Source · Select Committees · Business and Trade Committee
Recommendation 24
24
Paragraph: 63
We recommend that POL shares details, with relevant examples, of how it takes the absence...
Recommendation
We recommend that POL shares details, with relevant examples, of how it takes the absence of information into account when it makes its initial recommendations for claims and how the Independent Panel reflects on such cases. We recommend that POL sets out how many claims have been refused by the Scheme or rejected by claimants, where an absence of information has been relevant. We also recommend that BEIS and UKGI confirm what safeguards it agreed when signing off the Scheme for cases were there was a lack of records.
Paragraph Reference:
63
Government Response
Not Addressed
HM Government
Not Addressed
The Government accepts the Committee’s recommendation. It is recognised that, due to the absence of records and the amount of time that has passed since losses were incurred, postmasters may face challenges in evidencing their claim. The Scheme was therefore designed so that a lack of supporting information would not be a barrier to entry to the Scheme and claims made to the Scheme would not be rejected on the sole basis of a lack of information at application stage. Eligibility: An ‘absence of information’ would not, of its own, cause a claim to be made ineligible and excluded from the process. If a claimant cannot provide a value of their loss, the claim is simply classified as ‘unquantified’. Claims Where No Award was Offered: As of March 2022, the Post Office has issued 12 outcome letters with no award. Only 1 of these 12 ‘no award’ claims is classified as ‘unquantified’. Rejected Offers (Rejected by Claimants): As of March 2022, 59 offers have been rejected (out of 1106 cases where offers have been made). The Post Office has reviewed the 59 cases and determined whether an offer reduction due to lack of claimant information was applied to the disputed case. Preliminary findings are that 11 cases (18.6% of 59 total disputes) appear to have had the offer reduced due to lack of claimant information, although it is worth noting that on a number of occasions the offer was increased despite a lack of claimant information. The Government supported the Post Office’s appointment of an Independent Advisory Panel, which includes retail, legal and forensic accountancy experts to make recommendations on the Historical Shortfall Scheme applications. As set out above, Herbert Smith Freehills initially undertakes a Legal Case Assessment making initial recommendations. This is then sent to the Independent Advisory Panel for their assessment. In making its decision the Panel may accept, amend or reject the recommendations made by Herbert Smith Freehills and provide its own independent view on what offers to make to claimants. It also has the discretion to take into consideration a lack of supporting evidence when making its recommendations, so that an applicant who has clearly articulated a claim will not be