BEIS0001088
BEIS0001088
Monthly Monitoring Meeting Readout
06 July 2023
Attendees
¢ Carl Creswell (CC) — Director, Business Resilience, DBT
¢ Simon Recaldin (SR) — Director, Remediation Unit, POL
Post Office
¢ Andrew Higham (AH)
© David Firth (DF)
e Madeleine Dematteis (MD)
¢ Matthew Hilton (MH)
¢ Neil Davey (ND)
© Pamela Heap (PH)
¢ Richard Paddington (RP)
e Steve Barlow (SB)
© Stuart Lill (SL)
e James Gourlay (JG)
¢ Rob Mackie (RM)
— Sisi Zhang (SZ)
© Ciara Lawrence (CL)
e — Eleri Wones (EW)
e — Emily Snow (ES)
* Harry Fallowfield (HF)
¢ — Foysul Hoque (FH)
* Michael Morondiya (MM)
¢ — Richard Howard (RH)
oc
Name change
Simon Recaldin (SR) provided an update on names changes. The team is now formally known as the
Remediation Unit, the Historical Shortfall Scheme is now the ‘Horizon’ Shortfall Scheme and
Overturned Historical Convictions is now Overturned Convictions.
Pecuniary Principles
SR mentioned POL have now delegated authority to make minor changes to the principles. SR
discussed POL’s timelines and next steps to finalise the principles and was well received by HRC.
AH said the substantive issues will be discussed at the roundtable with claimant representatives and
is set to take place on 27 July.
CC raised POC’s concerns around the current starting point of two years post overturn for future loss
of earnings and asked POL to consider alternative wording. SR and Steve Barlow (SB) agreed and will
consider softening the language.
ES mentioned POC also considered the point on not applying inflation to POL rem and would like to
see the evidence base that motivated the decision.
BEIS0001088
BEIS0001088
Independent Assessor ToR
CC and RM suggested POL proactively provides a status update on the proposed process to the
Advisory Board as well as seeking views on the Independent Assessor (IA) ToR, so they can be built in
early to avoid delay and facilitate speed. SR agreed to send proposed written update to CC. CC
agreed to consider the governance and sequencing of sharing the IA ToR with claimant
representatives and the Advisory Board.
SR said POL are still waiting for the claimant advisers to put forward names for the IA panel. AH
added that they also anticipate a few KC nominations.
PEA
SR said they had 4 responses to the concede letters and 2 received disclosures and 1 submitted their
request and following up on another. 45 have been escalated to senior KC and waiting for advice
from the KCs.
SR flagged there is momentum around communicating that POL will pay all (including independent)
legal fees for possible OC claimants from HRC. SR said that the Select Committee volunteered to help
with communication. Stuart Lill (SL) added by removing this burden it should encourage and give
everybody the opportunity to get their case reviewed. They are currently working on a paper to HRC
regarding this. CC said DBT would review the proposal when submitted but noted this is outside of
the agreed funding.
SR said P&P estimates a top range of 155 which considers outcomes from the PFA triage. POL
believes the figure is more like 161 and is concerned about understating this given the number of
unknowns. POL may be challenged by Auditors on this matter. SR clarified that the projection figure
(number of claimants) will not be published in the annual reports, however the provisional costs will
be. The decreasing estimated cohort could be inferred through the accounts. Related to the
decreasing estimated cohort, POL plans to seek clarification on Lord Dyson’s exemplary damages
recommendation and POL will remain transparent about the amount.
Full & Final Settlements
SR suggested presenting and communicating progress in a different may help minimise criticism
regarding delays in reaching full & final settlements e.g. number of Hol that are being assessed and
have settled X percentage of the cohort. SR added that the claimant lawyers are not coming forward
with many of their cases. SB said they have 15 pecuniary claims and 10 are subject to RFls which
have been outstanding for months.
AH said there is working going on with the Inquiry Team on how the stats could be better
represented in a more clear and transparent way. CC highlighted that DBT is also working on
publishing data and key milestones on a Programme level covering all schemes.
HSS
Progress Update
SR provided an overview of progress on the Horizon Shortfall Scheme, noting that there are 13 cases
with offers outstanding from the initial cohort and that Post Office expect to issue at least 4 offers in
the following week to reduce this number to single figures.
Further to this, there are 37 cases involving insolvency or a dissolved company (or both) where a full
and final offer is outstanding.
BEIS0001088
BEIS0001088
CC asked why these cases were not included in the 13 outstanding cases from the original cohort.
SR clarified that in these cases, draft offers had been made but further information was required
from the claimant or third parties to make the full and final offer.
DRP
SR discussed the relationship with Hudgell’s who have a significant number of HSS cases in the
dispute process. The operational team are having weekly meetings with Hudgell’s team and are
building a good understanding. Most of the outstanding actions are sitting with Hudgell rather than
with Post Office.
Pamela Heap (PH) added that around 57 of the Hudgell cases are waiting for impact statements on
behalf of the claimant. Hudgell is in turn waiting for expert reports or medical certificates to write
these statements.
SR noted that POL are conscious of funding timeframes but that Hudgell does not have an incentive
to work to these and it is not productive to apply too much pressure. Interim payments are also
reducing the incentive for claimants to engage with the DRP. There may need to be further
discussions with DBT on funding.
Tax top-ups
SR noted that POL are currently undertaking work at risk until a funding agreement is in place for tax
top-ups. SR asked whether it would be possible for Post Office to make payments ahead of
legislation coming into force.
HF responded to note that legislation will be in place from the beginning of August and so should not
present an issue to POL.
RP confirmed that POL’s current expectation was that initial payments will be made in September.
Good progress has been made with a calculator being developed in draft.
RP added that POL are keen to put funding agreement in place as soon as possible to cover tax top-
ups, including POL’s operational costs. Noted that the GLO contract took a long time to negotiate.
CC agreed that it would be sensible to avoid a protracted negotiation on the contract if possible.
Wrongful death
SR noted his view that there should be some “exit i
CC noted that POL should follow what they think is the correct approach on top of the panel
recommendation and not feel hamstrung by it. There will need to be appropriate checks and
balances but there may be a case to pursuing a different award to what the panel is able to
recommend.
SR added that he has asked DBT for clarification on whether the current funding arrangements allow
for POL to make awards that are different to the panel recommendation.
BEIS0001088
BEIS0001088
Update on Policy Papers being prepared by POL
SR outlined that four papers are being taken to HRC, with a further wrap-up paper:
- Consequential loss;
- evidential bar;
- de minimis; and
- legal representation
There had been a discussion at HRC as to how to respond to criticisms/vulnerabilities in the scheme
and whether any further intervention should be implemented ahead of phase 5 of the Inquiry or
potentially alongside the tax top-ups. SR noted a concern that there would need to be funding in
place to support any further actions.
RM added that the message was to make progress where we can and consider what can be done
proactively to gather information rather than waiting for further reviews.
CC recounted that SteerCo had had a similar discussion and the emphasis was on ensuring that the
problems were first understood before we move to implementation and handling. It is difficult to say
at this stage whether the issues identified have had a material impact on outcomes from the
scheme. It is important to have a shared evidence base before any action is taken.