POL00298740
POL00298740
From: Gayle A Peacock[/O=MMS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=GAYLE.LAVERICKFCEDA6B5-600A-4081-8015-
FD958C8E2BB5]
Sent: Wed 28/08/2013 4:22:39 AM (UTC)
To: Angela Van-Den-Boger
Subject: FW: Mail Segregation - McCormack
Hi Angela
This is the e-mail from Richard which also includes the various drafts to Kevin regarding Mr McCormack.
Thanks
Gayle
Gayle Peacock I Network Conformance, Standards and Policy Manager
landards Team, 2"™ Floor, The Markets, 6-16 New York Street, Leeds, LS2 7DZ
From: Richard R Weaver
Sent: 27 August 2013 17:02
To: Jackie Meylak
Cc: Gayle A Peacock; Michael Larkin
Subject: RE: Mail Segregation - McCormack
Hi Jackie
’ve shortened this but hopefully not lost any of the context. See what you think.
Thanks, Richard
Hi Tim
Thanks very much for your email and for highlighting the issues you are finding with mails segregation. I’m
pleased to say that we are addressing many of the points you refer to and I’m happy to update you here.
Segregating the mail in branches is very important as it helps Royal Mail sort the mail quickly and efficiently -
and therefore give a better service to customers. It’s also part of our contract with Royal Mail which means
penalties if we’re not performing consistently. That’s why we need to monitor performance.
I take on board your comments about the mails segregation part of the scorecard you receive in Branch
Focus. We've been working to improve this and will soon be able to show, for each branch, performance
against each bag type sampled and where necessary include specific guidance on how improvements can
be made. It would be good to get your input on this and a member of my team will be in touch shortly to
ask for your views.
Work’s also underway to try and simplify mail segregation standards - to make it easier to do in branch
without compromising Royal Mail’s operation. A project team from Royal Mail and the Post Office has been
POL00298740
POL00298740
working with a number of branches in Southampton and London to develop a more logical approach and
this is uncovering some opportunities. A trial’s now underway and if it proves successful we'll be looking at
rolling out across the network.
I note your comments on Branch Focus and have passed them on to the Communications Team. Branch
Focus includes important information for subpostmasters and their teams and we need to make sure it’s
accurate and error free. The team will be working hard to ensure this is the case.
Thanks one again for your email Tim. I do appreciate the feedback and hope that you will see
improvements in the areas you’ve highlighted.
Regards, Kevin
Richard Weaver I Network Communications Manager
148 Old Street, London, EC1V 9HQ
GRO
/
From: Jackie Meylak
Sent: 23 August 2013 10:50
To: Richard R Weaver
Cc: Gayle A Peacock; Michael Larkin
Subject: FW: Mail Segregation - McCormack
Hi Richard,
Please see the email trail below. Can you assist in tweaking this letter as Kevin requests?
Many thanks
Jackie Meylak I PA to Kevin Gilliland, Network and Sales Director
4
From: Kevin Gilliland
Sent: 23 August 2013 10:01
To: Jackie Meylak
Subject: Re: Mail Segregation - McCormack
Thx. It's still too formal and long. It needs to be more personal and empathetic.
Can you ask Richard Weaver to have a look at it please.
Thx
K
Sent from my iPhone .
On 23 Aug 2013, at 09:44, “Jackie Meylak” ¢_
POL00298740
POL00298740
Hi
Gayle’s re-draft as requested.
Jackie Meylak I PA to Kevin Gilliland, Network and Sales Director
<image001.png>
: 48 Floor — Bunhill Row Wing, 148 Old Street, London, EC1V 9HQ.
Postling™
<image005 jpg>
From: Gayle A Peacock
Sent: 23 August 2013 09:38
To: Jackie Meylak; Craig Tuthill; Michael Larkin
Cc: Alexander Todd
Subject: RE: Mail Segregation
Hi Jackie
Please let me know if this works better.
Dear Mr McCormack
Thank you for your e-mail regarding the information you and your wife receive about the
mail segregation performance for your branch, and your comments about branchfocus.
With regards to why Post Office are spending money on monitoring branch performance
on mail segregation, you will be aware that we have a contractual obligation with our
largest client, Royal Mail, to ensure that all branches present the mail in accordance with
the segregation standards. This is important not only to them but also to us because
following the standards means that the mail gets processed as quickly and efficiently as
possible in the mail centre, which is key to delivering excellent customer service.
Therefore we need to continue to monitor our performance against this contract to make
sure we deliver on those customer promises and avoid the significant financial penalties
associated with not meeting the contractual requirements.
A key part of monitoring performance is letting branches know how they are doing
against the standards. We decided to use the branchfocus medium to communicate
performance for a number of reasons. It is a channel that reaches every branch, bespoke
messages can be sent to individual branches and we do not incur any extra cost with
our supplier for adding in the branch standards scorecard. However, we do accept that
this can be improved and we are in the process of improving the detail and the
presentation of the information. The revised scorecard which we hope to implement from
October will show branches there performance against each bag type sampled and will
include specific comments about how improvements can be made. We would like to gain
your feedback about this before it is agreed and a member of my team will be in touch
with you to get your thoughts.
We do acknowledge that the segregation standards could be simplified and the
management information provided by Royal Mail needs to outline the details of the
errors, so we can identify how we can improve. Both Post Office and Royal Mail
POL00298740
POL00298740
recognise there is room for improvement and a specific project team was established a
couple of months ago to address these concerns. The team have reviewed the standards
and worked with a number of branches and the Royal Mail operation to identify how the
full end to end process can be improved. This has resulted in the solution being piloted
in a number of branches in the Southampton and London areas and working closely with
the Revenue Protection Teams who conduct the sampling within Royal Mail to see what
changes can be made. The initial results have identified that branches are confused
about handle free-post items and a more logical approach would be to segregate by
format first and then by product. We have also identified a more effective way of
recording the sampling results. The trial is continuing for a few more weeks in order for
us to be completely confident that these changes would deliver benefits to our branches
and result in us meeting our contractual agreement. Once the trial is concluded we will
be working through how the approach can be deployed within Post Office and Royal
Mail.
1am sorry that you have a number of concerns regarding Branch Focus. This is one of
the main communication channels we have with our branches and I am disappointed to
learn of the issues you have with it. I can confirm that mail segregation will not be
referred to as mail segmentation and this has been corrected. I have also expressed your
concerns to the Communications Team about the spelling mistakes and the fact you
have to cut out the currency images. I am sure that there is a better way of presenting
this information. We are also undertaking a lot of work at the moment to review how we
communicate and engage with our subpostmasters and I will ensure that your feedback
is incorporated into this activity. (Michael??) will be in contact with you to discuss how
we can get you more involved in this review.
Thank you for providing such open and honest feedback.
Michael,
Please can you confirm whether you are ringing him?
Jackie
Please can you let me know if this works and if so, can you send me and Alex the final version
as Alex will contact Tim about the scorecard.
Thanks
Gayle
Gayle Peacock I Network Conformance, Standards and Policy Manager
<image001.png>
clo Branch Standards Team, 2" Floor, The Markets, 6-16 New York Street, Leeds, LS2 7DZ
} Mobe;
From: Jackie Meylak
Sent: 22 August 2013 15:23
To: Gayle A Peacock; Craig Tuthill; Michael Larkin
Subject: RE: Mail Segregation
POL00298740
POL00298740
Importance: High
Hi Gayle
Kevin would like you to involve Michael (and whoever is covering for Drew ?) - he would like
one of them to speak to Tim, let him know what we are doing and seek his views - we might
have missed something.
Can you please let Kevin have another draft reply that fully addresses each specific point that
Tim has raised - by lunchtime tomorrow please?
Many thanks for your help.
J
Jackie Meylak I PA to Kevin Gilliland, Network and Sales Director
<image001.png>
1* Floor — Bunhill Row Wing, 148 Old Street, London, EC1V SHQ
GRO I pcs’ GRO
image0O5 jpg
From: Gayle A Peacock
Sent: 19 August 2013 21:07
To: Jackie Meylak; Craig Tuthill; Michael Larkin
Subject: RE: Mail Segregation
Hi Jackie
I’ve had a look at Kevin’s comments and have the additional bits of information.
Yes — branch focus was inaccurate. It did refer to segregation as segmentation. This has now
been changed with the data team and the revised information has been sent to the
communications team. My view is that the communications team are responsible for proof
reading the copy so the action from this letter was to make them aware of the complaint to
improve their checks.
The review for the way we communicate and engage with our agents is on the back of the
public commitment Paula gave following the publishing of the Second Sight report and the
concern that we do not train and support people as well as we could. I was particularly vague
here as I didn’t know how much Kevin wanted to make this project public at this stage — I’m just
concerned that we over promise and don’t deliver what people want. We are very much in the
early stages and don’t know specifically how we are going to address the communications
issue. We are in the process of getting agent feedback from the NFSP and directly from
branches with the support of the RSMs and ASMs. However, I don’t have an issue with us
contacting him to get more specific ideas.
With reference to the segregation review, this was conducted around two specific areas —
Southampton and London with involvement from Crowns, WHSmiths, Southern Co-op for
agency branches and the mail centres. It involved two weeks of intensive sampling by Royal
mail for the branches involved. The pilot identified that the issues branches were having were
predominantly around freepost items which was confirmed in the sampling results, which will
be clarified for further roll-out. It also fixed the issue of branches not being clear about what the
errors were and confusion regarding international items. We are working to really tight
timescales to get this no signed off and deployed and I just have a concern over now bringing
in someone else’s views which may not add that much that we haven’t learned by working with
the branches in the pilot. During the pilot we have also involved the branches with Royal Mail
so they can fully understand the pressures from both sides which I think has been beneficial.
POL00298740
POL00298740
In terms of sharing data, we are very much at the hands of Royal Mail in terms of the data
systems and then we will have to then try and turn it into some more effective.
My team and I believe Drew, via Sue Richardson have had lengthy debates in the past with Mr
McCormack which have been challenging and very cryptic in terms of what he believes the
problems are. We have asked him for specific feedback but the response is that we should
know what they are, without him having to tell us. I believe the NFSP have had the same
challenges. I can offer to get him involved in the review of how we present it to branches.
However, the issue that Mr McCormack has been clear on with us is he fundamentally does
not trust the process — to the point where he told us he was only putting 5 items of mail in each
sack and videoing them so he could challenge if we told him there were more than 5 items in
the bag. Sue offered to go out and see him but he refused. However, I’m happy to try again.
Apologies for the lengthy response. I’m super-briefing in a Crown tomorrow morning but can
talk through in the afternoon if that would be more helpful?
Thanks
Gayle
Gayle Peacock I Network Conformance, Standards and Policy Manager
<image001.png>
c/o Branch Standards Team, 2” Floor, The Markets, 6-16 New York Street, Leeds, LS2 7DZ
Crees Mobex
From: Jackie Meylak
Sent: 19 August 2013 13:51
To: Craig Tuthill; Gayle A Peacock; Michael Larkin
Subject: RE: Mail Segregation
Hi all
For your action - Kevin has handwritten some comments/queries on the draft response - I’ve
scanned it for you but in case you can’t read it:
Ref last para:
“Is ‘Branch Focus’ inaccurate? What are we ‘specifically’ doing about it and the errors he
refers to?”
Ref 3 & 4" para:
“We should offer to get Tim involved in the review. What has it told us? Does it address the
issues he raises? It’s very vague.”
Thanks
Jackie Meylak I PA to Kevin Gilliland, Network and Sales Director
<image001.png>
inhill Row Wing, 14:
““T Postling GRO
Mobex
et, London, EC1V 9HQ
<imaged0s jpg>
From: Craig Tuthill
POL00298740
POL00298740
Sent: 16 August 2013 08:04
To: Jackie Meylak; Gayle A Peacock; Michael Larkin
Subject: Re: Mail Segregation
Gayle. I think this is spot on. Thanks. Craig
Sent from BlackBerry. Craig Tuthill
From: Jackie Meylak
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 06:56 AM
To: Gayle A Peacock; Craig Tuthill
Subject: RE: Mail Segregation
Many thanks Gayle. Craig I'll wait for your feedback etc, then I’ll pass to Kevin on Monday
when he’s back from leave.
J
Jackie Meylak I PA to Kevin Gilliland, Network and Sales Director
<image001.png>
18 Floor — Bunhill Row Wing, 148 Old Street, London, EC1V S3HQ.
GRO I Postling GRO
GRO
. <image005.jpg>
From: Gayle A Peacock
Sent: 16 August 2013 07:18
To: Craig Tuthill; Jackie Meylak
Subject: RE: Mail Segregation
Hi Craig, Jackie
I would respond to Mr McCormack on the following lines.
Dear Mr McCormack
Thank you for your e-mail regarding the information you and your wife receive about the mail
segregation performance for your branch.
You will be aware that we have a contractual obligation with our largest client, Royal Mail, to
ensure that all branches present the mail in accordance with the segregation standards. This is
important not only to them but also to us because following the standards means that the mail
gets processed as quickly and efficiently as possible in the mail centre, which is key to
delivering excellent customer service. Therefore we need to continue to monitor our
performance against this contract to make sure we deliver on those customer promises and
avoid the significant financial penalties associated with not meeting the contractual
requirements.
However, we do acknowledge that the segregation standards could be simplified and the
management information provided by Royal Mail needs to outline the details of the errors, so
we can identify how we can improve. Both Post Office and Royal Mail recognise there is room
for improvement and a specific project team was established a couple of months ago to
address these concerns. The team have reviewed the standards and worked with a number of
branches and the Royal Mail operation to identify how the full end to end process can be
POL00298740
POL00298740
improved. This has resulted in the solution being piloted in a number of branches and a
revised approach to recording the sampling results being tested. The pilot has recently come to
an end and we are in the process of reviewing the full detail, but early indications are that
branches find the revised system a lot easier and this is borne out with some encouraging
sampling results.
We are now working through how the approach can be deployed within Post Office and Royal
Mail. This will include a review of how the information is then shared with branches. Once we
have specific dates for this we will obviously share this with you. However, I can say that the
issue of referring to it as segmentation has been addressed and corrected.
I am sorry that you have a number of concerns regarding Branch Focus. This is one of the
main communication channels we have with our branches and I am disappointed to learn of
the issues you have with it. We are undertaking a lot of work at the moment to review how we
communicate and engage with our subpostmasters and I will ensure that your feedback is
incorporated into this activity.
Craig
Does this fit the bill?
Thanks
Gayle
Gayle Peacock I Network Conformance, Standards and Policy Manager
<image001.png>
c/o Branch Standards Team, 2™ Floor, The Markets, 6-16 New York Street, Leeds, LS2 7DZ
““Zimagedos png>
From: Craig Tuthill
Sent: 15 August 2013 14:58
To: Jackie Meylak
Cc: Gayle A Peacock
Subject: Re: Mail Segregation
Hi Jackie. I'm out and about today but spoke to Gayle yesterday and she is going to respond.
Regards. Craig
Sent from BlackBerry. Craig Tuthill
Head of Network Services
Mobile: f*
Mobex:;
From: Jackie Meylak
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 11:14 AM
To: Craig Tuthill
Subject: FW: Mail Segregation
Hi Craig,
Just so I can keep a tab on this can you confirm that this is in hand please?
POL00298740
POL00298740
Many thanks
Jackie Meylak I PA to Kevin Gilliland, Network and Sales Director
<image001.png>
B
<image005.jpg>
From: Michael Larkin
Sent: 14 August 2013 13:56
To: Harry Clarke; Jackie Meylak; Thomas P Moran; Stefania Ulgiati; Adrian Wales; Julia Marwood; Craig
Tuthill
Cc: Nick Beal; Martin Edwards; Sarah Paddison; Angela James; Drew Mcbride; Theresa Iles
Subject: RE: Mail Segregation
HI Craig,
Can you or one of your team put a response together on the letter to Kevin and Paula below re mails
segregation issues and our response to correcting.
Thanks Craig,
best regards,
Michael.
From: Harry Clarke
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 11:08 AM
To: Jackie Meylak; Thomas P Moran; Stefania Ulgiati; Adrian Wales; Julia Marwood; Michael Larkin
Cc: Nick Beal; Martin Edwards; Sarah Paddison; Angela James; Drew Mcbride; Theresa Iles
Subject: RE: Mail Segregation
Hi Jackie
Given that Drew has been dealing with Mr McCormack on the matter, my view would be
Michael is best placed to respond.
Michael — I’m assuming you agree.
Regards
Harry
From: Jackie Meylak
Sent: 14 August 2013 09:54
To: Thomas P Moran; Stefania Ulgiati; Adrian Wales; Julia Marwood
Cc: Nick Beal; Martin Edwards; Sarah Paddison; Angela James; Drew Mcbride; Harry Clarke; Theresa
lles
Subject: RE: Mail Segregation
Hi all
Please see below. In the absence of Nick & Drew, can you liaise and let me know the best
way to take this forward in terms of a response please (or point me in the right direction!)? In
the meantime I'll send a holding reply to Mr McCormack today.
Many thanks
POL00298740
POL00298740
Jackie Meylak I PA to Kevin Gilliland, Network and Sales Director
<image001.png>
1s reet, London, EC1V 9HQ.
From: Theresa Iles On Behalf Of Paula Vennells
Sent: 14 August 2013 09:25
To: Thomas P Moran; Angela James
Cc: Jackie Meylak; Nick Beal; Martin Edwards; Sarah Paddison
Subject: FW: Mail Segregation
In view of the previous email you’re dealing with, I thought you might like to see below,
addressed to Kevin.
Kind regards
Theresa
Theresa lles I Assistant to Paula Vennells, Chief Executive
<image001 .png>
148 Old Street, London, EC1V 9HQ
GRO,
ostoffice.co.uk
@postofficenews
<image006.png>
From: Theresa Iles On Behalf Of Paula Vennells
Sent: 14 August 2013 09:20
To: jackie.meylak¢
Cc: Martin Edwards; Sarah Paddison
Subject: FW: Mail Segregation
Jackie
Can you please let me know who will be dealing with this, in Kevin’s absence — just so I can
make a note for Paula’s return (should she ask).
Thanks
Theresa
Theresa Iles I Assistant to Paula Vennells, Chief Executive
<image001.png>
t, London, EC1V 9HQ.
POL00298740
POL00298740
postoffice.co.uk
@postofficenews
<image006.png>
From: Tim McCormack
Sent: 14 August 2013 08
To: Kevin Gilliland
Cc: Paula Vennells; i
Subject: Mail Segregation
Hi Kevin
The Mail Segregation issue has still not been resolved and it is unlikely to be resolved
until someone in Post Office Ltd actually takes a meaningful interest into the detailed
process that is required to manage it properly.
It annoys me greatly that my wife continues to receive a Branch Focus 'magazine’ that
contains details of her 'Mail Segmentation’ performance.
This highlights several issues:
a) that money is still being spent on monitoring performance of a system that has failed
completely because it was never implemented properly
b) that the person(s) who deem(s) it important enough to inform SPMRs through the
Branch Focus medium of the number of errors they have had reported against them
have absolutely no understanding of the relevance of that number e.g. 3 errors - what
does that mean? what were they? 3 out of how many? How could there be an uneven
number of errors?
c) the Mail Segregation chart still contains an error by exception and remains an
entirely subjective decision by RMG checkers.
d) and finally the most pitiful issue - that to me sums up where SPMRs stand in relation
to Post Office Ltd management - Branch Focus itself. I No-one in management seems
to be concerned about the content of this magazine. For example - there is a
difference between 'segmentation' and ‘segregation’: the word 'Bus' contains only one
's' not two (if the mistake had occurred only once I would have put it down as a typo):
the requirement to cut and paste Currency images into the Currency manual which
removes important information from Branch Focus that is printed on the back of the
image page; and there are many more examples of this shoddy workmanship
throughout the history of this publication.
I hope you understand my frustration with the lack of effort by Post Office Ltd in dealing
with this troublesome issue of Mail Segregation. It was always going to be an
extremely difficult process to analyse and come up with a reasonable solution. It
requires a great deal more thought than has been put into it so far.
POL00298740
POL00298740
And as far as Branch Focus goes there can be no excuses for misspelling a 3 letter
word.
Kind regards
Tim McCormack
Duns Post Office
PS To be pedantic - if I was to 'segment' every parcel that was posted through our
office, that would require me to divide each parcel into a minimum of two segments.
Should I put a label on both? What would happen to the half that didn't have an
address on it?
Common sense is not so common - Voltaire
From: timandagi(”~
To: kevin.gilliland
CC: paula.venn:
drew.mebridet _
Subject: Mail Segregation Letter
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 10:29:28 +0100
george.thomsoné
akermlé
Dear Mr Gilliland
I am in receipt of your letter dated 14th May regarding Mail Segregation.
As you may or may not be aware, I wrote some time ago to Ms Vennells on this very subject and have
since exchanged emails about it with Mr McBride.
My concern is based mainly on the underlying principle that the process of Mail Segregation, including
performance criteria, has not been defined and therefore it is, I believe, inappropriate at this stage to
challenge postmasters regarding the issue of whether or not they segregate mail. I would also suggest,
although I do not have a legal background, that given the current status of the lack of definition in Mail
Segregation, a Breach of Contract action against a SubPostmaster based on non mail segregation would
not be legally enforceable.
Please bear in mind that I am raising these issues and providing as much evidence to support my claims
as possible in order to assist all parties in reaching an amicable settlement.
I have provided Mr McBride and Mr Thomson with a little more detail , but basically I would propose that
without a clear indication of performance criteria and a robust and secure method of delivering mail bags
from a PO to the point of checking performance against that criteria, then there can be no recourse
against the SPMR who provided the mail bags in the first place.
I do hate to provide such a simplistic and pedantic example to make this point but I think it does help to
explain the problems we all face.
If an SPMR places all the mail he accepts into any one of two bags completely randomly and at the end
POL00298740
POL00298740
of the day does not even tie these bags up with a label then how could he be judged to not be
segregating mail? You see a bag with no label is a seperate error that has to be dealt with accordingly
and the RMG sorter/checker would have to make a judgement call on the intended contents of the bag
so that would be from 1st, 2nd, Mixed or Franked. Associate any one of these with any of the bags and
within each bag the checker will no doubt find several of the pieces of mail that should be in such a bag.
Therefore some of the mail in the bag could be said to be segregated properly and therefore the most
important point is that it could be concluded that the SPMR performance in regard of segregation was not
100% wrong.
That contention stands until such time as the processes, procedures and performance criteria involved in
a Mail Segregation system are clearly defined.
There are for more problems with the current system than this simple example but it does serve to
highlight the dangers of trying to establish culpability on the part of the SPMR.
There is of course another part to the story and that is the integrity of the segregated mail bags to the
point of checking and of course the checking process itself.
This is best explained by a recent post on one of the SPMR forums and there are many many similar
examples of this:
Quote
I asked my collecting postman the other day whether anyone on his run had
stopped segregating. Out of the six offices that he collects from I was shocked
to find that only two bother segregating anyway - all the others (of varying
sizes) refuse.
.... and then he went on to say that I don't know why you bother anyway because
we open all the sacks, tip them into containers and re-sort them all. The only
time they're ever left in the sealed sacks is when we're red x'd!!
End Quote
This proves that the present system is not only fallible but the statistics being provided to you by RMG at
the moment are completely false.
Finally, I would suggest that you will find it impossible to devise a system for Mail Segregation that caters
for all events and exceptions because it would be too expensive to produce and maintain and have no
financial benefit to POL. There is a much easier solution but that would require all parties to agree to
such a proposal and that is way above my station.
I have already offered my assistance to both Mr McBride and Mr Thomson should you so wish.
I hope you find this email both helpful and constructive.
Kind Regards
Tim McCormack