Consultation outcome

The 12-month rule in regulation 12 of the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006: Government response

Updated 22 April 2025

Introduction

This is the post-consultation document report for the consultation that was opened on 12 May 2021 and closed on 7 July 2021, regarding the 12-month rule in regulation 12 of the 2006 Regulations. ^{[footnote 1]}

It will cover:

• the background to the consultation
• a summary of the consultation responses
• the government response to the specific questions and matters raised by respondents
• next steps

Background

Regulation 11 of the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 makes provision for the payment of injury awards for police officers who, as a result of injury received in the course of duty, have been permanently disabled and are unable to continue in the role. An injury award consists of a pension and a gratuity. These awards are categorised into four bandings, which are based on the severity of the injury, each attracting a higher monetary entitlement, with band 4 offering the highest monetary entitlement.

Regulation 12 makes provision for a significant additional gratuity in cases in which the police officer has suffered “total and permanent disablement” within 12 months of receiving the injury. The gratuity is payable if the injury substantially contributed to the total and permanent disablement: it does not need to have been the sole, or even the main cause. The gratuity is five times the annual value of the officer’s pensionable pay.

Officers who do not meet the eligibility criteria for a regulation 12 award may still be entitled to a regulation 11 award.

This consultation is concerned with the requirement for the total and permanent disablement having arisen within 12 months of the injury. This is referred to in this document as the ‘12-month condition’. Although the 12-month condition is sometimes referred to as a ‘time limit’, it is not a time limit in the sense of imposing a restriction on when an application for a regulation 12 gratuity can be made. A request for a gratuity may be made, and a gratuity may be awarded, more than 12 months after the underlying injury, provided that total and permanent disablement occurred within 12 months of the injury.

Policy intention of regulation 12

Regulation 12’s disablement gratuity compensates former police officers who have become totally and permanently disabled within 12 months of duty related injury. A lump sum payment aims to assist them in adapting to the sudden change in lifestyle resulting from their disability, for which they may not have been financially prepared.

Even if they do not qualify for a regulation 12 gratuity, former officers who are totally and permanently disabled can still receive financial support through an ill-health pension from the occupational pension scheme, combined with an injury pension and gratuity under regulation 11 of the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006.

Consultation

On 12 May 2021, the then government launched a public consultation on the compatibility of the 12-month condition in regulation 12 of the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 with statutory obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and the suitability of this condition for inclusion in regulation 12.

Under the Equality Act 2010, public bodies are required by the Public Sector Equality Duty to have due regard to:

• eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct prohibited by the act
• advance equality of opportunity between people who share a particular protected characteristic and people who do not share it
• foster good relations between people who share a particular protected characteristic and people who do not share it

The focus of this consultation is on the protected characteristic of disability and, in particular, the impact of the 12-month condition on persons with mental disabilities or particular sorts of mental disabilities when compared with others, including, in particular, those with physical disabilities.

The act prohibits both direct and indirect discrimination on grounds of disability. Direct discrimination on grounds of disability occurs when a person is, or would be, treated less favourably than someone else because of that disability.

Indirect discrimination on grounds of disability occurs when a person is put at a disadvantage as a result of the application of a rule or policy that is discriminatory in relation to disability, including the duty to make reasonable adjustments, if it cannot be shown that the rule or policy is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights may also be relevant. It prohibits discrimination on the ground of any “status”, including disability, in relation to a matter which falls within the ambit of another Convention right. Article 14 also covers forms of direct and indirect discrimination and may also require people in materially different situations to be treated differently.

This consultation invited views on:

• whether the 12-month condition is consistent with the Home Secretary’s duties under the Equality Act 2010
• whether both mental health injuries and physical injuries are given equal and fair treatment under regulation 12
• whether progressive mental health injuries that lead to total and permanent disablement are adequately catered for under regulation 12
• the inclusion of any time limit for eligibility for the full disablement gratuity in regulation 12 of the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006

To these consultation questions, the Home Office received a total of thirty-eight responses from various stakeholders, including police forces, police staff associations, and former and serving police officers. These responses comprised twenty-eight online survey responses, nine email responses, and one postal response. Notably, twenty-four respondents were either serving police officers, former or retired police officers, or family members of police officers. Additionally, an email response from the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) was received after the deadline but was deemed significant for inclusion in the analysis.

Initial analysis indicated that responses stated that there were concerns, but there was little or no evidence included. The Home Office therefore sought data already held by police forces that might provide evidence for the issues that respondents were reporting.

Additional data

To supplement the data received from the public consultation on the experiences of the forces in the operation of regulation 12, the Home Office directly asked police forces if they could provide some information to answer some supplementary questions.

The following questions were asked:

• how many claims by officers were made under the disability gratuity (reg 12)? (2017-2021)
• how many of these claims were made within 12 months of receiving an injury and as a result became totally and permanently disabled because of that injury? (2017-2021)
• how many successful claims have been made within the 12-month time limit under reg 12(c)? (2017-2021) ^{[footnote 2]}
• how many claims made under reg 12(c) were made outside of the 12-month time limit? (2017-2021)
• how many claims were accepted by the forces outside of the 12 months-time limit under reg 12(c) and why? (2017-2021)

The Home Office asked all forces in England and Wales these questions in August 2022, allowing them until 9 September 2022 to provide their responses. The Home Office received responses from thirty-three forces.

Once the data had been received from forces, the Home Office commissioned the Government Actuary’s Department (GAD) to estimate the number of officers retiring and receiving a disability gratuity under regulation 12.

The Home Office also sought views from medical practitioners with experience of police occupational health issues and the injury benefit scheme to see if there was an existing, consistent view on the points raised by the majority of the respondents, notably how mental health conditions might be expected to manifest or progress over time.

Responses to specific questions

Question 1: In your view, is the 12-month rule in regulation 12 of the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 consistent with the Home Secretary’s duties under the Equality Act 2010?

Out of 38 respondents to this question, 34 respondents expressed the view that the 12-month rule is incongruent with the duties outlined for the Home Secretary under the Equality Act 2010. Three respondents stated that they believe the rule aligns with these duties. One of the 38 respondents, (a group including/consisting of multiple member representative groups) indicated that there was no unified consensus among its members regarding this matter.

The following were recurring opinions by respondents who believed that the 12-month condition is incongruent with the Home Secretary’s duties under the Equality Act 2010:

• mental health injuries, such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), can manifest or get progressively worse over a period of time exceeding 12 months to the extent that they can cause total and permanent disablement
• being diagnosed and / or receiving treatment for a mental health injury is likely to take longer than 12 months
• some physical conditions can manifest or get progressively worse over a period of time exceeding 12 months to the extent that they can cause total and permanent disablement

The opinions above suggest that some disabled officers may be treated differently to other disabled officers in a manner which breaches the rule. Three respondents dissented from the majority opinions and stated that the 12-month rule is consistent with the Home Secretary’s duties under the Equality Act 2010. One of those three gave the opinion that the 12-month rule did not breach an equality rule in respect of mental health injury.

Question 2: In your view, are both mental health injuries and physical injuries given equal and fair treatment under regulation 12?

Out of the 37 respondents that provided a response to this question, 35 respondents stated that mental health injuries and physical injuries are not given fair and equal treatment under regulation 12.

The following recurring points were made by respondents who believed both mental health injuries and physical injuries are not given fair and equal treatment under regulation 12, and the assessment of mental health injuries is either not, or is rarely, carried out by a mental health specialist:

• mental health injuries, can manifest or get progressively worse over a period of time exceeding 12 months to the extent that they can cause total and permanent disablement
• obtaining diagnosis of and treatment for a mental health injury is likely to take longer than 12 months
• the points above are less likely to be true in relation to physical injuries that cause total and permanent disablement

There were two respondents who expressed that mental health injuries and physical injuries are given fair and equal treatment under regulation 12, and only one expanded on their response. This respondent qualified their response by saying that this is only the case when the process is followed correctly. They said they recognised that this is dependent on the medical practitioner selected by the persons requiring treatment and that they were aware of complexities surrounding diagnosis and treatment.

Question 3: In your view, are progressive mental health injuries that lead to total and permanent disablement adequately catered for under regulation 12?

Out of the 35 respondents that provided a response to this question, 34 respondents indicated that progressive mental health injuries resulting in total and permanent disablement are not adequately addressed by regulation 12. One respondent asserted that these injuries are adequately addressed by regulation 12, and they did not provide further explanation.

The following were significant, recurring points made by respondents who believed progressive mental health injuries that lead to total and permanent disablement are not adequately catered for under regulation 12:

• mental health injuries can manifest or get progressively worse over a period of time exceeding 12 months to the extent that they can cause total and permanent disablement
• obtaining diagnosis of and treatment for a mental health injury is likely to take longer than 12 months
• the above points mean that officers rendered totally and permanently disabled as a result of a mental health injury caused by an incident on duty are likely to be excluded from receiving the disablement gratuity under regulation 12

Question 4: In your view, should there be any time limit on eligibility for the full disablement gratuity in regulation 12?

Out of the 35 respondents that provided a response to this question, 30 respondents indicated that there should not be a time limit on eligibility for the full disablement gratuity under regulation 12.

Four respondents said that there should be a time limit, and one stakeholder group said that there was no consensus in relation to this among its members.

The following were significant, recurring points made by respondents who believed there should not be any time limit on eligibility for the full disablement gratuity in regulation 12:

• Mental health injuries, can manifest or get progressively worse over a period of time exceeding 12 months to the extent that they can cause total and permanent disablement
• Obtaining diagnosis of and treatment for a mental health injury is likely to take longer than 12 months:

“. . . mental health issues aren’t usually diagnosed straight after the initial injury on duty. Some mental health issues can take years to surface. . .”

• Some physical conditions can manifest or get progressively worse over a period of time exceeding 12 months to the extent that they can cause total and permanent disablement. When determining eligibility for the full disablement gratuity, the only consideration should be the causal link between an injury suffered on duty and total and permanent disablement.

Four respondents said there should be a time limit on eligibility for the full disablement gratuity in regulation 12, with one respondent favoured maintaining the current 12-month limit, two respondents suggested a five-year limit, and one respondent suggested a ten-year time limit.

One respondent in favour of a five-year limit said that having no time limit could leave the disablement gratuity system vulnerable. The other respondent in favour of a five-year limit said that the limit would help with creating a causal link between an injury and disablement. The respondent in favour of a 10-year time limit believed that this time limit would provide an adequate opportunity for police officers to receive a proper diagnosis.

Analysis

In the initial analysis of the consultation responses, it became clear that there was not a consensus in views – while the majority of responses thought that there was a disparity in the way regulation 12 applies for mental health injuries and physical injuries, those responses were all from individuals. The responses from organisations were either stating that there was not a disparity, or that they did not have a clear consensus. None of the responses provided evidence to support their assertions. Given this mixed picture, the Home Office decided to seek any readily available evidence or experience that gave a clearer view.

The Home Office therefore asked forces to provide data they held about decisions under regulation 12. The Home Office also sought views from medical professionals, who have worked on police occupational health, on the points raised by the majority of the respondents.

Data from forces

The Home Office received responses from thirty-three police forces; information given by respondents was as follows:

• On the first question asked, how many claims were made by officers under regulation 12(c), the data collected from respondents showed that a total of twenty-seven claims were made between 2017-2021.

• On the second and third question on how many met the eligibility criteria within the twelve months of receiving an injury causing permanent disability, there were eleven successful claims. Seven out of the eleven claims were claims for mental health injuries, that were awarded under regulation 12(c).

• The fourth and fifth questions, asked how many claims were made outside of the 12-month time limit and how many were accepted by force(s). A total number of ten claims were made and two claims were awarded outside of the 12-month time limit. where forces determined that the individual had met the criteria. It is worth noting that the question referred to a ‘time limit’, whereas the regulations have a criterion that must be met.

In conclusion, from the responses received, regulation 12 does operate in practice by providing a disability gratuity, within the criteria set out under regulation 12(c). The information provided by the respondents does not indicate that claims under regulation 12(c) are prohibited from being successful by virtue of being claims for mental health injuries.

Medical opinions

We sought expert advice from medical practitioners that specialise in occupational health medicine within policing to see if there was a consensus of how mental health injuries manifest, and how they may be best catered for in the regulations. A total of four medical practitioners gave their opinions. The opinions vary on how the 12-month criterion interacts with mental health injuries. One view suggests that most PTSD cases manifest within 6-9 months of the event, with later occurrences being rare. Another perspective argues that the 12-month rule helps prevent baseless claims by maintaining the current definition of permanence, and that extending the period could lead to an influx of questionable historical claims.

An alternative view supports extending the period, noting the difficulty in attributing mental health symptoms to work exposure compared to diagnosing physical injuries, which are usually apparent soon after the event. Lastly, it’s noted that mental health injuries, such as PTSD, can take longer to manifest than physical injuries.

From this canvassing of views, there was no clear consensus on how long a period might be suitable for the eligibility criteria for regulation 12 among the medical experts that were consulted.

Furthermore, the medical experts’ views did not suggest common ground on whether those with mental health injuries or progressive conditions were less likely to be eligible for payments under regulation 12 compared with those who had physical injuries. With no such common ground it is not clear whether those with mental health injuries would be more likely to fail to meet the 12 month criterion than those with physical injuries.

Conclusion and next steps

The Home Office has reviewed the responses to the public consultation. While most respondents were of the opinion that regulation 12 is not consistent with the Home Secretary’s duties under the Equality Act 2010 and does not make adequate provision for progressive mental health conditions, it should be noted that these responses came from individuals, whereas the responses from representative organisations did not arrive at a consensus on regulation 12. The varying opinions and the lack of conclusive data on the issue suggest that further information and insight is required before any changes are considered for regulation 12.

Despite gathering evidence from medical practitioners and additional data from forces, there was also a lack of conclusive data on whether mental health conditions were disproportionately under-represented compared to physical conditions.

As a result, it is the Home Office’s view that further data and evidence is required to understand whether regulation 12 provides differently for mental health conditions, as opposed to physical conditions. Currently we do not have substantive evidence that is supportive or otherwise of the assertion that progressive mental health conditions are less likely to satisfy the 12-month eligibility requirement under regulation 12(c) than physical conditions.

The Home Office considered a further public consultation to collect more focused data and evidence, including expert and stakeholder opinions, however it was concluded that this approach would be unlikely to gain sufficiently different evidence from which to reconsider the existing policy position.  The questions that need to be investigated tend to require specialist knowledge, experience and data which would not be common in the general public.  The Home Office will therefore undertake an engagement exercise with stakeholders, medical experts and other experienced groups or individuals to collect and analyse focused data and evidence. The setup and approach for this engagement exercise will be published in due course.  Should the engagement exercise provide sufficient evidence and data to supporting an amendment to regulation 12, the Home Office will consult further on any proposed changes.

Contact details

Further copies of this report and the consultation paper can be obtained by contacting us at the address below:

Review of Regulation 12
Police Workforce and Professionalism Unit
Home Office 6th Floor
Fry Building
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF

Email: Reviewofregulation12PIB@homeoffice.gov.uk

Complaints or comments

If you have any complaints or comments about the consultation process, you should contact the Home Office at the above address.

Alternative format versions

Alternative format versions of this publication can be requested from the Home Office using the above contact details.

Copyright

© Crown copyright 2025

This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.

Where we have identified any third-party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

This publication is available at www.gov.uk/government/publications.

Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at public.enquiries@homeoffice.gov.uk.

Footnotes

1. Regulation 12 of the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) ↩

2. The Police (Injury Benefit) Regulation, Reg 12 (1) (c) “within 12 months of so receiving that injury, becomes or became totally and permanently disabled as a result of that injury”. ↩