PEAM and the
Earnings Assessment
Your injury award band is not set by how serious the injury looks. It is set by how far the duty injury has cut what you can earn. Here is what PEAM means, how the earnings comparison is built, what forces have said about it, and how to check and challenge the figures.
Independent information, not advice · Sources checked 1 October 2026 · England and Wales unless stated
PEAM (Police Earnings Assessment Matrix) is a label used in FOI requests and by some forces for a notional earnings figure in the injury award calculation. It is not in the regulations. The legal test (regulation 7(5), or 7A(5) for 2015 scheme members) compares your earning capacity without the duty injury, usually police pay, with what you can earn now; the percentage loss sets your band. You can appeal within 28 days of receiving the SMP report (the authority can allow longer).
A few percentage points either side of 25%, 50% or 75% can move you into a different band. The injury award calculator shows the gratuity and injury pension for every band with your own pay, service and pension, so you can see what a disputed earnings figure is worth. It does not calculate the degree of disablement; the SMP does.
What PEAM is, as far as the record shows
"PEAM" appears in a set of Freedom of Information requests made to several forces in early 2015, which described it as "a theoretical/notional earning figure (sometimes referred to as a Police Earnings Assessment Matrix)" used in the calculation of injury on duty pensions, and asked whether the SMP uses it in a formula to reach a band. The responses we were able to read differed:
- North Wales Police answered yes: a notional figure is used by the SMP at the first assessment, and the formula is "held externally" by the SMP.
- The Metropolitan Police answered that it does not use PEAM. It compares the officer's average pensionable pay with a job comparator's salary.
- The Cleveland PCC's office did not hold the information and pointed to the pension administrator.
So the honest answer is that PEAM is not a legal term and not a national standard. It is a name some people use for the earnings figures that feed the SMP's decision. The underlying exercise, comparing earnings with and without the injury, is what the regulations require, whatever a force calls it. The Greater Manchester Police toolkit we read calls it an "earnings assessment".
What the regulations actually require
Regulation 7(5) of the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 says:
"Where it is necessary to determine the degree of a person's disablement it shall be determined by reference to the degree to which his earning capacity has been affected as a result of an injury received without his own default in the execution of his duty as a member of a police force."
Regulation 7A(5), inserted by SI 2018/997 with effect from 1 April 2015, applies the same test to 2015 scheme members, so where this page says regulation 7(5), read 7A(5) if you are in the 2015 scheme. A person receiving in-patient hospital treatment as a result of the duty injury is deemed totally disabled. The SMP decides the degree of disablement when it is referred under regulation 30(2)(d), and again on any review under regulation 37.
Three things the wording does not say:
- It sets no method. The archived Home Office guidance said: "The Regulations do not set out a specified procedure for assessing the degree of a person's disablement." The GMP toolkit says the same and follows the procedure the Home Office suggested.
- It does not refer to a matrix, a national earnings figure or any table of jobs.
- It is about earning capacity, not about the injury's medical severity.
How the earnings assessment works in practice
Putting the regulations, the archived Home Office guidance, the case law and the GMP toolkit together, the usual sequence is:
- Uninjured earning capacity. Usually your police pay when you left. The archived guidance used pensionable pay; Landmark Chambers argue that excluding regular non-pensionable earnings such as overtime may not match the regulation's wording. Where the assessment is years after retirement, the guidance said police pay should be revalued to current pay for the same point on the scale.
- Your skills and background. HR gathers education, training, postings, qualifications and experience. The Surrey and Sussex policy lists the same kinds of information for the SMP.
- Possible jobs and their pay. HR lists jobs you might do and their earnings. The GMP toolkit lists police and civilian job boards and general recruitment sites as places to look, and says not to use police roles if the SMP has said you could not work in a police environment.
- Medical suitability and hours. The SMP decides which of those jobs are medically suitable and whether you could work full-time or only part-time.
- The percentage. The difference between uninjured and actual earning capacity, as a percentage of the uninjured figure.
- Apportionment. If part of the loss is caused by something other than the duty injury, such as an unrelated condition, that part is discounted.
- The band. The final percentage falls into one of the four ranges in Schedule 3 (slight, minor, major, very severe), which forces and this site call bands 1 to 4. The regulations themselves only use the percentage and those four descriptions.
In Goodland (2020) the High Court recorded what it was told about practice: the SMP "does an economic exercise", comparing what the officer is likely to be able to earn (the example given was working 30 hours a week as a teacher) with what they would have earned had they remained in service, and then fixes the percentage.
Worked arithmetic: how a percentage becomes a band
Illustrative example, not a real case. Uninjured earning capacity is taken as £52,015, the top of the
constable scale in our pay scales file from 1 September 2026, used as a stand-in for average pensionable pay. The
comparator earnings are round figures we chose only to show the arithmetic; they are not real job rates. Service is
15 years. The gratuity and guarantee come from injuryAwardFor, the same engine as the calculator,
using the Schedule 3 percentages read on 30 September 2026.
| Comparator finding | Earning capacity now | Loss (% of police pay) | Band | Gratuity | Guarantee |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full-time office role the SMP finds suitable | £44,213 | £7,802 (15%) | Band 1: slight | £6,502 | 45% = £23,407 |
| Same role, but limited to about 60% of full-time hours | £28,608 | £23,407 (45%) | Band 2: minor | £13,004 | 60% = £31,209 |
| Part-time role only, a few hours a day | £18,205 | £33,810 (65%) | Band 3: major | £19,506 | 75% = £39,011 |
| No regular work found to be medically suitable | £0 | £52,015 (100%) | Band 4: very severe | £26,008 | 85% = £44,213 |
The guarantee is before the deduction of three-quarters of any police pension and any benefits listed in Schedule 3 paragraph 7, so the injury pension actually paid is lower. Two things stand out. First, the hours the SMP thinks you can work can matter as much as which job: the same role at reduced hours moves the band. Second, the bands are wide, so a dispute only changes the money if it moves the percentage across 25%, 50% or 75%.
The band boundaries are fixed by the regulations: slight 25% or less; minor more than 25% but not more than 50%; major more than 50% but not more than 75%; very severe more than 75%. For full money figures by band and service, see the worked examples.
What forces have said in FOI responses
These are the responses we could open and read in full. Each describes one force's practice at the date given; practice may have changed since.
| Force and reference | Uses PEAM? | What they said |
|---|---|---|
| North Wales Police (FOI 2015/146, response 23 March 2015) | Yes | Said a notional earnings figure is used by the SMP 'at the very first part' of the injury award calculation; could not give the formula because it 'is held externally by a selected Medical Practitioner'; cited the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 as the basis. |
| Metropolitan Police Service (FOI 2015030000377, response 14 April 2015) | No | Said it uses the ex-officer's average pensionable pay, deducts the salary of the job comparator, and converts the difference to a percentage; calculations prepared by its Medical Retirement Secretariat and checked by the SMP; 'we do not use PEAM'. |
| Cleveland Office of the PCC (FOI 96, response 18 March 2015) | Not held | Did not hold the information and referred the requester to the force's pension administrator. |
| Greater Manchester Police (HR toolkit disclosed under FOI, 21 March 2025) | Describes an 'earnings assessment' | HR prepares an earnings assessment with background, skills, qualifications and possible jobs with pay; the applicant is asked to review it and give feedback; the SMP decides which roles are medically suitable and the level of award. |
The 2015 requests also claimed that bands would be higher if forces used "solely the SMP disablement percentage". That is the requester's view. Under regulation 7(5) the degree of disablement is itself an earnings measure, so a medical percentage of impairment on its own is not the test.
Who supplies what
| Who | Supplies or decides | Source |
|---|---|---|
| The police pension authority (HR or pensions team) | Police pay, service history, skills and training records, and possible jobs with earnings | GMP toolkit 3.4; Surrey and Sussex policy 5.4; archived guidance section 5 para 13 |
| You | Your view on the jobs and figures, evidence of restrictions, hours, qualifications, any current job and pay | GMP toolkit (applicant reviews and gives feedback); archived guidance (evidence of current salary) |
| Your treating clinicians | Medical evidence of what you can and cannot do | General practice; Schedule 6 lets your own doctor attend an appeal |
| The SMP | Which jobs are medically suitable, hours, the percentage and apportionment | PIBR reg 30(2)(d); GMP toolkit 1.4 |
| The appeal board | The same questions afresh, if you appeal | PIBR reg 31 |
In Laws (2010) the Court of Appeal recorded that "three comparative jobs were put forward by" the authority and the SMP assessed the degree of disablement from them on reduced hours. That is a typical pattern: the force proposes, the SMP decides.
What PEAM is and what it is not
| It is | It is not |
|---|---|
| A label used in FOI requests and by some forces for a notional earnings figure in the degree of disablement calculation | A term found in the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 or in any Home Office guidance we read |
| One way of evidencing the comparison regulation 7(5) (7A(5) for 2015 scheme members) requires: earning capacity without the injury against earning capacity with it | A medical percentage of impairment, like the 1 to 100% assessment used for Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit |
| Information the authority supplies; the SMP decides whether the jobs are suitable and fixes the degree | A decision in itself: only the SMP (or appeal board) decides the degree of disablement |
| Something you can see, comment on and challenge with evidence | A labour market test of whether an employer would actually hire you (Crocker, quoted in Goodland) |
| Open to change on review if your earning capacity has substantially altered | A reason, on review, to reopen the earlier assessment or to cut you to band 1 because of your age (Laws; Crudace; Simpson) |
The old guidance and what the courts changed
Much of what forces still do traces back to Home Office guidance first issued with Circular 46/2004 and to the medical appeal guidance withdrawn from GOV.UK on 1 September 2022. Courts have since rejected parts of it.
- The basic comparison survives. The guidance's method (compare police earnings with potential outside earnings, considering background, skills and whether the work could be full-time) is the method described in the GMP toolkit and in Goodland.
- Not a labour market test. The guidance and the High Court in Crocker (quoted in Goodland) say the task is to assess what the person is capable of doing and earning, not whether an employer would actually hire them. The guidance said high local unemployment and employer attitudes to the disability are irrelevant.
- Lowest band at 65: declared unlawful. Guidance (in Circular 46/2004 and the medical appeal guidance) letting SMPs place pensioners in the lowest band at 65 unless there was a cogent reason not to was declared unlawful in Crudace [2012] EWHC 112 (Admin) and Simpson [2012] EWHC 808 (Admin). The court in Simpson made a declaration rather than quashing the guidance.
- National average pay after retirement age: conceded unlawful. Goodland records that in 2014 the Secretary of State conceded that benchmarking against national average pay, rather than police pay, after compulsory retirement age was unlawful, and Circular 46/2004 was withdrawn on 21 February 2014.
- Apportionment. The court cases quoted in Goodland require the SMP to discount loss of earning capacity caused by things other than the duty injury.
How to check and challenge the earnings assessment
- Ask the authority, in writing, for a copy of the earnings assessment and the comparator jobs, with the source and date of each pay figure.
- Check the uninjured figure: the right rank and pay point, any pensionable allowances, revaluation if you left some time ago.
- Check each job against your real restrictions: hours, travel, concentration, physical demands, shift work, public contact, triggers for a psychological injury.
- Check the qualifications each job needs, and whether you actually hold them.
- If you are working, give accurate details of the job, hours and pay. If it is below your capability, say why.
- Send your comments with supporting medical evidence before the file goes to the SMP.
- Diary 28 days from the day you received the report. Give written notice of appeal within that time, then your grounds within a further 28 days.
- The archived appeal guidance asked both sides to set out what work the appellant can do, what that work demands, what it pays, and the appellant's police pay, with evidence of earnings. Prepare your submission on those lines.
- If new evidence has appeared, ask whether the authority will agree to send the decision back to the SMP for reconsideration (regulation 32(2)).
- If you think the method itself is unlawful (for example a fixed national figure applied without regard to your circumstances), take legal advice at once: a judicial review claim must be brought promptly and in any event within three months of the grounds arising (Civil Procedure Rules 54.5), and a solicitor should check the date that applies to you.
More on routes and deadlines is in the appeals guide. If you have left and are planning work, the transferable skills guide may help you describe your capabilities accurately.
Checking each comparator job
An earnings assessment is only as good as the jobs on it. For each job, these are the points to check against your own evidence. None of them is a legal test in itself; they are the facts the SMP needs to apply regulation 7(5) (7A(5) for 2015 scheme members) properly.
| Check | Why it matters | Evidence that helps |
|---|---|---|
| Is the pay figure current and sourced? | An out-of-date or unsourced rate changes the percentage | The advert or pay scale, with its date |
| Is it full-time or part-time pay? | The SMP decides the hours you can work; the pay must match those hours | Your clinicians' view on sustainable hours |
| What qualifications or licences does it need? | A job you are not qualified for, and could not readily qualify for, does not show your earning capacity | Your certificates; the job description |
| What are its physical and mental demands? | The SMP decides medical suitability | Treating clinicians' reports on your limits, triggers and concentration |
| Does it involve shifts, public contact, driving or confrontation? | These can be the very things a duty injury rules out | Occupational health and specialist reports |
| Is it a police role? | The GMP toolkit says police roles should not be used if the SMP has said you could not work in a police environment | The SMP's or OH's view on police settings |
| Is your uninjured figure right? | Rank, pay point and pensionable allowances move the baseline | Your last payslips and pay scale |
Hours, part-time work and fluctuating conditions
The archived guidance said a relevant consideration is whether you could manage a job full-time or would have to work part-time, and the GMP toolkit says that is for the SMP to decide medically. In Laws, the SMP and board assessed the former officer as capable of 75% of normal hours, 30 hours a week, and applied the comparator jobs on that basis. The Court of Appeal held that finding about hours was a matter of judgment, not irrational.
Hours can move the percentage more than the choice of job, as the worked arithmetic above shows. If your condition fluctuates, give the SMP evidence of how many hours you can sustain week after week, not on a good day, and of time off needed in bad periods.
- Who prepared the earnings assessment, and from what sources?
- Which pay figure have you used for my uninjured earning capacity, and does it include pensionable allowances?
- Will the SMP see my comments and evidence before deciding?
- Have you used a notional or national earnings figure anywhere in the calculation? If so, what and why?
- How will any apportionment for other conditions be worked out?
The earnings assessment on a regulation 37 review
On review the SMP is asked one question: the degree of disablement. The Court of Appeal in Laws held that the earlier decision "is taken as a given" and the only duty is to decide whether, since then, there has been a substantial alteration. That has consequences for the earnings assessment:
- A new set of comparator jobs is not on its own a change. The question is what has changed since the last decision.
- New skills can change earning capacity (Laws), and the court in Goodland noted that greater availability of jobs the pensioner could do may count.
- The SMP cannot cut the band because the clinical basis of the earlier assessment now looks wrong.
- Age alone is not a reason to move to band 1 (Crudace; Simpson).
See injury award reviews under regulation 37 for the full picture.
What people get wrong
- "PEAM is in the regulations." It is not. The regulations set the test, not the method.
- "My medical percentage is my band." The degree of disablement is a loss of earning capacity, not an impairment rating.
- "If no one would hire me, I am band 4." Capacity, not hiring decisions, is the test. But realistic restrictions on hours and type of work do count.
- "The force sets my band." The force supplies the figures; the SMP decides.
- "I have to accept the jobs on the list." You can comment on them, supply evidence and appeal the SMP's conclusion.
- "National average pay applies once I reach retirement age." That approach was conceded unlawful in 2014.
What we could not verify
- Who devised PEAM. Search results point to a Warwickshire Police FOI disclosure (FOI 6022) that may say, but the page blocked automated access and we could not read it, so we do not repeat any claim about it.
- The North Wales formula. North Wales said it is held by the SMP, not the force.
- Current practice at each force. The FOI responses are from 2015, except GMP's from 2025. Practice may have changed.
- Whether non-pensionable earnings should count. The archived guidance excluded overtime and allowances; Landmark Chambers argue that may be wrong. We found no court ruling settling it.
- Current Home Office guidance. GOV.UK shows the medical appeal guidance, including the degree of disablement section, as withdrawn on 1 September 2022 with the notice: "This guidance is out of date and has been archived. New guidance will be published in due course." We found no replacement as at 7 October 2026.
Get told when injury award rules change
Leave your email and we will write by hand when something changes that affects injury awards or ill-health retirement: the regulations, Home Office guidance or the yearly pension increase. Nothing automatic, and no spam.
No automatic emails and no spam. Unsubscribe any time. Privacy policy.
- Free now, with or without signing up:
- Open the free SMP appointment checklist
- Work out your appeal deadlines
Frequently Asked Questions
What is PEAM in a police injury award?
PEAM stands for Police Earnings Assessment Matrix. It is a label used in Freedom of Information requests and by some forces for a notional earnings figure used when the SMP assesses the degree of disablement. The term does not appear in the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006; the legal test is how far the duty injury has affected your earning capacity (regulation 7(5), or 7A(5) for 2015 scheme members).
Do all police forces use PEAM?
No single national method is set out in the regulations. In 2015 FOI responses, North Wales Police said a notional earnings figure was used at the first assessment, while the Metropolitan Police said it did not use PEAM and instead compared average pensionable pay with a job comparator's salary. Ask your own force how its earnings assessment is prepared.
How is the degree of disablement calculated?
The SMP compares your earning capacity without the duty injury (usually your police pay) with what you are capable of earning now, given your skills and the effects of the injury, and expresses the loss as a percentage, the degree of disablement. Schedule 3 groups that percentage into four ranges: 25% or less, over 25% to 50%, over 50% to 75%, or over 75%. Bands 1 to 4 is the usual shorthand for those ranges; it is not a term in the regulations.
Who decides which jobs I could do?
The force usually prepares a list of possible jobs and pay (the earnings assessment); the SMP decides which are medically suitable and how many hours you could manage, then fixes the percentage. The GMP toolkit we read says the applicant should review the earnings assessment and give feedback before it goes to the SMP.
Does it matter whether I could actually get the job?
Usually not in the way people expect. The High Court in Crocker, quoted in Goodland (2020), said the task is to assess what the person is capable of doing and earning, and it is not a labour market assessment of whether someone would actually pay them. Whether the jobs are realistic for your condition and skills does matter.
Can I challenge the earnings assessment?
Yes. Ask for a copy, comment in writing before the SMP decides, and send evidence about your restrictions, hours and skills. If the SMP's degree of disablement is wrong, appeal to the board of medical referees within 28 days of receiving the report, or longer if the authority allows; archived Home Office guidance said appeal submissions should set out the jobs, their demands and their earnings.
Is my police pay or national average pay used?
Usually your police pay at the first assessment. Home Office Circular 46/2004 told SMPs to use national average earnings as the benchmark once a pensioner reached compulsory retirement age, but Goodland (2020) records that in 2014 the Secretary of State conceded that benchmarking against national average pay was unlawful, and Circular 46/2004 was withdrawn in its entirety on 21 February 2014.
Does my police pension count as earnings in the assessment?
Archived Home Office guidance said no account should be taken of any police pension when considering a retired officer's current earnings. The pension is dealt with separately, by the three-quarters deduction in Schedule 3 paragraph 6.
Can the earnings assessment change on review?
Yes, but only if the SMP finds your degree of disablement has substantially altered since the last decision (regulation 37; Laws, 2010). New skills or newly available work can count. The earlier assessment cannot be reopened on the basis that it was wrong.
What if I have other health problems not caused by duty?
The SMP should count only the loss of earning capacity caused by the duty injury. The High Court cases quoted in Goodland describe a two-stage approach: assess the loss, then discount the part caused by non-duty conditions or other causes (apportionment).
Is PEAM lawful?
We found no court decision on PEAM by that name. The regulations do not prescribe a method, so an earnings comparison is one way of applying regulation 7(5) (7A(5) for 2015 scheme members). Particular uses have been ruled unlawful: in Crudace and Simpson (both 2012) the High Court declared unlawful Home Office guidance placing pensioners in the lowest band at 65 unless there was a cogent reason not to. Take legal advice on a specific concern.
Sources and how we checked them
Every factual claim on this page was written from the sources below, read on 1 October 2026. Rules and figures change, so check the source for the date you are reading this. Where we could not confirm something from an official or independent source, the page says so rather than guessing. Spotted something out of date? See our corrections policy.
- Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006, regulation 7 (legislation.gov.uk, as made) — regulation 7(5): degree of disablement determined by reference to the effect of the duty injury on earning capacity (accessed 1 October 2026)
- SI 2018/997, regulation 10 (inserts regulation 7A) — the same earning capacity test for 2015 scheme members (regulation 7A(5)) (accessed 1 October 2026)
- North Wales Police FOI 2015/146 response (23 March 2015), via WhatDoTheyKnow — notional earnings figure used at the first assessment; formula held by the SMP (accessed 1 October 2026)
- Metropolitan Police Service FOI 2015030000377 response (14 April 2015), via WhatDoTheyKnow — does not use PEAM; average pensionable pay less job comparator salary (accessed 1 October 2026)
- Cleveland OPCC FOI 96: Calculation of Police Injury on Duty Pensions (18 March 2015) — information not held; the request's own description of PEAM (accessed 1 October 2026)
- Greater Manchester Police FOI 01/FOI/25/014281/L and Police Officer Injury Award HR Toolkit (21 March 2025) — section 3.4 'Creating the Earnings Assessment'; applicant review and feedback; SMP decides suitability and level (accessed 1 October 2026)
- Home Office: Guidance on medical appeals, section 5, degree of disablement (withdrawn 1 September 2022) — the comparison method, pensionable pay, apportionment, appeal submissions. GOV.UK withdrawal notice: 'out of date and has been archived'; parts declared unlawful or conceded unlawful (see Crudace, Simpson and Goodland) (accessed 1 October 2026)
- R (Crudace) v Northumbria Police Authority [2012] EWHC 112 (Admin) — guidance on the lowest band at 65 'in the absence of cogent reason' declared unlawful; regulation 37 needs a substantial alteration (accessed 1 October 2026)
- Metropolitan Police Authority v Laws [2010] EWCA Civ 1099 — comparative jobs put forward by the authority; earlier assessment a given on review; new skills can change earning capacity (accessed 1 October 2026)
- R (Simpson) v Police Medical Appeal Board [2012] EWHC 808 (Admin) — the same guidance, and paragraph 20 of the medical appeal guidance, declared unlawful (a declaration, not a quashing order); no assumption of nil earning capacity at 65 (accessed 1 October 2026)
- R (Goodland) v Chief Constable of Staffordshire Police [2020] EWHC 2477 (Admin) — the SMP's economic exercise in practice; Crocker (not a labour market assessment); apportionment; 2014 concession on national average pay and withdrawal of Circular 46/2004 (accessed 1 October 2026)
- Landmark Chambers, Police Injury Pensions, chapter 5 (2020) — barristers' analysis of uninjured and actual earning capacity. Secondary source (accessed 1 October 2026)
On this topic elsewhere
More in this guide series
Tools, pensions and support
Disclaimer
PolicePay.co.uk is an independent reference site. This page is general information, not legal, medical or financial advice, and the outcome of any injury award or ill-health retirement decision turns on the medical evidence and the facts of the individual case. Decisions are made by the police pension authority, selected medical practitioners and appeal boards, and the regulations are amended from time to time. Speak to your Police Federation representative or a solicitor about your own case, and your pension administrator about your figures. If you are struggling, speak to your GP or one of the services listed on our support directory; if you or someone else is in immediate danger, call 999. Details apply to England and Wales unless stated. Details are as checked on 1 October 2026.