HUJ00000006
HuUy00000006
Post Office Limited - Document Classification: STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
Thursday 31 October 2024
FAO Neil Hudgell
Hudgell Solicitors
By Email Only
Dear Neil
Thank you for your letter dated 23 October 2024, which I have now had an opportunity to consider and review
with my team.
We are grateful for the time you have taken to set out the concerns you have with the reassessment process
and now try to address those points in this response.
As you know, Post Office is committed to improving the Horizon Shortfall Scheme (“Scheme”) processes and
where we can, will work with you collaboratively to address issues and concerns that might arise.
I should start by saying that I agree that at times we have not made offers to postmasters as quickly as we would
like to have done and this is not acceptable.
I share your concerns on many of the issues you raise, which I note are specific to the reassessment process
and we are actively at this moment working to try to significantly improve things for postmasters in terms of
speed and efficiency.
Lack of legal advice on offers
In addition to the issue of reassessment you begin by raising the fact that in your experience, due to the fact
that applicants are not provided with legal advice at the start of the process, the initial offers made do not
usually cover all heads of loss that an applicant could claim and that your firm has been able to successfully
secure significant increases for applicants when you are instructed at the post offer stage.
As you know, the HSS was originally set up to be a user-friendly scheme which it was envisioned would not need
the involvement of lawyers. That has clearly not been the position in every case, but we are not set up and
funded to provide paid for advice to applicants from the outset.
To date, however, the majority of offers made have been accepted prior to a case entering the Dispute
Resolution Procedure (“DRP”). In total, as of 24 October 2024, there have been 2333 acceptances, 91% of which
have been received prior to a case entering the DRP.
As you have helpfully set out, there are clearly cases where a reassessment is required, where offers are not
considered full and fair.
Post Office Limited is registered in England and Wales. Registered No, 2154540.
Registered Office 100 Wood Street, London, EC2V 7ER -
Post Office andthe Post Otfice logo are registered trade marks of Post Ofice Limited postoffice.co.uk
Letter to Hudgell Solicitor 311024 10f 4
HUJ00000006
HUJo0000006
Post Office Limited - Document Classification: STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
Delay
The Independent Advisory Panel (“Panel”) is independent of Post Office meaning Post Office has no direct
contact with Panel.
As you are aware, all communications are via Post Office’s solicitors, HSF. Panel’s independence is an essential
feature of the Scheme and ensures impartiality, consistency, integrity and fairness.
Returning a case for Panel reassessment, however, is only one option: While the Terms of Reference are silent
on the point, HSF’s view, is that significant and complex new information is better referred back to the Panel in
the interests of obtaining a full and fair outcome for the applicant.
Where there has been an expert report commissioned for example and there is substantive information which
Panel did not see, we believe that the fairest outcome for your clients is to allow the Panel to revisit their
recommendations in light of the new material, although I accept that this comes with a longer timescale before
an offer is able to be sent.
Where Post Office and an applicant consider that Panel reassessment might not be the most appropriate route
for a case, an alternative route through the DRP can be agreed between the parties.
The Terms of Reference provide "These dispute resolution procedures may be varied by agreement between
Post Office and the Applicant".
If an applicant did not want the case to be reassessed by Panel and Post Office were in agreement, or the
information being provided does not warrant a Panel reassessment from a technical perspective, the case can
be considered internally by an informed decision-making group to determine a potential uplift on a case.
It’s pretty clear that this is your preference and therefore should you believe non-utilisation of the independent
Panel on disputed cases is not in your client’s best interest, I suggest you let us know on a case-by-case basis
accordingly.
Should both parties agree it may also be more sensible in a minority of cases to proceed straight to mediation,
and equally we could agree to do that where it is best for the applicant.
Reassessment of cases does extend the time a case is in the DRP with apologies.
On average it has taken approximately 6 months from receipt of a fully articulated claim to issue of an outcome
letter and although that time is decreasing, we agree that we have more work to do.
We are proposing a different approach in which we identify and agree with claimant representatives or in the
case of unrepresented applicants, with applicants themselves, upfront the best route to an offer.
Where significant and complex information is being provided, we will recommend a Panelreassessment as the
best option for your client, but we agree this needs to be triaged more proactively and as advised above we will
take into account your client’s preference.
The number of Panel sessions increased from 1 a week to 2 a week in September 2024, with between 5 to 10 -
cases being assessed per session. The number of cases assessed depends on size, complexity and the cases
which are ready for Panel assessment.
. postoffice.co.uk
Letter to Hudgell Solicitor 311024 2 0f 4
HUJ00000006
HUJo0000006
Post Office Limited - Document Classification: STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
Where additional Panel sessions are needed the number of sessions per week will be increased to meet demand
as required.
Dispute Resolution Procedure
1am concerned to hear that you have experienced delay in securing dates for Escalation meetings (“EM”) or
mediations.
The DRT has dates available for both Escalation Meetings and mediations and can quickly facilitate these
meetings should they be requested.
I would be very interested in any specifics you may have on this please.
As you know, the DRT engages with legal representatives or applicants on the phone or in writing explaining
next steps and offering an EM or mediation depending on the most appropriate forum to try to resolve the
matter.
It is our understanding that the difficulties you refer to in your letter about securing EMs and mediations is in
connection with a preference on your part for cases to proceed to EM or mediation but instead being informed
by POL that cases will be returned to Panel for reassessment. Hopefully the above commitment gives you some
comfort on this now.
Joint losses
Third party losses are outside the scope of the Scheme.
As you are aware, to be eligible for the Scheme, a person or company must have had or have a direct contract
with Post Office. Those who did not have a direct contract are not eligible for redress through the Scheme.
Partnerships are eligible and each partner can claim their own individual losses, but the scheme has not been
set up to deal with claims that may be brought against Post Office on a different legal basis outside of a
contractual breach in relation to Horizon.
The Panel is alive to the issues suffered by postmasters who see the impact on their families and where possible,
they have recommended redress in relation to this, especially in terms of D&I.
Extension of the HSS or the creation of an alternative route for redress for third parties is, however, a matter
for Government.
Consequence of delay
POLis acutely aware of the impact the delays have on applicants and you are aware that I have spoken to many
postmasters at restorative justice and other meetings and seen and heard their experiences and the toll it has
taken on them firsthand. Once again, I apologise for this and continue to offer my time to any of your clients
who might find it helpful to speak to me with or without another Post Office Executive present and indeed with
or without yourselves.
The Remediation Unit's sole aim is to provide full and fair redress to applicants as quickly as possible and I am
conscious that in terms of timeliness we are not in many people’s eyes delivering.
. postoffice.co.uk
Letter to Hudgell Solicitor 311024 3 of 4
HUJ00000006
HUJo0000006
Post Office Limited - Document Classification: STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
The £75k Fixed Sum Offer is one way in which Post Office is attempting to redress applicants fully, fairly and
more quickly. With you collaboration I believe this could make a significant impact on the DRP population to
the benefit of your clients.
I also recognise that there is more that can and will be done by Post Office to improve and speed up processes,
with an emphasis on tracking reassessment cases and understanding through close monitoring of cases, where
delays are occurring and what can be done to expedite the process.
Funding for treatment costs was obtained in June 2024 following requests and feedback from legal
representatives. ~
Prior to this, Post Office did not have funding to pay for treatment costs for applicable DRP applicants.
Approvals of treatment costs commenced in September 2024, but we apologise that notification of approvals
to legal representatives took longer than expected.
Post Office accepts that there was a delay which may have negatively impacted your clients. The blockages have
now been resolved and there should be far fewer, if any delays, in approval of treatment costs.
We note your comments on case 001177 and particularly the time it has taken for Post Office to approve these
costs. Apologies.
Approval of these costs was notified to your firm on 29 October 2024.
The way ahead
Post Office has been working consistently to improve efficiencies in the Remediation Unit, with a particular
emphasis on the DRP for some time. The points flagged in your letter of 23 October 2024 highlight those
delays. Feedback is welcomed and changes will be and have been made.
I know that you already have regular meetings and contact with the DRT andother members of the team, but
we would be happy to arrange a meeting to discuss any points raised in this letter as a separate point and will
continue to work collaboratively with your firm and other legal representatives to improve Scheme processes
to aid in expediting and streamlining the reassessment process and the Scheme more generally.
If you have any further queries or points you would like to discuss, please do let us know.
Yours sincerely
GRO
Simon Recaldin
Remediation Unit Director
Post Office Limited
postoffice.co.uk 4
Letter to Hudgell Solicitor 311024 of 4