Since the extended fixed recoverable costs regime came into force, one of the more important questions for solicitors handling civil actions against the police has been whether these claims fall within it at all. The answer matters considerably for costs recovery: fixed recoverable costs replace the usual assessment of costs with a set figure determined by track and stage.  

Regardless of the actual work involved, which can be a significant departure from open assessment in claims that are often factually and legally more involved than their financial value suggests. This guide sets out where actions against the police sit within the FRC regime, and why the answer is not always straightforward. 

What Changed on 1 October 2023 

The extended fixed recoverable costs regime took effect for proceedings issued from 1 October 2023, representing one of the most significant changes to the civil procedure rules and the wider civil justice system in recent years. Before this date, fixed costs applied mainly to lower-value personal injury claims, including road traffic accidents, employer’s liability, and public liability claims. From October 2023, the FRC regime was extended considerably more broadly across civil litigation within the county court, introducing a new intermediate track for claims valued between £25,000 and £100,000, sitting between the existing fast track and the multi-track. 

Track allocation under the new regime is now central to how costs are recovered. Claims allocated to the fast track or the new intermediate track are generally subject to fixed recoverable costs, calculated by reference to a banding system reflecting the complexity of the claim and the stage the litigation has reached, rather than the actual costs incurred. Claims allocated to the multi-track fall outside the FRC entirely, and costs continue to be recovered through the usual assessment process, whether by agreement, summary assessment, or detailed assessment. 

Fixed Recoverable Costs and Actions Against the Police –  Exclusions 

Civil actions against the police are subject to a specific and deliberate exclusion from the extended FRC regime. Under the relevant provisions, a claim against the police that includes a claim for an international or reckless tort, or a remedy in respect of the Human Rights Act 1998, must be allocated to the multi-track irrespective of its financial value, and is therefore excluded from fixed recoverable costs. This means claims such as unlawful arrest, false imprisonment, and trespass to property arising from an unlawfully executed search will generally sit outside the FRC regime, even where the damages ultimately recovered are relatively modest and would otherwise place the claim within fast track or intermediate track territory by value alone. 

The rationale behind this exclusion reflects the particular character of these claims. Actions against the police frequently involve contested facts, disputes over the mental state and conduct of individual officers, and evidential complexity, including police disclosure, which does not sit comfortably within a fixed costs framework designed around more standardised, lower-complexity litigation. 

What Is Not Excluded 

The exclusion is not a blanket carve-out for any claim connected to the police. It applies specifically to claims involving an intentional or reckless tort, or a Human Rights Act remedy. Claims against the police that do not meet this description remain subject to the ordinary FRC regime and normal track allocation by value. This includes: 

• Road traffic accident claims arising from negligent police driving, which are treated in the same way as any other negligence-based RTA claim. 

• Employer’s liability claims brought by police officers or civilian staff, which follow the standard employer’s liability costs regime. 

• Claims for an accidental fall on police premises, treated as an ordinary occupiers’ liability or public liability claim. 

The distinguishing factor in each case is the underlying legal basis for the claim, not simply the identity of the defendant. A claim against a police force based on negligence will generally be treated like any other negligence claim for FRC purposes, while a claim based on an intentional or reckless tort will not. 

Why the Classification Exercise Matters 

Because the exclusion turns on the legal characterisation of the claim rather than its value, correctly identifying whether a claim genuinely involves an intentional or reckless tort, from the outset, has a direct and material effect on costs recovery strategy. A claim wrongly assumed to fall within the exclusion, where in fact it does not, risks proceeding on the basis that open assessment will apply when in practice fixed costs will govern recovery. Equally, a claim mischaracterised as falling within the ordinary FRC regime, when it in fact involves an intentional tort properly pleaded, risks costs being recovered on a fixed basis that undervalues the work genuinely required. 

For costs lawyers and costs draftsmen, this makes early engagement valuable, not only once a bill of costs is being prepared, but from the point proceedings are contemplated so that the pleaded basis of the claim, and its likely track allocation, are considered together with the costs strategy from the outset. 

A Recent Illustration: Collins v Thames Valley Police 

A recent Senior Courts Costs Officer decision illustrated how closely these questions are now being examined in practice. The case, Executors of the Estate of Kenneth Collins v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police [2026] EWHC 117 (SCCO), concerned a claim against Thames Valley Police that included an intentional tort element, and required the court to determine both whether the FRC regime applied and how the transitional provisions operated where costs-only proceedings were issued after 1 October 2023, but the underlying claim itself arose earlier. 

The court confirmed that it is the issue of proceedings, specifically the issue of costs-only proceedings following settlement, which is generally the relevant procedural step for determining whether the FRC regime applies under the transitional provisions, rather than the date the underlying dispute settled. The court also confirmed that accepting a Part 36 offer expressed to provide costs “in accordance with CPR 36.13” does not, of itself, contract out of the fixed recoverable costs regime; clear, specific contractual wording would be required to displace the fixed costs position. For claims involving the police, the decision also reinforces that the presence of an intentional tort element can properly take a claim outside the FRC regime, consistent with the exclusion discussed above. 

Costs-Only Proceedings and the Transitional Position 

Where a claim against the police settles without the need for full proceedings, the position on costs is often resolved through costs-only proceedings. Given the exclusion discussed above, and the transitional questions illustrated by the Thames Valley Police decision, solicitors and costs practitioners should take particular care over the timing and characterisation of costs-only proceedings in this context, since the procedural date on which they are issued, and the pleaded basis of the underlying claim, can both be determinative of whether fixed costs or open assessment ultimately applies. 

Practical Guidance for Costs Recovery 

For solicitors and costs practitioners handling fixed recoverable costs and actions against the police, a few practical points follow from the position set out above: 

• Plead the claim’s legal basis clearly and accurately from the outset. Whether a claim genuinely involves an intentional or reckless tort, as opposed to negligence, should be considered carefully and documented, since this classification is central to whether the FRC exclusion applies. 

• Do not assume the exclusion applies simply because the defendant is a police force. Claims arising from negligent police driving, employers’ liability, or an accidental fall on police premises remain within the ordinary FRC regime. 

• Pay close attention to the timing of costs-only proceedings, particularly for claims that settle around the October 2023 transition, since this can affect which costs regime applies. 

• Take care with Part 36 wording where fixed costs are a live issue, since generic reference to CPR36.13 will not, by itself, displace the fixed costs position. 

Speak to Greener Costs Today 

If you are a solicitor handling a claim against the police and need support determining whether the fixed recoverable costs regime applies, advice on costs-only proceedings, or assistance with detailed assessment where a claim falls outside the FRC regime, contact Greener Costs’ costs lawyers and costs draftsmen on 01204 263047 or info@greenercosts.co.uk. 

FAQs 

Do all claims against the police fall outside fixed recoverable costs? 

No. Only claims involving an intentional or reckless tort, or a Human Rights Act remedy, are excluded and must be allocated to the multi-track. Claims based on negligence, such as negligent police driving, remain within the ordinary FRC regime. 

When did the extended fixed recoverable costs regime start applying? 

The extended FRC regime applies to proceedings issued from 1 October 2023, introducing a new intermediate track for claims valued between £25,000 and £100,000, alongside the existing fast track and multi-track. 

Does accepting a Part 36 offer avoid fixed recoverable costs in a police claim? 

Not automatically. Case law has confirmed that accepting a Part 36 offer providing costs “in accordance with CPR 36.13” does not, by itself, contract out of the fixed recoverable costs regime; clear, specific wording is required to do so.