Post Office - Horizon scandal

[Hobbit]

The Solicitor’s Regulatory Authority has 20 live investigations into solicitors and law firms who acted for the PO. The Authority has just received a boost to its budget for what is expected to be a significant number of prosecutions that will take place after the Inquiry report is published around Q3 next year.

 

[Hobbit]

Joining the dots, and sometimes catching the slips.

There are a number of bloggers, YouTubers & journalists following the Inquiry who reduce the 5-6 hour Inquiry Sessions down to manageable chunks, often picking out the juicy bits amongst the tedious box ticking parts.

Earlier today I watched about 40 mins worth of Rodric Williams’ testimony. Several questions were posed by the Core Participants solicitors.

He was asked why both Second Sight & a lead independent barrister were never told how much money was in the Suspense Accounts and where it had gone even though they’d asked on numerous occasions? He was shown a number of emails in which the senior managers/directors dodged the question with carefully crafted answer, saying a lot and revealing nothing.

When pushed directly on where the money had gone, asking the specific question, had it been moved into the P&L side of the balance sheet he waffled about different revenue streams feeding into the Suspense Account and a portion of it being moved into P&L. The Core Participants solicitor reminded Williams that moving money that hadn’t been ‘earned’ through trading into P&L was fraudulent accounting and also raised serious issues with how bonuses had been earned. Cue more waffle and Sir Wyn stepping in to cut right through it.

A question was also raised about a PO document in which the deliberate tactic of attrition, forcing the SubPostmasters to use up their fighting fund in the Group Litigation, was one of the options the PO employed. The question, which was left hanging after Williams’ waffle was why didn’t the PO push for the case to be finished promptly if they were so confident of winning.

Finally, Williams was taken through the make up of the Remuneration Committee on which he has a leading position. The Core Participants solicitor asked why he was on that committee when his position had been questioned numerous times by SubPostmasters who found him confrontational. Typically, legitimate claims went in for on average £200,000 but were lucky to get £20,000. Cue more waffling and slope shouldering…… fast forward to Nick Reads’ evidence 2 weeks ago. He was asked about the current make up of the Remuneration Committee, specifically about senior managers who had been involved in prosecutions being part of the committee. Read said that apart from in the early months the PO had been rigorous in ensuring no one who had been involved with prosecutions was involved with the committee. Another Read memory lapse or…?

 

[Hobbit]

Nick Wallis, the then journalist who originally put the piece together that first saw the scandal broadcast on the Beeb 14 years ago followed by numerous articles and blogs has a syndicated article that’s been published globally. It’s a sobering piece insomuch as it’s a “where do we go from here.”

The thrust of the article is about the PO employees, right to the top of the organisation and the PO legal teams, and what will the findings of the Inquiry do to them. Yes there is the possibility of prosecutions…

The senior executives have already feathered their respective nests, and some of them have already retired. Whatever embarrassment they’ve experienced is, to a large extent, already done and dusted. When the Inquiry report comes out they’ll get another few weeks of embarrassment. But what after that…?

Those solicitors who’ve broken their code of conduct might well be struck off.

Beyond that there’s whatever criminal charges the Police & the CPS come up with.
1) Failure to Disclose evidence.
2) Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
3) Fraudulently taking money from the subbies knowing that Horizon was faulty - this one surprised me but apparently there’s a very good case for it.


As an aside, those of you who saw Jarnail Singh’s complete and utter car crash session at the Inquiry in May this year might want to take a peak at the two previous sessions he had before the Inquiry - late Nov & early Dec ‘23. I hadn’t realised he’d been before the Inquiry previously. They mirror the the May session, car crashes.

 

[D-S]

I think Jason de Beer has been brilliant during the inquiry.

Here is an interesting, for me, take on why he has been so good.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

@D-S he is quite exceptional, he really is. A super charged brain.

One of the things I really like is his calm demeanour, never gets flustered, never gets aggressive. No good for a film or TV show but in a courtroom, quite superb.

 

[Hobbit]

Some of you will have heard the term “the untouchables.” It was originally attributed to Nick Reed, CEO, but he refuted this on a number of occasions. He is asked the question by the Commons Select Committee about that group of individuals. Once again he goes into great detail to refute it in all its connotations but then gives detail about the numbers of “untouchables.”

He also says there’s only 5 individuals still employed by the PO who were involved in the investigations. I can think of at least that number still employed by the PO(40+), and a far greater number that, at the suggestion of the PO, are now employed in resolving the remediation schemes.

The vid below sees a number of significant questions asked by MP’s.

Finally, Simon Recaldin will be the next witness before the Inquiry next week. Interesting guy. Makes all the right noises but…

 

[chrisd]

Once again Brian, thanks for your postings

 

[Hobbit]

Yesterday saw Simon Recaldin, director for the remediation unit, before the committee. He absolutely says all the right things in terms of what he feels about the scandal and what he’s trying to achieve in terms of redress. On the surface you can’t not admire him.

However, he doesn’t get the best of press from his time doing a similar job resolving compensation issues surrounding the pensions mis-selling scam at The RBS. Time and again yesterday Julian Blake KC asked some very difficult questions about who was in the remediation teams, which he dodged around. He was also asked about how quickly, hahaha, the PO were resolving claims - target = 32 weeks - best achieved = 44 weeks - currently 96 weeks. And he was asked if the criteria and the bar set by the remediation unit was adversely impacting subpostmasters - one subbie has recently had her 5th medical, at the insistence of the RemUnit, to determine what compensation she can receive. Maybe the first 2 doctors were idiots…

Bearing in mind Nick Read’s evidence runs contrary to Recaldin’s there’s a rabbit off somewhere.

Below is Nick Wallis’ article about yesterday’s evidence.

The Process Gnome

Simon Recaldin is both in charge of the Post Office’s remediation approach and wholly at the whim of it. He claims he is trying his damnedest to get compensation to Subpostmasters post-haste …

www.postofficescandal.uk

 

[Billysboots]

Small world. Prior to my time in the police I worked in branch banking and had the pleasure of working with Simon Recaldin whilst posted in a branch in Northamptonshire. One of the nicest, most genuine men I have ever met.

 

[Hobbit]

Wow! A quick view from 40 mins to 55mins…

Just a quick clarification of the £600,000 immediate settlement that was announced earlier this year, to the sound of trumpets. It is no different to the offer that’s been on the table for quite some time AND was trumpeted the day before Kemi Badenough was to appear before the Commons Select Committee. She spoke at length about this “wonderful offer” the govt had pushed through… complete and utter Rolex! Nothing new was offered, it was a smoke screen to hide the fact bu99er all had changed.

At one point I was thinking this guy was very much on the side of the subbies, and for sorting out redress quickly. He seems to be battling the PO in favour of the subbies. And then Fiona Page started asking questions. The PO have taken one of the schemes back in-house, the very thing the PO have said wasn’t happening. If he’s the director in charge of remuneration across the 4 schemes currently operating, just where does the book stop? You just can’t not like the guy but there’s a reality gap between what he’s saying and what the schemes are doing and achieving.

Once Recaldin is finished a former permanent secretary for BEIS is in the chair. It’s a yawn-fest.

 

[Hobbit]

Interim payments kicked into the long grass. Why?

Timeline - this started around the time of the docu-drama.
Interim payment - this was an offer to pay known costs/monies to SubPostmasters ahead of the final settlement. Typically this would be to cover shortfalls wrongly paid to the PO and various expenses incurred by the SubPostmasters. The process to determine compensation would continue after the interim payment was made.

Who stopped the interim payments? Simon Recaldin was asked but couldn’t give any details. His answer was vague but he hinted very strongly that it was a govt decision. The Civil Servant that followed Recaldin into the chair had left her position at the end of 2023 and couldn’t shed any light on it but gave a waffly answer.

Not pleasant…

 

[Hobbit]

Yet another ex-SubPostmaster, Carol Riddell, dies before receiving compensation.

That takes to total deaths of ex-SubPostmasters awaiting compensation to 250+…

 

[Neilds]

Question for those in the know (@Hobbit?):
Has the PO set an amount for the posties compensation? If so, does this also include any money that they have paid to make up the supposed shortfalls - which should be additional to any compensation (including interest) and not just wrapped up into 1 payment.

 

[Hobbit]

Question for those in the know (@Hobbit?):
Has the PO set an amount for the posties compensation? If so, does this also include any money that they have paid to make up the supposed shortfalls - which should be additional to any compensation (including interest) and not just wrapped up into 1 payment.

Bizarrely, there are 4 different compensation schemes. As the PO has lost various group litigations they have, for whatever reason, either had a scheme imposed on them by the court or have set up a scheme to cover those that won that particular case.

Earlier in the thread there’s a post about a SubPostmaster who paid around £200,000 to cover a shortfall. She has been offered £21,000, including compensation. Needless to say she’s refused the offer, which means she now goes through around 2 years, at the current timescale, of negotiation.

Following one of the court cases a group of SubPostmasters who have already settled for £xxxx have had their claim reopened by the Remediation Unit, and they will receive extra money.

As for “has the PO set an amount for the posties compensation?” Yes and no. There are offers out in at least 2 of the schemes for an immediate fixed settlement. One of them is for £75,000 and the other is for £600,000. Some SubPostmasters have already refused the fixed settlement figures, and I have heard a whisper on the wind that one convicted/imprisoned SubPostmaster received £1,100,000.

Simon Recaldin, PO director in charge of the Remediation Unit, has said there is no limit. Equally, the govt have released x amount of funding to cover the various schemes. What happens if that limit is reached?

 

[chrisd]

Bizarrely, there are 4 different compensation schemes. As the PO has lost various group litigations they have, for whatever reason, either had a scheme imposed on them by the court or have set up a scheme to cover those that won that particular case.

Earlier in the thread there’s a post about a SubPostmaster who paid around £200,000 to cover a shortfall. She has been offered £21,000, including compensation. Needless to say she’s refused the offer, which means she now goes through around 2 years, at the current timescale, of negotiation.

Following one of the court cases a group of SubPostmasters who have already settled for £xxxx have had their claim reopened by the Remediation Unit, and they will receive extra money.

As for “has the PO set an amount for the posties compensation?” Yes and no. There are offers out in at least 2 of the schemes for an immediate fixed settlement. One of them is for £75,000 and the other is for £600,000. Some SubPostmasters have already refused the fixed settlement figures, and I have heard a whisper on the wind that one convicted/imprisoned SubPostmaster received £1,100,000.

Simon Recaldin, PO director in charge of the Remediation Unit, has said there is no limit. Equally, the govt have released x amount of funding to cover the various schemes. What happens if that limit is reached?

And who pays the claimants legal fees?

 

[Hobbit]

And who pays the claimants legal fees?

There’s two answers to that. As of July(?) this year the PO has to pay the claimants legal fees & costs, e.g. medical bills. The minister won a legal case dept of BEIS brought to ensure it’s the PO’s responsibility - there’s a post way back around the time the case was concluded giving the details.

Whether that’s across all 4 schemes…maybe, maybe not.

 

[Hobbit]

Below is part of a document submitted to BEIS & the Ombudsman. Some mind boggling figures in there in terms of the huge amount paid out, but so disappointing to see what finally ended up in the SubPostmasters pockets. Also, Section “C” shows the restrictions the PO imposed in terms of compensation, see section 7.17. In a lot of cases it is the lack of compensation that is the issue, added to which that in many cases the shortfall has been argued down. The PO have demanded written evidence but all the SubPostmasters had to hand in all PO documents to the PO when their contract was terminated.

Where a SubPostmaster has died the PO have argued that the contract was with the SubPostmaster, and the families receive nothing not even the shortfall that could be argued is part of the estate. Bearing in mind the families have suffered because of the PO’s actions…

For all the sweet words we’ve heard in recent weeks from those administering the schemes, try not to lose sight of the very restrictive criteria set out by the PO. Yes you can have full and fair redress but within their limits. There was a very interesting session late last week in which a commercial compensation litigator employed by the PO gave evidence. Why does compensation need to be argued down, bearing in mind forensic accountants employed by defence solicitors created the claims?

Submitted to BEIS:
BEIS response:
Submitted to Ombudsman:
Friday 30 October 2020
Monday 30 November 2020
Tuesday 1 December 2020
STEVENS& BOLTON
"B losses" - Losses claimed in the Proceedings
7.9
7.10
7.11
7.12
7.13
7.14 Losses claimed by the Complainants in the Proceedings fell under a number of heads including: repayment of shortfalls; loss of investment; loss of earnings; contractual notice
losses; handicap on the open labour market; reputational damage; personal injury; costs
associated with bankruptcy and defending civil proceedings. There were many others. Whilst these legally recoverable losses represent but a fraction of the losses incurred by the Complainants collectively, having been calculated according to strict legal principles
including remoteness and foreseeability, they total £52,519,921.75 It is public knowledge, following POL's Fol response disclosing the mediation settlement agreement (if not the leaking of the figure to the media after the settlement), that POL paid
the Complainants a settlement figure of €55,000,000.
Deducting from £55,000,000:
7.12.1
£46,500,000 in respect of litigation costs; and
7.12.2 £1,000,000 for related expenses incurred (including arranging closure of the Proceedings, paying for post mediation settlement steps to remove County Court Judgments and charging orders, dealing with suspended Complainants, finalising payments to Complainants made bankrupt, agreeing debt write-offs with POL,
notifying Complainants, reviewing claims forms, calculating and distributing funds),
the net amount paid to the Complainants was € 10,500,000. In other words, each Complainant received (on an average basis, with the amount distributed to each determined according to the confidential claims proceeds account formula matrix on which legal losses were determined) £18,918.92, a very low average recovery rate per
Complainant. Interest should also run on the Complainants' net unpaid losses claimed in the proceedings
of €42,019,921.75 from 11 December 2019 at the statutory rate of 8%.
"C Losses" - Losses actually incurred but unclaimed in the Proceedings 7.15 "C losses" are those actually incurred by the Complainants - the losses suffered in real life during the Relevant Period, unrestricted by the legal concepts such as remoteness and
foreseeability.
7.16 The losses the Complainants actually suffered as a result of POL's actions concern heads such as: loss of asset realisation; loss of a chance to redevelop premises; loss of lease premium value on premises that no longer include a Post Office; lost remuneration; mental distress; hurt and suffering (resulting in suicide in some cases); reputational damage and
damage from going to prison; inconvenience; stress; stress-induced illness, the list goes on.
7.17 The "C losses" extend, in other words, beyond the narrow scope of losses the Complainants were restricted to claiming in the Proceedings, litigation that again they were forced to bring to uncover the truth behind POL's actions and the Horizon accounting scandal resulting from
HMG's maladministration in failing to oversee or regulate POL during the Relevant Period.
7.18 The "C losses" are calculated by reference to the losses of 59 Complainants as verified by independent forensic accountant reports that were produced for the Second Sight Interim
Mediation Scheme (that POL unilaterally disbanded) and included in the Proceedings.

 

[Hobbit]

What figure would the PO Remediation panel recommend as a full and fair compensation for loss of business, loss of home etc?

 

[rulefan]

Disgraceful

 

[Hobbit]

Joining the dots…

Phase 7 of the Inquiry concentrates on the current processes in place surrounding all aspects of the relationship with current SubPostmasters and the compensation schemes in place for current and ex-SubPostmasters seeking redress. In recent weeks we’ve heard some great things in terms of what the PO is trying to achieve.

Andrew Parsons, in-house solicitor, gave evidence in Phase 6. Not a particularly nice man. During his evidence we heard that the PO had instructed its negotiators/solicitors to offer zero in some cases. Cases that had had their claims put together by forensic accountants, and included factual losses and costs.

Evidence heard in Phase 6 contradicts the evidence we’ve just heard in Phase 7 from the PO directors and CEO.

If the scheme(s) are so caring and wonderful, why has Janet Skinner, convicted SubPostmaster since exonerated, been instructed to get a 5th medical to support her claim?