POL00118236
POL00118236
Clare Wardle To: John D Cole/e/POSTOFFIC!
ce:
19/05/2004 09:40 Subject: Cleveleys MSPO Mrs J. Wolstenholme
Below is a resume of the case so far.
Regards
Clare
Mandy Talbot To: Clare Wardle/e/POSTOFFIC
18/05/2004 17:45 cc:
Subject: Cleveleys MSPO Mrs J. Wolstenholme
Mandy Talbot
‘oyal Mail Legal Services
Impact House
2 Edridge Road
CROYDON CR9 1PJ
GRO
Jim Cruise To: Mandy Talbot/e/POSTOFFIC!
: cc:
TA cote Subject: Cleveleys MSPO Mrs J. Wolstenholme
This case started back 0n17/1/01 with an email query from the then Personnel Dept. in Leeds about
the above office when the spm 's contract was suspended on 30/11/00 as there were a large number
of error notices and losses and gains. At that time the losses were £14K and the spm was refusing to
make them good blaming the losses on the Horizon system which had been introduced in February
2000 at her office.
She was given 3 months notice and her remuneration for the 3 months came to about £19,300 which
was set against losses. An attempt was made to instal a temporary spm at the premises but
negotiatons eventually broke down but Mrs W. had by then made a claim for rent for POL equipment
remaining at the premises after 30/11/00. The claim was not accepted as it was felt to be in both side's
interests for the equipment to stay while there was a chance of a temporary spm being installed.
On 7/2/01 the spm's partner, Roger Harrison, asked if ICL could look at the computer system as he
believed that there were problems with it. On 23/2/01,R.H refused to allow the safes and Horizon
equipment to be removed from the PO which POL wished to do as the claim for rent had been made.
The refusal was because of the dispute with POL. Mrs W. asked for proof that the losses were her
fault and caused by computer failure. She also asked for copies of all error notices but Chesterfield
said that these were not available.
On 27/2/01 I advised Elaine Tagg, the RLM, that because of the allegation of computer failure the
printouts should be obtained from the National Audit Team showing a full audit trail at this PO. On
28/2/01 Elaine Tagg told me that she had the call logs for the office.
On 12/3/01 I wrote to Mrs W. with a letter before action over the unlawfully detained goods at the PO.
On 19/4/01 proceedings were issued for delivery up of POL's goods.By this time Mrs W. had made an
Employment Tribunal application for unfair dismissal and reinstatement. A Defence and Counterclaim
were received and the case was passed to Weightmans on 13/6/01 as the case had been transferred
to Blackpool County Court.
POL00118236
POL00118236
The Def. & cc has been drafted by Counsel but the defence is based upon Mrs W. being an employee.
The cc is that the contract was wrongly terminated ; that the computer system was unfit for its purpose
and throws in the Human Rights Act and the Commercial Agents regs! It claims £82.5K for loss of
“ingoing"; loss of earnings from Nov.2000 onwards @ £5,300 per month etc. A reply and defence to
the cc has been entered. The P's of Claim were later amended to claim losses of £25,034.04 as well.
Disclosure has been made and statements exchanged.
In August 2002 an M.P.'s letter was received and replied to by David Mills. Mrs W. took her
employment case to the Appeal Tribunal but was not successful there in December 2002. The civil
proceedings were stayed while the EAT matter was finalised.
On 23/1/03 Mrs W.'s solicitors asked for the error notices from Feb.2000 to Nov 2000 together with
the computer logs for June 2000 to Nov. 2000.There was also a query about whether the losses had
been set against the remuneration due to her.
ACWMC was then held in Feb 2003 at which an order was made to instruct a single joint expert in the
field of computer techology on the issue of liability and causation with the fees to be shared by both
parties. Mrs W. was now a litigant in person and has been so since then. Mrs W. at that time had call
logs from Feb. to June 2000 and was claiming that "Horizon" were refusing to provide copies of logs
from June to Nov. 2000.She also claimed to be on income support with no assets.
It was confirmed at this point that there were no copies of error notices or entries in the suspense a/c
for this office. The agents expressed their concern at the lack of documentation for the losses. I
advised FSA that the case should settle with the remuneration due being set against the losses and
the balance of just over £5k being written off with Mrs W. to surrender the equipment. She declined to
settle saying the losses were not accepted as her fault but let POL remove all the equipment other
than the computer equipment.
POL then agreed to offer her up to £5K to settle. This sum was paid into court in July 2003 but has
not been accepted. Since then the report of the computer expert ,Best Practice plc, based on the
available call logs has been received and as you are aware is unfavourable and unflattering to Fujitsu
if not actually hostile. In the light of the report, which cannot really be challenged, I do not think that
POL will be able to prove, even on the balance of probabilities that the losses were the fault of the spm.
and our agents are still concerned about the lack of evidence for the losses. They want to obtain
Counsel's opinion on liability and quantum and the question of mediation has now been raised at the
recent CMC.
At court Mrs W. said that she would settle for two and a half times her annual remuneration , a total
figure in the region of £187,500, as this is the figure being paid to spm's when offices are closed. POL
clearly cannot settle on the basis of such a sum but the question of further questions to the expert has
been raised and I can only see further costs being run up in this case with very little chance of POL
getting its money even it it proves its case. I intend therefore to advise that POL should pay Mrs W. or
pay into court the figure of 3 months remuneration plus interest on the basis that although it is unlikely
that POL can now prove the losses were her fault alone, as per the contract for services, POL can
give 3 months notice without giving reasons and this is all she will be able to obtain by way of
damages in any event if she takes the matter to trial. The payment-in should be of another £20,000 to
take account of interest since November 2000. If it is not accepted the case will have to be fought to
resist the counterclaim which cannot be accepted but costs should be cut by accepting the expert's
report and not seeking to challenge it further and effectively not pursuing the losses and paying her the
full remuneration for the 3 month notice period on the basis that this is all she will obtain by way of
damages after a full trial.