Despite continuous assurances from both those at the Post Office and within Government Departments, Department for Business and Trade, that they are to deliver full and fair compensation to those affected by the biggest miscarriage of justice in British Legal history it is clear that the mandate from Government legal advisors and HM Treasury is to make the process as adversarial and difficult as possible. There is no intention on anyone's part to reach settlements that are both full and fair.

I say this because as I have explained before is there is no equitableness between the various redress schemes. Only the GLO redress scheme has a 2nd binding panel assessment, the other schemes have non binding assessments and therefore the highest offers continue to stand in good faith. The GLO scheme has an in-built high stakes risk, should you have a current offer on the table that it is likely to be lost by continuing to the next stage of the dispute process. In my own case that risk is circ. £140,000 with no way of recovering that sum. Had the claim been in any of the other schemes, this type of risk would not occur.

As I have suggested on numerous occasions the fairest and simplest solution is for the government to remove the 'legally binding' stipulation from the 2nd assessment and bring it into line with the other schemes, as a 'non binding' 2nd assessment, therefore directly removing the risk. This can only happen if they agree to act in good faith and leave the best available offer on the table. This was how Sir Wyn Williams, appeared to suggest the process should work in the interests of fairness, no one should be losing money by moving to the next dispute resolution stage.

Also the remit of Sir Ross Cranston in the GLO scheme, is severely limited compared to that of Sir Gary Hickinbottom in both the Overturned Conviction Scheme and the Horizon Conviction Redress Scheme. Sir Ross does not have the remit to case manage, he does not have the ability to intervene in Intractable disputes on heads of loss and therefore parties cannot and will not reach agreements. We have numerous schemes, with completely unique terms of reference and remits of the schemes reviewers which means unfairness. The GLO scheme with the 200+ cases that remain outstanding and those claims only submitted before Christmas are about to hit the same brick wall very soon, basically the GLO titanic is about to hit the huge iceberg ahead and no one is interested in doing anything about it.

The promises from government Ministers Jonathan Reynolds and more recently Gareth Thomas to those affected Postmasters who appeared on BBC Newsnight
 with Victoria Derbyshire were just more spun lines from the department and the legal advisers Addleshaw Goddard of promising everything, but delivering nothing. The same old story which has been going on for years.

I once again tried to act with fairness and integrity and suggest a further process of ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution - which we attempted a almost a year ago - that DBT did not attend in good faith as they had not given their legal term permission to negotiate). The response from DBT was the following and I quote,  

"they do not consider negotiation will be effective in this case."

Despite this I suggested that sitting round a table, so they can understand the various points they have failed to grasp and understand is the best and fairest way to reach a resolution. Originally the scheme administrators Dentons were supportive of this ADR process yet they now say and I quote,

"Given DBT's confirmation that it does not consider that negotiation will be effective in this case, we do not consider it appropriate to refer this case for an ADR call. The options available to you are (a) to accept DBT's offer; or (b) to proceed to a second, binding determination by the Independent Panel."

So basically either accept an offer that does not meet the promise of full and fair redress, mainly on the point that whilst DBT accept it would likely take a minimum of 10 years to get my earnings back on track, by 2035 they would be back to the accepted 'but for' level from 2024. That statement simply cannot meet the objectives of the scheme, of putting the claimant back in the position they likely would have been in, especially given the evidential bar is 'on the balance of probabilities.'

OR go back to the panel for the 2nd binding assessment and lose circ. £140,000 of the offer on the table. And that is supposed to be a genuine attempt to restore claimants back to where they likely would have been, and likely would have achieved had it not been for the Horizon Scandal, and deliver full and fair redress. It is nothing short of a disgrace, and as you can see from above, different schemes, means different outcomes and different risks. Until we have an oversight committee instead of just an advisory board these schemes will continue to be adversarial, combative and unfair, further traumatising already very damaged individuals.

So I put out the offer as originally stated, will the government and more specifically the Department for Business and Trade decide to act in good faith and attend an ADR process with a genuine attempt to reach a full and fair settlement?

Watch this space. 

What can you do to help, I urge you to write to your member of parliament to make it clear that despite all the public furore following on from the ITV drama Mr Bates vs The Post Office and the public statements made by the Post Office and more importantly by the government are nothing more than PR exercises to limit the publicity of the failings of the various compensation schemes.  It is highly likely unless there is a significant change of approach, there will be no option but to head back to the courts in order to hold them accountable for their inaction.  Please take the time to write a draft letter to your MP by following the link here :-

https://members.parliament.uk/members/commons

Just type your postcode and your MP's name will appear.  Click on the MP's name and their email address will appear or you can send the letter addressed to their name and to the House of Commons address "House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA"

Thank you for your continued support.

Chris Head OBE