Recommendation 24

HM Government · verbatim extract Accepted

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 disadvantaged if there is a lack of records to support their claim. The Case Assessment Principles used by the Independent Advisory Panel to assess each claim cover the scenario where claims do not provide supporting information. As of 31 March 2022, two applications have been rejected by the Panel in cases where no supporting evidence was provided by the claimant. The Panel considered that it did not have sufficient evidence to support the claims. Please see below an example of how the Post Office and the independent Panel consider cases with evidential issues. Case example: Claim: Particularised claim with no/limited evidence: “The evidence of a Horizon shortfall and repayment are contained in the application form and subsequent Request for Information. Despite the absence of documentary evidence, the Panel finds these compelling. The Applicant describes the relevant events with clarity and in real detail. The Post Office has no evidence to the contrary. Non-Disclosure Agreement data appears to evidence the existence of shortfalls. This was a one-off large error, without explanation. Claim to be awarded in full.” In responding to the second part of this recommendation, it is first important to note that the Historical Shortfall Scheme was designed by the Post Office with input from Herbert Smith Freehills and in line with the Terms of Reference endorsed by the GLO. It was subsequently approved by the Post Office Board, on which a Government representative sits. Ministers were sighted on, but not asked to approve, the proposal approved by the Post Office Board regarding the delivery of the Scheme. Once it became clear that Government funding was required to support the compensation costs of the Scheme (Autumn 2020), Government took a more active role in the governance of the Scheme but maintained a commitment to keeping the assessment process independent. The BEIS Steering Committee was closely engaged and input into the Case Assessment Principles developed by the independent Panel to ensure fair and consistent treatment of claimants while ensuring value for money. Any amendments to the Case Assessment Principles are subject to approval from the BEIS Steering Committee; this provides Government with clear sight of any change in approach. Recommendation 15: We ask the Government to confirm that the burden of proof should not rest solely with the claimant, not least because POL itself hasn’t kept appropriate records, including itemisation of which postmasters paid what amounts to individual suspense accounts. The fact these funds were merely added to the overall profits of the Post Office during those applicable years should be sufficient to agree that claimants must be given a significant level of benefit of the doub