Postscript

Just as I was completing this report, I received two communications of potential importance. The first was a letter dated 28 May 2025 from Professor Hodges on behalf of the Advisory Board (seen by me on 3 June 2025). At this time, I simply record the receipt of this letter. I will consider what, if anything, I can do about its contents over the coming weeks. The second communication was from Mr Parag Patel dated 4 June 2025. Mr Patel was employed by a retail chain to manage the Post Office which was situated in one of its stores in South Wales. He says that there were Horizon generated shortfalls at the store for which he was held liable by his employer or the Post Office. He made a claim for redress in HSS but was informed that he was not eligible since he had never had a contract with the Post Office. In the face of this decision (which was made by the Post Office) Mr Patel’s former employer purported to assign its right to make a claim in HSS to Mr Patel. Many months have now gone by since the Post Office was made aware of the purported assignment, but it has yet to rule upon Mr Patel’s eligibility. This communication raises an important issue which I first raised in the Progress Update, namely what independent process exists to determine eligibility disputes in HSS. Mr Patel’s communi- cation, if accurate as to dates, also demonstrates very substantial delay on the part of the Post Office in resolving the eligibility issue. In the course of the coming weeks I shall consider how this issue should be dealt with by me and, how, if at all, it relates to persons who worked with Horizon but who were not postmasters or directly employed by the Post Office.