As promised I am publishing the response from the government the Department for Business and Trade and the Minister Gareth Thomas. You can read and share my tweet that includes pictures of the letter in full here :-
https://x.com/chrish9070/status/1891824392822456661
The letter is transcribed below in full for ease of reading :-
Dear Chris,
Thank you for your email of 11 November 2024, and your follow up email of 7 January, about ensuring fairness within the various Horizon-related redress schemes. I sincerely apologise for the delay in responding to your initial email. Your correspondence has only relatively recently been brought to my attention.
I am very grateful for your engagement on these matters and for the support you have been providing to Postmasters across all redress schemes. I am always keen to understand how we can do things better and I welcome suggestions for any changes we can make to ensure that the process of obtaining redress is swift and straightforward. I acknowledge there have been issues concerning the speed of redress and that the delivery of the redress schemes has not always run smoothly. However, we continue to seek options to speed up redress and improve the process, in consultation with the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board.
In regard to some of the issues you raised in your first letter, on the Horizon Shortfall Scheme (HSS), we recognise there have been issues around the appropriate guidance being available to claimants at the time of the scheme’s launch. I recognise concerns that some claimants to the HSS were unable to set out their claim in full due to challenges with the guidance available. That is why we have promised to introduce the Appeals Process – which will be launching in the coming months – giving those individuals the opportunity to have settlements independently reviewed.
With our encouragement, Post Office do now try to actively identify where individuals may have suffered losses beyond what they have claimed for in their application. They then work with these individuals to obtain further information for the Independent Panel to consider, often resulting in additional heads of loss being considered and compensated for. There is also funding for legal support available to help postmasters consider their offer.
You highlight some concerns about the £75,000 fixed sum offer in both of your letters.
The fixed sum offer was introduced to provide a swift route to redress for those who felt this figure fairly compensated them for their experience. However, there is no obligation to accept that option. Anyone who is unsure whether it is sufficient, or who wants the assurance of legal advice, can request a full assessment: they can get legal support to consider the outcome and, if they wish, challenge it. If a claimant remains unhappy with their settlement, they can enter the Appeals process, to ensure they are ultimately provided with fair redress reflecting their experiences.
The fixed sum offer will of course be appropriate for some but not for others. I am however concerned that, introducing a legal process to consider accepting the fixed sum offer would be working against the aim of that intervention and our shared desire to ensure that redress is provided as swiftly as possible. To those who feel they could benefit from legal advice, this is still available, but through the full assessment route.
I am very sorry to hear that the postmaster you have been supporting has had such a difficult experience under the HSS. If a HSS claimant does choose to go down the full assessment route, Post Office can offer interim and hardship payments on request, so there should never be circumstances where a claimant feels obliged to accept the fixed sum payment.
With regard to GLO matters, whilst you would not expect me to comment directly on your case, I want to assure you that the Department is committed to ensuring the GLO Compensation Scheme delivers fair and equitable redress to all affected claimants.
The independent panel have transparent terms of reference from the Department (set out here -https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/compensation-scheme-for-group-litigation-order-case-postmasters/terms-of-reference-of-the-glo-scheme-independent-panel--2 ). This guidance requires the panel to make awards which would restore a claimant back to the position they would have been in had it not been for the actions of the Post Office, using established legal principles and being guided by considerations of fairness. That position is calculated in “real terms”, with the postmaster’s income being increased in line with the Consumer Price Index.
I would be very happy to look at any suggestions you may have for improving that guidance. The Department rightly has no other means of influencing or communicating with the panel.
Following the first panel review, the Department has committed to honouring its original offer on specific heads of loss, where the offer is more generous than the panel’s assessment. That means postmasters can choose to accept those heads of loss, before taking any remaining disputed heads of loss to the second panel for a binding decision. I hope that reassures you that it is never the Department’s intention to place any applicant at risk of receiving a lower award and demonstrates that we are making as full an offer as we can in all the circumstances.
To date, very few cases have been considered by the Panel. The small sample means that it is difficult to draw conclusions. We will closely monitor the progress of any further cases which go to the Panel and make improvements as necessary.
Careful consideration was given to Sir Ross’s role when designing the GLO Scheme, in consultation with Freeth’s and the JFSA. The intent behind involving an Independent Reviewer is to offer postmasters the opportunity to further review the Independent Panel's assessment in situations where there has been an error of principle in the Independent Panel’s final assessment of the claim. This recognises that GLO claimants – unlike their HSS peers – are not able to challenge settlements in the courts. The Reviewer’s assessment is independent of the initial assessment. Inviting the reviewer to get involved earlier in the
process would require the reviewer to review his own decisions, which would be unfair.
As you mentioned in your earlier correspondence, Sir Gary Hickinbottom plans to hold a hearing, which is currently scheduled for February, around the issue of future loss of earnings, drawing on submissions in respect of the OC and GLO schemes. His recommendations will be applied to all schemes.
I can further confirm that the HCRS will calculate interest in the same way as the OC and GLO Schemes; interest on relevant losses will be calculated year-on-year at 3.45%, with the interest amount being added to the total for that year and then compounding overall years.
The case examples online are simplified calculations aimed at giving claimant
representatives a quick understanding of whether it is worth it for their client to take the £600k or pursue a detailed assessment. It would be overly complicated to set out the exact year-on-year calculations for interest, so a simplified version was used. However, the Department will investigate, adding a note to the framework to make this clearer and hopefully avoid any future confusion.
We try very hard to ensure that the schemes take a common approach so far as possible. If you do come across further issues where you think the schemes may have diverged, please do in the first instance get in touch with Rob Brightwell and his team.
Thank you again for bringing these matters to my attention, and I apologise once again for the delay in getting back to you.
Yours sincerely,
GARETH THOMAS MP
Minister for Services, Small Business and Exports
This is the response to my letters dated 11th November 2024, 7th January 2025 and finally 4th February 2025.
First section is concerning, that the letter sent in November last year was only recently brought to the Ministers attention, "I sincerely apologise for the delay in responding to your initial email. Your correspondence has only relatively recently been brought to my attention."
The next issue is with regards to the Fixed Sum Award of £75,000, this also applies to the £600,000 award that is available to those with an overturned conviction.
It states and I quote :-
"You highlight some concerns about the £75,000 fixed sum offer in both of your letters. The fixed sum offer was introduced to provide a swift route to redress for those who felt this figure fairly compensated them for their experience. However, there is no obligation to accept that option. Anyone who is unsure whether it is sufficient, or who wants the assurance of legal advice, can request a full assessment: they can get legal support to consider the outcome and, if they wish, challenge it. If a claimant remains unhappy with their settlement, they can enter the Appeals process, to ensure they are ultimately provided with fair redress reflecting their experiences. The fixed sum offer will of course be appropriate for some but not for others. I am however concerned that, introducing a legal process to consider accepting the fixed sum offer would be working against the aim of that intervention and our shared desire to ensure that redress is provided as swiftly as possible. To those who feel they could benefit from legal advice, this is still available, but through the full assessment route."
There is no obligation to accept that option, which is of course correct. However, how is an ordinary lay person with no experience or understanding of the law supposed to quantify their claim without any access to experts or legal advice. It states that if anyone is 'unsure' or wants the assurance of legal advice can opt for the full assessment route. It then mentions the legal support ONLY available to challenge the OUTCOME, not legal advice on how to prepare or correctly quantify their claim. So if a person is 'unsure' then they have to opt for the full assessment and immediately forgo their right to the £75,000 award, without having any idea what their claim maybe worth, because the legal advice does not kick in until after an offer is made down the full assessment route, which means the £75,000 is no longer an option. This is not correct nor fair to those individuals, the exact same issues apply to the £600,000 although those people are receiving legal advice on which route to take. To then say those who feel legal advice would be a benefit it is still available through the full assessment route, with no mention that it is only available once an offer is made (not in advance down the full assessment route) and no mention that they have now forgone their right to the Fixed Sum of £75,000.
Next up is the section on risk which follows on from the above issue of the Fixed Sum Awards, and this applies both to the £75,000 and the £600,000. The letter states and I quote :-
"I am very sorry to hear that the postmaster you have been supporting has had such a difficult experience under the HSS. If a HSS claimant does choose to go down the full assessment route, Post Office can offer interim and hardship payments on request, so there should never be circumstances where a claimant feels obliged to accept the fixed sum payment."
This was not my concern, I could have easily obtained an interim payment for the individual I was assisting. The concern raised was with regards to risk. The claimant had a claim in excess of £75,000, that I am certain of, however if they opted for the full assessment route as she would have had to do to claim the full amount, lets just say we thought it was worth £110,000 what happens if they only offered £30,000 which has happened in a lot of cases, or potentially even less. Yes they could receive 100% of that offer in the HSS scheme, less any other interim amounts received to date, if we had requested a hardship payment, but then they would have to enter the appeals/dispute process which could run anything from months to years, remembering that some claims have remained in dispute for well over 3 years. So there is a huge risk involved, either take the £75,000 and walk away now, or put in a full claim for £110,000 with the risk that it comes in significantly lower and then have to fight for years with no guarantee of getting anything close to £110,000 or even the £75,000. This is the problem. The Fixed Sum Awards should be provided to people who have a claim close to that figure for a fast resolution, but those who can demonstrate a claim significantly higher should be paid the £75,000 and allowed to advance the rest of their claim.
This problem arises in the £600,000 awards as well. I was contacted by an individual just last week, who is in the process of making an impossible decision. Yes they likely have a claim well above the £600,000 level, but by advancing that claim, they risk the offer coming in below it. They could claim for example £900,000, but the offer may come back at only £450,000 and then they are locked into a battle that could take years to resolve again with no guarantee of ever getting close to £900,000 let alone the £600,000 figure, as once the full assessment is opted for they lose the right to walk away with Fixed Sum Award. This is punishing those that opt for a full assessment, and deterring people making a full claim.
With regards to the GLO scheme the next section comments on the operation of the independent panel :-
"With regard to GLO matters, whilst you would not expect me to comment directly on your case, I want to assure you that the Department is committed to ensuring the GLO Compensation Scheme delivers fair and equitable redress to all affected claimants.
The independent panel have transparent terms of reference from the Department (set out here). This guidance requires the panel to make awards which would restore a claimant back to the position they would have been in had it not been for the actions of the Post Office, using established legal principles and being guided by considerations of fairness. That position is calculated in “real terms”, with the postmaster’s income being increased in line with the Consumer Price Index.
I would be very happy to look at any suggestions you may have for improving that guidance. The Department rightly has no other means of influencing or communicating with the panel.
Following the first panel review, the Department has committed to honouring its original offer on specific heads of loss, where the offer is more generous than the panel’s assessment. That means postmasters can choose to accept those heads of loss, before taking any remaining disputed heads of loss to the second panel for a binding decision. I hope that reassures you that it is never the Department’s intention to place any applicant at risk of receiving a lower award and demonstrates that we are making as full an offer as we can in all the circumstances.
To date, very few cases have been considered by the Panel. The small sample means that it is difficult to draw conclusions. We will closely monitor the progress of any further cases which go to the Panel and make improvements as necessary."
The income is adjusted by CPI inflation but this is not then applied to future earnings, of where those earnings would likely be had it not been for the actions of the Post Office. Like in my own case, they on one hand admit it would take at least 10 years to get back on track, but they then contradict the objective of putting you back where you would have been by saying in 2035 your earnings will be back to the earnings level they were in 2024. Whereas if it had not been for the actions of Post Office Ltd, those earnings in 2035 would be significantly higher if adjusted in line with projected CPI. Therefore as the offers currently stand it does NOT meet the principle of putting you back where you likely would have been, the evidential bar being 'on the balance of probability.' Postmasters can choose to accept heads of loss before going back to the panel, but if they don't because they know they are still insufficient based upon legal advice they receive, then they put at RISK those heads of loss going back down by the 2nd binding panel decision. My contention is the other schemes do not have a binding outcome before a panel and they always have a final recourse to the courts, which GLO claimants do not. Yet you cannot get to the final reviewer Sir Ross without going back to the panel, it is a double edged sword, filled with risk to the claimant. The reason so few cases have reached there is because the scheme is so slow and adversarial in order to get there, and legal representatives now understand the risks involved and will be wanting to navigate away from that option until every other avenue is exhausted.
Next was the section regarding the role of the final reviewer Sir Ross Cranston :-
"Careful consideration was given to Sir Ross’s role when designing the GLO Scheme, in consultation with Freeth’s and the JFSA. The intent behind involving an Independent Reviewer is to offer postmasters the opportunity to further review the Independent Panel's assessment in situations where there has been an error of principle in the Independent Panel’s final assessment of the claim. This recognises that GLO claimants – unlike their HSS peers – are not able to challenge settlements in the courts. The Reviewer’s assessment is independent of the initial assessment. Inviting the reviewer to get involved earlier in the process would require the reviewer to review his own decisions, which would be unfair.
As you mentioned in your earlier correspondence, Sir Gary Hickinbottom plans to hold a hearing, which is currently scheduled for February, around the issue of future loss of earnings, drawing on submissions in respect of the OC and GLO schemes. His recommendations will be applied to all schemes."
First of all the JFSA and Freeth's expected The Department to act in good faith and the overarching objectives to be met by putting claimants back where they likely would have been, but instead they have gone off on their own tangent to have a completely different interpretation of that meaning. Secondly, this is not consistent with the other schemes, Sir Gary directly chairs the pecuniary assessment panel, and is therefore involved at every stage of any review of cases. He can case management if things aren't moving quickly enough (remember my claim being the longest standing in the GLO scheme, first submitted on the 20th June 2023). He will also be able to give his view, use his powers and authority to overrule and intervene when disputes cannot be resolved on their own. Whereas in the GLO scheme there is no panel Chair as a judge with overarching powers to settle disputes. This is inconsistent and unfair. There are NO binding assessments within the other schemes, you agree heads of loss as you go, and any remaining in dispute can be reviewed by the Chair and his panel, without the risk of those amounts going down. It would be very simple to remove the 2nd legally binding stipulation, agree like in the 1st panel that offers will be reinstated therefore removing the risk for the claimant or challenging their offer and give the same remit and powers to Sir Ross Cranston as Sir Gary has in the other schemes. This means he would be able to case manage if things are stuck and slow, he would be able to assess cases that are in dispute and give directions or determinations on how to proceed, which would give consistency across all schemes, and hopefully fair outcomes for everyone. Whilst there are consistencies schemes will remain unfair.
If we consider what the Common's Business and Trade Committee said in its report dated the 1st January 2025 about the final reviewer, it MUST be changed. This is what they said :-
Role of independent adjudicator
44. At the final stage of the GLO Scheme, after an Independent Panel has considered a case, a claimant can make an application to the Independent Reviewer, Sir Ross Cranston, if they are unhappy with the outcome of their claim. The Department also has a right to seek an independent review of the case.
45. The remit of the Independent Reviewer in this scheme is tightly defined. A case can only be referred to the Independent Reviewer if there are concerns of a manifest error, procedural irregularity or substantive error of principle in the Independent Panel’s final assessment of the claim; or if the Panel’s final assessment is substantially inconsistent with the scheme’s Guidance and Principles.
46. Concerns have been raised that the role of the Independent Reviewer in the GLO Scheme is too constrained. When the former Minister for Enterprise, Kevin Hollinrake MP, gave evidence to the Post Office Horizon IT Scandal Statutory Inquiry in November 2024, he said that on reflection, Sir Ross Cranston should have been a greater role in the GLO at the start, rather than providing ‘the back stop for a dispute.’ When the Committee put this to the Department, Carl Creswell—the Director of Post Office and Business Engagement—did not agree with the former Minister, and said that they are looking into whether the facilitators, Dentons—described by some of our witnesses as a ‘highly paid postbox’—should play a bigger role.
47. While the GLO only has an Independent Reviewer as the final stage of the scheme, both conviction-related schemes have an independent adjudicator available throughout the process. Sir Gary Hickinbottom PC is a judge who acts as the Chair of the Post Office Overturned Convictions Independent Pecuniary Assessment Panel. It was announced in our November evidence session that he has also been appointed as the Independent Adjudicator for the Horizon Convictions Redress Scheme.
48. Sir Gary gave evidence to this Committee explaining the powers he has in this dual role, including the power to give case management directions. In this instance, Sir Gary can give case directions if a claimant does not think that their case is moving quickly enough. Sir Gary’s function in these schemes have been praised by stakeholders, with claimants’ lawyers arguing that his vast experience as a senior judge means that he is a respected figure who is able to case-manage large volumes of litigation.
49 recommendation - It is disappointing that the Department does not believe the Independent Reviewer should be given a greater role in the Group Litigation Order Scheme, despite the former Post Office Minister confessing that it was a mistake not to do so. Sir Ross Cranston is a former High Court Judge with a wealth of experience that is not being used to the full. The Government should give the Independent Reviewer greater powers to case manage Group Litigation Order claims throughout the whole process.
Former Minister Kevin Hollinrake agrees that Sir Ross' role should have been given a greater role at the start rather than just a backstop. We would have resolved far more disputes by now which would have set a precedent for all the outstanding cases. Finally the section of interest and how it is calculated. I reject the reasoning given by the department and the Minister for the supposed incorrect example put on the website.
Finally the section of interest and how it is calculated. I reject the reasoning given by the department and the Minister for the supposed incorrect example put on the website :-
"I can further confirm that the HCRS will calculate interest in the same way as the OC and GLO Schemes; interest on relevant losses will be calculated year-on-year at 3.45%, with the interest amount being added to the total for that year and then compounding overall years.
The case examples online are simplified calculations aimed at giving claimant representatives a quick understanding of whether it is worth it for their client to take the £600k or pursue a detailed assessment. It would be overly complicated to set out the exact year-on-year calculations for interest, so a simplified version was used. However, the Department will investigate, adding a note to the framework to make this clearer and hopefully avoid any future confusion."
The example given on the HCRS guidance page here in section F3, was explained with all other complex losses shown. Instead a fictitious outcome for interest was provided, when instead all they had to do was provide the CORRECT interest amount for the example and say this the amount due when compound interest at 3.45% is applied. Instead setting out an example that could never be achieved. This is supposed to be guidance to those in that scheme. What if an individual had almost exact similar circumstances and over a similar time period they would expect to receive £110,000 of interest where in reality they would receive significantly less because it is compounded on annual earnings and then applied to the following year once that years earnings have been uplifted by CPI. This example enhanced the final amount by applying the interest to the overall award rather than annually compounded.
I will respond to this letter officially in due course, bringing all these points to the Minister's attention until we are able to change the course of the schemes, to first of all ensure they are consistent and most importantly fair for everyone.
For transparency the previous letters I sent can be viewed in full below :-
11th November letter > https://www.postofficescandal.uk/post/chris-head-an-open-letter-to-gareth-thomas-post-office-minister/
7th January letter > https://x.com/chrish9070/status/1876609837255021008
4th February letter > https://x.com/chrish9070/status/1886791735134544003
In the meantime we are awaiting the governments official response to the Business and Trade Committee report which is due by next Wednesday 26th February, 8 weeks after it was released on the 1st January 2025. Please as before keep the pressure on your local MP's to ensure justice is delivered as swiftly as possible to all affected Postmasters.
Thank you for your continued support.
Christopher Head OBE