Unsatisfactory Performance and Attendance Procedures (UPPs/UAPs)

The information in this section is based on the Police (Performance) Regulations 2020 and Section 5 of the Home Office Guidance on Professional Standards, Performance and Police Integrity dated 5 February 2020.

Concerns about performance and attendance in the police service should generally be dealt with informally by early intervention and management action. The formal Unsatisfactory Performance Procedure (UPP) should only be used if management action has failed or is considered inappropriate.

Unsatisfactory performance or attendance

This is defined in Regulation 4(2)(a) of the Police (Performance) Regulations 2020 as “an inability or failure of a police officer to perform the duties of the role or rank the officer is currently undertaking to a satisfactory standard or level”.

Gross incompetence

This is defined in Regulation 4(1) of the Police (Performance) Regulations 2020 as “a serious inability or serious failure of a police officer to perform the duties of the officer’s rank or the role the officer is currently undertaking to a satisfactory standard or level, without taking into account the officer’s attendance, to the extent that dismissal would be justified”.

Management action

It is the responsibility of an officer’s line manager to raise any shortcomings or concerns with the individual at the earliest opportunity. Management action procedures are not covered by the Police (Performance) Regulations 2020. There is, however, detailed information in the Home Office Guidance on Professional Standards, Performance and Police Integrity dated 5 February 2020.

Where there is no sustained improvement following management action it may be appropriate to use the formal Unsatisfactory Performance Procedure (UPP) and the procedures set out in the Police (Performance) Regulations 2020.

Unsatisfactory Performance Procedure (UPP)

The Unsatisfactory Performance Procedure (UPP) applies up to and including the rank of chief superintendent. It does not apply to student officers who are governed by locally determined procedures underpinned by Regulation 13, Police Regulations 2003.

There are potentially three stages to the UPP. A meeting is held at each stage. Progress will be made to the next stage in the event that performance issues are not resolved by the previous stage.

At each stage the meeting must consider unsatisfactory performance or attendance which is similar to or connected with the unsatisfactory performance or attendance referred to in any written improvement notice.

Where failings relate to a different form of unsatisfactory performance or attendance it will be necessary to commence the UPPs at the first stage.

At each stage the relevant manager must notify the officer in writing that they are required to attend a meeting. At the time of notification the manager must provide the officer with details of the procedure, an explanation of the reason for the meeting and details of who will be in attendance.

The officer must also be informed of the right to seek advice from a Police Federation representative and of the right to be accompanied by a “police friend”. Regulation 5 of the Police (Performance) Regulations 2020 sets out the role that the police friend may undertake in the proceedings. (For further information on the services of a police friend, contact your Branch Board).

A notification of a meeting must be accompanied by any papers supporting the view that the officer’s performance or attendance is unsatisfactory. Any papers to be relied on by the officer at the meeting must be submitted to the relevant manager before the meeting.

At any stage, if the officer or their police friend is unavailable on the meeting date proposed by the relevant manager, the officer may propose an alternative date and time. This must be accepted provided it is reasonable and within five working days of the original date.

First stage meeting

This meeting will be conducted by the officer’s line manager. At the meeting the officer concerned has the right to make representations in response to the line manager’s assessment of their performance. The officer’s police friend will also have the opportunity to address the meeting, as set out in Regulation 17.

If the finding of the line manager is that the police officer’s performance or attendance has been unsatisfactory, a written improvement notice will be issued as soon as reasonably practicable. The improvement notice will set out how the officer is required to improve on their performance and the period within which the improvement is required to be made. The notice must also inform the officer of their right to appeal and the procedure for doing so.

A written improvement notice is valid for a period of 12 months beginning with the date of the notice.

Second stage meeting

Where at the end of the time scale specified at the first stage meeting, the police officer’s performance is found not to have improved to an acceptable standard, the officer will be required to attend a second stage meeting.

Regulation 24 also provides that an appropriate authority may require a second stage meeting to be held, in circumstances where there has not been a first stage meeting, where a matter has been referred under the Conduct Regulations to be dealt with under the Performance Regulations.

The meeting will be conducted by the second line manager. As in the first stage meeting, the officer concerned has the right to make representations in response to the assessment of their performance and the police friend will also have the opportunity to address the meeting. Where the second line manager finds that the officer’s performance or attendance has not been satisfactory, a final written improvement notice will be issued. The notice must also inform the officer of their right to appeal and the procedure for doing so.

A final written improvement notice is valid for a period of 12 months beginning with the date of the notice.

In the case of an improvement notice and a final improvement notice, the period allowed for improvement will normally be three months and should not exceed twelve months. Satisfactory performance must be maintained for a twelve-month period to avoid the next stage of the process. These periods may be extended if the appropriate authority deems it appropriate to do so.

In any case in which an improvement notice is given, there should be an action plan which should help the officer achieve and maintain the required improvement. This should be agreed by the member and line manager. It should identify in what respect the officer’s performance or attendance is considered unsatisfactory, describe the steps the member must take to bring it up to an acceptable standard, specify the period in which improvement is expected to be made and the validity period of the improvement notice.

Third stage meeting

Where at the end of the period specified in the final written improvement notice, an assessment is made that the police officer’s performance or attendance has not improved to an acceptable level, the officer will be required to attend a third stage meeting conducted by a three-person panel.

The chair of the meeting will either be a senior officer or senior HR professional. At least one panel member must be a police officer and one must be an HR professional. None of the panel members should be junior in rank to the police officer concerned. Under Regulation 35, the officer can object to the appointment of a panel member. If an objection is upheld the panel member will be replaced.

Where the panel conducting the stage three meeting deems that the officer’s performance or attendance has continued to be unsatisfactory the possible outcomes are:

1. Redeployment (which may involve a reduction in rank).
2. Reduction in rank (performance only) with immediate effect. 
3. Dismissal with a minimum of 28 days’ notice.
4. Extension of a final written improvement notice (this will occur only in exceptional circumstances and the period cannot be extended more than once).

Gross incompetence

When the appropriate authority:

1. Considers that the performance of the police officer constitutes gross incompetence.
2. Accepts a recommendation under the Police Reform Act 2002 relating to the outcome of an investigation of a complaint, or
3. Has a duty under the 2002 Act to comply with a direction to that effect,

meetings at Stage 1 and 2 will be omitted and the officer will be required to go straight to a third stage meeting.

This stage will still be referred to as Stage 3. This is only for instances relating to performance matters and is not applicable for attendance issues, which must follow the full three stage process.

An appropriate authority’s consideration of performance as gross incompetence is envisaged to be initiated by a single act. It is not envisaged that it would be in response to a series of acts over a period of time.

Where an officer is required to proceed straight to a Stage 3 meeting, without the inclusion of Stage 1 or 2 in the procedure, they have the right to legal representation.

While the officer has the right to seek legal advice at any time in the UPP, this is the only time that the Police (Performance) Regulations 2020 convey the right to legal representation. In all other circumstances under the regulations, they may only be represented by a police friend.

Where the panel finds that the performance of the officer constitutes gross incompetence the possible outcomes are:

1. Redeployment
2. Reduction in rank with immediate effect
3. Dismissal without notice
4. Issue of a final written improvement notice

Appeals

The officer concerned may appeal against the outcome of the first and second stage meetings. Regulations 19 and 27 set out the details of how this appeal should be made. An appeal from a first stage meeting will be considered by the second line manager. An appeal from a second stage meeting will be heard by a senior manager.

At Stage 2, there is a further ground for appeal in addition to those available of appeal under Stage 1. The officer may appeal on the grounds that they should not have been required to attend the second stage meeting as it did not concern the unsatisfactory performance referred to in the written improvement notice.

Following a third stage meeting, where this stage had been preceded by Stage 1 and 2, an officer has a right to appeal to a PAT against the findings and/or the following imposed outcomes:

1. Dismissal
2. Reduction in rank.

Where the case has been dealt with at Stage 3 without having progressed through Stage 1 and 2, an officer has a right to appeal to a PAT against the findings and/or the following imposed outcomes:

1. Dismissal
2. Reduction in rank
3. Redeployment
4. The issue of a written improvement notice or final written improvement notice

Finding of satisfactory performance or improvement in performance

With the exception of cases that are dealt with only at Stage 3, the purpose of each stage is to determine whether the officer’s performance is satisfactory. Where the performance is deemed to be satisfactory, the regulations set out at each stage the notification that the officer should receive following the meeting.