Non-confidential facts and advice to the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime (DMPC)
1. Introduction and background
1.1. Part 2 of this Report is exempt because it falls within an exemption specified in para 2(2) of the Elected Local Policing Bodies (Specified Information) Order 2011 and/or under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, e.g. because the information amounts to personal data, is confidential or commercially sensitive.
1.2. The claim arises out a road traffic collision in 2014. The Claimant was a motorcyclist. Liability is not in dispute.
2. Issues for consideration
2.1. For the DMPC to consider whether to agree a financial settlement in respect of an undisputed claim and whether the financial settlement will secure an efficient and effective Police Service
3. Financial Comments
3.1. The cost of any settlement, if agreed, would be met from the centrally held third party claims provision budget. This claim(s) forms part of the Third Party Service Provision. The MPS are required under IFRS (International Financial Reporting Standards) to maintain a Third Party Service Provision for claims against the MPS. The compensation for this claim will be off set against the Provision reserve for the financial year in which the claim was presented to the MPS.
4. Legal Comments
4.1. The DMPC has delegated authority under section 4.10 of the Scheme of Consent and Delegation 2016, to consider the current application
4.2. MOPAC has the power to pay any sum required in connection with the settlement for any claim made against the Commissioner under Section 88 of the Police Act 1996.
5. GDPR and Data Privacy
5.1. The processing of personal data has been minimised as part of this decision and is held within Part 2 of the report.
6. Equality Comments
6.1. To continue policing with the consent of the population it serves, the police will always seek to treat everyone fairly and openly. Race or equality issues do not appear to have an impact in this matter.
7. Background/supporting papers