Alan Bates, a former subpostmaster who has been at the forefront of the campaign for justice in the Post Office Horizon scandal, has firmly stated that he will decline a compensation offer from the Government, deeming it “offensive.”

The government had announced plans for providing “full and fair compensation” to subpostmasters affected by the IT scandal in 2022. This scandal revolved around faulty Horizon accounting software that falsely indicated missing money in the accounts of more than 700 Post Office branch managers across the UK between 1999 and 2015. Alan Bates, whose two-decade-long fight inspired the ITV series “Mr. Bates vs The Post Office,” expressed strong dissatisfaction with the compensation offer, characterising it as “around a sixth” of his requested amount and a “terrible way to treat human beings.”

In a statement to the Telegraph, Bates voiced his disappointment, saying, “‘Full and fair’ might be His Majesty’s Government’s interpretation, but in reality, the offer is derisory, offensive and after all this time, yes, cruel. I will absolutely be turning this offer for financial redress down.” He also highlighted that he had heard from several other subpostmasters who had received similarly inadequate offers or were still awaiting compensation.

Bates revealed that the compensation offer had been extended to him 111 days after his claim, which was prepared with the assistance of forensic accountants engaged by his legal team, had been submitted. Expressing his concern about the treatment of all cases in the scheme, he suggested that if his experience were indicative of the government’s approach, legal action might be the only recourse, with the judiciary deciding the outcome.

In a previous High Court ruling in 2019, Bates was among over 500 individuals who received an average compensation of approximately £20,000. A Government spokesperson responded to Bates’ rejection of the offer by stating, “If any applicant to the GLO (Group Litigation Order) scheme feels that they are owed more than is being offered, we are happy to discuss the evidence with their legal advisers. If we can’t agree, decisions will be made by an independent panel that includes legal and accountancy experts, who ensure fair redress based on the evidence.”