September 2014
JFSA update 17th September 2014
Report back from the Working Group Meeting London 16th September 2014
For a number of months now Post Office has been claiming that it is the role of the Working Group to decide upon which cases go forward to Mediation and which do not, if and when Post Office raises an objection to a case going forward. JFSA believes that it is unfortunate that the Chairman of the Working Group was not in place at the time of the setting up of the Scheme, as he has recently taken the decision that he will comply with the wishes of Post Office in this matter.
Throughout all this period JFSA has repeatedly pointed out, that it was neither the intention nor the role of the Working Group to sit in judgement on the suitability of cases for Mediation. JFSA’s position is, and has always been, that it is up to Second Sight, the independent investigators, to investigate the case, consider the report from Post Office of the case, and then to make a recommendation as to the suitability of the case for Mediation. It is JFSA’s position that it is the recommendation of the independent investigators that is binding to the progress of a case to Mediation, and recommended cases should automatically go to Mediation.
However on particular cases, when Second Sight cannot clearly recommend a case going to Mediation, then that case would be discussed by the Working Group, and in such instances JFSA would engage in the discussion in accordance with the original Scheme documentation, where it states “The Working Group will however take the final decision on any cases that may not be suitable for mediation.”
Yet with the Chairman’s recent decision to comply with the wishes of Post Office, it would seem that if Post Office disagrees with Second Sights’ recommendation, Post Office then wants to discuss those cases at the Working Group with a view to having the case removed from the Scheme. This is totally unacceptable to JFSA, and at the Working Group meeting on 16th September 2014, when a batch of cases were tabled by Post Office, JFSA made the statement that it refused to discuss any case where 2nd Sight had made a recommendation that the case was suitable for Mediation. It is a statement that JFSA has put in writing on many occasions over the last few months.
It is the view of JFSA that Post Office is attempting to use the Working Group as an apparatus to filter and remove cases from the Scheme, instead of using Post Office’s own right of refusing to attend or engage in Mediation if it so chooses. It is a position that has been made clear to all at the Working Group and that you have a right to be informed of, as it may well affect your case and other matters going forward.
Report back from the Working Group Meeting London 16th September 2014
For a number of months now Post Office has been claiming that it is the role of the Working Group to decide upon which cases go forward to Mediation and which do not, if and when Post Office raises an objection to a case going forward. JFSA believes that it is unfortunate that the Chairman of the Working Group was not in place at the time of the setting up of the Scheme, as he has recently taken the decision that he will comply with the wishes of Post Office in this matter.
Throughout all this period JFSA has repeatedly pointed out, that it was neither the intention nor the role of the Working Group to sit in judgement on the suitability of cases for Mediation. JFSA’s position is, and has always been, that it is up to Second Sight, the independent investigators, to investigate the case, consider the report from Post Office of the case, and then to make a recommendation as to the suitability of the case for Mediation. It is JFSA’s position that it is the recommendation of the independent investigators that is binding to the progress of a case to Mediation, and recommended cases should automatically go to Mediation.
However on particular cases, when Second Sight cannot clearly recommend a case going to Mediation, then that case would be discussed by the Working Group, and in such instances JFSA would engage in the discussion in accordance with the original Scheme documentation, where it states “The Working Group will however take the final decision on any cases that may not be suitable for mediation.”
Yet with the Chairman’s recent decision to comply with the wishes of Post Office, it would seem that if Post Office disagrees with Second Sights’ recommendation, Post Office then wants to discuss those cases at the Working Group with a view to having the case removed from the Scheme. This is totally unacceptable to JFSA, and at the Working Group meeting on 16th September 2014, when a batch of cases were tabled by Post Office, JFSA made the statement that it refused to discuss any case where 2nd Sight had made a recommendation that the case was suitable for Mediation. It is a statement that JFSA has put in writing on many occasions over the last few months.
It is the view of JFSA that Post Office is attempting to use the Working Group as an apparatus to filter and remove cases from the Scheme, instead of using Post Office’s own right of refusing to attend or engage in Mediation if it so chooses. It is a position that has been made clear to all at the Working Group and that you have a right to be informed of, as it may well affect your case and other matters going forward.