‘at House of
Commons
Business and Trade Committee
Post Office and Horizon
scandal redress:
Unfinished business
First Report of Session 2024-25
RLITO0000582
RLITO000582
Business and Trade
Committee
The Business and Trade Committee is appointed by the House of Commons
to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department
for Business and Trade and its associated public bodies.
Current membership
Liam Byrne (Labour; Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Chair)
Antonia Bance (Labour; Tipton and Wednesbury)
John Cooper (Conservative; Dumfries and Galloway)
Sarah Edwards (Labour; Tamworth)
Alison Griffiths (Conservative; Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)
Sonia Kumar (Labour; Dudley)
Charlie Maynard (Liberal Democrat; Witney)
Gregor Poynton (Labour; Livingston)
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Liberal Democrat; Maidenhead)
Matt Western (Labour; Warwick and Leamington)
Rosie Wrighting (Labour; Kettering)
Powers
The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers
of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO
No. 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk.
RLITO0000582
RLITO000582
Publication
This Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report, was
Ordered by the House of Commons, on 17 December 20924, to be printed. It
was published on 1 January 2025 by authority of the House of Commons. ©
Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2025.
This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament
Licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/copyright.
Committee reports are published on the Committee’s website atwww.
parliament.uk/CommonsBTC and in print by Order of the House.
Contacts
All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Business and
Trade Committee, House of Commons, London SW1A OAA. The telephone
number for general enquiri. _}the Committee’s email
address is commonsbt¢ You can follow the Committee on X
(formerly Twitter) using @CommonsBTC.
RLITO0000582
RLITO000582
Summary 1
1 Introduction 2
Background 2
Business and Trade Committee Scrutiny 2
Overview of different financial redress schemes 3
2 Horizon Shortfall Scheme 4
Role of Post Office Ltd 5
Providing up-front legal advice 7
Stronger instruction to lawyers 8
Speed of the Independent Panel 9
Establishing a case facilitator for the Horizon Shortfall Scheme 10
Giving claimants the benefit of the doubt 1
Cutting down on needless requests for information 12
Mediation route 13
Introducing legally binding timeframes 14
3 Group Litigation Order Scheme 15
Introducing binding timeframes 15
Role of independent adjudicator 16
Requests For Information (RFls) 18
4 Horizon Convictions Redress Scheme 19
Informing claimants of their right to redress 19
Remove the fear factor 21
Binding timeframes 22
5 Transparency for legal costs 23
Conclusions and recommendations 24
RLITO0000582
RLITO000582
Appendix: The Redress schemes
Formal Minutes
Witnesses
RLITO0000582
RLITO000582
29
31
33
RLITO0000582
RLITO000582
Summary
It has been one year since the premiere of the ITV DramaMr Bates v The Post
Office. The drama attracted widespread attention to the Post Office Horizon
scandal and the unacceptable length of time involved in delivering redress
to victims. Some improvements have been made to the redress schemes and
they are now moving faster. But not fast enough.
The most recent data published by the Government shows that just £499
million out of the £1.8 billion set aside for redress has been paid out to
claimants. Seventy-two per cent of the total budget for redress has still
not been paid. Worse still, the schemes are so poorly designed that the
application process is akin to a second trial for victims.
To light up this injustice, the Committee held two evidence sessions in
November 2024, where we questioned claimants, legal experts, Post
Office Ltd officials and Government Ministers on the issues that have been
encountered. Our five key recommendations to Government are:
Remove the Post Office from administering any of the redress schemes.
Up-front legal advice should be offered to claimants and paid for by the
schemes’ administrators for all schemes.
Introduce binding timeframes for scheme administrators at each individual
stage of each scheme, with financial penalties passed on to the claimant if
these deadlines are not met.
Appoint an independent adjudicator for each scheme and empower them to
provide directions and case management to ensure claimants move through
the process swiftly.
Provide clear, strong instructions to taxpayer-funded lawyers to maximise
the speed of redress, eliminate legal delays, enhance the benefit of doubt
given to claimants, and publish the costs spent on lawyers for the public
and Parliament to see.
RLITO0000582
RLITO000582
1 Introduction
Background
Widely regarded as one of the worst miscarriages of justice in British legal
history, the Horizon Scandal saw Post Office Ltd pursue sub-postmasters
after errors in the Post Office’s IT System, Horizon, caused false shortfalls to
show in financial accounts.’ Post Office Ltd demanded that sub-postmasters
covered these shortfalls, and caused thousands of people to be suspended,
dismissed, convicted and imprisoned for theft and false accounting. Sub-
postmasters suffered significant damage to their reputations, wellbeing and
finances. Several took their own lives?
Business and Trade Committee Scrutiny
In the last Parliament, our predecessor Committee scrutinised the Horizon
scandal in March 2020 and published an interim Report on 17 February
2022. The Committee interrogated the issue of financial redress for affected
sub-postmasters in two evidence sessions on 16 January and 27 February
2024, and published a subsequent report on 7 March The Government of
the day was wise to accept some of the Committee’s recommendations in
that report, including removing Post Office Ltd from administering the new
Horizon Convictions Redress Scheme and allowing those on the Horizon
Shortfall Scheme who have already settled their claim to have it reviewed?
But not all of our recommendations were accepted. And the delays persist.
After the general election, the newly formed Business and Trade Committee
returned to the injustice of slow redress payments once again. We held
two evidence sessions on 5 November and 12 November 2024. We heard
from claimants still fighting for redress, including Sir Alan Bates, along with
“Post Office scandal explained: What the Horizon saga is all about” BBC news, 30 July
2024.
Explanatory Notes to The Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Bill, Bill 16 of 2023-
24, para 3.
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, Eighth Report of Session 2021-22,
Post Office and Horizon - Compensation: interim report, HC 1129.
Business and Trade Committee, Third Report of Session 2023-24, Post Office and Horizon
redress: Instruction to deliver, HC 477.
Business and Trade Committee, Third Report of Session 2023-24, Post Office and Horizon
redress: Instruction to deliver, HC 477.
RLITO0000582
RLITO000582
claimants’ lawyers; Government and Post Office lawyers; the Independent
Adjudicator on the Overturned Convictions Scheme; Government Ministers;
and Post Office Officials.
Overview of different financial
redress schemes
There is no single route to financial redress for victims of the Horizon
Scandal, nor is there a single body that administers the schemes. There
are different schemes available to sub-postmasters and their families
depending on how the scandal has affected them. These are set out in the
Appendix.
RLITO0000582
RLITO000582
2 Horizon Shortfall Scheme
The Horizon Shortfall Scheme (HSS) is the worst of the redress schemes. Dr
Neil Hudgell told the Committee that he had a number of ‘fundamental’
concerns,®and Gareth Thomas MP, Minister for Services, Small Business and
Exports at Department for Business and Trade (‘the Minister’) told us that he
was most worried about the HSS.’ As such we have put together a ten-point
plan, which the Government should implement as soon as possible.
The Committee’s ten-point plan for delivering redress under the HSS
1. The Post Office should be removed from delivering redress to claimants
through the HSS.
2. If the Post Office cannot be taken out in a timely way, complex cases
should be transferred to the Department immediately, while the Post Office
looks to automate standard payments for simple cases.
3. Claimants should be provided up-front legal advice, paid for by the
scheme’s administrators.
4. There should be an explicit over-riding instruction to lawyers to use best
endeavours to assess claims and deliver justice that is swift and fair.
5. The Independent Panel must meet full time until the majority of cases
have been assessed.
6. An Independent Adjudicator should be appointed to act as a case
manager throughout the scheme.
7. Claimants should be given the benefit of the doubt with the evidence
provided in support of the claim.
8. Offers should be made at the top of the range for each category of loss.
9. Challenged offers should move into external mediation rather than be
reassessed by the Independent Panel.
10. Binding timeframes for each stage of the process should be imposed,
with financial penalties awarded to the claimant if those deadlines are not
met.
62
os
Role of Post Office Ltd
The Horizon Shortfall Scheme is administered by Post Office Ltd. The
Committee has repeatedly expressed concern at Post Office Ltd’s
involvement in providing financial redress. This is because at the height of
the Horizon scandal the Post Office acted as ‘judge, jury and executioner’
when pursuing sub-postmasters.® The Committee’s March 2024 report, Post
Office and Horizon Redress: Instruction to Deliver, recommended that the
Government immediately remove the Post Office Ltd from any involvement
from delivering redress.° While the Government agreed that the new Horizon
Convictions Redress Scheme would be delivered by the Department for
Business and Trade (‘the Department’), it did not move the Horizon Shortfall
Scheme.”
In September 2024, the new Labour Government announced a new
independent appeals process for sub-postmasters in the HSS, which
enabled sub-postmasters to have their claim reviewed by the Department”
This is a welcome step, but we regret that the Government has not chosen
to fully administer the Horizon Shortfall Scheme. While the Minister said
that he understood the Committee’s concern, he said that taking Post Office
Ltd completely out of the process would ‘undoubtedly’ slow down redress.”
However Nigel Railton, the Interim Chair of Post Office Ltd, has since told
us that Post Office Ltd should not be dealing with redress." This echoes the
evidence provided to Sir Wyn Williams’ Post Office Horizon IT inquiry by the
Post Office Chief Executive, Nick Read.”
When we questioned Post Office Ltd officials in November, they told us the
speed of redress on the HSS had accelerated ‘considerably’ since February
2024." This is true. However, the latest figures still show that just 18 per cent
During the scandal, the Post Office used its own investigation branch to bring private
prosecutions against its staff. It did this under the general right in English law for
individuals and organisations to pursue private prosecutions without using the Crown
Prosecution Service. For more information, please see “Post Office scandal puts private
prosecutions in dock,” Financial Times, 11 January 2024.
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, Eighth Report of Session 2021-22,
Post Office and Horizon - Compensation: interim report, HC 1129, para 48.
Business and Trade Committee, Third Report of Session 2023-24, Post Office and Horizon
redress: Instruction to deliver, HC 477, para 8.
Business and Trade Committee, Fourth Special Report of Session 2023-24, Post Office and
Horizon redress: Instruction to deliver: Government Response to the Committee’s Third
Report, HC 738, para 1.
Department for Business and Trade press release, New independent appeals system for
postmasters impacted by Horizon scandal, 9 September 2024.
gist
229
Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry, Transcript of Nicholas Read oral evidence, 11 October 2024.
Q238
RLITO0000582
RLITO000582
10.
1.
of claimants who applied after 2020 have been paid. There are also 14 per
cent of claimants who applied before the 2020 deadline who still have not
settled their claim.'®
One solution that Mr Railton suggested to us was for simple cases—that
is, those who are claiming the fixed sum £75,000 offer—to be administered
by Post Office Ltd, while complex cases going through full assessment
should be considered by the Department.” Nigel Railton also told us that
Post Office Ltd is investigating ways to automate the end-to-end payment
process to accelerate simple claims.” According to modelling by Post Office
Ltd, between 80 and 85 per cent of cases are expected to be simple cases.”
recommen dation
Despite repeated criticism from this Committee, Post Office Ltd is still in
charge of the Horizon Shortfall Scheme. While the Committee welcomes
that the appeals process will be administered by the Department
for Business and Trade, swift action must be taken to deal with the
thousands of claimants who still have not been given the redress that
is owed to them. Sub-postmasters do not want Post Office Ltd to deal
with redress and neither does Post Office Ltd itself. Post Office Ltd should
not be deciding on what financial redress is owed to victims of its own
scandal. The Government must finish the job in hand and remove Post
Office Ltd from the Horizon Shortfall Scheme.
recommen dation
If the Government is not able to do this for all claims in a timely way,
Post Office Ltd must in the first instance transfer complex cases—that
is, cases that are going through full assessment—for the Department
to administer. For claimants who choose to take the fixed sum offer,
Post Office Ltd must continue to take swift action and find solutions
to automate case processing. Post Office Ltd should provide regular
updates to the Committee on the progress of this.
Department for Business and Trade, Post Office Horizon financial redress data as of 29
Novemebr 2024, 3 December 2024.
gest
238
ass
RLITO0000582
RLITO000582
12.
13.
14.
20
21
22
23
RLITO0000582
RLITO000582
Providing up-front legal advice
The HSS does not fund legal representation for claimants prior to receiving
their first offer from Post Office Ltd. Claimants and legal representatives
are concerned with this arrangement, describing the lack of legal support
as burdensome for claimants, who are required to complete a detailed and
complex questionnaire, and then answer requests for further information
without any financial support for legal advice prior to the initial offer?°
Survey evidence submitted to Sir Wyn Williams’ Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
underscores that claimants continue to encounter difficulties navigating
the Horizon Shortfall Scheme. In a YouGov survey, 47 per cent described the
Scheme as hard to understand, and a further 57 per cent found it hard to
complete the paperwork.” Worse, claimants’ lawyers told us that, where
there is legal advice, offers double.” Jill Donnison—an HSS claimant who
spoke to us in November 2024—first applied to the HSS without legal advice
and considered her first offer to be fair. When she then sought legal advice,
she learned that her first offer was just over a quarter of what her family
had lost.” It is imperative that legal support is provided at the onset of the
applicant’s journey at no cost to them to ensure claimants are given the
offers that they are entitled to.
recommen dation
Horizon Shortfall Scheme claimants currently receive no legal advice to
help complete the complex questionnaire that acts as the gateway to the
scheme. This acts against them receiving the full redress they are due.
We recommend HSS claimants be given access to no-cost legal advice to
support their entry into the scheme.
Q204
YouGov, Horizon Inquiry: Phase 7 Surveys.
Q64
we
15.
16.
17.
18.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
RLITO0000582
RLITO000582
Stronger instruction to lawyers
To date, Post Office Ltd has spent £136 million™ on legal fees relating to the
redress schemes, including £82 million to just one firm, Herbert Smith
Freehills, for services including their legal advice on the HSS and Overturned
Convictions Scheme.” This overall legal bill is equivalent to 27 per cent of
redress paid to date.”
This cost may help explain claimants’ experience. They have described the
design of the HSS to us as not ‘user-friendly’ and ‘very legal’ in design and
execution.” This is contrary to the design intention of the Horizon Shortfall
Scheme outlined in evidence provided by Alan Watts of Herbert Smith
Freehills, who said the HSS should allow sub-postmasters to bring claims
without the need for legal advice.” Yet claimants are required to calculate
and justify the basis of their calculation for various types of losses, including
loss of property, opportunity and personal injury or harassment.” Once
received, Post Office Ltd and the Independent Panel may then make further
requests for information and supporting evidence.”
Whether intentional or not, these requirements create unavoidable legal
complexity for claimants, putting undue burden on them to satisfy Post
Office Ltd’s requirements. The value for money administering the scheme is
being damaged by these additional evidential burdens. More flexible and
direct instruction to Post Office Ltd and Herbert Smith Freehills would cut
these costs.
recommendation
The gold-plated legalistic process of the Horizon Shortfall Scheme is not
best value for the public purse. The Government should therefore ensure
that Herbert Smith Freehills and Post Office Ltd are instructed to use best
endeavours to simplify and accelerate the settlement of claims.
Includes VAT
Letter from Post Office Ltd’s Remediation Unit Director Simon Recaldin regarding Post
Office financial redress, 2 December 2024.
As of 29 November, £245 million has been paid to claimants on the HSS: Department for
Business and Trade, Post Office Horizon financial redress data as of 29 November 2024, 3
December 2024.
Qs
naa
Post Office, Horizon Shortfall Scheme: Consequential Loss Principles and Guidance.
Post Office, Horizon Shortfall Scheme: Condequential Loss Principles and Guidance, para
41.1.
19.
20.
21.
22.
3
32
33
34
35
RLITO0000582
RLITO000582
Speed of the Independent Panel
All claims submitted to the Horizon Shortfall Scheme are assessed by
an independent advisory panel, comprising legal specialists, forensic
accountants and retail experts. The panel assesses and recommends ‘first
offers’ to claimants. The Panel’s terms of reference states that the Panel
should meet once a week, with ad hoc and additional meetings to take
place as required.”
Dr Neil Hudgell, a solicitor who represents Horizon Shortfall Scheme clients,
told the Committee that the Panel were meeting twice a week and that they
determine between five to 10 cases per sitting. Based on current throughput,
he said that it would take the panel around 18 months to process the current
outstanding claims.** The Minister said that, while he hoped it will not take
18 months, he said that he was most concerned about the progress of the
Hss.**
Simon Recaldin, the Remediations Unit Director at Post Office Ltd who
oversees the Horizon Shortfall Scheme, agreed that the process is
cumbersome and slow.” He also told the Committee that Post Office Ltd
recently wrote to 16,000 sub-postmasters encouraging them to apply to
the HSS.*° While Post Office Ltd could not give us estimates on how many of
those 16,000 are likely to apply to the HSS and go through full assessment,
it is a major concern that the already backlogged Independent Panel may
now face thousands of new cases.
recommendation
The Committee has learned that it will take around 18 months for the
Independent Panel to assess outstanding claims on the Horizon Shortfall
Scheme. We have also learned that the Post Office are expecting
thousands of new cases to come forward. A panel central to the process
that assesses all claims meeting twice a week will not deliver swift
justice for sub-postmasters. The Independent Panel must be resourced
to meet full time until the majority of first offers have been issued.
Post Office, Horizon Shortfall Scheme: Terms of Reference of the Horizon Shortfall Scheme
Independent Advisory Panel, para 13.
Q62
war
255
gest
23.
24.
25.
26.
36
37
38
39
RLITO0000582
RLITO000582
Establishing a case facilitator for the
Horizon Shortfall Scheme
All existing schemes except the Horizon Shortfall Scheme include provision
for independent and authoritative case facilitation and management. The
design and movement of cases through the HSS is ‘facilitated’ by Herbert
Smith Freehills, a law firm previously instructed to work on behalf of Post
Office Ltd as part of the original Bates litigation and settlement. The direct
involvement of Herbert Smith Freehills has been criticised, including by
former Minister Kevin Hollinrake, who had described the influence of Herbert
Smith Freehills as ‘unthinkable’ in view of its previous role.*
Independent case facilitation is supposed to support parties to identify
and address the barriers to communication and consideration that limit
progress towards a fair and mutually agreeable settlement. This role
is useful for complex or potentially contentious processes, including
financial redress. In the case of the Horizon Shortfall Scheme, however,
survey evidence suggests claimants are dissatisfied with the level of
communication, understanding and speed within the redress process; a net
52 per cent of claimants are dissatisfied with their access to information
required to make informed decisions, and a further net 48 per cent are
dissatisfied with the time it took to progress their application from start to
end.*”
There are 2,291 outstanding claims under the Horizon Shortfall Scheme
waiting to be paid as of 29 November 2024, and there will be an
independent appeal process for settled claims.** Independent case
management and facilitation support would add significant value if
introduced early in the process, with a clear mandate to help rectify sources
of delay and excess legal burden for claims.
Alongside case facilitation, the Committee welcomes the decision of the
Government to introduce an independent appeals process for the Horizon
Shortfall Scheme. The Committee also endorses the views put forward
by the Post Office Horizon Independent Advisory Board on the need for a
Simon Lock, UK MPs File SRA Complaint Against HSF Over Role in HBOS Fraud Scandal,
Law.com, 6 July 2024.
YouGov, Horizon Inquiry: Phase 7 Surveys, page 67.
Department for Business and Trade, Post Office Horizon financial redress data as of 29
Novemebr 2024, 3 December 2024.
Post Office, The Horizon Shortfall Scheme, see independent appeals process
10
27.
28.
29.
40
41
42
43
Scheme Reviewer to provide further oversight and direction over the appeal
process,*° noting the Advisory Board’s suggestions of a potential mandate
that may include:
a. Review of the integrity of settlements under the HSS;
b. Targeted review of cases exhibiting issues arising from ‘structural
concerns’ and to either remit cases to HSS panels for reconsideration,
make alternative compensation awards, or make scheme-wide
recommendations to solve problems;
c. A Panel or Reviewer-based appeals function with any appeals being
client-led.”
recommendation
Claimants under the Horizon Shortfall Scheme lack the same access
to authoritative facilitation and case management direction available
to claimants in other schemes. This can be remedied by introducing
an empowered case facilitator similar to the role played by Sir Gary
Hickinbottom for Overturned Convictions. We recommend that the
Department and Post Office Ltd establish such roles, agreeing their
functions with claimants and their legal representatives.
Giving claimants the benefit of the doubt
The Horizon Shortfall Scheme’s guidance and principles sets out that for
consequential losses, a claimant should demonstrate that there was at
least a 50 per cent likelihood that this loss occurred as a result of a Horizon
shortfall. There are a range of losses that a claimant may have faced as
a result of a Horizon shortfall, such as losses to earnings or property, or as
a result of physical or psychiatric harm. Claimants under the scheme are
required to monetise this loss and provide a calculation showing how this
amount has been quantified.**
This requirement introduces significant complexity for claimants, owing
to the time that has passed since Horizon-related incidents occurred, the
personal circumstances of claimants and the expected deterioration of
evidence over time. The Scheme’s guidance and principles notes that if a
claimant does not have sufficient evidence, Post Office Ltd will still consider
Department for Business and Trade Horizon Compensation Advisory Board, Report of
eighth meeting held on 25 October 2023.
Department for Business and Trade Horizon Compensation Advisory Board, Report of
ninth meeting held on 29 November 2023
Post Office, Horizon Shortfall Scheme: Consequential Loss Principles and Guidance, para
3.4.1.
Post Office, Horizon Shortfall Scheme: Consequential Loss Principles and Guidance.
1
RLITO0000582
RLITO000582
30.
31.
32.
44
45
46
47
48
their claim.** The Minister also noted that the Department has instructed
Post Office Ltd to be as ‘generous as it can’ with the offers that it brings
forward, and that it is continuing to take advice on measures which can be
taken to increase fairness and speed of redress.* It is therefore reasonable
to re-consider whether today’s level of scrutiny of claimants’ evidence
is sufficiently balanced against the objectives of the scheme and wider
standards for managing public money.
recommen dation
The Department should work with Post Office Ltd and claimants’
representatives to establish an independent case facilitator with a
defined role in assessing whether it is reasonable to subject a claim’s
basis of calculation to further scrutiny through requests for information.
When requests for information are considered reasonable, it should
take no longer than 20 working days to be sent to the claimant from the
submission of a claim.
Cutting down on needless requests
for information
Requests for information under the Horizon Shortfall Scheme can be
made following the submission of an application and be conducted in a
manner that is ‘proportionate to the circumstances of that application’?®
This Committee underscores two clear concerns that have been raised in
evidence when referring to requests for information made under the HSS;
namely, the burden placed on unrepresented claimants to answer complex
requests for information about Horizon losses and the delay related to
processing such requests and disclosures between claimants and Post
Office Ltd.*”
The Department has insisted that the purpose of such requests is to
increase rather than drive down the value of offers.** It is not clear that this
principle is being realised, in practice, under a current arrangement which
places significant burdens of disclosure on claimants, including those who
have not sought legal advice.
Post Office, Horizon Shortfall Scheme: Consequential Loss Principles and Guidance, para
3.1.2.
usa
Post Office, Horizon Shortfall Scheme: Terms of Reference, para 5.
Q63
oss
12
RLITO0000582
RLITO000582
33.
34,
35.
36.
49
50
51
RLITO0000582
RLITO000582
recommendation
Requests for information under the Horizon Shortfall Scheme should
only be made where it is deemed reasonable to increase the offer value
to claimants, or in the rare instance where there may be reasonable
concern about a claim’s basis of calculation. Where redress offers
are calculated in-line with indicative bands or redress guidelines, we
recommend that offers should be made at or above the top-end of such
indicative limits. An independent case facilitator should be established
with a role—on appeal by claimant representatives—in swiftly
considering whether a request for information is reasonable for the
above purposes.
Mediation route
Dr Hudgell raised concerns about the structure of the Horizon Shortfall
Scheme and the use of the Independent Panel for challenged cases. He
told the Committee that the majority of challenged first offers are being
resubmitted to the Independent Panel for reconsideration. This means that
disputed offers must wait once again to be reviewed by the Panel, which can
take a further six months.*®
Dr Hudgell recommended that cases challenged by the Government should
instead move into mediation, giving greater opportunity for both sides to
state their case with the aim of reducing the dispute.*° In response, Simon
Recaldin said that they are moving to a system where claimants are given
a choice as to whether their claim should be reassessed by the panel or go
through mediation.”
recommendation
The Independent Panel on the Horizon Shortfall Scheme is already
backlogged. To keep cases moving, disputed first offers to claimants
must not be reassessed by the Independent Panel but instead move
straight into external mediation.
Q66
Q66
Q255
13
37.
38.
39.
52
53
54
55
56
57
RLITO0000582
RLITO000582
Introducing legally binding timeframes
In February 2024, the Chair of our predecessor Committee, Rt Hon Liam
Byrne MP, proposed on the Floor of the House of Commons introducing
legally binding timeframes for reaching first offer and financial settlement,
with financial penalties awarded to the claimant if these timeframes
are missed. This followed a recommendation made by Sir Alan Bates
to the then Minister for Enterprise, Markets and Small Business, Kevin
Hollinrake MP. Our predecessor Committee subsequently recommended
that legally binding timeframes be introduced for each stage of a redress
claim, with financial penalties awarded to the claimant for failure to meet
those deadlines.** We regret that the Government did not accept this
recommendation, claiming that financial penalties would have no positive
effect.**
We raised binding timeframes for each claims process stage with witnesses
during our November evidence sessions. The new Government told us that,
rather than putting in place hard deadlines with penalties, they are finding
alternative ways in which to speed up the process.** But as of November
2024, just £499 million of the £1.8 billion set aside for financial redress has
been paid out across the four redress schemes. This means 72 per cent
of budget for redress has still not been paid. In the case of the Horizon
Shortfall Scheme, 14 per cent of those who applied before the original 2020
deadline have still not settled their claim.”
recommendation
Sub-postmasters should not be left in limbo, waiting years for the
redress that they are due with no light at the end of the tunnel. Ongoing
delays are unacceptable and action must be taken to rectify this. The
Committee reiterates the recommendation of its predecessor—binding
timeframes for each stage of the Horizon Shortfall Scheme process must
be introduced to draw this saga to a close. To ensure that claimants
are not adversely impacted, timeframes should only be imposed on the
administrators of the scheme, so that claimants have the time they want
to consider their positions.
HC Deb, 26 February 2024, col 42 [Commons Chamber]
Business and Trade Committee, Third Report of Session 2023-24, Post Office and Horizon
redress: Instruction to deliver, HC 477, para 14.
Business and Trade Committee, Fourth Special Report of Session 2023-24, Post Office and
Horizon redress: Instruction to deliver: Government Response to the Committee’s Third
Report, HC 738, page 3.
ore
Department for Business and Trade, Post Office Horizon financial redress data as of 29
November 2024, 3 December 2024.
Department for Business and Trade, Post Office Horizon financial redress data as of 29
November 2024, 3 December 2024.
4
40.
41.
42.
58
59
60
61
62
63
3 Group Litigation
Order Scheme
Introducing binding timeframes
Like the Horizon Shortfall Scheme, the Committee is concerned about the
slow speed of tabling final offers to claimants on the Group Litigation Order
(GLO) Scheme. While the Government makes a first offer to 89 per cent of
claimants within 40 days, challenged offers can be a drawn-out process. In
reaction to the speed of redress on the GLO, Sir Alan Bates, who himself has
not yet settled his claim, has called on the Government to complete all GLO
claims by March 2095.°° Claimants’ lawyers, however, have raised concerns
that some claimants are vulnerable and may need longer to consider their
offer.©° These concerns were echoed by the Government.°°
The claimants’ lawyers told the Committee that they expect between 90 and
95 per cent of all claims to be submitted by Christmas 2024." Given that the
Government are making first offers within 40 working days to 89 per cent of
claimants and that claimants receive 80 per cent of their first offer if they
choose to challenge it, Minister Gareth Thomas MP believes ‘substantial’
redress will be paid out on all such claims by the end of March 2025°°
While the Committee is encouraged to hear this, it does not address the
apparent delays once a first offer has been made and then challenged.
As of November 2024, only 47 per cent of full and final claims in the GLO
Scheme have been paid to claimants.®* The Committee is therefore deeply
concerned at the unacceptably slow speed with which final offers are tabled
to claimants on the GLO Scheme.
Q
Q55
qn
Q55
qi
Department for Business and Trade, Post Office Horizon financial redress data as of 29
November 2024, 3 December 2024.
15
RLITO0000582
RLITO000582
43.
44,
45.
46.
64
65
66
recommendation
The Committee welcomes that the majority of first offers for the Group
Litigation Order Scheme will be complete by March 2025. This, however,
does not address the time it takes between first offer and final payment.
Sub-postmasters have waited long enough. The Government should aim
wherever possible to complete Group Litigation Order redress claims
by March 2025 as suggested to us in evidence from Sir Alan Bates. We
know that this will not be possible for some claims due to the complexity
of the claim or the vulnerability of claimants, so the Government
must introduce binding timeframes at each stage of Group Litigation
Order Scheme, with financial penalties awarded to the claimant if
these timeframes are not met. As with the Horizon Shortfall Scheme,
timeframes should only be imposed on the Government side, giving the
sub-postmaster ample time to consider their position.
Role of independent adjudicator
At the final stage of the GLO Scheme, after an Independent Panel has
considered a case, a claimant can make an application to the Independent
Reviewer, Sir Ross Cranston, if they are unhappy with the outcome of their
claim. The Department also has a right to seek an independent review of the
case.
The remit of the Independent Reviewer in this scheme is tightly defined. A
case can only be referred to the Independent Reviewer if there are concerns
of a manifest error, procedural irregularity or substantive error of principle
in the Independent Panel’s final assessment of the claim; or if the Panel’s
final assessment is substantially inconsistent with the scheme’s Guidance
and Principles.®*
Concerns have been raised that the role of the Independent Reviewer in the
GLO Scheme is too constrained. When the former Minister for Enterprise,
Kevin Hollinrake MP, gave evidence to the Post Office Horizon IT Scandal
Statutory Inquiry in November 2024, he said that on reflection, Sir Ross
Cranston should have been a greater role in the GLO at the start, rather
than providing ‘the back stop for a dispute.** When the Committee put this
to the Department, Carl Creswell—the Director of Post Office and Business
Department for Business and Trade, GLO Compensation Scheme Guidance and Principles,
section 3.6.
Department for Business and Trade, GLO Compensation Scheme Guidance and Principles,
section 3.6.
Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry, Transcript of Kevin Hollinrake and Carl Creswell oral
evidence, 6 November 2024 2024.
16
RLITO0000582
RLITO000582
47.
48.
49.
67
68
69
70
Engagement—did not agree with the former Minister, and said that they are
looking into whether the facilitators, Dentons—described by some of our
witnesses as a ‘highly paid postbox’—should play a bigger role.”
While the GLO only has an Independent Reviewer as the final stage of the
scheme, both conviction-related schemes have an independent adjudicator
available throughout the process. Sir Gary Hickinbottom PC is a judge who
acts as the Chair of the Post Office Overturned Convictions Independent
Pecuniary Assessment Panel. It was announced in our November evidence
session that he has also been appointed as the Independent Adjudicator for
the Horizon Convictions Redress Scheme.*
Sir Gary gave evidence to this Committee explaining the powers he has in
this dual role, including the power to give case management directions.
In this instance, Sir Gary can give case directions if a claimant does not
think that their case is moving quickly enough. Sir Gary’s function in these
schemes have been praised by stakeholders, with claimants’ lawyers
arguing that his vast experience as a senior judge means that he is a
respected figure who is able to case-manage large volumes of litigation?
reommen dation
It is disappointing that the Department does not believe the Independent
Reviewer should be given a greater role in the Group Litigation Order
Scheme, despite the former Post Office Minister confessing that it was a
mistake not to do so. Sir Ross Cranston is a former High Court Judge with
a wealth of experience that is not being used to the full. The Government
should give the Independent Reviewer greater powers to case manage
Group Litigation Order claims throughout the whole process.
Qqi58-164
was
Q86
Q83
7
RLITO0000582
RLITO000582
50.
51.
52.
7
72
73
74
75
RLITO0000582
RLITO000582
Requests For Information (RFls)
Redress under the GLO scheme is delivered in accordance with a published
set of guidance and principles, the central goal and overarching principle of
which is to deliver redress that is full and fair to eligible sub-postmasters””
The guidance sets out a burden of proof on the balance of probabilities and
provides for indicative bands for certain heads of loss, for example, loss of
reputation.”
Despite these principles, claimants and legal representatives have
described instances where claims have been challenged by Addleshaw
Goddard, the Department’s legal advisors. This was noted in oral evidence
provided by claimant lawyer James Hartley from Freeths, who noted how
27 per cent of first offers to his clients made by the Department are for ‘less
than half’ of what they had initially claimed’ This problem has contributed
to a perception of Addleshaw Goddard as overly-forensic in assessing
claims” and its requests for information have been cited as a contributor to
delay for GLO claimants and offers which are unfair’
recommen dation
The Department should ensure that offers to claimants are delivered
at or above the top-end of the illustrative redress bands and guidance
established under the guidance and principles of the Group Litigation
Order scheme. Further requests for information should only be made
in order to increase the offer value to claimants, or in the rare instance
where there may be reasonable concern about a claim’s basis of
calculation. A claim’s named case facilitator should have a defined role
in swiftly considering whether a request for information is reasonable for
the above purposes.
Department for Business and Trade, GLO Compensation Scheme Guidance and Principles.
Department for Business and Trade, GLO Compensation Scheme Guidance and Principles,
section 4.
Qa
Q49
Q46
53.
54,
55.
56.
76
77
78
79
RLITO0000582
RLITO000582
4 Horizon Convictions
Redress Scheme
Informing claimants of their right
to redress
Unlike other schemes, the Horizon Convictions Redress Scheme is still in its
infancy. Despite this, the Committee is disappointed to find that there have
been issues with identifying and notifying individuals that their conviction
has been overturned by the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Act 2024.
This is wrong.
When Heidi Alexander MP—then Minister of State at the Ministry of Justice,
the Department which oversees the identification of individuals in scope of
the Act—appeared before the Committee in November 2024, she informed
us of the difficulties her Department had experienced with discrepancies in
different data sources used to identify individuals who meet the Act’s five
conditions.”
As well as these discrepancies, as of 5 December 2024, 31 individuals with
quashed convictions and 31 individuals with potentially quashed convictions
could not be contacted because the Ministry of Justice has been unable to
locate them.” More concerning still is the Justice Minister’s admission that
her Department may not have identified all individuals who may be in scope
in the Act.”
The Justice Minister assured the Committee that her Department would
complete assessment checks on individuals by early January 20257°
However, given that the Act came into force in May 2024, the Committee
is dissatisfied that some individuals may be waiting up to eight months to
receive confirmation of their right to redress. Some individuals may never
know.
Q99
Ministry of Justice, Quashed convictions management information: 5 December 2024.
Qqgi02-103
Qg108-109
57.
58.
80
Furthermore, the data supplied by the Ministry of Justice means it is difficult
for the Committee to assess the full scale of who is eligible for redress.
The Ministry of Justice publishes monthly transparency data on identified
individuals. However this data only includes individuals from England
and Wales.*° While the Committee understands that Justice is a devolved
matter, this fragmented and siloed way of publishing data does not give
the Committee a clear and full picture of those who have had their Horizon
related conviction overturned.
recommendation
While it is reassuring that the Government have put a timeframe on
completing eligibility checks, we are concerned that some individuals
may never know of their right to redress. The lack of data published
means it is difficult for the Committee to fully scrutinise progress of
this scheme across all Home Nations. The Government must set out a
plan for how it will notify postmasters in scope of the Act of their right
to redress plus timeframes in which these issues will be resolved. The
Government must also update the Committee monthly with the following
data, broken down by England and Wales, Scotland and Northern
Ireland:
a. How many people are under consideration as qualifying for
remedies under the Post office (Horizon System) Offences Act 2024
and the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences (Scotland) Act 2024.
b. How many people have been confirmed as qualifying for the reliefs
specified by the Acts.
c. The number of people who have been written to about their right to
redress.
d. How many people that have been paid under the Horizon
Convictions Redress Scheme.
e. The total amount that has been paid to claimants under the
Horizon Convictions Redress Scheme, and the total cost of
administering the scheme.
Ministry of Justice, Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Act 2024: quashed convictions
management information.
20
RLITO0000582
RLITO000582
59.
60.
61.
81
82
83
84
RLITO0000582
RLITO000582
Remove the fear factor
The Horizon Conviction Redress Scheme incorporates an interim payment
and fixed-sum settlement offer to claimants as an alternative to full
assessment, which is a positive improvement and a lesson learned from
iterating upon previous schemes. Claimants are offered an optional fixed-
sum settlement of £600,000, comprising a £200,000 preliminary payment
and a further final payment of £400,000." It is however disappointing to
note that where a claimant chooses to request a detailed assessment, they
then forfeit their opportunity to take the fixed-sum settlement and may
ultimately receive redress of less than £600,000."
It is reasonable to assume that the opportunity of losing access to redress
may place pressure on a claimant to take the fixed-sum settlement offer and
preclude further redress which may be appropriate in their circumstances.
Where claimants seek a full assessment, the uncertainty in the floor-
value of redress may contribute to distress and anxiety for claimants. The
Committee notes that a frequently cited reason among claimants to accept
offers is because they want the process to finish.** When we spoke to Dewi
Lewis, a claimant on the HCRS, he told us that he doubted that the fixed-
sum offer would take into account his total losses, but he did not want to
carry on fighting.** Many of those who do pursue full assessment do so
out of persistence to realise a fair and full settlement, appropriate to their
circumstances. The Department must ensure therefore, that duress and fear
are eliminated from the claimant’s journey to a just settlement.
recommendation
The Department should act swiftly to remove the fear factor from the
Horizon Conviction Redress Scheme, ensuring that the redress offered
under a full assessment settlement is never valued at below the optional
fixed-sum redress which was initially available to a claimant. It should
further communicate this change to current claimants and consider
whether undue pressure may have formed a part of the decision of
some settled claimants to opt out of a full assessment. The approach
established under this recommendation for fixed-sum settlement offers
should be applied as a matter of general principle across all schemes.
Department for Business and Trade, Horizon Convictions Redress Scheme (HCRS):
applying for financial redress, section 4.
Department for Business and Trade, Horizon Convictions Redress Scheme (HCRS):
applying for financial redress, option 2.
YouGov, Horizon Inquiry: Phase 7 Surveys, page 65.
Q42
21
62.
63.
RLITO0000582
RLITO000582
Binding timeframes
We have recommended to the Government that binding timeframes must be
introduced for administrators of the Horizon Shortfall Scheme and the Group
Litigation Order Scheme, to ensure swift redress. Currently the HCRS is in
the early stages of operation so it is difficult for the Committee to ascertain
the speed of the process for those who challenge their offers. However, past
behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour. Based on the issues the
Committee has seen with the HSS and GLO Scheme, the Government must
take swift action to ensure timeliness throughout all stages of the scheme.
recommen dation
The Government must introduce binding timeframes for administrators
at each stage of the process under the Horizon Convictions Redress
Scheme, with financial penalties awarded to the claimant if these
deadlines are not met. As with the Horizon Shortfall Scheme and Group
Litigation Order Scheme, these timeframes should only be applied on the
Government's side so that claimants have the space and time needed to
consider their offer.
22
64.
65.
66.
85
86
87
RLITO0000582
RLITO000582
5 Transparency for
legal costs
The Department for Business and Trade provides cost transparency of the
redress paid to claimants on a monthly basis.** This is welcomed by the
Committee and provides vital transparency to Parliament and the wider
public on the progress of each individual scheme in delivering fast and
fair redress. However, the Committee notes the oral evidence provided by
Mr Creswell which states that the Budget 2024 allocation of £1.8 billion to
settle redress costs includes claimants’ lawyers’ fees. Mr Creswell further
noted that the Department has ‘previously... been publishing, on a quarterly
basis, legal costs spent to date’.*° The Committee is not aware of where this
information has been published outside of irregular and partial responses to
parliamentary questions and freedom of information requests.
Using public information, the legal cost of redress is understood to be
considerable; for example, Herbert Smith Freehills have so far charged £67
million in costs to administer the Horizon Shortfall Scheme, a figure equal
to 27 per cent of actual redress paid out to claimants by 29 November 2024
and over £26,600 per claim paid under the scheme.” It is important that
legal cost transparency is provided to ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny
of the costs of redress and enable further administrative effort to reduce,
where practical and appropriate, extraneous legal expenditure detrimental
to claimants and value for money.
recommendation
The Department should publish a regular transparency report detailing
external legal costs incurred under all schemes. It is important that
the report is produced in a manner that minimises the potential for
wider confusion about the basis under which legal costs are billed,
distinguishing the cost of disbursements incurred by firms where
possible. Where separation of cost categories is not possible, the
Department should provide a clear and accessible summary of the
meaning and limitations of the data provided.
Department for Business and Trade, Post Office Horizon financial redress data for 2024.
ue
Letter from Post Office Ltd’s Remediation Unit Director Simon Recaldin regarding Post
Office financial redress, 2 December 2024.
23
Conclusions and
recommendations
Horizon Shortfall Scheme
Despite repeated criticism from this Committee, Post Office Ltd is still in
charge of the Horizon Shortfall Scheme. While the Committee welcomes
that the appeals process will be administered by the Department for
Business and Trade, swift action must be taken to deal with the thousands
of claimants who still have not been given the redress that is owed to them.
Sub-postmasters do not want Post Office Ltd to deal with redress and
neither does Post Office Ltd itself. Post Office Ltd should not be deciding
on what financial redress is owed to victims of its own scandal. The
Government must finish the job in hand and remove Post Office Ltd from the
Horizon Shortfall Scheme. (Recommendation, Paragraph 10)
If the Government is not able to do this for all claims in a timely way, Post
Office Ltd must in the first instance transfer complex cases—that is, cases
that are going through full assessment—for the Department to administer.
For claimants who choose to take the fixed sum offer, Post Office Ltd
must continue to take swift action and find solutions to automate case
processing. Post Office Ltd should provide regular updates to the Committee
on the progress of this. (Recommendation, Paragraph 11)
Horizon Shortfall Scheme claimants currently receive no legal advice to
help complete the complex questionnaire that acts as the gateway to the
scheme. This acts against them receiving the full redress they are due.
We recommend HSS claimants be given access to no-cost legal advice to
support their entry into the scheme. (Recommendation, Paragraph 14)
The gold-plated legalistic process of the Horizon Shortfall Scheme is
not best value for the public purse. The Government should therefore
ensure that Herbert Smith Freehills and Post Office Ltd are instructed to
use best endeavours to simplify and accelerate the settlement of claims.
(Recommendation, Paragraph 18)
The Committee has learned that it will take around 18 months for the
Independent Panel to assess outstanding claims on the Horizon Shortfall
Scheme. We have also learned that the Post Office are expecting thousands
24
RLITO0000582
RLITO000582
10.
RLITO0000582
RLITO000582
of new cases to come forward. A panel central to the process that
assesses all claims meeting twice a week will not deliver swift justice for
sub-postmasters. The Independent Panel must be resourced to meet full
time until the majority of first offers have been issued. (Recommendation,
Paragraph 22)
Claimants under the Horizon Shortfall Scheme lack the same access
to authoritative facilitation and case management direction available
to claimants in other schemes. This can be remedied by introducing an
empowered case facilitator similar to the role played by the Sir Gary
Hickinbottom for Overturned Convictions. We recommend that the
Department and Post Office Ltd establish such roles, agreeing their
functions with claimants and their legal representatives. (Recommendation,
Paragraph 27)
The Department should work with Post Office Ltd and claimants’
representatives to establish an independent case facilitator with a defined
role in assessing whether it is reasonable to subject a claim’s basis of
calculation to further scrutiny through requests for information. When
requests for information are considered reasonable, it should take no longer
than 20 working days to be sent to the claimant from the submission of a
claim. (Recommendation, Paragraph 30)
Requests for information under the Horizon Shortfall Scheme should only
be made where it is deemed reasonable to increase the offer value to
claimants, or in the rare instance where there may be reasonable concern
about a claim’s basis of calculation. Where redress offers are calculated
in-line with indicative bands or redress guidelines, we recommend that
offers should be made at or above the top-end of such indicative limits. An
independent case facilitator should be established with a role—on appeal
by claimant representatives—in swiftly considering whether a request
for information is reasonable for the above purposes. (Recommendation,
Paragraph 33)
The Independent Panel on the Horizon Shortfall Scheme is already
backlogged. To keep cases moving, disputed first offers to claimants must
not be reassessed by the Independent Panel but instead move straight into
external mediation. (Recommendation, Paragraph 36)
Sub-postmasters should not be left in limbo, waiting years for the redress
that they are due with no light at the end of the tunnel. Ongoing delays
are unacceptable and action must be taken to rectify this. The Committee
reiterates the recommendation of its predecessor—binding timeframes for
each stage of the Horizon Shortfall Scheme process must be introduced
to draw this saga to a close. To ensure that claimants are not adversely
25
1.
12.
13.
RLITO0000582
RLITO000582
impacted, timeframes should only be imposed on the administrators of
the scheme, so that claimants have the time they want to consider their
positions. (Recommendation, Paragraph 39)
Group Litigation Order Scheme
The Committee welcomes that the majority of first offers for the Group
Litigation Order Scheme will be complete by March 2025. This, however,
does not address the time it takes between first offer and final payment.
Sub-postmasters have waited long enough. The Government should aim
wherever possible to complete Group Litigation Order redress claims by
March 2025 as suggested to us in evidence from Sir Alan Bates. We know
that this will not be possible for some claims due to the complexity of the
claim or the vulnerability of claimants, so the Government must introduce
binding timeframes at each stage of Group Litigation Order Scheme, with
financial penalties awarded to the claimant if these timeframes are not met.
As with the Horizon Shortfall Scheme, timeframes should only be imposed
on the Government side, giving the sub-postmaster ample time to consider
their position. (Recommendation, Paragraph 43)
It is disappointing that the Department does not believe the Independent
Reviewer should be given a greater role in the Group Litigation Order
Scheme, despite the former Post Office Minister confessing that it
was a mistake not to do so. Sir Ross Cranston is a former High Court
Judge with a wealth of experience that is not being used to the full. The
Government should give the Independent Reviewer greater powers to case
manage Group Litigation Order claims throughout the whole process.
(Recommendation, Paragraph 49)
The Department should ensure that offers to claimants are delivered
at or above the top-end of the illustrative redress bands and guidance
established under the guidance and principles of the Group Litigation Order
scheme. Further requests for information should only be made in order to
increase the offer value to claimants, or in the rare instance where there
may be reasonable concern about a claim’s basis of calculation. A claim’s
named case facilitator should have a defined role in swiftly considering
whether a request for information is reasonable for the above purposes.
(Recommendation, Paragraph 52)
26
14.
15.
16.
RLITO0000582
RLITO000582
Horizon Convictions Redress Scheme
While it is reassuring that the Government have put a timeframe on
completing eligibility checks, we are concerned that some individuals may
never know of their right to redress. The lack of data published means it is
difficult for the Committee to fully scrutinise progress of this scheme across
all Home Nations. The Government must set out a plan for how it will notify
postmasters in scope of the Act of their right to redress plus timeframes in
which these issues will be resolved. The Government must also update the
Committee monthly with the following data, broken down by England and
Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland:
a. How many people are under consideration as qualifying for remedies
under the Post office (Horizon System) Offences Act 2024 and the Post
Office (Horizon System) Offences (Scotland) Act 2024.
b. — How many people have been confirmed as qualifying for the reliefs
specified by the Acts.
c. The number of people who have been written to about their right to
redress.
d. How many people that have been paid under the Horizon Convictions
Redress Scheme.
e. The total amount that has been paid to claimants under the Horizon
Convictions Redress Scheme, and the total cost of administering the
scheme. (Recommendation, Paragraph 58)
The Department should act swiftly to remove the fear factor from the
Horizon Conviction Redress Scheme, ensuring that the redress offered under
a full assessment settlement is never valued at below the optional fixed-
sum redress which was initially available to a claimant. It should further
communicate this change to current claimants and consider whether
undue pressure may have formed a part of the decision of some settled
claimants to opt out of a full assessment. The approach established under
this recommendation for fixed-sum settlement offers should be applied
as a matter of general principle across all schemes. (Recommendation,
Paragraph 61)
The Government must introduce binding timeframes for administrators at
each stage of the process under the Horizon Convictions Redress Scheme,
with financial penalties awarded to the claimant if these deadlines are
not met. As with the Horizon Shortfall Scheme and Group Litigation Order
Scheme, these timeframes should only be applied on the Government's side
so that claimants have the space and time needed to consider their offer.
(Recommendation, Paragraph 63)
27
17.
RLITO0000582
RLITO000582
Transparency for legal costs
The Department should publish a regular transparency report detailing
external legal costs incurred under all schemes. It is important that the
report is produced in a manner that minimises the potential for wider
confusion about the basis under which legal costs are billed, distinguishing
the cost of disbursements incurred by firms where possible. Where
separation of cost categories is not possible, the Department should
provide a clear and accessible summary of the meaning and limitations of
the data provided. (Recommendation, Paragraph 66)
28
88
89
90
91
92
93
Appendix:
The Redress schemes
Horizon Shortfall Scheme
The Horizon Shortfall Scheme (HSS) offers redress for current and former
sub-postmasters who had to cover financial shortfalls that arose from
errors in the Horizon System, but who were either not convicted or did not
take the Post Office to the High Court (See ‘Group Litigation Order Scheme’
below).** Claimants can either settle their claim on a full and final basis
for a total fixed sum of £75,000, or they can choose to have their claim
fully assessed if they think they are entitled to more.*® The Scheme is
administered by Post Office Ltd.°°
Group Litigation Order Scheme
The Group Litigation Order Scheme (GLO Scheme) is for those who were
part of the group who took the Post Office Ltd to the High Court via a Group
Litigation Order.” It is only open to sub-postmasters who were part of
this GLO action and who do not have a Horizon-related conviction? Like
the HSS, eligible claimants can either settle for £75,000 or go through full
assessment. The Scheme is administered by the Department for Business
and Trade.**
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Government supports
postmasters impacted by Horizon scandal by providing funding for late applications
to Historical Shortfall Scheme, 6 October 2022; Post Office, Horizon Shortfall Scheme
Eligibility Criteria, updated July 2023.
HC Deb 13 March 2024 c312
Post Office, The Horizon Shortfall Scheme.
Department for Business and Trade, GLO compensation scheme guidance and principles,
para 2.1.3; Explanatory Notes to The Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Bill, Bill
16 of 2023-24, para 4; HC Deb 26 February 2024 c37
Department for Business and Trade, GLO compensation scheme guidance and principles,
para 2.1.3; Explanatory Notes to The Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Bill, Bill
16 of 2023-24, para 4; HC Deb 26 February 2024 c37
Department for Business and Trade, The GLO Compensation Scheme: questions and
answers.
29
RLITO000582
RLITO000582
94
95
RLITO0000582
RLITO000582
Horizon Convictions Redress Scheme
(HCRS) and Overturned Convictions
The Horizon Convictions Redress Scheme (HSCRS) and Overturned
Convictions (OC) are two schemes open to sub-postmasters who have had
a Horizon-related conviction. The HCRS is open to those who have had their
conviction overturned by legislation and OC is open to those who have had
their conviction overturned by the courts. For both schemes, claimants
can opt for an up-front £600,000 offer or they can choose to have their
claim fully assessed. HCRS is administered by the Department’ and OC is
administered by Post Office Ltd.°*
Department for Business and Trade, Horizon Convictions Redress Scheme (HCRS):
applicant information.
Post Office, Overturned Convictions and financial redress: information on progress.
30
RLITO0000582
RLITO000582
Formal Minutes
Tuesday 17 December 2024
Members present:
Liam Byrne, in the Chair
Antonia Bance
John Cooper
Sarah Edwards
Alison Griffiths
Charlie Maynard
Gregor Poynton
Joshua Reynolds
Matt Western
Rosie Wrighting
Post Office and Horizon scandal redress:
Unfinished business
Draft Report (Post Office and Horizon scandal redress: Unfinished busines9,
proposed by the Chair, brought up and read.
Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by
paragraph.
Paragraphs 1 to 66, as amended, read and agreed to.
Summary agreed to.
Appendix agreed to.
Resolved, That the Report be the First Report of the Committee to the House.
31
RLITO0000582
RLITO000582
Ordered, That the Chair make the Report to the House.
Adjourment
[Adjourned till Tuesday 7 January at 2.30pm]
32
Witnesses
The following witnesses gave evidence. Transcripts can be viewed on the
inquiry publications page of the Committee’s website.
Tuesday 5 November 2024
Sir Alan Bates, Founder, Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance; Jill Donnison,
Claimant from the Horizon Shortfall Scheme; Dewi Lewis, Claimant from the
Horizon Convictions Redress Scheme Q1-44
Dr Neil Hudgell, Executive Chair, Hudgell Solicitors; James Hartley,
Partner, Freeths; David Enright, Partner, Howe & Co Q45-85
The Rt. Hon. Sir Gary Hickinbottom PC, Chair, Post Office Overturned
Convictions Independent Pecuniary Assessment Panel Q86-95
Tuesday 19 November 2024
Gareth Thomas MP, Minister for Services, Small Business and Exports,
Department for Business and Trade; Carl Creswell, Director, Post Office and
Business Engagement, Department for Business and Trade; Heidi Alexander
MP, Minister of State, Ministry of Justice; Ed Lidington, Director, Courts,
Criminal and Family Justice Directorate, Ministry of Justice Q96-194
Mark Chesher, Partner, Addleshaw Goddard; Rob Francis, Partner,
Dentons; Alan Watts, Partner, Herbert Smith Freehills Q195-227
Nigel Railton, Interim Chair, Post Office Ltd; Simon Recaldin, Remediations
Unit Director, Post Office Ltd Q228-263
33
RLITO0000582
RLITO000582