Guidance

Capture Redress Scheme: independent panel chair framework

Published 21 January 2026

Overview

This framework sets out how the panel chair (the chair) will oversee governance and consistency across the independent panel (the panel), and how the chair will act as the independent reviewer for appeals on eligibility and on awards.

The Capture Redress Scheme proceeds in 2 stages. First, the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) assesses whether an applicant is eligible by applying 3 eligibility criteria on the balance of probabilities. Second, the panel considers the evidence of harm and recommends a banded award. The banded award takes into account financial and non‑financial impacts.

What the chair does

The chair oversees the governance and consistency of the independent panel, ensuring that all decisions are made in line with scheme principles and guidance.

The chair acts as the independent reviewer for appeals. The ‘Appeals’ section contains information about the Capture appeals.

Scheme principles

Postmaster-centric

The process is designed to be 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 and risk

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

Appeals

There are 2 kinds of appeal:

• eligibility appeals to determine whether the applicant meets the scheme’s 3 eligibility criteria, on the balance of probabilities
• panel decision appeals to review the panel’s banding decision

Panel decision appeals can only be granted to review:

• new evidence
• a procedural error
• a material factual error

These are the grounds of appeal. More information about each ground of appeal can be found in the following sections.

New evidence

New evidence is relevant evidence that was not part of the record considered by the panel and is capable of materially affecting the outcome of the case. This ground can only apply where each of the following criteria are met:

• relevant evidence not previously provided has been supplied
• materiality
• good reason for late submission is explained and recorded

The following sections explain more about the first 2 criteria.

Relevant evidence not previously provided has been supplied

This may include material that existed at the time the applicant’s application was submitted but was not submitted for a good reason. Examples of good reasons are:

• third party information received after the panel’s decision
• constraints affecting the applicant’s ability to obtain or present it prior to the panel’s decision

An appeal will not be allowed if someone has tactically withheld evidence or has failed to submit reasonably obtainable evidence (without good reason).

Materiality

On the balance of probabilities, the new evidence is capable of materially affecting the outcome. ‘Capable of materially affecting the outcome’ means capable of producing a different decision or meaningfully varying the banding or award.

Procedural error

A procedural error is a failure by the panel to correctly apply the scheme’s policies or guidance.

Material factual error

A material factual error is when a decision of the panel was based on a material factual mistake. Examples of material factual mistakes are misreading a document or incorrect dates.

For the material factual error ground, the threshold is met only where the chair is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that both of the following are true:

• the panel’s decision contains an objective mistake of fact (for example, a misread document, wrong figure or incorrect date has been relied on)
• the error is material, and a correction of the error is capable of materially affecting the outcome (such as causation findings, domain scoring, banding or an exceptional uplift)

Trivial inaccuracies or peripheral points that do not alter the panel’s reasoning or scoring do not meet this threshold.

Eligibility review

When the chair receives an eligibility appeal, they will conduct a fresh review of the 3 eligibility criteria, using:

• the Eligibility Assessment Report completed by DBT caseworkers
• all information provided by the applicant, Post Office Limited (POL) and any other sources

The eligibility criteria are whether:

• the applicant was a postmaster between 1992 and 2000
• they used the Capture software in their branch
• the applicant experienced financial shortfalls as a result of using the Capture software

Each eligibility criterion must be established on 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. All 3 criteria must be met for eligibility. If any criterion is not established, the applicant is not eligible.

In reviewing an eligibility appeal, the chair should apply the benefit of the doubt in line with the scheme’s postmaster‑centric principle. Where aspects cannot reasonably be evidenced despite reasonable attempts, a plausible and consistent account should be accepted on the balance of probabilities.

Award appeals

Award appeals are assessed using a banded model to ensure outcomes remain consistent and proportionate across cases. The award appeals process is structured in 2 distinct stages.

Stage 1: threshold decision

In stage 1, the chair must determine whether the appeal can proceed. This decision is based on whether one or more of the grounds of appeal is established.

Disagreement with a band award does not meet this threshold. These appeal requests will not proceed.

If an appeal request does not meet one or more of the grounds of appeal, the chair should briefly record this and confirm that the original award stands.

Stage 2: appeal assessment

If the chair finds that an appeal request meets the grounds of appeal, the appeal will proceed to stage 2.

In stage 2, the chair undertakes a targeted reassessment of the original decision. This is not a full rehearing or a fresh assessment. The chair’s role is to review whether the panel’s decision remains sound when considered against the scheme’s principles and the accepted grounds of appeal. The chair must balance fairness and consistency, avoiding an overly adversarial approach.

In reviewing the appeal, the chair should:

• consider the case in the round, acknowledging the passage of time and limitations in documentation from between 1992 and 2000
• assess whether the original scoring still reflects the strength and credibility of the account, in relation to factors such as shortfall loss repaid, consequential losses, distress and inconvenience and legal or reputational impact

The panel will have applied the benefit of the doubt where appropriate during its original assessment, especially in finely balanced cases with credible and consistent applicant accounts. On appeal, the chair does not reapply this discretion but instead reviews whether the panel’s approach to it was reasonable.

Where clarification is needed, requests should be proportionate and made via the secretariat. Applicants should not be repeatedly asked for information they have already stated they do not hold.

If the chair finds that new evidence strengthens the case or identifies a procedural or material factual error, they may:

• vary the award in line with the banding framework
• send the case to a newly constituted panel with a short direction

If the original decision is found to be sound, the chair should uphold it.

Where the accepted grounds fundamentally alter the claim (for example, core causation affecting banding), the chair may:

• conduct a fresh assessment of the affected issues only
• send the case for a limited fresh panel look with directions, preserving proportionality and speed

Where necessary, the chair may call on panel members who were not involved in the original decision to support the appeal assessment.

The chair will decide whether to conduct stage 2 using the papers and written submissions they already have or to hold in-person meeting. The chair will factor in the scheme’s principle of swift resolution when making that decision.

Governance and consistency

The chair plays a central role in maintaining consistency, fairness and alignment with the scheme’s principles across all panel decisions. While the chair does not determine awards in the first instance, they are responsible for setting expectations, overseeing panel practice and ensuring that similar circumstances attract similar outcomes.

The independent panel terms of reference make clear that the chair oversees governance, consistency and alignment with the scheme principles across all panel decisions. The chair oversees panel practice and, where an appeal is brought, applies a focused review. Together with the secretariat, the chair can decide on the appropriate communication and governance framework for the independent panel to ensure clear governance and decision-making.

Where the chair requires clarification on the application of scheme principles or other matters relating to the scheme’s operation, they should contact Dentons. Dentons will facilitate a meeting between the chair and DBT. This ensures that any queries are addressed through a structured and impartial process.

DBT and the panel will comply with the chair’s directions.

In addition, the chair should ensure that learnings are shared. During phase 1, the chair is expected to meet regularly with DBT to report on emerging themes from decisions and to recommend adjustments to guidance where this would improve clarity or consistency. Where the chair considers it helpful, the chair may also (with DBT’s agreement) meet periodically with applicant representatives to discuss progress, emerging themes and any concerns applicants have.

Working with the secretariat and DBT

All documents and communications should go through Dentons, ensuring a clear and auditable process. DBT is responsible for communicating decisions to applicants but does not influence or direct outcomes. However, DBT may seek clarification on decisions where needed. DBT may also discuss general trends and learnings with the chair to ensure that policy and operational guidance evolve in line with what cases are showing.

Appeal requests from applicants are received by DBT and passed to the chair via Dentons. The chair will then determine whether the appeal meets the threshold to proceed, based on the published grounds.

Timeliness and communication

Appeals should be concluded in a timely way and within agreed Key Performance Indicators (KPI). Where cases are complex, a short note to DBT explaining the reason for any delay maintains confidence, which DBT will relay to the applicants or their representative.