BEIS0001082
BEIS0001082
From: Mitchell, Katie (BEIS)[/O=-EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=11341BBD8BD74DFBA01E7A9646244B85-
DEF9B3BE-E2]
Sent: Mon 06/03/2023 5:37:48 PM (UTC)
To: Simon Recaldinf
pamela.j.heang.
alan.watts.
Connolly.
Directoratéjf
Cooper, Tom -
3 Gourlay, James -
, Ciara (Business Sectors - Services
Directorate), NOW feciEmily (I
Fallowfield, Harry (Business Sectors - Services Directorate;
Zhang, Sisi -
Dunse:
UKGI t
Directorate)f. HM Governance
Subject: Quarterly Review Meeting 2 March Readout
Confidential and Subject to Legal Privilege
Hello,
Please see below a readout from the Quarterly Review meeting on Thursday. Please suggest any changes by 5pm 10
March.
OHC
* Simon Recaldin (SR) said POL was in a good space on non-pecuniary. Claimants represented by Howe and Co
and Clarke Kiernan have accepted their non-pecuniary offers. POL need to continue to encourage lawyers to
submit claims.
© SR said the pilot pecuniary cases were taking longer than hoped. Hudgell will likely raise the time it has taken
to receive offers at the Inquiry. Currently, there is no pecuniary flow. However, Hudgell has said he will submit
five further claims in the next couple of weeks.
* Carl Creswell (CC) said he was keen to ensure POL has the capacity and capability to process incoming
pecuniary claims. He said movement towards agreed principles should help.
© Neil McDaid (NMD) said ten principles will be discussed at HMC on 3 March and HRC on 13 March. POL are
meeting with HMG to discuss the approach to the principles. CC suggested that an ENE type process might be
required to provide assurance on the principles. Rob Mackie (RM) said POL need to make it clear to claimants
and their representatives that POL will continue to process claims in parallel to the principles being developed.
© NMD said HSF will continue to support POL on pecuniary claims, as POL do not yet have the necessary
bandwidth.
* NMD said a suite of KPIs had been produced _ will go through governance shortly.
Legal Privilege
C said that the move towards principles for I pecuniary claims should allow us
(as we have done with HSS and non-pecuniary claims) to move to a more streamlined approvals approach.
HSS
* Simon Recaldin (SR) provided an update on progress, highlighting that by the end of the week POL would
have issued 96% of offers. SR outlined that POL aim to issue all offers by the end of March (in line with the
associated HMT funding condition), but realistically, there were c.20 cases that might not receive an offer within
that time, mostly due to the involvement of third parties. SR thanked DBT for clearing the Case Assessment
Principles for Malicious Prosecution and Insolvency cases.
* SR also highlighted that in terms of late applications, POL had received fewer workable cases than it initially
anticipated, particularly in terms of de minimis cases. As a result, POL expected to issue 20 offers by the end of
March, which was far below the 100 offers condition set by HMT. SR noted that this had been accepted as an
BEIS0001082
BEIS0001082
ambitious target by HMG, that was very dependent on applications received. CC acknowledged this.
© In terms of both HMT funding conditions, SR noted that POL colleagues had sent information to the DBT
policy team to support a request that HMT be flexible in enforcing these conditions. SR queried whether DBT
needed more information to be able to make that request. Carl Creswell (CC) thanked SR for the update and
confirmed that DBT had all the information it needed, and a request had been put to HMT.
© SR highlighted the tax issue on HSS, thanking DBT for being steadfast in moving the issue forward.
* CC explained that DBT and UKGI were due to meet with HMRC and HMT colleagues on 2 March and would
update POL on the outcome of that discussion. Harry Fallowfield (HF) flagged that DBT/UKGI would highlight to
POL the operational impact that proposed solutions would have, to ensure this is accounted for.
© SR also flagged the issue of whether criteria for late applications should be removed (previously raised by Sir
Wyn). SR highlighted that HRC supported the removal of the criteria and felt that a closure date in line with the
end of the limitation period should be introduced, with SR acknowledging that this did not chime with existing
funding conditions. CC noted HRC’s decision, explaining that it had been discussed at the most recent SteerCo
meeting, but the committee did not feel comfortable supporting that view at this stage.
« Pamela Heap (PH) talked through the DRP Status Update document sent with the QR agenda. CC thanked PH
for a detailed presentation and queried whether there was anything PH felt could be improved in the
immediate future.
© PH highlighted that her team were continuously improving the DRP process where possible, e.g. improving
the usefulness of GFM’s, and not pressing ahead with them if it was acknowledged that they would not achieve
any progress on a case. PH also highlighted that her team were meeting with Hudgells Solicitors on a weekly
basis to better understand what does and does not work effectively in the DRP. This was mutually beneficial as
it ensured cases could move as quickly as possible, but also highlighted areas of improvement to the process.
© PH thanked DBT and UKGI for approving flexibility around legal costs, which should help expediate what was
a laborious process.
* SZ and PH highlighted that conversations around POL producing useful and indicative MI were ongoing.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Many thanks,
Katie
Katie Mitchell I Post Office Compensation.I_Business Resilience...
Department for Business and Trade} G RO I