POLO0098151
POL00098151
Message
From: Andrew Winn‘.
Sent: 03/05/2013 15:
To: Chambers Anne O [
Subject: RE: Local suspense POL 238 - explanation
Thanks Anne. I can see I was using the wrong signage on Willen. Not sure about the make good cheque scenario as this
was impacting our Customer Account.
The other few I worked through were looking clean
Vm running out of time now and not back in till Wednesday when I will have a proper look.
lintend this to go through our solicitors before it gets sent out.
Have a good weekend.
Andy
From: Chambers Anne
Sent: 03 May 2013 13:04
To: Andrew Winn
Cc: SSC Duty Manager
Subject: RE: Local suspense POL 238 - explanation
Hi Andy,
V’'ve had a look at your spreadsheet for Willen. I think the figures for the balance on 6/2/2013 do add up ~ the total
‘Declaration Discrepancy’ equals -£39.57 {a loss}, then add on the carried forward loss of -£9,799.88, and you get a loss
of -£9,839.45 — which matches what they cleared from LS,
And for Lower Regent Street:
I don’t understand why the clearance from LS on 8/12/2010 wasn’t for the full amount. I can’t find any old calls relating
to this. I guess they had to create (and then delete} a correctional stock unit to clear the remaining £3.34.
There was a problem at the time, not fixed until Jan 2011, where if they chose ‘Make Good Cheque’ it actually Settled
Centrally — I think this is probably what happened on 9/12/2010.
’'ve made a few possible changes to both letters which hopefully make the cause and scope of the problem clearer.
Tried to phone you, because Gareth Jenkins mentioned that this problem is still being discussed at a high level as part of
the ongoing investigations / checks into Horizon, and I would hate anything I have put here to compromise that ~ I don’t
see why it should but just wanted to flag it. I assume anything going out to the branches will be reviewed in the light of
that.
Out now for an hour or so but happy to discuss further if required.
Anne
‘Anne Chambers
Systems Support Centre, Post Office Account
Fujitsu
Lov
Tel:
POL-0097734
POLO0098151
POL00098151
From: Andrew Winn:
Sent: 02 May 2013 15:43
To: Chambers Anne O
Subject: RE: Local suspense POL 238 - explanation
Hi Anne
Thanks for this. ’ve taken a deep breath and tried to confirm the actual impact on branches and prepare our
communications to them.
Can you have a look at my first draft to see if I have simplified and condensed what happened without losing meaning or
key detail? Appreciate you will not be able to comment on what the branch or FSC has subsequently done.
I've had a right problem with the first 2 non crowns I've looked at. For Willen I cannot reconcile the actual loss declared
against the branch trading loss on 6/2/13with the non-archived (£9,799.88) amount ~ although it adds up the previous
year.
For Lower Regents Street the reconciliation works fine but I can then see the non-archived value(£3.34) being settled
centrally on 9/2/10 some 2 days after they cleared the full branch trading loss. Whilst it is possible the branch did not
actually roil till then, the value should not have qualified to have been settled centrally and has not flowed through to
our Customer Account.
Any thoughts?
And
From: Chambers Anne O
Sent: 14 March 2013 12:1
To: Andrew Winn; Helen Love; Duty Manager
Cc: Bansal Steve (BRAO1); SSC Duty Manager; Parker Steve (PostOfficeAccount); Jenkins Gareth GI
Subject: Local suspense POL 238 - explanation
Andrew,
As requested, a full explanation of the problem. I have also attached a spreadsheet that shows whether the original local
suspense item was a loss or a gain, or a clearance of loss or gain, and also a timeline of a hypothetical example which
may make the explanation easier to follow. I didn’t use a genuine example because I couldn’t be fully accurate about the
dates.
The problem only affected branches that
a) Were in TP 9 2010 by 10-Dec-2010
b) Deleted a stock unit while in TP 9 or later, on or before 10-Dec-2010
c) That stock unit had either transferred or resolved a discrepancy at the end of TP 8 or 9
d) Had not rolled into TP 4 2011 by 03-Jul-2011
The root cause was the archiving strategy used to remove old data from various database tables.
e Old archiving strategy, as introduced Oct 2010, was meant to archive records, in various tables including
BRDB_RX_BTS_DATA, belonging to all but the last three TPs. However it did not work as intended for deleted
stock units, which (April 2011) caused a data centre problem with a different table, with no impact on branches.
POL-0097734
POLO0098151
POL00098151
Hence the strategy was simplified and changed generally — but the potential risk of our current problem was not
anticipated.
e New archiving strategy introduced 03-Jul-2011, which immediately archived records older than 62 days
belonging to logically deleted stock units, so the problem no longer occurs.
Anote on stock unit deletion:
e When a stock unit is deleted, initially it is logically deleted, by setting a flag in the stock unit record. After 205
days the stock unit record is removed completely from the database (physically deleted)
The following section assumes the problem data belongs to TP 9 — true for all except branch 011458, that the stock unit
was deleted in TP 9 and that there was a single LS record for that stock unit. I have had to infer many of the dates and
cannot prove it all ties in — I would need a set of Branch Trading Statements to do this.
e Astock unit had, at the end of TP 8 2010, written a loss or gain to Local Suspense(LS), or been used to clear LS.
The attached spreadsheet shows what happened at each branch. An LS record was written into table
BRDB_RX_BTS_DATA, carried forward into TP 9. Over all the stock units in the branch, these LS records would
have netted to zero, and this is all ‘business as usual’.
e — This stock unit was logically deleted in TP 9 before 11-Dec-2010
e Under old archiving strategy, the LS record belonging to the stock unit was not eligible for archiving until the
branch was in TP 4 2011 i.e. probably sometime after 23-Jun-2011.
e = 205 days after the stock unit was logically deleted, it was permanently deleted. If this was before the branch
had been rolled into TP 4 2011, the LS record belonging to the deleted stock unit was orphaned, and would
never be archived.
e@ — End of TP 8 2011: the old TP 9 2010 LS record was picked up, along with genuine LS data for 2011, during TP 8
BTS production, though there was no visible impact on the TP 8 BTS or balance. The non-zero LS balance was
converted during branch rollover, to prod 6295 Gain to Local Suspense (sign could be positive or negative), and
written as an opening figure for TP 9, stock unit DEF.
(I think we should consider raising an event if this happens since it is indicative of a system error).
e — End of TP 9 2011: the opening figure was included when the amount to be cleared from Local Suspense was
calculated, when the last stock unit was rolled over, so the branch was forced to clear it.
e This shows up on the TP 9 BTS, since the Discrepancy Transferred lines don’t equal Discrepancy Resolved (/ said
on the conf call that this shows just on the BTS Branch figures, not the stock unit; I was wrong, the stock unit in
which LS was cleared will show the additional amount that had to be cleared).
© And the same happened in TP8/9 2012.
Happy to try to answer any further questions!
Regards,
Anne.
POL-0097734
POLO0098151
POL00098151
Anne Chambers
Systems Support Centre, Post Office Account
Unless otherwise stated, this email has been sent from Fujitsu Services Limited, from Fujitsu (FTS) Limited, or
from Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, together "Fujitsu".
This email is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may
be privileged. Fujitsu does not guarantee that this email has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-
free.
Fujitsu Services Limited, registered in England No 96056, registered office 22 Baker Street, London W1U
3BW.
Fujitsu (FTS) Limited, registered in England No 03808613, registered office 22 Baker Street, London W1U
3BW.
PFU Imaging Solutions Europe Limited, registered in England No 1578652, registered office Hayes Park
Central, Hayes End Road, Hayes, Middlesex, UB4 8FE.
Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, registered in England No 2548187, registered office Solihull
Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, Birmingham, B37 7YU.
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 by reply email and then delete this email from your system. Any views or opinions
expressed within this email are solely those of the sender, unless otherwise specifically stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: 148 OLD STREET,
LONDON EC1V 9HQ.
JOH EI OO ISO DO IO HOD AIO SOO IOI SIO SOD III SOI IOI I AISA IOI I AIK
Unless otherwise stated, this email has been sent from Fujitsu Services Limited, from Fujitsu (FTS) Limited, or
from Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, together "Fujitsu".
This email is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may
be privileged. Fujitsu does not guarantee that this email has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-
free.
Fujitsu Services Limited, registered in England No 96056, registered office 22 Baker Street, London W1U
3BW.
POL-0097734
POLO0098151
POL00098151
Fujitsu (FTS) Limited, registered in England No 03808613, registered office 22 Baker Street, London W1U.
3BW.
PFU Imaging Solutions Europe Limited, registered in England No 1578652, registered office Hayes Park
Central, Hayes End Road, Hayes, Middlesex, UB4 8FE.
Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, registered in England No 2548187, registered office Solihull
Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, Birmingham, B37 7YU.
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 by reply email and then delete this email from your system. Any views or opinions
expressed within this email are solely those of the sender, unless otherwise specifically stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: 148 OLD STREET,
LONDON EC1V 9HQ.
POL-0097734