POL00082391_003
POL00082391_003
aes
MARINE DRIVE INTERVIEW 10 MAY 04
Attendees: Mr Lee Castleton Subpostmaster
Mrs Chrissie Train Post Office assistant
Cath Oglesby RLM
Lesley J Joyce CM
Cath opened the interview by introducing everyone, explained the reasons for
the interview, the roles of those in attendance, read out the charge and said it
was LC’s opportunity to give any explanations or reasons as to why his contract
for services should not be terminated. (LC asked to tape the interview but was
informed he could not but could take notes and be copied these notes)
CO then went on to give a summary of events which led to the suspension of LC
on 23 March 04 due te an unexplained shortage of £25,758.75.
During the 12 weeks prior to audit LC had several large unexplained losses. LC
was suspended as a precautionary measure to try and investigate where the
losses were occurring. CO asked LC if he would allow his premises to be used to
conduct PO services and he agreed.
LC’s thoughts have always been that the Horizon system was to blame for the
shortages so the only thing that was changed in the office was the ‘people’. All
the current staff came out of the office and a temporary Postmaster, Ruth
Simpson, was allowed to run the branch, during the 4 weeks that RS was in place
the cash accounts showed no large losses.
The system did crash on her and was re-booted but this did not affect the
balance. She had problems with the AP card reader but was not allowed to
” change the kit under the circumstances. No problems occurred while remming in
‘ y or with Lottery.
When RS finished Greg was appointed as temp Postmaster, again no problems
with balances or with any of the above.
CO Went on to discuss actions she had taken:-
Horizon-Asked for a system check twice
1-During the time of large losses—--—everything okay
2-During RS time “
3-Asked what upgrades had there been since week 39, the HSH said upgrades
happened all the time, to different offices and they were unable look at
individual offices.
4-All the events on the software system checked back to 1 March 04, no
abnormalities.
Chesterfield
1-Contacted them on a number of occasions regarding any outstanding error
notices
APS-None up to week 3
Lottery small error on prizes
Girobank
Checked all the weeks up to week 02-no issues
POL00082391_003
POL00082391_003
LC Agreed with all of the above. He asked CO what she considered was an acceptable
amount for cash account losses.
CO Said it varied for different office’s but £20 per week was reasonable. CO
opened the discussion to LC to give reasons for the losses.
LC Said that he had not taken any money and that he trusted his staff 100% not to
have taken anything. He said that he had asked for 10 bits of information in the letter
he sent but only received 1 item. He had asked Fujitzu for help and the NBSC and no
one had got back to him, they were not prepared to help. He had spent hours each
night with CT looking at the balances. He said that a remote test would not tum up on
a software check, he understood there were a lot of problems with Horizon and the
system, he had a lot of problems at the office with re-boots etc, so why did this
happen if nothing was wrong with the system. No one would tell him what tests were
done, I don’t know what ‘clear desk top’ means. I have had a lot of e-mails from
Postmasters who have problems with Horizon.
CO Replied that she had only received his letter on the night of wed 5" May
which was only 2 working days prior te the interview and she was working on
getting him the information he requested. She had suggested several things for
him to do in the office such as individual balances and the idea that staff could be
responsible but he would not take any measures or listen to this point of view.
CO then said it would be helpful te go through the individual balances, week by
week methodically and look at the suspense accounts. CO clarified LC
understanding of how the cash account worked with regards to balances and
losses and gains. LC Confirmed he understood.
€O Then goes into detail with balances, error notices, losses etc and the evidence
she has with snapshots and declared cash. (Copies of all this information is
provided with a list of all the results of the balance)
CO Asked LC to clarify if he made the error notices good but he could not
remember. She clarified when the shortages were first put in the c/a. CO stated
that not all the information such as snapshots were provided and LC said they
were probably in the box.
CO refers LC to some of the cash declarations which have been manually altered
or written on, specifically to week 47 and the declaration on 12 Feb 04 which had
a figure of aprox £7000 written on the bottom of the cash declaration. Both LC
and CT looked but although LC said he thought it was CT writing she was not
certain. CO said this was very important as although the c/a for week 46 showed
a loss of £8243.10 the following snapshots and declared cash did not evidence
this. She explains:-
Snapshot at 17.27 on Fri 13 Feb shows you need £92095.36, cash declaration
shows you have £99128.40, a gain of £7033.44.
Sat 14 Feb shows you need £95896.59, cash declaration shows you have
£102706.10, a gain of £6809.51.
Mon 16 Feb snapshot shows you need £77958.28, cash declarations show you
have £84909.54, a gain of £6951.26
Tuesday 17 Feb snapshot shows you need £681 63.08, cash declaration shows you
have £84909.54, a gain of £6776.77
HOWEVER The c/a on wed shows the cash is an exact match for the cash
required on the balance-Where has this surplus gone?
POL00082391_003
POL00082391_003
LC Has no explanation and says it must be something to do with Horizon.
CO Goes on to give other examples where shortages in subsequent weeks do not
then match the snapshot and declaration. (Evidence provided)
CO and LC then have a long discussion about the discrepancies shown on the
snapshot and CO says she will clarify after interview.
CO asks again where the gains which are evident and which are hand written on
the cash declaration could have gone.
LC says he does not know but he has not taken the money.
CO Says that the Horizon system works as a double entry system and everything
she has looked at works through. Originally LC had said that the system was
doing something when the rems were put through but the evidence does not
shows this. She had asked LC to run a snapshot after close of business, input the
..rem and then run another snapshot to see if figures. were altered and asks LC if
he had done this.
LC Says that he did not have time to do this, it had been a nightmare, he feels it is a
computer problem and no-one has helped him. 5 months is a long time to try and
remember what happened and what went on. He mentions other offices that have told -
him about problems with cheque listings and P&A dockets. He said that no-one had
visited from Horizon to look at his problems and balances.
CO Explained that Horizon would not attend his office due to poor balances,
they would need evidence of a problem which he was unable to provide, she also
mentioned that she had given him advice and spent hours and hours on this case
and his cash accounts. She asked LC if he could show her a figure that the
Horizon system had changed which did not make sense or could prove his
allegations.
LC Said no but he did know an office where it had changed a figure on Girobank
although the office did receive corresponding error notices.
CO asked LC to confirm he had not taken the money
LC No. He asks to see the c/a’s for weeks 1,2,3,4 which CO provides to him and says
he can have copies.
CO asks if there is anything else he wants to add.
LC says he would like the explanation on the discrepancies, which CO agrees to
provide.
CO told LC that she was still waiting for a response from Horizon regarding the
checks on the software.As soon as they were available she would let him know
the out come.
CO Ends the interview by thanking those in attendance.