SUBS0000099
SUBS0000099
Horizon Shortfall Scheme Appeals
Submission of the National Federation of Subpostmasters to Sir Wyn Williams,
Chair of the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
The NFSP continues to be grateful for the work you and your team have undertaken
in relation to the Post Office Horizon Inquiry, since its inception in September 2020
as anon-statutory Inquiry.
We appreciate this work has not only focused on the events of the past which led to
Postmasters, their assistants and Crown office employees being victimised in the
manner they were by Post Office Ltd, but has also considered the various
compensation schemes currently available.
We note that to date your Inquiry has held four hearings specifically on
compensation:
« Issues of Compensation — 6" & 13! July 2022
e One day hearing on matters relating to compensation — 8'" December 2022
© One day hearing on matters relating to compensation — 27" April 2023
We note from your letter of 2.4 May 2025 that you are not minded to hold a heating
on this matter for the reasons you give. We are taking this opportunity respectfully to
request such a hearing. The reason we have for this request is not only for an
Page 1 of 8
SUBS0000099
SUBS0000099
update to be given on the above compensation hearings and issues arising from the
schemes, but also in respect of any comment you are minded to make on the recent
changes announced in terms of the appeals process moving from Post Office Ltd to
the Department of Business and Trade (DBT).
Current concerns
In terms of the update on current compensation scheme issues, the NFSP is aware
of the concern among around as many as 1,500 additional Postmasters who have
applied for compensation via the Historical Shortfall Scheme and who are currently
in a state of limbo due to Post Office being unable to find specific evidence of a
shortfall. The reason could be as simple as the Postmaster identifying the shortfall at
their Trading Period date, with the Postmaster then making good the shortfall (as per
their contract at the time) from their retail takings. In such a situation, there may not
be specific evidence available, even if Post Office records could be relied upon as
sufficiently and fully accurate for the time periods under review. While great strides
in enabling the speed of reviewing individual cases are often mentioned, we still hear
too often from claimants of the delays they continue to experience and the undue
stress these delays cause.
Scotland and the Scottish Postmasters for Justice & Redress
As the Inquiry is aware, there is not only a different legal system in place in Scotland
but also a range of matters which are devolved to the Scottish Government. The
NFSP have been working with colleagues in Scotland and the Scottish Government
to ensure that all those who were convicted in Scotland due to the Horizon IT system
Page 2 of 8
SUBS0000099
SUBS0000099
have their convictions overturned. This work has led to colleagues in Scotland
forming the Scottish Postmasters for Justice & Redress (SPJR) support group.
The SPJR support group was launched at the Scottish Parliament on Wednesday 24
April 2025 where one of the first victims to have their conviction in Scotland
overturned, Robert Thomson stated “What we are trying to do is get the redress to
the people who are entitled to it. Because it has taken so long in getting the money
to the people, we want to get this moving quicker.” We can advise you that the
experience of victims is that redress is still too slow.
Compensation for deceased Postmasters
The NFSP would also want to advise you that there is ongoing concern that some
relatives of deceased victims are being denied any form of compensation due to
Post Office Ltd’s unwillingness to concede legal points and this is adding to the
trauma they have experienced for so long.
Lack of full access to redress
It is difficult to know exactly what the true number is from Government figures, but
our understanding is that as many as 4,700 Postmasters still do not have full access
to their redress, including some of those who were either part of the original Group
Litigation cohort or those who have had their convictions overturned.
Page 3 of 8
SUBS0000099
SUBS0000099
Confusion and concern regarding the various compensation schemes
The NFSP has also found there is also growing confusion about the various different
redress schemes and that, in respect of the various schemes, the victims or their
family members may not sit neatly into the criteria for each of the different schemes,
making the access to redress more complex and traumatic.
Concerns regarding the £75,000 offers and seeking higher sums
The NFSP is also concerned about the so-called ‘double jeopardy’ aspect of the
fixed sum claims. We are finding this comes up regularly from Postmasters who feel
they effectively have a metaphorical gun to their head in terms of accepting the fixed
sum of £75,000, or the £600,000 if they were convicted, because if they appeal, they
could end up with less. Postmasters are telling us that this is leaving their legal
advisors in a difficult position due to the risk of not being awarded the full claim, and
instead accepting significantly less. These risks are not dissimilar to the issue of
having to plead guilty to have a lesser sentence when not being guilty in the first
place, adding to the trauma experienced, in particular, by those who wentthrough
this. In one case which the NFSP dealt with recently, the Postmaster applied for
more than the £75,000 and received an offer of £6,000. Given the trauma that
Postmasters have gone through, this situation, in our submission, only exacerbates
the trauma, resulting in, we understand, around 98.5% of claims being for the fixed
sum awards rather than some victims may truly be due.
Page 4 of 8
SUBS0000099
SUBS0000099
Horizon Shortfall Scheme Appeals (HSS Appeals)
While we are broadly supportive of the move from Post Office Ltd to DBT, the NFSP
does have concerns in relation to DBT’s Horizon Shortfall Scheme Appeals. We have
provided feedback to Minister Thomas at a recent meeting.
We are conscious that one of the main aims of this appeals system is to reduce the
time it takes compared to the Post Offices appeals process from the current
timescale of around a year to around 40 days. While the NFSP acknowledges that
the speeding up ofappeal is very welcome, we do consider that questions remain to
be asked as to why the Post Office Ltd appeals process was so convoluting that it
took a year to process, and, therefore, how it is we can be sure that the DBT’s claim
of 40 days will actually become a reality.
Another concern is that it appears eligibility may be withdrawn if you have already
sought legal advice funded by Post Office. We understand DBT are clarifying this,
but our understanding at present is that no-one will be disqualified from this system
where they have received initial legal advice but if they have received full legal
advice on their claim then the claimant would not be eligible. We do consider this is
unfair as in very many court proceedings where legal advice had been given, either
statute or natural justice allows for a legal entitlement to appeal a decision or seek a
review.
In terms of Prior Information Notice (PIN), we understand the DBT is looking to retain
a company that provides support completing the forms. We have offered to be a
facilitator for this and have our team trained up to offer support to claimants.
We believe there is a question as to how many HSS cases there are in total, and
how many have not entered the Dispute Resolution Process (DRP). We are
Page 5 of 8
SUBS0000099
SUBS0000099
concerned that a claimant is ineligible if they have entered the DRP. We understand
that there are around 400 casesin the DRP and where a case has gone to mediation
then it will not be able to transfer to the DBT.
We understand the appeals process will reduce the risk of receiving less than the
£75,000, subject to the caveats given, and this may take account of our point
regarding the fixed sums as we have set out above.
We have found questions arise, such as:
« As far as the eligible group is concerned, do they have to rely on Post Office
Ltd providing evidence to the individual potential claimants to enable them to
apply within the time frames?
« Why is there a difference between 6 - 9 months depending on which aspect of
the scheme a claimantis in at present?
+ What costs will be provided for legal advice and how are the legal advisers to
be obtained and retained by claimants in the appeals process?
* Tax payments — will outcomes of the appeals and payments be free of tax?
Overall, the NFSP while giving the broad welcome, we are not clear that moving
away from Post Office Ltd to DBT will make a real difference, as we have found that
DBT's involvement throughout this process has not necessarily been helpful. It
appears to us the DBT is reluctantly accepting a responsibility in the whole scandal
and this means they have, in the past, also been a block to the swift progress for
redress that has been required. That said, we do appreciate that trust in Post Office
Ltd is low and trust in DBT is higher. We also appreciate that it would have taken
more than a year to set up a separate independent body, which would have delayed
Page 6 of 8
SUBS0000099
SUBS0000099
things. There is a good reputation on the independent panel process and, as
mentioned the intention is to reduce the timescales for appeals form around a year to
40 days (subject to the caveat we give above). We note that DBT are asking their
independent case workers to assess claims within 20 working days before being
handed on the Independent Panel. We also understand that around 7000
Postmasters have claimed so far.
Concluding points/summary
In the view of the NFSP, the various redress (compensation) schemes should be
simplified and flexible with sufficient legal assistance being provided to claimants so
that identifying which scheme from which they can seek redress is easier to
understand and navigate. We also consider the evidence bar, such as discussed
above in relation to making good shortfalls where Post Office does not have specific
evidence, should be reduced to enable claimants access to their redress quicker.
In addition to this is an issue which we regularly hear about: communication. We
have found that too often, claimants submit their claim and have no way of knowing
whether their claim is being progressed orwhere in the process it is currently sitting.
The NFSP believes that Post Office and DBT should be able to deploy a case
management portal which details all of the information that has currently been
submitted by a claimant, what information is still required, where in the process the
claim is currently sitting and estimated timeline to completion. This, or something like
it, would enable easier and better communication which claimants would have with
Post Office or DBT claim handlers. It could reduce the level of frustration for
claimants who feel their claim has gone out of sight. It would, in our submission,
Page 7 of 8
SUBS0000099
SUBS0000099
given both Post Office Ltd and DBT’s role in preventing the truth of the reliability of
Horizon being publicly known, reduce the ongoing concern of victims in their
communications regarding their compensation claims.
Concluding all of the above, if you are minded to hold a specific hearing into the
matters surrounding the ongoing compensation schemes, the NFSP would be very
much in favour.
Once again, thank you for the work you have done via the Horizon IT Inquiry and we
look forward to Volume 1 of your report and its recommendations in the coming
months.
Calum Greenhow
Chief Executive Officer
National Federation of Subpostmasters
12'" May 2025
Page 8 of 8