Monthly Monitoring Meeting Readout
03 August 2023
Attendees
Carl Creswell (CC) — Director, Business Resilience, DBT
Simon Recaldin (SR) — Director, Remediation Unit, POL
Post Office
oc
Andrew Higham (AH)
David Firth (DF)
Evelyn Hocking (EH)
Jamie Tebbutt (JT)
Ken Kyriacou (KK)
Madeleine Dematteis (MD)
Matthew Hilton (MH)
Neil Davey (ND)
Neil McDaid (NM)
Pamela Heap (PH)
Paul Murray (PM)
Richard Paddington (RP)
Simon Atkin (SA)
Steve Barlow (SB)
Stuart Lill (SL)
Victor Turner (VT)
Chiara Eldridge (CE)
Dominic Elvin (DM)
James Gourlay (JG)
Lorna Gratton (LG)
Rob Mackie (RM)
Sisi Zhang (SZ)
Beth White (BW)
Ciara Lawrence (CL)
Eleri Wones (EW)
Harry Fallowfield (HF)
Foysul Hoque (FH)
Michael Morondiya (MM)
Richard Howard (RH)
Roundtable
Neil McDaid (NM) provided a brief update on the outcomes of the roundtable with claimant
representatives and Independent Assessor (IA) ToR. The general response to the principles was
positive and there were no challenges to the IA process.
The key takeaways from the meeting were:
Setting out factors that were considered in calculating post overturned loss of earnings.
Develop an approach in handling claims which cross-over schemes.
Consider the appetite to allow those Claimants to seek the 26 months loss of earnings by
analogy with the HSS.
BEIS0001086
BEIS0001086
BEIS0001086
BEIS0001086
NM said HSF will issue a revised version of the principles which will remain a live document and
submitted to the IA once established.
NM added that there was a consensus that a retired judge would be a good candidate to chair the IA
meetings and POL has asked for suggestions from the claimant representatives. Simon Recaldin (SR)
proposed that Advisory Board could suggest names given their experience and broader network. Carl
Creswell (CC) agreed with the spirit of the idea and suggested approaching the Attorney General’s
office also for suitable names 1. CC suggested highlighting to claimant representatives that POL and
DBT are considering options too. CC advised that once a name has been put forward to obtain buy-in
from Minister Hollinrake.
SR mentioned that they have an outstanding invitation with the Advisory Board to present the
refreshed process and provide an update on the principles 2.
Non-responsive cohort
SR said that they had 5 responses out of 23 from the letters they sent out from POL with support
from P&P. The Advisory Board are very keen to get a response from the remaining 18 and asked POL
to consider taking additional steps e.g. finding suitable people/person to knock on doors.
SR said triage work continues to build on the cohort by identify further horizon related prosecutions
and building an engagement strategy for this population. Ken Kyriacou (KK) added that the next
opportunity to identify conceded cases are within the 40 ambiguous cohort which are currently
being reviewed by their Senior Council. SR said that POL will be meeting with the Select Committee
in September and had discussions with various media outlets to support them in reaching out to and
encouraging people to come forward, CC added that Minister is also happy to lend his name to
letters too.
_-dudicial Review
HSS
Wrongful death CAPs
SR highlighted that Wrongful Death Case Assessment Principles would be put to RC on the 16th
August. SR highlighted that he would be grateful for DBT’s cooperation in approving swiftly once RC
had done the same. SR highlighted that in the meantime, the Independent Panel would use the draft
principles on the two cases where this HOL had been put forward.
Late applications
Catherine Connolly (CCo) highlighted that POL were on plan for the remaining original cohort cases.
CCo explained that POL had identified some trends in the late application cohort with fewer De
Minimis cases, more ineligible cases, more unquantified cases, and more applicants legally
represented from the outset. Sisi Zhang (SZ) queried what arrangements claimants had with legal
firms at the pre-offer stage, given that legal support is not offered then. CCo explained that POL
would not be aware of this.
SR explained that POL were looking into four ‘scheme issues’ following the Advisory Group and
Inquiry reports - and would be bringing a proposal to RC on how POL could respond. SR explained
BEIS0001086
BEIS0001086
that some of POL’s proposals would include a cost. SR explained that in suggesting these proposals
for potential changes, POL’s aim was to ensure fair outcomes. SR explained that it was common in
remediation schemes for the party issuing compensation to look back as the scheme draws to a close
and assure decisions made to that point. Carl Creswell (CC) and Beth White (BW) agreed that
identifying potential issues was key, but that it was also important to be considered in how these
would be rectified. Both also highlighted that it was important that all issues were resolved in one go
rather than piecemeal.
Tax top-ups
SR introduced Paul Murray (PM), who was leading POL’s implementation of the tax top-ups. PM
explained that POL had good momentum and already had weekly catch-ups scheduled with
DBT/UKGI in place. PM explained that there was a team of 4 managing the tax top-ups process, all of
whom should be onboarded by early September. PM explained the calculation tool had been built
and tested internally and would soon be assured by Deloitte. Once that assurance was completed
the process could begin. PM highlighted that POL were still operating at financial risk, so it was
crucial to have the funding agreement and updated operations agreement in place. PM highlighted
that Pinsent Masons would be assuring both documents on the w/c 7th August. PM explained that
POL’s provisional plan was to issue top-up payment letters from the end of September, but the
funding agreement would need to be in place beforehand. HF highlighted that this funding
agreement was with POL for drafting but DBT stood ready to support.
RM explained that POL legal counsel was working with Pinsent Masons on how to amend and update
the previous funding agreement. RM highlighted that POL should not look to ‘re-open’ the original
funding agreement unless there is a fundamental risk/material point that is evident within it. RM
explained that HMT would likely be reluctant to approve any amendments and coordinating
agreement across DBT/POL would likely cause delays. CC added that amendments could be
considered, but reopening specific elements of the funding letter would be much trickier.
Dispute Resolution
In terms of the DRP, SR highlighted that POL now had a suite of KPI’s to monitor progress of cases. SR
acknowledged that progress could be swifter, but POL were confident that cases would be resolved,
with the knowledge that the is a funding deadline associated with their resolution. SR noted that
HMC had a regular ‘case forum’ to decide on next steps on cases that had become stagnant in the
process for an extended period. HF thanked SR and noted that Pam Heap and team had been very
collaborative. HF did query whether HSF had signed up to an SLA-type commitment to progress
cases and SR confirmed they had not, but POL discussed case progress with them weekly and would
always flag where it had concerns.
SZ queried whether Hudgell Solicitors (who represented a significant cohort in the DRP) had a
capacity issue. SR admitted they did and had now recognised this. SZ queried whether Hudgell could
manage expectations better on his end, and SR agreed to take that point away.
CC thanked Simon and team.
ACTIONS
* Beth White (BW) to contact the Attorney General's office for suitable names to chair the IA
Panel.)
¢ BW and Rob Brightwell to find a suitable time and date for POL to present to the Advisory
Board.(2)