right." 

The decision in Glasbrook turned on whether the lending of seventy constables to be 
billeted in the appellants' colliery was a legitimate application of the principle, and the 
House of Lords held by a majority that it was. The question for the court was whether on 9 
July 1921, the police authorities, acting reasonably and in good faith, considered a police 
garrison at the colliery necessary for the protection of life and property from violence, or, in 
other words, whether the decision of the Chief Constable in refusing special protection 
unless paid was such a decision as a man in his shoes could reasonably take.   
Viscount Cave L.C.                   "If in the judgment of the police authorities, formed 
reasonably and in good faith, the garrison was necessary for the protection of life and 
property, then they were not entitled to make a charge for it, for that would be to exact a 
payment for the performance of a duty which they clearly owed to the appellants and their 
servants; but if they thought the garrison a superfluity and only acceded to Mr. James' 
request with a view to meeting his wishes, then in my opinion they were entitled to treat 
the garrison duty as special duty and to charge for it." 

"I have come to the conclusion that when a colliery company or an individual requisitions 
police protection of a special character for a particular purpose, he must pay for it, and he 
must pay for it whether he makes a contract to pay or whether he does not – a promise to 
pay would be implied under those circumstances." 

In fact there was an express promise in that case. Thus it has been established, at least 
since the decision in Glasbrook, that the police are entitled to provide special police 
services if requested to do so, 'special police services' being broadly defined as those over 
and above their general obligation to maintain law and order and keep the peace.  
Thus, following what Viscount Cave said, a promoter of a function who requisitions 'special 
police services' must pay for them whether he makes a contract to pay or a promise to pay 
is to be implied.  
 
 
 
54
 

 
Harris v Sheffield United Football Club Ltd [1988] 1QB 77.  
Harris 
The main issue in that case was whether services provided by the police at Sheffield 
United Football Club for the club's home fixtures were 'special police services' so that if 
they were provided at the club's request the police could charge for them. Up until 1970 
the club had made special arrangements for the attendance of police officers at matches 
for which payments had been made. Thereafter the police continued to attend at matches 
both inside and outside the ground, but the club's view was that they were obliged to do so 
in accordance with their duty to maintain law and order. The club refused to make any 
payment. The police authority claimed £51,669 for the services of officers inside the 
ground for a 15 month period between August 1982 and November 1983 on the basis that 
they were 'special police services'. The club argued that they were not and that the police 
were doing no more than carrying out their duty. Further, the club denied that over a short 
period at the end of 1983 they had 'requested' police services for the purposes of the 
section and counterclaimed a declaration that they were not liable to make any payment 
for police services unless they requested attendance by officers to fulfil roles other than 
police duty. The judge found that at some matches violence was almost certain unless the 
police attended in substantial numbers, but concluded that the attendances inside the 
ground constituted special services and that the services had been requested. His decision 
was upheld on appeal.  
Neill L.J. did not attempt to lay down any general rules as to what are or are not 'special 
police services'. He pointed out that it depended on all the circumstances of the individual 
case. He did, however, identify four matters that ought to be taken into account. These 
were:  
•  Whether the police officers were required to attend on private premises or in a public 
place. The fact that the police do not as a general rule have access to private premises 
suggests that prima facie their presence on private premises would constitute 'special 
police services'. 
•  Whether some violence or other emergency had already occurred or was immediately 
imminent. 
•  The nature of the event or occasion the officers were required to attend. Here, he 
thought a distinction could be drawn between public events, such as elections, at one 
end of the spectrum and private events such as weddings at the other. He saw events 
such as football matches, to which the public are invited and which large numbers are 
likely to attend, as lying somewhere in between. He thought it might be relevant to 
inquire whether the event was a single one or one of a series, which was likely to place 
an exceptional strain on police resources. 
•  Whether the necessary amount of police protection could be met from the resources 
available to the chief constable without the assistance of officers who would be 
engaged in other duties or off duty. 
Neil L.J.                                     "Bearing these considerations in mind I return to the 
present case. The club has responsibilities which are owed not only to its 
employees and the spectators who attend but also to the football authorities to take 
all reasonable steps to ensure that the game takes place in conditions which do not 
occasion danger to any person or property. The attendance of the police is 
necessary to assist the club in the fulfilment of this duty. The matches take place 
regularly and usually at weekends during about eight months of the year. Though 
the holding of the matches is of some public importance because of the wide 
spread support in the local community both for the game and the club, the club is 
not under any legal duty to hold the matches. The charges which the police 

 
 
55
 

 
authority seek to make, and have made, relate solely to the officers on duty inside 
the ground and not to those in the street or other public places outside.  

There is clear evidence that the Chief Constable would be unable to provide the 
necessary amount of protection for Bramall Lane and also to discharge his other 
responsibilities without making extensive use of officers who would otherwise have 
been off duty. Substantial sums by a way of overtime have therefore to be paid. 
The arrangements for the attendance of the officers are made to guard against the 
possibility, and for some matches the probability, of violence; the officers are not 
sent to deal with an existing emergency, nor can it be said that any outbreak of 
violence is immediately imminent.  

In my judgment, looking at all these factors I am driven to the conclusion that the 
provision of police officers to attend regularly at Bramall Lane throughout the 
football season does constitute the provision of special police services. Nor in my 
opinion is it to the point that the club has stated that they do not expect the police to 
carry out any duties other then to maintain law and order. The resources of the 
police are finite. In my view if the club wishes on a regular basis to make an 
exceptional claim on police services to deal with potential violence on its premises, 
then however well intentioned and public spirited it may be in assembling the crowd 
at Bramall Lane, the services which it receives are "special police services" within 
the meaning of section 15(1) of the Police Act 1964." 

Balcombe L.J                           "In answering the question whether the provision of police 
within the club's ground was a special service the judge said: 

"The numbers considered necessary to carry out these services could only be provided by 
calling on officers who, at the material times, would otherwise have been off duty. The 
scope and extent of those services and their impact on the chief constable's manpower 
resources put them beyond what the club, in the circumstances, was entitled to have 
provided in pursuance of the chief constable's public duty. He was entitled to provide those 
services because he was able to do so without depriving other people of police protection. 
In other words, the services provided were within his powers; they were not within 
the scope of his public duty
. I am satisfied that they were special services as I 
understand that expression to have been used in the Glasbrook case and within the 
meaning of section 15(1) of the Police Act 1964. It follows that he was entitled to provide 
them on condition that they were paid for". 

The second question in Harris was whether the services had been requested. This related 
solely to the short period after October 1983 in respect of which it was argued on behalf of 
the club that there had been no relevant requests other than requests made on a without 
prejudice basis.  
Neill L.J.                                  "If the club is to hold matches at Bramall Lane it is necessary 
for police officers to attend inside the ground. Their presence is necessary to enable the 
club to meet its responsibilities to the players, the staff and the spectators as well as to 
comply with the rules imposed by the football authorities. It is not necessary to examine 
what steps could be taken, and by whom, to stop a match taking place if the club 
authorities declined to allow the police to attend. But there is no likelihood that the club 
authorities, who have acted with a great sense of responsibility throughout, would take 
such a course. It may be that the request for the police services can only be implied from 
all the circumstances and that it is made without enthusiasm. But if the police attend in 
order to enable the match to take place then, in the circumstances existing in this case, I 
consider that a request is to be implied."
 
 
 
56
 

 
In the case of Harris the court there was considering police services within the ground and 
not outside. While the section covers services provided at any premises or in any location 
in the force area provided they are 'special police services', the police were not seeking to 
recover any costs of policing outside the ground. Harris is authority for the proposition that 
regular attendance of the police inside the stadium is special police services.  
At football matches rival fans have to get safely to and from the ground, sometimes in a 
highly charged atmosphere. At the ground they have to be kept apart. A large crowd has to 
be kept safely in a confined space. A music festival extends over a longer period and takes 
place in a much larger open space. The threat it creates to the community outside the 
venue itself is over a much wider and less specific area. It should not be overlooked when 
drawing the line in a particular case between what are and what are not 'special police 
services' that the outcome will determine whether the promoter of the event or the public at 
large pays for the services provided.  
 
Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police vs. Wigan Athletic AFC LTD [2007] 
EWHC 3095 (Ch) 
 
IN SUMMARY 
Circumstances in which this matter came to the High Court are that GMP had been 
providing special police services at the request of WIGAN AFC. As Wigan were 
subsequently promoted through the leagues to the Premier League, GMP proposed an 
increase in charges having identified a need for an increase in policing. 
 
Wigan did not accept those charges and offered to pay at the previous seasons’ 
deployments, up rated for pay inflation. Arrears accrued as GMP continued to provide 
special services at the level of service they deemed appropriate for the match. Included 
within these charges were the costs of officers deployed within the stadium and those 
immediately outside.  
 
Wigan paid some monies under protest. GMP sued for the balance, and Wigan 
counterclaimed for the monies that had been paid under protest. Wigan contended that 
GMP had not provided Special Policing Services (SPS) as they had not been agreed or 
requested, in their view such a request could not be implied and the policing provided 
could not be ‘special policing’ as it included services outside the stadium. 
 
HELD 
1)  Where an event was staged at which disorder was a possibility the police could not be 
expected to police it as part of normal duties and it would amount to special policing 
services. The organiser of the event was obliged to pay for special policing even where a 
contract did not exist- a promise to pay could be implied.  
2)  The policing around the stadium in this case had been special services and not part of 
GMP’s duty to provide normal policing. On the facts of the case a distinction was not 
drawn between those officers inside the ground and those on the surrounding land outside 
the stadium. 
3)  The provision of special policing under S25 was based on the relationship created by a 
‘request’ and not on the provision of certain policing. In this case a request could be 
implied as Wigan could not safely stage its matches without police attendance. Wigan 
were not arguing that the police should not attend but about how much they should pay. 
4)  In absence of a contract GMP could recover costs on a quantum merit basis as a 
service had been provided and both parties had an expectation that they would be paid for 
and Wigan had obtained a benefit. 
5)  The amount of special policing required had to be determined on a case-by-case basis. 
 
 
57
 

 
6)  It is vital that police and clubs formally meet before the season to agree how policing is 
to be paid for. Mann J being of the view that a case of this nature should not be brought 
before the Courts again. 
7)  Mann J considered a sample of 7 matches out of over 40 and determined on a phase 
by phase basis what could and could not amount as SPS. Where it was found that officers 
were undertaking public policing duties not connected with SPS they could not be charged. 
An analysis of the approach in the case has been used to provide the following set of 
considerations when addressing charging for football matches. 
 
 
Chief Constable of Greater Manchester v Wigan Athletic AFC LTD [2008] EWCA Civ 
1449 
 
Court of Appeal (Sir Andrew Morritt (Chancellor), Smith LJ, Maurice Kay LJ) 
In the circumstances a football club had not made an implied request for special 
police services and was not required to pay for policing services provided over and 
above those which it had expressly requested. 

Wigan appealed against a decision that it was obliged to pay the respondent Chief 
Constable for special police services provided pursuant to an implied request by it for such 
services. For some years W had paid for policing at its football matches. Pursuant to a 
certificate under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975, it was required to secure at its 
own expense such policing as was in the opinion of the Chief Constable sufficient to 
ensure the orderly behaviour of spectators. As from the start of the 2003/2004 season, W 
was promoted to a higher division and although that meant that additional policing was 
required, W refused to pay any increased charges for police services. 
No agreement was reached and although policing was provided at a higher level and at 
increased cost, W continued to pay only for policing at the levels provided in previous 
seasons. After two seasons the Chief Constable sought recovery of the unpaid balance of 
the cost of the policing actually provided, claiming that such policing constituted special 
policing services within the meaning of the Police Act 1996. The judge found that there had 
been an implied request for special police services for the purposes of s.25, and that 
although that did not create a statutory head of claim, the Chief Constable had a basis for 
recovery either in contract or in restitution. W submitted that the judge's conclusion was not 
one that was properly open to him in the light of his own findings of fact and the conclusion 
of the Court of Appeal in Reading Festival Ltd v West Yorkshire Police Authority (2006) 
EWCA Civ 524, (2006) 1 WLR 2005. 
The principles set out in by Mann J were not challenged only the issues around whether 
there was an implied request which gave a basis for recovery of that debt. 
 
HELD: (Maurice Kay LJ dissenting) 
(1) The judge had been wrong to find that there had been an implied request for special 
police services. It was clear both from the terms of s.25 and from the decision in Reading 
Festival that to fall within s.25 a request had to match the special police services supplied. 
However, the match did not need to be exact. It was for the Chief Constable to determine 
the level of policing required, so if a person asked for special police services at a private 
event and those services were provided at the level deemed necessary by the police 
authority, it was no answer to the police's claim for reimbursement of the cost that the 
request had not specified the level of policing actually provided. Conversely, if a promoter 
asked for on-site policing and the police authority concluded that off-site policing was 
required, it could not, without more, charge the promoter for the off-site policing he did not 
request. The instant case lay between those two extremes.  
 
 
58
 

 
The judge's findings of fact made it clear that W had objected to the increase in the 
number of officers deployed at its matches, considering that the increased manpower was 
not necessary. If W's objection was to the level of policing, it was impossible to infer a 
request for the provision of the special police services to which it objected. That was the 
only possible conclusion consistent with Reading Festival, Reading Festival applied. 
(2) The Chief Constable was not entitled to recover the costs of providing policing by way 
of restitution. While it was not clear whether there had been any benefit to W in having the 
extra policing, it was clear that there had been no free acceptance of that higher level of 
policing: W was unable to reject those services unless it also rejected the services that it 
did want and had requested. There was no factor rendering it unjust for W to retain the 
benefit of the extra policing. There had been an impasse, neither party would back down, 
and while the police could have reduced the level of policing, for W it was all or nothing, 
either it accepted all the policing provided or stopped playing home matches. Given that 
choice, even if the extra policing was to be regarded as a benefit to W, it should not be 
made to pay for it. 
Dissenting view (3) (Per Maurice Kay LJ). The Chief Constable was entitled to recover by 
way of restitution. W had benefited from the extra policing provided at the Chief 
Constable's expense and it would be unjust if it did not make appropriate payment for it. 
No evidence had been placed before the Court that the match would not have been 
properly policed if it had not been for the presence of additional officers (see para. 57 per 
Lady Justice Smith). 
 
 
59
 


 
 
 
 

SECTION C - ACPO EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE (DIVERSITY 
AUDIT) AS AGREED WITH THE CRE 
 
C1. Identify all aims of the guidance/advice 
 
C.1.1  Identify the aims and projected outcomes of the guidance/advice: 
To standardise the charging arrangements and setting a costing framework for all aspects 
of police charging. 
C.1.2  Which individuals and organisations are likely to have an interest  
in or 
likely to be affected by the proposal? 
Any individual or organisation that uses any service provided by the police where a charge 
is made. 
 
C2. Consider the evidence 
 
C.2.1 What relevant quantitative data has been considered? 
Age This Guidance relates to charges made to all individuals or 
organisations that use chargeable police services.  Accordingly the 
impact from a diversity perspective is negligible and no quantitative 
data has been considered. 
Disability  
Gender  
Race  
Religion / Belief   
Sexual Orientation   
C.2.2  What relevant qualitative information has been considered? 
Age This Guidance relates to charges made to all individuals or 
organisations that use chargeable police services.  Accordingly the 
impact from a diversity perspective is negligible and no qualitative 
data has been considered. 
Disability  
Gender  
Race  
Religion / Belief   
Sexual Orientation   
C.2.3  What gaps in data/information were identified? 
Age N/A 
Disability  
Gender  
Race  
 
 
60
 

 
Religion / Belief   
Sexual Orientation   
C.2.4  What consideration has been given to commissioning research? 
Age N/A 
Disability  
Gender  
Race  
Religion / Belief   
Sexual Orientation   
C3. Assess likely impact 
 
C.3.1  From the analysis of data and information has any potential for 
 differential/adverse 

impact been identified? 
Age No 
Disability  
Gender  
Race  
Religion / Belief   
Sexual Orientation   
C.3.2  If yes explain any intentional impact: 
Age N/A 
Disability  
Gender  
Race  
Religion / Belief   
Sexual Orientation   
C.3.3  If yes explain what impact was discovered which you feel is  
justifiable 
in order to achieve the overall proposal aims. Please  
provide examples: 
Age N/A 
Disability  
Gender  
Race  
Religion / Belief   
Sexual Orientation   
C.3.4  Are there any other factors that might help to explain differential
 /adverse 
impact? 
Age N/A 
Disability  
Gender  
Race  
Religion / Belief   
Sexual Orientation   
 
C4. Consider alternatives 
 
C.4.1  Summarise what changes have been made to the proposal to   remove or 
reduce the potential for differential/adverse impact: 
N/A 
C.4.2  Summarise changes to the proposal to remove or reduce the  
potential 
 
 
61
 

 
for differential/adverse impact that were considered but  not implemented and 
explain why this was the case: 
N/A 
C.4.3  If potential for differential/adverse impact remains explain why 
 

implementation is justifiable in order to meet the wider proposal 
 aims: 
N/A 
 
C5. Consult formally 
 
C.5.1  Has the proposal been subject to consultation? If no, please state why not. 
If yes, state which individuals and organisations were consulted and what form 

the consultation took: 
Age  Yes.  All Police forces have been consulted by asking for comments on 
the draft guidance.  The Association of Police Authorities, the Home 
Office (Police Finance and Pensions Unit), the Department for Culture, 
Media and Sport and the National Policing Improvement Agency have 
also been consulted in the same way.  Parties with an interest in the 
Guidance have also been consulted: The Showmen’s Guild of Great 
Britain; the Association of Shows and Agricultural Organisations and 
British Cycling. 
Disability  
Gender  
Race  
Religion / Belief   
Sexual Orientation   
C.5.2 What was the outcome of the consultation? 
Age  Comments have been received and the Guidance has been amended 
to reflect the issues and concerns that have been raised. 
Disability  
Gender  
Race  
Religion / Belief   
Sexual Orientation   
C.5.3  Has the proposal been reviewed and/or amended in light of  
the 
outcomes of consultation? 
Yes, comments were received and the guidance amended to reflect the issues and 
concerns that have been raised. 
C.5.4  Have the results of the consultation been fed back to the  consultees? 
Yes. 
 
C6. Decide whether to adopt the proposal 
 
C.6.1  Provide a statement outlining the findings of the impact   assessment 
process. If the proposal has been identified as having a possibility to adversely 

impact upon diverse communities, the statement should include justification for 
the implementation: 
There have been no adverse findings as a result of the impact assessment process.  The 
Guidance will impact individuals and organisations equally, regardless of age, disability, 
gender, race, religion, belief or sexual orientation. 
 
 
C7. Make Monitoring Arrangements 
 
C.7.1  What consideration has been given to piloting the proposal? 
 
 
62
 

 
The Guidance relates to national charging arrangements.  It is necessary to introduce the 
Guidance nationally to provide consistency and clarity to all parties. 
C.7.2  What monitoring will be implemented at a national level by the  proposal 
owning agency and/or other national  agency? 
Any concerns can be fed back to Mr. Derek Smith, the author of the Guidance, via the 
Finance and Resources Business Area. 
C.7.3  Is this proposal intended to be implemented by local agencies that have a 
statutory duty to impact assess policies? If so, what monitoring requirements are 
you placing on that agency? 
No. 
 
 
C8. Publish Assessment Results 
 
C.8.1  What form will the publication of the impact assessment  take? 
It is recommended that for publication on the ACPO website, the impact assessment be 
attached to the completed document as the first appendix. On the ACPO Intranet, the 

whole workbook will be attached to assist in the preparation of local audits. 
 
 
 
63