BEIS0001100
BEIS0001100
Monthly Monitoring Meeting — Overturned Convictions and Horizon Shortfall Scheme
Attendees:
2 May 2024
Department for Business and
Trade
Post Office Ltd
Carl Creswell (CC)
Charlotte Heyes (CH)
Ciara Lawrence (CL)
Ellen Wasden (EW)
Katie Carr (KC)
Mick Carling (MC)
Richard Howard (RH)
Stephanie Cossom (SC)
Eleri Wones (EW)
Andrew Mortimer
(AM)
Catherine Connolly
(CC)
David Firth (DF)
Evelyn Hocking
(EH)
George Day (GD)
Jamie Tebbutt (JT)
Jacki Adams (JA)
Ken Kyriacou (KK)
Madeleine De Matteis (MM)
Matthew Nelson Hilton (MNH)
Neil McDaid (NMc)
Nigel Machin (NM)
Nicola Munden (NMu)
Pam Heap (PR)
Richard Paddington (RP)
Sarah Lambert (SL)
Simon Recaldin (SR)
Susan Sannachan (SS)
Overturned Convictions
Item 1 —- HCRS/Bill Update
CH provided an update on HCRS and the progress of the Bill. The Bill is moving away from
the Commons stages and into the Lords. The Commons stages went smoothly; however,
we are expecting the next stage to take longer and be more probing on the technical details
of the legislation given many peers have legal backgrounds. Royal Assent is expected late
June [n.b. now early July] resulting in extra prep time for the HCRS.
Internal pressure remains on whether we are delivering as quickly as possible. During Oral
PQs, the Minister said that redress will be paid later this year. SR mentioned that this
question was also being raised in restorative justice meetings with postmasters.
CH noted ongoing conversations with MoJ around plans to communicate to postmasters in
scope of the legislation to inform them of their conviction being overturned and point them
to necessary information and guidance on redress registration. CH noted DBT’s intention of
carrying over OC1 principles to the new scheme to avoid any inconsistent or
disadvantageous outcomes, however the legal fee tariff may differ between GLO and
HCRS; conversations are ongoing.
With the aim of awarding contracts in June, DBT will shortly go to tender to secure a law
firm to act as case advisors. As policy questions are still being considered, the ADR
contract will be secured at a later date. NMu questioned whether the panel would be
included; CH confirmed this noting the appointment of the Chair as ongoing despite the
intention for Sir Gary to play a role across all schemes to ensure consistency. A public
appointment and/or amending current contracts is still being considered. Sir Gary is keen to
be involved in non-pecuniary claims, however CC emphasised it may be better for him to
focus on the pecuniary side in the immediate term, due to slower progress there.
BEIS0001100
BEIS0001100
Regarding user journeys, DBT are holding conversations with the Grants Directorate to
discuss the payments process. SR noted POL’s payment system works well and it could be
used to deliver HCRS — though there may be conflicts of interest. CC noted there is a DBT
system in place for GLO payments, but was grateful for the offer.
On principles and evidence thresholds, DBT is keen to make the principles publicly
available and transparent. We need to work out the evidence thresholds for the new
scheme e.g. what evidence is required for those making a full claim? CL noted a decision
on Phase 1 and Phase 2 of POL disclosure work should be with POL early next week. JA
noted the team should be in place to begin work once training has been completed.
Item 2 - Progress on Pecuniary Claims
103 convictions have already been overturned, but 9 further overturns are due to take
place shortly. NMcD highlighted the slow progress on incoming claims, despite recently
receiving a new claim. It was noted that Hudgell said he ‘would need to reconsider the way
[he] drafts’ pecuniary claims as he feels the methodology has changed. POL explained to
Hudgell the approach taken was on the principles, and had not changed, but Hudgell has
said this will cause delay.
POL are still awaiting some big claims to come through from Howe & Co — expert fees have
been paid.
Item 3 —- Moving to a Delegated Authority on Pecuniary Claims/Legal Costs
CC noted that we are trying to move to a delegated authority model on pecuniary claims.
On CC-014, there are issues involving outstanding legal costs questions and a concern that
redress payments should not be delayed whilst being resolved.
CC mentioned the difficulty in assessing legal costs. CL emphasised the need for guidance
to ensure that when costs are being analysed, we can check they are reasonable and
ensure value for money. CL and NMcD will continue this work offline.
Item 4 — Paul Marshall ENE
Although alternative dates have been offered to Paul Marshall by POL, he continues to
decline due to lack of availability.
CL noted the Minister will be writing to Paul Marshall to encourage him to accelerate claim
submission, set an ENE date and to not charge his clients for legal costs.
On the potential for criminal disclosure, DBT reiterated the intention of criminal disclosure
not being required for people to sign eligibility statements, however this will be kept under
review.
Horizon Shortfall Scheme
Item 1 - POL to update on preparations for implementing the £75k fixed sum award.
SR and KK highlighted that POL is finalising its approach to dealing with:
- Cases that have had offers/accepted an offer/settled (fixed back) — led by Paul
Murray. This will be an largely automated process, offering a top-up payment.
BEIS0001100
BEIS0001100
- Cases that are yet to receive an offer (fixed forward)
KK indicated that Catherine Connolly was leading the fixed forward work, developing a
process to review applications that specifically express a desire to take up the £75,000
payment, quickly and efficiently. KK highlighted that Catherine was also working on a
simplified shortfall assessment for applications requesting the £75,000 payment. This
assessment could be conducted internally at POL rather than by HSF, resulting in cost
savings. HSF would still be engaged on complicated cases such as bankruptcy.
KK highlighted that POL were working out insolvency principles for individuals who are
topped up to £75,000 having previously received an offer below that.
KK also highlighted that it was imperative to finalise a scheme closing date as this would
make up a key part of the invitation letter. SR explained that the question of a closure date
was previously posed to RC, but they could not land on a specific date. SR explained he
was keen to come to a consensus with DBT.
CC thanked POL for the work they had done and queried whether POL would be clear in
communications that by accepting the £75,000 offer, an applicant could not then
subsequently appeal. CC highlighted the approach on the GLO scheme which is very clear
in that regard and that POL should look to follow the same approach. CC confirmed to
Simon that in the GLO scheme, if the £75,000 was rejected by a claimant and they
ultimately were offered <£75,000 having gone through the full process, they would not be
able to take up the £75,000 offer.
CC highlighted that there were some concerns in relation to fraud on the DBT side around
the way the £75,000 payment was highlighted quite prominently in some of the comms
POL had drafted. CC asked POL to consider how the availability of the offer was made
clear, but was not prominently advertised in a way that may give rise to speculative claims.
SR acknowledged this point.
BW highlighted the important of POL/DBT agreeing clear mapping of the different types of
options available to the claimant.
NM queried the position on legal representatives and whether the DRP should continue to
run concurrently with a proposed DBT-run appeals process.
CC highlighted that there was no agreed funding to offer legal support to those wishing to
take up the £75,000 offer and the minister was clear on this point. CC highlighted that the
injection of legal advice had the potential to slow down the process significantly and as
claimants will either have been topped up significantly, or are content enough to pursue the
£75,000 offer, it is difficult to see the value of legal advice, unless a claimant chooses to
appeal, rather than be topped up (in which case, they should be offered legal advice).
BW explained that in regard to the second point, (noting that the appeals process was yet
to be agreed) the claimant should decide the pathway in terms of proceeding through the
DRP or entering the Appeals Process. BW highlighted that it was important to consider the
interactions with the Bates vs Post Office settlement deed.
SR and NM highlighted that POL were to revert imminently on the proposed £75,000 fixed
sum payments funding letter.
BEIS0001100
BEIS0001100
Item 2 - POL to provide an update on late applications forecast and comms plans for
closure date.
KK confirmed that a forecast had been finalised and shared with RC. Key dependencies
were communications and the take-up of the £75,000 offer — with POL’s starting point
being that it is prudent to expect 30% of postmasters contacted may submit a claim. SR
explained that it was made clear to RC that DBT had some concerns that this estimate was
conservative, but RC agreed it was a fair starting point given the lack of information
available, and that estimate could be reassessed once communications had gone out.
RH explained that he had seen the models and talked these through with POL. RH felt that
there needed to be some more testing around the proportion of claimants POL expected
will take the £75,000 offer (RH felt this would be quite high), aswell as testing what POL
expected the average claim size to be, whether we expected that average to be lower than
it was currently. This was necessary as it DBT will need to finalise its own provision for its
accounts.
Item 3 - Update on Dispute Resolution Process
SR explained by way of an update that RC have approved a proposal which would afford
POL more delegated authority and would simplify the DRP greatly. This was with DBT for
review.
SL explained that POL had moved towards conducting face to face escalation meetings as
part of these changes. The first of these was conducted prior to the MMM and had worked
much better than how escalation meetings had done before. POL was able to gauge a
better understanding of the nuances of the applicant's claim, and they were able to
understand what type of evidence would be needed in order for a higher uplift to be
considered.
CC thanked POL for their work on the DRP and confirmed that DBT would consider the
paper outlining the proposed changes. CC queried whether POL had enough capacity to
process claims through the DRP, given the amount of work that needs to go into
progressing each case.
SL confirmed that the DRP team was stretched, but this was being monitored. CC noted
and flagged that DBT were open to try to support where possible.
SL also flagged that the DRP had pulled together a checksheet for POL caseworkers to
use to ensure that when speaking to claimants, POL can get a better idea of what the
issues are, and whether further information can be teased out prior to escalation.
SR explained that POL was conducting a review on the D&l head of loss, noting that
claimants are often extrapolating their D&l over several months, which results in high
figures being claimed.
CC thanked POL for their work on the HSS and closed the meeting.