POLO0086615
POL00086615
Message
From: Jessica Madron [jessica.madrot
on behalf of — Jessica Madron <jessica.madrot Gessica.madroni”
Sent: 05/04/2013 14:51:59
To: Jacqueline Whitham [jacqueline.whitha
Subject: FW: Agent's Debt.
Jacqueline
For info
Kind Regards
Jessica Madron
Principal Lawyer
Legal & Compliance
My working days are Tuesday to Friday.
iC) 148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V S9HQ
ee
we
@ Jessica.madron
eo www.postoffice.co.uk
© @postofficenews
From: Paul Inwood
Sent: 05 April 2013 15:47
To: Ravi Chauhan; Jessica Madron
Subject: RE: Agent's Debt
Great, ll leave it to you to make that minor adjustment Ravi, thanks.
From: Ravi Chauhan
Sent: 05 April 2013 15:00
To: Paul Inwood; Jessica Madron
Subject: RE: Agent's Debt
Hi Paul
Yes I can confirm this is covered off in the in service debt policy. May be it needs to further state that we have the right
to recover 100% of the debt so as to not confuse with the approach where the POL is recovering in service debt whilst
the agent is still in service.
Completely agree with all views outlayed below.
Ravi
Kind regards
Ravi Chauhan I Contracts and Policy Advisor
POL-0083673
POLO0086615
POL00086615
eo sm a
1* Floor Bunhill Row Wing, et, London, ECLY 9HQ
MS Old
ravi.chauhan¢
postoffice.co.uk
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
From: Paul Inwood
Sent: 05 April 2013 14:35
lessica Madron
ce Ravi Chauhan
Subject: RE: Agent's Debt
Jessica,
Your points are all correct and the contract advisor is incorrect. I believe he or she is confusing how we recover in-
service debts from an agent with how we should recover from a leaver at their final pay day.
The very fact that any leaver would object to POL using equitable set-off on 100% of their remuneration would indicate
that they may not have intended to repay the debt. Any consideration re agent cash flow should not survive the
contract, and the agent should be planning to manage their cash flow thereafter, taking into consideration any set-off.
Ravi ~ remind me please, is this type of circumstance covered in your policy work on debt, if not can you put something
in there to clear this one up please, many thanks?
Regards,
Paul.
From: Jessica Madron
Sent: 05 April 2013 12:42
To: Paul Inwood
Subject: FW: Agent's Debt
Paul
Do you have any thoughts on this email chain please?
Many thanks
Kind Regards
Jessica Madron
Principal Lawyer
Legal & Compliance
My working days are Tuesday to Friday.
© 148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ
KS
YS
POL-0083673
POLO0086615
POL00086615
©
eS Jessica.madron@
& www.postoffice.co.uk
From: Jessica Madron
Sent: 05 April 2013 11:11
To: Jacqueline Whitham
Subject: RE: Agent's Debt
Jacqueline
Vm not sure if I agree that this is “quite wrong” ~ where we set off a subpostmaster’s contractual debt against his
contractual remuneration we rely on the equitable right of set off, rather than a contractual right. In terms of how much
you can deduct in one go, there isn’t a legal reason for limiting this but as a matter of policy we have not taken more
than a certain percentage ~ mainly because we don’t want to jeopardise the subpostmaster’s solvency and viability.
Where a subpostmaster is leaving, POL may want to consider increasing this percentage to up to 100% of the final
remuneration to ensure that we can recover as much as possible of the debt. However, there may be PR implications in
doing this which you need to take into account. it is also possible that taking a larger percentage of the final
remuneration could still push the leaving subpmr into insolvency, and if it then turns out that the debt was not actually
due to POL there could be a claim in damages against POL.
Many thanks
Kind Regards
Jessica Madron
Principal Lawyer
Legal & Compliance
My working days are Tuesday to Friday.
148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V SHQ
GRO ceed
Jessica.madroné
www.postoffice.co.uk
@postofficenews
From: Jacqueline Whitham
Sent: 05 April 2013 10:19
To: Jessica Madron
Subject: Agent's Debt
POL-0083673
POLO0086615
POL00086615
Dear Jessica
I wondered if I could ask you a quick legal question regarding Current Agent Debt? This is debt that
operators/agents/subpostmasters settle centrally in the branches which the Current Agent Debt Team in Chesterfield
chase up.
Historically if a branch is due to leave and they have outstanding debt settled centrally we have on occasion (depending
on the day in the month) contacted HR and requested that they withhold all the remuneration due to the agent which
we offset against the outstanding debt.
After a recent conversation with a Contract Advisor I was told that this should not happen and we were quite wrong to
do this and leave the agent with no remuneration for the month that they were leaving in.
I just wondered if you would clarify our legal position on this? I suppose I am talking about the outstanding debt being
larger than the agent remuneration amount due so there would still be an outstanding debt amount which would
transfer to the Former Agent Team to chase.
I shall be out most of this morning but if you would like to discuss further I will be at my desk most of the afternoon.
Jackie Whitham — Finance Roadmap — CFS
Ground Floor West, No 1 Future W
Chesterfield, Derbyshire, S49 1PF
Jacqueline.whithar
POL-0083673