header-logo header-logo

02 July 2020
Categories: Legal News , Costs , Compensation
printer mail-detail

Subpostmasters fight on after Horizon compensation letdown

More than 500 former subpostmasters caught up in the faulty Post Office Horizon computer scandal are seeking justice after recovering only five per cent of their losses when the Post Office settled the case due to the Jackson reforms

The Justice for Subpostmaster Alliance (JFSA) is bringing a complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman on behalf of its 555 members. The subpostmasters had their contracts terminated. Many lost their businesses and homes, a number were charged with false accounting and theft, and some even received custodial sentences―yet it was all because of mistakes made by the faulty computer system.

The Post Office subsequently paid £57m to settle the case last year. However, the JFSA says just £11.5m actually made it into the hands of the subpostmasters involved due to the costs of bringing the case. The JFSA says this represents, on average, about 5% of their actual losses.

The JFSA has now instructed law firm Stevens Bolton to act on its behalf, and is submitting a complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman alleging maladministration within the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS). The government was the sole shareholder in the Post Office when the scandal happened.

Sarah Murray, head of dispute resolution at Stevens & Bolton, said: ‘Members of the JFSA have been through so much, as a result of the wrongs suffered at the hands of the Post Office.

‘The failure of the government to intervene has exacerbated their suffering.’

Kay Linnell, forensic accountant and adviser to JFSA, said: ‘This is about recovering the considerable legal costs incurred by members in taking the Post Office to court to expose inherent faults in the Post Office’s Horizon computer system, the incompetence of the Post Office and the failings of the government, who as the only shareholder, failed to manage its subsidiary.

‘The 555 claimants who were brave enough to join this group litigation, having already suffered such personal anguish and financial loss, have borne the additional financial burden of funding this action. They cannot recover their funding costs as a result of the Jackson Reforms of 1 April 2013. 

‘It cannot be right that individual impecunious litigants, who have succeeded in their case, are excluded from the equitable repayment of the financing costs. We are still striving for justice to be done and we need help from the public now.’

The JFSA has set up a CrowdJustice platform to help it fund its legal fight. See: www.crowdjustice.com/case/post-office-victims.

Categories: Legal News , Costs , Compensation
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll