Post Office Horizon scandal: fast and fair redress

Despite repeated criticism from this Committee, Post Office Ltd is still in charge of the Horizon Shortfall Scheme. While the Committee welcomes that the appeals process will be administered by the Department for Business and Trade, swift action must be taken to deal with the thousands of claimants who still have not been given the redress that is owed to them. Sub-postmasters do not want Post Office Ltd to deal with redress and neither does Post Office Ltd itself. Post Office Ltd should not be deciding on what financial redress is owed to victims of its own scandal. The Government must finish the job in hand and remove Post Office Ltd from the Horizon Shortfall Scheme. (Recommendation, Paragraph 10)

If the Government is not able to do this for all claims in a timely way, Post Office Ltd must in the first instance transfer complex cases—that is, cases that are going through full assessment—for the Department to administer. For claimants who choose to take the fixed sum offer, Post Office Ltd must continue to take swift action and find solutions to automate case processing. Post Office Ltd should provide regular updates to the Committee on the progress of this. (Recommendation, Paragraph 11)

Horizon Shortfall Scheme claimants currently receive no legal advice to help complete the complex questionnaire that acts as the gateway to the scheme. This acts against them receiving the full redress they are due. We recommend HSS claimants be given access to no-cost legal advice to support their entry into the scheme. (Recommendation, Paragraph 14)

The gold-plated legalistic process of the Horizon Shortfall Scheme is not best value for the public purse. The Government should therefore ensure that Herbert Smith Freehills and Post Office Ltd are instructed to use best endeavours to simplify and accelerate the settlement of claims. (Recommendation, Paragraph 18)

The Committee has learned that it will take around 18 months for the Independent Panel to assess outstanding claims on the Horizon Shortfall Scheme. We have also learned that the Post Office are expecting thousands 24 of new cases to come forward. A panel central to the process that assesses all claims meeting twice a week will not deliver swift justice for sub-postmasters. The Independent Panel must be resourced to meet full time until the majority of first offers have been issued. (Recommendation, Paragraph 22)

Claimants under the Horizon Shortfall Scheme lack the same access to authoritative facilitation and case management direction available to claimants in other schemes. This can be remedied by introducing an empowered case facilitator similar to the role played by the Sir Gary Hickinbottom for Overturned Convictions. We recommend that the Department and Post Office Ltd establish such roles, agreeing their functions with claimants and their legal representatives. (Recommendation, Paragraph 27)

The Department should work with Post Office Ltd and claimants’ representatives to establish an independent case facilitator with a defined role in assessing whether it is reasonable to subject a claim’s basis of calculation to further scrutiny through requests for information. When requests for information are considered reasonable, it should take no longer than 20 working days to be sent to the claimant from the submission of a claim. (Recommendation, Paragraph 30)

Requests for information under the Horizon Shortfall Scheme should only be made where it is deemed reasonable to increase the offer value to claimants, or in the rare instance where there may be reasonable concern about a claim’s basis of calculation. Where redress offers are calculated in-line with indicative bands or redress guidelines, we recommend that offers should be made at or above the top-end of such indicative limits. An independent case facilitator should be established with a role—on appeal by claimant representatives—in swiftly considering whether a request for information is reasonable for the above purposes. (Recommendation, Paragraph 33)

The Independent Panel on the Horizon Shortfall Scheme is already backlogged. To keep cases moving, disputed first offers to claimants must not be reassessed by the Independent Panel but instead move straight into external mediation. (Recommendation, Paragraph 36)

Sub-postmasters should not be left in limbo, waiting years for the redress that they are due with no light at the end of the tunnel. Ongoing delays are unacceptable and action must be taken to rectify this. The Committee reiterates the recommendation of its predecessor—binding timeframes for each stage of the Horizon Shortfall Scheme process must be introduced to draw this saga to a close. To ensure that claimants are not adversely 25 impacted, timeframes should only be imposed on the administrators of the scheme, so that claimants have the time they want to consider their positions. (Recommendation, Paragraph 39) Group Litigation Order Scheme

The Committee welcomes that the majority of first offers for the Group Litigation Order Scheme will be complete by March 2025. This, however, does not address the time it takes between first offer and final payment. Sub-postmasters have waited long enough. The Government should aim wherever possible to complete Group Litigation Order redress claims by March 2025 as suggested to us in evidence from Sir Alan Bates. We know that this will not be possible for some claims due to the complexity of the claim or the vulnerability of claimants, so the Government must introduce binding timeframes at each stage of Group Litigation Order Scheme, with financial penalties awarded to the claimant if these timeframes are not met. As with the Horizon Shortfall Scheme, timeframes should only be imposed on the Government side, giving the sub-postmaster ample time to consider their position. (Recommendation, Paragraph 43)

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. (Recommendation, Paragraph 49)

The Department should ensure that offers to claimants are delivered at or above the top-end of the illustrative redress bands and guidance established under the guidance and principles of the Group Litigation Order scheme. Further requests for information should only be made in order to increase the offer value to claimants, or in the rare instance where there may be reasonable concern about a claim’s basis of calculation. A claim’s named case facilitator should have a defined role in swiftly considering whether a request for information is reasonable for the above purposes. (Recommendation, Paragraph 52) 26 Horizon Convictions Redress Scheme

While it is reassuring that the Government have put a timeframe on completing eligibility checks, we are concerned that some individuals may never know of their right to redress. The lack of data published means it is difficult for the Committee to fully scrutinise progress of this scheme across all Home Nations. The Government must set out a plan for how it will notify postmasters in scope of the Act of their right to redress plus timeframes in which these issues will be resolved. The Government must also update the Committee monthly with the following data, broken down by England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland: a. How many people are under consideration as qualifying for remedies under the Post office (Horizon System) Offences Act 2024 and the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences (Scotland) Act 2024. b. How many people have been confirmed as qualifying for the reliefs specified by the Acts. c. The number of people who have been written to about their right to redress. d. How many people that have been paid under the Horizon Convictions Redress Scheme. e. The total amount that has been paid to claimants under the Horizon Convictions Redress Scheme, and the total cost of administering the scheme. (Recommendation, Paragraph 58)

The Department should act swiftly to remove the fear factor from the Horizon Conviction Redress Scheme, ensuring that the redress offered under a full assessment settlement is never valued at below the optional fixed- sum redress which was initially available to a claimant. It should further communicate this change to current claimants and consider whether undue pressure may have formed a part of the decision of some settled claimants to opt out of a full assessment. The approach established under this recommendation for fixed-sum settlement offers should be applied as a matter of general principle across all schemes. (Recommendation, Paragraph 61)

The Government must introduce binding timeframes for administrators at each stage of the process under the Horizon Convictions Redress Scheme, with financial penalties awarded to the claimant if these deadlines are not met. As with the Horizon Shortfall Scheme and Group Litigation Order Scheme, these timeframes should only be applied on the Government’s side so that claimants have the space and time needed to consider their offer. (Recommendation, Paragraph 63) 27 Transparency for legal costs

The Department should publish a regular transparency report detailing external legal costs incurred under all schemes. It is important that the report is produced in a manner that minimises the potential for wider confusion about the basis under which legal costs are billed, distinguishing the cost of disbursements incurred by firms where possible. Where separation of cost categories is not possible, the Department should provide a clear and accessible summary of the meaning and limitations of the data provided. (Recommendation, Paragraph 66) 28