Post Office Horizon compensation gaps
Limitations in the Post Office Horizon compensation process, specifically regarding the flexibility for claimants to revert to a Fixed Sum Offer.
Source spread
Where this theme appears
This theme appears across 3 independent accountability sources, so the source mix matters as much as the headline total.
24 inquiry recs
129 committee recs
1 PHSO decision
Browse by source
Source-grouped records are useful for tracing where a concern came from. Large sections show the 50 strongest matches for that source; counts still show the full theme total.
Inquiry recommendations(24)
POH-IR1-8 — Set agreed closing date for Horizon Shortfall Scheme applications
Recommendation: No applications for compensation to HSS shall be entertained after such date as shall be agreed by the Minister/ DBT, the Post Office and the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board.
Gov response: The department will discuss and agree an appropriate closing date with the Post Office. Advice will be sought from the advisory board and the department will notify the inquiry and potential claimants of the decision …
Accepted in part
POH-IR1-7 — Legislate to allow GLOS compensation payments after 7 August 2024 if necessary
Recommendation: HM Government shall bring forward and use its best endeavours to ensure that legislation is enacted so as to allow payments of compensation under GLOS to be made to applicants after 12 midnight on 7 August 2024 if that proves …
Gov response: The department is determined to deliver the GLO scheme by August 2024. If it were to appear nearer the time that the deadline was likely to be missed, the government would of course consider whether …
Accepted in part
POH-IR1-6 — Publish proposals for equal tax treatment of compensation payments
Recommendation: DBT shall publish in as much detail as it reasonably can and as soon as it reasonably can, its proposals for ensuring that applicants to all schemes are treated equally and fairly so far as their liability to or exemption …
Gov response: Payments under the GLO scheme and the compensation for overturned convictions (OC) are exempt from IT, National Insurance contributions (NICs) and CGT. On 19 June, the government announced arrangements for ensuring fair treatment in respect …
Accepted
POH-IR1-5 — Seek court directions to resolve the DBT and Moore UK difference on bankrupt applicants
Recommendation: DBT shall take such steps as are necessary within 28 days of the date hereof, to seek appropriate directions under section 306 Insolvency Act 1986 so as to enable a court to resolve the difference of view between DBT and …
Gov response: The department and the inquiry share the view that none of the group litigation order (GLO) compensation payable to bankrupt claimants should be diverted to insolvency practitioners to meet their costs and creditors. Most insolvency …
Accepted
POH-IR1-4 — Increase Advisory Board membership if needed for capacity
Recommendation: If the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board as constituted consider it necessary, the number of persons appointed to the Board should be increased so as to ensure that the Board has sufficient capacity to perform the functions set out above.
Gov response: The department will keep under review the case for expanding the board, in discussion with its current members.
Accepted
POH-IR1-3 — Advise Minister and Post Office on full and fair compensation at three monthly intervals
Recommendation: The Horizon Compensation Advisory Board shall, as part of its advisory role, consider whether, in its view, full and fair compensation is being paid out to applicants under the three schemes and shall advise the Minister and the Post Office …
Gov response: The advisory board’s aim is to help the department to ensure fair and prompt compensation to postmasters affected by the Horizon scandal and related issues. The department agrees that, in delivering this aim, it may …
Accepted in part
POH-IR1-2 — Publish Advisory Board meeting reports within 21 days
Recommendation: The Horizon Compensation Advisory Board shall produce written reports in respect of each of their meetings in relation to each of the three schemes and publish the same within 21 days of the date of each meeting.
Gov response: Written reports of board discussions are already published at the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board page. Reports of earlier meetings are available at the Group Litigation Order Compensation Scheme Advisory Board page. They are issued within …
Accepted
POH-IR1-1 — Allow Advisory Board to monitor individual cases and make full and fair monitoring a core …
Recommendation: The Horizon Compensation Advisory Board should not be prevented from monitoring individual cases in which compensation has been or is to be determined by paragraph 4 of its Terms of Reference. It must be one of the core duties of …
Gov response: The advisory board’s aim is to help the department to ensure fair and prompt compensation to postmasters affected by the Horizon scandal and related issues. The department agrees that, in delivering this aim, it may …
Accepted in part
POH-10 — Clarify best offer principle in HSSA guidance with examples
Recommendation: The Department shall issue a supplementary document/announcement clarifying the meaning and intent of the "best offer" principle in the Horizon Shortfall Scheme Appeal (''HSSA'') process demonstrating how it is intended to operate in practice with appropriate examples, if thought necessary.
Gov response: DBT has updated the existing HSSA guidance and principles with this additional information. In line with Recommendation 11, DBT will also co-ordinate the planned “best offer” principle in the panel stages of HSSA with that …
Accepted
POH-9 — Allow HSS Fixed Sum acceptors to appeal with independent permission
Recommendation: The Department following consultation with the Advisory Board, claimants' representatives and any other persons or bodies it thinks appropriate, shall give urgent consideration to whether claimants who have accepted the Fixed Sum Offer in HSS should be afforded the opportunity …
Gov response: People who have accepted the Fixed Sum Offer in HSS will have the opportunity to ask the Independent Reviewer in the Horizon Shortfall Scheme Appeals (HSSA) scheme (who has yet to be appointed) for permission …
Accepted
POH-8 — Require HSS first offers match Independent Advisory Panel recommendation
Recommendation: In HSS the Post Office shall be obliged to make, and the Department shall be obliged to approve (when necessary) a first offer to a claimant which is no less than the sum recommended by the Independent Advisory Panel.
Gov response: This does not require any retrospective changes because no first offer has ever been made which is less than the sum recommended by the HSS Panel. The scheme documents have been amended to reflect this.
Accepted
POH-7 — Grant appropriate powers to HSS senior lawyer
Recommendation: The appointed person shall be given appropriate powers to ensure that these tasks can be performed and carried into effect. If it is considered necessary by the appointing authority, it should consult with the Advisory Board, Dentons, Sir Gary Hickinbottom, …
Gov response: DBT agrees that the appropriate powers should be given to the appointed person. DBT will consult Sir Ross Cranston, the Advisory Board, Dentons, claimants’ legal representatives and the Post Office to ensure that the appointee …
Accepted
POH-6 — Appoint senior lawyer to ensure HSS offers are full and fair
Recommendation: A suitably qualified senior lawyer shall be appointed to HSS as soon as is practicable with the aim that any such appointee will take appropriate action to ensure that first offers to claimants (a) are "full and fair" (b) made …
Gov response: Sir Gary Hickinbottom, currently Chair of the Independent Panel on HCRS, has been appointed to the position of HSS Senior Lawyer. We will continue to work with the Post Office on the practical implementation of …
Accepted
POH-5 — Allow 3-month window to accept Fixed Sum Offer after assessment
Recommendation: Any claimant who opts to have a claim assessed when the claim is submitted to the Post Office or the Department may decide to accept the Fixed Sum Offer at any time thereafter up to and including the date which …
Gov response: From 9 October, claimants to the HSS and HCRS will have 3 months from receipt of their first detailed offer to revert to the Fixed Sum Offer, should they wish. Any claimant who is already …
Accepted
POH-4 — Fund legal advice for HSS claimants before scheme choice
Recommendation: All claimants in HSS shall be entitled to obtain legal advice funded by the Department prior to choosing between accepting the Fixed Sum Offer or seeking financial redress which is assessed. The remuneration for such advice shall be in accordance …
Gov response: DBT broadly accepts this recommendation. DBT accepts that some HSS claimants require access to legal support on their decision to take the Fixed Sum Offer or the full assessment route. However, claimants’ legal advisors would …
Accepted
POH-3 — Apply full and fair meaning consistently across all schemes
Recommendation: The Post Office, the Department and the Minister shall ensure that all decision makers in HSS, GLOS and OCS/HCRS apply the meaning to be given to the words "full and fair" when assessing the amounts to be awarded to individual …
Gov response: DBT accepts this recommendation. Both DBT and Post Office have agreed to this definition, and it is referenced in respective scheme guidance, ensuring that decision makers in the different schemes uphold it. The HSS independent …
Accepted
POH-2 — Define and publish meaning of full and fair financial redress
Recommendation: The Minister and/or the Department in conjunction with the Post Office shall make a public announcement explaining what is meant by the phrase "full and fair financial redress". Such an explanation should indicate that claimants should be awarded sums which …
Gov response: DBT accepts the Inquiry’s recommendation that it should publish a statement explaining the term “full and fair redress”.
Accepted
R106 — Redress working party for MAH victims
Recommendation: In relation to direct redress, including consideration of financial compensation, we recommend that the DoH set up a small working party to consult with patients, service user groups and individuals connected to those who have suffered abuse at MAH in …
Gov response: I am determined that it will not be an open-ended process, and I give Members my commitment that my Department will move swiftly to respond to the recommendations, starting with accepting No 106. I shall …
Accepted
IR2-13 — Relationship with Support Schemes and Benefits
Recommendation: I recommend that, with regard to the relationship between compensation, support payments and benefits: a) in assessing compensation under the scheme, no account should be taken of any past payments made under the support schemes or their predecessors; b) the …
Gov response: As per recommendation 13 of the Second Interim Report, any payments made to those eligible under the Scheme will be exempt from income tax, capital gains tax, and inheritance tax. Any payments will also be …
Accepted
IR2-12 — Interim Payments for Bereaved Families
Recommendation: I recommend that an interim payment of £100,000 should be paid to recognise the deaths of people to date unrecognised and alleviate immediate suffering. This should be done as follows: a) where someone infected died as a child or died …
Gov response: From October 2022, interim payments of £100,000 were made available to infected beneficiaries and bereaved partners. In October 2024, following a commitment made in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, the Government opened applications for …
Accepted
IR2-11 — Interest on Past Losses
Recommendation: I recommend that interest be payable on awards for past financial losses and past provision of care, from the date of infection to the date of the award, in accordance with the practice in personal injury damages claims; alternatively, that …
Gov response: With respect to recommendation 11 of the Second Interim Report, the compensation scheme aligns with the spirit of the recommendation regarding interest payable on past financial loss. The Scheme uses the rate of current median …
Accepted
IR2-10 — Form of Awards - Lump Sum and Periodical Payments
Recommendation: I recommend that: a) awards should be made in a lump sum in respect of an Injury Impact Award, Social Impact Award, Autonomy Award, and an award to compensate for past losses under the Care Award and Financial Loss Award …
Gov response: In line with recommendations 9 and 10 of the Second Interim Report, acceptance of an award does not require applicants to waive their right to pursue litigation. In defined circumstances, if an infected person's condition …
Accepted
IR2-1 — Scheme Eligibility - Infected and Affected Persons
Recommendation: I recommend that the scheme should offer redress to those infected with HCV and/or HIV, and/or HBV (limited to chronic HBV unless the infection has resulted in a fatality in the acute period), and to defined categories of persons indirectly …
Gov response: In accordance with recommendations 1 and 2 of the Second Interim Report, the Government is clear that both those who have been infected and affected by this scandal are eligible for compensation and is compensating …
Accepted
IR1-1 — Interim Compensation Payments
Recommendation: An interim payment, of no less than £100,000, should be paid to all those infected and all bereaved partners currently registered with any of the four UK infected blood support schemes, as well as those registering ahead of the inception …
Gov response: I can confirm that Her Majesty's Government accepts your recommendation in full. This is a priority. The Government recognises that many of the beneficiaries will tragically not see the conclusion of your Inquiry. It is …
Accepted
Select committee recommendations(129)— showing 50 strongest matches
#24 —
Recommendation: Sir Alan Bates told us that the Horizon schemes had become complex and legalistic in nature, increasing both the time taken to resolve cases and the cost of administering schemes60. He acknowledged that the Horizon schemes were intended to be …
#22 —
Recommendation: We asked the Departments why there is such substantial variation in the time taken to settle claims. DBT responded that it is waiting for people to submit full claims on the Horizon Compensation Schemes and it is keen to pay …
#15 —
Recommendation: The departments have not always launched schemes before gaining a clear understanding of issues facing affected communities. On the Horizon Shortfall Scheme, Post Office Limited initially expected only a few hundred applicants but by the initial claim deadline of November …
#12 —
Recommendation: We asked the Departments how they had learned lessons from what went wrong with earlier compensation schemes. DBT told us that it learnt lessons as it continued to administer the Horizon IT compensation schemes and applied the learning from earlier …
#4 —
Recommendation: By February 2026, the government had paid around £3.5 billion in total across the seven schemes examined by the NAO, with up to another £11.4 billion potentially yet to be paid. The Infected Blood Compensation Scheme alone is estimated to …
#2 —
Recommendation: Government compensation schemes are expected to provide people who have experienced harm, either directly or indirectly, from the actions or inaction of public bodies with the compensation or financial redress they are rightly entitled to. The NAO’s report examined the …
#1 —
Recommendation: On the basis of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, we took oral evidence from several public bodies administering compensation schemes – the Cabinet Office, the Home Office, the Ministry of Defence (MoD), the Department of Business & …
#29 —
Recommendation: We look forward to receiving estimates from BEIS of the total expected cost of the Horizon scandal and a full breakdown, including any costs paid by the Post Office Ltd. (POL) itself. We also look forward to seeing the Government’s …
Response attribution not verified
#28 —
Recommendation: We have recommended in this Report that the Government set up a properly resourced independent intermediary to assist sub-postmasters seeking to overturn convictions and seek compensation. We recommend that this same body should also be tasked with assisting sub-postmasters who …
Response attribution not verified
#27 —
Recommendation: 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 …
Response attribution not verified
#26 —
Recommendation: It is deeply troubling, given the historical nature of Horizon, its complexity as a flawed IT system and in many cases a lack of records, that some claimants seem 26 Post Office and Horizon - Compensationn interim report to be …
Response attribution not verified
#25 —
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 …
Response attribution not verified
#24 —
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 …
Response attribution not verified
#23 —
Recommendation: The absence of records held by the Post Office Ltd. (POL) and other relevant organisations, such as HMRC, DWP and the Royal Mail Group, along with an absence of local suspense accounts for individual POL branches, raises serious questions as …
Response attribution not verified
#22 —
Recommendation: It is worrying to hear that many of the claims awarded so far may be towards the low end of the compensation scale. To dispel any fears that Horizon victims are not being compensated fairly we recommend that the Government …
Response attribution not verified
#21 —
Recommendation: We recommend that the Government ask POL to set out and share stretching monthly targets and outturns on how the backlog of claims is being addressed. We also recommend that BEIS and UKGI in their oversight role give monthly updates …
Response attribution not verified
#19 —
Recommendation: We are disappointed that so few claims have been processed by the Historic Shortfall Scheme considering it was closed over a year ago. The conclusion of only 30% of Post Office and Horizon - Compensationn interim report 25 claims does …
Response attribution not verified
#16 —
Recommendation: We share concerns about the process by which claims to the Historic Shortfall Scheme are assessed and then reviewed by the Independent Panel. Bearing in mind that the Post Office (POL) bears a major part of the responsibility for the …
Response attribution not verified
#15 —
Recommendation: It is imperative that any victim of the Horizon scandal receives compensation that puts them back in the position they would have been in had the scandal not occurred, whilst also taking accounting of the distress the scandal caused them. …
Response attribution not verified
#14 —
Recommendation: In response to this report, POL and BEIS should provide details of who was consulted in drawing up the Scheme, what issues were raised by those consulted, and how those issues were addressed. We also recommend that POL and BEIS …
Response attribution not verified
#13 —
Recommendation: Bearing in mind the nature of the Horizon scandal—including the deep mistrust of its victims of the Post Office Ltd. (POL), BEIS and UKGI, its historical nature and issues surrounding the availability of records and a flawed IT system—we would …
Response attribution not verified
#12 —
Recommendation: We ask POL to explain how it ensures that the ADR process is fully independent from the Scheme, how many claimants have used it, and what the outcomes have been. We also recommend that the Government provide us with details …
Response attribution not verified
#11 —
Recommendation: Offers to claimants should only be full and final where claimants have received independent advice and have exhausted their rights to recourse to the Historical Shortfall Scheme’s alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process. We ask the Government to seek clarity from …
Response attribution not verified
#10 —
Recommendation: In responding to this report, we expect the Government to explain how the Historic Shortfall Scheme differs from the HBOS Reading scheme and what safeguards have been built in to avoid the problems that the latter scheme experienced.
Response attribution not verified
#8 —
Recommendation: We recommend that the Government provides regular updates when compensation is refused for sub-postmasters who have had their convictions overturned, the reasons for this and if subsequent compensation is sought and awarded. The Government should ensure that POL provide us …
Response attribution not verified
#7 —
Recommendation: We are concerned that some sub-postmasters have been denied interim compensation payments despite having had their convictions overturned. The Post Office Ltd. (POL) and the Minister noted that this is because the reliability of Horizon evidence is not central to …
Response attribution not verified
#6 —
Recommendation: We recommend that the Government provides monthly updates on the number of interim payments made, the number of final payments made, and the range of Post Office and Horizon - Compensationn interim report 23 amounts paid out to reach full, …
Response attribution not verified
#5 —
Recommendation: The Government must confirm how long it expects it to take for final settlements to be made to sub-postmasters after they have received their interim payments. The Government should set out what criteria they are using to determine final payments, …
Response attribution not verified
#4 —
Recommendation: We recommend that the Government urgently set up an independent intermediary body as a trusted first point of contact for those wrongly convicted because of Horizon, in particular for the 576 convicted sub-postmasters who have not yet come forward. The …
Response attribution not verified
#3 —
Recommendation: We are deeply concerned that, despite the efforts that the Post Office Ltd. (POL) has made to contact them, so few sub-postmasters have approached POL to begin the process of overturning ‘unsafe’ Horizon convictions. POL has conceded that this might …
Response attribution not verified
#2 —
Recommendation: We demand that the Government as a matter of urgency commit to ensuring that the 555 are fully compensated for all of their losses on the same basis as other victims of this scandal receiving compensation. (Paragraph 17) Prosecuted Sub-postmasters …
Response attribution not verified
#1 —
Recommendation: We are deeply disappointed that the 555 group action litigants, who took the Post Office Ltd. (POL) to court and who exposed the Horizon scandal, should be worse off than other victims of Horizon who would otherwise not be in …
Response attribution not verified
#18 —
Recommendation: Between 1997 and 2000 the Post Office implemented a new IT system called Horizon. This system is now known to be responsible for accounting discrepancies that suggested, for example, shortfalls of cash in Post Office branches.62 At the time, the …
Response attribution not verified
#6 —
Recommendation: The Post Office’s mismanagement of its Horizon programme has had devastating consequences for individuals wrongly accused of fraud. The financial cost of compensating these individuals will largely fall to the public purse. The Horizon accounting system erroneously recorded shortfalls of …
Response attribution not verified
#29 —
Recommendation: The Department must ensure it understands the extent of the problem. Therefore, it must urgently investigate the number of potential cases relating to Post Office pre-Horizon IT systems to judge whether there has been a further mass miscarriage of justice. …
Response status not verified
#28 —
Recommendation: Post Office Ltd must learn from past mistakes and should think carefully before opposing appeals against pre-Horizon convictions. (Recommendation, Paragraph 80)
Response status not verified
#27 —
Recommendation: The Government should bring forward legislation to quash Capture-related convictions, as it did for those relating to the Horizon IT system in 2024. (Recommendation, Paragraph 79)
Response status not verified
#26 —
Recommendation: Given the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC)’s revelations about (a) cases involving software other than Capture and Horizon, and (b) the difficulties in compiling the necessary information in many historical cases relating to Capture and other IT systems used by …
Response status not verified
#25 —
Recommendation: We are concerned by emerging evidence that bugs in pre-Horizon IT systems, and/or failures of disclosure and investigation in these cases, may have contributed to unsafe convictions. Although the number of confirmed Capture-related cases is currently small, incomplete records mean …
Response status not verified
#15 —
Recommendation: We deplore the poor historical state of record keeping by the Ministry of Justice, Post Office Ltd, the Crown Prosecution Service and Royal Mail Group. Action must be taken to mitigate the risk that individuals eligible to have their convictions …
Response status not verified
#13 —
Recommendation: Every eligible, wrongly convicted applicant to HCRS now has a right to at least £600,000 in compensation. The Government must immediately take the compassionate act of making this payment upfront to all those eligible as soon as possible, regardless of …
Response status not verified
#12 —
Recommendation: The Horizon Convictions Redress Scheme (HCRS) appears to be working well for overall for claimants who have had their convictions overturned, but unnecessary delays remain. We welcome the positive change for claimants that now have a basic safeguard in the …
Response status not verified
#10 —
Recommendation: The Government has not properly implemented Sir Wyn Williams’s recommendation to provide legal advice for HSS claimants. Sub- postmasters have already waited far too long for the redress they are owed. Requiring sub-postmasters to progress through the HSS without 39 …
Response status not verified
#3 —
Recommendation: Post Office Ltd and the Government must make every effort to ensure that outstanding offers are issued and remaining claims are fully settled. Without exerting pressure on vulnerable claimants, we recommend that every effort be made to ensure that all …
Response status not verified
#1 —
Recommendation: We welcome the significant progress that has been made since our last report in delivering redress. We recognise that payment rates have improved across all schemes. However, we regret that thousands of sub- postmasters are still waiting for the full …
Response status not verified
#22 —
Recommendation: The Horizon IT system used by sub postmasters and subpostmistresses erroneously recorded shortfalls of cash in local Post Office branches over a 20-year period. The Post Office blamed many of the shortfalls on sub postmasters and sub postmistresses, despite it …
Response attribution not verified
#7 — Post Office Horizon scandal victims still awaiting full and timely compensation.
Recommendation: Victims of the Post Office Horizon scandal continue to suffer as they await compensation due. The Horizon accounting system erroneously recorded shortfalls of cash in local Post Office branches over its more than 20-year lifetime. The Post Office blamed many …
Response attribution not verified
#4 — 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 …
Response attribution not verified
#3 — Introduce legal timeframes in legislation to deliver sub-postmaster redress and simplify evidential requirements.
Recommendation: To correct the abject failure to deliver timely redress for sub-postmasters, the Government must include in its forthcoming legislation legal timeframes to deliver redress to sub-postmasters. Those targets should include binding timeframes for each stage of a compensation claim, with …
Response attribution not verified
#2 — Remove Post Office from redress delivery and establish an independent intermediary for sub-postmasters.
Recommendation: The Government must immediately remove the Post Office from any involvement in delivering redress for sub-postmasters and the Government should set out to the Committee how it proposes to deliver swift and effective redress for sub-postmasters, and in what legally …
Response attribution not verified