Recommendations & Conclusions
8 items
3
Recommendation
1st Report - Post Office and Horizon sc…
Rejected
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 …
Read more
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)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejected the recommendation, stating the HSS was designed for claimants to apply without legal input, though funding is available for advice on offers and future appeals. They acknowledge original complexity and are considering further initial support.
Read full response →
Department for Business and Trade
7
Recommendation
1st Report - Post Office and Horizon sc…
Rejected
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 …
Read more
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)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejected the recommendation, stating that setting deadlines for RFIs is not in claimants' best interest and a case facilitator would add unacceptable time and cost. They will, however, reinforce timely RFI delivery in reviews.
Read full response →
Department for Business and Trade
10
Recommendation
1st Report - Post Office and Horizon sc…
Rejected
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 …
Read more
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
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the recommendation for binding timeframes, stating that the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board believes they would not speed up claims, and instead outlines various practical actions it is taking to make the scheme more efficient.
Read full response →
Department for Business and Trade
12
Recommendation
1st Report - Post Office and Horizon sc…
Rejected
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 …
Read more
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)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the recommendation, stating that Dentons already provide case management for the GLO scheme and Sir Ross Cranston's distinct role as Reviewer is focused on scheme principles and fairness, with limited time commitment due to other responsibilities.
Read full response →
Department for Business and Trade
13
Recommendation
1st Report - Post Office and Horizon sc…
Rejected
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 …
Read more
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
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the recommendation, arguing that adding an additional layer of governance for information requests would exacerbate delays, though it acknowledges RFIs should aim to increase offers and be made early.
Read full response →
Department for Business and Trade
14
Recommendation
1st Report - Post Office and Horizon sc…
Rejected
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 …
Read more
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)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejected the recommendation. They stated that individuals have already been notified since July 2024, and monthly data for England and Wales is already published online. Notification and data publication for Scotland and Northern Ireland are responsibilities of the respective devolved governments.
Read full response →
Department for Business and Trade
15
Recommendation
1st Report - Post Office and Horizon sc…
Rejected
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 …
Read more
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)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the recommendation, detailing its current approach which includes funding legal advice and preliminary payments, and encourages claimants to pursue detailed assessments if their losses exceed the £600k fixed sum.
Read full response →
Department for Business and Trade
16
Recommendation
1st Report - Post Office and Horizon sc…
Rejected
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 …
Read more
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
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejected the recommendation to introduce binding timeframes with financial penalties for administrators in the Horizon Convictions Redress Scheme, referencing reasons provided in their response to recommendation 11.
Read full response →
Department for Business and Trade