Post Office families offered flat-rate compensation

Relatives of victims of the Post Office scandal will be offered a flat-rate settlement – likely to be lower than the compensation for which they might otherwise be eligible – in return for an ask-no-questions approach.

The government said its new redress scheme will make it significantly easier for members of wronged sub-postmasters's families to qualify for and secure compensation. Such a scheme was recommended by Sir Wyn Williams, the chair of the Horizon public inquiry, in his first report last summer.

Existing schemes for compensating former sub-postmasters have been dogged by accusations that negotiations have been too adversarial and that victims have been required to prove a case based on documents long since lost or destroyed.

Business minister Blair McDougall said that while the focus of the relatives’ scheme will be personal injury, discussions with claimants’ lawyers and the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board – as well as the Lost Chance group set up for family members – had prompted significant changes to what had been envisaged.

An earlier version of the scheme would only have allowed applications to be made based on contemporaneous evidence of medical issues or a fresh assessment of an ongoing medical condition arising from the miscarriage of justice, McDougall said. 

He added: ‘Stakeholders have told us that very few people would be able to provide this type of evidence. In response, we have created an alternative route to redress for people whose postmaster relatives faced some of the most stressful specific consequences of the Horizon scandal (such as prosecution or bankruptcy) and were therefore more likely to have experienced significant harm.

‘So long as we can confirm the event experienced by the claimant’s postmaster relative, we will not require them to evidence any further harm.’

Because no evidence will be required, claims cannot be differentiated so will be a single rate. That figure has yet to be finalised, although the government has said one potential comparator is the £15,120 to which relatives are entitled under the Fatal Accidents Act.

McDougall said the new approach may result in some individuals receiving an amount that differs from what would have been awarded following the assessment of a personal injury claim.

He added: ‘However, given the evidential problems, the alternative would have been to give them no compensation at all. Those who do have evidence will still be able to apply for an assessed personal injury claim and provide contemporaneous evidence of medical issues arising from Horizon, or a fresh assessment for any ongoing medical condition, as outlined by my predecessor.’

In his report, Williams said there was very likely to be a number of close family members of those who have been most adversely affected by Horizon who, themselves, have endured, and may still endure considerable suffering.

He said: ‘Wives, husbands, children and parents endured very significant suffering in the form of distress, worry and disruption (to home life, in employment and in education). In a number of cases, relationships with spouses and partners broke down and ended in divorce or separation.'