Post Office urged to reopen settlements as postmasters ‘scared off’ legal advice
The Post Office has been urged to reopen settlements with more than 1,700 postmasters after falsely telling sub-postmasters that offers of compensation must be kept confidential.
Former postmasters who were victims of the Horizon scandal but were not convicted or part of the group’s legal action, can apply to the Historic Shortfall Scheme (HSS) for compensation.
It is one of a range of reimbursement options available to wronged sub–postmasters but has been plagued with issues, including allegations of derisory payouts.
It has emerged that the Post Office’s lawyers were telling HSS applicants that their compensation conversations and payments were made “without prejudice”.
This term is a form of legal privilege, which prevents conversations about settlements being used in court proceedings and is a legitimate process and phrase.
The Post Office, however, told sub-postmasters that this meant the conversations were confidential and could not be shared with third parties including other postmasters, journalists, or friends.
It is estimated that around 90 per cent of those who took a settlement under HSS did not instruct a lawyer.
Dan Niedle, a tax law expert and founder of Tax Policy Associates Ltd, believes this was used as “a deliberate and cynical tactic to minimise compensation” on the part of the Post Office.
He also accuses the lawyers working for the Post Office of a potential breach of professional ethics if that was the case.
The Solicitors Regulatory Authority (SRA), a watchdog which investigates the professional conduct of solicitors, was asked by the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board to look into the matter.
The SRA has now warned the Post Office to ensure they do not mislead recipients of correspondence by wrongly implying confidentiality.
The SRA urged “particular care” in cases where the recipient is likely to not have legal representation.
The SRA asked the Post Office and its solicitors on January 31 to confirm as a matter of urgency that they will not use the term inappropriately.
The Post Office has since responded to the SRA’s instruction and said it has made a “policy decision” to stop using “without prejudice” to imply confidentiality.
The organisation believes its use of the term was “legally correct”, which is not disputed, but Mr Neidle believes its use was disingenuous and potentially scandalous if it was falsely used to convey an impression of confidentiality in order to minimise compensation payouts.
“At least 1,726 settlements were agreed with postmasters who never received any legal advice, off the back of settlement offers that falsely claimed to be confidential,” he writes in a blog for the Tax Policy Associates website.
