Source · Select Committees · Business and Trade Committee
Recommendation 25
25
Accepted
Paragraph: 64
We ask the Government to confirm that the burden of proof should not rest solely...
Recommendation
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 doubt when compensation is being calculated.
Government response summary AI-generated
The government accepts that the burden of proof should not rest solely with the claimant in the Historical Shortfall Scheme and that claims may be accepted even with evidential uncertainty if considered fair in all the circumstances.
Summary of the government's response below — read the verbatim text to verify.
Paragraph Reference:
64
Government Response
Accepted
HM Government · verbatim extract
Accepted
The Government accepts the Committee’s recommendation. The terms of the Historical Shortfall Scheme include provisions for those who do not have access to evidence to support their claim. The guidelines for the Historical Shortfall Scheme state that “where the postmaster is unable to satisfy the burden of proof in relation to their claim, their claim may nonetheless be accepted in whole or in part if the Scheme considers it to be fair in all the circumstances”. This guideline is designed to ensure that all former and current postmasters who have suffered losses, or their beneficiaries, can make an application to be considered to receive compensation. The Case Assessment Principles for the Independent Advisory Panel take this into account and accommodate such applicants. This can be seen in the following case example: Claim: Despite evidential uncertainty, the Independent Panel awarded the claimant all of the claimed £50,000 related to shortfall losses, based on the claimant’s account and the fact that this was not contradicted by Post Office records for part of the eligible period. The Independent Panel highlighted that evidential uncertainty was to be expected given the lapse of time since the shortfalls occurred. Recommendation 16: We recommend that the Government liaise with the Post Office to establish how many of the 2,500 claimants have been offered support through the Scheme, at which point support was offered, if costs were covered, how much was paid on average, and what the nature of that support was and who provided it. We also recommend that BEIS and UKGI set out what oversight they provided of any support that was given through the Scheme, how they ensured that it was independent and how it was evaluated.
Read the full response on Parliament ↗