SUBJECT TO LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE
Dated 20 March 2014
POST OFFICE LIMITED
REPORT INTO INITIAL COMPLAINT REVIEW AND MEDIATION
SCHEME
LEGAL ISSUES
Linklaters
Linklaters LLP
One Silk Street
London EC2Y 8HQ
Telephone!”
Facsimile (
GRO
Ref Christa Band/ Jonathan Swil
POL00202008
POL00202008
1
11
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
POL00202008
POL00202008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
We set out in this executive summary our key conclusions on the legal analysis of the
complaints made by SPMRs about Horizon.
The relationship between SPMRs and the Post Office is governed by the standard form
contract which, according to its terms, allows the Post Office to recover losses and is
terminable on three months’ notice without the need to specify a reason. The relationship
between the SPMRs and the Post Office is one of principal and agent and the SPMRs are
not employees. There is no broader duty of care which would extend the contractual
duties owed by the Post Office in any respect relevant to the issues in this Report.
The key factual issue is whether and to what extent Horizon might be said to be reliable,
what defects there may be in it and how any such defects might manifest themselves and
translate into errors in the state of the account between an individual SPMR and the Post
Office. Such relevant legal risks as exist arise only in the event that there are provable
malfunctions in the Horizon system which are causative of losses on the part of the
SPMR.
Absent such proof that Horizon is not working as it should, the Post Office should be able
to recover losses which the Horizon records indicate are owing on an individual SPMR’s
account. If the Post Office is entitled to recover losses, then there can be no question of
a consequential loss claim on the part of the SPMR relating to their recovery (for example
for damage to the SPMR’s business or for stress).
If, in an individual case, a SPMR is able to show that the account between him and the
Post Office, as evidenced by Horizon, is inaccurate, he has a claim to the recovery of any
losses he has mistakenly paid. This would not carry with it a right to claim consequential
losses.
There may be cases in which the Post Office has given inadequate notice of termination
of the contract with a SPMR (for example, terminating him summarily without
justification). In those cases, the SPMR is entitled to payment of what he has lost in net
income over the period — up to three months. He may also, on the facts, have a
consequential loss claim if he argues and establishes that he has lost a chance to sell his
business as a going concern in the period for which he should have been entitled to
notice.
Some SPMRs allege that the Post Office has offered them inadequate training and
support. We do not think that these claims, even if established, affect the Post Office's
ability to recover losses evidenced by the accounts shown on Horizon.
In summary, we think that, absent proof that Horizon is malfunctioning (either generally or
in the specific case) the Post Office has a right to recover losses from SPMRs, the
SPMRs have no right to compensation for such losses and the circumstances in which
there will be a consequential loss claim are limited to those in which inadequate notice of
termination was given, will depend on their facts and should be limited. While we are not
in a position to assess the facts of the claims in the Scheme and the specific amounts
sought in each of them, it appears to us on the basis of the conclusions above that many
of the claims are likely to be over-ambitious and difficult to prove. Accordingly, the total
amount that could be successfully claimed in Court by Applicants may well be only a
A17895240/0.8/20 Mar 2014
1.9
21
2.2
2.3
3.1
POL00202008
POL00202008
fraction of the aggregate amount (approximately £100 million) which they have claimed
through the Scheme.
We set out below the legal analysis which supports these conclusions.
BACKGROUND
This Report has been commissioned by the Board of the Post Office Limited (“the Post
Office”) following concerns over the level of claims and costs and other potential legal and
financial exposure for the Post Office in connection with the Initial Complaint Review and
Mediation Scheme (the “Scheme”).
We understand that the Scheme was established in August 2013 with the aim of resolving
various allegations that had by then been made by certain interested parties about the
Horizon financial transaction and accounting system (“Horizon”) used by the Post Office
and the Post Office's Subpostmasters (“SPMRs”). It was claimed by a small, but very
vocal, minority of SPMRs that there were problems with Horizon and that if Horizon
recorded that there were losses at a particular Subpostoffice this was not necessarily
because the SPMR had stolen or otherwise lost money or stock but because Horizon was
malfunctioning. This issue attracted political comment and there was debate in
Parliament about it.
Importantly, Jo Swinson, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Employment
Relations and Consumer Affairs, noted that there was no evidence of a systemic problem
with Horizon.’ This has also been the Post Office’s conclusion on the information so far
available to it. We note that there is, so far as we understand it, no objective report which
describes and addresses the use and reliability of Horizon. We do think that such a report
would be helpful, though there is a decision to be made about how broad and/or thorough
it needs to be.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
We were initially instructed to prepare a report with the aim of addressing the following
key issues:
3.1.1. Whether and to what extent the Post Office has any legal liability with respect to
complaints made by applicants to the Scheme (“Applicants”).
3.1.2 The nature and extent of the risks arising from and associated with the Scheme in
its current form.
3.1.3 Whether and to what extent the Scheme, as currently structured, can be sensibly
modified in order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its operation, and
mitigate any of the risks identified above.
3.1.4 The nature of any dispute resolution (or similar) mechanisms that could be
established either in order to replace the Scheme or augment its operation. In
particular, whether adjudication, arbitration and the use of ombudsman services
might be more appropriate than the Scheme.
3.1.5 In the event that a decision is made by the Post Office to discontinue the Scheme,
what steps the Post Office could take to minimise any existing legal risks.
‘Hansard, 9 July 2013.
A17895240/0.8/20 Mar 2014
3.2
3.3
3.4
41
POL00202008
POL00202008
This Report covers introductory matters and the legal issues identified in paragraph 2.1.1
above only. Once the Board has been able to consider the legal issues outlined in this
Report we should be happy to assess, in conjunction with the Post Office Executive, how
best we can assist the Post Office in addressing the issues in paragraphs 2.1.2 to 2.1.5.
We anticipate that the Post Office will wish to have regard to, and come to a view on, the
following matters, in light of the conclusions reached in this Report in order to guide the
Post Office’s consideration of the issues in paragraphs 2.1.2 to 2.1.5 above:
3.3.1 Does the Post Office wish to consider paying compensation by reference to
principles other than legal entitlement? If so, how will it articulate and apply those
principles? How will it justify its position to all SPMRs (Applicants and those who
have not complained) and to stakeholders?
3.3.2. Does the Post Office wish to establish a full baseline audit of the functioning of the
Horizon system?
3.3.3. How important is it to the Post Office to determine the facts of each individual
claim? In any claim is the Post Office's stance to be more conciliatory than
adversarial? What are the limits of this approach?
3.3.4 How and to what extent will the Post Office wish to strike a balance between
resolving past issues and putting the future operation of Horizon and the
relationships with SPMRs on a sound footing?
3.3.5 How and to what extent will the Post Office wish to strike a balance between the
matters above and achieving a satisfactory political outcome, including with regard
to what has been said in Parliament about the Scheme and Horizon?
In accordance with our instructions, this Report addresses the issues as a matter of law,
only. We fully appreciate that many of the issues will have political and public relations
implications for the Post Office or may have such implications in the future. We can
certainly, in due course, offer our views as to where such issues may arise in the context
of the matters outlined in paragraphs 2.1.2 to 2.1.5 above. Some measure of political
engagement will doubtless be called for. It is a decision for the Post Office what measure
of criticism or public relations damage it could and should tolerate — this is a factor which
applies whether the Post Office decides to compensate SPMRs otherwise than in
accordance with their legal entitlements or declines to pay such compensation and thereby
doubtless frustrates their expectations. The Post Office may decide that it is sensible to
engage specialist public relations advice to guide the management of this issue.
BASIS OF THIS REPORT
The issues in this Report are discussed primarily from the perspective of the legal rights
and obligations of the parties involved. In preparing this Report we have assumed that:
4.1.1 the 10 spot reviews and 4 cases with which we have been provided are indicative
of all the types of complaint that have been accepted into the Scheme — we have
not seen any other cases;
4.1.2 all legal issues are governed by English law; and
4.1.3 we have been provided with all relevant reported decisions. There has been prior
litigation on issues directly relevant to those raised in this Report. Whether or not
A17895240/0.8/20 Mar 2014
4.2
4.3
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
POL00202008
POL00202008
such decisions are strictly binding (and some may be) they are likely to be
persuasive.
Our observations and conclusions are limited by the following:
4.2.1. we have only reviewed certain documents prepared by or on behalf of Second
Sight, the Working Group or SPMRs or the JFSA and have otherwise had no
contact with any of those parties;
4.2.2 we have had no contact with Fujitsu, the company which designed, provided and
supports the Horizon system;
4.2.3 we are not in a position to test the facts of any of the claims; and
4.2.4 we have been asked not to consider certain matters, including PI and D&O
insurance.
We reference throughout this Report where appropriate the documents from which we
have derived facts forming the basis of our views. All other facts referred to herein are
based on discussions we have had with the Post Office Scheme project team. We would
welcome any comments on facts or background we have stated in this Report which
appear to be inaccurate or incomplete. They could affect the views and conclusions we
have reached.
WHETHER AND TO WHAT EXTENT THE POST OFFICE HAS ANY LEGAL
LIABILITY WITH RESPECT TO COMPLAINTS MADE BY APPLICANTS
Duties owed by the Post Office to SPMRs and duties owed by SPMRs to the Post
Office
It is helpful to start this section with an overview of the legal relationship between the Post
Office and the SPMRs. That, self evidently, provides the foundation for the issues
identified in the various complaints made by SPMRs.
Contract
There is a contract which we are told is in standard form and which all SPMRs are
required to sign. We have a copy described as the 1994 issue of the standard contract
with SPMRs, amended to include all contract variations issued since 1994, although the
document was never issued in this form to SPMRs (“the Contract’).
We understand that certain SPMRs dispute whether they signed a contract at all and there
may, in individual cases, be debate about which variations were received and/or are
effective. This would be an issue which would need to be resolved in any particular claim.
We have assumed in this Report that the contractual terms which apply are those in the
version of the document which we have received.
Under the Contract, the Post Office owes duties to the SPMRs and in principle breach of
any of those duties could found a claim. That claim would only be valuable, in the sense
of entitling the SPMR to damages, if the breach could be shown to be causative of loss on
the part of the SPMR. We highlight relevant terms of the Contract as appropriate below.
Agency
Clause 1 of the Contract provides that:
A17895240/0.8/20 Mar 2014
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.10
5.11
POL00202008
POL00202008
“The contract is a contract for services and consequently the SPMR is an agent
and not an employee of Post Office Ltd.”
This is important as the agency relationship gives rise to specific duties on the part of the
SPMR which are detailed further below (see paragraphs 5.25 and 5.45 below).
Non-employment
The SPMRs are not employees of the Post Office. This is critical as it means that there
are certain legal protections, both statutory and at common law, to which SPMRs are not
entitled. Not only is this clear from Clause 1 of the Contract it was also established in
Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Post Office Limited’ and we note that in later cases,
for example Moeze Lalji v Post Office Limited,° the position seems to have been accepted
and the contrary not argued.
No relevant duty of care
Where the parties are in a contractual relationship, that is the starting point for
determining their duties where the conduct in question is covered by terms of the
Contract. So if the conduct relied on for the claim is conduct covered by the Contract, the
contract should determine the extent of the parties’ rights and liabilities. That is not to say
that there may not be an implied (or even an express) term to the effect that the party
rendering the performance should do so with reasonable skill, care and diligence. Where
the party in breach can be said to have performed his contractual duty negligently then the
party suffering the loss can claim in either tort (negligence) or contract. But this does not
mean that he can rely on a duty of care in negligence to extend the duties owed under the
contract.
If the SPMRs wished to allege that the Post Office owed them a broader duty, not covered
by the Contract, then they would need to allege and establish that the Post Office owed
them a duty of care. On the usual principles, this would depend on an assumption of
responsibility by the Post Office in the relevant respects. The existence of the Contract
does not preclude there being a duty of care, but for matters covered by the Contract, the
Court should not find that one party assumed a responsibility which would extend the
duties he owed beyond the Contract.
What the SPMR cannot do is to extend the duties of the Post Office by claiming some ill-
defined and over-arching duty of care covering all aspects of the relationship between the
Post Office and the SPMR, as this would interfere with the allocation of risks under the
Contract.
In the respects which are relevant for the purposes of this Report we do not consider that
the SPMR will be able to establish a duty of care and we think that the relevant obligations
will be defined by, and limited to, the Contract.
Nature of the complaints made
We have reviewed the 10 spot reviews and the 4 case Reports conducted by Second
Sight that have been provided to us. While they represent only a small sample of the 150
Applications which we understand were accepted into the Scheme, we assume that for the
2 [2003] ICR $46
> [2007] EWHC 5 (QB).
A17895240/0.8/20 Mar 2014
5.12
5.13
5.14
5.15
POL00202008
POL00202008
purposes of this Report, they are representative of all the complaints accepted into the
Scheme.*
The spot reviews and case Reports generally show that SPMRs’ complaints range from
substantial monetary claims to a general dissatisfaction with their relationship with the
Post Office as a result of their experiences with Horizon and several other or related
complaints somewhere in between (some SPMRs have several of these issues). In
particular, we have seen complaints made about:
5.12.1 wrongful “loss recoveries” in respect of amounts reported by Horizon as due to the
Post Office, including in some cases, various categories of alleged consequential
losses, in one case, following the determination of the relevant loss recovery
action against the Applicant in Court and in another, after a SPMR had been
suspended and lost access to Horizon;
5.12.2 Horizon-related customer payment malfunctions or lost cheques and transaction
corrections resulting in the loss of limited sums (in some cases, under £100);
5.12.3 unauthorised foreign exchange transactions being entered into the Horizon system
without a SPMR's knowledge, but without any specific allegation of loss incurred
by the SPMR as a result;
5.12.4 printing of excess receipts in respect of a 67p postage transaction;
5.12.5 an inability of Horizon properly to account for GIRO payments and SPMRs having
to trust the Post Office about transaction corrections;
5.12.6 criminal charges: in circumstances where the SPMR has been subject to criminal
allegations of false accounting but where they say the false accounting arises from
cheques being lost in the mail or where they have retracted an admission made
under caution to the criminal conduct;
5.12.7. wrongful termination of SPMRs’ contracts;
5.12.8 inadequate training given to SPMRs by the Post office in respect of Horizon; and
5.12.9 inadequate telephone or other day-to-day support services provided by the Post
Office to SPMRs.
We have not, nor are we in a position to, investigate the facts of these complaints. They
would have to be seen on a case by case basis. Our comments below are based on
principles of general application, but the result they produce in any one case will depend
on the particular facts. Horizon is a particular issue in this respect and deserves comment
of its own (see paragraphs 5.20ff below).
Some of the complaints made are no more than observations on, and frustrations with, the
operation of Horizon. They have not been translated from facts into allegations that a
contractual duty has been breached and are not articulated as legal claims.
Generally, the complaints fall into a number of categories:
5.15.1 wrongful recoveries of “loss” from SPMRs by the Post Office and consequential
loses arising therefrom;
5.15.2 wrongful terminations of the Contract and consequential losses arising therefrom;
+ We understand that while the spot reviews themselves were conducted prior to the establishment of the Scheme, all of the
complaints the subject of the spot reviews were subsequently accepted into the Scheme.
A17895240/0.8/20 Mar 2014
5.16
5.17
5.18
5.19
5.20
5.21
5.22
POL00202008
POL00202008
5.15.3 inadequate training and support leading to losses, both direct and consequential.
The reference to consequential losses covers variously lost earnings (beyond a three
month period), damage to other business interests, damage to reputation, stress and ill
health.
We turn to considering each group of claims.
Wrongful loss recovery
The Post Office regularly recovers “losses” from SPMRs. This happens by one of four
methods:
5.17.1 The SPMR notices that there is a loss shown in his statement of account and
makes good that loss without a formal request from the Post Office;
5.17.2 The Post Office requests that the SPMR makes good a loss and the SPMR pays in
response to that demand;
5.17.3. The Post Office, after an investigation process which envisages the participation of
the SPMR, holds back money from the next payment due to the SPMR to cover a
loss which has arisen; or
5.17.4 The Post Office takes civil proceedings for the recovery of a loss and is
successful.
We note that the Post Office recovers losses through any and all of the above methods on
a regular basis. The vast majority of SPMRs accept not only the Post Office’s legal right
to recover such losses, but also the way in which they are calculated through Horizon.
The decisions made by the Board now as to the circumstances in which such losses will
be “repaid” or reversed will potentially affect not only those SPMRs who have brought
complaints to date but also all those SPMRs who have paid losses without complaint.
There are two main issues in the recovery of losses:
5.19.1 the way in which losses are calculated; and
5.19.2 the Post Office’s legal entitlement to seek those losses from a SPMR.
The way in which losses are calculated
It is this question which has given rise to the dispute between aggrieved SPMRs and the
Post Office. It focuses on the operation of Horizon.
We do not know what was said to SPMRs at the time of Horizon’s introduction in 2000 as
to its purpose and status. Nevertheless, it seems to be accepted by all involved that
Horizon produces and maintains the accounts on which all parties rely.
The SPMR is, day to day, responsible for inputting transactions to the Horizon system. It
provides a record not only of what the SPMR has received from the Post Office by way of
stock but also what he has sold, and the cash he has received. Horizon is the only system
used to record transactions; the Post Office holds no other relevant records. We
understand that during the period covered by the complaints to the Scheme, at least once
a month and potentially as often as at the end of every week, a SPMR was obliged to
prepare and sign a document entitled “Cash Account (Final)" and send it to the Post Office
or complete an equivalent process by declaring via an electronic system the amount of
A17895240/0.8/20 Mar 2014
5.23
5.24
5.25
5.26
5.27
5.28
5.29
POL00202008
POL00202008
cash that he holds. The SPMR also conducted a manual hand count of cash and stock in
the branch and compare them to the levels recorded in Horizon.
Our understanding of the operation of the Horizon system is far from complete. It would
be helpful to understand more about the way in which the statement of account shows the
losses. Is it, for example, clear which relate to transactions with or for the benefit of other
companies and organisations, for example the DVLA or the DHSS? This may be
important when it comes to considering what “caused” the losses in an individual case.
Section 12, paragraph 4 of the Contract provides:
“The Subpostmaster must ensure that accounts of all stock and cash entrusted to
him by Post Office Ltd are kept in the form prescribed by Post Office Ltd. He must
immediately produce these accounts, and the whole of his Post Office branch cash
and stock for inspection whenever so requested by a person duly authorised by
Post Office Ltd.”
This duty to keep an account also arises under the general law by virtue of the
principal/agent relationship. An agent is required to keep an accurate account of all
transactions entered into within the scope of his agency and he has to be ready to produce
that account at any time to his principal. If he fails to keep and produce accounts then the
principal is entitled to assume everything against him.>
SPMRs are asked to agree accounts regularly. We understand that they signify their
agreement by an appropriate entry on Horizon. If a SPMR disputes the state of his
account, he is free not to agree that account on Horizon.
An agent is usually held bound by his own accounts save if he can show that he made a
mistake. Once an account is agreed, the principal can sue on it. We think that there is a
good argument that at law, once the SPMR signifies his agreement to an account on
Horizon which shows a balance due to the Post Office, the Post Office can sue on this as
an account stated. This appears to be the basis of the decision in the Castleton case.
The principle of an account stated also applies where debts are owed in both directions.
So, once Horizon has set amounts owed by the Post Office to the SPMR (if any) against
amounts owed by the SPMR to Post Office in Horizon and the SPMR signifies his
agreement to them, the accounts are settled. Generally, settled accounts will not be re-
opened, unless drawn up under a mistake or the agent is guilty of fraud. ®
Horizon is an electronic point of sale IT system used in Post Office branches. It tracks
transactions and also records levels of cash and stock. We are told, and can readily
appreciate, that Horizon is a complex double entry accounting system, made the more
complicated because of the range of products and services which the Post Office sells. It
also connects to other systems for particular services, for example, banking.
Suffice it to say for present purposes that it is possible that Horizon will, at the end of
every day and therefore week, show either a shortfall or a surplus. There are two ways in
which Horizon could present an inaccurate picture of the “true” state of account between
SPMRs and the Post Office. Either the SPMR could have keyed in transactions
incorrectly, or there could be some malfunction with Horizon itself. User error is a risk with
any system. The Contract would entitle the Post Office to recover in any case where there
was user error on the part of the SPMR and this would be the result even if it could be said
5 See Bowstead & Reynolds on Agency, 19" Edition, Article 50, paragraph 6-092
© Ibid, paragraph 6-097 and 6-098
A17895240/0.8/20 Mar 2014
5.30
5.31
5.32
5.33
5.34
POL00202008
POL00202008
- as some SPMRs have - that Horizon is confusing or that its user-friendliness could
generally be improved.
It is the reliability of the Horizon system as a matter of principle which is important. If
there are doubts about the reliability of the system then this could obviously impact on the
Post Office's ability to claim losses since it calls into question whether such losses exist at
all. This is the fundamental question and one which has not yet been satisfactorily
addressed.
Second Sight have not done what we would have expected them to do in terms of an
investigation into Horizon. The logical and obvious start for their work would have been a
thorough review and description of how Horizon is supposed to work, its day to day use by
the SPMRs and an in principle identification of any weaknesses and likely points of
malfunction. This should be done without reference to the facts of any particular case and
must be done in conjunction both with the Post Office and Fujitsu. Second Sight should
have produced a report which clearly and objectively sets out what is known about Horizon
at a level of detail which can then be used as a baseline in any individual case where the
complaint is that Horizon was not working properly.
We understand that Second Sight are due to produce a generic report which will set out
and describe themes and the types of loss that they have identified from the Applications
that have been submitted to the Scheme. Such a report would not fulfil the objectives we
here describe. Nor does the work Second Sight seem to have done so far fulfil those
objectives either. They have descended into the detail of individual cases and
commented on the particular issues of which complaint is made. They have done so
without reference to any robust evidence as to how and why there may have been
malfunctions with Horizon or how any such malfunctions could have caused the losses in
the particular case. The views which Second Sight have expressed in individual cases are
not supported by the sort of detail or evidence which would enable any conclusions to be
safely drawn from them. There may be a question as to whether Second Sight have the
expertise which would allow them to do the work required to a satisfactory standard.
We would, further, have expected Second Sight to have discussed its work in progress
with the Working Group. Drafts should be available and the parties should have an
opportunity to comment. Second Sight seem to have relied on concerns raised by the
JFSA’ to prepare their report which they have used to challenge the Post Office, but they
do not address any fundamental questions about the problems with Horizon. These
factors further illustrate the idiosyncratic nature of Second Sight's approach.
Even without the baseline report which Second Sight should have produced, it seems to
be accepted generally that there are no systemic weaknesses in the Horizon system. This
much has been made plain by:
5.34.1 the Post Office. Anne Chambers, a Fujitsu system specialist, gave evidence in the
Castleton case to the effect that there was no evidence whatsoever of any
problems with the system. We understand that a Dr Gareth Jenkins of Fujitsu
provided expert reports for the Post Office in several criminal cases. These reports
dealt with the Horizon system. He gave oral evidence in only one case (that of
Seema Misra). That case resulted in a conviction. In all other cases the fact that
he was not required to give oral evidence strongly suggests to us that there was no
substantive challenge to his evidence.
7 See, for example, paragraph 4.1 of the Second Sight Interim Report of July 2013
A17895240/0.8/20 Mar 2014
5.35
5.36
5.37
5.38
5.39
5.40
5.41
POL00202008
POL00202008
5.34.2 Parliament;? and
5.34.3 Second Sight. Its Interim Report of July 2013 concluded: “We have so far found
no evidence of system wide (systemic) problems with the Horizon software”.®
We find it surprising that, against such a conclusion as to Horizon’s general reliability,
Second Sight find it possible to make comments in individual cases that it is likely that it is
a difficulty with Horizon which has led to the losses. The reasons for such a view are not
explained nor is there any general evidence on which to draw which could provide further
illumination.
Audits are carried out by the Post Office on a regular basis and we assume that these are
considered in determining whether Horizon shows an accurate state of account. Given the
lack of any sensible information about the operation of Horizon we are unable to comment
as to the likelihood that in a particular case the conclusion could or should be reached that
it was problems with Horizon which caused the account of a particular SPMR to show a
loss.
There is an important question in this regard: who bears the burden of showing that in a
particular case, Horizon did not accurately reflect the state of the account between the
SPMR and the Post Office? The SPMR will have regularly signified his agreement to an
account — e.g. by signing the “Cash Account (Final)” at the end of each week - which
confirms the existence and extent of losses and the Post Office is able to rely on this as a
settled account.
In Castleton the Post Office relied on authority to the effect that an agent (the SPMR) who
produces accounts for his principal which contain statements that money has been
received is bound by those accounts unless he can show that the statements in the
accounts were made unintentionally and by mistake."
The question, therefore, is how would a SPMR show that there had been a mistake and
what sort of evidence would be required before he would be allowed to reopen a settled
account? The SPMR would need to adduce evidence which when tested and compared
against the account in Horizon, showed that he had unintentionally made an error inputting
information into Horizon (although even in that case, the terms of the Contract would not
absolve the SPMR, as we explain below) or that as a matter of arithmetic or logic, the
account stated by Horizon could not possibly be correct. In other words, he would need to
do what the SPMR tried but failed to do in Castleton.
The Post Office’s legal entitlement to seek losses from a SPMR
In everything we have seen, no point appears to have been taken as to the Post Office’s
right, as a matter of principle, to recover losses from the SPMR. All the debate seems to
focus on the way in which the losses are calculated. Nonetheless, it is important to
determine the legal foundation for the Post Office’s claim to losses.
Section 12, paragraph 12 of the Contract is headed Losses. It provides:
5 Seent
° See paragraph 8.2(a).
© Shaw v Picton (1825) 4 B&C 715: Camillo Tank Steamship Co Limited v Alexandria Engineering Works (1921) Times LR
134
A17895240/0.8/20 Mar 2014
10
5.42
5.43
5.44
5.45
5.46
5.47
POL00202008
POL00202008
“The Subpostmaster is responsible for all losses caused through his own
negligence, carelessness or error, and also for losses of all kinds caused by his
Assistants. Deficiencies due to such losses must be made good without delay.”
Paragraph 13 makes it clear that this obligation does not cease on the SPMR relinquishing
his appointment and extends to losses which come to light after he leaves.
Section 12, paragraph 17 is also relevant here. It provides under the heading “Relief”:
“Counter losses: A Subpostmaster may exceptionally not be required to make
good the full amount of certain losses at his office. If he feels entitled to relief in
making good a loss he should apply to Post Office Ltd.”
This paragraph contemplates that the circumstances in which a SPMR will not be required
to make good a loss will be “exceptional” although clearly this issue only arises if the
SPMR is liable for the loss in the first place.
The wording of paragraph 12 is curious. It makes a SPMR responsible for losses caused
by his “negligence, carelessness or error” but makes him strictly responsible, with no such
qualification, for all losses caused by his Assistants. We do not know what the thinking
was behind this distinction.
In any event, the fact that the SPMR must be in “error” is a low threshold and implies no
mental element: the SPMR can be mistaken without being careless and without there
being any question of dishonesty on his part. Taken at face value, however, and where
the loss is caused by the SPMR rather than his assistant, the SPMR would not, under
paragraph 12 be automatically responsible for all losses if it could not be shown that he
was at least in error.
There is another basis for the recovery of losses which requires attention. As noted, the
SPMRs are agents of the Post Office. The characterisation of the relationship as that of
principal and agent gives rise to a number of duties as a matter of law, though where, as
here, there is also a Contract, they have to be seen in the context of what the parties have
thereby expressly agreed.
The agent is required to account in equity to his principal."’ This is effectively a procedure
which enables the financial position as between the principal and agent to be determined.
It does not of itself entitle the principal to claim any shortfall. In order to claim whatever
losses are highlighted by the taking of the account, the principal has to establish his right
to them. For example, this may be through breach of contract or the common law duty of
an agent who holds money for his principal to pay over or account for that money at the
request of his principal." Moreover, where the agent cannot satisfactorily explain what
has happened to the principal's property or money, presumptions may be made against
him which will lead to substantive liabilities such as those mentioned above."*
We understand that the Post Office does exercise discretion as to the recovery of losses
where circumstances make that a reasonable reaction. For example, we were told that if
there is a “scam” which is recognised to be popular the Post Office will take steps to warn
SPMRs, it will issue a procedure giving guidance as to how the scam can be combatted
and may consider (depending on the circumstances of the particular case) not recovering
" Bowstead & Reynolds on Agency, 19" Edition, Article 51, paragraph 6-094.
* Ibid paragraph 6-099.
Ibid paragraph 6-096.
A17895240/0.8/20 Mar 2014
11
5.48
5.49
5.50
5.51
POL00202008
POL00202008
losses due to the scam for such period as it is reasonable to expect the SPMRs to be
familiarising themselves with the procedure. We include this point not because it impacts
on the legal liability to repay losses per se but because such a practice would narrow very
considerably, or remove completely, the scope for a SPMR to argue that a particular loss
was caused by something other than his own negligence, carelessness or error, and
therefore not recoverable from him.
In summary, we think that there is a sound contractual basis for the recovery of losses,
which is supported or in any event, supplemented, by the general law governing an
agent's duties to his principal.
Claims for “compensation” for the recovery of losses by the Post Office from
SPMRs
Whilst the issue in the complaints is sometimes referred to in terms of “compensation”,
this is not an accurate expression for the particular claim insofar as it relates to losses.
The question is: in the particular case, did the Post Office have the right to recover
losses? If the Post Office did, then there is no question of the SPMR being entitled to
“compensation.” If the Post Office did not, then again no question of compensation arises:
the Post Office is simply unable to claim the money and if it has been paid, the SPMR has
a right to recover it. This is a restitutionary, not a compensatory, claim.
In practical terms, the issue is cases in which the Post Office has, in fact, claimed and
been paid the losses and the SPMR is now disputing its entitlement to do so and seeking
to “reverse” that payment. It is important to distinguish three groups of cases:
5.50.1 those in which the Post Office has secured a conviction for theft or false
accounting and the SPMR is now seeking to claim back the losses on which that
conviction was based;
5.50.2 those in which the Post Office has secured a civil judgment for the recovery of the
losses; and
5.50.3 those in which there has been payment of the losses (or potentially a claim on the
part of the Post Office which has not yet been satisfied but from which the SPMR
now seeks relief) but the Post Office’s entitlement has not been determined by the
civil or criminal Courts.
The Scheme is only apt to deal with cases in the third group. It is worth noting at this point
that Section 2 of the Draft Scheme Settlement Policy states that the objectives of the
Scheme are to:
5.51.1 listen to SPMRs concerns;
5.51.2 explain the Post Office’s position;
5.51.3 offer solutions where possible;
5.51.4 compensate if loss has been unfairly suffered;
5.51.5 demonstrate that the Post Office is being transparent; and
5.51.6 ensure that the Post Office’s decisions are defensible.
Cases in which there is a criminal conviction
A17895240/0.8/20 Mar 2014
12
5.52
5.53
5.54
5.55
5.56
POL00202008
POL00202008
A criminal conviction does not of itself entitle the Post Office to claim the losses from the
SPMR but where the SPMR has been so convicted it is clear that the Post Office would be
entitled to recover the losses on which the conviction is based as a matter of the civil law,
or through ancillary orders made in the criminal proceedings.
The two offences with which SPMRs are most often charged are theft and false
accounting, both of which are offences of dishonesty. If the conviction followed a guilty
plea, the SPMR can be properly taken to have made an unequivocal admission as to all
the elements of the offence, since the criminal law of England and Wales does not
recognise “pleas of convenience”. If the SPMR pleaded not guilty, the high standard of
proof in criminal proceedings means that it is likely to be appropriate for the Post Office to
rely on it in other contexts. In cases involving allegations of theft or false accounting, a
conviction necessarily involves a finding that the SPMR acted dishonestly, this being a
critical element of those offences. In such cases, there could be no strict liability basis for
either a guilty plea or a finding of guilt. Moreover, SPMRs facing such allegations would
in general have been eligible for legal aid under representation orders (if they could not
fund legal representation themselves). It may safely be assumed, therefore, that in
general they were legally advised and represented, or had the opportunity to be so.
If the SPMR has been convicted of a relevant offence the only basis as a matter of law on
which the Post Office should entertain a claim for the repayment of sums claimed from
the SPMR is if it were to conclude that there were doubts about the evidence on which the
conviction was based. However, if the Post Office did so conclude, the situation would be
much more complex than simply dealing with certain individual claims for “compensation.”
The Post Office in its capacity as a prosecutor has duties of disclosure which extend
beyond the date of conviction in any particular case. In R v Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court
(Ex p Watts),"4 it was observed that private prosecutors are subject to the same
obligations to act as ministers of justice as the public prosecuting authorities. Any
material in the possession of the Post Office which might cast doubt on the safety of any
particular conviction ought therefore to be disclosed to the convicted party. The
“Settlement Principles” in the Draft Settlement Policy of December 2013 state:
“5.6 Settlements involving convicted Applicants should only be offered where
there is clear evidence of a miscarriage of justice.”
This is consistent with the above analysis.
Cases in which there is a civil judgment
If the Post Office has obtained a civil judgment against the SPMR, the Post Office's
entitlement is clear and established. The SPMR will have had an opportunity to dispute
the claim and an opportunity to appeal the decision should he have been unhappy with it
at the time. Indeed, as a matter of law he is prevented from seeking to re-open any issue
covered in the prior claim: it is now res judicata. This means that the SPMR could not
bring a civil claim seeking to reopen the issues covered by the judgment. In certain
circumstances, however, he could seek to reopen the issues by seeking permission to
appeal the civil judgment after the period within which he is ordinarily only entitled to do
so. The appeal Court has a discretion whether to allow such a late appeal and will weigh
various factors including the interests of the administration of justice, whether the failure to
appeal in time was intentional and whether there is a good explanation for it. A SPMR
™ [1999] 2 Cr App R 188
A17895240/0.8/20 Mar 2014
13
5.57
5.58
5.59
5.60
5.61
5.62
5.63
POL00202008
POL00202008
who has had a civil judgment awarded against him would probably need to show a
substantial change of circumstances, such as leading new and material evidence about
the workings of Horizon, to have any chance of being given permission to appeal out of
time.
The considerations outlined above in relation to criminal convictions do not apply in
relation to civil litigation: in principle the Post Office could repay to a SPMR the sums
which it received under the judgment and/or relieve the SPMR of any liability for the
judgment debt. But any decision to do so would be entirely voluntary and need careful
thought and clear rationalisation. If it could be interpreted as a recognition that Horizon is
in fact unreliable then there are obvious consequent complications both for further civil
litigation but more importantly in the criminal context (both retrospective and prospective)
as detailed above. It may also have political or public relations ramifications.
The Scheme information memorandum states that Applicants “may put [their] case
through the Scheme even if the Courts have already given judgment against [them].”
Rejecting claims simply because there is a civil judgment covering the matter would seem
to run counter to this. We do not know the thinking behind including this wording in the
Scheme memorandum.
Cases in which the Post Office’s entitlement is not yet established by a Court
If no Court has yet given a decision in relation to a SPMR, the Post Office has a genuine
decision to make as to whether or not to press claims for losses or to repay those already
recouped.
Each case would have to be considered on its own facts and depend on what the SPMR
alleged about the reasons why the Post Office is not entitled to claim the losses. So far as
we can see from the cases considered to date, there are:
5.60.1 general allegations as to the unreliability of Horizon; and
5.60.2 specific allegations as to factors which may have affected Horizon in the particular
case.
General allegations about Horizon do not, we think, help. It would be far more satisfactory
were there to be a reasoned Report as to why Horizon is thought to be working properly (if
that is the case) but even without that, a general claim that there are “problems with
Horizon” is not, we think, enough to cast doubt on the Post Office's claim for losses. The
Horizon system works satisfactorily for the vast majority of those who use it and accounts
will have been agreed, as noted above.
Specific allegations as to Horizon’s malfunctions have also been made and to some extent
“investigated” by Second Sight. These have included or been said to be caused by:
5.62.1 power Cuts;
5.62.2 incompatible use of telephone lines with Horizon;
5.62.3 intermittent internet connectivity; and
5.62.4 the ability to “centrally input” transactions and thus directly, and without a SPMR’s
knowledge, adjust Horizon data sent by a SPMR.
Second Sight have certainly expressed concern — and more - in relation to certain of
these supposed deficiencies in or effects of Horizon. But since they have singularly failed
A17895240/0.8/20 Mar 2014
14
5.64
5.65
5.66
5.67
POL00202008
POL00202008
to support their views with any reasoned explanations, still less any clear evidence, it is
not possible to conclude that any of these allegations have merit. If brought before a civil
Court in this form the Court would have little difficulty in concluding that the case that
Horizon was at fault and resulted in losses being inaccurately recorded was not made out.
There is a further point: not only would the SPMR have to establish that there was a fault
with Horizon or some external factor which would have affected its operation, it would also
have to be shown that those facts caused the “losses” which the SPMR is now seeking
relief from. Second Sight’s work, so far as we have access to it, is entirely silent as to
their reasoning on this point.
If the Post Office concludes, in a particular case, that there are reasons for doubting the
record which Horizon has provided and on which the claim for losses is based — in other
words, where the Post Office concludes that there may be a mistake in the account and
there may therefore be a basis for re-opening it - the question arises of how the SPMR’s
claim for recovery would work. As a matter of common sense, if the Post Office decides
that in a particular case it has no entitlement to claim the losses, we anticipate that the
Post Office would simply refund the money/relieve the SPMR from the liability without the
need for any formal claim or proceeding. But the SPMR would have a claim at law to
recover the money and this is important since if the Post Office were repaying/relieving in
such a case it may well wish to be sure that it was doing so in satisfaction of a legal
obligation.
The Post Office’s right to seek payment of the losses arises both under the Contract and
the general law because of the agency relationship. If the losses do not exist - because
the records produced by Horizon are not accurate, then there is no right on the part of the
Post Office to claim them. Absent express provision to the contrary, it is not a breach of
contract to claim money to which you are not entitled. Though it would be a breach of
contract to withhold payment from other monies due. So, the question whether a loss
recovery is also a breach of contract may turn on how the Post Office recouped the loss.
This matters since there may be a claim for consequential losses if there is a breach of
contract claim.
The SPMR would have the burden of showing not only that there were losses but also that
there was a causal link between the losses and the actions of the Post Office on which he
relies for his claim. Several cases we have seen suggest that there is at best a tenuous
link between the alleged failings of Horizon and the loss incurred (if any such link is even
alleged). For example, case M014 alleges that long running problems operating Horizon
which gave rise to over £8,000 in loss recoveries to Post Office were largely fixed when a
phone line was unplugged in a back office. This suggests a) there was nothing wrong with
Horizon per se b) that the incorrect use of the phone line was an unfortunate error that
might have been caused by inadequate training or support or could have been due to
incompetence on the part of the SPMR or is an unusual set of circumstances which is not
reasonably foreseeable. However, this could still give rise to liability on the part of the
Post Office (albeit not in respect of Horizon failures specifically) if the Post Office is found
not to be entitled to recover loss in those circumstances because the relevant SPMR's
conduct was not negligent or in error, within the meaning of Section 12, paragraph 12 of
the Contract.
Consequential losses
A17895240/0.8/20 Mar 2014
15
5.68
5.69
5.70
5.71
5.72
5.73
POL00202008
POL00202008
There can be no question of a claim for consequential losses based simply on the
recovery by the Post Office of losses if the losses were properly payable and the Post
Office was entitled to the money.
Even if the Post Office was not entitled to, but did, claim losses in a particular case, the
SPMR has no claim for consequential losses since the SPMR does not have a claim for
damages for breach of contract to which the other losses could be “consequential”. We
think that the better analogy is that the claim is a resitutionary one and the aim of such a
claim is to reverse a financial benefit which has otherwise been received. It carries with it
no notion of attendant “losses.”
As we mention above, if the Post Office has, in order to recover losses, withheld money to
which the SPMR claims to be entitled then there is in principle a breach of contract claim.
However, normally damages for breach of a commercial contract relate to financial losses
only, as damages are only awarded for losses reasonably in the contemplation of the
parties as not unlikely to result from the breach. Normally, no damages would be awarded
for injury to feelings, mental distress, anguish or annoyance. This is so even though such
reactions might have been perfectly foreseeable at the time of the contract.'* Whilst
stress which is so severe that it causes an actual breakdown in health may be
compensable if it was in the contemplation of the parties as a not unlikely consequence of
the breach, it seems highly unlikely that that test would be met here. The SPMR would
also have to show, by clear and cogent evidence, that the damage to his health had been
caused by the Post Office's conduct in recovering losses to which it was not entitled.
Damages are also not normally awarded for loss of reputation flowing from a breach of
contract, unless the loss of reputation in turn directly causes foreseeable financial loss.
So, for example, an employee of a business run corruptly might be able to claim damages
for consequential financial loss suffered as a result of reduced future employment
prospects by reason of the loss to his reputation as a result of being associated with the
business. It seems unlikely such consequential loss would be recoverable here for any
loss recovery by the Post Office that is in breach of contract - the fact of the loss recovery
would need to be made known widely and the SPMR would need to be able to show that
this somehow harmed his future earning capacity.’®
We think that the better analysis is that the question of consequential losses only arises if
the Contract has been terminated on less than three months’ notice, as to which, see
paragraph 5.77 to 5.83 below.
Restitutionary claim
If an SPMR can show that he made a payment on the basis that he was liable to make
that payment to the Post Office when in fact he was mistaken as to the existence of the
liability, he has a restitutionary claim for the repayment of the money." That claim focuses
on the “unjust enrichment” which the Post Office will have received. It is not a damages
claim but a restitutionary action for money had and received. For practical purposes this
means that there is no question of a claim to consequential loss on the part of the SPMR.
All that the SPMR would have to show is that there was no liability to make the payment
but he believed that there was and this caused him to make the payment. There is no
requirement for fault on the part of the Post Office and it does not matter if the SPMR has
'5- Chitty on Contracts, 31* edition, paragraph 26-137, 138
© Chitty on Contracts, 31* edition, paragraph 26-141 - 142
"” Kelly v Solari (1841) 9 M&W 54; Aiken v Short (1856) 1 H&N 210
A17895240/0.8/20 Mar 2014
16
5.74
5.75
5.76
5.77
5.78
5.79
POL00202008
POL00202008
himself been careless."
Such a claim can only work on behalf of the SPMR if the Post Office is not contractually
(or otherwise legally) entitled to the payment.'? On the basis of that analysis, it would
mean, therefore, that a settled account would have to be re-opened or that the SPMR
would need to show that the Post Office is not entitled to recover loss.
The restitutionary claim for money had and received will not be available to the SPMR
where he appreciated that there was a risk that the Post Office was not entitled to the
money but decided to pay on the basis that he accepted that risk. In those cases, the
SPMR will effectively have settled the Post Office’s claim and this is treated as a
compromise which the Courts will not allow the SPMR later to reopen.” This is a fact
sensitive issue and would need to be explored in each case. The real question is whether
in paying the money the SPMR was prepared to take the risk that it might not be legally
due but it was in his interests to pay the money anyway.
It is also clear that if the SPMR was once entitled to a restitutionary remedy based on his
mistake in making the payment, he will lose that right if the dispute with the Post Office is
resolved and cannot be reopened. That would be the case if the civil Court had given
judgment in favour of the Post Office. Then the SPMR could not recover without also
setting aside the judgment. Even if there is no judgment, if proceedings have been
started and the SPMR then pays to settle the claim he will be treated as having
compromised. The law will not allow such bargains to be reopened, not least because of
the concem to achieve and respect finality in litigation.”' If litigation has not been started
then there needs to be a contract of compromise before a restitutionary remedy will be
ruled out.
The Post Office's Draft Settlement Policy of 2013 sets out, in section 5, certain “Principles
for Settlement.” Those principles indicate the Post Office's approach to settling claims
with SPMRs. These include that the SPMR needs to establish that the matters raised
have caused them loss, that the alleged harm arises directly out of or was an obviously
foreseeable consequence of a breakdown in the business relationship between the SPMR
and the Post Office and that settlements will generally be driven by commercial fairness
rather than legal principles.
Termination of contracts
The Post Office is entitled to give three months’ notice to terminate the Contract with the
SPMR. If in a particular case the SPMR’s Contract has been terminated on three months
notice, he can have no remedy arising out of that termination. It does not matter that the
Post Office based its decision to terminate on facts which turned out to be disputed,
flawed or mistaken (such as the reliability of Horizon) as the Post Office is entitled to
terminate the Contract on three months’ notice for any or no reason.
The effect of this is that the most that a SPMR may be entitled to is the pay (or whatever
entitlements) were due during the notice period, reduced for any costs of doing business if
they were not incurred. Moreover, the SPMR is under a duty to mitigate his or her losses
and so should look for alternative employment during that three month period. Any
"8 Barclays Bank v Simms [1980] QB 677
"© Portman Building Society v Hamlyn Taylor Neck [1998] 4 All ER 202
20
See Kelly v Solari, Barclays Bank v Simms.
2 Marriot v Hampton (1797) Term Rep 269
A17895240/0.8/20 Mar 2014
17
5.80
5.81
5.82
5.83
5.84
5.85
POL00202008
POL00202008
unreasonable failure to find an alternative source of income would reduce the claim
(though with a three month notice period this is not of huge practical relevance).
There may well be cases in which the Post Office has terminated the contract summarily —
in other words on no notice. Here different considerations may arise. The facts of a
particular case may justify summary termination — for example theft by a SPMR may well
justify the conclusion that the SPMR is in breach of his obligations and the Post Office can
accept that breach as terminating the contract. However, if the facts do not entitle the
Post Office to accept the breach as terminating the contract summarily, not only would the
SPMR be entitled to claim the three months’ remuneration which he would have received
had notice been given, he may also have a right to consequential losses within the
principles which govern consequential loss claims for breach of contract.
The normal rule for assessment of contractual damages is to compensate the claimant
such that they are put in the position they would have been in had the contract been
properly performed. Consequential losses (such as loss of use or lost profits) are also
recoverable where they are not considered to be too remote.
The traditional test for remoteness is whether the loss “may fairly and reasonably be
considered either as arising naturally, i.e. according to the usual course of things, from
such breach of contract itself, or such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the
contemplation of both parties, at the time they made the contract”. The Courts have
decided that the meaning of “reasonable contemplation” will depend on the knowledge of
the parties at the time of the contract, and that the loss must be “of that kind”
contemplated by the parties.
In any damages claim, there must be a clear link between the defendant's breach and the
claimant's loss, or in any event the breach must be the “dominant cause” of the loss. An
intervening act of a third party or the claimant itself may break the chain of causation,
depending on the court's appraisal of the circumstances of the case, as may intervening
events which were reasonably foreseeable by the parties.
In the case of a SPMR who runs an associated business, such as a convenience store or a
newsagent, it may be said by the SPMR that terminating his Contract as a SPMR would
be likely to have a knock on effect on the viability of his associated business. Moreover, it
might be said that depriving an SPMR of the three month notice period also deprives him
of a three month window in which to seek a purchaser of his business as a going concern.
If the business does in fact close because of the termination of the SPMR’s Contract and
there is evidence that it might have been capable of being sold had the SPMR had three
months in which to do so, there is the possibility of a claim for such losses. Whether such
an argument could be made depends on the facts, not least whether there was an
associated business and a candidate to take over the SPMR’s role acceptable to the Post
Office.* In practice in this sort of claim, because the Court is asked to consider a
counterfactual which has not arisen, the Court makes an assessment of the prospects of a
sale “the loss of a chance” and applies a discount to the claim to reflect this.
Inadequate training and support
Under the Contract the Post Office is obliged to provide training. Section 15 paragraph 7
provides:
2 Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Ex. 341, 354-356.
25 See Laljiv Post Office Limited [2003] EWCA Civ 1873, CA
A17895240/0.8/20 Mar 2014
18
5.86
5.87
5.88
5.89
POL00202008
POL00202008
“7.1 Post Office Ltd will:
7.1.1 provide the Subpostmaster with relevant training materials and
processes to carry out the required training of his Assistants on the Post
Office Products and Services;
7.1.2 inform the Subpostmaster as soon as possible where new or
revised training will be necessary as a result of changes in either the law or
Post Office Services; and
7.1.3. where appropriate (for example where clause 7.1.2 of this section
16 applies) update the training materials (or processes) to provide new
training materials (or processes) to the Subpostmaster.
However, it is the Subpostmaster’s responsibility to ensure the proper
deployment within his Post Office branch of any material and processes
provided by Post Office Ltd and to ensure that his Assistants receive all the
training which is necessary in order to be able to properly provide the Post
Office Products and Services.”
This seems clear: the Post Office must provide training and keep it up to date. This is not
defined but could well extend to a help-line or other day to day advice on the operation of
Horizon. But the SPMR is still responsible for the day to day operation of the
Subpostoffice. In other words, the SPMR accepts the consequences of any lack of
training provided to his Assistants or their failure to put the training into effect.
Section 15, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Contract are also relevant here. They provide that:
“A Subpostmaster must provide, at his own expense, any suitable assistants with
the relevant skills which he may need to carry out the Post Office work in his sub
Post Office branch (“Assistants”).
Assistants are employees of the Subpostmaster and the Subpostmaster will
consequently be held wholly responsible for any failure on the part of his
Assistants to:
241 apply Post Office rules or instructions as required by Post Office Ltd;
2.2 complete any training necessary in order to properly provide Post Office
Services ...
The Subpostmaster will also be required to make good any deficiency of cash or
stock which may result from his Assistants’ actions or inactions.”
It is also likely that there would be a term implied into the Contract to the effect that the
SPMR should be entitled to reasonable training and support, particularly in relation to
bespoke systems or practices, such as Horizon, which he could not be expected to know
from his own general knowledge and past experience.
Many SPMRs do not seem to have a complaint as to the level of training and support
which the Post Office has given them. We do not think that this is conclusive. Whilst
Horizon operates as a common system and one person’s experience of it should be
similar to another's, the same could not be said for training and support. It would be quite
possible for the Post Office to have failed to meet its obligations in relation to one SPMR
whilst easily fulfilling them in relation to many others.
A17895240/0.8/20 Mar 2014
19
5.90
5.91
5.92
5.93
5.94
5.95
POL00202008
POL00202008
Moreover, in order for this to translate into a claim against the Post Office, it would have
to be shown that it was causative of losses. It is clearly not enough to say: “I was given
bad support and any deficiencies in my account must be due to that.” There would have
to be an investigation of how and why the deficiencies had arisen. Were they in any
sense attributable to a failure of training? This may be difficult to establish in any
particular case.
The Settlement Principles contemplate that compensation might be paid where training is
inadequate or poor. The principles make clear that compensation will not be paid for
general complaints about the standard of training and that the Applicant needs to
demonstrate facts peculiar to his circumstances which justify compensation.
Regulation
It does not appear to us that SPMRs would have a basis for complaint in respect of
Horizon by reason of any regulation governing the Post Office's conduct. Although
OFCOM has since October 2011 had responsibility for regulating the provision of postal
services, OFCOM'’s own website makes it clear that it does not regulate the Post Office.
The Post Office does not appear on the FCA register as an FCA-authorised entity. It does
appear as an “appointed representative” (in connection with its provision of financial
products on behalf of principals such as the Bank of Ireland) and a “payment services
agent” (in connection with its provision of money transfer services on behalf of, for
example, MoneyGram International). Neither of these functions requires the Post Office to
have separate FCA authorisation.
Limitation
Limitation is a factor which may well be relevant in certain claims. The standard limitation
period for claims in contract is six years from the date of breach. For tort claims it is six
years from the date on which the loss was suffered. Restitutionary claims are time barred
six years from the date of the enrichment on which the claim is based. Any claim brought
outside the limitation period can be met with the defence that it is out of time and no
further consideration of the merits is required.
Where the claim is based on a mistaken payment or a fact deliberately concealed from
the claimant by the defendant, time does not start to run until the claimant has discovered
the mistake or concealment, or could with reasonable diligence have done so.** Some of
the cases we have seen suggest that SPMRs have been aware well before the Scheme
was instituted of the matters about which they have complained to the Scheme. At least
in those cases, the deferral of the commencement of any limitation period may not make
any difference to the barring of the SPMR’s claim.
The Settlement Principles state:
“5.11 Settlements should reflect the fact that for the purposes of the Scheme,
Post Office will not be relying on any legal limitation or time-bar defence and will
consider all Complaints regardless of age.”
We do not know what publicity has been given to this statement and whether the Post
Office is free to, or indeed wishes to, reconsider its position.
% See Limitation Act 1980, s 32(1) and Kleinwort Benson Limited v Lincoln City Council [1999] 2 AC 349
A17895240/0.8/20 Mar 2014
20