FUJ00152561
FUJ00152561
From: Forrest Hilary[/O=ICL/OU=UKSOUTH FEL01/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=FORRESTH]
Sent:
To:
Ce:
Subject: RE: Mr L Castleton - Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
Nick,
Thank you for your email formally notifying us of this case.
Brian Pinder, our Security Manager on Post Office Account, is dealing with this and we will respond to you with more
information as soon as we can.
Regards,
Hilary
= Original Message-
From: nicholas.samuel:
Sent: 24 October 2005.
olin.lenton-smi
: Drive Post Office, Bridlington
Hilary, Colin
I have just beeen advised of this case and note that Carl Marx is involved.
Please can you accept this Email as official notification on the assumption
that you are unaware of this case already. Please can you advise on how to
progress this one. I believe Carl is due to repond but we do not appear to
have much time on this one. Can audit records be retreived in time?
Regards
Nick
Nicholas Samuel
Commercial Manager (Fujitsu Services)
Post Office Ltd
IT Directorate
Calthorpe House
15-20 Phoenix Place
London
WC1X 0DG
Telephone:
Fax:
E-Mail:
Post Office Ltd
Registered in England and Wales number: 2154540 Registered Office: 80-86
Old Street LONDON EC1V 9NN.
Keith K Baines
To: Nicholas Samuel/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE
24/10/2005 13:27 cc:
Subject: RE: Mr L Castleton - Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
' GRO H To: dave.hulbert.
Lyeneotnerenncnnnnd CCl gary,
jennifer.robson
24/10/2005 13:14 Subject: RE: Mr L Castleton - Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
keith.k.baines,_
Dave,
Just a quick email to acknowledge that I have a no of people looking into
this and am awaiting their comment.
Regards,
Carl
To: carl.marx!__
Cc: gary.blackl
jennifer.robson,
rive Post Office, Bridlington
Carl,
could I ask you to look at the attached email string relating to an ongoing
legal case for recovery of losses against a SPMR (as per title of email).
Please have a look at the email from Stephen Dilley (solicitor working on
behalf of POL) and his next steps section in particular, as this indicates
what we need from Fujitsu i.e.: clear evidence that the losses in question
weren't created by the system.
I've also copied below a response you provided some weeks ago relating to a
different case (Smallbridge) about the system creating discrepancies and it
would be worth having your view on whether this provides useful supporting
evidence, particularly in countering the Experts' Reports (referred to in
Stephen Dilley's email).
If you can't provide the evidence required, then please state this.
A response by the end of this week is required as we need to make a
decision on whether to proceed with this case or not.
Regards
Dave
FUJ00152561
FUJ00152561
Discrepancies in Stock, Cash or Transactions following equipment
malfunction are virtually unknown and can not occur without a Corresponding
lack of attention to process by the PM or Post Office staff:
1) If a transaction goes to completion, Riposte messages are written to the
disk and replicated within 5 seconds to all of the neighbouring counters or
to the Mirror Disk in the case of Single Counter Outlets. This transaction
will then be visible to Post Office staff through the transaction log.
2) Should there be a failure which results in incomplete or damaged
transaction information being written to the message store, then this will
always result in events reported by the counter to the centre and/or
visible dialogs which will request that the PM report the matter to Horizon
Help Desk, the system generally takes a conservative view and will complete
any partial transactions it finds.
3) The Horizon System User Guide has a lot of guidance on System Failure
and the steps needed to recover from failure which mitigate against any
losses by the PM by documenting procedures for the recovery of
transactions.
4) Post Masters were required Pre S80 to produce weekly cash accounts at
which time any major losses or gains would become immediately apparent;
notwithstanding that the vast majority of Post offices will make a check at
the end of each working day by producing daily office summaries and daily
cash declarations (Mandatory). These will demonstrate whether there are
major discrepancies, if there are discrepancies then it is expected that
the Post Master should account for them then, or raise calls on NBSC to
assist in resolving the problem.
5) The PM has a powerful tool in the transaction log, this will allow
production of reports for the 35 previous days transactions.
In summary, the system is very robust. In our experience it very seldom
looses transactions unless equipment is physically removed from site; if it
does loose transactions Post Office procedures should quickly identify
discrepancies and they should be followed through with help desk assistance
within a week.
Reports of discrepancies dating back for more than 7 days are unlikely to
provide a definitive answer.
Service Manager, Operations Control
Post Office Ltd
Operations
FUJ00152561
FUJ00152561
FUJ00152561
FUJ00152561
, VoiceMail:
External Email: dave.hulbert¢
— Forwarded by Dave Hulb:
Jennifer Robson
To: Dave
Hulbert/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE
18/10/2005 14:11 cc: Mandy
Talbot/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE, Carol King/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE
Subject: Mr L Castleton -
Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
To note the emails below please on the case we consulted on recently .
I'm not sure if you now need ot advise Dave Smith of this counterclaim.
Carol and I will need to discuss the requirements placed upon us --stated
below.
Can you advise who would be the contact from your domain. Please note the
date for provision of info. Can you get back to me by early next week
please.
Many thanks
Jen
Debt Recovery Section manager
Post Office Ltd
Finance
$49 1PF
: Mobile:
id any attachments are confidential and intended for the
addressee (s) only. If you are not the named recipient you must not use,
disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication.
If you have received this is error please contact the sender and then
delete this email from your system.
External Email: jennifer.robson
Mandy Talbot
To: — Carol
King/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE, John Legg/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE, Nicky
18/10/2005 13:55
Sherrott/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE, Jennifer Robson/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE
cc: Clare
Wardle/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE
Subject: Mr L Castleton -
Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
This is a case where the adequacy of the evidence which POL has in support
of it case against Castleton is being challenged and his counterclaim
dwarfs the size of the claim. The adequacy of the records obtained from the
Horizon system is being challenged. As the business chose to give summary
termination instead of three months notice it is required to physically
prove the loss. If the Horizon evidence is not up to the job this will have
serious ramifications for the business.
Litigation Team Leader
Company Secretary's Office
Legal Services
Royal Mail, Impact House, 2 Edridge Road, CROYDON, CR9 1PJ
i Fax:
— Forwarded by Mandy Talbot/e/POSTOFFICE on 18/10/2005 13:49 -----
"Stephen Dilley"
Subject: Mr L Castleton
Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
18/10/2005 12:43
Dear Ms Woodward
I refer to Denise's email of 29 September.
Denise has now left the firm and I am dealing with this matter. I have
reviewed the voluminous papers and thought it would be helpful to set out
my view of the case at this point:
Case Summary
1. The Post Office's claim is for approximately £27,115.83 plus interest
and costs in respect of net losses. Clearly, Mr Castleton is contractually
responsible for any losses that the Post Office makes caused by negligence
or error. However, the real issue is whether there has been any real
shortfall, or whether this shortfall has really been generated by computer
error. To win, the Post Office must show that there has been a real
shortfall.
2. Was Mr Castleton dismissed summarily? If the answer is "yes", then if
the Post Office cannot show that there was a real shortfall and loses its
FUJ00152561
FUJ00152561
claim and has dismissed him without a good reason, then unless his contact
say otherwise, it appears that you may well have to take Mr Castleton's
wrongful termination claim seriously. He claims that he has suffered loss
for up to £250,000 but those losses have not yet been particularised and I
will need to analyse any evidence in support of them. Please could you
supply me a full copy of his contract?
3. From the outset, Mr Castleton's case has consistently been that if you
return to him all of the documents removed by Mrs Ogglesby on 10 May 2004,
then he will be able to demonstrate that the losses are not real. He has
repeatedly sought the return of the daily snapshots, because he believes
that the only way to verify the accuracy of the weekly snapshots and weekly
balances is to manually cross check them by reference to the daily
snapshots.
Experts’ Reports
I enclose copies of the following:-
(a) A without prejudice letter dated 30 September from Mr Castleton's
solicitors to Bond Pearce;
(b) Bentley Jennison's Report dated 23 September and attachments; and
(c) White & Hoggard's report dated 18 August.
Bentley Jennison state that the deficiencies have probably been brought
forward despite the fact that they have been entered onto the suspense
account entry. They suspect this is because the Horizon system, despite the
suspense account entry, has failed to recognise the entry on the daily
snapshot. They have drawn this conclusion through looking at the
discrepancy of £3,509.18 on Thursday 26 February 2004. They then suggest
that this double accounting could have continued over a number of weeks and
that as such, Mr Castleton's Defence, "appears to hold potential merit
based on the limited documentation" they have so far reviewed. White &
Hoggard reach a similar conclusion in their report.
You may think the expert has got it wrong, but even if they have, they can
only form their view on the information available and this is what the
Court will have to do when the claim gets to trial.
Further disclosure
Bentley Jennison seek:
(i) A full list of all the transactions carried out within the Post Office
(he says that it is not good enough that management information is not
available simply because the "month end has been closed down".
(ii) The actual audit report prepared by Mrs Ogglesby. He says that the
actual report would have been a manuscript writing document rather than a
typed document.
(iii) P and A Reports for weeks 39-52.
(iv) Cash and stock counts for when Mr Castleton began trading and when he
stopped being a Post Office Sub-Postmaster.
(vi) The events log for weeks 39 to 52.
FUJ00152561
FUJ00152561
(vii) Transaction log.
In your email to Denise of 26 September, you state that you are probably
not going to be able to produce any further paperwork. However, the onus is
on the Post Office to prove its case on the balance of probabilities. Given
the nature of Mr Castleton's Defence, I suspect that the Court will draw
adverse inferences against the Post Office if it is unable to produce
relevant documents that could either help or hinder its case. The outcome
could well be that instead of recovering £27,000, the Post Office ends up
paying to Mr Castleton a significant sum for wrongful termination of his
contract.
Next Steps
Do you have the documents that the expert and Mr Castleton have
requested?My view is either that we should obtain the documents to prove
the claim is true, or take an early view that it is unlikely to succeed and
that in order to extricate yourselves from proceedings, you will probably
have to make a payment to Mr Castleton. The Court has ordered that the
claim be stayed until 3 November 2005 to enable the parties to try to
settle.
Once you have reviewed this email, please could you contact me to discuss
strategy. It may be that an early without prejudice meeting or mediation
asap would be useful. The worst move would be to run the claim to trial
and then find you cannot produce the documents you need because at that
stage, both parties will have incurred significant costs and the stakes
will be that much higher.
I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.
Kind regards.
Stephen Dilley
Solicitor
Bond Pearce LLP
The information in this e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may
be legally privileged and protected by law. The intended recipient only is
authorised to access this e-mail and any attachments. If you are not the
intended recipient, please notify the sender as soon as possible and delete
any copies. Unauthorised use, dissemination, distribution, publication or
copying of this communication is prohibited.
Any files attached to this e-mail will have been checked by us with virus
detection software before transmission. You should carry out your own virus
checks before opening any attachment. Bond Pearce LLP accepts no liability
for any loss or damage which may be caused by software viruses.
Bond Pearce LLP is a Limited Liability Partnership registered in England
and Wales number OC311430.
Registered Office: Bristol Bridge House, 138-141 Redcliff Street, Bristol,
BS1 6BJ.
A list of Members is available from our registered office. Any reference to
FUJ00152561
FUJ00152561
a Partner in relation to Bond Pearce LLP means a Member of Bond Pearce LLP.
Bond Pearce LLP is regulated by the Law Society.(See attached file:
MULTIMEDIA_1077082.TIF)
JERI IARI III IAI II III IAAI IIIA SII I DSI ASI SII SIS ISOS IOS ODI OIA
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the
addressee only. If you are not the named recipient, you must not use,
disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication.
If you have received this in error, please contact the sender and then
delete this email from your system.
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the
addressee only. If you are not the named recipient, you must not use,
disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication.
If you have received this in error, please contact the sender and then
delete this email from your system.
FUJ00152561
FUJ00152561