SUBS0000096
SUBS0000096
Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
On behalf of Core Participants represented by Hodge Jones & Allen:
Teju Adedayo, Nichola Arch, Lee Castleton, Kathleen Crane, Tracy Felstead,
Gowri Jayakanthan, Parmod Kalia, Sharon Kerrigan, Mhairi McDougall, Seema Misra,
Vijay Parekh, Vipin Patel, Colin Savage, Janet Skinner, Sathyan Shiju & 2 others
Submissions in relation to HSS appeals
Introduction
1. These submissions are made in response to the Inquiry’s letter of 2 May 2025, which
invited submissions on this topic. At the time of receipt, we were preparing
submissions on compensation more broadly, because our clients are reporting such
distress as a consequence of the way their claims are being handled. However, the
Inquiry’s letter made it clear that the Chair had completed his Report on the issue of
compensation, apart from in this one area, and we agree that there is a pressing need
for publication, so we have confined ourselves to HSS appeals. We have two points to
make:
a. The DBT is not independent and therefore should not be arbiter of appeals,
and
b. An appeal path should be made available to those who have accepted the
Fixed Sum Offer.
The DBT is not independent and therefore should not be the arbiter of appeals
2. In our first submissions to this Inquiry of 22 June 2022, which were on the subject of
compensation, we said this:
Were it not for the delay that would inevitably ensue, we would be advocating
in the strongest terms for the removal of HSF and the appointment of a suitable
independent third party who would be responsible for the vital task of awarding
and administering claims. However, such a course (desirable as it is) would
bring with it further delay, disrupting a process already dogged by the Post
Office’s inordinate obstruction over a number of years.
2 $UBS0000042, p7 para 17
SUBS0000096
SUBS0000096
3. Events over the three years since then have demonstrated that we were wrong to
prioritise the prospect of speedier outcomes over independence. Unfortunately, the
evidence shows that sticking with a conflicted institution in the hope that it will
produce speedier outcomes is misguided. On the contrary, delay is one of the tools
used by conflicted institutions to obstruct full and fair compensation. Without
institutional independence, there cannot be full and fair compensation, and the sooner
the process is taken away from conflicted institutions the sooner full and fair
compensation will be delivered.
4. DBT is not independent, just as Post Office and HSF were not independent, and it is
likewise incapable of delivering full and fair compensation. The Inquiry heard from
DBT officials during the final Phase. This evidence covered not only the Department's
woeful failure to act as a responsible shareholder (as set out in our Closing Statement’),
but also specifically the issue of compensation. The evidence of Carl Cresswell was
particularly troubling?
5. Even more importantly, the experience of those claiming compensation from DBT’s
GLO scheme must be heeded. They are being obstructed by many of the same tricks
which have been deployed by Post Office and HSF. After making a claim, they will be
asked a set of questions, often just before the deadline for responding to the claim, and
while those questions are being answered DBT parks the claim. Once answers are
received, DBT asks another set of questions just before the deadline for responding,
and there is no rationale for why they were not asked alongside the first set of
questions. The questions will often be on issues which are irrelevant. They will ask for
evidence which is manifestly unnecessary or impossible to provide. This shameful
obstruction and delay is from the Post Office playbook.
6. None of this should come as a surprise. It is the consequence of the institution being,
conflicted. Despite the best intentions of some individuals, the conflict is embedded in
2 $UBS0000074, pp83-97
3 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Before we go any further, when I read the transcript of today, in respect of the last five
minutes I may get the impression that you have told me that there is a shift in ministerial objective from the
three words "full, fair and prompt" to at least an emphasis on "prompt". Right? If so, I've not heard any
minister or other politician articulate that publicly, and I don't want to be unfair either to you or them but if it
is the case that one of the driving forces behind the fixed offeris to elevate "prompt", above what is full and
fair, I'd like to know it in plain language, please.
A. And sir, responding to that, that is precisely what I am saying. I was given the steer by Secretary of State
Badenoch and others that we needed -- and some of this evidence is included in my bundle-- to prioritise
speed, even if it meant overpayment.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Well, and underpayment because the way the fixed offer operates, once you don't accept
it, it's lost forever, isn't it? So there's an overpayment possibility, certainly, but there's also an underpayment
possibility.
A. There is, although the 600k, I would say, is supported by legal advice.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: I am not saying that anybody is going to do it deliberately; I'm talking about the effect of
it.
A. Yes.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: I can put myself in a position of a claimant who may daim £1 million, who is prepared to
take the risk on not accepting 600. It's much more difficult if your claim is 700 or 750, isn't it?
A. Itis.
1NQ00001202, p47 (internal pp 185-186)
SUBS0000096
SUBS0000096
the institution’s ways of working and ways of thinking. It comes out in all the small
ways that officials respond to claims, but it also comes out in the way that senior
officials advise Ministers to side with Post Office when they manifestly should not.
Take, for example, the exchange between DBT and Paul Marshall regarding the sums
which the unconvicted GLO claimants gave to the convicted GLO claimants following
the GLO Settlement. The Post Office sought to argue that the compensation payable to
the convicted GLO claimants should have those sums deducted. This was wrong, both
in logic and in law, as Mr Marshall comprehensively proved, and yet Rob Brightwell of
DBT wrote to Mr Marshall on 11 April 2023, siding with the Post Office view.*
We therefore submit, in the strongest possible terms, that mistakes must not be
repeated. The HSS appeals should be handled by independent assessors.
An appeal path should be made available to those who have accepted the Fixed Sum
Offer
8.
10.
The HSS appeals process makes it very clear that those who have accepted the Fixed
Sum Offer of £75,000 are excluded from it. This risks serious injustice, because of the
unfair way that the fixed sum offer was made.
On 7 May 2025 the HJA civil team sent this email to the HJA Inquiry team:
something that has recently come to light is that even if clients have made an application to
the HSS scheme these applications were put on hold following the Fixed Sum offer of £75k
(FSO) offer being made, but we were not informed.
This has made it very difficult to advice clients on whether the FSO should be accepted as we
do not know what the PO will offer under the HSS. Costs are not provided until an offer in the
HSS has been made and you are appealing the same. However, as we were expecting offers to
be made (which would have likely been too low) we have assisted some clients to make the
application. However, no offer has been forthcoming and when chased as have only recently
been told that the HSS application has been stayed pending the client’s decision on the FSO
Whilst some clients have not made any applications to the HSS and are happy to accept the
offer, there are clients who have to make a difficult decision whether to accept the FSO now or
risk getting less in the HSS. As you are both aware a lot of these clients do not have a lot of
evidence and there is a real risk they could get less or that they are unsettling.
New clients who are approaching us for advice on the FSO we are having to turn away as no
costs are allowed. I feel clients are feeling forced to accept the FSO even if they do not want to
as they do not want to take the risk of getting less and they are not being afforded the
opportunity for solicitors to properly investigate the claim and properly advise them on their
options.
The only way to provide a possible remedy is to open the appeals process to those who
have agreed to receive the Fixed Sum Offer. We appreciate that this undermines the
whole point of the Fixed Sum Offer, which was intended to allow both sides to draw a
line, but this was an inherently bad idea. It has resulted in large sums being given to
those who may have only lost sums in the hundreds or thousands, and meanwhile
those who have suffered the most have had to make difficult and highly pressured
“ Mr Marshall was informed by covering email that this letter was copied to the Inquiry, but we append it to
these submissions for ease of reference.
SUBS0000096
SUBS0000096
decisions, without the benefit of legal advice. While this has improved the figures for
settled claims, it has exacerbated the suffering of those with complex claims, the very
cohort who stand in most need of compensation.
Edward Henry KC
Flora Page KC
Hodge Jones & Allen
14 May 2025