SUBS0000107
SUBS0000107
Howe+Co
Sir Wyn Williams
Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
1 Victoria Street
London SW1H OET
BY EMAIL ONLY
Our ref: DE/POHITI
9 January 2023
Dear Sir Wyn
Interim report
We write to request that, should you decide to issue an interim report, that you recommend in
that report that the current end date of 7 August 2024 for the GLO ex gratia scheme be extended
to at least 7 August 2025. This request is made by Hudgells solicitors, Freeths LLP and Howe + Co
who, jointly, represent the overwhelming majority of SMPs for whom this scheme is intended.
Background
As Chair of the Public Inquiry, you are well aware of the government’s announcement of an ex
gratia scheme for subpostmasters and others who were Claimants to the group litigation Bates &
Ors, and the reasons as to why that scheme is being developed. In summary, the scheme has been
announced and will be implemented in order to attempt to put the victims who exposed the Post
Office scandal on the same footing as others affected by this scandal.
The firms who make the request in this letter have engaged proactively with the Department of
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), over many months, regarding the development of
the scheme. That scheme has not been finalised, and is not yet open for applications. However, it
has been made clear that the scheme must conclude by 7 August 2024, and that all compensation
applications, payments, representations and related matters must be concluded on or before that
date. It is a hard stop.
Tel: 020 8840 4688 Partners:
Fax: 020 8840 7209 MJ. Howe BA (Hons)
Email: lay
K.P. O'Rourke LL.B (Hons)
DX 315004 Brentford 5 D. Enright LL.B (Hons)
1010 Great West Road, Brentford, TW8 9BA
This firm is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority SRA No. 73646 www.howe.co.uk
SUBS0000107
SUBS0000107
However, in meetings with BEIS we have made it clear that we anticipate that it will not be
possible for all claims to be concluded before this date, and in the relatively short time available.
The reasons include:
1. The compensation scheme is not yet ready
You will recall that the government announced a further ex-gratia scheme for subpostmasters on
22 March 20221. It was not until September 2022 that the Minister for Small Business, Consumers
& Labour Markets published a request for response to a consultation on that scheme’. Following
that announcement, subpostmasters waited until December 2022 (very shortly before the
compensation hearing) for the publication of further (draft) details of how the scheme is proposed
to operate®. Those details were incomplete.
Many important documents about the scheme’s mechanism remain undisclosed. A number of
processes and, critically, deadlines, are yet to be announced or agreed. In several places, the
document setting out how the Scheme is to operate states that important parts of the scheme’s
mechanism are yet to be announced, discussed or agreed. In the document, BEIS states that it is
not yet aware of the availability of the important claims facilitators who are to be integral to the
operation of the scheme. The effect of these issues is that the details of the scheme are
incomplete and the scheme is not yet open for claims from all eligible parties.
We submit that it is not possible or reasonable to impose a long-stop deadline on a scheme which
is yet to be implemented, where its operation is not yet finalised, and which is not open for claims.
2. Issues with existing schemes and subpostmasters’ circumstances
In submissions and in evidence, the Inquiry has heard of the serious and damaging delays which
besiege the existing compensation schemes. Claimants to the Historic Shortfall Scheme (HSS)
complain about poor communication, duplicated requests for information, and overall delays in
their claims being considered and determined. In some cases, Claimants to the HSS have waited
years without an acknowledgement of their claim, only to receive dozens of questions on the eve
of their giving evidence to the Inquiry.
Issues persist in the interim compensation scheme, too. At the dedicated compensation hearings
in December 2022, the Inquiry received detailed submissions concerning the delays experienced
by subpostmasters with so-called “complex” or “difficult” cases. In the course of the hearing, you
stated your intention to obtain independent legal advice on how compensation payments will
affect those who are or were insolvent/subject to IVAs. Whilst you have invited submissions on
this topic, which were made today, it remains unclear how the scheme will accommodate
subpostmasters with “complex” or “difficult” cases.
1 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/victims-of-post-office-horizon-scandal-to-benefit-from-new-compensation-scheme
2 https://assets. publishing. service. gov.uk/government/uploads/systern/uploads/attachment_data/file/1101991/minister-hunt-
letter-to-glo-postmasters-02092022. pdf
3https://assets publishing. service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1122408/Additional_compe
nsation for GLO Members.pdf
SUBS0000107
SUBS0000107
The provision of interim compensation to subpostmasters was announced in June 2022. On the
date of the compensation hearings, in December 2022, there were still a significant number of
GLO claimants who had not received any payments at all in spite of the comparable simplicity of a
scheme for “interim” compensation.
Given that the Inquiry has received clear evidence of delays in other Post Office-related
compensation schemes, there is every reason to anticipate that there may be delays in this new
scheme. As such, we consider that the likelihood of these potential delays is incompatible with a
hard-stop date of 7 August 2024.
3. The need for comprehensive, independently-prepared expert evidence and advice, and
gathering of evidence
Claims to the ex-gratia scheme will be necessarily complex. BEIS has indicated its agreement for
the need for specialist advice and expert evidence in order to accurately assess quantum in cases.
Whilst our clients welcome BEIS’s indication that it will make a decision on incurring the costs of
expert evidence, nothing has been agreed. We do not yet know the process that will be adopted,
or the limits which will be imposed upon the ability to obtain the necessary expert evidence.
Of particular concern to our clients is the time taken to obtain important documents from non-
expert sources, including from HMRC and from Post Office itself. Documents from these sources
are not only important, but in most circumstances critical relevant documents are available from
these sources only. The Inquiry has heard in submissions and in witness evidence why so many
subpostmasters do not have possession or control of important documents related to their branch
or to the underlying business.
We are experiencing long delays in the provision of HMRC documentation and expect that these
delays will continue or increase. Furthermore, we anticipate delays in obtaining necessary medical
evidence including GP notes. Given that the scheme is not in operation and not yet settled, it is
impossible to begin/progress these necessary tasks at this time. The delay in finalising a scheme is
hampering our ability to commence evidence-gathering steps, all of which will take time.
Whilst we welcome Post Office’s assurances in respect of the provision of documentation to
subpostmasters, we need look only at Post Office’s slow and partial disclosure to the Inquiry to see
that delay in this respect is, unfortunately, possible.
The likelihood of delay in obtaining necessary evidence is another reason why the current hard-
stop date for this scheme is inappropriate.
4. The hard-stop date has no rationale, and may adversely affect the most vulnerable
We and our clients share the sense of urgency which BEIS have proposed. However, we have seen
no compelling evidence supporting the hard-stop date. We and our clients will do all we can to
ensure that work is completed as quickly as possible, but where that is not possible (for whatever
reason) the current hard-stop cut-off date only penalises those Claimants with more complex
cases, or those with vulnerabilities (those with disabilities, the elderly, those with illness, with
caring responsibilities, or those who find it difficult to access the internet).
SUBS0000107
SUBS0000107
In addition, it is important to note that there may be subpostmasters who would be entitled to
apply to this scheme but who currently may be unaware of it. We see no reason why individuals
who are not aware of the scheme should be prevented from applying to it at a later stage, or why
they should be denied compensation.
We are sure that not all claims can be finalised by the currently proposed hard-stop date. There is
readily available information detailing the length of time it normally takes to conclude a civil claim
comparable to the cases to which this scheme will apply. That data shows that the time taken is
considerably more than 12 months, for simple cases light on evidence. For example, Hudgells
solicitors advise that only two of the cases, whose convictions were quashed in the Court of
Appeal, in April 2021 have settle (i.e. almost two years ago). Furthermore, it would be improper to
force subpostmasters to rush submissions of their claims to comply with an arbitrary deadline.
If the date is not extended, there will be Claimants who will be denied compensation, and/or cases
will have to be conducted with such speed that Claimants may not be able to fully and properly set
out their claims. We are sure the Inquiry will agree that there can be no risk of under-settlement in
this scheme. There is no prejudice to BEIS or any institutional CPs in extending the deadline, but
there is a profound and likely prejudice to deserving, long-waiting Claimants.
It is for these reasons that, should you decide to issue an interim report, we ask you to agree to
include in any such report a recommendation that the Government takes steps now to extend
deadline to no earlier than 7 August 2025.
Finally, we are aware that you are considering whether your interim report should be a statutory
report. Howe + Co urged, at the hearing of 8 December 2022, that you should issue a statutory
report. Given the nature of the mechanism adopted for this scheme (an appropriation), we
respectfully suggest that a recommendation to extend the deadline would be best made in a
statutory as opposed to a non-statutory report.
Yours sincerely
Lowe + Co
HOWE & CO SOLICITORS