Source · Select Committees · Business and Trade Committee
Recommendation 12
12
Paragraph: 39
We ask POL to explain how it ensures that the ADR process is fully independent...
Recommendation
We ask POL to explain how it ensures that the ADR process is fully independent from the Scheme, how many claimants have used it, and what the outcomes have been. We also recommend that the Government provide us with details of BEIS and UKGI’s oversight role in the Scheme’s ADR process. We specifically note that 22 offers have been turned down by claimants and we recommend that the 24 Post Office and Horizon - Compensationn interim report Government confirm whether these rejections ended up in the Scheme’s ADR process and, if so, what the outcomes are. We recommend that BEIS explains its role in assessing those offers that have been rejected.
Paragraph Reference:
39
Government Response
Not Addressed
HM Government
Not Addressed
The Government accepts the Committee’s recommendation and has set out more detail on these points below. The Terms of Reference for the Historical Shortfall Scheme were developed by the Post Office in consultation with, and endorsed by, the legal representatives for the claimants’ steering group in the 2019 group litigation. This included endorsement of the three-stage Dispute Resolution Procedure, which is outlined in the Scheme’s Terms of Reference published at the launch of the Scheme.13 The first two stages of the Dispute Resolution Procedure, the Good Faith Meeting and the Escalation Meeting, provide an opportunity for the Post Office and its legal representatives to engage with a claimant who has rejected the Post Office’s offer to explain the rationale behind the offer and to consider any additional evidence provided by the claimant. If the claimant does not wish to accept the offer fo