POL00246095
POL00246095
PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
Post Office Complaint Review &
Mediation Scheme 2014 - 2016
Final Report
Published May 2016
;
CENTRE for EFFECTIVE
DISPUTE RESOLUTION
POL-BSFF-0084158
1
2
2:1)
POL00246095
POL00246095
Post Office Mediation Complaint Review Scheme 2014 - 2016 - Final Report
Introduction
The Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR) was selected via an open tender to
provide mediation services for the Post Office and sub-postmasters as part of the
wider Complaint Review & Mediation Scheme set up by the Post Office along with
other stakeholders.
CEDR’s role throughout the mediation phase of the Scheme, was to provide a panel of
independent mediators who can mediate cases brought by applicants to the Scheme.
We did not review the applications nor did we take a view on the eligibility or
otherwise of individual applications.
CEDR originally reported to the Secretariat of the Complaint Review Working Group
that was set up to review and consider applications’ suitability for mediation, that
were then in turn referred to CEDR for mediation. The Working Group was disbanded
in 2015 and CEDR has since then reported to the Post Office on progress.
All scheduled mediations have now taken place, with the last taking place in February
2016.
This is the final report on the Scheme and follows on from Review No.2 dated 315 July
2015 and the Initial Review dated 24th February 2015.
Resources
In preparation for the Scheme a small panel of CEDR accredited mediators was
selected and briefed on the Scheme’s purpose and the procedures. The mediators
were selected on the basis of CEDR’s assessment of their ability as mediators to
demonstrate an appropriate level of skill and empathy to mediate cases of this nature.
Page [ PAGE ] of [ NUMPAGES ]
POL-BSFF-0084158_0001
2.2
2.3
3
3.1
3.2
4
4.1
POL00246095
POL00246095
Post Office Mediation Complaint Review Scheme 2014 - 2016 - Final Report
It was considered appropriate to use a small group of mediators in order that a
consistent approach to the mediation process for this scheme could be established.
Selection of the mediator for each case was decided by CEDR and was based mainly on
availability and location.
The administration of the cases was undertaken by a team of three CEDR case
managers using the procedure agreed between CEDR and the Working Group
Secretariat at the beginning of the contract. The administration has proceeded
smoothly and no issues of note have occurred. Liaison with the Post Office
administration team also worked smoothly.
Referrals
CEDR received 84 referrals for mediation under the Scheme. When we compared our
data with the Post Office they have identified 85 cases but the additional case was
ultimately considered not suitable for mediation (by Post Office) and was never
referred to CEDR so it has been excluded from the data that appears in this report.
The breakdown of the outcomes of the cases referred to CEDR are as follows:
Status No. Cases
Mediated 44
Withdrawn by Applicants 36
Settled Prior to Mediation
Withdrawn by Post Office
Total Cases 84
Outcomes
Focusing on the outcomes of those cases that proceeded to mediation, 50% resulted in
the dispute being resolved, while 50% remained unresolved. Across the full spectrum
of mediation work that CEDR conducts the average settlement rate is approximately
Page [ PAGE ] of [ NUMPAGES ]
POL-BSFF-0084158_0002
4.2
4.3
5
5.1
5.2
5.3)
POL00246095
POL00246095
Post Office Mediation Complaint Review Scheme 2014 - 2016 - Final Report
60% of cases are resolved at the mediation session and up to a further 20% resolve
within a few weeks of the mediation taking place.
It is difficult to compare one mediation or scheme with another but considering the
significant length of time that many of these disputes have been running, the strong
sense of grievance amongst many applicants, the claim amounts at stake, and the
various external factors involved, a settlement rate of 50% where applicants accepted
final resolution of difficult and sensitive personal circumstances, is, in our view,
reasonably successful.
The remit of the Scheme was to classify the outcomes as either resolved or unresolved
but on other mediation work that we undertake we also review the party’s views on
whether any progress was made if the dispute did not settle at mediation. We have
recorded a number of cases which did not settle, where the mediator considered that
significant progress had been made and it may well be the case that some of the
unresolved disputes will be resolved in the coming weeks.
Process Observations
In terms of the operation of the Scheme, and the collaboration with the Post Office,
the Scheme has worked well. Communication between the Post Office and the CEDR
Case Managers has been very good and Post Office have provided all the required
information on each case in a timely fashion and they have also been willing to be
flexible in their approach which has been very helpful.
Communication with the individual subpostmasters and/or their appointed
representatives has also been good on the whole. There have been some challenges
on individual cases to overcome, largely related to availability, but considering the
nature of the Scheme this was not unexpected.
We often find that identifying a date that all concerned (including the mediator) can
agree on is the most time consuming part of the mediation process so it was no
Page [ PAGE ] of [ NUMPAGES ]
POL-BSFF-0084158_0003
POL00246095
POL00246095
Post Office Mediation Complaint Review Scheme 2014 - 2016 - Final Report
surprise that some cases have taken some time to arrange. Only a handful of cases
however experienced delays.
6 Post Office Approach
6.1 In terms of process management, we found that the Post Office was receptive to
feedback provided by CEDR and worked collaboratively to ensure the process was
effective. They also showed flexibility in terms of accommodating the requirements of
the subpostmasters in terms of availability and allowing them a significant window in
which to consider the offer to mediate.
6.2 In previous reports and since, we have identified a number of points that were flagged
by the mediators as follows:
6.2.1 Subpostmasters’ expectations of the process and potential outcomes which
could create challenging negotiation scenarios;
6.2.2 Ensuring the subpostmasters understand that, in order for the mediation day
to be as effective as possible, all issues they intend to raise should be
identified in advance;
6.2.3 The Post Office considering the need for greater flexibility in their approach
even when expressing confidence in their legal position;
6.2.4 The benefits of professional representation for the subpostmasters.
6.3. Post Office worked with CEDR to address these issues following our early reports and
we believe improvements were made which contributed to some of the Scheme’s
success.
7 Subpostmasters’ Expectations
7.1. Onanumber of the mediations that took place the Subpostmaster has not fully
comprehended the nature of mediation as a process and they have also been
influenced by the wider campaign asserting the failings of the Horizon system. They
did, therefore, sometimes attend with the expectation that they were going into a
compensation process rather than a facilitated dialogue with the Post Office in which
Page [ PAGE ] of [ NUMPAGES ]
POL-BSFF-0084158_0004
8.1
8.2
8.3
9
9.1
POL00246095
POL00246095
Post Office Mediation Complaint Review Scheme 2014 - 2016 - Final Report
claims made by either party do require some prior notification, explanation, evidential
validation and negotiation work. Some applicants and/or their representatives
considered the approval for mediation had indicated an acceptance of liability by the
Post Office, but that was not the case. This issue was addressed following the
publication of Review No. 2 with the provision of more guidance by CEDR and more
dialogue between the Post Office and the subpostmasters’ representatives, prior to
mediation.
Feedback from Mediators
The feedback from the mediators during the final phase (July 2015 to February 2016)
has not identified any new points of action. It was noted, however, that in some of the
mediations, the possibility of a potential group action in the future which had been
emerging outside the scheme had a negative effect on the process and led to a
number of potential settlements failing to be achieved because of the prospect of an
apparent alternative route to redress.
It was also noted from the reports that, despite the best efforts of all concerned, a
number of subpostmasters pursued claims at mediation that had little realistic chance
of success in litigation in the opinion of the assigned mediator (though with the
proviso that mediators do not usually express opinions within the actual mediation),
or reflected expectation that had little prospect of being met by Post Office
negotiators.
However, despite some of the obvious challenges to the scheme, 50% of mediated
cases settled. This suggests that participants found it valuable to have the opportunity
the scheme provided for an intensive review of what their needs were and how they
could be met. In 50% of cases they were met by voluntary agreement at the end of
mediation under the scheme.
Conclusions
The mediation Scheme was a useful process within which individual subpostmasters
have engaged with the Post Office in confidential discussions concerning a sensitive
Page [ PAGE ] of [ NUMPAGES ]
POL-BSFF-0084158_0005
POL00246095
POL00246095
Post Office Mediation Complaint Review Scheme 2014 - 2016 - Final Report
and controversial set of circumstances, and this has led to practical agreed resolutions
in half of the cases mediated allowing these individuals to put the issues they have
behind them.
This scheme was a relatively innovative approach to a very difficult situation and there are
undoubtedly lessons that can be applied in other scenarios involving groups of individuals
with a major grievance against a public or private sector organisation.
CEDR Services Limited
International Dispute Resolution Centre
70 Fleet Street
London EC4Y 1EU
United Kingdom
Contact: John Munton
Director of Dispute Resolution Services
Email: [ HYPERLINK "mailto!
Telephon I GRO H
Page [ PAGE ] of [ NUMPAGES ]
POL-BSFF-0084158_0006