Correspondence

Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: statement on full and fair financial redress

Published 9 October 2025

Introduction

This statement is provided by the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) and the Post Office in response to Volume 1 of the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry report, which recommended that:

The Minister and/or the Department in conjunction with the Post Office shall make a public announcement explaining what is meant by the phrase ‘full and fair financial redress…’.

Since the launch of the Horizon redress schemes, Government and the Post Office have been committed to providing full and fair redress. Paragraph 6.4 of the Inquiry report states:

The evidence adduced at the Inquiry satisfies me that the commitments to provide financial redress which is full and fair and to provide it promptly were made in good faith and represented the genuinely held aims of the Post Office, the Department and Ministers. I am satisfied too, that the Post Office, the Department and Ministers continue to adhere to the aims of providing financial redress, which is full, fair and prompt.

DBT and Post Office joint statement on full and fair redress

‘Full’ redress means:

• For both financial and non-financial losses, at least as much redress as the postmaster would receive if they were awarded damages by a court. For financial losses specifically, it means restoring the postmaster to the position they would have been if they had never been affected by the Horizon Scandal.

• Where there is an appropriate range, decision makers should always apply a generous approach to assessing within that range.

‘Fair’ means there should be fairness in the amount offered (considering the harm suffered by the individual applicant and the background of the Horizon scandal) and the way in which the redress process operates. In particular:

• Schemes should aim to ensure that all relevant elements of loss and damage have been identified and considered.

• Although the schemes are underpinned by legal principles and procedures, postmasters should be compensated for the impact of the scandal on them, without having to prove losses under strict legal principles or by way of an adversarial and legalistic process. If fairness demands it in a particular case, it is permissible to depart from the established legal principles which would normally govern the assessment of damages in civil litigation.

• Fairness in the context of these schemes goes beyond the recompense provided by the courts and it should reflect the context in which the schemes were established. It should acknowledge the lifelong impacts of these events on the postmasters affected, and the time it has taken for their experiences to be recognised, acknowledged and truly heard. It should also acknowledge the struggles faced by postmasters to reach the point where they have achieved public recognition that they were wronged, along with Post Office’s failure to acknowledge this at a much earlier date.

• Fairness requires an acknowledgement of the lack of evidence held by postmasters. The passage of time means that some evidence has not been retained; and during the scandal, the Post Office in some cases wrongly withheld or destroyed it. Wherever it is fair in the particular circumstances of each case, postmasters should receive the benefit of the doubt.

• Ultimately, fairness also depends on the particular circumstances of each postmaster’s case. When considering claims, a range of factors should be examined, considered in the round and assessed on their own merits, ensuring fairness in each individual case. At the same time, the schemes should aim for broad consistency in redress awards where claimants have endured similar experiences.