The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →The evidence heard by the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry raises serious questions about what the Post Office expected its 2013 Mediation Scheme to deliver. A February 2014 meeting note recorded that the smaller payments originally envisaged were “much smaller” and “more in the way of a token or an apology,” while senior executive Angela van den Bogerd later accepted that the Post Office did not expect large compensation payments and had not told applicants that. But she rejected the claim that the scheme began as a “charade,” and the evidence cited here is not a final finding that it was designed to deny compensation.
Which Post Office scheme does “charade” refer to?
It refers to the 2013 Mediation Scheme, set up after Second Sight investigated Horizon-related complaints from sub-postmasters. It does not refer to the later Historic Shortfall Scheme—now called the Horizon Shortfall Scheme—or to the separate compensation arrangements for claimants in the Group Litigation Order (GLO) case.
The distinction matters: the schemes involved different groups and processes, and evidence about the expectations behind the 2013 mediation scheme does not, by itself, establish what happened in later redress schemes.
What did the 2014 meeting note say about compensation?
At a February 2014 meeting involving former Post Office chief executive Paula Vennells, interim general counsel Chris Aujard and Second Sight representatives Ron Warmington and Ian Henderson, compensation expectations were discussed. Aujard’s note of the meeting was read into evidence at the Inquiry. As reported by Computer Weekly’s account of the 26 April 2024 hearing, it recorded Vennells saying projected claims of about £100 million were “a long way from the figures in mind when the scheme was established,” which were “much smaller and more in the way of a token or an apology.” The note also recorded that neither the board nor the shareholder executive would countenance large-scale compensation.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
#1 Best Overall
The figures were estimates discussed at the meeting, not final liabilities or amounts paid. The note recorded projected claims of around £100 million and Second Sight’s “back of the envelope” estimate of £25 million to £50 million. They should not be read as a settlement total or as proof of how much any applicant ultimately received.
What did Angela van den Bogerd accept—and dispute?
Van den Bogerd said she believed the scheme began genuinely, although the Post Office did not expect it to create a massive compensation liability. When Inquiry Chair Sir Wyn Williams pressed her, she accepted that large payments were not expected from the Post Office’s point of view and that this expectation had not been communicated to applicants. She disagreed, however, that the scheme was a charade from the outset.
That distinction is central to the evidence. It supports a serious question about whether applicants were given a candid picture of the Post Office’s expectations. It is not the same as proof of a settled institutional plan to deny compensation, and the evidence set out here does not establish a final Inquiry finding of deliberate, scheme-wide deception.
How do the later compensation schemes differ?
Later redress processes arose in different circumstances and should not be treated as continuations of the 2013 mediation process. The table summarizes the distinctions relevant to understanding the evidence; it does not imply that the schemes had identical eligibility rules or administrators.
| Process | Who or what it concerned | What the cited evidence establishes |
|---|---|---|
| 2013 Mediation Scheme | Horizon-related complaints following Second Sight’s investigation | The February 2014 note recorded expectations of much smaller, token-like payments and estimates of projected claims. Van den Bogerd accepted that large payments were not expected and applicants were not told that; she disputed that the scheme began as a charade. |
| GLO settlement and compensation | Postmasters involved in the Group Litigation Order case | The 2024 explanatory notes to the Compensation Act describe the 2019 settlement as £42.5 million plus costs, with around £31 million going to the litigation funder and claimants receiving what the notes call “meagre compensation.” The explanatory notes describe the settlement and the separate arrangements that followed. |
| Historic Shortfall Scheme (now Horizon Shortfall Scheme) | Non-GLO postmasters seeking redress for Horizon shortfalls | In an August 2022 progress update, Williams said the Post Office and BEIS accepted avoidable delays and described delays in deciding late applications as “wholly unacceptable” and largely unexplained. He said whether full and fair offers had been made still required investigation; this was not a finding about the 2013 scheme’s original intent. Read the progress update. |
The Inquiry’s First Interim Report on Compensation, ordered printed on 17 July 2023 and based on information available through 10 July, described evidence of serious personal and financial losses. Williams said compensation needed to reflect pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses and raised concern that the statutory deadline for paying GLO claimants by 7 August 2024 was unlikely to be met. These were interim conclusions and recommendations, not a final judgment on the purpose of the 2013 Mediation Scheme. Read the report’s foreword and executive summary.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What is the current status of redress?
Redress activity continues, but later developments do not settle the historical question about the mediation scheme’s original purpose. The Department for Business and Trade’s collection of independent reports on Post Office compensation schemes includes reports covering the GLO Compensation Scheme, Horizon Convictions Redress Scheme and Horizon Shortfall Scheme Appeals process. Its listing says the 2026 progress report was added on 10 July 2026.
Rank #4
A parliamentary statement dated 20 May 2026 says people who accepted the £75,000 Horizon Shortfall Scheme Fixed Sum Offer may ask an independent person for permission to appeal. Permission does not guarantee a higher award. This route concerns that later scheme, not the 2013 mediation scheme. Read the written statement.
In the Inquiry’s statement inviting people who had not participated to share their experiences through “In Your Own Words,” Williams said evidence gathered in Phase 7 on compensation would form the basis for his conclusions on whether the Post Office and government fulfilled their commitment to full and fair compensation. The sources cited here do not establish a final Phase 7 determination that the 2013 scheme was deliberately designed as a charade.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
