On Thursday 10th April the Business and Trade Committee Chair Liam Byrne sent a letter to Postal Minister Gareth Thomas relating to the Horizon Redress Schemes.
You can read the full letter here and I have pasted a copy of its contents below https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/47478/documents/246682/default/ :-
10 April 2025
Dear Gareth,
In December 2024 you wrote that it would be an “excellent outcome” if full and final settlements were reached with all GLO claimants by March 2025, with “substantial redress to be paid… in response to all full claims submitted by Christmas: 80% if an offer is challenged or 100% if it is accepted.”
In your statement and latest published redress data to 31 March 2025 you noted that only 76% (374 of 492) of GLO group members have received “substantial redress” (defined as either full and final redress or 80% interim redress payments). Over 100 GLO claimants are challenging their offer of redress, of which 18 claimants who have challenged their redress offers are still awaiting interim payments.
In our recommendations, we set out ways to increase the fairness and speed of all existing schemes, including important changes to the better use of indicative redress bands, requests for information and the resourcing of dispute settlement channels (such as the Horizon Shortfall Scheme independent panel) to ensure that the road to redress is as swift as possible.
I remain extremely concerned that some claimants face a significant write-down of their claim between its submission and the tabling of the initial offer. Claimants and their legal representatives highlighted this risk on 5 November 2024. They flagged the continued challenge of (1) delays in the processing of claims and (2) unfair offers to claimants. David Enright, a lawyer for some claimants, described how the value of one claim was reduced by 30% on the basis of “evidential uncertainty” in response to original evidence.
All those affected by this scandal welcome the re-assurance that the Department is continuing to do everything within its power to increase the fairness of offers and accelerate the movement of cases through each scheme. I therefore enclose questions below which seek to evidence the work that is being taken.
With respect to the redress performance of schemes to date, please provide:
- The proportion of redress paid to claimants on 31 March 2025 by scheme, expressed as a percentage of total outstanding claim value.
- For claimants who have challenged the tabled offers, please set out the proportion of redress offered to them (inclusive of interim payments) by scheme, expressed as a percentage of total outstanding claim value.
- For GLO claimants, whether the Department has fully met the expectation you outlined to me in December 2024 for substantial redress to be paid to all full claims submitted by Christmas, either 80% if challenged or 100% if accepted.
With respect to the progress of cases through individual schemes, please provide:
4. GLO: Where a claimant has challenged a settlement offer made to them, the average time taken for a claim to move between the (a) first facilitation period and (b) independent panel outcome.
5. GLO: Where a claimant has challenged a settlement offer made to them, the average change in the value of the settlement offer between the (a) first facilitation period and (b) independent panel outcome.
6. HSS: Where a claimant has challenged the outcome of a full assessment, the (a) average time taken for a claimant to receive a full assessment offer on submitting the first time, (b) the average time then taken to re-submit a claim for redress with the aid of legal advice; and (c) the average time taken at each appeal stage of the HSS scheme.
7. HSS: Where a claimant has challenged the outcome of a full assessment, the (a) average change in the value of a settlement offer between the submission of a claim for the first time and the submission of a claim with the aid of legal advice, and (b) average change in the value of a settlement offer between each appeal stage of the HSS scheme.
Lastly, please explain:
8. When the Government expects all (or the vast majority of) claimants to have received full and final redress, broken down by scheme.
A response to this letter is expected by 22 April 2025.
Kind regards
Chair of the Business and Trade Committee
I subsequently wrote to the Chair of the Committee, both to provide an example of my own case including all the percentages he was asking the Postal Minister to provide and to correct some of the misunderstanding of how the GLO scheme operates. I also put out a tweet last night that set out in detail my own journey within that scheme since a claim was submitted in June 2023, almost 2 years ago! I have included a breakdown of percentages, response times and the challenges still being faced today. Here is my timeline of events :-
On the 20th June 2023 my claim was the first complex claim to be submitted to the scheme. An RFI request was made weeks later to which we responded in the 1st week of September 2023.
The 1st offer was received on the 28th December 2023 for 13% of the claim. We rejected that with a challenge letter just 18 days later (not within 40 working days and no further RFI request made that could excuse the delay).
On the 3rd April almost 3 months later (again not within 40 working days & with an ADR call in between) the 2nd offer landed which was for 21.24% of the claim. 21 days later we officially reject the offer with a new challenge letter.
Almost 10 weeks later on the 4th July the 3rd offer lands which was for 28.88% of the claim. 4 weeks later we officially reject the claim and decide because of DBT not responding to all parts of the challenges and dragging the process out to reluctantly refer the case to the Independent Panel.
Upon preparing for the panel and receiving DBT’s submissions we find they have increased two heads of loss without advising me directly, I can only assume to try find favour with the panel. This indirect 4th offer was for 33.67% of the claim.
The panel meeting took place on the 6th September. I had a few minutes on the 4th September (less than 15 mins to briefly provide oral input - this was originally denied) and restricted to three pages of A4 submissions with 11 heads of loss in dispute.
The panel delivered its outcome on the 17th September in which they revised down 9 heads of loss and increased 2 of them resulting in an overall reduction to the claim, the offer now being at 23.43% of the claim, a 10% reduction from DBT’s 4th offer. After some back and forth DBT made what is called a combination offer - where they agree to reinstate their pre-panel offer and accept the increase on the 2 heads of loss which gave a 5th offer which stood at 35.94% of the claim.
The options available to me in the scheme weren’t brilliant, either :-
A) Accept the offer which doesn’t meet the objective of full and fair (agreed by legal representatives and multiple forensic accountant experts - where I sought further independent advice)
B) Reject the combination offer and return back to the same Independent Panel for a 2nd assessment, albeit this one being legally binding on both parties (i.e. me and DBT), bearing in mind it is still restricted to three sides of A4 submissions and risk they stood by their original decision on the 1st assessment which means I would lose 12.5% of my current offer and return to the panels offer of only 23.43% of my claim (it is an approx. loss in monetary terms of £170,000-£180,000 depending on interest calculations).
C) Do nothing and attempt to fight my corner and the unfair processes before me
If you choose Option B, following the outcome of the 2nd assessment you could ask for an appeal to former High Court Judge Sir Ross Cranston who sits as the final reviewer in the GLO scheme. However his terms of reference to review a case are extremely limited as noted in the report of the 1st Jan 2025 by the Commons Business and Trade Committee and even if I did persuade him to review the case their is no guarantee of regaining the lost 12.5% of the offer I had prior to the 2nd panel let alone the rest of the claim!
I chose option C for now!
Lets see after Gareth Thomas MP's announcement in the House of Commons this week whether the DBT will return to facilitated discussions as he promised. I have been proposing this since November last year and reduced my claim accordingly to attempt to reach a fair settlement.
Here is the tweet :- https://x.com/chrish9070/status/1910737322498228445
Below is also my letter to the Business and Trade Committee Chair yesterday :-
11th April 2025
Dear Liam,
I write today regarding your letter to the Postal Minister Gareth Thomas yesterday. I wish to put on record my thanks for continuing to attempt to hold both the Post Office and the Government to account on the pace of redress to victims and whether it meets the promises made to be full and fair. I am looking forward to seeing the Departments response in due course, especially in relation to the percentage of claim values outstanding after offers have been made. I was provided with a copy of another 2nd offer in the GLO scheme earlier this week, again where the Department have reduced the claim by 20% due to lack of documentary evidence, when in reality the evidence is there regarding shortfalls repaid to the Post Office by a various number of methods. The case highlighted by Mr Enright is therefore not an isolated case, and there will be others. Maybe you could request evidence from the firms of legal representatives in the GLO scheme to ask how many claimants they have where the Department has applied a percentage reduction to the claim value because of ‘evidence’.
In relation to the subsequent questions you asked the Minister, I can provide an example answer to that. Where you asked :-
2. For claimants who have challenged the tabled offers, please set out the proportion of redress offered to them (inclusive of interim payments) by scheme, expressed as a percentage of total outstanding claim value.
In my own case the percentage of interim payment received in proportion to the original claim amount is 13.18%. In relation to the current offer available to me it is 36.25% as an interim amount. The reason for this is because my first offer back in December 2023 was only 13% of the claim and therefore the 80% of the offer is only available on the 1st offer, not on subsequent offers. The total offer now stands at 36.36% of the amount claimed, almost 2 years since the claim was submitted in June 2023.
3. GLO: Where a claimant has challenged a settlement offer made to them, the average time taken for a claim to move between the (a) first facilitation period and (b) independent panel outcome.
I think there is a slight misunderstanding of how this GLO scheme operates. There is no facilitation period until after you have been to the Independent Panel for the first time. Whether your claim goes to panel is either the choice of the claimant, or upon recommendation by the claims facilitators Denton’s if the claim remains at an impasse. I received 3 offers before deciding to go to the Independent Panel, and I received an improved 4th offer on one head of loss in the few days leading up to the panel hearing. It took 9 months after the 1st offer to reach the first panel hearing. To the best of my knowledge there has only ever been 5 cases to reach the Independent Panel including my own.
4. GLO: Where a claimant has challenged a settlement offer made to them, the average change in the value of the settlement offer between the (a) first facilitation period and (b) independent panel outcome.
To give a live example my first offer was for 13% of the amount claimed. The 2nd offer 3 months later increased this to 21.24%, the 3rd offer another 3 months later increased it to 28.88% and the 4th offer which increased one head of loss on the eve of the 1st panel hearing increasing it to 33.67% of the claim. Following the panel’s decision the offer went down to only 23.43% of the amount claimed, the panel increased one head of loss (past earnings) and decreased all other heads of loss. After some discussions the Department agreed what is described as a combination offer, to reinstate the previous offers made by them prior to the panel and accept the one increase made by the panel which then gave me an offer inclusive of interim payments of 35.94%. As I have set out previously because of the way the GLO scheme operates differently to the other schemes, I therefore now have a impossible dilemma, accept the offer which does not meet the objective of full and fair redress (as agreed with my legal and forensic experts) or return back to the same panel for a 2nd legally binding decision. By doing so I risk the panel reasserting their original decision and returning my claim back to only 23.43% of the claim. Effectively losing 12.5% of my claim by disputing it. If you consider that the only input the claimant has to the Independent Panel is restricted to only three sides of A4 submissions, it does not give the panel enough opportunity to grasp the complex details of the case. No claimant should have the risk of losing an offer before them by utilizing the various dispute mechanisms. Contrast that to the OC scheme whereby a claimant in dispute was able to have a full days hearing before retired Judge Sir Gary Hickinbottom and then also invited to make further written submissions following that hearing, a claimant has a far greater opportunity to have their case heard and understood when you consider a GLO claimant has only the three pages of A4 written submissions. I would then have to ask for a referral to Sir Ross Cranston, the reviewer of the GLO scheme (for which is terms of reference for reviewing a case is extremely limited) without any guarantee of him doing so and be fighting to at least recover the sum lost at the 2nd binding panel, never mind the remainder of the claim.
Every scheme must have equal access to the dispute mechanisms, with no material difference to their operation and processes and with no risk of a claimant losing a sum of money should they decide to dispute their offer via those various channels.
I am happy to provide any further information or evidence needed should it assist you and the committee in its important work.
Yours Sincerely,
Christopher Head OBE
A link to this letter on X :- https://x.com/chrish9070/status/1910669004626145607