POL00107712
POL00107712
Message
From: Susan Crichton [IMCEAEX-
__O=MMS_OU=EXCHANGE+20ADMINISTRATIVE+20GROUP+20+28FYDIBOHF23SPDLT+29_CN=RECIPIENTS_CN=SUSAN+20CRICHTONCE
DC28-49AB-8FOF-BE423 7A4AD4F @C72A47.ingest.local]
on Susan Crichton <IMCEAEX-
behalf _O=MMS_OU=EXCHANGE+20ADMINISTRATIVE+20GROUP+20+28FYDIBOHF23SPDLT+29_CN=RECIPIENTS_CN=SUSAN+20CRICHTONCS
of DC28-49AB-8FOF-BE423 7A4AD4F @C72A47.ingest.local> [IMCEAEX-
_O=MMS_OU=EXCHANGE+20ADMINISTRATIVE+20GROUP+20+28FYDIBOHF23SPDLT+29_CN=RECIPIENTS_CN=SUSAN+20CRICHTONCE
DC28-49AB-8FOF-BE4237A4AD4F @C72A47.ingest.local]
Sent:
To: — Alwen Lyons! 1; Theresa lles !
Subject:Re: PRINTED RE: Oliver Letwin IN CONFIDANCE
Alwen - its ok am sorting ..
From: Alwen Lyons
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 01:25 PM
To: Susan Crichton; Theresa Iles
Subject: Re: PRINTED RE: Oliver Letwin IN CONFIDANCE
According to the tearn yesterday it has gone but she doesn't know yet. I also send through a piece from rod explaining
what he had seen happen in the case. Paula got this too
Thanks Alwen
Sent from Blackberry
From: Susan Crichton
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 12:59 PM
To: Theresa Iles
Cc: Alwen Lyons
Subject: Re: PRINTED RE: Oliver Letwin IN CONFIDANCE
Let me check with the team
From: Theresa Iles
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 12:57 PM
To: Susan Crichton
Cc: Alwen Lyons
Subject: RE: PRINTED RE: Oliver Letwin IN CONFIDANCE
Susan
Paula has said you mentioned that this had gone to prosecution and she needs to know if this is the case before she
sends the letter to Oliver Letwin. I believe Alwen was checking but Paula has heard back.
Thanks
Theresa
From: Alwen Lyons
Sent: 12 April 2012 18:08
To: Rod Ismay; Paula Vennells; Susan Crichton
Subject: PRINTED RE: Oliver Letwin IN CONFIDANCE
POL-0110810
POL00107712
POL00107712
Thanks Rod
Paula/Susan please see Rod's email below as background to the Oliver Letwin case
Alwen Lyons
Company Secretary.
Post Office Ltd
148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V SHO
From: Rod Ismay
Sent: 12 April 2012 17:52
To: Alwen Lyons
Subject: RE: Oliver Letwin IN CONFIDANCE
Alwen
I am presently unable to confirm whether this case is undergoing Prosecution, however, I set out below a short overview
of the facts as we understand them.
Miss Merritt ran Yetminster branch and an Outreach branch. She had a trend of balancing issues at both branches which
ultimately led to audit.
At the audit, Miss Merrit offered the auditor a cheque for £9,500 before the audit commenced, explaining that she had
removed cash of that value the previous night after declaring her cash balance on Horizon. She said she had meant to
put the cheque through Horizon the night before but hadn't done so. She indicated that she had needed the money for
"something personal" at home and had been unable to get to her bank. She thought she was allowed to use Post Office
cash as a cheque had been put in to cover it. She told the auditor to expect to find a shortage of £9,500 and indeed they
did.
A further shortage of £3,500 was also found at her outreach branch.
The cheque for £9,500 bounced but has subsequently been repaid. Post Office continues to seek recovery of the £3,500
and presently is receiving £1 a month.
In Miss Merritt's handwritten letter of 21 October 2011 she suggests she had a £2,000 deficit in February and that
following guidance from the helpdesk this doubled to £4,000. We have reviewed balancing records in Credence (a copy
of events in Horizon) and we cannot see such values in that period. We have also reviewed a copy of the Helpdesk call
log and there is no event like this recorded in that log around that time.
Miss Merritt, and the auditors report, refer to a lack of branch to branch remittance bar code labels to facilitate transferring
cash between her branches, nevertheless the fact is both branches were short at audit regardless of whether there was a
bar code issue.
Miss Merritt has said she felt singled out unfairly for audit when nearby branches are not performing. Post Office's
rationale for performing an audit of her branch was based on her balancing history and appears vindicated in the
discovery of cash shortages.
Mr Letwin has referred to Miss Merritt quoting transactions being done after she had been excluded from the
system. There is no evidence of this of the nature she alleges, however, events that would have been done are the
balance following audit and the remittance of the remaining cash back to the cash centre.
Happy to assist with any further questions. I am off tomorrow (Friday) but am in 148 on Monday.
Thanks, Rod
POL-0110810
POL00107712
POL00107712
Rod Ismay
Head of Product & Branch Accounting, Finance, Post Office Ltd
No.4 Futura M/alk, West Bars, Chesterfield, S49 1PF
GRO } with divert to mobile
Sent: 11 April 2012 10:20
To: Rod Ismay
Cc: Lesley J Sewell; Susan Crichton; Glenda C Hansen
Subject: FW: Oliver Letwin IN CONFIDANCE
Rod
Can we have the file on this office as well. I will ask Glenda to organise an urgent meeting with the 4 of us to go through
both files to see if there are similarities. If Oliver and James are coming it would e great to be able to look at the key
strokes which caused this and explain why they happened
Thanks
Alwen
Alwen Lyons
Company Secretary
Post Office Ltd
148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ
From: Theresa Iles
Sent: 10 April 2012 14:27
To: Susan Crichton; Alwen Lyons; Lesley J Sewell
Cc: Martin Moran
Subject: FW: Oliver Letwin
Ooops! And the attachment Paula wanted to send always helps.
Theresa
From: Theresa Iles On Behalf Of Paula Vennells
Sent: 10 April 2012 14:26
To: Susan Crichton; Alwen Lyons; Lesley J Sewell
Cc: Martin Moran
Subject: Oliver Letwin
Susan/Alwen/Lesley
When James Arbuthnot comes in, can we get Oliver Letwin there as well, rather than schedule in twice.
PS Martin: I’ve copied you in because, if we're getting James and Oliver into the office, clearly it would be an opportunity
to widen this to include a Front Office presentation as well.
Regards
Paula
POL-0110810
POL00107712
POL00107712
POL-0110810