I'm so pleased you replied @prh47bridge, as I know you have a legal background from other threads.
Thanks for clarifying.
Its absolutely disgusting how the operators of the compensation schemes are disputing the SPMR claims and not offering what the SPMR are asking for.
Essentially, they are accusing the SPMR of dishonesty, I.e trying to claim more compensation than they deserve/entitled to.
This mindset is exactly what got them Post Office into trouble in the first place.
Compensation should certainly put the subpostmasters back in the position they would have been but for the way Post Office treated them
This is how i viewed the compensation schemes, but I also thought the SPMR could also claim for punitive damages, even I they were not criminally convicted?
Punitive damages may not be the correct term, but compensation for stress, distress, long lasting damaging effects, mental health etc.
For example Lee Castleton was not criminally convicted, but the Post Offuce sued him, which forced him into bankruptcy.
Now, obviously he should get all the out of pocket money back, such as solicitors fees, money he paid for supposed losses etc.
But surely he he should also be compensated for the stress, mental health harm and the long lasting impact of bankruptcy had on him? I'm sure it is difficult to put a monetary value on this, but surely there should be an element of punitive compensation?
Do you know if the compensation scheme includes this?
I might do some googling 😁