The Post Office should drop the usual negotiating tactics when arranging compensation with postmasters wrongly accused of theft, the head of the public inquiry into the scandal has stated.

Sir Wyn Williams, chair of the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry, insisted that there was no place for the usual litigation strategies in the handling of compensation schemes.

In a progress update on the three schemes, Williams also recommended that lawyers representing victims should have their rates increased, as the Post Office’s hope that compensation could be arranged without legal assistance proves unlikely.

Williams said: ‘All those who are entitled to claim compensation from the Post Office for wrongs they have suffered as a consequence of Horizon are entitled to expect that the offers made to them will be a genuine appraisal by the Post Office of what is full and fair compensation.

‘The commitment by the Post Office to reaching a full and fair settlement does mean, however, that the Post Office should never attempt to reduce a claim to a sum below that which they regard as full and fair. Put more crudely, the normal negotiating tactics often found in hard-fought litigation in the courts should have no place in the administration of the schemes.’

The Post Office and government are overseeing three schemes for those who ran branches and were accused of theft because of faults in the Horizon IT system. The Historical Shortfall Scheme was set up to compensate postmasters initially, the Overturned Historic Convictions Scheme provides interim and final payment for those convicted on the basis of Horizon-generated evidence, and the Group Litigation Scheme is under development for the 555 members of group litigation who first exposed the scandal but were forced to give up the majority of their compensation to cover legal costs.

Williams said the delay in determining many if not all applications for compensation was ‘wholly unacceptable and remains largely unexplained’. He also expressed concern that the Post Office makes the final decision on whether a late application is accepted or rejected.

On independence issues more widely, Williams said the role of the Post Office in assessing claims was not a sign that the process lacked independence – particularly given the role of an independent advisory panel.

But he stressed it was clear that legal assistance and advice for most outstanding claims would be ‘essential’ and that fees for applicants’ lawyers should be increased. In all cases where an offer is rejected, Williams recommended, the Post Office should fund reasonable legal costs as the dispute resolution process unfolds.

He added: ‘In the dispute resolution phase the Post Office will, no doubt, be represented by very experienced lawyers whether it be Herbert Smith Freehills or some other firm of solicitors. Reasonable equality of arms demands that the applicants for compensation are also represented by lawyers with appropriate experience and expertise and fairness demands that such lawyers are reasonably funded by BEIS/the Post Office.’

 

This article is now closed for comment.

Topics