Paula Vennels being questioned at the Post Office Inquiry, followed by others - thread 2

[nauticant]

A continuation of the discussion started by@Sausagenbaconhere:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5080262-to-enjoy-hearing-paula-vennels-being-taken-apart

Paula Vennells' 3 days of evidence ends today but there are more hearings coming up and we can discuss those too.

When the hearings are going on, live-streaming can be found here:

https://www.youtube.com/@postofficehorizonitinquiry947/featured

All of the previous hearings can be found here:

https://www.youtube.com/@postofficehorizonitinquiry947/videos

To the Post Office they were never people.

There is a business maxim:

you are what you measure, you get what you reward

For the SLT of the Post Office all they were measuring for was profit, it didn't matter how they got there. They rewarded the investigation teams on the amount of recovered fraud losses. It didn't matter that they weren't real fraud losses.

A PP described the culture of the Post Office as being very blamey. Everything is someone else's fault. The SPMs were the ultimate whipping boys.

https://www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk/public-hearings-timeline

This is the timeline for the post office Horizon enquiry, the current phase will run until July. They will then break for the summer and will resume again in September.

I see on X that the Mirror has tracked down Mike Young, who was supposedly mysteriously missing and said by the Inquiry to be uncontactable…. all very odd.

So what's the deal?

Where has he been? What's he doing? Where is he?!!!!! What's he playing at

Thanks for the timetable reminder
I don't want to come across as finding this Inquiry as "entertainment" but I am looking forward to certain witnesses in the next 2 months

(I know "looking forward" is the wrong thing to say. I sort of mean, they are witnesses who will be providing more key insight and information)

Alice Perkins - wed/Thurs 5th and 6th. She was the chair of the board. She has been named quite a lot. Someone on this thread described her and Paula Vennels as the "mean girls", which is fitting. She is the one who kept Sue Critchon sat on the chair outside the board meeting and wouldn't let her in.

Andrew Parsons - wed/Thurs 13th and 15rh. He is the lawyer from Bond Dickinson.
He has not come across well so far from the emails we've seen, so I want to see who this guy is in person and if he tries to blame other people or actually takes responsibility
He is the guy who wrote in an email that "Alan Bates has a somewhat loose relationship with the truth"

Ron and Ian from Second Sight - Tues 18th. The 2 brilliant guys from Second Sight and their report which blew everything open. They've done a lot of interviews, so we have quite a lot of insight from them, but I think they will really go for it in this Inquiry

Graham Ward - Thurs 20th. He was one of the Secuirty team investigators/case managers, now works for the Police. He already was questioned in Phase 3, but they are bringing him back, I wonder why? The KC have probably found something and they are going to question him about it.

Gareth Jenkins - he is on everyday for a whole week. The supposed Horizon "expert" from fujitsu and his incorrect expert opinion, lots of people, Seema Misra, were sent to prison.
As I understand it he has been trying to get immunity from prosecution, but not sure if he has been successful.

The MPs - all in July. Ed Davey, Jo Swinson and Vince Cable.

Has it be covered at all: what has happened to those SPMs who weren't convicted but non the less paid over substantial sums of money to cover the supposed shortfalls? Will they be getting their money refunded?

Has anyone added up how much money this is?

not sure whether everyone will be able to read this but here’s a link to the story on X:

https://x.com/chrish9070/status/1796430290920874026?s=46&t=HayxxYISkdxqZGELM1SOCg

This is where it gets complicated.
There are 3 different compensation schemes

Overturned Convictions Scheme - this is for the SPMR who were criminally convicted.
Apparently they have all received an interim payment of £600,000. They need to apply for any more compensation

Group Litigation Order (GLO) Scheme - this is for the 555 SPMR who joined Alan Bates when they went to High Court to sue the Post Office and they won (this is in the ITV drama)
They have all been offered £75,000 each.

Horizon Shortfall Scheme - this is for all the other SPMR who werent convicted, biut had to pay money for the supoosed shortfalls. They were either made bankrupt, sued by the Post Office or paid for any fake losses out of their own pockets. The SPMR have to make an application had submit evidence.

To be honest, none of these 3 schemes are working. They are slow, offer stupid small amounts of compensation and the application process is complicated and difficult.

Even more horrifically, one or two of the Post Office lawyers who were involved in the scandal and convicting SPMR, still.work for the Post Office. You want to know what they are currently doing? Well, they are working on the compensation schemes!
In my opinion this is a conflict of interest at best, corruption at worst.

Interestingly, Jo Hamiltin, who was convicted , said she was one of the "lucky" ones. Because she was convicted, the Overturned Conviction Scheme is much easier and getting compensation is much quicker.

Whereas, everyone else, who weren't convicted, like Alan Bates, are really struggling with the other 2 compensation schemes.
Alan Bates has applied either through the GLO scheme or the Horizon Shortfall Scheme, because he was not convicted. Anyway he submitted an application and has only been offered a 1/6th of what he asked for.

Sorry fur another long post 😶‍🌫️

Whereas they should be offered all that they paid, plus interest. It would be nice to see if Vennells et al. were forced to pay back their bonuses - it would go some way to covering the amounts due.

Absolutely.

I believe Alan Bates and all are trying to get the funds to privately prosecute Vennels et al.

But I would be interested to know if they could sue, civilly, Vennels and the rest of them.
I know the Group Litigation Alan Bates vs the Post Offuce Ltd was a civil court and they won £50m, but that was against the Post Office as a company.
I winder if they now they could sue people individually?

There may be some they can pursue civil cases against, but that won't include people like Vennells. They want to bring private criminal prosecutions if the authorities fail to do so.

I believe Bates has now been offered one third of his claim. Compensation should certainly put the subpostmasters back in the position they would have been but for the way Post Office treated them. That is supposed to be the intention of the schemes. However, the usual "we are protecting public money" mindset seems to be in operation, as a result of which the people operating these schemes are disputing claims and trying to find ways of reducing them even though they have been very carefully calculated by forensic accountants.

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 😁

You can see exactly what he’s been doing because he’s documented it all on LinkedIn!

I don’t know what the enquiry have been playing at if they thought he couldn’t be found. Does make you wonder, despite the current testimonies, how good a job they are capable of.

minou123

Even more horrifically, one or two of the Post Office lawyers who were involved in the scandal and convicting SPMR, still.workfor the Post Office. You want to know what they are currently doing? Well, they are working on the compensation schemes!

Good grief! That absolutely beggars belief, I cannot think of a clearer conflict of interest.

I believe Bates has now been offered one third of his claim. Compensation should certainly put the subpostmasters back in the position they would have been but for the way Post Office treated them. That is supposed to be the intention of the schemes. However, the usual "we are protecting public money" mindset seems to be in operation, as a result of which the people operating these schemes are disputing claims and trying to find ways of reducing them even though they have been very carefully calculated by forensic accountants.

As I understand it, Bates has been in little to no paid employment since being dismissed by the Post Office (in 2003!) because he's spent just about all of his time on his stunningly successful campaign against them, and part of his claim is to reflect two decades of no income. That is a major sticking point in redress.

But surely he [Castleton] 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?

Not only that, but there are other victims:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68543963

Someone (I can't remember who) said that one major problem with the compensation scheme amounts is that they need another zero on the end. The Post Office, ie the government, are still trying to do this on the cheap, hoping that the subpostmasters will eventually give up if offered a slightly improved, but derisory, amount.

@nauticant
Not only that, but there are other victims:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68543963

Oh yes, the children of the SPMR, 100%

I watched an interview with Seema Misra's eldest son. He was 10 when his mum was sent to prison and she gave birth to his brother when she was there.
He explained, he didn't understand what was going on, so he blamed and hated his mum.
It was only when he was 18 that he understood what happened.

Matin Griffiths children, they lost their dad, because of the Post Office.

@minou123 Those affected can claim for loss of earnings, reputational damage, mental impact and legal costs in addition to the return of any money they have wrongfully been forced to pay Post Office (with interest). Punitive damages are intended to punish the other side and deter them (and others) from similar conduct in future. Punitive damages are fairly common in the USA, much less so in the UK. However, some subpostmasters may have a case for punitive damages.

....... Compensation should certainly put the subpostmasters back in the position they would have been but for the way Post Office treated them. That is supposed to be the intention of the schemes. However, the usual "we are protecting public money" mindset seems to be in operation,.....

But at least if Vennells and Co were forced to pay back their bonuses, that would go some way to alleviate the losses. When you think that a SPM might get £25,000 - £30,000 p.a. and Vennells was paid something like £5.5 million (even if that was over the whole period of her CEOship)... well words fail me at this point. These stupid salaries are paid supposedly to get the best people - not ones who pass the buck at the first opportunity, and as a result of their actions have ended up with a public enquiry which must be costing a lot of money.

Thank you @prh47bridge , that makes total sense.

I knew punitive damages was more of a USA thing - (I watch far too much American Court Cases!), but it is interesting there is a potential for that for SPMR.

Resumes today at noon: Ben Foat - Group General Counsel of Post Office Ltd
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgijUpaux8X4Nvjx3TmrHhg

Alice Perkins on Weds and Thurs this week.

Thank you! It's a bank holiday here today so I would have likely forgotten.

Don't expect fireworks with today's witness, but you never know:

General Counsel, Ben Foat, was appointed in May 2019

Foat was hauled into the Inquiry in double-quick time when the racial coding document came to light:

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/post-office-gc-says-sorry-for-failure-to-disclose-racist-codes/5116537.article

However, he might be able to shed some light on the departure of Jane MacLeod who fled the scene shortly before Foat's appointment.

Some background for eye-rolling purposes:

You have to lead from the top. This is a topic I’ve spoken about across the entire organisation. At our diversity and inclusion launch day, I spoke about my own story and how to inspire others to be their true selves. Setting up the LGBT+ and diversity and inclusion networks are probably among my proudest initiatives.

https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/in-house/interview-ben-foat-in-house-solicitor-of-the-year

A curious detail from Nick Wallis:

https://bleedingcool.com/comics/post-office-scandal-show-cancelled-by-paula-vennels-related-sponsor/