Prompted by the impending award to Betty Brown, the oldest surviving
Post Office Scandal survivor, I wondered:
Say that all the legal work to be undertaken by the Post Office to
check and reduce the amounts of the payouts yet to be settled, was
stopped, how would the potential savings in legal fees compare to
the amount claimed but as yet unpaid? In other words, would it actually
be cheaper to just pay the outstanding claims and do away with the
delays, than to go through all the procedures and incidentally watch
more of the claimants die before they get their claims paid?
Prompted by the impending award to Betty Brown, the oldest surviving
Post Office Scandal survivor, I wondered:
Say that all the legal work to be undertaken by the Post Office to
check and reduce the amounts of the payouts yet to be settled, was
stopped, how would the potential savings in legal fees compare to
the amount claimed but as yet unpaid? In other words, would it actually
be cheaper to just pay the outstanding claims and do away with the
delays, than to go through all the procedures and incidentally watch
more of the claimants die before they get their claims paid?
On 02/06/2026 08:28, Davey wrote:
Prompted by the impending award to Betty Brown, the oldest surviving
Post Office Scandal survivor, I wondered:
Say that all the legal work to be undertaken by the Post Office to
check and reduce the amounts of the payouts yet to be settled, was
stopped, how would the potential savings in legal fees compare to
the amount claimed but as yet unpaid? In other words, would it
actually be cheaper to just pay the outstanding claims and do away
with the delays, than to go through all the procedures and
incidentally watch more of the claimants die before they get their
claims paid?
The claims are likely to be very difficult to value. In most
compensation claims you can value the injury based on published
guidelines and you can calculate the financial losses based on
accountancy evidence and/or past bank statements and invoices and
payslips.
Here, paymasters' lives were utterly ruined by the Post Office and I
can well imagine that the Post Office's lawyers won't simply say
"you've claimed 1.5 million so we'll pay you that". There has to be
a process of proving the loss. And maybe the claimant was bankrupted
and was unable to get fresh employment or to start a new business,
maybe they had to sell their house at a loss.
I hope the claimants have good lawyers who have demanded and applied
for interim payments, quite standard in most cases, to assist the
claimants until a final settlement can be agreed.
On Tue, 2 Jun 2026 22:03:49 +0100
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 02/06/2026 08:28, Davey wrote:
Prompted by the impending award to Betty Brown, the oldest surviving
Post Office Scandal survivor, I wondered:
Say that all the legal work to be undertaken by the Post Office to
check and reduce the amounts of the payouts yet to be settled, was
stopped, how would the potential savings in legal fees compare to
the amount claimed but as yet unpaid? In other words, would it
actually be cheaper to just pay the outstanding claims and do away
with the delays, than to go through all the procedures and
incidentally watch more of the claimants die before they get their
claims paid?
The claims are likely to be very difficult to value. In most
compensation claims you can value the injury based on published
guidelines and you can calculate the financial losses based on
accountancy evidence and/or past bank statements and invoices and
payslips.
Here, paymasters' lives were utterly ruined by the Post Office and I
can well imagine that the Post Office's lawyers won't simply say
"you've claimed 1.5 million so we'll pay you that". There has to be
a process of proving the loss. And maybe the claimant was bankrupted
and was unable to get fresh employment or to start a new business,
maybe they had to sell their house at a loss.
I hope the claimants have good lawyers who have demanded and applied
for interim payments, quite standard in most cases, to assist the
claimants until a final settlement can be agreed.
Presumably the claimants were given some sort of template with which to
file their claims? One scenario would be to just pay them all as
claimed, and stop all the delays and prevaricating tactics that are
being used to deny and delay those claims. The total of the outstanding
sums should just be a quick mathematical sum, AI could do it in
a nano-second. Then take a snapshot of what has been spent so far on litigation and come up with a rough average of -us per claimant.
The results would be interesting.
Yes, I know it's simplistic, but it would at least mean that more
people would see their redress before they die.
On 03/06/2026 08:46, Davey wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jun 2026 22:03:49 +0100
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 02/06/2026 08:28, Davey wrote:
Prompted by the impending award to Betty Brown, the oldest
surviving Post Office Scandal survivor, I wondered:
Say that all the legal work to be undertaken by the Post Office to
check and reduce the amounts of the payouts yet to be settled, was
stopped, how would the potential savings in legal fees compare to
the amount claimed but as yet unpaid? In other words, would it
actually be cheaper to just pay the outstanding claims and do away
with the delays, than to go through all the procedures and
incidentally watch more of the claimants die before they get their
claims paid?
The claims are likely to be very difficult to value. In most
compensation claims you can value the injury based on published
guidelines and you can calculate the financial losses based on
accountancy evidence and/or past bank statements and invoices and
payslips.
Here, paymasters' lives were utterly ruined by the Post Office and
I can well imagine that the Post Office's lawyers won't simply say
"you've claimed 1.5 million so we'll pay you that". There has to
be a process of proving the loss. And maybe the claimant was
bankrupted and was unable to get fresh employment or to start a
new business, maybe they had to sell their house at a loss.
I hope the claimants have good lawyers who have demanded and
applied for interim payments, quite standard in most cases, to
assist the claimants until a final settlement can be agreed.
Presumably the claimants were given some sort of template with
which to file their claims? One scenario would be to just pay them
all as claimed, and stop all the delays and prevaricating tactics
that are being used to deny and delay those claims. The total of
the outstanding sums should just be a quick mathematical sum, AI
could do it in a nano-second. Then take a snapshot of what has been
spent so far on litigation and come up with a rough average of -us
per claimant. The results would be interesting.
Yes, I know it's simplistic, but it would at least mean that more
people would see their redress before they die.
And a massive charge to innocent UK taxpayers. How do we get Fujitsu
to cough up?
I have no idea why Fujitsu have not been forced to pay, did not the CEO
say once that Fujitsu would do its bit, or similar?
On Wed, 03 Jun 2026 12:10:42 +0100, Davey wrote:
I have no idea why Fujitsu have not been forced to pay, did not the
CEO say once that Fujitsu would do its bit, or similar?
I don't think he meant it.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 69 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 33:33:10 |
| Calls: | 900 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,320 |
| D/L today: |
3 files (12,347K bytes) |
| Messages: | 265,210 |