Good Evening All,

I have taken the opportunity to write to retired Judge, Sir Ross Cranston, who sits as the final reviewer in one of the redress schemes setup for the Post Office Scandal, known as the GLO scheme.  This is the scheme setup to provide compensation to the 555 Postmasters who took the Post Office to court led by Sir Alan Bates, from 2016 to 2019 and which helped to blow the doors off this entire scandal.  The problem is although the retired Judge is there as an appeals mechanism, reaching him is extremely difficult and also comes with a large financial risk for some.  

Read my letter below :-

Dear Sir Ross,

Please excuse me for contacting you directly but I feel I have exhausted all other forms of contact to raise serious concerns about the operation of the GLO scheme for which you sit as the final reviewer.

Although there appears to be a few fair settlements, many of the legal representatives of claimants state that they are giving up and accepting offers because they cannot cope with both the adversarial nature of the scheme and the inherent slowness in which it operates.  I am concerned this will lead to the DBT narrative that because offers have been accepted they are deemed full and fair.  Denton's maybe the scheme facilitators but they have no real power to give case management directions to help speed up the process.  To give an idea the government have committed to providing a 1st offer within 40 working days of receipt of a full claim.  They have also agreed during the Business and Trade Committee evidence sessions at the end of 2024, agreed to provide subsequent 2nd offers within 40 working days.  However if we compare that to claimants representatives who only have 20 working days to challenge the 1st and subsequent offers that does not seem like a fair process.  The first 40 working days is understandable since it will be the first time that DBT has seen the claim, but subsequent offers should not need the same timescale for a response as the original offer, and should be in line with claimants timescale for their objection, which also requires a very detailed response.  There is no guidance as to what happens if we reach a 3rd or 4th offer stage and beyond, as to how long DBT have to respond.  My own case was one of if not the first complex case to be submitted into the scheme on the 20th June 2023.  An RFI request was made to which we provided a response in September 2023.  My first offer was not delivered until the 28th December 2023.  We challenged that offer on the 15th January 2024, and it wasn't until April 2024 a second offer was delivered.  We again challenged this offer and a 3rd offer was delivered in July 2024.

Because we remained at an impasse and the length of time it was taking DBT to respond to the challenges we made, as well as missing out answers to key questions that we posed it was impossible to continue in this manner.  We therefore reluctantly agreed to go to the Independent Panel for the 1st non binding assessment.  I am concerned at the extremely low input a claimant has into that panel assessment.  It is restricted to 3 sides of A4 regardless of how many heads of loss are in dispute and a few minutes if you so choose to provide an oral submission.  These are highly complex claims that requires a high degree of understanding of the individual circumstances, and I believe the panel therefore made a number of incorrect assertions during that assessment, for example that the interim payments received had been provided in a lump sum whereas they had been provided over the course of 4 years from 2020, and therefore it would not have been possible to setup a new business as suggested.  This is just one of many inaccuracies in that assessment due to the very limited input a claimant has in that process.  

In order for a full understanding of the situation a half day or full day hearing would be required.  The panel recommendation came in well below the DBT offer.  This as you can understand leaves a claimant in an almost impossible dilemma.  I am of the opinion and view that the panel should maintain its independence, but if their assessment would result in a lower recommendation they could say, "the offer currently made by DBT is at the level or above the level we as the independent panel would have recommended and therefore we make no further comment on this case."

I believe had we had the opportunity to provide much more input and therefore understood what incorrect assertions they were making we could have corrected those which would have resulted in a different outcome.  The panel recommended an increase to one head of loss being the past loss of earnings but a reduction in all the other heads of loss which were in dispute, being 9 in total.  Following up with this and making several written communications with the Department and the Minister the DBT agreed to accept the one increased recommendation by the panel and re-instate the original higher offers on the remaining heads of loss.  DBT had asked me in July to provide a taper scenario for my future earnings or a business investment proposal.  We provided this to DBT in early December 2024 once it had been finalised, to which DBT rejected the proposal but did not provide any comment on it.  I provided two taper scenarios and one business investment scenario as well as Ogden calculations.  So we provided what was requested but we do not understand their position or reasoning for rejection because they did not provide it to us.

I understand that I currently find myself in a unique position.  Many claimants have simply walked away without utilising the dispute mechanisms before them as they are unable to cope as I mentioned earlier in this correspondence.  The other very few cases which have reached the panel stage, did not see a recommended reduction in the offer.  If they have been recommended a higher offer this means those claimants are not subject to any financial risk by proceeding to the 2nd binding panel assessment if they still do not agree on the claim as it is likely the panel will re-assert their original position at the very least.  If we contrast that to my position where the recommendation was lower, if I proceed to the 2nd binding panel assessment and they re-assert their original position because the format is the same, that a claimant is not able to provide a very detailed input or a full hearing then that would leave me worse off by almost £170,000-£180,000.  I would then have to make a detailed case to request a review by yourself to attempt to recover myself back to the offer that was available to me prior to attending the 2nd panel assessment.  The inquiry Chair Sir Wyn Williams expressed his concern at the Fixed Sum Awards which were effectively lost forever if someone chose to go down the full assessment claim route, I find that I am in a similar position where my reinstated offer could very likely be lost forever if I was to proceed to this 2nd panel assessment.

If I were to accept a number of heads of loss to reduce this risk I would be doing so under duress so as to not cause myself such a catastrophic financial loss by challenging that decision.  Also by accepting those heads of loss and since they are not subject to the 2nd panel hearing I cannot have them reviewed by yourself at the final stage.  Whereby if I don't accept any of the heads of loss I risk the above loss of approx. £180,000 in my offer.  In the other schemes namely the HSS and OC (Overturned Conviction) schemes these risks do not occur.  Each head of loss is challenged and any panel assessment is always non binding and Post Office agree to stand by their highest offer, they can then request a hearing with Sir Gary Hickinbottom to attempt to resolve the dispute and also still have recourse to the courts.  Claimants in the GLO are disadvantaged by having this risk of a 2nd binding assessment without any case management or hearings to resolve disputes until after that risk has already materialised.  

I am therefore concerned how many other claimants may find themselves in the same position as myself in the weeks and months ahead considering many have just received their 1st offers in the last few weeks.  It could be a 6-12 months away before they even reached a 1st panel assessment and then realise the risk of the 2nd assessment setting them backwards.  This would allow DBT to state the narrative which is already creeping out that because so few cases have gone to assessment and even fewer to yourself (Sir Ross), it is clear the Departments offers are fair.  What there is no mention of is the risk claimants like myself face.  We cannot reach you for a final assessment without taking a substantial financial risk and therefore it is likely many people will just walk away before ever reaching that stage as to not lose a portion of their offer.  I wish to utilise all dispute mechanisms but I feel like I am hostage to what is a flawed process and is not consistent with the other redress schemes relating to the Post Office Scandal whereby claimants do not have any financial risk by disputing their offers (other than the upfront decision as to whether to proceed with a full assessment claim).

Since I am the longest running claim within this scheme, I am sure you can understand my frustration but also fear that others will find themselves in this position in the months ahead, many who are very elderly and vulnerable individuals.  I wish to bring to a close this latest saga which is further affecting my own mental and physical health and having an adverse affect on my family.  These redress processes as was suggested at the Business and Trade Committee are making people ill.

We have proposed an ADR process to which Denton's originally supported and DBT said they would allow whichever course of action I chose, but then DBT stated they would not be considering their position further which led to Denton's saying because of that they wouldn't facilitate one.  No claimant should have to go backwards in the quest for redress and then have to fight to have it restored.  That maybe the adversarial nature in the judicial system but this scheme was designed or supposed to be designed not to be adversarial and as I previously mentioned is not consistent with the operation of the other redress schemes whereby the risk is not present.

I further spoke to Sir Gary Hickinbottom about my position and he suggested if I thought he could be of assistance with regards to the most disputed and complex head of loss being future loss of earnings that I put this proposal to DBT via Denton's.  Denton's refused to do so which I find difficult to comprehend as they are facilitators not decision makers and it should have been for DBT to reject the proposal.  The thought was to hold some kind of hearing specific to that head of loss to allow parties to reach an agreement, as it will require very detailed input to get a full and true understanding of the position and why we believe DBT assertions are materially flawed.

Again please accept my apologies for writing direct, but as I say I feel like I am trapped in a hostage like position which as of yet other claimants have not reached.  I prefer to be proactive to resolve these problems before many others find themselves with the same impossible dilemma.

Yours Sincerely,

Chris Head OBE

I realise there is a lot going on in the world today, but please help Postmasters by keeping pressure on your MP so we can get this scandal resolved once and for all.

Thank you as always for your ongoing support!