What happened at Harrods was organised trafficking

If someone forwarded you this email you can subscribe.

Hi Diogenes,

Survivors of abuse carried out by Harrods' former owner Mohamed Al Fayed are warning that changes to Harrods' redress scheme could allow their personal data to be shared with the abuser's estate.

Under a scheme run privately by Harrods, survivors are being asked to choose between higher compensation that requires handing over sensitive medical information, or lower payouts with fewer disclosures.

FEATURED STORY

Al Fayed survivors urge Harrods not to share their data with abuser's estate

No One Above

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.

SUPPORT OUR INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

When I saw that the UK government had seconded an official to work with Rothschild & Co on defence policy, all paid for by you and me, I knew this was something I had to look into. The revolving door between government, private finance and lobbying firms needs to be exposed if we are to understand how money and power work in our politics. Nowhere is this more urgent than on questions of defence and national security, at a time when the government is investing more and more of taxpayers' money on rearming Britain.

You can help keep me on this beat, as I dig into the contracts and cosy relationships between Labour, defence, and big finance. Will you donate to support my work today?

Please donate now

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.

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.

AUDIENCE DISCUSSION

openDemocracy will be hosting an hour-long call with members of our staff and our audience. The call will be an opportunity for you to meet some members of the team including our editor-in-chief Aman Sethi and will give participants the chance to share their thoughts on openDemocracy and what they like about our coverage and feel is important in the media.

Click below to express your interest in joining the call!

Chat with our staff

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.

You can read the full story here.