Take Post Office compensation scheme away from lawyers, say experts

The adversarial nature of the compensation scheme for victims of the Post Office scandal is preventing them securing timely redress.

That is the view of the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board set up to oversee the process for compensating the thousands of people whose lives were affected by the scandal.

In a discussion paper prepared earlier this year, the board advocates for a ‘principled and more effective way’ for delivering redress in cases funded by the government.

Creating a standing compensation authority could mean that victims’ needs are identified quicker and crucially would prevent money being spent on lawyers involved in the process.

‘We keep falling back on old and ineffective models, which are heavily dependent on lawyers,’ the paper states.

‘All of these redress/compensation schemes were created on an ad hoc basis. They fell back on the traditional adversarial model of the courts, in which lawyers represent both claimants and the government. However, it has long been recognised that that adversarial system is slow, expensive, and inherently divisive.’

The speed of the various Post Office compensation schemes came under scrutiny again last week, when former sub-postmistress Jo Hamilton spoke after the ITV drama Mr Bates vs The Post Office had been recognised at the National Television Awards.

Hamilton told the crowd at the O2 Arena and millions watching at home: ‘I want to thank everyone in the country for the love and the support they have given the postmasters. Please can you keep on supporting us because, despite what the government says, they’re not paying the postmasters.’

The government says that as of 30 August, £87m had been paid under the scheme including interim payments.

But critics have suggested the Post Office is spending large amounts on lawyers to fight compensation claims, while many claimants are also represented by firms who will be paid for their work advising on the existing schemes.

The Horizon advisory board, chaired by Professor Christopher Hodges, acknowledges that claimants may be concerned about being short-changed if they are not represented.

But its paper suggests that other countries have been able to establish compensation schemes managed by independent bodies which reduce this risk and remove legal costs. It adds there has been a ‘quiet revolution’ in the UK in terms of ombudsman schemes bringing through new dispute resolution procedures and institutions.

The paper adds: ‘Most ombudsmen offer procedures that are investigative rather than adversarial, involving no roles for lawyers. The systems are, therefore, inherently significantly more cost-effective and swifter.’

The board also suggests that while traditional redress is based around providing money as compensation, an independent body could secure care, therapy and support for victims, rather than increasing their psychological harm through a confusing or legalistic process.

This article is now closed for comment.