The Horizon Convictions Redress Scheme enables victims of the Post Office scandal to secure compensation.
We have registered claims and secured millions in payments on behalf of our clients whose convictions were quashed.
We can advise on whether to accept the £600,000 offer or whether to pursue higher damages.
As solicitor Neil Hudgell explains, our work can ensure awards are secured as quickly as possible – and you will keep 100% of the compensation.
Video Transcript: Post Office Horizon Convictions Redress Scheme
Welcome to Writing Wrongs here at Hudgell Solicitors. I’m Keith Phillips, and with me is Neil Hudgell, executive chairman, who represents hundreds of victims of the Post Office Scandal.
Neil, we’re here to delve a little deeper into exactly what’s going on with the various compensation schemes and the Horizon conviction redress scheme.
Can you explain what that is and what the latest developments are?
Yeah, this complex phraseology and change of terminology doesn’t help in some senses, but that scheme is the follow-on from the original overturned convictions cases. If you remember, they went through the Court of Appeal in 2021, and there was then this groundswell, particularly after the dramatization at the beginning of January, So there’s been some massive exoneration legislation to quash all relevant convictions related to Horizon, so this is the compensation scheme that follows that.
People’s convictions were automatically quashed, but they didn’t know they were being quashed until they got a letter. The letters started to go out in July. The majority have gone out now by the end of November, there’s still some to go out, and in broad terms, there are 900 potential eligible applicants.
Can I pick you up there? You say 900, is that 900 people who have yet to come forward?
No, that’s a cohort of 900 potential convicted people who might qualify for compensation. Of that 900, some of those are out of scope, so that reduces by about 150.
So somewhere with the order of 750 of those approaching 500 people have had letters of exoneration.
There are about another 250 at some other various stages. I’m talking in round numbers because the numbers change, but that gives you a general indication of the size of the cohort.
And those people, once they get an exoneration letter and get a gateway to compensation, have two options;
- One is to take a fixed £600,000 pounds.
- The other is to have a case fully quantified.
In either instance, they get an immediate interim impairment of £200,000 pounds and then they elect one route or the other. We’ve in excess of 200 clients that fall within that 900.
The overwhelming evidence at the moment is the majority of them are taking the fixed compensation. Some reasons, I’ll take the words from one of my clients, Dowey who was, who gave evidence at the select committee, he was an exonerate under the mass exoneration legislation and he said;
“I watched what’s gone on before me, I didn’t want any of that! I just want a simple quick process, and move on. So I’ve taken £600,000 pounds.”
I think a lot of people are in that bracket really, it’s more a question of peace of mind, getting on with things, so we get lots of lovely letters from people saying;
“Thanks for everything that you’ve done for us, I’ve bought a house. I can enjoy my retirement now. I’m not really that bothered about squeezing the pips to the final nth degree out of the Post Office.
I want to end this battle. My name’s cleared. I’m the innocent person I always knew I was. I’ve got compensation in the bank. I’ve got some peace of mind. It’s time to draw a line under it.”
So a lot of people are in that boat.
So anyone who’s got an exoneration letter though, would you still urge them to seek legal advice before making a decision on what to accept?
In fairness to the government, they are telling people to seek legal advice.
There’s a panel of lawyers including ourselves that they can go to, no one is charged for the process, and it really is important to take legal advice.
At the end of the day, it’s the client’s decision. You know, we can say to them, look, it feels to us like your case might be worth more, but we’ve gotta do X, Y, and Z. At which point they can say, no, look, I just want it done, and we respect that, but we’ve given the advice, then they can choose whether to take it or not, and then we would just process the paperwork for them.
Paperwork to people can be a bit daunting, you know, there are ID checks that need to be completed, there’s forms that need to be filled in, there’s a of processing of payment.
There’s all sorts of bits of stuff that, you know, is meat and drink to us, we do that every day, all day. It’s much easier for them to engage us or any of the other lawyers to sort that process for them.
And there’s no charge for taking legal advice and for you acting for them?
“No, there’s no charge at all.”
And I think again, just to reiterate that as lawyers, we know that clients don’t like us as a “breed”. You know, there’s, there’s mistrust of professionals in suits. You know, look at what’s happened to them with the Post Office, so you know, anybody in a suit is somebody that they’re very wary of and we get that.
But I think it’s really important that they know that we’re on their side and there are plenty of people that will vouch for us that have been through the process that we can introduce them to, and it is a problem at the minute because the statistics suggest that even though there have been nearly 500 letters issued, only 250 of them have had some form of payment so far.
So there’ll be some in the system, but for me, that equally suggests that there are maybe a couple of hundred people out there that haven’t yet taken legal advice or trying to do it themselves.
And whilst government are signposting clients to lawyers, they can’t force them to. Some people want to deal directly with government departments and it might not be in their best interest because there are things that we might be able to inform them of that might actually influence the decision.
Many of those people are older. Some of them would’ve passed away. Their families may or may not be aware of their convictions.
What message would you put out to them?
Find out, because there is a process. Basically, what the government are doing among the Ministry of Justice is writing out to people whose details they have, some people’s details they don’t have, some people’s address details they don’t have, particularly if someone’s died, you know, there is an uncertainty often around who is entitled to the compensation.
We look after a number of families of deceased Subpostmasters, and that’s another layer of complication in the completion of paperwork, you may need what’s called a grant of probate.
Again, that’s meat drink to us. And I do know, anecdotally that the whole process of that has put people off, which sounds extreme when it opens the gateway to quite sizable sums of compensation that can be passed down through the generations and put to good use, but it has put people off, so it’s important that they do come forward.
But as I say, because some of the reason the lessons have been going out slow is because the database which is held by the government is not that good.
So if there’s somebody out there who thinks their mum or dad or indeed themselves were convicted as a result of Horizon, it’s important for them to come forward because we can then register their details, which is a more proactive way of saying to the Ministry of Justice, “this person looks to be someone that might be affected by this scandal. Can you please check what you’ve got to see if they do qualify under the exoneration legislation.”.
Neil, thank you very much and thank you for listening to Writing Wrongs.
