Post Office - Horizon scandal

[Hobbit]

Horizon expected to run for another 8 years!!

92% of SubPostmasters have experienced issues in the last 12 months.

52% of those SubPostmasters have had balancing issues.

And the PO are still using Horizon generated data to start investigating SubPostmasters who have those balancing issues. Fujitsu refuses to provide support to those investigations, and the Police are regularly refusing to accept Horizon data that isn’t qualified by Fujitsu.

 

[Hobbit]

23 years ago yesterday Tracy Felsted, ex-SubPostmaster, started a 6 month prison sentence for theft. Her branch had shown a shortfall of £11,500. She had been told that if she paid the £11,500 to the Post Office she would not be prosecuted.

I didn’t finish watching her victim impact statement. It’s harrowing. Watching her breakdown whilst giving evidence of her experiences in Holloway prison to the Inquiry is truly heartbreaking.

Tracy Felsted has still not received compensation, including the £11,500 that should have been paid back to her as soon as her conviction was overturned.

 

[Hobbit]

A poisoned chalice?

As Fujitsu have said they will not continue to provide technical support for Horizon after the end of 2026, the PO have searched for a company to provide that support. Tumbleweed! No one is interested.

As an interim measure the PO have looked to migrate the Horizon infrastructure from Fujitsu to the PO. The Met Police have stepped in and told the PO to pause the migration over concerns that evidence may be lost.

 

[GreiginFife]

23 years ago yesterday Tracy Felsted, ex-SubPostmaster, started a 6 month prison sentence for theft. Her branch had shown a shortfall of £11,500. She had been told that if she paid the £11,500 to the Post Office she would not be prosecuted.

I didn’t finish watching her victim impact statement. It’s harrowing. Watching her breakdown whilst giving evidence of her experiences in Holloway prison to the Inquiry is truly heartbreaking.

Tracy Felsted has still not received compensation, including the £11,500 that should have been paid back to her as soon as her conviction was overturned.

Once the enquiry has concluded, do you think there will be a deluge of civil lawsuits against the PO and possibly government?

Looks as if there is standing for each and every one.

 

[Hobbit]

Once the enquiry has concluded, do you think there will be a deluge of civil lawsuits against the PO and possibly government?

Looks as if there is standing for each and every one.

Sorry but it’s a yes & no answer.

Depending on when an individual was convicted, or not but paid back an alleged shortfall determines which compensation scheme they fall under. At least one of those schemes has a take it or potentially lose a large element of it with no further redress. Another scheme has, or had, a stipulation that you couldn’t seek legal advice.

The first to sections of the PO Inquiry report are due out in Sept, in which the performance and legality of those schemes will no doubt take a hit. However, bearing in mind the Business Commons Select Committee raised a damning report and made a number of recommendations, pretty much all of which have been ignored, don’t hold your breath.

Lee Castleton, ex-SubPostmaster, has started a civil law suit but I have my doubts he’ll achieve much apart from racking up a whole load of costs.

 

[Hobbit]

Latest update from the Met Police;

• Perjury & perverting the course of justice are the two main crimes the Police are investigating.
• 4 Post Office employees have been interviewed by the Police.
• The number of officers working full time on this has risen from 80 to 100.
• The number of documents to be reviewed has risen from 1.5 million to 6 million.
• No prosecutions will be undertaken until the Inquiry report has been published.
• The first prosecution, if one does happen, isn’t expected until late 2027.

Simple maths, looking at the number of documents divided by the number of officers, would see each officer reviewing 60,000 documents. Thankfully, 2.5 million documents have already been sifted, correlated and corroborated by the Inquiry team.

 

[Hobbit]

Sir Wyn Williams has produced the first volume of the report, i.e. the sections covering the Human Impact & the efficacy of the compensation schemes.

Rather than paraphrase, and potentially put a slant on it, I’ve linked the announcement of the publication below.

However, there is one piece I very much want to highlight. The number of suicides attributed to the scandal stands at 13. Further to that, another 59 people have either attempted or contemplated suicide.

 

[Hobbit]

Who hid the Swift Report?

The PO commissioned yet another report into Horizon. In 2016 they asked Jonathan Swift, a senior Civil Servants, to produce a report on Horizon. It was so explosive the CEO of the PO didn’t share it with the board. Only 3 board members were aware of the report, and it was buried.

The Inquiry had always thought that it was the PO had buried the report, until recently.

It now transpires that the report wasn’t shared but was withheld from the National Audit Office. The name in the frame for this is Richard Callard, a senior Civil Servant, and a senior solicitor working for the Civil Service. That solicitor is now a district court judge.

Why was that report withheld from the National Audit Office? Because the NAO was investigating the PO for misuse of public money.

 

[Hobbit]

From Sir Wyn’s report…

His report states that all of these people and their wider families are to be regarded as victims of “wholly unacceptable behaviour perpetrated by a number of individuals employed by and/or associated with the Post Office and Fujitsu.”

The human impact part of the report goes into the wider ramifications for the SubPostmaster’s families. The toll on the SubPostmasters is beyond massive. Hundreds of bankruptcies, hundreds of divorces. Severe health issues, especially mental health. Parents of SubPostmasters cashing in pension funds to bail them out. Rifts in families that will never even get the chance to heal because of deaths. Children of SubPostmasters bullied incessantly. Families split up, sofa surfing after losing their homes. The negative impact on children’s education due to having to move schools. The list just goes on and on.

And Post Office and Fujitsu employees knew what was going on. Surely if a SubPostmaster was wrongly convicted and jailed, the individuals that knowingly perpetrated the injustice should get similarly harsh sentences?? Don’t forget, it wasn’t the CPS doing the prosecuting, it was the PO bringing those tainted prosecutions.

 

[Hobbit]

The journalists & bloggers are having a field day with the first volume of the report and the spotlight being shined on the PO.

Latest one; one of the recommendations from the report is that a new law firm is appointed to oversee one of the compensation schemes - quite why isn’t detailed. The PO have already acted and a replacement firm has been engaged. All good so far… or is it??

The outgoing firm has been paid £15m to hand over its files relating to the work they’ve done. Hasn’t the PO already paid for the work associated with those documents? Ok, the firm owns the documents, but £15m… that’s some price…

But wait, the PO just keeps giving… the PO has spent £15m without seeking the proper Treasury approvals. That level of incompetence surely should lead to a sacking.

 

[Hobbit]

The compensation schemes have come in for a number of very valid criticisms in the recently released report.

There are a number of high profile SubPostmasters I follow, one of which is 92 year old Betty Brown. Her claim highlights how fair and objective the redress team, headed by Simon Recaldin, and the solicitors engaged by the PO really are.

The PO set out a very stringent criteria that claimants must follow, one of which is that the claimant must employ the services of a forensic accountant in compiling their claim, i.e. the ‘costs’ part of the claim is very accurate.

Betty & her husband Oswall paid out over £50,000 of their own money to cover the shortfalls in the 2 branches they ran. However, their prosecution was deemed unsafe in 2003, and they were reinstated as SubPostmasters in their branches.

Betty made her first attempt to get their money back in 2004. The PO didn’t even reply. Her husband died in 2006. Once the various redress schemes were set up she applied through them, after a number of failed attempts previously.

Bear in mind how accurate the claims are… You’ve really got to question the credibility and integrity of those assessing the claims. The first offer was 30% of their claim - it didn’t even cover the initial £50,000.

Just an aside on that £50,000. With compound interest at 5% over 22 years, Betty is owed £147,000.

The offer was rejected, and the claim reassessed without any changes. How intelligent is the assessment team when having reassessed the claim they doubled the offer to 60%. Did they really make such an almighty screw up that the second offer is double the first offer? The cynic in me thinks they’re a bunch of grifters trying to swindle an old lady out of what she’s owed.

There has been a third offer put forward which is 70% of the claim. Something seriously wrong in the assessment team if they can be tens of thousands out in their calculations on two separate occasions. Betty has also rejected this. In her words, she’s submitted a claim using the criteria the PO have insisted on and that is the number she feels is accurate. Why have those criteria laid down by the PO if the PO aren’t going to abide by the number calculated?

21 years since the first claim was submitted. The PO could have paid back the shortfall money in 2004, when the prosecution was deemed unsafe.

And the real cynic in me thinks the PO redress team are hoping she dies as the claim dies with her, but I doubt any of them would admit to that…

 

[Hobbit]

Below are the criteria set out for perverting the course of justice, followed by the “harm” caused. Sentencing is dependent on the seriousness of the offence and ranges from a community order to 7 years in prison. If more than one person is involved it becomes conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, the upper limit being life. Failing to disclose evidence also adds/supports the perverting charge.

I can think of numerous instances of failure to disclose evidence, thus perverting the course of justice. The conspiracy aspect I’m not learned enough to determine, though on an ignorant level I can recall numerous meeting and email strings that could suggest it.

Personally, it’s a ‘done deal’ in many aspects but that’s from an engineer, not a lawyer.

Culpability​

A – High culpability​

• Conduct over a sustained period of time
• Sophisticated and/or planned nature of conduct
• Underlying offence very serious

B – Medium culpability​

• Other cases that fall between categories A and C because:
• Factors are present in A and C which balance each other out and/or
• The offender’s culpability falls between the factors described in A and C

C – Lower culpability​

• Unplanned and/or limited in scope and duration
• Unsophisticated nature of conduct
• Underlying offence was not serious
• Involved through coercion, intimidation or exploitation
• Offender’s responsibility substantially reduced by mental disorder or learning disability

Harm​

The level of harm is assessed by weighing up all the factors in the case.

Category 1​

• Serious consequences for an innocent party(ies) as a result of the offence (for example time spent in custody/arrest)
• Serious distress caused to innocent party (for example loss of reputation)
• Serious impact on administration of justice
• Substantial delay caused to the course of justice

Category 2​

• Suspicion cast upon an innocent party as a result of the offence
• Some distress caused to innocent party
• Some impact on administration of justice
• Some delay caused to the course of justice

Category 3​

• Limited effects of the offence

 

[AussieKB]

They will all get a walk......

not happy.

 

[clubchamp98]

Below are the criteria set out for perverting the course of justice, followed by the “harm” caused. Sentencing is dependent on the seriousness of the offence and ranges from a community order to 7 years in prison. If more than one person is involved it becomes conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, the upper limit being life. Failing to disclose evidence also adds/supports the perverting charge.

I can think of numerous instances of failure to disclose evidence, thus perverting the course of justice. The conspiracy aspect I’m not learned enough to determine, though on an ignorant level I can recall numerous meeting and email strings that could suggest it.

Personally, it’s a ‘done deal’ in many aspects but that’s from an engineer, not a lawyer.

Culpability​

A – High culpability​

• Conduct over a sustained period of time
• Sophisticated and/or planned nature of conduct
• Underlying offence very serious

B – Medium culpability​

• Other cases that fall between categories A and C because:
• Factors are present in A and C which balance each other out and/or
• The offender’s culpability falls between the factors described in A and C

C – Lower culpability​

• Unplanned and/or limited in scope and duration
• Unsophisticated nature of conduct
• Underlying offence was not serious
• Involved through coercion, intimidation or exploitation
• Offender’s responsibility substantially reduced by mental disorder or learning disability

Harm​

The level of harm is assessed by weighing up all the factors in the case.

Category 1​

• Serious consequences for an innocent party(ies) as a result of the offence (for example time spent in custody/arrest)
• Serious distress caused to innocent party (for example loss of reputation)
• Serious impact on administration of justice
• Substantial delay caused to the course of justice

Category 2​

• Suspicion cast upon an innocent party as a result of the offence
• Some distress caused to innocent party
• Some impact on administration of justice
• Some delay caused to the course of justice

Category 3​

• Limited effects of the offence

It will be like any other scandal ( there’s plenty to choose from) strung out at great cost until everyones dead or dying.

It’s why we have no faith in the Justice in this country.!

 

[Hobbit]

Bit of an odd one. To be honest, apart from a few suggestions of evidence ignored or lost, I can’t make my mind up on this one.

There’s a SubPostmaster in jail for murdering his wife. The central piece of evidence and motive is that Horizon showed a shortfall which his wife became aware of, and to stop her shopping him he killed her.

Okay, let’s say that the Horizon data was wrong. If that evidence was the main plank that swayed the jury…

But what about the other evidence? Mmm, apparanetly the Police force responsible has lost it. But why didn’t the defence team request it?

Although the guy has mountains of support, and there are concerns about how the CCRC have handled the requests for a review, I genuinely don’t know either way how this should be handled. All I do know is that the central piece of evidence/motive has been shown to be flawed.

 

[clubchamp98]

Bit of an odd one. To be honest, apart from a few suggestions of evidence ignored or lost, I can’t make my mind up on this one.

There’s a SubPostmaster in jail for murdering his wife. The central piece of evidence and motive is that Horizon showed a shortfall which his wife became aware of, and to stop her shopping him he killed her.

Okay, let’s say that the Horizon data was wrong. If that evidence was the main plank that swayed the jury…

But what about the other evidence? Mmm, apparanetly the Police force responsible has lost it. But why didn’t the defence team request it?

Although the guy has mountains of support, and there are concerns about how the CCRC have handled the requests for a review, I genuinely don’t know either way how this should be handled. All I do know is that the central piece of evidence/motive has been shown to be flawed.

Maybe a retrial showing what we know now.
But would that be impartial.?

Can’t see a jury convicting on the say so of Horizon!

 

[Hobbit]

Paul Patterson European CEO at Fujitsu said some lovely things at his first appearance, Jan ‘24, before the Inquiry, including that Fujitsu would pause bidding on all government contracts until the Inquiry report was produced.

In April ‘24 a Fujitsu internal document magically made its way to Computer Weekly, the magazine that has been central to exposing the scandal. The document instructed staff on several ways to by-pass the self imposed block on bidding. That also includes finding partners to be used as the front for bids.

Fujitsu also identified a number of bids in which they were the only bidder that complied with the specifications, and pushed the govt purchasing depts to announce that Fujitsu was the only option otherwise the projects would need to be stopped.

There’s just something really unsavoury about the whole relationship…

 

[Hobbit]

Paula Vennells often said she wasn’t aware or hadn’t been told. Having watched a number of clips, and the full sessions, several times it’s genuinely very hard to believe her. It’s worth remembering that prior to becoming CEO at the Post Office she was Network Director at the Post Office. Her remit for years was, specifically, the branches, and that was during the busy period for prosecutions. I’ll go out on a limb here and say she absolutely knew what was going on at the branches.

Below is a clip of a clip, 1:20mins, unfortunately I can’t find the bigger clip. With that in mind I’ll give a bit of background. One of the SubPostmasters committed suicide whilst under investigation. Vennells instructs staff to dig into his background to try and ascertain if there were mental issues and/or family issues they could use to deflect the reason for the suicide. Disgusting!

 

[Patster1969]

Paula Vennells often said she wasn’t aware or hadn’t been told. Having watched a number of clips, and the full sessions, several times it’s genuinely very hard to believe her. It’s worth remembering that prior to becoming CEO at the Post Office she was Network Director at the Post Office. Her remit for years was, specifically, the branches, and that was during the busy period for prosecutions. I’ll go out on a limb here and say she absolutely knew what was going on at the branches.

Below is a clip of a clip, 1:20mins, unfortunately I can’t find the bigger clip. With that in mind I’ll give a bit of background. One of the SubPostmasters committed suicide whilst under investigation. Vennells instructs staff to dig into his background to try and ascertain if there were mental issues and/or family issues they could use to deflect the reason for the suicide. Disgusting!

I would like to say how to these people live with themselves but the more info comes out, it raises the bar even further
She's a lying

 

[LIG]

The compensation schemes have come in for a number of very valid criticisms in the recently released report.

There are a number of high profile SubPostmasters I follow, one of which is 92 year old Betty Brown. Her claim highlights how fair and objective the redress team, headed by Simon Recaldin, and the solicitors engaged by the PO really are.

The PO set out a very stringent criteria that claimants must follow, one of which is that the claimant must employ the services of a forensic accountant in compiling their claim, i.e. the ‘costs’ part of the claim is very accurate.

Betty & her husband Oswall paid out over £50,000 of their own money to cover the shortfalls in the 2 branches they ran. However, their prosecution was deemed unsafe in 2003, and they were reinstated as SubPostmasters in their branches.

Betty made her first attempt to get their money back in 2004. The PO didn’t even reply. Her husband died in 2006. Once the various redress schemes were set up she applied through them, after a number of failed attempts previously.

Bear in mind how accurate the claims are… You’ve really got to question the credibility and integrity of those assessing the claims. The first offer was 30% of their claim - it didn’t even cover the initial £50,000.

Just an aside on that £50,000. With compound interest at 5% over 22 years, Betty is owed £147,000.

The offer was rejected, and the claim reassessed without any changes. How intelligent is the assessment team when having reassessed the claim they doubled the offer to 60%. Did they really make such an almighty screw up that the second offer is double the first offer? The cynic in me thinks they’re a bunch of grifters trying to swindle an old lady out of what she’s owed.

There has been a third offer put forward which is 70% of the claim. Something seriously wrong in the assessment team if they can be tens of thousands out in their calculations on two separate occasions. Betty has also rejected this. In her words, she’s submitted a claim using the criteria the PO have insisted on and that is the number she feels is accurate. Why have those criteria laid down by the PO if the PO aren’t going to abide by the number calculated?

21 years since the first claim was submitted. The PO could have paid back the shortfall money in 2004, when the prosecution was deemed unsafe.

And the real cynic in me thinks the PO redress team are hoping she dies as the claim dies with her, but I doubt any of them would admit to that…

Betty was on morning news on BBC1 a few days ago. Was really good that the presenters treated her with respect and allowed her use her own words.
She came across as a very plain-speaking woman who fully understood all the machinations the PO was still going through and what the Government was doing to avoid responsibility.