BEIS0000719
BEIS0000719
From: "Carl CRESWELL (DBT)"{ss—S*é«SGROV
Sent: Mon 18/09/2023 9:26:35 AM (UTC)
To: Simon Recaldin <
q
Ce:
i —— GRO
Subject: RE: Confidential - amended letter for claimant reps
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE
Hi Simon,
Further to my earlier email, we have now had confirmation that our bid for an oral statement for today has
been accepted.
That means the Minister is expected to make the announcement this afternoon — Emily will let your team
have a more precise time later, once we know.
Thanks,
Carl.
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE
From: Carl CRESWELL (DBT)
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023
+; Emily SNOW2 (DBT)
Andrew Higham + Neil
Melanie Corfield { "GRO Gratton, Lorna -
; Diane Wills; ~_ GRO = NickRead
Bovtramovics, Vadims (BEIS) a i
‘}Richard Taylor {~~
- amended letter for claimant reps
<Nick:Readi
eleri.wone
Subject: RE: Confidential
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE
Hi Simon,
Thank you for your email and I hope you all had a good weekend.
Thanks also for your feedback on the statement, which we will review while we await news about whether
the announcement will be today or tomorrow. We'll let you know as soon as we hear more on timings.
Our comms teams have been discussing ahead of the announcement, as I mentioned when we discussed
the plans at the QSM last week. I can understand that it may feel challenging for people who have been
working hard on the current process, but I would gently say that we've been talking to your team (and
indeed I raised it orally with you myself) more than once over recent weeks. By making it clear that we
have talked to the Post Office about this proposal, we were trying to minimise the impression that the
Government is having to intervene because we are dissatisfied.
How Post Office decides to position itself on the issue is a question for your Board and exec team, though
BEIS0000719
BEIS0000719
when the Minister asked Nick for his views about the idea last week, he said that the Post Office would be
on the side of anything that speeds up compensation. Given it’s been around two and a half years since
the Court of Appeal judgments, I hope people will welcome the announcement as being a way to speed up
resolution of a number of claims (for those who want to accept that route).
In the meantime, the crucial work that your team is doing to speed up resolution of pecuniary claims (via
the principles) is invaluable and will be very necessary to enable us also to deliver speedier compensation
to those who choose to remain with the current process. I look forward to hearing what feedback you
received from claimants’ lawyers and we remain keen to support you on getting them in place as soon as
we can.
Carl.
Pc Carl Creswell I Director, Business Resilience
Department for Business and Trade ictoria Street, London, SW1H OET.
I E-mail:¢
Department for te:
Business & Trade
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE
From: Simon Recaldin! GRO
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023.12:13 AM...
To: Emily SNOW2 (DBT) } GRO
Cc: Nicola Munden “GRO. rAndrev 3; Neil
McDaid { __.... GRO {Melanie Corfield 5 } Carl CRESWELL
(DBT) ¢ GRO “7 Diane Wills
4 “GRO “EP Nick Read <t
{ GRO ‘eleri.wones:
Subject: RE: Confidential - amended letter for claimant reps
Emily
Care with the statement please.
You are absolutely right this does read as a DBT proposal without showing interaction between POL & DBT as apart
from you and an email exchange between myself and Carl (initiated by me) there hasn’t been any! Of course this is
will create a perception that Govt is ‘stepping in’ because it has lost faith in the POL process as this is precisely what
it is! I don’t think we should be disingenuous — we have to be honest and transparent here. It is clear from this and
the lack of risk assessment to the SoS that the government nor the Advisory Board have any faith in Post Office. This
will come up at the Inquiry with Government nowhere to be seen. The paragraph of most concern I have lifted and
pasted below — my comments in red.
Government, having consulted with the Post Office,] false, delete, only you have kindly told us the bare
essentials and then to a highly restricted audience — this is not consultation has decided that postmasters
who have their convictions on the basis of Horizon evidence overturned should have the opportunity
upfront to accept an offer of £600,000 in full and final settlement of their claim. This will be delivered by the
Post Office with funding from the Government. This implies this is extra funding and again is disingenuous
— this is not extra funding as you know - the funding is already in place. It’s just a different (hopefully more
efficient) way of paying it out. In fact a quick look at Post Office accounts will show to anybody who wants
to see that we are anticipating in paying out in excess of this on average. This is where consultation would
have helped.
I suggest we change to:
‘Government has decided that postmasters who have their convictions on the basis of Horizon evidence overturned
should have the opportunity upfront to accept an offer of £600,000 in full and final settlement of their claim.’
BEIS0000719
BEIS0000719
I think this is damaging enough and is a_ bit more like the truth please — I think somebody has to try and cling to some
morals here please. This is an imposition and it should not be flowered up any other way. DBT/the SoS should take
the credit for the initiative.
Let’s not forget that this will all be exposed at the Inquiry where this will be seen for what it is - a clear Political
intervention into a Post Office scheme with good/excellent intent but simply not thought through which is how the
legal representatives will view it. Interestingly, despite the common interest and a direct request, Post Office have
yet to be extended the courtesy of seeing the legal advice given on this — on a scheme we have to run! Does any
actually exisit?
FYI — we had a pecuniary claim in from Hudgell’s at the end of last week for £18,000. Their non-pecuniary was
settled for c£195k. Under this proposal this individual will enjoy £600k. I am not saying this is wrong and as you
know I want to pay out these sorts of sums but to date have been prevented by VFM restrictions, evidence,
governance etc. Ata stroke, all credibility/professionalism is gone never mind the months of work put in by Post
Office and DBT on Principles and working with Postmaster lawyers. The Inquiry will see all this. I have to assume all
are comfortable with this. I’m not.
Am I the only one worried about all this? Is it me or is this really emperor’s new clothes stuff? I think we are sleep
walking into real difficulties.
I have said my piece and - if Post Office have any say in anything anymore (which of course clearly we don’t) - would
be grateful for the above adjustment in the comms and a response re the above please.
Neil/Nicola/Mel — please can you pick this up with Emily and the comms teams. Sorry, I think this is going to be
another difficult week.
Thanks
Regards
Simon
Simon Recaldin
Remediation Unit Director
e Ltd I 100 Wood Street I London I EC2V 7ER
is confidential unless otherwise stated
Sent: 17 September 2023 19:04
To: Simon Recaldin:
Cc: Nicola Munden }
Melanie Corfield <
‘ Andrew Higham
yr claimant reps
Simon, Mel,
By way of update, HSF have crafted a high level heads up letter to claimant representatives which DBT have
commented on. They have also provided comment on the core lines for POL.
We have some further comments on both these documents which we will feed back to DBT in the morning but this is
where we are at for the moment.
BEIS0000719
BEIS0000719
Will send password separately.
N
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE
From: Emily SNOW2 (DBT)
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2023 3:33 PM
To: Neil McDaid/_ GRO. a . spesunuceneteniee — a
Cc: Nicola Munden: GRO } Andrew Higham! GRO 1
Subject: RE: Confidential - amended letter for claimant reps _ ™
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE
Hi all,
Thanks again for sharing and all the work going into this. Again not urgent for today but sharing to the extent that
preliminary comments may be helpful to see as I appreciate all is quite to the wire tomorrow.
Please find attached:
1. My preliminary comments on the letter — as I said, will put through Carl & Vad tomorrow morning.
2. Core text to be used for our DBT products — this is still draft
You will spot comments in both attachments on pitching as a DBT only intervention: I appreciate that it is a DBT
proposal and that the timescales at which we’re working have meant we haven't been able to do the type of
engagement and ironing out of issues that would have been preferred, not least by POL. However, I am somewhat
cautious about the language which goes quite far to pitch as a DBT proposal without showing some interaction
between POL & DBT (as you'll see in the core text). This is from a view that we do not want to create a perception
that Govt is ‘stepping in’ because it has lost faith in the POL process — this is not the case at all. We should send a
positive message, there are two good options for postmasters: £600k or remediation (which Govt supports), since
postmasters who do not wish to accept the upfront offer will still need to go through the remediation process. I
think the wording should uphold the faith in that POL-led process.
Hope that makes sense and I'll come back with final confirmations tomorrow. Happy to chat and otherwise hope you
have a restful rest of your weekend(!)
Many thanks,
Emily
Emily Snow I Post Office Compensation I Business Resilience
Department for Business and Trade I Tel: I E-mail
Q:
vy]
[e)
ICIAL-SENSITIVE
From: Neil McDaid!
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2023 2:31 PM
To: Emily SNOW2 (DBT): “GRO - : — —
Ce: Nicola Munderi GRO “LAndrew Higham! GRO !
Subject: RE: Confidential - amended letter for claimant reps Fe
Thanks Emily
BEIS0000719
BEIS0000719
All good. We are checking the email (so please do shout if anything urgent crops up) but thanks for your message: If
nothing changes we will touch base with you first thing tomorrow so we are all on the same page with the
who/what/when.
N
From: Emily SNOW2 (DBT);
Sent: 17 September.2022.14:12.......
To: Neil McDaid ___GRO
Cc: Nicola Munden} GRO } Andrew Higham
Subject: RE: Confidential amended letter for claimant reps
Caution: This email has been sent by an external contact. Please take care when clicking links or opening
attachments. When in doubt, please use the "Report Phishing" button.
Thanks all and sorry you are working on the weekend.
Not urgent for today but thought I’d let you know when ’ll come back so you can hopefully enjoy the rest of your
Sunday.
* I will review the letter again but will put through Carl and Vad first thing tomorrow morning for final
clearance. I will give you comments back asap today so you have more sight as to likely amends, but up to you
whether you’d prefer to just wait for final version tomorrow.
© Re: sending the draft announcement, I don’t think we'll have a final cleared version until Mon morning (the
Minister may have amends) so Ill share with you the core text we’re using.
* Small technical point- when do you plan to send the letter? As soon as announcement is made or a bit after?
Just with regard to annexing the announcement, the best way to do it is to refer to the official version which
will appear on Hansard (as the Minister may sway from the text in the House) but there’s a delay on that
upload I think.
Many thanks,
Emily
Emily Snow I Post Office Compensation I Business Resilience .-----------------2-~ ;
Department for Business and Trade I Tel GRO H
From: Neil McDai
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2023 1:20 P. _
To: Emily SNOW2 (DBT) 4. _...GRO J _
Cc: Nicola Munden}_ GRO . } Andrew Higham ! GRO '
Subject: FW: Confidential - amet mant reps
Emily
Please find attached a draft initial letter to claimant representatives.
As you will see, it simply gives the headlines about the offer, which is described as an ‘optional alternative
mechanism’.
Nicola and Andy have reviewed the letter — comments attached. We are not sure the £20k fees point is quite right as
described?
I appreciate there are still a few details that we need to pin down before this letter is ready to go. Are you planning
to meet with the Advisory Board tomorrow morning?
We are around today so if there is anything that you need urgently please just shout.
BEIS0000719
BEIS0000719
Password to follow separately.
Neil
Neil McDaid
Head of Overturned Convictions
Street I London I EC2V 7ER
The information classification of this email is confidential unless otherwise stated
FEES EES ES ES ES ESS ES Eo no no na rao docidaiidciicidciidei ick tsar
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the named
recipient, you must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication. If you have
received this in error, please contact the sender by reply email and then delete this email from your system. Any
views or opinions expressed within this email are solely those of the sender, unless otherwise specifically stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: 100 Wood Street, London,
EC2V 7ER.
FESO IE OSI SITES OSHC SECIS SEER SIE IORI EEI ISO EEO
Post Office Limited is committed to protecting your privacy. Information about how we do this can be found on our
website at www.postoffice.co.uk/privacy
FESS OSCE SOS SII SS SCS SE SORE SE SOSE SSE IOSE IEICE OSES ISIE Ir
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the named
recipient, you must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication. If you have
received this in error, please contact the sender by reply email and then delete this email from your system. Any
views or opinions expressed within this email are solely those of the sender, unless otherwise specifically stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: 100 Wood Street, London,
EC2V 7ER.
FEES USES ESE SS ESE S EE SES ESE dodaci bi idcicidcictitdack
Post Office Limited is committed to protecting your privacy. Information about how we do this can be found on our
website at www.postoffice.co.uk/privacy
JOE S EIEIO E SIGE ISHS ISHS B SETAE IEEE E ISH IE ISH ISIE IO IIE
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the named
recipient, you must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication. If you have
received this in error, please contact the sender by reply email and then delete this email from your system. Any
views or opinions expressed within this email are solely those of the sender, unless otherwise specifically stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: 100 Wood Street, London,
EC2V 7ER.
FECES IEICE IEISIOSFO SEIS ORIEI ISRO SSIES IORISI SISSIES SEERA
Post Office Limited is committed to protecting your privacy. Information about how we do this can be found on our
website at www.postoffice.co.uk/privacy