Eighth Report - Post Office and Horizon - Compensation: interim report

The government will make funding available to ensure postmasters who took part in the Group Litigation Order (GLO) case are not financially disadvantaged by their decision to litigate against the Post Office. They will be able to access similar compensation to that available to their non-GLO peers.

The government states it acted by announcing funding to ensure GLO postmasters are not financially disadvantaged, will have similar compensation to non-GLO peers, and is consulting on delivery.

The government agreed with the Post Office that it will publish monthly updates on the number of interim payments made and the number of final payments made on its website, and share the latest management information data with the Select Committee each month to enable the Committee to continue to track progress, subject to caveats regarding privacy.

The government states that interim compensation payments are available if specific criteria are met and that three claims have been declined because Horizon evidence was not essential to the prosecution.

The government claims the Historical Shortfall Scheme differs from the HBOS Reading Scheme because consequential losses are in scope, there are opportunities to appeal, and there is an independent advisory panel.

The government claims the Historical Shortfall Scheme differs from the HBOS Reading Scheme because consequential losses are in scope, there are opportunities to appeal, and there is an independent advisory panel.

The government explains that postmasters waive no rights by joining the Scheme and settlement is full and final only if the offer is accepted, outlines the Scheme's process in its Terms of Reference, and clarifies that claimants are reminded to seek independent legal advice.

The government states it acted by announcing funding to ensure GLO postmasters are not financially disadvantaged, will have similar compensation to non-GLO peers, and is consulting on delivery.

The government highlights the Post Office's increased capacity and targets for initial offers, including Minister Scully's ambition and Nick Read's commitment and states that while it agrees to provide updates on actions taken to ensure targets are agreed and met, it proposes doing so on a quarterly rather than monthly basis.

The government has committed to publishing information showing the spread of average claims paid out so far with a commitment to sharing such details going forward to ensure transparency and trust in the Scheme. BEIS oversight of the appropriateness of offers made to claimants takes place through approval of the Case Assessment Principles, the weekly case review process and consideration by a Director-led Steering Committee.

The government acknowledges challenges in evidencing claims due to lack of records and describes the Scheme's design to address this, including classifying unquantified claims and involving an Independent Advisory Panel. It also details the number of 'no award' claims and rejected offers.

The government accepts that the burden of proof should not rest solely with the claimant in the Historical Shortfall Scheme and that claims may be accepted even with evidential uncertainty if considered fair in all the circumstances.

The government has agreed with the Post Office to publish information on its website regarding interim payments and provide monthly management information to the Select Committee, but will delay publication of final settlement ranges to protect claimant privacy.

The government claims it has already provided the requested information in a letter from the Minister, clarifying that the £685.6 million is maximum budget cover for compensation, not a direct grant to the Post Office and detailing what it includes.