Phase 1, which is due back on Tuesday, will report on the human impact of what happened as well as compensation schemes.
“Take (them) off the government completely,” says Jo Hamilton OBE, a high-profile campaigner and former sub-postmistress, who was convicted of stealing from her branch in 2008.
“It’s like the fox in charge of the hen house,” she adds, “because they were the only shareholders of Post Office“.
“So they’re in it up to their necks… So why should they be in charge of giving us financial redress?”
Jo and others are hoping Sir Wyn Williams, chairman of the public statutory inquiry, will make recommendations for an independent body to take control of redress schemes.
The inquiry has been examining the Post Office scandal which saw more than 700 people wrongfully convicted between 1999 and 2015.
Sub-postmasters were forced to pay back false accounting shortfalls because of the faulty IT system, Horizon.
At the moment, the Department for Business and Trade administers most of the redress schemes including the Horizon Conviction Redress Scheme and the Group Litigation Order (GLO) Scheme.
The Post Office is still responsible for the Horizon Shortfall scheme.
Lee Castleton OBE, another victim of the scandal, was bankrupted in 2007 when he lost his case in the civil courts representing himself against the Post Office.
The civil judgment against him, however, still stands.
“It’s the oddest thing in the world to be an OBE, fighting for justice, while still having the original case standing against me,” he tells Sky News.
While he has received an interim payment he has not applied to a redress scheme.
“The GLO scheme – that’s there on the table for me to do,” he says, “but I know that they would use my original case, still standing against me, in any form of redress.
“So they would still tell me repeatedly that the court found me to be liable and therefore they only acted on the court’s outcome.”
He agrees with other victims who want the inquiry this week to recommend “taking the bad piece out” of redress schemes.
“The bad piece is the company – Post Office Limited,” he continues, “and the government – they need to be outside.
“When somebody goes to court, even if it’s a case against the Department for Business and Trade (DBT), when they go to court DBT do not decide what the outcome is.
“A judge decides, a third party decides, a right-minded individual a fair individual, that’s what needs to happen.”
Mr Castleton is also taking legal action against the Post Office and Fujitsu – the first individual victim to sue the organisations for compensation and “vindication” in court.
“I want to hear why it happened, to hear what I believe to be the truth, to hear what they believe to be the truth and let the judge decide.”
Neil Hudgell, a lawyer for victims, said he expects the first inquiry report this week may be “really rather damning” of the redress claim process describing “inconsistencies”, “bureaucracy” and “delays”.
“The over-lawyeringness of it,” he adds, “the minute analysis, micro-analysis of detail, the inability to give people fully the benefit of doubt.
“All those things I think are going to be part and parcel of what Sir Wynn says about compensation.
“And we would hope, not going to say expect because history’s not great, we would hope it’s a springboard to an acceleration, a meaningful acceleration of that process.”
A Department for Business and Trade spokesperson said they were “grateful” for the inquiry’s work describing “the immeasurable suffering” victims endured.
Their statement continued: “This government has quadrupled the total amount paid to affected postmasters to provide them with full and fair redress, with more than £1bn having now been paid to thousands of claimants.
“We will also continue to work with the Post Office, who have already written to over 24,000 postmasters, to ensure that everyone who may be eligible for redress is given the opportunity to apply for it.”
