POL00180866
POL00180866
From: Susan Crichton[IMCEAEX-
_O=MMS_OU=EXCHANGE+20ADMINISTRATIVE+20GROUP+20+28FY DIBOHF23SPDLT+29
_CN=RECIPIENTS_CN=SUSAN+20CRICHTONC5FA6431-DC28-49AB-8F0F-
BE4237A4AD4F @C72A47.ingest.local]
Sent: Fri 13/07/2012 28 AM (UTC)
To: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Subject: Fw: Notes from today's meeting at Portcullis House
FYI meeting notes from yesterday
From: Ron Warmington
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 10:03 AM
Cc: Simon Baker; Susan Crichton
Subject: Re: Notes from today's meeting at Portcullis House
Superb note Ian. Spot on. Sorry my own note was sparse in comparison. Speak in 30 mins Ron.
Sent from my iPhone
On 13 Jul 2012, at 08:35, "Ian Henderson" wrote:
All
These are my supplemental comments to the note circulated by Ron last night:
Winning the PR battle
We should not underestimate the strength of feeling and anger against the Post Office amongst a
significant number of SPMRs. This has now been picked up by the MPs. We were told "this is the last
chance for the Post Office to deal with this"
It is a "David and Goliath" scenario with the PO having draconian powers and a lack of transparency. I
sensed hints of Article 6 Human Rights Act issues. AB specifically mentioned Clause 12 Section 12
termination which was felt to be particularly draconian. This could result in the complete loss of
goodwill paid for the SPO franchise by SPMRs.
AB and KL both stated SPMR were in fear of the PO and would not willingly report concerns. There was a
feeling that some Area Managers (not sure this is the correct title?) covered up complaints and hid the
true extent of any problems.
Selecting the sample of cases
This is key to the project and needs careful thought. AB and KL suggested inviting SPMRs under whistle
blowing type protection to submit cases direct to Second Sight. They also suggesting reviewing live and
historic help desk and complaints type cases.
Access to information and data
Concern was expressed that the Post Office would not allow Second Sight access to all of the relevant
records and whether the PO record retention policies were adequate. KL mentioned 45 years in some
POL00180866
POL00180866
cases.
System review of Horizon
KL said she had obtained a quote from Navigant of approximately @600,000 for a top down systems
review of Horizon. At the end of the meeting there was broad agreement that this was not appropriate
at the moment and the next step should be a case based investigation.
With best wishes
Ian R Henderson CCE CISA FCA
Advanced Forensics - London, UK
Forensic computing expert witness and electronic disclosure specialist
LinkedIn
Twitter: {
CONFIDENTIALITY. This email and any attachments are confidential and may also be
privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me at
irh GRO and delete the email and any attachments.
From: Ron Warmington
Sent: 12 July 2012 23:25
To: 'Susan Crichton’; 'Simon Baker’
Cc: ‘Ian Henderson’
Subject: Notes from today's meeting at Portcullis House
Susan/Simon/lan:
Sorry this is so late but didn't quite finish the notes on the train home. The meeting was longer than the
previous one... about an hour and a half, maybe more. Bates was affable and easy to deal with. JA is
pretty well ENTIRELY in step with us (and we with him). Kay Linnell was showing off a bit so was very
aggressive for about half an hour... neutral and softening for another... and in step for the last half hour.
You might not like everything that is suggested in the attached notes... but it does all make some sense.
We'll go over it in tomorrow's call.
By the way (this not in the notes). Bates claimed that the Helpline used to be called "The Helpless
Line"... but is nowadays referred to by many as "The Enemy". Like it or not, this sort of stuff must have
a pretty big impact (on MPs and the Press) when rationally articulated by seemingly affable people.
They are giving out a powerful and consistent message that, when a difference (shortfall) emerges (of
course when the week-end or month-end balancing is being done) there is no real help available to
identify the cause of even very large and never-before-encountered errors. The story is that "The Post
Office just doesn't care... it knows that it's entitled to claim its money, whatever happens".
I hope you all get a chance to read this before tomorrow morning's (09:30) call. Simon: you hadn't
copied lan in on the conf call request so I forwarded him the diary appointment and dial-in numbers.
lan: Any errors or mistaken recollection in this email or the notes... just blast out a correction.
Thanks again. Ron.
POL00180866
POL00180866