Archive
April 2021
The Biggest Miscarriage of Justice in Legal History
Friday 23 April 2021 - the Court of Appeal overturns 39 convictions and there could be another 700 on the way.
"The consistent failure of POL to be open and honest about the issues affecting Horizon can in our view only be explained by a strong reluctance to say or do anything which might lead to other SPMs knowing about those issues. Those concerned with prosecutions of SPMs clearly wished to be able to maintain the assertion that Horizon data was accurate, and effectively steamrolled over any SPM who sought to challenge its accuracy."
"We conclude that POL’s failures of investigation and disclosure were so egregious as to make the prosecution of any of the “Horizon cases” an affront to the conscience of the court."
Extracts from the judgment handed down at the Court of Appeal. You can find the Summary and full documention on the documents page
"We conclude that POL’s failures of investigation and disclosure were so egregious as to make the prosecution of any of the “Horizon cases” an affront to the conscience of the court."
Extracts from the judgment handed down at the Court of Appeal. You can find the Summary and full documention on the documents page
March 2021
March 2021 - and why only a Statutory Inquiry will now do.
Further to the comments below written last year about the Government Whitewash Review and why it needed, at that time, to have the option of turning it into a Statutory Inquiry - well that ship has sailed.
So much more has come to light that nothing less than a Statutory Inquiry will be acceptable to the victims of Post Office. Recently a court heard that Post Office staff were instructed to shred key documents that could have helped postmasters defend themselves against prosecutions. The link between Post Office Board representatives of HMG through BEIS and UKGI is well known, so now questions have to be asked as to who was involved with the decisions for the destruction of evidence, how high up does this go?
The JFSA has learnt the hard way that written assurances and even statements in the Houses of Commons or Lords aren't worth anything and are often far from the truth despite their weaselly wording. The only times the real truth has been exposed has been in front of the judiciary when statements were tested in court and witnesses cross-examined on their evidence.
This is why a Judicial Review Pre-Action Protocol Letter has been sent to Paul Scully the Minister at BEIS, you can find a copy on the correspondence page. We aim to halt the current BEIS Whitewash Review and replace it with a Statutory Inquiry with redefined Terms of Reference and with the power to subpoena witnesses and take evidence under oath.
28 May 2021 update
So much more has come to light that nothing less than a Statutory Inquiry will be acceptable to the victims of Post Office. Recently a court heard that Post Office staff were instructed to shred key documents that could have helped postmasters defend themselves against prosecutions. The link between Post Office Board representatives of HMG through BEIS and UKGI is well known, so now questions have to be asked as to who was involved with the decisions for the destruction of evidence, how high up does this go?
The JFSA has learnt the hard way that written assurances and even statements in the Houses of Commons or Lords aren't worth anything and are often far from the truth despite their weaselly wording. The only times the real truth has been exposed has been in front of the judiciary when statements were tested in court and witnesses cross-examined on their evidence.
This is why a Judicial Review Pre-Action Protocol Letter has been sent to Paul Scully the Minister at BEIS, you can find a copy on the correspondence page. We aim to halt the current BEIS Whitewash Review and replace it with a Statutory Inquiry with redefined Terms of Reference and with the power to subpoena witnesses and take evidence under oath.
28 May 2021 update
November 2020
Court of Appeal - Wednesday 18th November 2020
It would seem that after all the evidence that has eventually been uncovered to support the overturning of the convictions of those prosecuted by POL, they now have to wait until next March for the full hearing by the Court of Appeal.
From what I can gather, when the Court of Appeal was in session on the 18th, it appears that most time was spent dealing with a legally sensitive document that had 'leaked' to the media. It seems the document raised the issue of the veracity of the evidence given by two Fujitsu employees in previous court hearings. It also seems these are two of the Fujitsu employees being investigated by the Metropolitan Police at the request of the DPP following matters being raised in a letter sent by the managing judge of both the Horizon and Common Issues trials (the letter forms part of the Ombudsman complaint and can be found in the accompanying documentation).
From what I can gather, when the Court of Appeal was in session on the 18th, it appears that most time was spent dealing with a legally sensitive document that had 'leaked' to the media. It seems the document raised the issue of the veracity of the evidence given by two Fujitsu employees in previous court hearings. It also seems these are two of the Fujitsu employees being investigated by the Metropolitan Police at the request of the DPP following matters being raised in a letter sent by the managing judge of both the Horizon and Common Issues trials (the letter forms part of the Ombudsman complaint and can be found in the accompanying documentation).
November 2020 - BEIS, HMG and the Parliamentary Ombudsman
The Campaign continues....
With the funding raised, we moved forward to prepare our complaint of maladministration against BEIS and HMG, and over the last few months considerable work has been undertaken which has led to the complaint being sent to BEIS at the end of October.
In order for the Parliamentary Ombudsman to consider a case for investigation, the offending department must have an opportunity to respond, so BEIS has been given until the end of November to reply before the complaint is submitted to the Ombudsman on 1st December 2020.
As has recently been mentioned to the JFSA victim group in an email, in light of our complaint it is possible for BEIS and HMG to admit they got it wrong and to provide us with the financial redress we are owed, but by the same reasoning it is possible for us to wake up tomorrow morning in POL’s universe and find that the Earth is actually flat.
Find full details of the complaint here
With the funding raised, we moved forward to prepare our complaint of maladministration against BEIS and HMG, and over the last few months considerable work has been undertaken which has led to the complaint being sent to BEIS at the end of October.
In order for the Parliamentary Ombudsman to consider a case for investigation, the offending department must have an opportunity to respond, so BEIS has been given until the end of November to reply before the complaint is submitted to the Ombudsman on 1st December 2020.
As has recently been mentioned to the JFSA victim group in an email, in light of our complaint it is possible for BEIS and HMG to admit they got it wrong and to provide us with the financial redress we are owed, but by the same reasoning it is possible for us to wake up tomorrow morning in POL’s universe and find that the Earth is actually flat.
Find full details of the complaint here
The Government Whitewash Review and why we won’t be conned by it.
You may have come across the BEIS Post Office Horizon IT inquiry 2020, a non-statutory inquiry into what they insensitively describe as the 'Post Office’s Horizon IT dispute' (it seems that the civil service consider a 'dispute' as something that has devasteted the lives of hundreds of Subpostmasters and their families, caused numerous bankruptcies, wrongful prosecutions and imprisonments, resulting in many deaths along the way. Did they not consider 'tiff' or 'spat' as alternatives, or were they thought to be too hard and inquiring?)
What really should have happened..........
For a number of months government has been well aware of what we, the JFSA victim Group, are looking for in any inquiry that was set up and in which we would engage. It has been put in writing to it on numerous occasions, we would require:
Definition of a Whitewash Review i.e. what government decided to do (the scope of the BEIS whitewash review). Its review intends to:-
So this government prefers the whitewash review approach, as it:
This is why the JFSA and others who have seen the true extent of the damage BEIS has allowed POL to inflict on its Subpostmasters will never take part in the whitewash, the victims have nothing to gain if they attended, and not even the real guilty will be brought to account.
Government already has over 1000 pages of court tested evidence from the judgments of the Common Issues and Horizon Issues trials, which at the moment the victims have had to pay £46m for, but the judgments show exactly what went on – incompetence and cover up by POL management supported by the POL Board and HMG. It is utterly pointless the JFSA victim Group taking part in their whitewash review, there is nothing in it for the victims, all we would achieve is to give our stamp of approval to this pointless internal whitewash review.
Whatever happens behind those closed doors will not make the slightest difference to the position POL and HMG have left the victims in - which is why we continue to pursue BEIS and HMG with the maladministration complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
You may have come across the BEIS Post Office Horizon IT inquiry 2020, a non-statutory inquiry into what they insensitively describe as the 'Post Office’s Horizon IT dispute' (it seems that the civil service consider a 'dispute' as something that has devasteted the lives of hundreds of Subpostmasters and their families, caused numerous bankruptcies, wrongful prosecutions and imprisonments, resulting in many deaths along the way. Did they not consider 'tiff' or 'spat' as alternatives, or were they thought to be too hard and inquiring?)
What really should have happened..........
For a number of months government has been well aware of what we, the JFSA victim Group, are looking for in any inquiry that was set up and in which we would engage. It has been put in writing to it on numerous occasions, we would require:
- That the inquiry would need not initially be a statutory inquiry, on the basis that the Post Office Ltd, Fujitsu and HMG would give undertakings to cooperate fully with the Inquiry, including in the provision of documents, witnesses and information. If they will not give those undertakings or the Judge reports that he needs the powers of a statutory inquiry, HMG would take the necessary steps to turn the Inquiry into a statutory inquiry;
- The Inquiry will be entirely independent of the government, the Post Office and any other party;
- The Inquiry would not re-examine the findings of Fraser J, but will accept those findings as accurate unless it is plain in the light of evidence heard by the judicial enquiry a finding was inaccurate;
- The Inquiry should be able to make recommendations as to compensation which should be paid by Post Office Ltd, Fujitsu and HMG to the Group to reflect what their legal liability would require without regard either for limitation defences or the effect of the mediation (save to the extent that any sums paid direct to the Subpostmasters (as opposed to sums paid to meet legal costs liabilities of the Subpostmasters) as a result of the mediation shall reduce the liability of the paying party to that Subpostmaster;
- The conduct of the hearing will be a matter for the Judge;
- The reasonable legal costs of the Group in connection with the Inquiry will be paid by the Post Office Ltd. (The Group having legal representation at the Inquiry would mean witnesses could be cross-examined, and you will recall that it was only under the cross-examination of the POL and Fujitsu witnesses during the trials that the truth started to appear, as in many cases their written witness statements turned out to be highly dubious or worse)
Definition of a Whitewash Review i.e. what government decided to do (the scope of the BEIS whitewash review). Its review intends to:-
- A: Understand and acknowledge what went wrong in relation to Horizon, leading to the Group Litigation Order, by drawing on evidence from the Horizon judgments and affected postmasters’ experiences and identify what key lessons must be learned for the future.
- B: Build upon the findings of Mr Justice Fraser, by obtaining all available relevant evidence from Post Office Ltd, Fujitsu and BEIS to establish a clear account of the implementation and failings of Horizon over its lifecycle.
- C: Assess whether Post Office Ltd has learned the lessons from the criticisms made by Mr Justice Fraser in the ‘Common Issues’ and ‘Horizon Issues’ trials and those identified by affected postmasters and has delivered or made good progress on the organisational and cultural changes necessary to ensure a similar case does not happen in the future.
- D: Assess whether the commitments made by Post Office Ltd within the mediation settlement – including the historical shortfall scheme – have been properly delivered.
- E: Assess whether the processes and information provided by Post Office Ltd to postmasters are sufficient:
- i) to enable both parties to meet their contractual obligations
- ii) to enable postmasters to run their businesses. This includes assessing whether Post Office Ltd’s related processes such as recording and resolving postmaster queries, dispute handling, suspension and termination are fit for purpose. In addition, determine whether the quality of the service offer for postmasters and their relationship with Post Office Ltd has materially improved since the conclusions reached by Mr Justice Fraser.
- F: Examine the governance and whistleblowing controls now in place at Post Office Ltd and whether they are sufficient to ensure that the failings that led to the Horizon case issues do not happen again.
- The Inquiry will consider only those matters set out in the preceding sections A-F. Post Office Ltd’s prosecution function, matters of criminal law, the Horizon group damages settlement, the conduct of current or future litigation relating to Horizon and/or the engagement or findings of any other supervisory or complaints mechanisms, including in the public sector, are outside the Inquiry‘s scope.
So this government prefers the whitewash review approach, as it:
- will not look at compensation;
- will not allow witnesses to be cross-examined;
- does not have the power to make any of them turn up;
- exists only to see if Post Office has learnt its lesson and promises to do better in the future.
This is why the JFSA and others who have seen the true extent of the damage BEIS has allowed POL to inflict on its Subpostmasters will never take part in the whitewash, the victims have nothing to gain if they attended, and not even the real guilty will be brought to account.
Government already has over 1000 pages of court tested evidence from the judgments of the Common Issues and Horizon Issues trials, which at the moment the victims have had to pay £46m for, but the judgments show exactly what went on – incompetence and cover up by POL management supported by the POL Board and HMG. It is utterly pointless the JFSA victim Group taking part in their whitewash review, there is nothing in it for the victims, all we would achieve is to give our stamp of approval to this pointless internal whitewash review.
Whatever happens behind those closed doors will not make the slightest difference to the position POL and HMG have left the victims in - which is why we continue to pursue BEIS and HMG with the maladministration complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
AUGUST 2020
Fundraising Hits Target
If you have read the fundraising page you would have seen that we now have the funding to move forward with our submission of maladministration by the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy. Once again it is down to the group to pursue the injustice of a corporate, this time Government, body that thinks it is too big to be held account for its failings that have been at the root cause of the devastation of so many lives.
Once again it is going to be down to us to expose, in the full glare of the media, the incompetence and failures of those who prefer to lurk in the shadows. We know who most of them are and where they fell down on their jobs, they don't want to talk sensibly to us about how the Department could make amends, all they want to do is deny, deny, deny it has anything to do with them - but we know different, and we will prove it beyond any shadow of doubt.
Once again it is going to be down to us to expose, in the full glare of the media, the incompetence and failures of those who prefer to lurk in the shadows. We know who most of them are and where they fell down on their jobs, they don't want to talk sensibly to us about how the Department could make amends, all they want to do is deny, deny, deny it has anything to do with them - but we know different, and we will prove it beyond any shadow of doubt.
Judge Led Public Inquiry - nothing less will do!
The MPs want it, we want it, it will happen in the end, so lets get on with it.
The JFSA will never engage with anything less.
The JFSA will never engage with anything less.
The Campaign goes on.........................
Following the outstanding court victories of the Common Issues and the Horizon Issues trials, the process entered into Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) late November 2019. Why this came about and what this meant and what took place, can be found on the ADR page. Yet, as explained in detail on that page, the outcome meant that only £11m was left to be apportioned by the 555 claimants, when as previously explained, a prior examination of a number of these claimant cases had identified a figure of closer to £700,000 (2015 figures) being the average loss to each claimant and something Post Office would have been aware of.
Furthermore, since the Settlement Agreement was signed, according to comments made in Parliament, Post Office has settled individual Subpostmasters cases at £300,000 for those who had not taken part in the legal action. Obviously a move by Post Office to punish further those who had dared take legal action against it.
So the campaign continues, and first on the list is the recovery of the £46m (plus interest at the court agreed rate of 8% from the date of the Settlement Agreement – 10th December 2019), costs the 555 claimant group have had to pay to uncover the lies and cover-up in the court. Recovering that money would mean that each in the claimant group would then receive probably 4 or 5 times the few thousands they will receive from their share of apportioned £11m, nowhere near what they lost, but at least something.
This bill now rests at the door of BEIS, the Government department that had failed its statutory duty to manage and oversee Post Office, resulting in the Claimants having to bring a legal action in the first place. Not only has BEIS failed in its duties, but it has found great use and value in the judgments from our two court cases and has echoed that point more than once – but still refuses to pay what it owes.
Next on the list is the judge-led public inquiry, and it can only be a judge-led public inquiry, nothing else would have any merit or any value to the JFSA or the claimants. Why judge led? What has become clear to the JFSA and many of the MPs who have supported us over the years, is that Post Office cannot be trusted. For years Post Office has written numerous assurances and has robustly given and stood behind statements that were untrue. Whether this was deliberate deceit or just plain incompetence has yet to be established, but the only time the real truth has ever started to appear was during the two court cases, and it was only the weight of the judiciary that has managed to achieve this.
So whilst the issue is back in limbo for the present, once the pandemic has passed through, the campaign will be back in force, and with so much support from MPs before the recess of Parliament, no doubt our voices will continue to be heard in Westminster until we have succeeded.
Furthermore, since the Settlement Agreement was signed, according to comments made in Parliament, Post Office has settled individual Subpostmasters cases at £300,000 for those who had not taken part in the legal action. Obviously a move by Post Office to punish further those who had dared take legal action against it.
So the campaign continues, and first on the list is the recovery of the £46m (plus interest at the court agreed rate of 8% from the date of the Settlement Agreement – 10th December 2019), costs the 555 claimant group have had to pay to uncover the lies and cover-up in the court. Recovering that money would mean that each in the claimant group would then receive probably 4 or 5 times the few thousands they will receive from their share of apportioned £11m, nowhere near what they lost, but at least something.
This bill now rests at the door of BEIS, the Government department that had failed its statutory duty to manage and oversee Post Office, resulting in the Claimants having to bring a legal action in the first place. Not only has BEIS failed in its duties, but it has found great use and value in the judgments from our two court cases and has echoed that point more than once – but still refuses to pay what it owes.
Next on the list is the judge-led public inquiry, and it can only be a judge-led public inquiry, nothing else would have any merit or any value to the JFSA or the claimants. Why judge led? What has become clear to the JFSA and many of the MPs who have supported us over the years, is that Post Office cannot be trusted. For years Post Office has written numerous assurances and has robustly given and stood behind statements that were untrue. Whether this was deliberate deceit or just plain incompetence has yet to be established, but the only time the real truth has ever started to appear was during the two court cases, and it was only the weight of the judiciary that has managed to achieve this.
So whilst the issue is back in limbo for the present, once the pandemic has passed through, the campaign will be back in force, and with so much support from MPs before the recess of Parliament, no doubt our voices will continue to be heard in Westminster until we have succeeded.
JULY 2020
The Fundraising
15 July 2020 was the date by which we needed to raise the £98,000 to cover the costs of the group engaging legal support to progress our case through the Parliamentary Ombudsman, and thanks to the generosity of all those who could see how wronged the group had been treated, the target was reached with a couple of days to spare. The fundraising continues in order to try and reach the Stretch Target to meet contingencies along the way, but we can now start the work to expose the incompetence and maladministration that led to the group action against Post Office.
You can still support us by visiting our fundraising page at CrowdJustice www.crowdjustice.com/case/post-office-victims/
What follows on this page was the content of the front page during the fundraising campaign.
You can still support us by visiting our fundraising page at CrowdJustice www.crowdjustice.com/case/post-office-victims/
What follows on this page was the content of the front page during the fundraising campaign.
"Following detailed record searches into the oldest cases from more than two decades ago, the review has currently identified around 900 cases prosecuted since the introduction of Horizon which may have relied on Horizon data" - source, Post Office
The Parliamentary Ombudsman and CrowdJustice
What Price Victory?
£86,000 is the average cost of ‘victory’ that each of the 555 ‘successful’ victims have had to pay for daring to expose in Court the truth behind almost 20 years of state sponsored cover up and lies by Post Office Limited. Post Office's conduct and lies have resulted in hundreds of mainly ex-Subpostmasters losing their business, their livelihoods, homes, health and having their reputations destroyed in their local communities.
There have been numerous instances of bankruptcies, imposed debt, damaged mental health, suicidal events including unsafe criminal prosecutions that, in light of recent evidence in Court have now been referred to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
After such a 'victory' the victims of Post Office cannot afford another £46m court case - they're still paying for the last one! The legal funding costs are not recoverable in law from Post Office Limited, the losing defendants, and effectively these and other costs have been taken from the settlement meant for the victims.
But the cover up that has gone on within Government must be investigated, and the most cost effective way of pursuing this now is through the the office of the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
Help us fund the legal support we need to prepare our submission to the Ombudsman to ensure our documents focus on our strongest points in our claim of maladministration by the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS). Help us recover the costs of that ‘victory’, and to expose Government’s failure to undertake its statutory duty of oversight and management of its 100% owned subsidiary, Post Office Limited.
£86,000 is the average cost of ‘victory’ that each of the 555 ‘successful’ victims have had to pay for daring to expose in Court the truth behind almost 20 years of state sponsored cover up and lies by Post Office Limited. Post Office's conduct and lies have resulted in hundreds of mainly ex-Subpostmasters losing their business, their livelihoods, homes, health and having their reputations destroyed in their local communities.
There have been numerous instances of bankruptcies, imposed debt, damaged mental health, suicidal events including unsafe criminal prosecutions that, in light of recent evidence in Court have now been referred to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
After such a 'victory' the victims of Post Office cannot afford another £46m court case - they're still paying for the last one! The legal funding costs are not recoverable in law from Post Office Limited, the losing defendants, and effectively these and other costs have been taken from the settlement meant for the victims.
But the cover up that has gone on within Government must be investigated, and the most cost effective way of pursuing this now is through the the office of the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
Help us fund the legal support we need to prepare our submission to the Ombudsman to ensure our documents focus on our strongest points in our claim of maladministration by the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS). Help us recover the costs of that ‘victory’, and to expose Government’s failure to undertake its statutory duty of oversight and management of its 100% owned subsidiary, Post Office Limited.
Criminal Cases Review Commission, Prosecutions & CrowdJustice
While the whole 555 in the claimant group has yet to find the financial redress due to it, one of the very positive achievements from the judgments of the Common Issues and Horizon Issues trials has been that a number of the group are now able to apply to the Court of Appeal to have their convictions overturned.
The solicitors Hudgell’s are acting for quite a few of the group who were prosecuted to assist them with legal representation. They are also offering free informal advice to others. Unlike the civil action the 555 were involved with, if the Court of Appeal accepts an application to review a case, the cost of that case is met by Legal Aid. However there is still a need to cover the legal costs of preparing some of the applications for the Court of Appeal and for legal work going forward, and now there seems there could be many more than the 39 cases that the CCRC has already referred.
By comparison to the costs we have so far incurred with the civil litigation in the High Court, the funding seems modest, and to try and help we have joined forces with Hudgell’s in order to assist with fundraising through the CrowdJustice platform. Please visit the CrowdJustice page to see how you can assist to overturn their prosecutions.
The solicitors Hudgell’s are acting for quite a few of the group who were prosecuted to assist them with legal representation. They are also offering free informal advice to others. Unlike the civil action the 555 were involved with, if the Court of Appeal accepts an application to review a case, the cost of that case is met by Legal Aid. However there is still a need to cover the legal costs of preparing some of the applications for the Court of Appeal and for legal work going forward, and now there seems there could be many more than the 39 cases that the CCRC has already referred.
By comparison to the costs we have so far incurred with the civil litigation in the High Court, the funding seems modest, and to try and help we have joined forces with Hudgell’s in order to assist with fundraising through the CrowdJustice platform. Please visit the CrowdJustice page to see how you can assist to overturn their prosecutions.
DECEMBER 2019
Horizon - not fit for purpose, and Post Office knew it!
Monday 16 December 2019 - Horizon Issues Judgment handed down. What hundreds of Subpostmasters have been saying since Post Office installed its Horizon system circa 2000, has been upheld in the court findings handed down at the High Court.
“The approach by the Post Office to the evidence of someone such as Mr Latif demonstrates a simple institutional obstinacy or refusal to consider any possible alternatives to their view of Horizon, which was maintained regardless of the weight of factual evidence to the contrary. That approach by the Post Office was continued, even though now there is also considerable expert evidence to the contrary as well (and much of it agreed expert evidence on the existence of numerous bugs)”…“This approach by the Post Office has amounted, in reality, to bare assertions and denials that ignore what has actually occurred, at least so far as the witnesses called before me in the Horizon Issues trial are concerned. It amounts to the 21st century equivalent of maintaining that the earth is flat.” - Hon. Mr Justice Fraser |
This, the second of a series of trials, addressed the issues relating to the Horizon system itself, including expert evidence from IT experts, began on 11th March 2019. This trial was interrupted on 21st March 2019 when Post Office Limited lodged an application for the Managing Judge, Hon. Mr Justice Fraser to recuse (sack) himself, alleging that he was 'biased' in the Judgment he had handed down on 15th March. On 9th April 2019 the application was refused, as was leave to apply to the Court of Appeal.
The Judgment follows on from the 5 week Common Issues trial held in the High Court’s Technology and Construction Court at the Rolls Building in London during November 2018, the Judgment for that trial, the first major victory for the group, was handed down on March 15th 2019.
Friday 10th May 2019, The Court of Appeal dismissed Post Office Limited’s application for permission to appeal Mr Justice Fraser’s recusal judgment. The Horizon trial continued from 4th June 2019 under the same Managing Judge.
Thursday 23rd May 2019, at a hearing under the direction of the Managing Judge, HH Justice Fraser, Post Office Limited was refused permission to appeal the Common Issue Judgment on all of the 48 grounds it had sought permission to. Post Office Limited was also ordered by the court to pay £5.5 million towards the Claimants' legal costs of the Common Issues Trial and a further £300,000 towards the legal costs of Post Office Limited's failed recusal application.
The second part of the delayed Horizon trial took place during weeks of the 3rd and 10th June 2019 when expert evidence of the IT system was heard. Closings for this trial were heard on 1st and 2nd July 2019 and the Judgment was handed down at 2pm on Monday 16 December 2019 in the Rolls Building, London. Read it here.
On 28th June 2019, Post Office Limited made an application for permission to appeal the Common Issues Judgment to the Court of Appeal. This application was heard by Lord Justice Coulson at the Royal Courts of Justice on 12 November 2019 and on 22 November 2019 the Application was refused on all of its 26 grounds. This now means that the Common Issues Judgment stands, which not only has major implications for the Post Office with regard to the legal action, but should have significant impact on all other serving Subpostmasters.
The Judgment follows on from the 5 week Common Issues trial held in the High Court’s Technology and Construction Court at the Rolls Building in London during November 2018, the Judgment for that trial, the first major victory for the group, was handed down on March 15th 2019.
Friday 10th May 2019, The Court of Appeal dismissed Post Office Limited’s application for permission to appeal Mr Justice Fraser’s recusal judgment. The Horizon trial continued from 4th June 2019 under the same Managing Judge.
Thursday 23rd May 2019, at a hearing under the direction of the Managing Judge, HH Justice Fraser, Post Office Limited was refused permission to appeal the Common Issue Judgment on all of the 48 grounds it had sought permission to. Post Office Limited was also ordered by the court to pay £5.5 million towards the Claimants' legal costs of the Common Issues Trial and a further £300,000 towards the legal costs of Post Office Limited's failed recusal application.
The second part of the delayed Horizon trial took place during weeks of the 3rd and 10th June 2019 when expert evidence of the IT system was heard. Closings for this trial were heard on 1st and 2nd July 2019 and the Judgment was handed down at 2pm on Monday 16 December 2019 in the Rolls Building, London. Read it here.
On 28th June 2019, Post Office Limited made an application for permission to appeal the Common Issues Judgment to the Court of Appeal. This application was heard by Lord Justice Coulson at the Royal Courts of Justice on 12 November 2019 and on 22 November 2019 the Application was refused on all of its 26 grounds. This now means that the Common Issues Judgment stands, which not only has major implications for the Post Office with regard to the legal action, but should have significant impact on all other serving Subpostmasters.
october 2017
25 October 2017 - At the request of the Judge, both parties returned to court to deal with a matter relating to the timing of the November 2018 court date. He also took this opportunity to set a date for a further 4 week trial in March 2019 to examine matters such as the behaviour of Post Office Limited towards Subpostmasters and to conclude virtually all of the substantive issues not previously dealt with in November 2018.
19 October 2017 - The first main procedural hearing in the Group Litigation being brought on behalf of 522 claimants against Post Office Limited took place before the Judge (The Honourable Mr. Justice Fraser) at the High Court.
Key orders made at the hearing
Extra time has been allowed to enable more subpostmasters to join the action
In response to all those who have come along after the initial July 2017 cut-off date for Claimants to the Group Action, the Judge has extended the cut-off date for new claims. Freeths LLP, the legal representatives to JFSA and all the Claimants in the Group Action will be accepting new applications from any Subpostmasters (including assistants, managers, crown office employees and temporary Subpostmasters) up until the end of 10 November 2017 if they wish to be considered for inclusion.
Freeths can be contacted by following this link, emailing [email protected], calling 0800 304 7727, or using this contact form.
Court Trial - Date Set
A 4 week hearing has been set for November 2018 where evidence from a number of lead cases will be used to test many of the contractually based common issues, such as:-
Expert IT Evidence
The Judge ordered that both parties may rely on expert IT evidence to support their case in relation to the extent and impact of bugs in Post Office Limited’s Horizon system and its performance.
Early Disclose of documents by Post Office Limited
Judge Fraser ordered that the documents previously held by Second Sight, an independent forensic accountancy firm appointed by Post Office Limited in 2011 to examine issues being raised by ex and serving Subpostmasters, should be disclosed by Post Office Limited. This means that around 35,000 documents deemed relevant to the issues in the case will be made available. It was also agreed that the parties will complete detailed questionnaires, setting out the electronic documents that each hold, following which, disclosure orders will be made in relation to some categories of documents.
19 October 2017 - The first main procedural hearing in the Group Litigation being brought on behalf of 522 claimants against Post Office Limited took place before the Judge (The Honourable Mr. Justice Fraser) at the High Court.
Key orders made at the hearing
Extra time has been allowed to enable more subpostmasters to join the action
In response to all those who have come along after the initial July 2017 cut-off date for Claimants to the Group Action, the Judge has extended the cut-off date for new claims. Freeths LLP, the legal representatives to JFSA and all the Claimants in the Group Action will be accepting new applications from any Subpostmasters (including assistants, managers, crown office employees and temporary Subpostmasters) up until the end of 10 November 2017 if they wish to be considered for inclusion.
Freeths can be contacted by following this link, emailing [email protected], calling 0800 304 7727, or using this contact form.
Court Trial - Date Set
A 4 week hearing has been set for November 2018 where evidence from a number of lead cases will be used to test many of the contractually based common issues, such as:-
- Did Post Office Limited owe to Subpostmasters duties of good faith, fair dealing, transparency, co-operation, and trust and confidence?
- Implied terms – were legally binding terms implied in the contracts but not expressly stated? For example, what contractual obligations did Post Office Limited have in relation to investigating and determining the causes of alleged shortfalls?
- Unusual, onerous or unfair terms – did contracts include unusual, onerous or unfair terms?
- In what circumstances did Subpostmasters actually have liability to Post Office Limited for shortfalls and losses?
- Did the contracts allow Post Office Limited to suspend /terminate Subpostmasters in the manner in which they did?
Expert IT Evidence
The Judge ordered that both parties may rely on expert IT evidence to support their case in relation to the extent and impact of bugs in Post Office Limited’s Horizon system and its performance.
Early Disclose of documents by Post Office Limited
Judge Fraser ordered that the documents previously held by Second Sight, an independent forensic accountancy firm appointed by Post Office Limited in 2011 to examine issues being raised by ex and serving Subpostmasters, should be disclosed by Post Office Limited. This means that around 35,000 documents deemed relevant to the issues in the case will be made available. It was also agreed that the parties will complete detailed questionnaires, setting out the electronic documents that each hold, following which, disclosure orders will be made in relation to some categories of documents.
April 2016
High Court Proceedings are issued against Post Office
november 2015
JFSA prepares for Group Litigation against Post Office
Post Office’s corporate blindness, and denial of what we know to be the truth about how it has abused Subpostmasters over the years with its Horizon system, has now left JFSA and its membership no other option but to seek redress though the courts.
To that end, JFSA has been working for the last few months with a legal team comprising of FREETHS Solicitors and HENDERSON Barristers Chambers to prepare a civil litigation action through the High Court for compensation/damages against Post Office Limited.
A significant number of people have now signed up with the legal team, who have already undertaken considerable work on our case, and have a very positive view on the prospects of success. So if you were a Subpostmaster at any time from 2000 when the Post Office brought in Horizon and you suffered inexplicable or mysterious losses, or had your contract suspended or terminated for no fault of your own, you should consider contacting FREETHS.
Even if you have previously made an agreement with Post Office about your case, we are led to believe it may well be worthwhile discussing your position with FREETHS.
For further information about how to join the group action against Post Office Limited and to obtain an application form, please contact James Hartley at FREETHS on 0845 077 9581 or send an email to [email protected]
Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC)
As we have previously publicised on the website, the CCRC are looking into over 20 cases where Subpostmasters have been prosecuted by Post Office Limited. Recently we have become aware of more cases that are to be sent to the CCRC and if you were ever prosecuted by Post Office Limited, with relation to inexplicable or mysterious losses associated with Horizon, we would suggest you submit an application to the CCRC to have your case reviewed.
You can find a very basic application form, which is really only a way to introduce yourself to the CCRC, on their website, http://www.ccrc.gov.uk/making-application/ or you can download it from our Documents page. Just fill in the basic details at this time and the CCRC will appoint a case manager who will contact you for further information.
IMPORTANT - when you send the form in, make sure you write Subpostmaster Case at the top of the form to ensure it goes to the correct team.
In response to recent requests, we have reprinted below the information about how to find out what records Post Office holds about you, which was first published in association with the doomed Initial Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme. The address and phone number has been updated to reflect the move from Old Street.
Data Protection Act – Subject Access Request
You may recall that prior to all the investigations it was suggested that everyone should submit a Subject Access Request to Post Office to obtain copies of what information they held about you. If you never got around to doing this we would suggest you do so now, also even if you had in the past submitted a request, you might consider submitting another one.
Post Office is meant to have investigated your case, you may even have had their report and ‘evidence’, but how do you know that the ‘evidence’ they decided to provide is all that they unearthed? Was Post Office selective with the documents it provided as ‘evidence’? Do you trust that Post Office would include all the documents that it holds on you?
If not, then submitting a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act would ensure that Post Office has to state exactly what it holds on you at this time, in case in the future it is found that Post Office withheld information that would have been beneficial to you.
How to submit a Subject Access Request
The following information about how to apply is from the Post Office website:-
You can request details of all the personal information we hold about you by contacting our Information Rights Team. They will send you an application form which you should complete and return. The charge for this service is £10 for each request. You can contact the team by writing to: Information Rights Team, 1st Floor, Finsbury Dials, 20 Finsbury Street, London EC2Y 9AQ.
Email: [email protected]
Telephone: 0345 611 2970
Post Office’s corporate blindness, and denial of what we know to be the truth about how it has abused Subpostmasters over the years with its Horizon system, has now left JFSA and its membership no other option but to seek redress though the courts.
To that end, JFSA has been working for the last few months with a legal team comprising of FREETHS Solicitors and HENDERSON Barristers Chambers to prepare a civil litigation action through the High Court for compensation/damages against Post Office Limited.
A significant number of people have now signed up with the legal team, who have already undertaken considerable work on our case, and have a very positive view on the prospects of success. So if you were a Subpostmaster at any time from 2000 when the Post Office brought in Horizon and you suffered inexplicable or mysterious losses, or had your contract suspended or terminated for no fault of your own, you should consider contacting FREETHS.
Even if you have previously made an agreement with Post Office about your case, we are led to believe it may well be worthwhile discussing your position with FREETHS.
For further information about how to join the group action against Post Office Limited and to obtain an application form, please contact James Hartley at FREETHS on 0845 077 9581 or send an email to [email protected]
Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC)
As we have previously publicised on the website, the CCRC are looking into over 20 cases where Subpostmasters have been prosecuted by Post Office Limited. Recently we have become aware of more cases that are to be sent to the CCRC and if you were ever prosecuted by Post Office Limited, with relation to inexplicable or mysterious losses associated with Horizon, we would suggest you submit an application to the CCRC to have your case reviewed.
You can find a very basic application form, which is really only a way to introduce yourself to the CCRC, on their website, http://www.ccrc.gov.uk/making-application/ or you can download it from our Documents page. Just fill in the basic details at this time and the CCRC will appoint a case manager who will contact you for further information.
IMPORTANT - when you send the form in, make sure you write Subpostmaster Case at the top of the form to ensure it goes to the correct team.
In response to recent requests, we have reprinted below the information about how to find out what records Post Office holds about you, which was first published in association with the doomed Initial Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme. The address and phone number has been updated to reflect the move from Old Street.
Data Protection Act – Subject Access Request
You may recall that prior to all the investigations it was suggested that everyone should submit a Subject Access Request to Post Office to obtain copies of what information they held about you. If you never got around to doing this we would suggest you do so now, also even if you had in the past submitted a request, you might consider submitting another one.
Post Office is meant to have investigated your case, you may even have had their report and ‘evidence’, but how do you know that the ‘evidence’ they decided to provide is all that they unearthed? Was Post Office selective with the documents it provided as ‘evidence’? Do you trust that Post Office would include all the documents that it holds on you?
If not, then submitting a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act would ensure that Post Office has to state exactly what it holds on you at this time, in case in the future it is found that Post Office withheld information that would have been beneficial to you.
How to submit a Subject Access Request
The following information about how to apply is from the Post Office website:-
You can request details of all the personal information we hold about you by contacting our Information Rights Team. They will send you an application form which you should complete and return. The charge for this service is £10 for each request. You can contact the team by writing to: Information Rights Team, 1st Floor, Finsbury Dials, 20 Finsbury Street, London EC2Y 9AQ.
Email: [email protected]
Telephone: 0345 611 2970
september 2015
Early Day Motion 427 (Session 2015-16) - 'Post Office Horizon Computer System', tabled in Westminster
10th September 2015 - you can read about it here
10th September 2015 - you can read about it here
august 2015
Panorama - 'Trouble at the Post Office' - Monday 17th August 2015, 7.30pm BBC 1
Described in the online Radio Times as :-
"Dozens of sub-postmasters have been prosecuted after their computers showed that money had gone missing, but could there be other explanations for the cash shortfalls? John Sweeney meets a whistleblower who says there were problems with the IT system, and also investigates claims that the Post Office charged some with theft even when the evidence didn't stack up."
Unfortunately the programme is no longer available on the BBC iPlayer although the front page can still be see here
Links to video clips from other TV reports can still be found on the media page.
Described in the online Radio Times as :-
"Dozens of sub-postmasters have been prosecuted after their computers showed that money had gone missing, but could there be other explanations for the cash shortfalls? John Sweeney meets a whistleblower who says there were problems with the IT system, and also investigates claims that the Post Office charged some with theft even when the evidence didn't stack up."
Unfortunately the programme is no longer available on the BBC iPlayer although the front page can still be see here
Links to video clips from other TV reports can still be found on the media page.
july 2015
Extract from JFSA email update 16th July 2015
Many of the group have been in contact regarding an undated letter they have recently received from Post Office in the guise of being the Complaint Review & Mediation Scheme (it seems somewhere along the way they have also lost the originally agreed ‘Initial’ part of the title).
What you decide to do about it is entirely up to you, however some points you should bear in mind:-
You have to ask yourself, are you dealing with a firm that is decent, honest and truthful, and has it shown a genuine willingness to find the truth and address the issues raised? If you truly believe that is the case, then you may well think there is potential in attending one of their Mediation meetings – otherwise why bother? Why would you want to sit in a room and be insulted by people who will not listen and are just following orders? But the choice is yours.
Post Office intimates that there will never be any Inquiry, but there are many people in Westminster working to ensure that the truth will come out through one channel or another. It may not be next week, in may not be for a number of months, but those in Westminster and JFSA will keep pressing the issue forward until it does. There are many new cases that have come along since the Initial Complaint Review & Mediation Scheme closed to applications, and they are beginning to sign up with the CCRC and to pursue their own MPs for support. At the rate the new members are appearing, it won’t be that long before every MP has at least one case in their constituency.
Previously, and on more than one occasion, JFSA and the MPs have tried meeting with Post Office, and you only have to look at the new front page of the JFSA website to see how Post Office treated those groups. So you have to ask yourself why would it be different for you if you met with Post Office at a Mediation meeting or with your MP? All you would be doing is letting them tick a box that Mediation or an MP meeting had taken place – the fact that it was disastrous would not be reported.
Why would ticking a box be so important to Post Office, and why the Friday 4th September deadline? Could it be because the MPs don’t return from summer recess until Monday 7th September, or could it be that the new Chairman of Post Office starts on 1st October and they want the issue buried before he starts?
JFSA’s position remains that until there is a major shift, due to personnel changes or whatever, in the stance that Post Office has opted for in the last two years, then there is no point at all in meeting with it, and to do so just adds credence to their arrogance.
But it is your choice, and you may want to discuss it with your Professional Advisor.
Extract from JFSA email update 11th July 2015
Westminster
Although it may seem quiet at the moment, we are aware of considerable support and activity by the MPs at Westminster. The more they learn about the goings on, the more they realise that this scandal has to be exposed. While they have very serious concerns about the way individuals have been treated, they are even more disturbed by the major cover up the Post Office is orchestrating using millions of pounds of taxpayers' money. In order to address this point, the MPs are pressing the Business Innovations and Skills (BIS) Select Committee to undertake a full and detailed investigation into all the issues that have taken place.
Panorama
It is a bit of an open secret now, but Panorama has been filming a number of the group and following up on the story for the last few months. It was believed that the programme would have been shown on the 22nd June, then it was the 29th and then most Monday’s since, but as yet no confirmed date has been set. It is thought that the film is complete and it is only ‘pressures’ that are being applied that is stopping it being shown. When you are in contact with your MP it might also be worthwhile you mentioning this point to them as well.
Many of the group have been in contact regarding an undated letter they have recently received from Post Office in the guise of being the Complaint Review & Mediation Scheme (it seems somewhere along the way they have also lost the originally agreed ‘Initial’ part of the title).
What you decide to do about it is entirely up to you, however some points you should bear in mind:-
- JFSA is not aware of a single case that has been to a Mediation meeting where the applicant has been the slightest bit happy with the outcome, or that the meeting brought resolution between the two parties, which was the stated aim of the Scheme.
- However JFSA is aware of a number of cases that have been to Mediation meetings where the applicants have been left distraught and angry at Post Office’s unwillingness to listen or even consider the issues that they have raised.
- We have also been made aware that at these so called ‘Mediation’ meetings, Post Office just emphasises the outcome of their report of the case, and ignores the comments and issues raised by the applicant or those of the independent investigations firm Second Sight.
- Don’t forget about the 30+ cases where there was a prosecution involved. The agreed documentation at the start of the Scheme stated they would all be allowed to go through the Scheme, but of recent Post Office has changed its mind and excluded them all.
You have to ask yourself, are you dealing with a firm that is decent, honest and truthful, and has it shown a genuine willingness to find the truth and address the issues raised? If you truly believe that is the case, then you may well think there is potential in attending one of their Mediation meetings – otherwise why bother? Why would you want to sit in a room and be insulted by people who will not listen and are just following orders? But the choice is yours.
Post Office intimates that there will never be any Inquiry, but there are many people in Westminster working to ensure that the truth will come out through one channel or another. It may not be next week, in may not be for a number of months, but those in Westminster and JFSA will keep pressing the issue forward until it does. There are many new cases that have come along since the Initial Complaint Review & Mediation Scheme closed to applications, and they are beginning to sign up with the CCRC and to pursue their own MPs for support. At the rate the new members are appearing, it won’t be that long before every MP has at least one case in their constituency.
Previously, and on more than one occasion, JFSA and the MPs have tried meeting with Post Office, and you only have to look at the new front page of the JFSA website to see how Post Office treated those groups. So you have to ask yourself why would it be different for you if you met with Post Office at a Mediation meeting or with your MP? All you would be doing is letting them tick a box that Mediation or an MP meeting had taken place – the fact that it was disastrous would not be reported.
Why would ticking a box be so important to Post Office, and why the Friday 4th September deadline? Could it be because the MPs don’t return from summer recess until Monday 7th September, or could it be that the new Chairman of Post Office starts on 1st October and they want the issue buried before he starts?
JFSA’s position remains that until there is a major shift, due to personnel changes or whatever, in the stance that Post Office has opted for in the last two years, then there is no point at all in meeting with it, and to do so just adds credence to their arrogance.
But it is your choice, and you may want to discuss it with your Professional Advisor.
Extract from JFSA email update 11th July 2015
Westminster
Although it may seem quiet at the moment, we are aware of considerable support and activity by the MPs at Westminster. The more they learn about the goings on, the more they realise that this scandal has to be exposed. While they have very serious concerns about the way individuals have been treated, they are even more disturbed by the major cover up the Post Office is orchestrating using millions of pounds of taxpayers' money. In order to address this point, the MPs are pressing the Business Innovations and Skills (BIS) Select Committee to undertake a full and detailed investigation into all the issues that have taken place.
Panorama
It is a bit of an open secret now, but Panorama has been filming a number of the group and following up on the story for the last few months. It was believed that the programme would have been shown on the 22nd June, then it was the 29th and then most Monday’s since, but as yet no confirmed date has been set. It is thought that the film is complete and it is only ‘pressures’ that are being applied that is stopping it being shown. When you are in contact with your MP it might also be worthwhile you mentioning this point to them as well.
june 2015
Following the recent treatment of the Applicants to the Initial Complaint & Mediation Scheme (ICAMS) by Post Office Limited, JFSA has been left with no other option but to recommended to all those involved that they should notify Post Office that they wish to suspend their involvement in the Scheme until further notice. The reason for this request is that until the new Government and the Post Office Minister has had the opportunity to review the Mediation process, and until each Applicant has had an opportunity to discuss their position with their Member of Parliament, that no purpose would presently be served by contiuining with the Scheme at present.
JFSA wrote the following to the new Minister on 19th May 2015:
"I am writing to you, the Minister responsible for Post Office, on behalf of our group, the Justice For Subpostmasters Alliance, to request a meeting with you at your earliest convenience.
"We have been campaigning for years to try and obtain justice for all who have suffered and are still suffering from the abuse inflicted upon Subpostmasters as a result of the introduction of the Horizon computer system by Post Office. With the aid of a growing number of MPs, this matter has been discussed in Westminster over the past few years, the last time being the BIS Committee evidence session on the 3rd February 2015.
In the past I have written to the predecessors of your current office, who have responded with varying degrees of concern, so your department should have considerable information about this issue, although I fear in recent years it has only echoed Post Office’s position. However I do believe it is important that you are presented first-hand with the issues from the victims perspective, hence the request to meet with you.
I am sure you will be told that a scheme was set up by Post Office a few years ago to address this matter (the Initial Complaint Review & Mediation Scheme), and that a firm of independent forensic investigators (Second Sight) had been engaged by Post Office to examine the concerns of the individuals. The Scheme was overseen by a Working Group comprising of representatives of Post Office, JFSA, Second Sight and Sir Anthony Hooper who was engaged as Chairman. While the Scheme began with the aims of finding the truth, Post Office shortly afterwards changed direction and went into denial and defence of their brand at any cost using exorbitant amounts of public money on lawyers to bolster their position.
Without any doubt at all, the recent report by the independent investigators was so damning of Post Office’s actions that Post Office disbanded the Working Group, got rid of the Chairman and publically announced the Working Group had completed its work (which is utter nonsense). Furthermore, Post Office spent even more money on lawyers having them write a report, twice as long as the investigators report, in an effort to twist the truth of this independent work produced by the firm they themselves had selected. This 93 page Post Office ‘report’ has absolutely no merit and it is only the independent report that has any standing, as it is, independent.
The Scheme has been so badly abused by Post Office that it is no longer fit for purpose, and last week JFSA had to write to its members in the Scheme to suggest that they now withdraw until such time as an independently run, transparent and honest scheme is in operation. It is obvious to everyone involved, other than Post Office, that the only way the truth is going to come out about the way Post Office has behaved, is when Post Office itself is subject to an independent investigation. This is the goal that we will now be asking for political support to achieve, as until that happens, Post Office will continue its programme of denial and its abuse of Subpostmasters both past and present, and very soon every MP will have at least one constituent who would have suffered at the hands of Post Office.
Whilst it is important that we meet with you to discuss this matter in more detail, we would ask you to consider inviting the firm of independent investigators, Second Sight, who we understand are amongst the world leaders in this type of work, to meet with you to give their honest assessment of the situation without Post Office or JFSA being present. It should be remembered that Second Sight was Post Office’s choice and it took considerable work by both Second Sight and James Arbuthnot, who was then the MP for North East Hampshire and chairing the MP group on this issue, to convince JFSA of Second Sight’s independence having been a Post Office appointment at the start of the Scheme. The meeting with Second Sight is really of some urgency, as contractually they are obliged to hand over all data from their investigations to Post Office in matter of a few weeks. JFSA is concerned that once Post Office has the only copy of all the data, it could be lost, misplaced, accidently destroyed, suffer from fire or flood damage, all of which seems to have happened to a number of crucial documents during the term of the investigations.
We would gladly supply you with any further information you might require, and look forward to meeting with you in the near future as this matter has gone on for far too long and needs resolving as soon as possible."
From the content of the response it was obvious the the respondee had either never read the Second Sight Part Two report or had failed to understand the gravity if its content. Furthermore it demonstrated that they no interest in a matter so serious, that it not only affected all those in the Scheme but to a certain extent had an impact on every Subpostmater in the country.
JFSA update 3rd June 2015
For those of you who have appointed Aver as your Professional Advisor, you may have already have been offered a standard letter of response to Post Office that Aver has prepared for their clients who want to suspend their involvement in the Mediation Scheme until Government has undertaken a review. If not, please contact Aver.
Those of you who are not with Aver might want to contact your Professional Advisor about the letter Aver is sending Post Office on behalf of their clients who request it. I am sure Aver would gladly pass on copies of the template letter to your Advisor upon request. The JFSA circular sent 14th May 2015 covered why it was important that these letters are sent to Post Office as soon as possible.
29th June 2015
Adjournment Debate, House of Commons. A copy of the transcript can be found here.
JFSA wrote the following to the new Minister on 19th May 2015:
"I am writing to you, the Minister responsible for Post Office, on behalf of our group, the Justice For Subpostmasters Alliance, to request a meeting with you at your earliest convenience.
"We have been campaigning for years to try and obtain justice for all who have suffered and are still suffering from the abuse inflicted upon Subpostmasters as a result of the introduction of the Horizon computer system by Post Office. With the aid of a growing number of MPs, this matter has been discussed in Westminster over the past few years, the last time being the BIS Committee evidence session on the 3rd February 2015.
In the past I have written to the predecessors of your current office, who have responded with varying degrees of concern, so your department should have considerable information about this issue, although I fear in recent years it has only echoed Post Office’s position. However I do believe it is important that you are presented first-hand with the issues from the victims perspective, hence the request to meet with you.
I am sure you will be told that a scheme was set up by Post Office a few years ago to address this matter (the Initial Complaint Review & Mediation Scheme), and that a firm of independent forensic investigators (Second Sight) had been engaged by Post Office to examine the concerns of the individuals. The Scheme was overseen by a Working Group comprising of representatives of Post Office, JFSA, Second Sight and Sir Anthony Hooper who was engaged as Chairman. While the Scheme began with the aims of finding the truth, Post Office shortly afterwards changed direction and went into denial and defence of their brand at any cost using exorbitant amounts of public money on lawyers to bolster their position.
Without any doubt at all, the recent report by the independent investigators was so damning of Post Office’s actions that Post Office disbanded the Working Group, got rid of the Chairman and publically announced the Working Group had completed its work (which is utter nonsense). Furthermore, Post Office spent even more money on lawyers having them write a report, twice as long as the investigators report, in an effort to twist the truth of this independent work produced by the firm they themselves had selected. This 93 page Post Office ‘report’ has absolutely no merit and it is only the independent report that has any standing, as it is, independent.
The Scheme has been so badly abused by Post Office that it is no longer fit for purpose, and last week JFSA had to write to its members in the Scheme to suggest that they now withdraw until such time as an independently run, transparent and honest scheme is in operation. It is obvious to everyone involved, other than Post Office, that the only way the truth is going to come out about the way Post Office has behaved, is when Post Office itself is subject to an independent investigation. This is the goal that we will now be asking for political support to achieve, as until that happens, Post Office will continue its programme of denial and its abuse of Subpostmasters both past and present, and very soon every MP will have at least one constituent who would have suffered at the hands of Post Office.
Whilst it is important that we meet with you to discuss this matter in more detail, we would ask you to consider inviting the firm of independent investigators, Second Sight, who we understand are amongst the world leaders in this type of work, to meet with you to give their honest assessment of the situation without Post Office or JFSA being present. It should be remembered that Second Sight was Post Office’s choice and it took considerable work by both Second Sight and James Arbuthnot, who was then the MP for North East Hampshire and chairing the MP group on this issue, to convince JFSA of Second Sight’s independence having been a Post Office appointment at the start of the Scheme. The meeting with Second Sight is really of some urgency, as contractually they are obliged to hand over all data from their investigations to Post Office in matter of a few weeks. JFSA is concerned that once Post Office has the only copy of all the data, it could be lost, misplaced, accidently destroyed, suffer from fire or flood damage, all of which seems to have happened to a number of crucial documents during the term of the investigations.
We would gladly supply you with any further information you might require, and look forward to meeting with you in the near future as this matter has gone on for far too long and needs resolving as soon as possible."
From the content of the response it was obvious the the respondee had either never read the Second Sight Part Two report or had failed to understand the gravity if its content. Furthermore it demonstrated that they no interest in a matter so serious, that it not only affected all those in the Scheme but to a certain extent had an impact on every Subpostmater in the country.
JFSA update 3rd June 2015
For those of you who have appointed Aver as your Professional Advisor, you may have already have been offered a standard letter of response to Post Office that Aver has prepared for their clients who want to suspend their involvement in the Mediation Scheme until Government has undertaken a review. If not, please contact Aver.
Those of you who are not with Aver might want to contact your Professional Advisor about the letter Aver is sending Post Office on behalf of their clients who request it. I am sure Aver would gladly pass on copies of the template letter to your Advisor upon request. The JFSA circular sent 14th May 2015 covered why it was important that these letters are sent to Post Office as soon as possible.
29th June 2015
Adjournment Debate, House of Commons. A copy of the transcript can be found here.
may 2015
JFSA update 14th May 2015
The Initial Complaint Review & Mediation Scheme
In Post Office’s mind, it is in the process of closing the Scheme down. In the last few months it has got rid of the Working Group because of the questions Post Office were not prepared to answer at meetings, which had the added bonus of removing a very senior and highly respect judge from seeing the paperwork that was emerging. Furthermore Post Office’s action has, for the second time, removed JFSA’s access to the Scheme’s case documentation thereby denying JFSA its agreed right of being able to assist its membership with their cases. Post Office has further compounded this wrong by refusing to allow Second Sight to directly send to JFSA, a copy of the full set of case documentation that it sends to Post Office for sending on to the Applicant, despite the Applicant putting in writing a request for this to happen.
Why did JFSA suggest that such a request be made directly to Second Sight? Quite simply it was because it does not trust Post Office to send on the full Second Sight case pack without it sifting and removing documents before they are sent on to Applicants. It now looks as if this has occurred in at least one case, and as JFSA has been removed from accessing case documentation we cannot be certain how many other cases this may also have occurred in.
Post Office has also written to many (if not all) of the Applicants in the Scheme who were prosecuted by Post Office, to inform them that it will not go to a mediation meeting with them. This is despite the original Scheme documentation stating that all those Applicants could do so, in the response to the question:-
What if my case involves a completed criminal prosecution or conviction?
You may put your case through the Scheme even if you have already received a Police caution or have been subject to a criminal prosecution or conviction.
If Post Office had no intention of going to a mediation meeting with these Applicants, why did it not say so at the outset, instead of misleading these people?
As has been mentioned in previous emails, the original intention of finding the truth is so far from Post Office’s agenda these days, having been replaced by the key priority of running the Scheme into the ground by throwing public money at their lawyers. Post Office appears to be set on full speed self-destruction and its Board and Executive are going to be responsible for destroying a brand that used to be held in high regard by so many. But with its own destruction so high on its agenda, it now looks as if we are going to have to help it on its way, which was never our intention.
Of those few mediation meetings that we are aware of taking place, we are being told by Applicants that these meetings are worse than disastrous as Post Office does not understand what a mediation meeting is all about, and is treating it as an opportunity to blame individuals, pointing out it is all their fault (where have you heard that before?).
Due to the present conditions Post Office has created, it is now JFSA’s official position that the Initial Complaint Review & Mediation Scheme has been so badly abused and ruined by Post Office that it is not fit for purpose. Furthermore, and whilst it is up to every individual in the Scheme to make their own decision, JFSA is recommending that all Applicants should now defer attending any mediation meetings until such time as a true and honest scheme is in operation, and no longer an exercise in highly paid lawyers dancing on the head of a pin. JFSA is also recommending that we should show our support to those who have been led on by Post Office, and require that all in the Scheme who were prosecuted should be allowed to attend a mediation meeting of a new and honest scheme, just as they were promised at the outset.
It is now abundantly clear that Post Office cannot be trusted or believed, and the only way that the truth is going to be unearthed is when the government instigates a totally independent investigation of Post Office and the events surrounding the Horizon system and this Scheme. This now has to be our number one priority to campaign for, and it is up to every one of you to do your bit.
The disgust that the MPs have for Post Office over this issue is well known. Now that there has been a change in government we all need to revisit our MPs and inform them of the latest developments and what we need them to do for us.
The message is simple – Post Office has to be independently investigated and we will keep stepping up our campaign until this happens.
The nonsense that Post Office bleats on about incidents only affecting a very small number of Subpostmasters is a myth that has to be exposed, because the reality is, that it affects all Subpostmasters to a varying degree. This can be clearly seen in the many new cases that JFSA has become aware of outside of the 12 weeks the window was open for applications to the Initial Complaint Review & Mediation Scheme.
MPs have to be reminded that owning a post office turns you into a financial hostage. They have to understand that so little is heard from the majority of serving Subpostmasters purely because of their own self-preservation. Explain that when taking on a post office a Subpostmaster can often pay the outgoing Subpostmaster an amount for the post office element that is usually a multiple of that post offices’ annual “office salary” from Post Office, often 1½ or 2 times. It is this amount that becomes a financial gun which Post Office can hold to a Subpostmasters’ head, as it can use a clause in the contract, which states that Post Office can terminate a Subpostmaster by giving three months’ notice and without giving a reason. This, the Post Office can and does do, without compensating that Subpostmaster for the loss of what they had paid to the previous Subpostmaster for that element of the business, and the Subpostmaster has no independent appeal other than to pursue Post Office through the courts, which is financial suicide.
The totally unfair Subpostmaster contract, which many Subpostmasters never get to see before accepting the post, leaves Post Office in a position whereby they can try to control Subpostmasters with the threat of terminating the contract. It is this key point which explains why so few serving Subpostmasters are reluctant to rock the boat and speak out, yet it does explain why so many sub post offices are always up for sale.
If you decide to withdraw from the Initial Complaint Review & Mediation Scheme until such time as you receive an independent assurance that any replacement scheme is now fair and honest, ask your Professional Advisor to write to Post Office on your behalf to let them know. Then go and see your MP about your decision and tell them of your reasons and let them see copies of your correspondence from Post Office and Second Sight. You need to make sure that your MP is fully up to speed with what has happened to you before mid-June, when we will be looking for their support in Westminster.
The Initial Complaint Review & Mediation Scheme
In Post Office’s mind, it is in the process of closing the Scheme down. In the last few months it has got rid of the Working Group because of the questions Post Office were not prepared to answer at meetings, which had the added bonus of removing a very senior and highly respect judge from seeing the paperwork that was emerging. Furthermore Post Office’s action has, for the second time, removed JFSA’s access to the Scheme’s case documentation thereby denying JFSA its agreed right of being able to assist its membership with their cases. Post Office has further compounded this wrong by refusing to allow Second Sight to directly send to JFSA, a copy of the full set of case documentation that it sends to Post Office for sending on to the Applicant, despite the Applicant putting in writing a request for this to happen.
Why did JFSA suggest that such a request be made directly to Second Sight? Quite simply it was because it does not trust Post Office to send on the full Second Sight case pack without it sifting and removing documents before they are sent on to Applicants. It now looks as if this has occurred in at least one case, and as JFSA has been removed from accessing case documentation we cannot be certain how many other cases this may also have occurred in.
Post Office has also written to many (if not all) of the Applicants in the Scheme who were prosecuted by Post Office, to inform them that it will not go to a mediation meeting with them. This is despite the original Scheme documentation stating that all those Applicants could do so, in the response to the question:-
What if my case involves a completed criminal prosecution or conviction?
You may put your case through the Scheme even if you have already received a Police caution or have been subject to a criminal prosecution or conviction.
If Post Office had no intention of going to a mediation meeting with these Applicants, why did it not say so at the outset, instead of misleading these people?
As has been mentioned in previous emails, the original intention of finding the truth is so far from Post Office’s agenda these days, having been replaced by the key priority of running the Scheme into the ground by throwing public money at their lawyers. Post Office appears to be set on full speed self-destruction and its Board and Executive are going to be responsible for destroying a brand that used to be held in high regard by so many. But with its own destruction so high on its agenda, it now looks as if we are going to have to help it on its way, which was never our intention.
Of those few mediation meetings that we are aware of taking place, we are being told by Applicants that these meetings are worse than disastrous as Post Office does not understand what a mediation meeting is all about, and is treating it as an opportunity to blame individuals, pointing out it is all their fault (where have you heard that before?).
Due to the present conditions Post Office has created, it is now JFSA’s official position that the Initial Complaint Review & Mediation Scheme has been so badly abused and ruined by Post Office that it is not fit for purpose. Furthermore, and whilst it is up to every individual in the Scheme to make their own decision, JFSA is recommending that all Applicants should now defer attending any mediation meetings until such time as a true and honest scheme is in operation, and no longer an exercise in highly paid lawyers dancing on the head of a pin. JFSA is also recommending that we should show our support to those who have been led on by Post Office, and require that all in the Scheme who were prosecuted should be allowed to attend a mediation meeting of a new and honest scheme, just as they were promised at the outset.
It is now abundantly clear that Post Office cannot be trusted or believed, and the only way that the truth is going to be unearthed is when the government instigates a totally independent investigation of Post Office and the events surrounding the Horizon system and this Scheme. This now has to be our number one priority to campaign for, and it is up to every one of you to do your bit.
The disgust that the MPs have for Post Office over this issue is well known. Now that there has been a change in government we all need to revisit our MPs and inform them of the latest developments and what we need them to do for us.
The message is simple – Post Office has to be independently investigated and we will keep stepping up our campaign until this happens.
The nonsense that Post Office bleats on about incidents only affecting a very small number of Subpostmasters is a myth that has to be exposed, because the reality is, that it affects all Subpostmasters to a varying degree. This can be clearly seen in the many new cases that JFSA has become aware of outside of the 12 weeks the window was open for applications to the Initial Complaint Review & Mediation Scheme.
MPs have to be reminded that owning a post office turns you into a financial hostage. They have to understand that so little is heard from the majority of serving Subpostmasters purely because of their own self-preservation. Explain that when taking on a post office a Subpostmaster can often pay the outgoing Subpostmaster an amount for the post office element that is usually a multiple of that post offices’ annual “office salary” from Post Office, often 1½ or 2 times. It is this amount that becomes a financial gun which Post Office can hold to a Subpostmasters’ head, as it can use a clause in the contract, which states that Post Office can terminate a Subpostmaster by giving three months’ notice and without giving a reason. This, the Post Office can and does do, without compensating that Subpostmaster for the loss of what they had paid to the previous Subpostmaster for that element of the business, and the Subpostmaster has no independent appeal other than to pursue Post Office through the courts, which is financial suicide.
The totally unfair Subpostmaster contract, which many Subpostmasters never get to see before accepting the post, leaves Post Office in a position whereby they can try to control Subpostmasters with the threat of terminating the contract. It is this key point which explains why so few serving Subpostmasters are reluctant to rock the boat and speak out, yet it does explain why so many sub post offices are always up for sale.
If you decide to withdraw from the Initial Complaint Review & Mediation Scheme until such time as you receive an independent assurance that any replacement scheme is now fair and honest, ask your Professional Advisor to write to Post Office on your behalf to let them know. Then go and see your MP about your decision and tell them of your reasons and let them see copies of your correspondence from Post Office and Second Sight. You need to make sure that your MP is fully up to speed with what has happened to you before mid-June, when we will be looking for their support in Westminster.
april 2015
JFSA update 11th April 2015
Applicants in the Initial Complaint Review & Mediation Scheme.
As you are well aware, Post Office terminated the Scheme’s Working Group on 10th March 2015 without discussion or reference to any of the others involved. One of the consequences of this action was that Post Office removed JFSA’s access to the files housed on the central file repository (Huddle) in order to stop JFSA from being able to offer informed advice to its membership on the relevant case documentation lodged there.
This ability for JFSA and its Advisors to monitor cases and to offer advice and guidance has been a key factor that had been recognized in the Initial Complaint Review & Scheme documentation that you all received at the outset of the Scheme.
However now that JFSA’s access to files on Huddle has been removed and in order for JFSA to continue with its agreed role of monitoring cases and offering advice to Applicants, it is left with two options. JFSA either has to ask each Applicant to send on a copy of their case reports they have been issued, which will add considerable delay, or each Applicant could make a request of Second Sight to send a complete set of all case documentation directly to JFSA (being one of the Applicants Advisors), at the time it releases each report. This will not only speed up matters greatly but also ensure those Applicants who are not using Professional Advisors, are able to obtain some advice from JFSA and its Advisors.
The Initial Complaint Review & Mediation Scheme
Where it is actually up to and what is actually happening, due to the reasons given above, we do not know. It is known that some of the group have received letters from Post Office informing them that that Second Sight are working towards finalisation of Part Two reports and Post Office 'expects' to be able to send them out from mid-April.
As always, we recommend no one should begin to consider how they want to progress their case until they have received and read a copy of the latest Second Sight Part Two report.
Applicants in the Initial Complaint Review & Mediation Scheme.
As you are well aware, Post Office terminated the Scheme’s Working Group on 10th March 2015 without discussion or reference to any of the others involved. One of the consequences of this action was that Post Office removed JFSA’s access to the files housed on the central file repository (Huddle) in order to stop JFSA from being able to offer informed advice to its membership on the relevant case documentation lodged there.
This ability for JFSA and its Advisors to monitor cases and to offer advice and guidance has been a key factor that had been recognized in the Initial Complaint Review & Scheme documentation that you all received at the outset of the Scheme.
However now that JFSA’s access to files on Huddle has been removed and in order for JFSA to continue with its agreed role of monitoring cases and offering advice to Applicants, it is left with two options. JFSA either has to ask each Applicant to send on a copy of their case reports they have been issued, which will add considerable delay, or each Applicant could make a request of Second Sight to send a complete set of all case documentation directly to JFSA (being one of the Applicants Advisors), at the time it releases each report. This will not only speed up matters greatly but also ensure those Applicants who are not using Professional Advisors, are able to obtain some advice from JFSA and its Advisors.
The Initial Complaint Review & Mediation Scheme
Where it is actually up to and what is actually happening, due to the reasons given above, we do not know. It is known that some of the group have received letters from Post Office informing them that that Second Sight are working towards finalisation of Part Two reports and Post Office 'expects' to be able to send them out from mid-April.
As always, we recommend no one should begin to consider how they want to progress their case until they have received and read a copy of the latest Second Sight Part Two report.
march 2015
JFSA Update 3rd March 2015
Those of you who attended the Kineton JFSA meeting in January will remember that everyone voted to would stay engaged with the Initial Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme (ICRAMS) but also begin to prepare for taking forward a legal action should ICRAMS fail. It was decided that after the length of time it has taken to get this far we wouldn’t to want to waste anymore.
JFSA update 7th March 2015
Invitations to Mediation meetings
A regular request from individuals in the group is to enquire as to whether or not you should attend mediation meetings. The simple answer is that it is your decision. However we are aware that some meetings are taking place, and we only hear back from a percentage of those who have attended and those comments are mainly about how disastrous the meetings have been.
What we do recommend is that anyone who is invited to mediation and has the opportunity to delay their decision until the Second Sight revised Part Two report is available, should certainly do so.
JFSA update 12th March 2015
As of the time of writing, the current situation which all of you should now be aware of is that Post Office has taken the decision to close down the Working Group of the Initial Complaint Review & Mediation Scheme. It has also, as those of you who saw Prime Ministers’ Questions in the Commons yesterday (11th March) would have seen, sacked Second Sight, the independent investigators.
When Post Office first notified us of their decision on Tuesday morning (10th March), I wrote the following email to the Minister, and as yet have not received a reply.
This morning I have been informed by Post Office that it has closed the Initial Complaint Review & Mediation Scheme, a copy of their press release is attached, and much of what is stated in it is incorrect.
I understand that Post Office this morning has also terminated the Second Sight contract and placed a ban on them speaking with JFSA.
I remind you of your assurance to me in your letter dated 22nd September 2013 when JFSA raised concerns about Second Sight being contracted to Post Office. In your letter you stated:-
“I have noted your concerns about the Mediation Scheme and the work of Second Sight being funded by POL and the potential, therefore, for their independence to be questioned. But it is important to be clear that Second Sight are not employed by POL.”
JFSA took you at your word, and engaged with the process, so how can Post Office terminate the Second Sight contract if they, as you state, “are not employed by POL”. JFSA has always understood that Second Sight works for the Working Group and as such, if their services were no longer required, it was a Working Group decision to make and not just POL’s. Similarly if a decision was to be made to close the Working Group as its work was complete, then that too was a decision for the Working Group, not POL to make by itself.
JFSA pointed out to you at the start of the Scheme that it was a mistake for POL to be holding the purse strings in this matter, as it uses this as a lever in order to try to cover up the years of incompetence that led to the need for this Scheme in the first place.
Presumably you are aware that the first draft of the Second Sight Part Two report was due out tomorrow, ready for discussion at what was to be the next Working Group meeting on 24th March 2015. Post Office’s actions today has attempted to gag Second Sight and stop this report from being published. Furthermore, there are numerous outstanding questions that Post Office has yet to answer, and large quantities of documentation yet to be provided by them, but in POL’s eyes the Scheme is now closed, as they now want to bury everything.
Minister, were you aware of Post Office’s actions today? Did you approve beforehand their decision to close the Scheme?
I look forward to your response.
If ever I receive a response from the Minister, I will ensure that you are all informed of its content.
Those of you who attended the Kineton JFSA meeting in January will remember that everyone voted to would stay engaged with the Initial Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme (ICRAMS) but also begin to prepare for taking forward a legal action should ICRAMS fail. It was decided that after the length of time it has taken to get this far we wouldn’t to want to waste anymore.
JFSA update 7th March 2015
Invitations to Mediation meetings
A regular request from individuals in the group is to enquire as to whether or not you should attend mediation meetings. The simple answer is that it is your decision. However we are aware that some meetings are taking place, and we only hear back from a percentage of those who have attended and those comments are mainly about how disastrous the meetings have been.
What we do recommend is that anyone who is invited to mediation and has the opportunity to delay their decision until the Second Sight revised Part Two report is available, should certainly do so.
JFSA update 12th March 2015
As of the time of writing, the current situation which all of you should now be aware of is that Post Office has taken the decision to close down the Working Group of the Initial Complaint Review & Mediation Scheme. It has also, as those of you who saw Prime Ministers’ Questions in the Commons yesterday (11th March) would have seen, sacked Second Sight, the independent investigators.
When Post Office first notified us of their decision on Tuesday morning (10th March), I wrote the following email to the Minister, and as yet have not received a reply.
This morning I have been informed by Post Office that it has closed the Initial Complaint Review & Mediation Scheme, a copy of their press release is attached, and much of what is stated in it is incorrect.
I understand that Post Office this morning has also terminated the Second Sight contract and placed a ban on them speaking with JFSA.
I remind you of your assurance to me in your letter dated 22nd September 2013 when JFSA raised concerns about Second Sight being contracted to Post Office. In your letter you stated:-
“I have noted your concerns about the Mediation Scheme and the work of Second Sight being funded by POL and the potential, therefore, for their independence to be questioned. But it is important to be clear that Second Sight are not employed by POL.”
JFSA took you at your word, and engaged with the process, so how can Post Office terminate the Second Sight contract if they, as you state, “are not employed by POL”. JFSA has always understood that Second Sight works for the Working Group and as such, if their services were no longer required, it was a Working Group decision to make and not just POL’s. Similarly if a decision was to be made to close the Working Group as its work was complete, then that too was a decision for the Working Group, not POL to make by itself.
JFSA pointed out to you at the start of the Scheme that it was a mistake for POL to be holding the purse strings in this matter, as it uses this as a lever in order to try to cover up the years of incompetence that led to the need for this Scheme in the first place.
Presumably you are aware that the first draft of the Second Sight Part Two report was due out tomorrow, ready for discussion at what was to be the next Working Group meeting on 24th March 2015. Post Office’s actions today has attempted to gag Second Sight and stop this report from being published. Furthermore, there are numerous outstanding questions that Post Office has yet to answer, and large quantities of documentation yet to be provided by them, but in POL’s eyes the Scheme is now closed, as they now want to bury everything.
Minister, were you aware of Post Office’s actions today? Did you approve beforehand their decision to close the Scheme?
I look forward to your response.
If ever I receive a response from the Minister, I will ensure that you are all informed of its content.
november 2014
JFSA update 26th November 2014
Over the past few weeks it has become significantly clearer where the Initial Case Review & Mediation Scheme is heading.
You will be aware from previous emails that it is JFSA’s view that cases being diverted through the Working Group at the insistence of Post Office and requesting Working Group approval before being sent to Mediation was not part of the Scheme. Second Sight is the independent investigations firm and it is their recommendation about a cases’ suitability for Mediation that was the agreed deciding factor at the start of the Scheme, and which should be adhered to now.
This point and other examples of the intransigence of Post Office led to JFSA raising these concerns with James Arbuthnot, the MP who is chairing the MP group in this matter. In turn he and a small number of other MPs met with Paula Vennells and her team last week to discuss the issues that had been raised. I too attended the meeting and know that the MPs were shocked at the position POL were now taking on the Scheme. To paraphrase, POL stated that the Scheme had failed to find a single thing wrong with Horizon and that POL had done everything possible to assist with the Scheme, so basically people were just trying it on. These are my words, but you get the picture, gone were the words of openness and support and of trying to find the truth, which had been conveyed to me by POL only a couple of years ago.
So we know where we stand now, and whilst the MPs asked POL to go away and discuss their position with their Board, personally I doubt if that will change anything.
Mediation Meetings
The current arrangement for the Mediation meetings excludes the Working Group from officially being notified as to what occurs at these meetings, and so far, only a small number of cases have got that far. A few of those who have attended such meetings have conveyed how disappointed they were, to the extent that one person has withdrawn from the Scheme and written to the Chairman of the Working Group to explain why. In all cases where an individual is unhappy with the procedure of the meeting, it would not only be useful to let us know, but if you have had your MP involved with your case, you should discuss what happened with them.
You should also be aware that regardless of the outcome of any mediation meeting with POL they are treating the case as mediated and as such closed, however JFSA does not accept this position. Until such time that there is a fundamental shift in the position POL is taking at these meeting, JFSA will continue to explore other remedies to the wrongs POL has inflicted on individuals as a result of the systemic failures of Post Office and their Horizon system.
Over the past few weeks it has become significantly clearer where the Initial Case Review & Mediation Scheme is heading.
You will be aware from previous emails that it is JFSA’s view that cases being diverted through the Working Group at the insistence of Post Office and requesting Working Group approval before being sent to Mediation was not part of the Scheme. Second Sight is the independent investigations firm and it is their recommendation about a cases’ suitability for Mediation that was the agreed deciding factor at the start of the Scheme, and which should be adhered to now.
This point and other examples of the intransigence of Post Office led to JFSA raising these concerns with James Arbuthnot, the MP who is chairing the MP group in this matter. In turn he and a small number of other MPs met with Paula Vennells and her team last week to discuss the issues that had been raised. I too attended the meeting and know that the MPs were shocked at the position POL were now taking on the Scheme. To paraphrase, POL stated that the Scheme had failed to find a single thing wrong with Horizon and that POL had done everything possible to assist with the Scheme, so basically people were just trying it on. These are my words, but you get the picture, gone were the words of openness and support and of trying to find the truth, which had been conveyed to me by POL only a couple of years ago.
So we know where we stand now, and whilst the MPs asked POL to go away and discuss their position with their Board, personally I doubt if that will change anything.
Mediation Meetings
The current arrangement for the Mediation meetings excludes the Working Group from officially being notified as to what occurs at these meetings, and so far, only a small number of cases have got that far. A few of those who have attended such meetings have conveyed how disappointed they were, to the extent that one person has withdrawn from the Scheme and written to the Chairman of the Working Group to explain why. In all cases where an individual is unhappy with the procedure of the meeting, it would not only be useful to let us know, but if you have had your MP involved with your case, you should discuss what happened with them.
You should also be aware that regardless of the outcome of any mediation meeting with POL they are treating the case as mediated and as such closed, however JFSA does not accept this position. Until such time that there is a fundamental shift in the position POL is taking at these meeting, JFSA will continue to explore other remedies to the wrongs POL has inflicted on individuals as a result of the systemic failures of Post Office and their Horizon system.
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.
march 2014
MPs meeting 24th March 2014
There were 4 MPs who attended and about 7 others who sent their representatives. It was only a one hour meeting which finished sharply as the room had been booked afterwards, so realistically it only left time for a brief report to the MPs about how the Scheme was working and why it was taking more time than first envisaged. However, half the time was taken up with the MPs asking questions, mainly to POL, which because Parliamentary Protocol, details of individual cases could not be discussed.
The MPs have requested another meeting to be arranged for July, just before they break up for summer recess, and by then a number of cases should have gone through Mediation and it would have been possible to see how the Scheme has performed. So that was about the extent of the meeting, although a couple of the MPs did raise a few questions with POL that they were neither able nor willing to answer at the moment.
There were 4 MPs who attended and about 7 others who sent their representatives. It was only a one hour meeting which finished sharply as the room had been booked afterwards, so realistically it only left time for a brief report to the MPs about how the Scheme was working and why it was taking more time than first envisaged. However, half the time was taken up with the MPs asking questions, mainly to POL, which because Parliamentary Protocol, details of individual cases could not be discussed.
The MPs have requested another meeting to be arranged for July, just before they break up for summer recess, and by then a number of cases should have gone through Mediation and it would have been possible to see how the Scheme has performed. So that was about the extent of the meeting, although a couple of the MPs did raise a few questions with POL that they were neither able nor willing to answer at the moment.
january 2014
JFSA Update 28th January 2014
Case Review & Mediation Scheme - Update
Since the Initial Case Review & Mediation Scheme closed on the 18th November 2013 by which time it had received 147 applications during the 12 weeks it had been open, the cases have been progressing through the various stages. When the Scheme was being developed, a number of timescales were included for each stage of the process. The amount of work required for each of these stages has proved, on average, to be considerably more than had been first envisaged, which is why the passage of a case through the stages may take a few weeks longer.
As mentioned in a previous email, it is far more important for the investigation of a case to be thorough rather than quick, so if it a takes a little bit longer to ensure that your concerns have been addressed completely, then so be it. What can be commented upon is that those involved with working on the cases are progressing them as quickly as they can, but as you will appreciate, there is a significant learning curve to understand the issues behind the cases and the role and work environment of a Subpostmaster, so it is not that easy to just bring in more people to work on the cases. Yet despite the significant increase in the volume of work the Scheme requires, overall the timescale for all cases has slipped by only a few weeks as all involved are working to bring the cases through the Scheme as soon as is possible.
The Mediation Process
This is really just a reminder about one of the facts of the Mediation part of the Scheme. Remember it is non-binding unless you accept any agreed settlement. You are under no compulsion to accept what is offered, and you can walk away at any time without any comeback, if for example you believe what is offered is derisory or it does not give you what you consider is a minimum settlement. You should not feel pressurized to accept any offer just because you are told “that is it, take it or leave it”, as there is an alternative, although longer route, through litigation.
We (JFSA) have entered into the Scheme on the understanding that all Applicants will have an opportunity to have their cases investigated properly, be treated fairly with any wrongs inflicted on individuals put right, and it is only if that is demonstrated to us during the process will we stay involved and support the Scheme. If at any time we find that others involved are not prepared to take their responsibilities seriously, then we will withdraw from the Scheme and seek to redress matters differently.
Also remember, you will have all the reports that have been produced with your case, and by the time a case heads towards a Mediation meeting there will be the report produced by your Professional Advisor (if you used one), the report POL produced for Second Sight and a report produced by Second Sight for the Mediator. All three reports could then be used to support cases taken through the courts in a group action, and although we have already received an offer from one law firm to do so, the resulting publicity we would generate nationally from pulling out of the Scheme would no doubt bring us others.
When a case goes to the Mediation meeting, if there is no settlement agreed and an Applicant leaves the meeting with the issues unresolved and unhappy with the way the meeting went, it is important that others know. Your MP should be top of that list, as it has been the MPs whose support has helped us get this far, and if many Applicants are complaining, then the MPs will want to know why.
No case has arrived at a Mediation meeting yet, the majority of cases are currently with Professional Advisors, although over 50 have been reviewed by 2nd sight and passed on to POL, so it is still unknown how well Mediation will achieve resolution for Applicants. But it is important to be aware that Mediation is one route and not the only route that is open to us.
Case Review & Mediation Scheme - Update
Since the Initial Case Review & Mediation Scheme closed on the 18th November 2013 by which time it had received 147 applications during the 12 weeks it had been open, the cases have been progressing through the various stages. When the Scheme was being developed, a number of timescales were included for each stage of the process. The amount of work required for each of these stages has proved, on average, to be considerably more than had been first envisaged, which is why the passage of a case through the stages may take a few weeks longer.
As mentioned in a previous email, it is far more important for the investigation of a case to be thorough rather than quick, so if it a takes a little bit longer to ensure that your concerns have been addressed completely, then so be it. What can be commented upon is that those involved with working on the cases are progressing them as quickly as they can, but as you will appreciate, there is a significant learning curve to understand the issues behind the cases and the role and work environment of a Subpostmaster, so it is not that easy to just bring in more people to work on the cases. Yet despite the significant increase in the volume of work the Scheme requires, overall the timescale for all cases has slipped by only a few weeks as all involved are working to bring the cases through the Scheme as soon as is possible.
The Mediation Process
This is really just a reminder about one of the facts of the Mediation part of the Scheme. Remember it is non-binding unless you accept any agreed settlement. You are under no compulsion to accept what is offered, and you can walk away at any time without any comeback, if for example you believe what is offered is derisory or it does not give you what you consider is a minimum settlement. You should not feel pressurized to accept any offer just because you are told “that is it, take it or leave it”, as there is an alternative, although longer route, through litigation.
We (JFSA) have entered into the Scheme on the understanding that all Applicants will have an opportunity to have their cases investigated properly, be treated fairly with any wrongs inflicted on individuals put right, and it is only if that is demonstrated to us during the process will we stay involved and support the Scheme. If at any time we find that others involved are not prepared to take their responsibilities seriously, then we will withdraw from the Scheme and seek to redress matters differently.
Also remember, you will have all the reports that have been produced with your case, and by the time a case heads towards a Mediation meeting there will be the report produced by your Professional Advisor (if you used one), the report POL produced for Second Sight and a report produced by Second Sight for the Mediator. All three reports could then be used to support cases taken through the courts in a group action, and although we have already received an offer from one law firm to do so, the resulting publicity we would generate nationally from pulling out of the Scheme would no doubt bring us others.
When a case goes to the Mediation meeting, if there is no settlement agreed and an Applicant leaves the meeting with the issues unresolved and unhappy with the way the meeting went, it is important that others know. Your MP should be top of that list, as it has been the MPs whose support has helped us get this far, and if many Applicants are complaining, then the MPs will want to know why.
No case has arrived at a Mediation meeting yet, the majority of cases are currently with Professional Advisors, although over 50 have been reviewed by 2nd sight and passed on to POL, so it is still unknown how well Mediation will achieve resolution for Applicants. But it is important to be aware that Mediation is one route and not the only route that is open to us.
origins
After years of being forced to suffer in silence, the injustices that have been forced upon many Subpostmasters by the Post Office are being exposed across the country and in Westminster. No longer will the Post Office be able to hold a financial gun to the head of a Subpostmaster.
In order to counter Post Office's, Government approved, corporate oppression, 2009 saw the formation of the Justice For Subpostmasters Alliance (jfsa.org.uk). At the inaugural meeting mainly ex but also many serving subpostmasters attended from all over the country to discuss the way to take the issue forward. All had experienced major problems with the Post Office and its Horizon system since it was first rolled out in 2000.
They had also suffered indignation, accusation and often prosecution from the Post Office as well as being completely ignored by the National Federation of Subpostmasters to whom they had thought they had been paying to look after their interests.
"The problem is that the Post Office Horizon system is so flawed that nobody knows how to fix it, but in the meantime Subpostmasters are continuing to be made to suffer."
So JFSA was set up to represent the victims of the Post Office and its Horizon system, as nobody else will. If you are a Subpostmaster experiencing problems or have been a Subpostmaster who has experienced problems with Horizon and the Post Office, contact us. If you are a retired Subpostmaster who has had problems or even if have just heard of problems at an office, please let us know. Everyone involved is totally committed to exposing what has been going on behind closed doors for years, no matter how long it takes. Contacting JFSA is confidential and you will be in touch with people like yourselves, ex and serving Subpostmasters who know firsthand of the problems you have experienced. No longer are you alone, there are many others suffering or have suffered because of the Post Office.
JFSA has access to IT experts, forensic accountants, a criminal law firm and a major national firm of solicitors who are acting for us in civil matters. They all are only too well aware of the problems Subpostmaster have had and are still having with the Post Office and its Horizon system. Be assured that everything is in the strictest confidence as we all know how vindictive the Post Office can be.
We have no animosity against post offices as such, most involved have been, and some still are, Subpostmasters who have enjoyed playing a role in the community. But there has to be a fundamental change in the way suboffices are ‘managed’ by the Post Office and this can only be brought about at government level. Such changes are only the start and need to be accompanied by:-
JFSA has a network of members around the country and if you are having problems we probably have a member in your area who, if required, may be able to assist.
From experience we know that if you are having problems you are made to feel alone, you are told you are the only person to have ever had a problem with Horizon, it’s all your fault and one way or another you are going to pay, because nobody is going to listen to you! Well you are not alone anymore, JFSA has arrived and our numbers are growing weekly and we have many friends in the media and now there are many politicians who are championing our cause.
Need Help? – contact us today
In order to counter Post Office's, Government approved, corporate oppression, 2009 saw the formation of the Justice For Subpostmasters Alliance (jfsa.org.uk). At the inaugural meeting mainly ex but also many serving subpostmasters attended from all over the country to discuss the way to take the issue forward. All had experienced major problems with the Post Office and its Horizon system since it was first rolled out in 2000.
They had also suffered indignation, accusation and often prosecution from the Post Office as well as being completely ignored by the National Federation of Subpostmasters to whom they had thought they had been paying to look after their interests.
"The problem is that the Post Office Horizon system is so flawed that nobody knows how to fix it, but in the meantime Subpostmasters are continuing to be made to suffer."
So JFSA was set up to represent the victims of the Post Office and its Horizon system, as nobody else will. If you are a Subpostmaster experiencing problems or have been a Subpostmaster who has experienced problems with Horizon and the Post Office, contact us. If you are a retired Subpostmaster who has had problems or even if have just heard of problems at an office, please let us know. Everyone involved is totally committed to exposing what has been going on behind closed doors for years, no matter how long it takes. Contacting JFSA is confidential and you will be in touch with people like yourselves, ex and serving Subpostmasters who know firsthand of the problems you have experienced. No longer are you alone, there are many others suffering or have suffered because of the Post Office.
JFSA has access to IT experts, forensic accountants, a criminal law firm and a major national firm of solicitors who are acting for us in civil matters. They all are only too well aware of the problems Subpostmaster have had and are still having with the Post Office and its Horizon system. Be assured that everything is in the strictest confidence as we all know how vindictive the Post Office can be.
We have no animosity against post offices as such, most involved have been, and some still are, Subpostmasters who have enjoyed playing a role in the community. But there has to be a fundamental change in the way suboffices are ‘managed’ by the Post Office and this can only be brought about at government level. Such changes are only the start and need to be accompanied by:-
- A totally independent investigation into the introduction, operation, reliability and accuracy of Horizon as well the incompetence of Post Office management in this matter.
- A new and fairer contract for Subpostmasters that removes the pin-head dancing around a Subpostmaster being an agent or an employee. A new contract that actually covers the use of IT in subpostoffices.
- The appointment of an ombudsman or an independent third party has to be introduced between the Post Office and the Subpostmaster who would hear appeals in issues of disagreement, as currently the Post Office act as judge, jury and executioner.
- The removal of the cosy relationship between the Post Office and the Federation has to happen (described by many as when the Post Office says jump, the Federation's only answer is, how high). This could easily be achieved by establishing an extra and alternative representative Subpostmaster body.
JFSA has a network of members around the country and if you are having problems we probably have a member in your area who, if required, may be able to assist.
From experience we know that if you are having problems you are made to feel alone, you are told you are the only person to have ever had a problem with Horizon, it’s all your fault and one way or another you are going to pay, because nobody is going to listen to you! Well you are not alone anymore, JFSA has arrived and our numbers are growing weekly and we have many friends in the media and now there are many politicians who are championing our cause.
Need Help? – contact us today
ICRAMS
Initial Complaint Review & Mediation Scheme (ICRAMS)
Closed 18th November 2013
ICRAMS, also referred to in documentations as the Scheme, evolved from the publication of the Interim Report produced by Second Sight, the independent investigators, who were brought in by Post Office in response to MP pressure following years of campaigning by the JFSA and its membership.
Originally it had been expected that the Scheme would be completed by the end of 2013, but it soon became clear that the early target dates for taking a case through the Scheme were wildly optimistic due to complexity of the work involved. The expected four week investigation periods were in some cases turning into a 6 or 7 month reality. The last of the case reports were completed in June 2015, and on the 17th April 2015 the Second Sight Part Two report was first received by Applicants and a copy of the report can be seen and downloaded from here. This report was produced as part of the Mediators Briefing Pack.
At the outset of the Scheme there appeared to have been a commonality of purpose with all those involved in the goals that the Scheme was trying to achieve. However as cases progressed it became evident to the JFSA that the Scheme was being moved further and further away from trying to establish the truth, and more about how Post Office could use the Scheme to protect its own position.
This led the JFSA and many of the Applicants involved, to raise these concerns with their MPs, which in turn led to these issues being discussed at an Adjournment Debate in Westminster Hall on 17th December 2014 (You can listen to it or access the transcript from the media page). During the debate many questions were put to the Minister of Postal Affairs, for which real answers are still awaited.
On the 10th March 2015 Post Office unilaterally took the decision to close down the Working Group of the Initial Complaint Review Mediation Scheme. Post Office, as was mentioned during Prime Ministers’ Questions in the House of Commons on the 11th March 2015, sacked Second Sight, the independent investigators.
Further information about many of the aspects above can be found by following the appropriate links.
Originally it had been expected that the Scheme would be completed by the end of 2013, but it soon became clear that the early target dates for taking a case through the Scheme were wildly optimistic due to complexity of the work involved. The expected four week investigation periods were in some cases turning into a 6 or 7 month reality. The last of the case reports were completed in June 2015, and on the 17th April 2015 the Second Sight Part Two report was first received by Applicants and a copy of the report can be seen and downloaded from here. This report was produced as part of the Mediators Briefing Pack.
At the outset of the Scheme there appeared to have been a commonality of purpose with all those involved in the goals that the Scheme was trying to achieve. However as cases progressed it became evident to the JFSA that the Scheme was being moved further and further away from trying to establish the truth, and more about how Post Office could use the Scheme to protect its own position.
This led the JFSA and many of the Applicants involved, to raise these concerns with their MPs, which in turn led to these issues being discussed at an Adjournment Debate in Westminster Hall on 17th December 2014 (You can listen to it or access the transcript from the media page). During the debate many questions were put to the Minister of Postal Affairs, for which real answers are still awaited.
On the 10th March 2015 Post Office unilaterally took the decision to close down the Working Group of the Initial Complaint Review Mediation Scheme. Post Office, as was mentioned during Prime Ministers’ Questions in the House of Commons on the 11th March 2015, sacked Second Sight, the independent investigators.
Further information about many of the aspects above can be found by following the appropriate links.