Recommendation 14

HM Government · verbatim extract Acknowledged

The Government accepts the Committee’s recommendation. An outline for what eventually became the Historical Shortfall Scheme was set out in the 10 December 2019 Settlement Deed which settled the GLO, which was approved by BEIS. As explained above, the founding principles of the Scheme were developed by the Post Office in consultation with, and endorsed by, the legal representatives for the claimants’ steering group in the group litigation. The GLO mediators Charles Flint QC and Stephen Ruttle QC also approved the “cost-effective and accessible mediation scheme” component contained within the settlement deed. The Terms of Reference and the 3-stage Dispute Settlement Resolution approach were also discussed and endorsed by the GLO group as set out in Question 8 above. The Historical Shortfall Scheme was signed off by Post Office’s Board via its GLO sub- committee. The Board included the BEIS Shareholder Representative. From October 2020, it became apparent from much higher-than-expected numbers of applicants that Government funding might be needed; therefore, formal BEIS and UKGI governance and oversight arrangements for the Scheme were established in January 2021, with Government funding announced in March 2021. The ongoing running and administration of the Historical Shortfall Scheme is overseen by specific policy and delivery teams within BEIS. This includes oversight and approval of letters to former and current postmaster applicants, principles established from test cases, operational agreements for the Scheme and process maps. This list is not exhaustive but indicative of the oversight that BEIS (as supported by UKGI) have over the running of the Historical Shortfall Scheme. The Scheme was designed with the intention of providing a route to compensation for current and former postmasters who had faced shortfalls. It also removed the requirement for legal action against the Post Office which would have come with obvious legal, financial and emotional pressure. The Scheme’s independent Panel was also empowered to have regard to ‘fairness’ countered by any perceived power imbalance between the postmasters and the Post Office. The Terms of Reference developed by the Post Office and endorsed by the legal representatives for the claimants’ steering group in the group litigation included: i) The three-month application window for postmasters to apply and provide evidence of the basis for the application. It also should be noted that, although the Scheme closed to formal applications in August 2020, there was an extension until November 2020 for applications following a clarification of the eligibility criteria. ii) The principle that, once an application has been made, either party may write to the other to request relevant information. Each party is required to co-operate in providing any information which the other party may reasonably request. iii) The three-stage Dispute Resolution Procedure, which is described in the response to Recommendation 8 above. The Terms of Reference also outline the agreed principle for how cases should proceed following this Dispute Resolution Procedure. Regarding the second issue raised as part of this recommendation, if a claimant has concerns about the Historical Shortfall Scheme or their application, they can raise these with the Post Office by e-mail or post. The Post Office manages a process to accommodate complaints related to the Historical Shortfall Scheme, which are routed to the appropriate team and addressed individually. Responses are signed off by a senior manager at the Post Office and escalated to the HM Operations Director if deemed necessary. This process acts as an oversight function, helping Post Office address potential issues as they are identified. When contacting the Post Office, claimants can make them aware of their circumstances or changes to them, which are then fed into a prioritisation process. Cases that are prioritised fit into one of three levels (Critical, High, Medium) based on conditions including severe financial hardship, terminal illness, risk of personal hardship and old age. Prioritisation can happen in the first instance (i.e. when an application is submitted), or at a later stage when a claimant identifies an issue. Furthermore, the Post Office has prioritised claimants for interim payments in circumstances where concerns have been raised about the impact of the speed of progress on the claimant. As of 5 April 2022, 24 interim payments have been made on this basis. Recommendation 10: The Government must explain how consequential losses will be assessed under the Scheme with a range of indicative examples that draw on offers that have already been made.