POL00068280
POL00068280
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION, PERSONNEL
POLTD/0506/0619
OFFENCE
False Accounting
Name: Mrs Suzanne Lesley PALMER
Rank: Subpostmistress Identification Code: 1
Office: The Grange SPOB FAD Code 103140
Age: Date of Birth:
Service: 1 year 5 months Date Service Commenced: 11/09/2004
Nat Ins No: ~~
Home Address: GRO
Contract for Services 03/02/2006 on the authority of Alan LUSHER
Suspended:
To be prosecuted by: Royal Mail Group (including Post Office Ltd)
Designated Prosecution Tony Utting, National Investigation Manager
Authority:
Discipline Manager: Alan LUSHER
Alan Lusher
Discipline Manager
This investigation was raised as a result of information received from the audit team on 03/02/06.
On commencement of an audit at The Grange SPOB, 105 London Road, Rayleigh, SS6 9AX. the
auditors became aware that there was a discrepancy in the cash on hand at the office of £5100.
This information was immediately passed onto the investigation team and also yourself. The
auditors continued the audit where they became aware that there were further discrepancies
within the office. It would appear that the Camelot scratch cards were over stated by £9845.
Reducing the scratch cards to the actual figure on hand increased the shortage to £14,700. This
information was again duly passed on to both the Investigation Team and yourself.
The final outcome of the audit was a deficiency of £14,712.11
Once the outcome of the audit was known I made my way to the Post Office. On arrival at the
Office I introduced myself to Mrs Palmer and asked her for an explanation for the large loss. She
explained that she had placed some Post Office money into the private Automatic Teller Machine
(ATM) that she had recently had installed and the remainder of the cash was related to scratch
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION, PERSONNEL
POL00068280
POL00068280
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION, PERSONNEL
card sales that had not been put through the Horizon system. Mrs Palmer informed me that she
had written a cheque for the full amount of £14,712.11and handed it to the auditors
At 13:25 hours I cautioned Mrs Palmer and informed her of her Legal Rights. Forms CS001 was
completed and a notebook entry to that effect was made Arrangements were made for Mrs
Palmer to attend an interview under caution at Clements Road, lIford on 06/02/06 at 10:00am.
On 06/02/06 as arranged an interview under caution took place with Mrs Susanne Palmer. Also
present was Lester Chine and myself. Mrs Palmer did not require Legal Representation and the
reverse of Form CS001 produced on 03/02/06 was completed accordingly. A Friend was not
required and Form CS003 was completed. The interview commenced at 10:30 hours:‘and
concluded at 11:42 hours. The interview consisted of two tapes, master seal numbers 070926 and
070927. A tape transcript has been prepared and a copy can be provided if requested
Mrs Palmer has been the Subpostmistress at the Grange SPOB since 11 September 2004. Prior to
becoming the Subpostmistress she had worked at the office for the former Subpostmaster, Mr
Millen, as the office Manager for three and a half years. She had also worked at the office for the
Subpostmaster prior to that, Mr Patel. In between working for Mr Patel and Mr Millen she worked
as an assistant at Bridgewater Drive Post Office in Leigh-On-Sea, Essex.
The Grange Post Office is sited in a small parade of shops set back from a busy main road. The
office has two counter positions and is positioned at the rear of the private business, which is a
newspaper and confectionary shop. Currently Mrs Palmer has one assistant working at the Post
Office.
Mrs Palmer claimed that when she became Subpostmistress in September 2004, as she was
already working at the office, the contracts were signed and she just carried on as before but now
as the Subpostmistress. A final audit and transfer took place but there was no training or visit ,
from Post Office personnel. Prior to the final audit, Mrs Palmer claimed Mr Millen came to the
office to hand over a cheque for the balance of the scratch card sales which she believes was in
excess of £9,000.
Sometime in January 2006 Mrs Palmer had an ATM installed in the Post Office. This was a private
ATM and was funded by her-self. At the outset the machine was filled with £1,000 of her own
money but due to popular demand it was necessary to replenish this with increased amounts of
money. Unfortunately as Mrs Palmer did not have sufficient cash on the premises at the time of
replenishing the machine, she used £900 of Post Office money for this purpose. She kept a record
of this on the daily cash on hand sheet and accounted for this in the top section headed S&M,
(Scottish and mutilated) Each day the record was updated as to the amount held in the machine.
From the records it shows that from 26/01/06 to 03/02/06 totalling eleven days, £900 of Post
Office money was used. A further £1700 of Post Office money was used to replenish the ATM
machine for one day on 02/02/06. A total of £2600 of the audit deficiency was now identified as
money used for the ATM.
Mrs Palmer claimed that the ATM was now empty again and all of the Post Office money had
been used. Each night a transaction log is produced from the machine of all the transactions that
day. It takes approximately three days for the payment of the withdrawals to be credited into Mrs
Palmers bank by the owners of the ATM.
Mrs Palmer was asked to explain the entries made on the daily record sheets. She claimed that the
£2500 entry that is there each day is related to scratch card error notices. Some months ago now
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION, PERSONNEL
POL00068280
POL00068280
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION, PERSONNEL
she received a number of error notices related to scratch cards. She was unsure of why she had
received them and requested assistance from the Post Office for dealing with this problem.
Nobody visited the office and she was informed that they had to be brought to account
immediately. As instructed Mrs Palmer processed the error notices. In order to do so as she did not
have sufficient funds to pay for the error notices, she was carrying the amount of £2500 in her
daily cash on hand. She claimed that she believed a further error notice would be received and
that it would compensate for the loss. To date this has not been the case. The other entries under
the S&M heading are related to Scottish or mutilated notes or banking that has been received late
at the office, after the cash on hand has been confirmed. The remainder of the sheet is a break
down of the actual cash on hand
Mrs Palmer claims that her chequebook and documents had been with her accountant as the end
of year accounts are being prepared. Once she had received her chequebook back and her bank
had been credited with the amounts withdrawn from the ATM she was going to write a cheque to
cover the amount used.
Mrs Palmer admitted using Post Office money for her own use and admitted the cash on hand
figures have been inflated for the balances for weeks ending 18/01/06, 25/01/06 and 01/02/06 to
cover for the scratch-card error notices and the money used to replenish the ATM. Mrs Palmer
states that she is aware that when she signs a cash account she is signing to say that it represents
an accurate record of all the cash and stock on hand in the Post Office.
Mrs Palmer went on to explain about the scratch-cards. The private business operates the Camelot
Lottery terminal and sells Camelot scratch-cards. These are put through the shop till and then
subsequently entered into the Horizon system. They are entered into the shop till ona designated
button and so can be accounted for on a daily basis. When the shop closes at 18:00 hours the
Lottery terminal is totalled for the daily figures. That amount of money is secured within the Post
Office and the remainder is taken home with Mrs Palmer. At home Mrs Palmer claims that she
splits the money between that of the shop takings and the scratch-card sales. A home computer
record is kept of the sales and the money is secured separately in a bag in her personal safe. 1
About every three months she claims that she balances the scratch-cards and writes a cheque for
the balance due. Mrs Palmer admitted that she does not put a cheque in for the sale of the
scratch-cards on a regular basis and that each week the scratch-cards on hand figure is wrong. She
states that the reason for keeping the cash at home is due to the high bank charges for depositing
cash.
Mrs Palmer admitted that by not accounting for the scratch-cards she has produced a false
account. She also states that she is aware that false accounting is a criminal offence but denied
that she had intentionally done this.
The interview concluded at 11:42. Master tape seal 070927 was signed and Form CS019 was
handed to Mrs Palmer.
From September 2004 when Mrs Palmer became the Subpostmistress it would appear that she
has been committing false accounting on the weeks where she has not checked the scratch-cards.
A cheque book that was given to me after the conclusion of the interview showed that on four
occasions Mrs Palmer has written cheques made payable to Post Office Ltd. The cheque values are
£1000, £3220, £1258 and £1000, a total of £6478. The latest cheque counterfoil was not dated
but immediately followed one dated 30/09/05. That would show that at least twelve months of
scratch-card sales totalled £6478, an average of £539 per month. This would indicate that the
scratch-card sales at The Grange SPOB have increased significantly over the last five months to an
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION, PERSONNEL
POL00068280
POL00068280
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION, PERSONNEL
average of £1789. The chances of the scratch-cards being sold in round figures ie. £1000 is
probably quite low and would suggest that maybe the scratch-cards were not checked when the
cheque was processed. Mrs Palmer claimed that she did not bank the scratch-card money due to
the high bank charges. This money should never have been deposited at her bank but placed
within the Post Office where bank charges would never have been an issue.
If Mrs Palmer is able to identify both the lottery online daily figures and the scratch-card daily
figures, and secure the online money within the Post Office on a daily basis, I can see no honest
reason why the scratch-cards money is not secured there at the same time.
With regard to the money used to replenish the ATM, if the machine has used £900 in eleven days
then why has the machine used £1700 in one day. If Mrs Palmer has already received payment
for the £900 why has she not returned the money to the Post Office. If as she maintains she has
the money from the shop takings at home, then she could have returned it the following day. Mrs
Palmer admitted that since week ending 18/01/06 she had been inflating her cash on hand to
cover for £900. Additionally in week ending 01/02/06 a further £1700 was added to the cash on
hand figure.
At the present time it is not known when the error notices were processed so I am unable to
identify the date at which Mrs Palmer inflated her cash on hand figure by £2500. Again she did
not have the funds to cover this and continually accounted for this in the cash hoping for a
compensating error notice. However, she admitted that error notices were usually received within a
8 weeks and she had been holding this amount for many months b
Mrs Palmer produced a number of business bank statements between April and December 2005.
From these statements it could be seen that with the exception of one day in October the account
is always in credit. Mrs Palmer stated that she pays enough money into the account to cover for
the direct debits and uses the excess cash to purchase stock. ‘4
‘
Currently there is no loss to the business as Mrs Palmer handed the auditors a cheque for the,full
audit deficiency. j
Mrs Palmer has not had an audit since she became Subpostmistress in September 2004
Additionally she claims to have received no formal training and is self-taught. She has not
received help when she has requested it and appears to have muddled through. She claims to
have continued with the way that the scratch-cards have always been accounted and at no
time has she been contacted by the Post Office regarding the amount of scratch-cards on hand
and the lack of sales, as for many weeks the on hand figure does not change. She has no
defence for using Post Office money for her own use.
Mrs Palmer admitted that what she has done is wrong but she did not think it was dishonest as
she has made a written record and can account for everything. She stated that she did not intend
to steal the money.
A report has been forwarded to The Criminal Law Team for advice as to whether this case is
suitable for prosecution.
Lisa Allen 20 February 2006
Investi
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION, PERSONNEL
POL00068280
POL00068280
IN CONFIDENCE
Offender Reporting :
Form to be e mailed to Casework team and for DMBs the Service Operations Manager, SPSO the
Contract and Service Manager, Cash Services the Senior Service Delivery Manager and for Multiple
Partner Branches multiples@postoffice.co.uk within two (working) days of interview)
Case file number: PO Ltd 0506/0619
Case Category: Immediate Open Enquiry
Date case set up: 06/02/06
Full Name(s) of person interviewed:
Mrs Suzanne Lesley PALMER
Grade: Subpostmistress
Office: The Grange SPOB
FAD: 103 140
Postcode: SS6 9AX
Type of Enquiry: Audit shortage/false accounting
Contract & Service Manager: Alan LUSHER
BRIEF summary of facts in case:
Ashortage of £14,712.11 was discovered at the
audit on 03/02/06. This was relating to Lottery
Scratchcard sales, Lottery Scratchcards error notices
and the cash used to replenish a non Post Office
ATM
Date of Interview:
06/02/06
BRIEF summary of admissions/denials made at
interview:
Mrs Palmer denied that she had been dishonest by
her actions but admitted she had been stupid with
hind sight
Date of Suspension (if applicable):
03/02/06 authorised by Alan LUSHER
Suspended on the authority of (If applicable)
Date of Resignation (if applicable):
Relevant Contract & Service Manager,
Operations Manager, Senior Service Delivery
Manger or multiples@postoffice.co.uk informed
of resignation (if applicable):
Yes
Date of Arrest (if applicable):
Identified Loss (at time of interview):
£14,711.12
Recovery (include date):
£14,711.12 03/02/06
Outcome (i.e. suspended/office closed):
Subpostmistress suspended. Office reopended by
office Manager.
Further Investigations required:
No
BRIEF Detail of further Investigations required:
ie. Further Interviews, further checks.
Anticipated date for completion of those
Investigations.
What action has been taken-in respect of asset
Tecovery:
Has this case been reported to a Financial
investigator: :
No
Any other comments:”
Officer In Case: Lisa ALLEN
Team Leader: Lester Chine
IN CONFIDENCE
Version 5 Oct05