FUJ00154707
FUJ00154707
From: Moronfolu Oddette S[//O=ICL/OU=ICL IT CONSULTANCY/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=ODETTEG]
Sent: Mon 17/10/2005 3:13:21 PM (UTC)
To: Craig Richard[F_ “"G
Subject: FW: Gaerwen Fad code 160604
Sorry I should have forwarded you this email too.
From: Moronfolu Oddette S
Sent: 17 October 2005 15:56
To: Lowther Neneh
Cc: Sewell Peter (FELO1); Pinder Brian; Harrison David P
Subject: RE: Gaerwen Fad code 160604
Hi Neneh,
In order for Ric to do any investigational work he would probably need a call to be raised. He said he needed a Message
Store, PS Standard Logs and NT Event Logs, which he usually gets from the SSC.
I went in search of Ann Chambers (SSC) to raise a call on your behalf but she is off today. So I spoke with Mik Peach
instead to find out if there were any alternative SSC members that could help.
The output of which was, if you want Ric to investigate this then a call has to be raised with SSC giving time and date
details for all information required for the FAD.
In the meanwhile Ric Craig (development) will continue to think of any possible scenario's that could cause a nil
transaction other than those mentioned below.
I have taken it as far as I can and from the reactions of all involved I would say there was nothing other than an
investigation (requiring a call to be raised/ or an ARQ) that we can do at this stage to validate/substantiate any claims.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Oddette
-----Original Message-
From: Moronfolu Oddette S
Sent: 17 October 2005 13:51
To: Craig Richard
Cc: Pinder Brian; Sewell Peter (FELO1); Lowther Neneh
Subject: FW: Gaerwen Fad code 160604
Hi Ric,
Can you have a look at this?
They really need to know if there is anything else that could have caused the nil transactions.
Many Thanks,
Oddette
From: Lowther Neneh
Sent: 17 October 2005 13:22
To: Moronfolu Oddette S
Subject: FW: Gaerwen Fad code 160604
Hi, Odette,
FUJ00154707
FUJ00154707
Could you advise us on this please.
I'm on a course tomorrow so hoping Penny would pick it up.
Kind regards,
Neneh
From: Pinder Brian
Sent: 14 October 2005 17:09
To: Thomas Penny; Lowther Neneh; Dunks Andy; Membery William; Sewell Peter (FELO1)
Subject: FW: Gaerwen Fad code 160604
All
Obviously this has not come our way yet, but meanwhile any thoughts comments?
I guess we just wait for an ARQ, but do we (security) have anything in our arsenal, to go back to Graham with at all?
Regds Brian
From: graham.c.wardé ~ —GRO
Sent: 14 October 2005 16 F Ee
To: Fujitsu’
Cc: diane.matthew: charles. leighton:
Subject: Re: Gaerwen Fad code 160604
All
The e mail below from one of our investigators says it all ...........
is there a check that can be made to ensure there are / were no serious errors on the system at this Post Office. We
already have details of calls made to the helpdesk (see spreadsheet below), which do not highlight anything obvious
sss are there general error type reports that will tell you when there is a problem with the system, which the Post Office
may not necessarily be aware of, particularly in relation to the highlighted paragraph....have there been similar problems
elsewhere ?
(I've heard of Tivoli event logs......... could these be relevant ?)
This case is in it's early stages, but if it were to proceed to a prosecution, we'd likely need a statement which outlines how
you can confirm that there were no operating errors with this office's system. I haven't submitted an ARQ yet but can do
so if you feel it's needed.
Happy to discuss if needs be
Regards
Graham
Casework Manager
Post Office Ltd Investigation Team
PO BOX 1, CROYDON, CR9 1WN
Postline: N/A, STD Phone:
N/A, Mobex:
VoiceMail:
1, Mobile: External Email: graham.c.wai
(Charles - can you offer your thoughts)
oe Forwarded by Graham C Ward/e/POSTOFFICE on 14/10/2005 14:39 —----
FUJ00154707
FUJ00154707
Diane Matthews
To: Graham C Ward/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE
14/10/2005 14:37 ce:
Subject: Re: Gaerwen Fad code 160604
Graham,
Just to clarify, the Subpostmaster has not made any calls to HSH or NBSC prior to yesterdays audit, and is now voicing
his concerns over the nil transactions on card account/on line banking transactions.
I believe there are at least 2 scenarios where a nil value will be recorded. These are
If a customer places a card into the pinpad and enters an incorrect pin
number, the system will decline the transaction and request the customer
to remove their card. This transaction was undertaken at the branch
using a Post Office card account operated by the auditor. The report was
printed with a nil value showing
If a customer places a POCA card into the pinpad, enters a correct PIN
and asks to withdraw cash, if there are no funds in the account, the
transaction will be declined and the customer requested to remover their
card. The summary would again show a nil value against the transaction
Please can you check any other possibilities of nil values on these types of transactions with Fujitsu.
Also as the Subpostmaster is blaming the system on his losses, please could we check there are no problems with the
Horizon kit at the branch.
To confirm, the branch will remain closed until we are happy that the Horizon system is fully operational.
Thanks
Diane
Investigation Manager
Post Office Ltd
POL Capacity
Management Info To: Paul Dawkins/e/POSTOFFICE
Sent by: Jay cc: Andrew Harley/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE
O'Laogun Subject: Re: Gaerwen Fad code 160604(Document link: POL Capacity Management
Info)
14/10/2005 11:15
(See attached file: fad 160604 calls.xis)
FUJ00154707
FUJ00154707
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.