Our Ref:
Your Ref;
POL00074571
POL00074571
a
25 May 2011
JN/RG/0204700008 I
BS/HC/M00002-4
Eamon Sloan
Webs wvivanaplers.com
Deat Sirs
Re: Post Office Countets Ltd -v- Katherine McAletney
We tefer to the above matter and by way of further discovety enclose herewith the following:-
B-mails from Suzanne Winter to John Breeden 3“ Decesber 2007 to 12" December 2007.
Cash spteadshects detailed in 1 above (by e-mail).
B-mail 15" Februaty 2007 Brian Trotter to Contract Suppott Team,
Suzanne Winter’s zeport 26" April 2007.
aepe
We ate endeavouring to obtain farther documentation from Bujitsu, the agents responsible for the
operation of the Hotizon system and will contact you in due course if the documentation is in
sovided by way of discovery.
John G Gordon LLB, Brigid Nepter LLB Notary Public,
é kA Denis MeKay U1.8, Joseph Napler LA
IsvesrOR NPEOMLE
P33
declared acoutately aad all
coq} Mkathleeiy: Hoplemey)
tah tx:
“aid logs show the office”
axed disczepancy positiv:
ekeeping “coda 145° (surplus
‘ount), and. 6397 (clear gaiii from 16
“€9482\03 to Hous:
SUSpeline acc
1 stispense
Housekesping gode 148 and eagn. .
POL00074571
POL00074571
P34
POL00074571
POL00074571
P35
POL00074571
POL00074571
P36
POL00074571
POL00074571
P37
POL00074571
POL00074571
P38
POL00074571
POL00074571
P39
POL00074571
POL00074571
Brian
'have had a took at the account and notes are below
£9,482.03 Credit - Branch Discrepancy 16,08,2006 - ‘There Is not a lot more Information we can supply for a branch
discrepancy as this Is the branch's own balancing all we can say Is that there have been no TC's Issued during this peric
to Justify this amount,
£15,148.73 Debit - Branch Discrepancy 22.41.2006 - There is not a lol more Information we can supply for a branch
discrepancy as this is the branch's own balancing all we can say [s that there have been no TC's Issued during this peric
to Justify this amount,
£2,240.21 Debit - Branch Discrepancy 03.01.2007 - There is not a lot more Information we can supply for a branch
discrepancy as this fs the branch's own balancing all we can say Is that there have been no TC's issued durlng this peric
to Justify this amount.
£2,494.94 - Final Account Deficiency 19.01.2007 - Audits should be ablo to give you more Info on how this amount is
broken down ~ although again no TC's hava been Issued In this period to justify this amount,
£4442.97 Credil - TC Sottled Centrally 29.03.2006 - This was for a Glrobank Deposits In week 33/2005
£1628.56 Debit - TC Settled Centrally 22.11.2006 - This was for cheques lo processing centre ~ Detalls - On the
28.06.2006 an amount of £4 628,56 was claimed through horizon in fespect of chequos sent to Belfast Cash Centres,
Belfast Cash Centre advise that no cheques were recelved from your office, Offics was Spoken to twice about these
émounts requesting the papenvork but nothing was sent In and a TC was fequested to rectify the matier,
Total Outstanding £10,587,44
Hope this Is enough Information if not fet me know
cheers
Paul
Brian Trottor To: Contract Support Team
151022007 16:30 Nonh@POSTOFFICE, Jacqueline Whitham/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE
Subject: Leitim more correspondent
from Solicitor Tara Walsh :
Steve
Can you please examine tho call logs for Lletrim, we are looking for evidence of the Spmr contacting the helpline about
Horizon problems, Can also acknowlatige the attached by sanding out a holding letter,
Jackle
Can you give me as MUCH Information as possible on the settled centrally debts for the branch,
ThanksContract Advisor
Area Contracts
Upper Floors
The Market DMB
P40
POL00074571
POL00074571
core Contract Support Brian
Team North Trotler/e/POSTOF} FICE@POSTOFFICE
Seat by: Stephen coe
Hough
Subject: Leltrim more correspondent
from Solicitor Tara Walsh
18/02/2007 15:04
Hi Brian
Seo lates! letter from solicitor of PM at Loitim, The tetter is only two pages long I have scanned the second page twice t
mistake,
Cheers Sleve
Contract Support Team
Post Office Lid
3555 Lei im from solicitor Mrs McAlerney.pdf allachment was Femoved from this email <<<<
P41
POL00074571
POL00074571
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION, PERSONNEL
POLTD/0607/0473
THEF
Name: Katherine Mary McALERNEY
Rank: Sub Postmaster Identification 1
Code:
Office: Leitrim Post Office Branch Code 185713
Age: 36 Date of Birth: [GRO I
Service: 7 years Date Service 31/08/2000
Commenced:
Personnel Printout: At Appendix: C
Nat Ins No:
Home Address:
Contract for Services 19/01/2007 on the authority of Brian Trotter
Suspended: Contracts and Service Advisor
If applicable to be Royal Mail Group (including Post Office
prosecuted by: Ltd)/Crown Prosecutor
Designated Public Prosecution Service, N Ireland
Prosecution Authority
if applicable:
Discipline Manager: Brian Trotter, Contracts and Service Advisor
Brian Trotter
1
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION, PERSONNEL
P42
RE ASERTIQNET SEERA Ph,
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION, PERSONNEL
Discipline Manager
This report relates to a cash and stock deficiency of £2494.94 and £8092.50
of Outstanding Transaction Corrections in the office accounts at Leitrim
Post Office® Branch, 2 Dromara Road, Leitrim, Castlewellan identified at
audit on Friday 19/01/2007 and the subsequent interview of Katherine Mary
McAlerney, Sub Postmaster of Leltrim Post Office.
On Friday 19" January 2007, Linda McLaughlin, Senior Auditor accompanied
by Tony Kennedy Audit Officer conducted an audit at Leitrim Post Office
Branch,
The audit revealed a shortage in the branch of £2494.94 and £8092.50 of
Outstanding Transaction Corrections, Katherine McAlerney could not explain
the cash shortage and stated she had had large discrepancies over the past
few months and thought it was due to problems with the Horizon processor
unit. She had also received a Transaction Correction for £30001.62.
Investigation Team were informed and a case was raised.
Due to the imminent birth of Katherine McAlerneys baby it was considered
that a formal interview would not take place until after the baby had been
born,
Preliminary enquiries identified the following:
Call logs (09/05/06 to 19/01/2007) identified:
¢ 3 occasions where the BTS has been overdue.
° 16/08/06 a large gain of was settled centrally
* 08/12/2006 Limited Service as no cash
‘
There were no record of calls telating to difficulty with the system. A request
was made to Fujitsu to confirm if the system had been replaced as stated by
Katherine McAlerney,
Information was received from Belfast Cash Centre (CRU) regarding
Transaction Corrections issued in respect of missing cheque remittances,
2
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION, PERSONNEL
POL00074571
POL00074571
POL00074571
POL00074571
Horizon records to substantiate the claim. In the case of Leitrim, promises
were made. by the office to supply same but such evidence was
unforthcoming so CRU forwarded Papers to Chesterfield so as a Transaction
Correction could be issued. If the Subpostmaster or staff had produced the
requested evidence no Transaction Correction would have been issued,
In respect of the charge TC for £30,001.62 this was an error by TC duty in
Chesterfield. The amount was relating to a missing cheque remittance and
should have read £3,001.62 . A credit TC was Issued for the £30,001.62 (the
missing remittance for £3,001.62 turned up 3 months late in CRU ).
Agents Debt Team provided details of Transaction Corrections issued, The
total of Transaction Corrections outstanding that have been settled centrally
Is £8092,50, Agents Debt are also deducting £50.00 per month from
remuneration which relates to an old error notice debt totalling £1417.23, The I
outstanding debt for this is £650.00,
Information was requested from Belfast Cash Centre regarding remittance
despatched and received and an audit trail was conducted, There were no
errors identified.
A tesponse was received from Fujitsu regarding Katherine McAlemeys
statement to the auditor that her processing unit had been replaced due to
Arrangements were made with Eamon Sloan, Solicitor to conduct a formal
interview with Katherine McAlerney on Monday 02/04/2007,
On Monday 02/04/2007, accompanied by Judith Trotter, Investigation Team
Manager I formally interviewed Katherine Mary McAlerney, Eamon Sloan,
Solicitor was also present.
A transcript of the tapes has not been produced at this stage of the
investigation,
3
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION, PERSONNEL p4a4
POL00074571
POL00074571
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION, PERSONNEL
Leltrim Post Office is situated in a rural area and the small office is sited
within a small grocery store which is attached to a Public Bar. Katherine
McAlerney has been the Sub Postmaster of Leitrim Post Office for nearly 7
years and was employed previously as a Secondary School Teacher. She is
matrled with four children aged eleven, nine , six years old and a two
month old baby.
The Public Bar and Post Office premises are owned by Katherine McAlerney
and her husband, They are opening a restaurant in May and also rent two
properties. They have a small mortgage on the business.
Leitrim Post Office opens 9.00 hours to 17,00 hours daily except Thursday
opening time Is 09.00 hours to 12.00 noon. Closure days are Wednesday
and Saturday and the office conducts between 16 /20 transactions daily.
Katherine McAlerney employs Selina Mussan (full time) to work in the
grocery store and in the Post Office. Selina has been employed for 3 years,
The processes in the office were discussed,
Selina Mussan is responsible for opening and closing the office and conducts
the daily cash declaration, Katherine McAlerney counts the cash for the
Branch Trading Statement and produces the statement,
Passwords for the Horizon system are confidential,
As it is a small office the balance is only conducted every 4/5 weeks at
Branch Trading Statement (BTS) periods. Preliminary enquiries had
established Chesterfield have made several requests for the Branch Trading
Statement to be produced on the correct trading period date. Katherine
McAlerney explained she produced the statement when she got the time. If
she has any overages the cash is put into an envelope and kept at the
counter,
She writes the amount on the outside of the envelope and signs it. No date is
stated on the envelope. Losses are tepald from her own personal cash, No
record Is kept of personal cash used
to cover losses. BTS were examined and it was notable that the statements
are not produced on correct dates for Group C and not signed.
4
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION, PERSONNEL
reactant teh tsa aN SA EF SH SN TE
P45
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION, PERSONNEL
The shop cash was discussed and it was established Post Office cash is kept
Separate from shop cash,
Preliminary enquiries with the Cash Centre identified the Centre had regularly
contacted Leitrim Post Office requesting evidence of remitted cheques and it
would be weeks/months before the cheques appeared in Cash Centre,
Colum McKigney, Business Development Manager (BDM) had also spoken
with the office regarding this matter, Katherine McAlerney could not
remember discussing this with Colum McKigney and stated it was just a
matter of getting around to doing it and getting a chance to look for the
receipts or cheques, Katherine McAlerney explained she held the cheques
which she had received from customers for transactions and when she had
gathered up three or four she would then Process to the cash centre,
The Transaction Corrections were discussed, Katherine McAlerney
explained she had been very ill during May to August 2006 but would still
have come in to the office occasionally and also to conduct the BTS. The
BTS was declaring large discrepancies and she contacted the Helpdesk .
She was advised to settle Centrally and it would then alert someone.
On 16/08/2006 a TC was taised for £9482,03, This was due to an overage
declared in BTS 03 27/06/2006 to 16/08/2006 and settled centrally
On 22/11/2006 a TC was raised for £15148,73 . This was due to a shortage
of £15148.73 declared in BTS 07 18/40/2006 to 22/11/2006 and settled
centrally,
On 22/11/2006 a TC was raised for £1628.56, This was due to non receipt of
cheques claimed in BTS 28/06/2006,
On 03/01/2007 a TC was raised for £2240.21, This was due to a shortage of
£2240.21 declared in BTS TP08 (BTS not avallable)
On 03/01/2007 a TC Was raised for £30,001.62, This was due to non receipt
of cheques for £3001.62 claimed In BTS 16/08/2006, However the amount
should have been £3001.62 and not £30,0001.62, The error was Identified
and a compensatory TC was sent 12/01/2007,
POL00074571
POL00074571
I pas
POL00074571
POL00074571
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION, PERSONNEL
Katherine McAlerney believes the errors are due to a system fault as she
stated she has had the processor changed a few times. There Is also a
problem in the Leitrim area and if there is strong wind the electricity power
fails. Due to this problem she bought a generator a few years ago which
automatically staris when the electricity fails. Preliminary enquiries with
Fujitsu stated the
processor unit had only been changed once In the last two years and that
was after the office had closed on 25/04/07.
Delivery of cash was discussed and Katherine McAlerney stated the delivery
date had been changed to a Wednesday when the office was closed .
At the conclusion of the interview Eamon Sloan agreed to provide Selina
Mussans address and contact telephone number,
Katherine McAlerney was aware of her responsibilities as a Postmaster to
repay any losses however stated she would not be repaying the money as
she believed the Post Office actually owed her money . She denied stealing
any Post Office monies.
Subsequent enquiries established the following:
The Cash Centre advised the cash delivery day is Thursday and not a
Wednesday.
A request was forwarded to Fujitsu to check the Information — they had
provided and It was discovered the initial Information supplied was Ihcorrect
and there had been two cases of the base unit being swapped. The base unit
was changed 11/09/2006 and again 25/01/2007.
Examination of the BTS identified the following:
BTS for TPO5 declared an overage of £20,483.48 on 21/09/2006 and also an
overage of £1927.46 on 18/10/2006 TP06. Agent Debt Team have advised
they have no record of these figures.
The BTS produced by Kathleen McAlerney TP10 (Feb 06) to TP10 (Jan 07)
exception TP01, TP08 and TPO09 for the period are not correct trading period
dates eg. BTS TPO07 dates stated on BTS is 18/10/2006 to 22/41/2006 and
6 .
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION, PERSONNEL
POL00074571
POL00074571
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION, PERSONNEL
it was printed 22/14/06. However the correct dates for TPO7 are 05/10/06 to
08/11/06 (Group C).
Conclusions;
This is a small office which receives between £2,000,00 and £4,000.00
weekly and yet has had losses of £15,000.00.
There have been several issues raised during the Investigation.
Katherine McAlerney not producing BTS on scheduled dates and still not
producing them when Chesterfield requested,
Katherine McAlerney not remitting cheques to cash centre until three to four
have gathered up and not producing the evidence when requested by the
Cash Centre. Due to this failure to comply Transaction Corrections were then
raised for the missing cheques. The missing cheques eventually arrived at
the cash centre months later.
There have been problems with the Horizon processing unit and the
information Initially provided by Fujitsu was incorrect .
Katherine McAlerney did not contact anyone in the Post Office regarding the
high amounts of losses and gains as she had reported it to tho Helpdesk.
The etror by Chesterfield of issuing a TC for £30,001.62 Instead of
£3,0001.62 does bring into question if other errors have been made,
Katherine McAlerney is a busy person and the majority of the responsibility of
the Post Office seems to be with Selina Mussan. After several verbal
requests and a written request her address and contact details have not been
received from Eamon Sloan,
A significant number of failings in security and operational processes
have been identifled during this investigation.
* Cheques not remitted to Cash Centre within time scales
« Disregard to Cash Centre requests for evidence of remittances
despatched
« BTS not completed on trading period dates for Group C
7
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION, PERSONNEL
P48
POL00074571
POL00074571
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION, PERSONNEL
e Disregard to requests from Chesterfield to complete on trading
periods for Group C
» ATransaction Correction was issued for £30,001.62 instead of
£3004.62. The error was realised and a compensatory TC was
issued,
The loss to the business is:
Shortage at Audit £2494.94
Outstanding amount previously settled centrally £8092.50
Total Shortage: £10587.44
This amount Is still outstanding.
I recommend this matter be dealt with by the Discipline manager.
Suzanne Winter
Investigator
26/04/07
8
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION, PERSONNEL
POL00074571
POL00074571
Statement Date
08.02.2007
Our Accounting Clerk
Client Account Clerk 1
‘Armount Due This Pariod
£ 32,241.83
be
Outstan ing Debt at 05.01.2007
Doe, Doc, Trans Due Date . Amnt Blocked
Clrg No, Date actn (£)
Balance b ght forward 5,852,29
Less Pay: its Recelved:
No paymt. received in this period,
Sub Tovsl 5,852.29
New Trar-otions:
600032833; 03.01.2007. BD 03.01.2007 2,240,214
610000918g 03.01.2007. TX 03.01.2007 30,001.62 6000332475
Transac +ors due for payment this Period ___ 32,241.83
Total Bloc Transactions: 0.00
Total Ac:. + Belance: 38,094.12
Please sw itis account by 18.01.2007 in one of the following ways:-
* Posting — caeque to this department in the enclosed prepaid envelope
OR
* If you * “+h to pay by debit/credit card ting this department on the number shown,
Key: TY Transaction Correction, DR = Invoice Debt, FA = Pinal Account
RA
+ Remuneration, DZ = Payment, BD = Branch Discrepancy
POL00074571
POL00074571
BS/HC/M00002-4
= 92 March 2011
FAO Mr Joseph Napier
Napier & Sons
Dear Joseph,
Re: Post Office Counters Limited -v- Katherine McAlernoy
I refer to the above matter which is listed for Hearing before the County Court at
Newry on 14 April 2011.
My ctient remains adamant in her instructions that she does not accept the findings-of
your client’s Audit, and that she does not accept that there is an actual shortage of
monies duc fo your client,
In these circumstances J am instructed that she has no proposals to make to your y
client.
Without prejudice to the generality of her position you were quite right in your letter i
of 27 July 2010 when you noted that my client’s position is that the Horizon system H
was not working correctly. In particular my instructions detail both a number of i
incidences prior to the Audit when the computerised system “crashed”, with a Post i
Office Engineer having to attend the premises to carry out works to the system, anda
number of occasions where errors in the overall balance were subsequently
acknowledged and corrected by your client by the provision of credits,
Inote that your client’s List of Documents docs not provide any documentation
relevant to cither of these two issues and I would therefore be obliged if you would
please seek from your client and provide the following specific Discovery:-
1) — Copies of any/all Incident/Diagnostic/Repair Reports/Records pertaining to
difficulties with the Horizon system within Leitrim Post Office from installation to
date of Audit,
P51
2) — All/any records in relation to corrective credits or debits or adjustments to the
overall balance in the period referred to at 1 above. If the reason for stich adjustments
is not clear from such records please provide sufficient information or clarification in
that regard,
[look forward to hearing from you,
Yours faithfully,
EAMON SLOAN
POL00074571
POL00074571
P52
POL00074571
POL00074571
Se RSE Kc sesame
McAlerney M00002-4 Adjournment Application
Newry County Court
Wed 30/03/2011 12:30
Wed 30/03/2011 13:00
(none)
i nded Newry County Court and made an adjournment application to Judge Collins in respect of Post
20; yaters Limited -v- Katherine McAlerey, listed for Hearing on 14 April 2011, Eamon indicated that
i" plication was being made on consent, Eamon explained the nature of the reason for the Adjournment
‘jon to Judge Collins i.e. that the post office needed to investigate further the defendant's assertion that
fis
jignot accept the horizon system computer records and does not accept the reliability of the computer.
ication to be made, ‘The case bas
c ¢ first time the case has been listed and the first adjoumnment appl
‘vigied for hearing on a half day on ‘Tuesday 28 June 2011 at Newry County Court. Judge Collins
that there should be a joint consultation in the interim.
x
PS3
POL00074571
POL00074571
jn/RG/0204700001
9/HC/M00002-4
Web: weevenaplers.com
-Re: Post Office Countess Ltd -v- Katherine McAlerney,
"Ona strictly without prejudice basis and to comply with the amendments to the County Court
Rules we consider it would be appropriate if the parties were to meet: at the High Coutt in Belfast
in the afternoon of 16"/17" June or during week commencing 20" June 2011.
“Tt may well be that no resolution can be found but a meeting would certainly be helpful in
* natrowing the issues and providing an explanation as to the Horizon system and the computation
of the loss and/@yui certainly make the running of the case on 28" June 2011 casicr from
jective...
GRO
. &
: @ 4 . John G Gordon LLB, Brigld Napler LLB Notary Pubic.
oy et Resa a Dents (telCay LLB, Josepth Napler LLB.
Eveston is ecorus
Psu
POL00074571
POL00074571
ae NAPIER & SONS
10 August 2011 Our —__-
Our Ref JN/RG/0204700001
Your Ref; ES/HC/M00002-4
Eamon Sloan
Dear Sits
Re: Post Office Counters Ltd -v- Katherine McAlerney
We refer to the above matter which is listed for heating in Newry County Court on 10" October
2011.
We enclose herewith a simplified statement of debt.
We understand your client’s defence to be effectively that all of the errors were caused by the
Horizon System. We don’t consider that to be tue. We are not saying, and for the sake of doubt
no-one is alleging, that your client in any way benefited from this money, All we are saying is that
our client has sustained a loss,
It is clear from the papers and indeed was conceded by your client during the criminal
investigation that she did not undertake her stock take or balances at the recommended time
intervals. In order to continue trading she “rolled ovex” discrepancies and when she was then
required to balance at the end of the trading period (or be prevented from trading on) those
discrepancies would merge into large “gains” and “losses”.
‘The first two discrepancies in the statement of debt in March 2006 and August 2006 wete in fact
“gains” or a positive figure on yout client’s systetn. Indeed when the Horizon unit was replaced in
September 2006 the only discrepancies that occurted were “gains” in your client’s favour. The
replacement of the Horizon unit did not however correct the problems and deficits arose in
November 2006 and January 2007. ‘Ihe defendant effectively alleges that there was a problem
with two different machines. ‘The plaintiff does not accept that there was a problem with the
machine or the system. Your client’s difficulties would appear to arise from user etror and poor
administration.
It was noted at interview that contrary to guidelines and regulations the defendant allowed her
employee to use the same signing on passwords. It was further conceded that on the face of
requests from Chesterfield for Branch ‘Trading Statements to be produced that the said statements
would be produced when the defendant “got the time”. The defendant advised that overages of
cash were simply put into envelopes and kept at the counter without dates being recorded. There
=
if D) John G Gordon LL.8, Brigid Napier LIB Notary Public = PRB
rane Denis McKay LL.B, Joseph Napler LLB,
DIVESTOR Wi PEOPLE
POL00074571
POL00074571
was a history of delay in provisions of cheques to the Cash Centre and the Post Office Cash
Centre had to regularly contact the defendant in order to request evidence of remitted cheques.
The defendant conceded that at times she would hold cheques awaiting a build up of three or four
before passing them to the Cash Cente.
‘The contemporaneous investigations do appear to show that there was an element of poor
management structure and administration difficulties. The defendant had to be requested on a
numbet of occasions to provide her branch trading and forward remitted cheques. Practices in
selation to signing in and declaring surpluses were not standard.
There is no doubt that there will be difficulty in producing evidence to deal with the early
surpluses and shortages, It is unlikely that the Court will have the time or patience to dissect each
weekly trading petiod to identify the errors. To do so will raise both patties tisks on costs
significantly,
What is however clear is at least two of the debits will be much more easily proved by the plaintiff.
The debit which arose on 22"! November 2006 in the sum of £1,628.56 arose as a result of the fact
that cheques which the defendant had declared as having been teceived on 28" June 2006 never
attived at the Belfast Cash Centre. Leitrim Post Office was spoken to twice about these amounts ‘
but nothing was ever forwarded and no cheques were ever received. OF course when your client
declared the cheques on the system she would have been credited with the amount on the cheques
(£1,628.56) but as the cheques were never received in the Belfast Cash Centre the Post Office
were never able to recover the sum from the paying party. It is our instructions that your client
agteed this error in November 2006 in order to balance the trading period and settled the
hatdship. This is a relatively straight forward “debit” to explain. There is no allegation that your
client benefited from the etror but as you can see it can be demonstrated that ous client’ sustained a
loss. :
Similarly when the final count was conducted on 19" January 2007 significant errors were noted in
cash, stock and postage. ‘These cannot be attributed to failures with the Horizon System, They
were real disctepancies on site. This issue was raised directly with your client at the audit and
Linda Mclaughlin specifically asked the defendant if she physically checked her stock and postage
on completion of her Branch Trading Statement. The defendant teplied that it depended “if she
had the time or not”. ‘This is further evidence of poor administration and account keeping,
The reference to the £30,001.62 error and subsequent correction is, with all due respect, a “red
hetting”, ‘There was simply an input etror on a cheque for £3,001.62. ‘This debit and subsequent
credit correction does not provide an example of the sort of discrepancies and problems with the
Hotizon System which your client is required to substantiate in order to prove that there was a
P56
POL00074571
POL00074571
ptoblem with the system. ur client’s have a very straight forward and simple answer to that
point.
We ate entirely confident that we will prove without any great difficulty the loss of £1,628.56 on
22" November 2006 and the £2,494.94 on 19" January 2007 or in other words in excess of
£4,100.00. ‘The balance claimed on the Civil Bill will, and we are being quite frank about it, be
mote difficult to prove. It will require a very substantial accounting exercise at the court heating. '
It is likely to take at least one full day if not two days. We ate however satisfied that our client’s I
can explain the discrepancy and that the discrepancy does not arise as a result of errors within the
Horizon System. The errors atose because your client was not doing her Branch Trading
Statements on time, was not conducting the business in an appropriate manner and because thete
was no proper process in place for her to provide accurate returns to the Post Office.
On a strictly without prejudice basis we enclose herewith an “Explanation of the Horizon System”
as ptepared by one of our witnesses simply as a way of a witness statement for ourselves. We
waive privilege however as we consider it would be useful for you to have had sight of this
document prior to any joint consultation.
We would welcome a joint consultation either in week commencing 29" August 2011 or 12”
September 2011. The carlier a date is agreed the better.
Again strictly without prejudice we ate prepared, on an economic basis, to recommend a
compromise settlement to our client, Your client is at considerable risk of a judgement being
made in favour of the plaintiff and associated costs which will follow. Our client will incur
significant costs in running this case which they may not necessatily recover from the defendant.
Common sense would dictate that the parties should be exploring an amicable resolution.
We look forwatd to heating from you.
P57
Between:
10/053003
IN THE COUNTY COURT FOR THE DIVISION OF
ARMAGH & SOUTH DOWN
BY THE COUNTY COURT JUDGE
POST OFFICE COUNTERS LIMITED
Plaintiff:
-and-
KATHERINE McALERNEY
Defendant:
The above-named parties hereby agree as follows in full and final settlement of the
above-titled proceedings:
The Plaintiff shall onter judgment against the Defendant in the sum of £5,000
(Five Thousand Pounds) (“the Judgment Sum”) and, for the avoidance of
doubt, the Defendant hereby consents to such judgment,
There shall be no Order as to Costs in these proceedings.
Upon execution of this agreement, the Defendant shall provide to the Plaintiff
a legal charge executed by her over each of:
a, The lands registered at NI Lands Registry under Folio 25972, County
Down; and
b, The lands registered at NI Lands Registry under Folio 19661, County
Down
(together “the Charges”),
‘The Charges are granted by the Defendant to the Plaintiff in consideration of
the settlement of these proceedings and as security. for payment of the
Judgment Sum together with any associated costs of enforcing that judgment
and/or the Charges. The Defendant will ensure that all necessary consents and
approvals are obtained and in place prior to her execution of the Charges,
The Plaintiff agrees not to take any steps to enforce the Judgment or either of
the Charges for a period of two years ftom the date of execution of this
agreement, For the avoidance of doubt, this will not prohibit or prevent the
Plaintiff fom receiving any sums in satisfaction of the Judgment Sum or
pursuant to the Charges by virtue of any enforcement action undertaken by
any other party,
The Plaintiff shall formally consent if requested to do so {o any sale of part of
the lands in Folio 25972 County Down by virtue of which the net sale
POL00074571
POL00074571
P58
POL00074571
POL00074571
proceeds (after payment of any conveyancing and Estate Agent’s costs) are
being paid in full to Bank of Ireland, being the registered owner of the first
charge on that Folio.
7. Both parties shall be at liberty to apply in respect of these terms,
Dated this_JO® dayof Octebst «201 :
P59