Back to the courts?

Helloello

August is turning into a busy month for Post Office news.

The first eye-catching thing of note was the Post Office’s rather staggering admission that it’s had issues selling stamps. Over what may turn out to be a long period of time.

The wording in the announcement was curious. It said Postmasters could find themselves out of pocket over stamps due to “other branch processes unrelated to the technical performance of Horizon.”

The Post Office is going to set up a scheme along the lines of the much-derided Historical Shortfall Scheme (HSS) to try to compensate Postmasters.

When I asked for more details the Post Office told me:

“it’s important that we communicate with postmasters first about the new scheme when it launches, with the detail involved. We plan to do so in the near future.”

Judicial review of HSS

I am told the HSS itself is possibly about to become the subject of a request for a judicial review. Led by former Postmaster Chirag Sidphura (whose story I told here) and written by lawyers working at Cornerstone chambers and Edwin Coe solicitors, the application claims the HSS is unlawful because:

– it gave Subpostmasters inadequate time to apply (the application window is now closed),

– it gave Subpostmasters inadequate information about the workings of the scheme,

– it forces some applicants to surrender their legal rights and entitlements once they are signed up to it.

More on that when I get it.

Postmaster on board

The Post Office has announced it’s putting a Subpostmaster on its board. The lucky winner will be a non-exec whose job it is to “advocate the interests of more than 8,000 Postmasters”, something the National Federation of Subpostmasters supposedly exists to do.

Like the NFSP, the non-exec Subpostmaster will be in the pay of the Post Office. Whether this is symbolism or a means of effecting real change will be down to a) the character of the individual selected b) the willingness of the board to listen to her/him. The Post Office says “The Postmaster Non-Executive Director role demonstrates the Post Office’s determination to create a genuine two way partnership with its Postmasters.”

I’ve asked the Post Office to let me know how SPMs apply, who will choose them, what experience and skills they need and how much they’ll get paid. I’ll put up a piece when I get a response.

Enter Declan The Post Office has appointed a new Director to deal specifically with the Historical Shortfall Scheme and a number of “operational measures”.

Declan Salter will not sit on the Post Office board, but will instead report to CEO Nick Read and Chairman Tim Parker.

Mr Salter likes to keep a low profile online, and the press release announcing his appointment was notable for how vague it was (“Declan has been an independent director specialising in working inside organisations alongside existing management to resolve complex issues. His work has involved situations in over 50 organisations. Declan was initially in the printing industry, transforming working practices and customer service, ultimately running a large PLC with operations in UK and Europe”)

I’ve asked the Post Office to send me some more information on Mr Salter’s background (and “situations”) asked if he’d like to be interviewed about how he views his new job.

Response to the litigation settlement

Thanks to all the claimants who took the time to respond to the publication of the settlement agreement. Here is a selection:

– “It’s no more or less than expected. I suppose Alan Bates and Kay could never have expected to come out of this matter free of any criticism, perfection is nay impossible. Kay’s remarks of “they would have never got anything” whilst holding a certain truth were, I suppose, somewhat ill-chosen and supercilious.”

– “Any members of the JFSA or even who are directly/indirectly affected by the actions of the Post Office should be proud of Alan and Kay’s work.We should be Thanking or financially rewarding these Friends and their families.”

– “It really adds insult to injury yet again. My personal feelings are that people were out of their depth in the mediation, through no fault of their own.”

– “No steering committee should exist of two people who some of us have never spoke to! It should of been made up of an odd number for voting purposes and a minimum of 5 people… So conviction or not, money should have been divided equally. Complete shambles if you ask me and it totally undermines some victims.”

– “Without Kay and Alan, we would have nothing at all! They are still fighting for us! We all agreed they would represent us and they have done that and then some. Thank you Kay & Alan, you took on a thankless Job, with little thanks and did it to the best of your abilities.”

That’s it from me – sorry it’s such a long newsletter.

Keep well!

Nick