Local Government Injury Benefits Scheme (PO-9477)

Ombudsman’s Determination

Outcome

I do not uphold Mr R’s complaint and no further action is required by Rochdale.

My reasons for reaching this decision are explained in more detail below.

Complaint summary

Mr R asserts Rochdale’s decision to cease his permanent injury allowance (PIA) was unlawful. He is of the view that they have misinterpreted both the independent registered medical practitioner’s 2012 report and the relevant regulations. Mr R argues that references to “his work” and “working again” in regulation 34 (see below) should be taken to mean “working again in his work”. Mr R has suggested that Rochdale attempted to gather evidence to support their decision after he had complained to the Ombudsman.

Mr R also considers Rochdale wasted time in saying there was no stage two for his appeal against their decision. He argues that he had made a new complaint which should have been dealt with under the two stage internal dispute resolution (IDR) procedure.