Source · Select Committees · Business and Trade Committee
Recommendation 4
4
Accepted in Part
Require Post Office full disclosures and introduce independent appeals mechanism for sub-postmasters.
Recommendation
To ensure that offers of redress are fast and fair, the Government must: (Paragraph 16) a) Require full disclosures by the Post Office of the information needed to submit full and fair claims within legally binding timeframes; b) publish a standardised tariff of damages to help sub-postmasters claim the full amount to which they are entitled; c) remove the cap on legal expenses for sub-postmasters to contest their claims; d) allow those who have already settled under the Horizon Shortfall Scheme to revisit their claims to ensure that they have received fair redress; and e) introduce a legally binding independent appeals mechanism. (Paragraph 16) Post Office and Horiion redresss Instruction to deliver 9
Government Response Summary
The government rejects a standardized damages tariff and a blanket removal of the legal expenses cap, citing existing measures or unsuitability, while deferring a decision on allowing settled claims to be revisited and introducing an independent appeals mechanism, and cross-referencing point (a).
Government Response
Accepted in Part
HM Government
Accepted in Part
Taking these points in turn: a) This is covered in the response above to recommendation 2; b) Many of the postmasters’ claims are understandably complex. The most substan-tial tend to relate to financial impacts such as the loss of a retail business con-nected to the Post Office branch, or loss of earnings. Any tariff for such losses would lead to outcomes which were grossly unfair to some postmasters. The Guidance and Principles for the GLO scheme already includes bandings for some heads of loss to guide claimants’ solicitors. In the Overturned Convictions scheme, non-pecuniary claims are calculated in line with the framework provided by Lord Dyson as part of his Early Neutral Evaluation. All three schemes also use more generally applicable material such as the Judicial College Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in Personal Injury Cases. These have proved helpful. The Department continues to have regular and very constructive discus-sions with claimants’ solicitors about how to improve the schemes. It is entirely open to creating further bandings if claimants’ solicitors believe that would be helpful in the development of claims and will be exploring this as the redress scheme for Overturned Convictions is developed. Within HSS, the process had been designed to be simple and to not require legal support at claim stage, alt-hough some may do so; each claim is considered by the Independent Advisory Panel who take into account that a postmaster will likely not have claimed for every consequential loss in the way a lawyer would, and make appropriate awards based on the holistic claim information. c) There is no such cap. Instead, on the GLO scheme and for those claiming the fixed £600k settlement on the Overturned Convictions scheme, there is a tariff for legal expenses which was agreed with claimants’ solicitors. It provides them with certainty as to costs and reduces the need for negotiation which could slow down settlement on simple claims. It was agreed on the mutual understanding that whilst some cases would cost more than the tariff, others would cost less, giving a result which was fair overall to the claimant’s lawyers. Individuals submitting a fully assessed claim for Overturned Convictions redress are able to recoup all ‘reasonable’ legal costs. This arrangement is more appropriate for more complex cases where costs are more variable and a standardised tariff would not be suit-able. In HSS, funding is available to support the reasonable costs of obtaining legal advice on an Offer and during the dispute resolution process. d) and e) The Government is considering this proposal and will respond fully in due course.