Guidance

Capture Redress Scheme: independent panel assessment framework

Updated 3 March 2026

Overview

The panel is an independent decision-making body established to assess the claims of applicants deemed eligible for redress by the Department for Business and Trade (DBT). They will determine the level of financial redress payable to those applicants. The panel’s authority, remit and procedures are set out in the Independent Panel Terms of Reference, which governs its operation and ensures its independence.

This framework is to ensure fair and consistent assessment of claims from postmasters affected by Capture-related shortfalls between 1992 and 2000. The assessment will acknowledge the passage of over 25 years. It will also acknowledge the likelihood that some applicants will have limited or perhaps no documents created between 1992 and 2000 to support their claims.

What the panel does

The panel’s job is to:

• assess each eligible claim across 4 categories of harm
• determine the correct compensation band

Many applications may have limited documentation due to the time elapsed. For this reason, the panel will assess the application form, including the impact statement and any supporting evidence provided by the applicant.

The panel does not assess eligibility. DBT will have already confirmed eligibility before a case goes to the panel. DBT establishes eligibility by confirming that individuals:

• worked as postmasters between 1992 and 2000
• used Capture in their branch
• experienced a financial shortfall as a result of using the Capture software

The panel will not revisit eligibility but must determine on the balance of probabilities if a claimed harm was caused by Capture.

The panel must determine awards on a balance of probabilities by:

• reviewing each case individually
• ensuring that a postmaster is treated fairly throughout
• considering all evidence provided
• using a consistent methodology (outlined in this framework) to determine awards on the balance of probabilities

The panel will consider exceptional awards where the exceptional awards criteria are met.

The panel members will support the panel Chair with appeals as needed. Should the Chair have been involved in the decision making process, then a legal expert not involved in the original decision should deputise for the Chair.

The panel will record clear, plain English reasons for all decisions in the Decision Record. The Decision Record will be sent to DBT, and DBT will communicate this decision with the applicant or their representative.

Scheme principles

Postmaster-centric

The process is non-adversarial and applicant-friendly. The panel should accommodate the difficulties applicants may face in evidencing historic issues. Where evidence is incomplete or ambiguous, the panel should give the applicant’s account careful consideration and, if plausible and consistent, the benefit of the doubt.

Swift payment

The scheme aims to resolve claims as quickly as possible, recognising that many applicants have already waited years for redress to be offered. Internal processes are designed for efficiency without compromising thoroughness.

Value for money

The scheme is committed to providing value for taxpayer money. The panel should make decisions efficiently, including avoiding unnecessary delays. They should not adopt an adversarial or overly lengthy approach. The panel should focus on proportionately reviewing the evidence to reach decisions promptly while maintaining fairness and consistency.

Fraud & risk

While maintaining an applicant-friendly approach, the scheme is sensitive to fraud. DBT will lead proportionate fraud checks during the eligibility checks. The panel should report anything unusual to DBT for further review.

Structured assessment framework

The panel’s role is to assess overall harm across defined domains of harm and to apply a consistent framework to ensure fairness and transparency. The domains of harm are explained in the following section.

Decisions on the appropriate redress award band are based on the cumulative impact across all domains rather than individual heads of loss. 

Domains of harm

The assessment considers 4 domains of harm:

• shortfall loss estimation (repaid) – repayment to the Post Office of alleged shortfalls
• consequential financial loss – knock-on financial effects beyond direct shortfall repayment
• distress and inconvenience – emotional or psychological harm and disruption to life
• legal and reputational harm – damage to standing or involvement in legal proceedings

Severity of harm

Each domain is assessed on a scale from ‘no’ or ‘minimal’ to ‘very high’, reflecting the seriousness of harm:

• no or minimal – very limited impact
• low – limited impact
• moderate – clear and noticeable impact
• high – significant impact with wider implications
• very high – severe and extensive impact

The panel should apply professional judgement within these levels to reflect nuance between cases. The framework is designed to capture overall harm, including recognition of the passage of time.

Exceptional awards

While Band 13 (£300,000) is the scheme’s highest standard award, the panel has discretion to award a higher payment in genuinely exceptional cases. This discretion applies to the total award for all harms combined (financial and non-financial). It can be used either to uplift a case to a higher band or to recommend a payment above £300,000.

The criterion for an exceptional award is that:

• the case must demonstrate a very high impact across one or more harm domains
• there is strong evidence that the banded award would under-compensate the applicant

The panel should first determine the band award before considering whether these criteria justify an uplift.

Assessment of claims

All applicants referred to the panel have already passed DBT eligibility checks confirming Capture use and a qualifying shortfall. Eligibility does not need to be re-assessed.

Limited documentation should be treated as the norm, not an exception. The panel should start from this reality when assessing claims. Where Capture use and a shortfall have been established, the panel should assume that the shortfall was a result of using Capture software and an award should generally follow, unless contradictory evidence exists.

The panel will receive all the evidence and the application form that has been submitted. Applicants will be encouraged to provide a narrative explaining how the shortfall arose and its impacts. 

Panel members should not probe beyond the established eligibility unless there is clear evidence indicating an alternative cause of loss. Unless the Post Office holds such evidence, the shortfall should be treated as Capture-related. Demonstrating Capture use should generally be sufficient to meet the threshold.

The panel’s role is to determine, on the balance of probabilities, if a claimed harm was caused by Capture and to assess the severity and impact of harm in each domain.

A central requirement is that there must be a causal relationship between all harm and the use of the Capture software. Given the presumption-based approach, panels should avoid deep factual causation analysis and apply common sense and context. 

On the balance of probabilities, the panel must be satisfied that the loss, damage or distress arose as a result of the applicant’s Capture-related shortfalls – either directly or through reasonable and foreseeable consequences. Losses that are unrelated to Capture, regardless of their severity, must not form the basis of any awards (in whole or in part). Causation can be direct or indirect but must remain credible, evidence based and grounded in the facts of the case.

When assessing partnership claims, one partner may claim on behalf of the partnership for financial losses. Only the contracted postmaster partner can claim for non-financial losses they personally suffered. Other partners cannot claim for non-financial losses, and the partnership itself cannot apply for non-financial losses as these are losses claimed by individuals rather than by partnerships.

Standard of proof

The scheme applies the civil standard of proof called ‘the balance of probabilities’. The balance of probabilities means that the panel must be satisfied that it is more likely than not (a greater than 50% chance) that the claimed harm was caused by Capture.

This test is subject to the benefit of the doubt principle. The panel should determine in the applicant’s favour where evidence is limited but:

• the applicant’s account is plausible, coherent and consistent with known Capture patterns
• the material is close to evenly balanced

This includes claims submitted on behalf of deceased postmasters, recognising that documentation may be limited and this should not prevent redress.

Reasonable evidential gaps can be bridged where strict documentary proof is unavailable. The benefit of the doubt principle does not replace the standard of proof or allow redress for losses not credibly caused by Capture. Where assertions conflict with established facts, known timelines, or the behaviour of the software, the panel should not apply the principle and must record its reasoning.

Credibility assessment

Applicants should not be required to provide full documentary evidence for each claim. However, the strength, coherence and plausibility of the evidence directly affect how much weight the panel gives the applicant’s account when assessing each category.

The panel should broadly accept what they are told by an applicant unless there is reason, based on other evidence, to doubt the account. The aim is to avoid an adversarial approach and ensure proportionate and fair redress.

Acceptable evidence types

Evidence may be:

• direct or indirect
• documentary or testimonial (including the applicant’s impact statement in their application form)

The panel should apply flexible, common sense judgment. They should recognise that the absence of one form of evidence can be offset by the strength of others.

The following sections are examples of acceptable evidence types.

Surviving correspondence, branch or Post Office communications, financial statements and tribunal or court findings 

Letters, memos or emails from the relevant period can shed light on the operational context. Financial records may establish loss amounts. Formal findings from courts or tribunals, even if not directly about Capture, can corroborate timelines, events, or financial impact.

Personal diaries, dated photographs and media coverage of relevant incidents

Personal records created between 1992 and 2000 can provide vivid detail about the applicant’s lived experience, particularly emotional or reputational impacts. Media reports may help confirm public knowledge or community reaction at the time.

Witness statements from credible contemporaries who have first-hand knowledge of relevant events

Former colleagues, staff, customers, union representatives or community members may recall important events or the applicant’s circumstances. The panel should consider the witness’s relationship to the applicant, opportunity to observe and consistency with other available facts.

Indirect or circumstantial evidence

Indirect or circumstantial evidence can include:

• patterns consistent with other verified Capture cases
• business records showing unusual account behaviour
• notes created between 1992 and 2000 by third parties (for example, union logs or community meeting minutes)

The panel approach is to weigh each piece of evidence for relevance, reliability and how it fits into the overall picture. A single compelling document can significantly bolster credibility. A coherent narrative supported by partial evidence can be just as persuasive. The list of indirect or circumstantial evidence is illustrative, not exhaustive. The panel should remain open to other evidence that, on the balance of probabilities, strengthens the claim.

Approach to limited documentation

When documentation is minimal or absent, the panel should not default to low awards.

The panel may seek clarification or further detail from the applicant or their legal representative if it would assist the credibility assessment. Such requests should be targeted and proportionate, avoiding unnecessary burden or traumatisation. Examples of an unnecessary burden or traumatisation might be:

• requiring repeated recounting of painful events
• demanding excessive detail about sensitive matters
• imposing requests that feel accusatory or adversarial

Where evidence remains limited, the panel must make a reasoned judgment and assign a proportionate award for harms which they accept were caused by Capture. The award should reflect the strength of the account and any supporting material available.

Expert reports are not anticipated unless directly relevant to a claimed loss. Unlike other schemes, expert evidence is not expected. Applicants will not be reimbursed for obtaining such reports because they are not considered necessary for assessment.

Fraud

All applicants reaching the panel stage will already have passed initial eligibility screening and baseline fraud checks by DBT.

The panel is not expected to revisit eligibility. However, it should remain alert to clear warning signs in the evidence, particularly where the magnitude or nature of claimed losses seems inconsistent with the Capture context.

The panel should:

• raise concerns with DBT and the secretariat immediately, providing a clear summary of the issue
• ensure all decisions are communicated in clear, plain language with reasons given

DBT will inform the panel of its decision and will manage any further engagement or investigation.

Confirmed fraudulent claims will be rejected in full. Any follow-up will be decided by DBT or the relevant authorities. DBT will lead on fraud investigations and decide whether referral to law enforcement is appropriate.

Double recovery

When assessing harms, the panel should check if any element has already been compensated under other redress schemes for postmasters, such as the:

• Horizon Shortfall Scheme (HSS)
• Horizon Shortfall Scheme Appeals (HSSA)
• Group Litigation Order (GLO) scheme
• Horizon Convictions Redress Scheme (HCRS)
• Overturned Convictions (OC) scheme
• Suspension Renumeration Review (SRR)
• Post Office Process Review (PPR)

This is to avoid paying twice for the same loss or harm.

DBT will provide the panel with as much information as possible related to other awards. DBT will maintain checks against other schemes and share any available details with the panel prior to assessment. It is the applicant’s responsibility to tell DBT about prior applications, and DBT will verify where possible.

If there has been a related payment, the panel should adjust their assessment to avoid overlaps that increase severity or banding. If overlap is unclear or minor, the panel should err in favour of the applicant but record their reasoning.

Documentation of decisions

The panel’s decision must be recorded in a clear, structured and transparent manner. This is essential both for fairness to the applicant and for consistency across cases.

Clarity and justification

The reasoning for the award should be written in plain language, avoiding unnecessary jargon. It’s important to ensure the applicant and their legal representative can understand the outcome and supports the integrity of the appeals process.

If DBT is not satisfied with the clarity of the panel’s decision, they can ask for further clarification before providing the applicant with the offer letter. This is to ensure the offer letter is accurate and understandable. DBT cannot alter the panel’s decision.

If the panel has any questions, they can ask the secretariat to speak to DBT. This should be done promptly so the assessment is not delayed.

Appeal grounds

Applicants may appeal a decision only on these 3 grounds:

• new evidence – information not previously presented that could reasonably change the outcome
• procedural error – the panel did not correctly apply the scheme’s policies or guidance
• material factual error – the decision was based on a material factual mistake (for example, a misread document or incorrect date)

An appeal will not be allowed if someone has tactically withheld evidence or has failed to submit reasonably obtainable evidence.

Panel records should be written with these appeal grounds in mind. This will make it easy for the Chair to see how evidence was assessed, how the assessment framework was followed and how decisions were made.

Where necessary, the Chair may ask panel members for support during the appeals process to clarify reasoning or provide context. The Chair may seek support without prior approval. However, it may be easier through Dentons.

If the Chair was involved for any reason in the original decision, then a legal expert not involved in the original decision should deputise for the Chair.