Today I officially responded to Minister Thomas' letter sent to me on the 12th February.  In that letter there were a number of inaccuracies regarding how the various redress schemes are operating, and how they can be corrected before more claimants reach a similar position in the weeks and months ahead.  Next Wednesday is also the deadline for the government to respond to the Business and Trade Select Committee report that came out on the 1st January 2025.  That full report can be viewed here :-

https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/46112/documents/230204/default/

My letter to the Minister is shown in full below.  I know I sound like a stuck record but Postmasters, Postmistresses and their families really still need your help.  First of all share this petition far and wide so we can continue to engage with a wider portion of the general public, share my tweets on social media platform X and to any other platforms you use, and most importantly share the concerns from this letter with your local MP in Parliament.  As we saw after the ITV drama back in January 2024, public outrage and pressure can really help focus the minds of politicians to act quickly, when within 5 days they laid legislation before parliament to quash the convictions of hundreds of innocent Postmasters.  Let's ensure we keep their feet to the fire on their continued promises of delivering full & fair redress to all those impacted, which as you will see in my letter below the processes to do that are further inflicting harm on the individuals affected.  

https://x.com/chrish9070/status/1892658346433388776

20th February 2025 
 
 

Dear Minister Thomas,

Thank you for the response to my previous three letters.  There appears to be a misunderstanding with regards to the various points raised within those letters. 

With regards to the Fixed Sum Award of £75,000 you mention those who are unsure can go down the full assessment route.  If they are unsure as to what their claim is worth, but first they must make a claim ‘without’ legal advice or assistance, await their first offer and then are able to engage lawyers with the assistance of the Post Office, but at this stage it is too late.  They have already forgone their rights to the Fixed Sum Award and framed their case around the original claim.  

The Postmaster I was assisting in the scheme, was more concerned about the risk of a full assessment claim.  First, they would have to do so without legal assistance because as you correctly point out there is no capacity to obtain that advice prior to the first outcome.  Secondly securing them an interim or hardship payment would have easily been possible, but it does not remove the risk of going down the assessment route.  If they made a claim for £120,000, and the initial offer came in at £30,000 or less which happens in many cases due to the adversarial nature of the schemes, they must then engage legal assistance and enter the appeals/dispute process.  There is no timeline for how long that may take, it could be months, but it could also be years as we have seen with cases stuck since 2022, another reason we need binding timeframes just on the side of the Post Office / Government, not Postmasters.  The claimant now has the risk the offer may never reach the claimed sum, nor may it even reach the £75,000 Fixed Sum without even taking into consideration how long this dispute might go on.  This easily demonstrates why people feel obligated to accept the Fixed Sum Awards, because they cannot risk waiting years for a settlement nor entering a protracted dispute to reach a fair settlement.  The claimants words to me were, “Chris, I cannot make a claim for a six figure sum and risk the offer being substantially below that amount and then have to start the process of dispute that may have no end date in sight, even with a hardship payment of £10,000 as you suggest it does not take away the risk of a full claim.  Due to the mental health problems that I have suffered because of the Post Office and continue to suffer, I cannot tolerate this process any longer and therefore I am going to reluctantly accept the £75,000.”  This is why both me and the Business and Trade Committee say there needs to be legally binding timeframes for each dispute stage of the schemes but only on the side of the Post Office and Government so that claimants have as much time as they need to respond, whilst at the same time knowing there is an end date and time for the claim.  Otherwise as per the above example, and there are many, people are having to make impossible decisions and doing so without any legal guidance.

The same risk applies to those that must decide whether to accept the £600,000 Fixed Sum Awards, by making a claim above this amount they risk an offer coming in below that level, then having to enter a protracted dispute that could last years.  A lady approached me on X just yesterday saying her 80-year father opted for the award even though he had a claim substantially above this level because he couldn’t risk the fight going on for years, these people who have been so badly affected, living with criminal convictions for over two decades should be paid the £600,000 and invited if they have sufficient evidence to claim the outstanding amounts.  

A large proportion of those who had their convictions overturned in the Court of Appeal in April 2021, almost four years ago have still not been able to reach a full and final settlement.  I’m not sure what more evidence is needed that the processes are designed to wear people down, so they accept offers and walk away.  

The independent panel in the GLO scheme as you say are guided by considerations of fairness.  The question this raises, is what is ‘fairness’.  When my own case went to panel, this was only the second case to have reached them.  Therefore, unless the Department via Denton’s is feeding the panel data from other cases either in the GLO scheme or the various other schemes, how can they be guided by what is fair to other claimants?  Also bearing in mind as I mentioned previously, many claimants have simply thrown in the towel because they cannot tolerate the scheme any longer, therefore comparing those cases would not be fair.  I could clearly demonstrate the award by the panel does not meet the objective of putting us back to the likely position I would likely have been in, but to do so I must take a monetary risk before even being able to get to Sir Ross Cranston, akin to the TV show Deal or No Deal.  This flawed approach could be very easily fixed before more claimants find themselves in this position.

If anyone does not agree on the heads of loss based on the advice and guidance, that is received from both the legal representatives and accountancy experts, and do not accept them, they still have the risk proceeding to the 2nd panel assessment.  The schemes to ensure fairness must be consistent in their overall operation, and at present they are not.  The easiest solution would be the removal of the ‘binding’ wording for the second panel, and just make it a 2nd assessment, like the other schemes, with Sir Ross being the ‘Appeal Mechanism’ albeit without the risk of losing an offer as things currently stand.  By making all assessments non-binding as they are in the other schemes this removes the adversarial approach currently adopted only in the GLO scheme.  We cannot have binding outcomes and risks to offers in one scheme and not in others.  The Business and Trade Committee guided by the evidence provided to them rightly expressed their disappointment in the Department for not agreeing the Independent Reviewer should be given a greater role despite the former Minister confessing it was a mistake not to do so. Sir Ross Cranston must be given the powers to case manage throughout the whole process whilst chairing the Independent Panel.  He has a wealth of experience as a High Court Judge that is not being used to the full.  Again, to reiterate we must have consistency, and this is the role that Sir Gary Hickinbottom has in the other redress schemes.  There is no justifiable reason for the schemes not to be equitable in their operation.

I have recently been in correspondence with Sir Gary given his role as the chair of the pecuniary assessment panel in both the OC and HCRS schemes.  Although he states at present, he has no powers to intervene in the other schemes, he has spoken to Denton’s on the possibility of assisting parties in the other schemes but would require the agreement of the relevant parties.   He also stated and I quote, “I sense your feelings of frustration from your email – but, in respect of your own case, I can only suggest that, if you consider I may be able to assist in breaking the apparent logjam, that you seek approval of the Post Office/DBT through Dentons.”  Having made an approval request via Denton’s they have not put that proposal to the Department.  Again, if the Department, yourself as the Minister responsible and collectively as a government are as serious as they suggest they are to reach full and fair settlements of all claims, then utilising Sir Gary who is willing to assist would help in that endeavour as a type of mediation on specific heads of pecuniary losses.  I am not prepared to be held in a hostage situation because of a process that has promised full and fair redress yet at the same time is forcing claimants like me to put at risk a substantial amount of the offer by utilising the various dispute mechanisms.  The options are, accept an offer which doesn’t meet the principle of full and fair redress or dispute it and risk losing a large portion of that offer, effectively a gun to the head scenario.  Having been directly involved in many claims across all the various schemes, I again re-iterate there is no such risk in any of the other schemes, GLO claimants are clearly disadvantaged.  

So having gone through the official channels in the scheme, to make the request as suggested by Sir Gary it has not been forwarded to the Department as it should be.  I therefore reiterate that request by inviting DBT to a hearing with Sir Gary to get a determination on the ‘future loss of earnings’ head of claim only.  He is willing to do so, has a wealth of experience as a High Court Judge dealing with large quantities of litigation and only requires the agreement of both parties.  The only justifiable reason for not agreeing to this proposal will be because the Department has no will to resolve claims in a fair manner.  What fairer outcome can there be than a direction given by a highly respected former High Court Judge.

The original claims in the schemes are for harms committed by the Post Office but those harms continue now to be exasperated by the Government by way of the adversarial and litigious approach to the schemes, further inflicting mental torture upon victims.  Having been the first claimant to submit a complex claim into the GLO scheme on the 20th of June 2023 this scheme is having an adverse effect on my mental and physical health whilst directly impacting family and relationships.   As was reported to the Business and Trade Committee these schemes are making people ill.  It is imperative the government listens to those at the forefront to make the necessary changes to settle claims quickly and fairly.  There are hundreds more claims about to enter the same dispute process when 1st offers drop in the coming weeks, unless a change of direction is made as I previously mentioned the Department will not be able to cope and we will be here again in 2026 and potentially 2027 without people having received full and fair redress, and causing claimants further unnecessary harm.

I remain available to discuss these matters should any meeting be agreed at a convenient time to us both.

Yours Sincerely,

Christopher Head OBE

I will update you next week once the government formally responds to the Business and Trade Committee report, in the mean time please do keep writing to your MP's and make as much noise as possible on our behalf.  

Thank you as always for your continued steadfast support.