WITN10370131
WITN10370131
Strictly confidential and privileged
Draft for comment 10 March 2014
The Post Office Limited
Initial Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme
Proposed outline of report for the Board
1 Background to the report
1.4 The report is being commissioned by the Board of Post Office following concerns over the
level of claims and costs and other potential legal and financial exposure for Post Office in
connection with the Initial Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme (the “Scheme” )
1.2 We understand that the Scheme was set up in August fast-year-2013 with a view to
bringing closure to the various allegations that had been brought about the Horizon system
(“Horizon” ; at that time the working assumption was that there were:
1.2.1. No-no systemic problems with Horizon; and
1.2.2 the training and support for Subpostr
could be improved upon in certain areas;
“SPMRs-'_with respect to Horizon
1.3 It is intended that the report will be presented to the Board on 26 March 2014.
2 Key matters to be addressed
24 The report will consider:
2.1.1 Whether and to what extent Post Office has any legal liability with respect to (a)
complaints made by applicants to the Scheme and (b) any other matters identified
as part of the investigatory work carried out by Post Office in the process of
responding to applicants}
2.1.2 -The nature and extent of the risks arising from and associated with the Scheme in
its current form.
2.1.3. Whether and to what extent the Scheme, as currently structured, can be sensibly
modified in order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its operation, and
mitigate any of the risks identified iathe-above.
2.1.4 The nature of any dispute resolution (or similar) mechanisms that could be
established either in order to replace the Scheme or augment its operation. In
particular-, the mechanisms considered will include adjudication, arbitration and the
use of ombudsman services.
2.1.5 In the event that a decision is made by the Board to discontinue the Scheme-_ what
steps Post Office could take to minimise any existing legal exposure.
2.2 In addressing the issues set out in paragraphs 2.1.3 to 2.1.5 above we will have regard to
administrative convenience, cost, complexity, relative merits and viability of the alternative
structures.
3 Policy Factors
3.1 It is expected that as part of the Board’ s decision making process it will have regard to the
following factors:
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION 10 Mar 2014
WITN10370131
WITN10370131
Strictly confidential and privileged
Draft for comment 10 March 2014
3.1.1 Does Post Office wish to consider paying compensation by reference to principles
other than legal entitlement? If so, how will it articulate and apply those principles?
What will it say to Subpostmasters-SPMRs and other stakeholders?
3.1.2. Whether or not the Post Office now wishes to conduct a fullscale audit of the
Horizon system to establish, with finality, that it functions as it should.
3.1.3. How important is it to Post Office to determine the facts of each individual claim? In
any claim is Post Office’ s stance to be more conciliatory than adversarial? What
are the limits of this approach?
3.1.4 To what extent does Post Office need to invest in resolving past issues to enable it
to put relationships with Subpostmasters-SPIVIRs now on a sound footing?
3.1.5 How and to what extent will Post Office wish to strike a balance between the
matters above and achieving a satisfactory political outcome, including with regard
to what has been said in Parliament about the Scheme and Horizon?
4 The basis on which the report has been prepared
41 The report will consider the issues primarily from the perspective of the general law, but we
will highlight where we think appropriate, associated public relations issues and/or political
implications which might arise.
4.2 The report will not consider certain matters which are expressly “ out of scope” . These
currently include Pl and D&O insurance, which is understood to be the subject of a
separate report to the Board.-
Christa Band and Jonathan Swil
Linklaters LLP
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION 10 Mar 2014
WITN10370131
WITN10370131
Comparison Details
Title DocsCorp Compare Comparison Results
Date & Time 11/03/2014 17:54:09
I Comparison Time 3.12 seconds
compareDocs
version Vv3.4.11.52
Sources
Original Document
I H:\settings\profile\desktop\Cut down Outline Paper 14032014.docx
Modified Document I H:\Documentum\Export\Cut down Outline Paper 14032014.docx
Comparison Statistics Word Rendering Set Markup Options
Insertions 7 Name Linklaters
Deletions 6 Insertions
Changes - I 7 Sleek
Moves iD Moves / Moves
TOTAL CHANGES I 20 I Inserted cells oe
I I Deleted cells e =.
I Merged cells
Formatting Color only.
7 Changed lines Mark left border.
Comments color By Author.
Balloons _ False
‘ compareDocs Settings Used I Category Option Selected
Open Comparison Report after Saving General Prompt
Report Type Word - ‘Track Changes a
Character Level Word False
Include Headers / Footers ~ Word True I
Include Footnotes / Endnotes Word True
Include List Numbers Word True
I Include Tables Word Tue si
Include Field Codes _Word True
Include Moves Word True
Show Track Changes Toolbar Word False
Show Reviewing Pane Word True
I Update Automatic Links at Open Word False
Summary Report Word End
I Include Change Detail Report Word Separate - I
I Document View Word Print
Remove Personal Information Word False
Flatten Field Codes Word True