#postofficetrial A big thank you to @KateOsborneMP for joining me @10DowningStreet to hand over the petition & thanks to @itvtynetees for covering the story. The fight will continue until @BorisJohnson @Conservatives call an inquiry into this scandal #inquiry #answers #justice

The risk doesn’t happen in the GLO scheme until after the initial panel decision so that ultimatum wouldn’t apply. It is a problem around the Fixed Sum Awards where you might claim £90,000 or £700,000 and the offers may come back at say £50,000 and £400,000 and then you are locked into a long battle to get it to or above the £75k or £600k level without any guarantee of ever doing so. That is why many have settled for the awards because the risk is too much and the battle could then continue for years

@PetrinaSnelling @SkyNewsAdele @SkyNews @nickwallis @premnsikka @DanNeidle @UKHouseofLords @HouseofCommons @KateOsborneMP @Karlfl @RtHonKevanJones @RosieBrock71780 @gareththomasMP It is b) no morals as the money is there

@FrattonWhite £5.1m during her time at the Post Office

RT @chrish9070: #PostOfficeScandal If you happened to miss the 8pm 🕗 live episode 18 of the Great Post Office Trial series then listen belo…

RT @chrish9070: #PostOfficeScandal Keith Bell was a former Postmaster in Stockton. He was convicted of false accounting in 2002. Today it…

RT @chrish9070: #PostOfficeScandal Hmm, @PostOffice know all about how hard it is to refund stuff rather than buying it, or holding on to i…

RT @chrish9070: #PostOfficeScandal Leading Professor on Law and Professional Ethics, FAcSS at @UniofExeter Law School writes a brilliant p…

RT @chrish9070: #PostOfficeScandal Journalist and author @nickwallis mentions in his latest email update that the current @PostOffice Minis…

RT @RosieBrock71780: Don't know how Nick does it & he's writing another book....never sleeps. So compassionate like wonderful Lee and Chris…

RT @AmandaPalgrave: Listening to the new episode of @nickwallis's "The Great Post Office Trial" on @BBCRadio4 @BBCSounds. All the feelings…

@RichardsonFami6 I completely agree. It is why I’ve always maintained £600k should be paid and those who can then evidence a claim above that amount should be able to pursue that without any risk or pressure, as also suggested by Inquiry chair Sir Wyn Williams

@ClarksonGeorge There is legislation in place to exempt from taxes

@jos02611 @BBCSounds @nickwallis @premnsikka @DanNeidle @KateOsborneMP @HouseofCommons @UKHouseofLords @RtHonKevanJones @BBCRadio4 @RosieBrock71780 @RosieDuffield1 Long way to go John. This will run to 2026, more likely 2027 for redress and then onwards into 2028 and till goodness knows when for any prosecutions and accountability

#PostOfficeScandal This is your 45 minute warning🚨⏰ for the 8pm🕗 release of the latest @BBCRadio4 podcast episode 18 by @nickwallis journalist and author of ‘The Great Post Office Scandal’. It was described in @thetimes as the ‘Pick of the week’ so please do tune in. This is a @WhistledownProd and a special thanks must go to producer Robert Nicolson. Also a thanks to the rest of the team Will Yates, Emma Barbaby & Artemis Ivine. The episode will also be available on @BBCSounds after it has broadcast live. And can be found here👇 #MrBatesVsThePostOffice #MrBates #MrBatesVsPostOffice #MrBatesPBS #PostOfficeInquiry #PostOffice #Bbcradio4 #TheGreatPostOfficeScandal #TheGreatPostOfficeTrial

#PostOfficeScandal Hmm, @PostOffice know all about how hard it is to refund stuff rather than buying it, or holding on to it. Thousands of Postmasters are still awaiting their financial redress which includes monies wrongfully extorted from them for shortfalls we now know were fictitious, so maybe it is time to practice what you preach🤔 #MrBatesVsThePostOffice #MrBates #MrBatesVsPostOffice #MrBatesPBS #PostOfficeInquiry #PostOffice #hypocrisy

#PostOfficeScandal Leading Professor on Law and Professional Ethics, FAcSS at @UniofExeter Law School writes a brilliant piece on the @PostOffice closing submissions to the public inquiry (@PostOffInquiry ) called👇 Where is POL pointing the finger? I have been closely reading the Post Office (POL’s) final submissions to the PO Inquiry. It is a skilfully drafted document, interesting for an indication of where POL think there are battles to be won. In general, whether I agree with what they say or not, they often look like sensible battles to be pick from their point of view. They draw attention to interesting conflicts or absences in the evidence, some of this will help the Inquiry (no, really) and some might help POL get a bit less of a kicking even whilst it knows it is going to get a mauling. I had a feeling on occasion that some of the points had an eye on future potential litigation against the organisation or perhaps people connected with it. It particularly sought to advance the point that it was culture and understandable bias that drove the problems as much as any individual failure. The individual failures they sought to emphasise generally, I would say, were the product of incompetence or negligence rather than deliberate wrongdoing or conspiracy. One decision I cannot allow to pass unremarked is their own handling of the mediation scheme chaired by Sir Anthony Hooper. They recognise in limited ways the mediation was problematic and not geared towards “truth-seeking” (major eye-roll*) but argue it was not wrong in conventional legal/tactical terms (which in a way makes a deeper and troubling point - the conventional justifications are messed-up). These are arguments that they are entitled to make, although you can get a sense of the need for vigilance with some of their claims given they say a “not insignificant portion” of cases were mediated, an only put the actual figure in the footnotes: 24/136 - and without any mention of why those people might have settled). But it was their attempt, to suggest Sir Alan Bates’ using the mediation to get information relevant to litigation that was somehow morally equivalent to their own tactical exploitation of mediation which I thought was really foolish. They say this: "it is fair to say that the criticisms which have been levelled at POL as to how transparent it was in respect of what it intended by, and expected to achieve from, the ICRMS [the mediation], can be applied equally to [Sir Alan Bates]/JFSA" This is a sentence which shows that POL and its lawyers still need to recalibrate their understanding of what “fair” and “equally” means. They might also, perhaps, consider what the word “ludicrous” means while they do so. A good deal of the submission is about caution, and not being too hindsighty, and blaming systems not people. The balance between individual blame and the system putting the inept or the inexperienced into difficult situations to which they “rose” in generally rather similar ways (not a point they make, that’s my point), is nicely captured in the first substantive point they make about POL’’s handling of the Bates litigation. They suggest their strategy was in significant ways driven by their reliance on legal advice. They head straight to Womble Bond Dickinson’s (@WBD_UK ) Andy Parsons and begin by saying this: 236. WBD first became involved in advising POL in early 2013 when [Andy Parsons] was instructed to advise on letters before claim from Postmasters raising concerns about the Horizon system. He was then a 5 years PQE associate at WBD. He advised on the disclosure (or otherwise) of issues with Horizon in letters to Postmasters, despite the fact that he "didn't understand the nature of the error in hardly any detail", and advised on crucial wording in correspondence based on his understanding that it was normal for lawyers to "soften wording". He made "recommendations" to POL on his own initiative without instructions or without the "level of thought" required to understand the impact on disclosure in other matters. 237. He remained POL's main external legal adviser in civil matters to POL until 2019 during which period he played a substantial role in shaping POL's strategy in relation to key responses to the emerging scandal (including the response to SSIR and the ICRMS). He was made a Partner in May 2016 (just weeks after proceedings in the GLO were issued), and thereafter had principal responsibility for the conduct of POL's defence in the GLO, sitting on the Postmaster Litigation Steering Group (PLSG) and attending some meetings of the Board Subcommittee (established in early 2018). This was despite having no previous experience of group litigation. [Andy Parsons] in turn delegated a number of tasks to a colleague, Amy Prime ("APr"), including the instruction of [Brian Altman KC] in relation to the criminal appeals, and liaising with POL to provide background to the pleading in the GLO. At this time APr was less than one year PQE. 238. It was obviously a mistake for POL to rely on such an inexperienced legal adviser in APa, and, in turn, for him in turn to rely on such a junior colleague, in a matter of such significance to POL. Indeed, the absence of any tendering process for appointment as POL's lawyers in the GLO, or even any evidence at its inception there was anything more than a cursory consideration of instructing another firm of solicitors (and in any event no consideration apparently given to instructing a more senior partner), was an obvious error. It is now clear (and ought to have been clear to POL at the time) that [Andy Parsons] had neither the experience nor the judgement to provide POL with the depth of advice that the GLO required. Moreover, his involvement from a very junior stage of his career appears to have led [Andy Parsons] to overidentify with his client in litigation and to lose his ability clearly to assess issues of disclosure, evidence, strategy and costs. As a result, POL was deprived of legal advice which was truly objective. Well except for all the other lawyers involved for them, some in-house, and some at the Bar. They get mentions but usually, save for those who worked at Cartwright King, more muted ones. Read it all on and other great insights by Richard on his @SubstackInc page here👇 #MrBatesVsThePostOffice #MrBates #MrBatesVsPostOffice #MrBatesPBS #PostOfficeInquiry #PostOffice #WBD

#PostOfficeScandal Journalist and author @nickwallis mentions in his latest email update that the current @PostOffice Minister @gareththomasMP will not commit to all redress for the scandal being paid by the end of the year. It is obvious to any common sense person that on the current trajectory that simply cannot and will not be achieved, unless significant changes are made. If you look at the contracts awarded to the various legal services, the government themselves know this to be the case. @Dentons contract runs until 31st March 2026 as claims facilitators for the Group Litigation Order (GLO) Compensation Scheme for £2,523,120👇 The contract for the government legal advisors in the GLO and the newest HCRS scheme is with Addleshaw Goddard (@AGinsight ). The contract for the GLO scheme also runs until March 2026 at least for £4,333,333.33, and the contract for the HCRS is running until November 2027 for £9,500,000.....yes you read that right 2027!!👇 GLO : HCRS : As I mentioned in my letters to both the Minister and the HCAB (Horizon Compensation Advisory Board) my own claim went into the GLO scheme in June 2023, 1st offer arrived 28th December 2023, 2nd offer arrived mid April 2024, 3rd offer on the 4th July 2024. We then utilised the dispute mechanisms to the Independent Panel which went on until late September 2024 and we are still locked in dispute. During the time I was in dispute throughout 2024 there were only 2 cases in that position, mine and Sir Alan. More than 200 claims went into the scheme just before Christmas 2024, and if they receive their offers within 40 working days we can expect those offers to be dropping in the next few weeks. These cases are some of the most complex so far. Out of 240 settled cases more than 150 of those were for the Fixed Sum Award of £75,000 which means that the government has only managed to resolve approx. 80 cases since the scheme officially launched in their words in March 2023. What are they going to do with potentially 200 in dispute in one go? Offers should be made by end of February in the most part, claimants have 20 working days to challenge those offers, and it takes time to legally challenge those offers, so the earliest will be end of March this year, and that is if no further forensic or medical evidence is required. The government then have ANOTHER 40 working days (inequality of arms once more as they have twice as long as claimants to issue another offer) to issue a 2nd offer, which would take us until the end of May. If that offer isn't satisfactory, claimants will again challenge which takes us to the end of June. Then either a 3rd offer comes out which will take us to the end of August, bearing in mind this will be holiday time and then talk of going to panel. This process can take up to 2 months, as the legal bundles are prepared and submissions are made, before the actual hearing takes place, the very earliest his could happen would be October. Then it is between 2 - 4 weeks for that 1st non binding decision to come out which takes us to November 2025. You then have a 3 week facilitation period to try reach a settlement, which takes us to Christmas 2025. That is before any 2nd panel referral and then a potential referral to the final reviewer Sir Ross Cranston. Now all these timescales are evidenced when only two claims were in dispute, like I mentioned above what happens with 200 in that process, it simply won't be able to cope and those timescales will almost certainly be much longer, and unfortunately people will become unwell both physically and mentally and throw in the towel, and heaven forbid we lose more members of the group. This is very easily solved, by government extending the remit of Sir Ross Cranston to intervene either after the 1st or 2nd offer, helping with case management and making determinations without any restrictions whatsoever so that cases are resolved and precedents are set which will then help to resolve outstanding cases, in a speedy manner. #MrBatesVsThePostOffice #MrBates #MrBatesVsPostOffice #MrBatesPBS #PostOfficeInquiry #Redress