London – A compensation scheme established by Harrods to address allegations of historical abuse perpetrated under the ownership of the late Mohamed Al Fayed is facing criticism from survivors who fear their personal information may be shared with the Fayed estate. The concerns center on the scheme’s administration and potential conflicts of interest, raising questions about the safeguarding of sensitive data and the integrity of the redress process.
The scheme, launched in , offers potential payouts of up to £385,000 to individuals who claim they suffered abuse while interacting with Harrods or its former owner. Multiple women have accused Al Fayed, who owned the luxury department store from to , of rape and sexual assault. The Metropolitan Police have reported that over 140 people have come forward to report crimes in their investigation into Al Fayed.
Harrods has allocated more than £60 million to the scheme, with £57 million earmarked for compensation and an additional £5.3 million for legal and administrative costs. As of , Harrods Managing Director Michael Ward stated that “more than 100 survivors” had joined the process. Interim payments and compensation awards began being issued at the end of , and the scheme is scheduled to remain open until .
However, advocacy groups and survivors are voicing significant concerns about the scheme’s structure. A central issue is the fact that the redress process is being managed by the Fayed estate itself. Critics argue this creates an inherent conflict of interest, as the estate has a vested interest in minimizing its financial liability. Survivors express apprehension about disclosing deeply personal and traumatic details to an entity potentially motivated to protect its interests.
According to reports, there is a perceived lack of independent oversight of the scheme, leaving survivors feeling vulnerable and without adequate protection. Concerns have also been raised regarding the requirement for survivors to share sensitive details and evidence, which some describe as re-traumatizing. Disagreements exist over the scope of medical assessments, with Harrods suggesting a single assessment is sufficient, while survivors argue that complex cases often require multiple evaluations.
The potential impact on ongoing criminal investigations is another source of anxiety. Both UK and French police are actively investigating allegations against other members of the Fayed family and senior figures within Al Fayed’s companies. Survivors fear that Harrods’ willingness to share evidence with the Fayed estate, while cooperating with police, could compromise the integrity of criminal evidence. Police procedures typically emphasize minimizing interaction between victims to prevent contamination of evidence.
the structure of the scheme is reportedly discouraging some vulnerable survivors from coming forward, fearing exposure and a lack of control over their personal information. Concerns have been raised that the scheme fails to meet basic standards of safeguarding and fairness, potentially exposing survivors to further harm through disclosure to the estate.
The compensation scheme offers varying levels of payment. Eligible claimants can receive general damages of up to £200,000, with the potential for additional compensation of up to £185,000 if they undergo a psychiatric assessment. Those who decline a psychiatric assessment can receive up to £150,000. Compensation for intrusive medical examinations, which some claimants allege they were subjected to during the hiring process, can reach up to £10,000. Past treatment costs are also covered.
Eligibility for the scheme does not require an individual to have been a Harrods employee, but a “sufficiently close connection” to Al Fayed’s role at Harrods must be demonstrated. Claims related to alleged assaults occurring outside the UK may also be eligible if they are “sufficiently connected” to Al Fayed’s position at the department store.
The scheme operates on the basis of “documentary evidence,” meaning applicants are not required to provide oral testimony about their claims. This approach, while intended to streamline the process, has also fueled concerns about the thoroughness of the investigation and the potential for claims to be dismissed without adequate scrutiny.
Kingsley Hayes, a partner at KP Law representing Justice for Harrods, which represents at least 260 women, has stated that the scheme “falls short of addressing the true impact on those affected.” Harrods, however, has issued an unreserved apology for the sexual abuse inflicted upon survivors by Al Fayed, stating that the company wants to ensure that all eligible individuals receive compensation.
The financial impact of the scheme has already been felt by Harrods, which recorded a £34.3 million loss in its latest full-year accounts, a significant decline compared to a £111 million profit the previous year. The ongoing concerns raised by survivors and advocacy groups highlight the complex challenges of establishing a fair and effective redress process in cases of historical abuse, particularly when the administering body has a potential conflict of interest.
