Hi Everyone,

First of all I would like to wish everyone a Happy New Year and apologise for the lack of updates from this petition you all signed, especially in the aftermath of Mr Bates Vs The Post Office which aired just over a year ago today on ITV.

The public outcry and anger following that drama has galvanised the country and forced the government to act to overturn the convictions of hundreds of innocent Postmasters and Postmistresses across the country. 

Unfortunately the scandal drags on and on because despite the constant rhetoric and promises from across government and Whitehall to right the wrongs, the processes continue to be embroiled in unfairness and subject the victims to further harm, as set out in the latest report from the Business and Trade Committee where the Chair Liam Byrne MP said, "Worse still, the schemes are so poorly designed that the application process is akin to a second trial for victims."

I have this morning sent a further letter to the Minister and Secretary of State to push for further action.  I had sent a letter dated the 11th November 2024 but have yet to receive a response.

The text of the letter can be found below and also a link to the tweet I put out on X showing the full contents of the letter. I would urge everyone reading this to again put the necessary pressure on your local MP to ask the government to go further to right this scandal.  Far too many people are dying before clearing their names and/or receiving the redress they are due and it has to stop.

Tweet on X - https://x.com/chrish9070/status/1876609837255021008

Letter in full -

7th January 2025

Dear Minister Thomas and Secretary of State Reynolds,

On the 11th of November 2024 I wrote a letter raising further concerns of redress scheme unfairness. As of today, there has been no acknowledgement nor response to that letter.

We have now seen the report from the Business and Trade Committee setting out recommendations which would address some, but not all the concerns that I raised. Victims are becoming physically and mentally unwell due to the inherent delays, the adversarial and combative approach taken to the redress process. Only yesterday I received yet another email from a claimant I have been assisting for many months in the HSS scheme, who due to anxiety, stress and mental health problems is opting to accept the Fixed Sum Award of £75,000 even though I have advised it is likely from a legal perspective her claim is valued at a much higher level. This jeopardy situation that victims face with these Fixed Sum Awards for either £75,000 or £600,000 needs to be addressed urgently otherwise the rhetoric of full and fair redress will not be delivered. People feel under huge pressure to accept these awards to avoid a lengthy process of assessment and remove the risk involved of them being offered a sum lower than the Fixed Sum Award, something inquiry chair Sir Wyn Williams raised concerns of his own that these awards would be, ‘lost forever’ once the full assessment route is opted for. I understand the government will respond to the Business and Trade report in due course, and I urge you to accept their recommendations in full.

Claimants are not in a position to make an informed decision about which route to opt for without professional legal advice and most are not in a position to cover that, and in reality, why should they have the expense for a scandal that wasn’t of their making. This is about doing the right thing; Post Office may have caused the original harm, but the harm is being further exasperated by the redress processes. If someone can clearly demonstrate they have a claim that exceeds £75,000, they should be able to receive this amount immediately under the current guidance and then advance a claim for the outstanding balance, which relieves the financial worries they may have and making the remaining process more tolerable. As I have discussed at length with Lord Beamish, all that will happen in the months ahead is government will be forced once again to re-open the fixed sum award claims on the basis of unfairness as people were denied access to legal advice and were not properly informed. Everyone wants to bring an end to the suffering, not re-visit it months down the line and have to relive the trauma over and over again, whilst at the same time increasing the costs for the taxpayer.

With regards to the GLO scheme the problems surrounding risk of progressing through the various available dispute mechanisms have not been addressed. Nobody should be forced to put an amount of their offer at risk by progressing to the next stage of scheme. That is exactly where I find myself as things stand today. By utilising the 2nd panel assessment, I will put myself in a far worse position before then requesting a referral to the final reviewer Sir Ross Cranston.

The solution would be to remove the ‘legally binding’ stipulation on the 2nd panel assessment, so it becomes similar to the first and called a second non-binding assessment. As long as DBT agree to act in good faith and as they have the first assessment agree to re-instate their original offer, claimants can dispute their claim without facing a jeopardy decision and then also progress to the final reviewer. It cannot be right that each scheme has a different approach to disputes, and to address that Sir Ross Cranston must be given a wider remit to case manage and resolve disputes at a much earlier stage in the process, in a similar approach to Sir Gary Hickinbottom in the HCRS and OC schemes. I am happy to utilise the dispute mechanisms within the scheme, but not with the risks involved, which was not what we signed up for when the scheme was launched back in March 2022. We believed DBT would act in good faith and not take an adversarial route to righting the wrongs of the past. I have provided sufficient evidence on the balance of probability which is the evidential bar of the scheme and have a genuine want to bring a resolution to the claim which I have demonstrated by adjusting my own position in the interests of fairness on my part. I would welcome a similar approach by DBT and for any counter arguments to meet the balance of probability test in return.

Fairness demands consistency and at present consistency is very much lacking as well as being able to drive claims to a speedy resolution that meets the promises of full and fair redress. Some of the counterclaims and arguments put forward by either Post Office or DBT are either cruel, not credible or not based on reality. That does not match the constant rhetoric across Whitehall of providing benefit of doubt, giving more weight to claimant arguments and restoring them to the position they would have been in and the position they might have achieved if it had not been for the scandal. Those in a position of trust and power will be judged on their actions not their words which at present appears to be akin to damage limitation and a PR exercise with the public rather than full and fair redress to those impacted by this scandal. We have an independent advisory board, but there is no oversight committee to track fairness across the schemes.

Which brings me to a further concern I have regarding interest calculations on heads of loss. There are multiple methods of calculating interest on losses and none that have been adopted are incorrect, but they are not consistent across all schemes. I refer to the government’s own guidance for the HCRS scheme as an example, ‘Horizon Convictions Redress Scheme (HCRS): assessment framework’ https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/horizon-convictions-redress-scheme-hcrs-assessment-framework/horizon-convictions-redress-scheme-hcrs-assessment-framework

In this guidance it sets out a case example of past loss of earnings for a Postmaster, with an adjusted pre-tax income of £27,516 with their year of suspension being 2010. The income is then adjusted for CPI inflation over the course of 14 years to September 2024. Once tax, National Insurance and actual earnings are deducted over that period they are left with a total net loss of £269,463. To calculate interest the example suggests that £269,463 is multiplied by 3.45% = £9,296 and then by 14 years to get £130,144 of interest. This is not the approach being taken in the GLO scheme for example, and therefore the approach is not consistent which means we have further unfairness. From the information I have available to me and the large number of applicants I have assisted in the HSS scheme, it appears the HSS and HCRS interest calculations are using a consistent approach, which just leaves the GLO scheme with a problem.

I have many examples but for confidentiality and claimant privacy reasons I am sharing my own case example. There is an offer for £219,347 for past loss of earnings (which excludes loss of earnings during suspension and due failure to give notice). If we were to use the above methodology as suggested within the HCRS guidance page above the interest calculation would be £219,347 multiplied by 3.45% = £7,567 per annum multiplied by 9 years from the end of the notice period in December 2016 to January 2025 which gives an interest calculation of £68,107 as opposed to the current offered amount by DBT of £36,467. It was only by chance and with access to claimant data across all the different redress schemes that I noticed this inconsistency. It needs to be investigated and addressed accordingly. This is where an oversight committee or adjudicator would be able to scrutinise the various redress schemes to ensure fairness and consistency across the board. The overarching aim of every scheme should be fairness, consistency and benefit of doubt towards the Sub-Postmaster, Postmistress, employees or family members.

I look forward to your speedy response.

Kind Regards,

Christopher Head OBE