Committee publication · Correspondence · 24 February 2026
Letter from Howe+Co solicitors relating to their clients Mrs Glenys Eaton and Mr David Eaton, 30 January 2026
From: Business and Trade Committee
Inquiry: Post Office Horizon scandal: Justice for sub-postmasters
Summary
Howe+Co solicitors write on behalf of Mrs Glenys Eaton and Mr David Eaton regarding the Post Office Horizon scandal. Mrs Eaton was initially denied eligibility for conviction quashing under the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Act 2024, despite evidence she worked as an assistant postmaster alongside her husband. After 14 months of assessment, rejection, and legal pressure via Pre-Action Protocol letter, the Ministry of Justice conceded in November 2025. The letter raises systemic failures: incomplete eligibility identification, inadequate reasoning for rejection decisions, and procedural unfairness toward spouses and family members of subpostmasters.
Key findings
- Mrs Eaton was initially overlooked for eligibility assessment despite clear documentary evidence she worked in the post office and should qualify under the 2024 Act, while her husband was immediately accepted.
- MoJ rejected her application on 14 February 2025 citing unmet Conditions C and D, then on 9 October 2025 dismissed 72 pages of supporting evidence with a single paragraph response acknowledging no intent to address individual exhibits.
- MoJ only conceded after receipt of Pre-Action Protocol letter threatening judicial review on 5 November 2025, claiming 'new evidence' although the PAP contained no new information beyond previously submitted materials.
- Mrs Eaton incurred £4,800 in legal costs for the PAP letter; combined with her husband's compensation disparity, she received approximately £595,200 net against his £600,000, forcing use of compensation funds to pursue her own eligibility.
- Systemic concern: MoJ has not proactively identified or contacted spouses and family members of 'known cases' who may qualify, suggesting unknown numbers of eligible individuals remain excluded from the scheme.
Tone
AdversarialTopics
Key actors
Mrs Glenys Eaton, Mr David Eaton, Howe+Co solicitors, Ministry of Justice, Department for Business and Trade, Post Office Limited, Albert Harwood (Partner, Howe+Co)
Notable line
“Although the above outlined case was a good outcome for Mrs Eaton (eventually) she simply should not have been put to the trouble, delay, worry and expense involved.”
Key Quotes
“It would appear the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), simply overlooked Mrs Eaton or chose to take the view that Mrs Eaton did not qualify under the Act.”
“"I have reviewed the representations in detail. While I do not intend to respond to each exhibit individually , I will address the first substantive point raised in your letter.”
“After considering the new information provided in your letter, we contacted ACRO and the Post Office for any further details of Mrs X's convictions. Having reviewed this alongside the additional information you supplied, the decision has been revisited and a fresh determination made.”
“The Ministry of Justice ought reasonably to be aware that post offices were generally run as family businesses during the time when the Horizon system was in operation and when POL were routinely prosecuting subpostmasters on account of Horizon-based shortfalls.”
“It appears that the Ministry of Justice makes no attempt to contact people, such as the Claimant, who have an arguable case for inclusion within the 2024 Act, but who are not recorded on the list of 'known cases'.”
“A number of the cases are over 20 years old, with some of the victims having passed away. Many others are in declining health or have lost faith in the system and do not wish to engage further with it.”
Source · parliament.uk record ↗