BEIS0001192
BEIS0001192
Horizon Compensation Programme Board Note
Chi
Carl Creswell (CC) Date: 18/04/2024
Attendees
Rob Brightwell (RB), Helen Thomas (HT), Joshua Scott (JS), Eleri Wones (EW1), Ellen Wasden (EW2),
Monique Ebell (ME), Harry Fallowfield (HF), Elena Michael (EM), Sophie Bell (SB), Joel Miah (JM)
External Attendees
Simon Recaldin [Post Office] (SR), Milo Kershaw [HMT] (MK),
Previous Actions
@ JM Updated the board that the action regarding Risk Management was complete.
Upcoming Communications
© RB took the group through the comms tracker, highlighting that much of the comms is
around the upcoming bill. Regular meetings with comms colleagues ensure the tracker is
updated and accurately reflects the comms landscape of the programme.
@ CCcommented ona report that had gone to the select committee.
* CCreflected that there would be a capture moment in the future, though the exact time of
that was to be determined.
© SRreflected that ITN would be doing a documentary around the impact of the ITV series and
should be reflected on the comms tracker. RB clarified that this was on the tracker.
PI Awards and Judicial College Guidelines (JCG)
e JS talked through the JCG, highlighting that they are used across the schemes for person
injury awards, and that the current version in use at the time would be superseded by the
latest edition.
e JS noted that Freeths had been requesting an increase in Personal Injury claims, considering
that inflation had been high for a number of years.
e JS covered how consistency across schemes would be ensured in introducing the new
bandings, covering that data was analysed across the schemes and was tested.
e JS also noted that the uplift would be applied from March, retrospectively, as a policy
decision.
® However, this was countered by the POL view to apply them from the present, rather than
retrospectively, JS highlighted that this was something to be agreed.
@ The new JCG specifically addressed the issues of inflation, awards should take account of
uplifted inflation as and when the award is made. JS highlighted this hadn’t been done on
any of the schemes to date, and that for a small number of GLO cases this would be applied
retrospectively.
@ MEcommented that uplifting awards in line with the JCG is not a complicated process, and
that there now exists JCG guidelines to uplift awards from month to month, suggestion to
consider the optics of the implementation of the guidelines.
¢ EW2 reflected that adopting the latest guidelines was a clear step to take. Reflection was
also taken on the financial impacts of these changes, considering if an award was given
according to regularly updated guidelines much later on, e.g. in 2026, those awards would
be at a disadvantage compared to awards in the present.
BEIS0001192
BEIS0001192
e JS responded saying that there wasn’t as much an economic case for not using these
guidelines but was pushed by legal reasons.
@ RBcommented that the overarching principle is to put claimants in a position that they
would have been in as if the scandal had not happened.
EW1asked why the 1° of March was chosen over the 17" of March to apply guidelines
retrospectively. JS responded that this was an arbitrary decision, accounting in for a grace
period, and unfair to leave out those whose claims had just been assessed before the new
guidelines were published.
@ MK agreed with EW1’s point that perhaps the retrospective application of the guidelines
should be applied in line with the publication date of the guidelines.
@ CCasked SR about his views and the POL view, SR responded that applying these guidelines
were a positive step in the right direction.
e CCasked JS to reflect on the boards discussion and that necessary clearances would be
completed via correspondence.
Project Dashboards
« GLO
o CC commented that with the vast majority of the £75k claims having been issued,
that there was a notable slowdown in how quickly claims were being processed. This
was followed by CC highlighting that the pilot of accelerated case assessments, if
successful would contribute to mitigating the risk of not meeting the August 2024
timeline for delivering compensation to claimants.
o CChighlighted that claims were getting out, though not at the speed that was
desired.
o SRcommented that in a discussion with Niel Hudgell, the feedback was that he
wasn’t clear on what HCRS looked like, and on the 44 outstanding cases, he had an
intention of getting them processed via OC1.
o MKcommented it would be helpful to track what is being spent on admin as part of
the MI, to assess what is being spent to get the awards out to claimants.
o Action: To consider about including this type of data, if we have access to it, and for
what that information might look like across the programme. (Ellen)
o Action: should we resume quarterly letters to the select committee. (Elena)
o. __Large influx of cases, big effort being made on £75k payments where policy changes
are being made,
o. As of the board, CST sign off for the appeals mechanism was being awaited.
o MKcommented that advice was being sought at the clearance level, and that the
aim was to get a response to DBT for the end of the week.
© Harry added that there were plans to speak to Simon’s team, move onto the
detailed design side and that there were lessons learned from the GLO to be applied
to HSS.
* Post Office Process Review
© Currently waiting for the pilot to be up and running, and also waiting for availability
of funding.
BEIS0001192
BEIS0001192
Suspension Remuneration
o° Switch positions for the two entries so that SSR is before PPR in terms of board pack
structure, moving into amber, £5.8m so far was out paid out.
HRS
© CCcommented that more capacity is needed for this project, and that this has been
escalated up to the minister
© $Rcommented that from a collaborative perspective it would be good to get
guidance around whether new processes for HCRS would require ENE staff and OC1
principles. Action for Charlotte
CC noted that these were the published stats on the GOV.UK website.
RB added an addendum — adding that the GLO scheme had reached its target of 90% on
claims.
JM commented that the key issues around resourcing and capture have been logged on the
programme board slide
JM highlighted the resourcing issue was reflected in its narrative. CC responded that this is
something that SCS staff were focusing on addressing.
JM also noted the capture issue and its potential impact on HMG.
CC added that a forensic accountant was being brought in, and that the commercial team
had quoted a 6-week lead time.
JM reflected that DBT’s principal risk had been captured on the programme slide and
resourcing risk that was linked to the resourcing issue. A scope creep risk had also been
covered and the link between this and capture issue.