When Harrods announced it would open a redress scheme to compensate survivors of abuse by the luxury London department store’s former owner, Mohamad Al Fayed, it received praise and positive press coverage for its actions.
As a network of survivors, we have been shocked and dismayed by Harrods’ approach to redress. Its scheme is not just inadequate, it forces survivors to trade safety for compensation, and risks undermining criminal justice in the UK and France, where Al Fayed’s family still own the luxury Ritz Paris hotel.
Multiple women raised allegations against Al Fayed during his lifetime. It was not until a BBC broadcast in September 2024 – a year after his death aged 94 – that the scale and systemic nature of the abuse became clear.
What happened at Harrods under Al Fayed was organised trafficking. As openDemocracy has reported, women were recruited to non-existent jobs within the institution in order to be abused. It took a system to allow one man to abuse hundreds of women with impunity for decades.
After the BBC documentary aired, more women came forward. A year later, London’s Metropolitan Police confirmed that 146 survivors had reported crimes against Al Fayed. In response, Harrods’ current owners, the Qatar Investment Authority, which bought the company in a 2010 deal reportedly worth £1.5bn, launched a redress scheme in March 2025.
Under the scheme, Harrods offers survivors two options: a medical pathway that leads to higher levels of compensation but requires them to hand over personal medical data, or a non-medical pathway, where a lower level of disclosure is required in exchange for a lower level of compensation.
The scheme is run privately by Harrods and its lawyers, with no state or independent oversight.
We at No One Above, an independent advocacy project led by survivors of exploitation and trafficking at Al Fayed-controlled organisations, believe Harrods’ approach undermines criminal justice. We are seeking protection from the police and the courts to safeguard access to evidence while criminal investigations and inquiries are ongoing.
Sian Norris
At the centre of the problem is a quiet update to the redress scheme’s terms made in October 2025. Survivors are now required to agree to Harrods sharing their personal “information and documentation” with “third parties and/or their legal representatives, for the purpose of enabling Harrods to pursue a claim against that third party”.
That third party is the Al Fayed estate and its executors, whom the Financial Times reported to be his widow, Heini, and two of their children, Jasmine and Camilla. Survivors and their lawyers understand that Harrods’ settlement approach is closely tied to its ability to pursue contribution claims against the estate.
This revision means women who applied for compensation in good faith and agreed to provide their personal information have learned that their sensitive data may be used in a process overseen by close family members of a serial rapist and sex trafficker.
To make matters worse, the executors could be called as witnesses in a criminal court; it is not unusual for perpetrators’ families to be questioned in cases involving organised sexual exploitation, regardless of whether they themselves are accused of wrongdoing. People who may later give evidence having previously accessed, directly or indirectly, survivor evidence is a fundamental conflict.
Many survivors feel the change leaves them with only two options: to seek redress and surrender all control of their data and evidence, or not.
A spokesperson for Harrods said the company has already settled several claims with survivors and continues to do so. They added: “Harrods is continuing to consider what further action it may take to recover some or all of its outlay from the estate. Depending on what steps Harrods decides to take, it may be required by law to provide details of settled claims to the estate pursuant, and always subject to, the court rules and GDPR considerations.
“Harrods respects the anonymity of survivors and is taking every step possible to put in place confidentiality arrangements with the lawyers representing the Fayed estate that place restrictions on access to sensitive materials.”
But the disclosure risk arises only if Harrods chooses to pursue a contribution claim against the estate. It is not required by law to take action to reduce the cost of compensating survivors.
It’s important to remember that this is not a commercial dispute, but allegations of mass sexual abuse, exploitation of multiple victims across decades and trafficking.
The evidence that survivors applying for the redress scheme have to provide is personal: it involves details of abuse and humiliation, histories of coercion, and medical disclosures, including about their mental and sexual health.
Now Harrods is demanding that this sensitive information be shared with a third party linked to the abuse.
This is not ‘normal litigation’
Press reports from June 2025 said Harrods planned to take legal action to force the Al Fayed family to appoint independent executors. While this move would provide reassurance to survivors, they have not received any updates on whether the application was lodged or resolved.
Another revision to the scheme’s terms says that Harrods “is seeking to enter into confidentiality arrangements that place restrictions on access to sensitive materials”. This, as Harrods has noted, would mean survivor material is shared with estate lawyers but not directly with executors.
That sounds reassuring. It isn’t.
Under English law, lawyers act for the estate on the instructions of the executors. In this case, disclosure to estate lawyers is therefore disclosure to Al Fayed’s family, whose legal and financial interest is to minimise liability, whether civil or criminal.
A promise by Harrods or the Fayed estate of confidentiality does not stop survivor information from being analysed, assessed for credibility, and even used to shape legal strategy. Nor does it protect criminal investigations, prevent downstream use of information, or provide independent oversight.
Most survivors will likely not be familiar with the complexities of estate law and therefore cannot meaningfully assess the risk.
A Harrods spokesperson said: “Harrods sympathises with survivors and appreciates that it can be traumatic for them to share details of their abuse. Whilst Harrods has sought to design the scheme in a trauma-informed way, it is unfortunately unavoidable that survivors will need to share information and evidence in relation to their abuse.”
They continued: “The Harrods redress scheme is entirely voluntary, and Harrods respects the right of survivors to choose the approach that they feel is best for them. Control is in the hands of survivors who can determine, at any point, to seek alternative routes of redress such as court litigation or pursuing claims directly against the Fayed estate.”
The spokesperson added that Harrods’ decision to instruct a “single independent medical expert” means “survivors will only undergo one assessment”. In a court case, they said, they would be expected to provide evidence to both their lawyers and the lawyers of the other party.
As survivors, we dispute this, as multiple medical assessments tend only to be needed in the most complex claims.
Survivors in sexual abuse cases consistently say fear of exposure and loss of control over their stories is a major reason they do not come forward. In our case, we know that some of the most vulnerable survivors have yet to come forward and we are concerned that a redress process that forces disclosure into a family-controlled estate makes them less likely to do so.
That alone should be enough to stop it.
Compromising criminal cases
Al Fayed is dead, but his abuse did not exist in a vacuum.
Police investigations are ongoing in both the UK and France into allegations made by survivors against other senior figures within his companies, including his brothers, Ali and Salah Fayed. A spokesperson for Ali, the only surviving brother, told the BBC last year that he “will not be scapegoated” and “unequivocally denies any and all the allegations of wrongdoing” and that “the incidents simply never took place”.
French authorities are investigating alleged aggravated human trafficking, and survivors are asking London’s Metropolitan police to comply with its legal duties under Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights to recognise victims of trafficking and to investigate effectively.
Harrods confirmed it is supporting the Metropolitan Police in its ongoing investigation. Where it is informed that information shared with it has been shared with the police, Harrods will liaise with the police regarding the handling of this information. Yet at the same time, it may also share evidence with Al Fayed’s estate, which would compromise basic safeguarding and evidential integrity.
In sexual violence cases involving multiple victims, police scrutinise whether the victims have spoken to each other, on the basis that uncontrolled information-sharing could affect evidence. So why are survivors with no control, leverage or institutional protection being made to hand their data to powerful, legally resourced actors with a direct interest in the outcome?
A redress process that deters survivors from coming forward, or exposes them to foreseeable harm, is not effective in law. If civil settlement mechanics undermine criminal justice, the state has a duty to intervene.
Family-linked executors must not have any access to survivor evidence. Civil processes must not compromise criminal investigations or risk foreseeable safeguarding failures. These are not radical demands; they are minimum standards.
That’s why No One Above has written to the Metropolitan Police asking it to examine the safeguarding and criminal-justice implications of the current arrangements. This does not require findings of guilt. It requires recognition of power, risk and responsibility. Because redress that endangers those it is meant to help is not justice. It is abdication.
