WBON0000132
WBON0000132
COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE AND PREPARED IN CONNECTION WITH MEDIATION
Initial Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme
Post Office Preliminary Investigation Report
Branch Name: Yetminster Branch Code: 267518 Case Number: M054
Applicant Name: I Miss Tracey I Status of Case: I Mediation Date of 05" May 2007
Merritt Application Appointment:
Executive summary
This report investigates the complaint from the Applicant who was Subpostmaster of Yetminster Post Office
from May 2007 and the outreach service in Chetnole village from January 2011 until the termination of her
contract for services in November 2011. This termination followed the precautionary suspension of the
Applicant in September 2011 which resulted from an audit revealing a discrepancy of £11,886. The Applicant
asserts that there have been equipment and computer issues, ‘unexplained losses’ and a general lack of
support and training from Post Office. She also cites concerns about the Security Investigation and asserts that
Post Office has harassed her following the termination of her contract.
The Applicant has also raised these issues with her Member of Parliament. Three issues have been subject to
Spot Review by Second Sight.
1. Equipment issues:
It is evident that the Applicant experienced problems with equipment. These were resolved with
advice to ‘reboot’ Horizon, by engineer visits or replacement equipment. Although Post Office has
responded to the issues, it is recognised that this must be frustrating and caused inconvenience in a
customer centric environment.
2. Training:
There is evidence that the initial training package was the standard package at that time and that this
was deemed to be adequate and effective; this is supported by the comments of the experienced
trainer, that there is no evidence of further requests for support and that no issues were raised on the
first audit following the training.
Records show that migration to Horizon on Line was supported in line with Post Office standard policy
and procedure.
The Applicant claimed that a cheque for £2,000 was entered onto Horizon by the Migration Officer as
a dummy transaction as part of a training exercise on the 5"" July 2010. Post Office has established
that this cheque was entered on Horizon by User ID TME 001, which is the Applicant's user ID. There is
evidence to show that the Migration Officer had her own User ID on Horizon, therefore there would
be no need to use the Applicant’s User ID.
3. Support:
There is evidence that issues raised in respect of discrepancies had been investigated by the Financial
Service Centre and the Applicant responded to by letter. However, on reflection it may have been
better to have explained this by a visit to the Applicant at the branch.
The branch had received numerous Transaction Corrections of which the majority correlate with
a
WBD_000002.000001
WBON0000132
WBON0000132
COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE AND PREPARED IN CONNECTION WITH MEDIATION
discrepancies previously reported by the branch.
The Applicant cites that money was taken from her remuneration over a period of eight months. This
was agreed with the Applicant to recover discrepancies that had been settled centrally on the Trading
period of the 14th July 2010. This agreement was made in recognition that to request the amount in
full immediately may put a financial hardship on the Applicant.
There were calls recorded on NBSC logs that the Applicant had been contacted following termination
of her contract. This was not appropriate and it is clear that Post Office failed to ensure that all
relevant parties had been notified of the branch closure. However the visit to the area by a Field
Change Advisor was a necessary one to establish how Post Office could uplift equipment and to look
at options for provision of service.
The Applicant asserts that there was a dialogue ‘off tape’ with Security Investigators, this is refuted by
Post Office. The Security Operations Manager has confirmed that no further questioning took place.
In addition, the Applicant's solicitor remained with Post Office Security Investigators at all times and it
is documented in scripts of the interview undertaken at the firm of Solicitors.
On the basis of the above, it is Post Office’s view that the performance of Post Office equipment may have
been frustrating for the Applicant but it would not have caused discrepancies at the branch. There have been
Transactional Corrections which correlate to most of the branch discrepancies. On this basis, the loss has not
been caused by Horizon or the other issues stated by the Applicant. The most likely cause of the errors would
appear to be human interaction whether this is deliberate or genuine.
The Applicant's complaint
The Applicant was appointed as Subpostmaster of Yetminster Post Office on 5" May 2007. The date stated by
the Applicant on the application to the scheme was May 2005. We assume that this date was inserted in error
by the Applicant.
The Applicant was also appointed as Subpostmaster of Yetminster Outreach on 12" January 2011.
Yetminster Outreach consists of a portable Horizon ‘kit’ that is taken to Chetnole Village Hall to provide Post
Office Services. The cash, stock and Horizon ‘kit’ was stored securely at Yetminster Post Office when not in use.
The Applicant held this post until her precautionary suspension on 29"" September 2011. The precautionary
suspension was put in place following an audit at the branch on 29 September 2011, which showed accounting
discrepancies. The letter cited misuse of Post Office money for ‘something personal at home’ which
subsequently led to her contract for services being terminated on 25" November 2011.
The Applicant has raised issues concerning Horizon. Her application was received by Post Office via Second
Sight on 12" October 2013. A more detailed Case Questionnaire (CQR) was received on 20" November 2013.
The main issues that were raised during the initial application and CQR can be divided into 3 categories: -
Equipment & Computer issues, Operational & Procedural and Training & Support, although it is noted that
there is an interconnection of all these areas in the specific issues.
Equipment & Computer Issues
The allegations raised in connection with Equipment & Computing issues were:
© Equipment breaking down and computer issues where multiple receipts were produced on one
2
WBD_000002.000002
WBON0000132
WBON0000132
COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE AND PREPARED IN CONNECTION WITH MEDIATION
particular day;
© Engineers were called out to the Post Office several times. On one occasion the engineers replaced
the hard drives and commented that this is a ‘regular occurrence’;
© One occasion when a customer's telephone bill was processed in error. The customer contacted the
post office after receiving a red bill, phone cut off by provider;
e Ageneral assertion that the system is full of bugs;
* Anallegation that incidents of losses seemed to occur on the day of switch over (migration) to
Horizon on Line — following a full audit prior to rollover to new system;
* Aproblem with hosted the Paystation, which needed new wiring and a new box but no engineer
attended.
Operational & Procedural
The allegations in relation to Operational & Procedural issues were:
* Unexplained losses through the computer;
© Not being able to trace why losses occurred;
© The Post Office took £500 a month from wages for 8 months;
© Concerns regarding the taped interview and the subsequent house search where further questioning
occurred unrecorded;
* Problems encountered with Paystation accounting;
* Not being able to check sales figures for commission purposes;
Cash found after final audit which was not accounted for.
Training & Support
The allegations in relation to Training & Support issues were:
© Alack of training including in relation to the changeover to Horizon on Line;
© Alack of Support generally;
© Several requests were made to the Contract Manager to call the Applicant but they did not;
© Arequest for an investigation to take place;
Numerous calls made to the call centre;
* Allegations of harassment by telephone calls after office was closed;
WBD_000002.000003
WBON0000132
WBON0000132
COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE AND PREPARED IN CONNECTION WITH MEDIATION
* Allemphasis was placed on the Applicant to investigate issues so no-one looks any further;
© AFreedom of Information Act request was made but did not provide the information the Applicant
was seeking.
Case Review Actions
Summary of the information collated by Post Office
Information available from Post Office records:
Information area
Information provided
with this response
Information not available
as beyond retention
Information not
available for other
period reason
Record of Audits x
Correspondence and Case I X
History
Network Business Support I X
Centre Logs (NBSC)
Fujitsu Call Logs x
Transaction Corrections x
(TC's)
Balancing Records x
2010/2011
Cash Management x
Records
Taped Interview x
09/11/2011
Spot Review Report x
Training Records x
Record of Audits.
Three audits undertaken:
* 30" September 2009 - The audit showed discrepancy in branch of £17.90 (+) (£6.21(+) in cash/stock,
£11.69 (+) (discrepancy showing on the office snapshot) and a separate £1066.88 (-) outstanding
discrepancy being held centrally at Chesterfield. (Doc 033 refers)
* 19" October 2010 - Compliance Audit Test, which identified 12 gaps in branch practices and processes.
(Doc 034 refers)
WBD_000002.000004
WBON0000132
WBON0000132
COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE AND PREPARED IN CONNECTION WITH MEDIATION
© 29" September 2011 - Audits conducted at Yetminster and Yetminster Outreach Service. (Doc 018 refers)
© The audit of Yetminster revealed a discrepancy of £8,415.27(-) (£8,546.17(-) cash, £404.74(-)
stock, £518.24 (+) postage and 17.40 (+) foreign currency).
© The audit of Yetminster Outreach Service revealed a discrepancy of £3,471.50(-) (£3517.96(-)
cash, £46.71(-) stock, £93.17(+) postage). It is noted that in the audit report there are 2
discrepancies (£17.40 incorrectly reported and £0.05p addition error) in the breakdown of the
audit result. However, this has no effect on the overall audit result.
© The overall discrepancy across both Yetminster and Yetminster Outreach Service was
£11,886.77(-)
Correspondence and Case History (2010 to 2011)
27" September 2010 - Letter from the Contracts Advisor relating to £4,074.49 loss that had been settled centrally,
requesting it be cleared by a cheque paid to Post office or nine monthly payments starting October 2010 for 1 x
£428.96 and 8 x £430.00 (Doc 007 refers).
30th September 2011 — Letter from the Contracts Advisor after recent telephone call the previous day confirming
the Applicant's contract had been suspended from Yetminster branch and Yetminster Outreach service (Doc 012
refers).
11" October 2011 — Letter from the Contracts Advisor saying he has received and reviewed the necessary
paperwork and is advising the Applicant of the consideration of the summary termination of her contract due to
‘Misuse of Post Office funds’.The Contracts Advisor is also inviting the Applicant for an interview on 21" October
2011 at Taunton Royal Mail delivery Office. (Doc 013 refers).
21 October 2011 - Letter from the Applicant, written without prejudice making a statement in response. (Doc 014
refers).
14" November 2011 - Emails between the Contracts Advisor and the Financial Service Centre (FSC) about the
£2,000.00 cheque remitted out of Yetminster branch on 5" July 2010, the migration day to Horizon on Line. (Doc
015 refers)
No date - Fact Finding response/Enquiries to Written Response from The Applicant in relation to the Horizon on
Line migration and the response from the Migration Officer.(Doc 016 refers)
14" November 2011 - 17" November 2011 - various emails between the Contracts Advisor to Fujitsu and Horizon
IT team in relation to the Horizon issues raised by the Applicant and also providing answers to the Applicant’s
queries raised in her letter dated 21" October 2011. These issues were discrepancy at migration, issues with
equipment and the episode where ‘multiple receipts’ were produced which are also raised in the CQR. (Doc 002
refers)
25" November 2011 - letter from the Contracts Manager to the Applicant to summarily terminating her contract.
(Doc 017 refers)
04" January 2012 — letter from the Contracts Manager to the Applicant enclosing duplicate of letter sent on 25"
November 2011 (Doc 033 refers)
16" January 2012 — A final letter from the Contracts Manager making a further attempt to get response from
S
WBD_000002.000005
WBON0000132
WBON0000132
COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE AND PREPARED IN CONNECTION WITH MEDIATION
Applicant. (Doc 036 refers)
Record of NBSC logs in relation to Yetminster (Doc 021 refers)
296 calls were made to the NBSC between May 2007 and September 2011. They were in relation to:
* 10 related to accounting issues;
© 3.were in relation to Horizon equipment faults;
© 1wasa training request; and
the remainder were procedural/general enquiries.
02” August 2007 - Accounting query regarding a cheque for £99.00 not on listing
30th May 2007 - has Accounting query in relation to negative stock figures.
01" July 2008 - Horizon fault query in connection with AP Recovery. The system rebooted.
19" March2009 — Accounting query in relation to a paystation barcode summary for £134.00 which was not
processed
06" February 2009 - training request for support with management of office.
25" June 2009 Accounting query in relation to a credit card bill for £1,564.15 paid with Instant Saver account
payment. Maximum payment of £1,000.00 allowed so confirming the customer would pay rest tomorrow
06" November 2009 Accounting query in relation to a business deposit entered for wrong amount (reversal).
23° March 2010 — Accounting query in relation to a rem surplus discrepancy
24" August 2010 - Accounting query in relation to a bill payment. It was a Santander transaction but there had
been no credit to the account
13 September 2010 — Horizon fault query in connection with a system problem with the data centre
05" October 2010 — Horizon fault query as could not scan cash bags. They did not enter values in the right order
and cannot get out of screen for currency. The system appeared to be stuck.
12" October 2010 Accounting query in relation to stock received in error consisting of 50 Christmas books
2 Horizon faults 13/09/2010 system problem with data centre.
2011 - 2 accounting 25/02/2011 cheque finished to cash in error, 18/03/2011 refund — tax disc reversal.
Record of NBSC logs in relation to Yetminster Outreach
Four calls were received between 08" February 2011 and 20" September 2011
6
WBD_000002.000006
WBON0000132
WBON0000132
COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE AND PREPARED IN CONNECTION WITH MEDIATION
08" February 2011 One shot password — Managers’ access required.
08" February 2011 Query about facility to sell Euros — transaction not available on Outreach.
18" May 2011 Batch Control Voucher (BCV) ordering.
20" September 2011 Procedural call regards to screen message about rollover/reports to print message.
Fujitsu Call logs
Fujitsu received 41 calls received between May 2007 to September 2011 (Doc 002 refers)
The calls related to the following matters:
* 14-Printer;
* 4- Base unit - reboots /Frozen screen ;
74
System freeze;
.
B
Base unit - mains adaptor;
© 1- Barcode reader;
© 3- Pinpad;
© 1- Monitor;
© 1- Screen adjustment;
© 1- Keyboard;
© 3~ No On-line service ;
© 1- Server exceeded limit (appears to be user error);
© 1- DVIAissue;
© 2- Nationwide ADSL; and
e 4- Passwords.
Yetminster (267518) Transaction Corrections (TC) (Doc 026 refers)
Explanation of a Transaction Correction
TCs are issued to branch via Horizon to rectify accounting errors made. They are sent overnight and received in the
branch when the user logs on the next morning. The User has the option to accept at that time or postpone until
later. Evidence is supplied to support the correction issued, either at the time of issue on Horizon or posted
subsequently to the branch. TCs can be disputed if the branch fails to understand the error made or consider it is
not proper to them. All TCs have to be accepted before the trading statement can be completed (once every 4 or 5
weeks). The TC generally results in a surplus or shortage in the branch, but can be used to clear amounts held in the
7
WBD_000002.000007
WBON0000132
WBON0000132
COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE AND PREPARED IN CONNECTION WITH MEDIATION
suspense account. Depending on the amount involved the surplus or shortage should be withdrawn or made good
but if a large amount the option to settle centrally is given. If an amount is settled centrally it is transferred to FSC
to be resolved at a later date.
51 TCs were received at Yestminster between 2007 and 2011
These related to:
© 20Cheques to Processing Centre (1° error on 29.06.2007, 20" error on 05.07.2010)
* 5 Bureau errors
© 4 Cash remittance errors
* 8 Paystation
© 2Stock errors
* 4 Returned cheques unpaid (insufficient details on reverse of cheques)
* 1 Personal Banking
* 1 Alliance and Leicester
* 1 Post Office Saving Stamps
© 5 Other (insufficient information)
High Value Charge TC's (9) received (total value of £17,936.77) :
1. 14 June 2007 - Bureau error (Euros) - £2,360.40 not booked in (accounted for) on Horizon
Total of Euro’s on hand in branch on the previous day (13"" June 2007) was 1,300 Euros. On 14" June 2007
total on hand increased to 4,800 Euros. (as per declaration made on Horizon)
Acharge TC issued on 26" October 2007
2. 29" June 2007 - Cheques error for £2,371.61 — amount claimed twice in error.
£2,371.61 was remitted out (of the Horizon and sent to the Processing Centre) at 11:58 and £2,371.61 was remitted
out at 11:59
This gave a negative cheque figure for £2,371.61. To correct this, a cheque figure was generated for £2,371.61 and
sold to ‘other stamps’.(This now gives a negative figure on ‘other stamps’. On 04" July 2007 Stamps were declared
correctly which now gave a surplus in ‘other stamps’ of £2,734.57 as shown.
Other Stamps Declaration
21. Ordinary 267518 04/07/2007 Discrepancy - Pos 17 -2,734.57
Surplus Declaration
145 Discrepancy 267518 _ 04/07/2007 Discrepancy - Pos 17 2,734.57
8
WBD_000002.000008
WBON0000132
WBON0000132
COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE AND PREPARED IN CONNECTION WITH MEDIATION
(suspense)
Charge TC issued on 10" October 2007 to correct.
3. Cash remittance error on 20" January 2009 - £3,000.00 not booked in.
Cash declared on 20" January 2009 and no cash variance check made.
Cash declared on 21" January 2009. The variance check carried out showed £2,058,30 surplus in cash.
A Charge TC was issued on 05" February2009
4. 06" October 2009 - Stock error for £1,200.00 regarding 2" stamps entry in Suspense Account. This has no
effect on the office balance as this was only correcting an error in the Suspense Account. When there is a
discrepancy in a stock delivery to a branch, the amount of the discrepancy is held in the Suspense Account
to await correction, thus not affecting the accounts.
5. 09" February 2010 - Bureau error (Euro’s) not booked in for £1,757.47
On 10th February 2010 a declaration discrepancy in branch of +1800 Euros (£1,583.67) was reported.
A Charge TC was issued on 24" March 2010
6. 29" May 2010 - Cheques remitted out incorrectly for £2,596.34 (remitted out twice)
On 29" May 2010 and 01° June 2010 no cash variance checks were made.
On 02” June 2010 a cash discrepancy of a surplus of £2,596.34 was noted.
A Charge TC was issued on 23” June2010
7. 05" July 2010 — Cheques were remitted out incorrect in the sum of £2,000.00 (over claimed). The actual
value received was £1,407.17
(Note - 05"" July 2010 was the last day of Horizon before change to HOL.)
It was confirmed from the transaction logs that 10 cheques received on 05" July 2010 totalled £1,121.17 and 2
cheques from 03" July 2010 total £286.00. The net total of cheques was £1,407.17
The total value remitted out £1,407.17 at 15:13 (user TME001) on 05" July 2010. There was Also a second
remittance out at 15:56 for £2,000.00 (user TME001) following a cheque/cash adjustment at 15:55 for £2,000.00
On the previous Wednesday 30" June 2010 there was a balance discrepancy of £2,360.93 (-). All branches on the
final day of the ‘former’ Horizon received a visit from the Migration Officer who conducted a cash check.
Subpostmasters were notified that this would be part of the migration process.
WBD_000002.000009
WBON0000132
WBON0000132
COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE AND PREPARED IN CONNECTION WITH MEDIATION
A Charge TC was issued on 20” August 2010
8. 24" July 2010 — Cheques were remitted out incorrectly for £905.90 (over claimed)
The matter was identified as a Santander payment (code 260) made on 22nd July 2010 at 15:25.
The cash declared on 24" July 2010 showed a surplus of £2,50 (+) following a variance check .
If a cash transaction was made the accounts would be in surplus. If this was a genuine cheque transaction and the
cheque was lost by the Subpostmaster then branch and Subpostmaster is liable for discrepancy.
A Charge TC was issued on 20” August 2010
9. 05" October 2010 -Bureau error (Euro’s) not booked in for £1,745.05
On 06" October 2010 a positive declaration in branch was made of 2000 (+) Euros (£1,742.31)
A Charge TC was issued on 01.12.2010
The total TC’s issued was for a value of £15,830.87 identified as surpluses in accounts. £905.90 was not proven as
a surplus and is currently not an identified transaction.
Low Value Transaction Corrections can be identified in Doc 010
Balancing Records 2010/2011 (Discrepancies over £500)
Trading Period End Date Gains (£) Losses (£)
11/07/2007 5,144.38
16/08/2007 686.82
14/11/2007 1,103.02
13/02/2008 1348.40
16/04/2008 563.13
17/09/2008 990.35
19/11/2008 1,403.32
17/12/2008 1,488.40
14/01/2009 783.81
10
WBD_000002.000010
WBON0000132
WBON0000132
COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE AND PREPARED IN CONNECTION WITH MEDIATION
11/02/2009 649.92
18/02/2009 895.26
18/03/2009 510.51
20/05/2009 3,650.52
17/06/2009 524.84
15/07/2009 1,216.01
19/08/2009 928.07
16/09/2009 778.94
13/01/2010 959.36
17/02/2010 1,198.72
14/04/2010 1,879.42
19/05/2010 578.29
16/06/2010 1,004.07
23/06/2010 976.32
14/07/2010 4074.49
15/09/2010 4,194.57
12/01/2011 1,566.98
16/02/2011 586.70
16/03/2011 722.49
13/04/2011 959.60
18/05/2011 673.73
Total (discrepancies over £500) 18378.66 Gains 23661.78 Losses
Spot Review Summary (3 key issues raise)
No. Key Issues Post Office Response
SR006 I Were transactions input using the No evidence to support allegation. Confident
Applicant's user ID centrally following her transactions will not be attributed to a user once they
suspension are suspended. Phone calls were probably due to
11
WBD_000002.000011
WBON0000132
WBON0000132
COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE AND PREPARED IN CONNECTION WITH MEDIATION
Applicant received calls from the help desk
after she was suspended about transactions
in the outreach branch
records having not been updated on a timely basis.
See Spot Review SR006 (Doc 031 refers)
Audit Trail
SPMRs cannot properly account for GIRO
payments that have been made in their
branch as no audit trail is produced
R010 I Postage Labels and Power/Communications _ I Horizon logs show no receipts for £0.67p, no evidence
Failures of a system failure or freezing and no evidence of
multiple receipts being printed. No shortfall could
During a transaction for £0.67p the system I have occurred,
froze and then printed out 6 duplicate
receipts See Spot Review SRO10 (Doc 001 refers)
SRO11 I GIRO Payments and an Apparent Loss of Branches are able to review on Horizon all
transactions in the last 60 days.
Branches are able to print and retain a report showing
all Giro deposits and withdrawals on a given day.
See Spot Review SRO11 (Doc 035 refers)
Response to issues raised by Applicant
Issue raised
Investigation findings
Equipment & Computer Issues
Horizon said to be full of ‘bugs’
Despite evidence of numerous telephone calls to the Horizon
and breaking down regularly,
including an episode where
multiple receipts were
inexplicably produced on one
particular day.
Helpdesk to rectify faults with the equipment, either by a simple
reboot or requiring an engineer visit, no loss of data or transactions
have been identified. This is supported by the e-mail from the
Horizon IT team on 17" November 2011. In this it clearly stated that
‘regarding kit losing data/transaction, no transactions are held
within the kit’. (Doc 002 refers)
It is evident that the Applicant has experienced numerous faults
with the equipment, where either a simple reboot has been
required or more serious faults have required an engineer visit. In
some instances this has led to repairs or replacement of equipment.
The issue regarding multiple receipts being produced has been
subject of a Spot Review.(SR010) ~ (Doc 001 refers)
12
WBD_000002.000012
WBON0000132
WBON0000132
COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE AND PREPARED IN CONNECTION WITH MEDIATION
Horizon migration to On line
has caused discrepancies
The Applicant asserts that the
error relates to the day after the
branch migrated to Horizon
(Online). It is stated that the
Migration Officer, as part of the
training showed how cheques
should be accounted for and
that a ‘dummy ‘transaction was
completed for £2,000 as part of
the training and the error was
made as the Migration Officer
failed to reverse this at the
time.
The Applicant further stated
that when she balanced she
deleted the cheque figure out of
the system in the ‘adjust’ stock
screen. This action resulted in
an increase to her cash figure as
referred in the debt recovery
concurrence report. (Doc 008
refers).
The Applicant states that the
Migration Officer used her log
on details.
By examining balancing records and transaction logs, evidence
shows that a self- generated cheque figure of £2,000 was the
cause of a transaction correction for the same amount.
This was not a fault of the migration process.
Evidence from the transaction log shows an adjustment from
cash to cheque figure of £2,000.00. This was carried out under
USER ID TME001 which is the Applicant’s User ID.
Post Office findings are that this could not have happened due to
the adjustment made by USER ID TME001 of the cash to cheque
figure.
A remittance out for a cheque of £2,000 was completed and
therefore this would have meant that there would be no entry on
the adjust stock screen to allow the Applicant to delete the
cheque. Further, no cheque was actually sent as confirmed
subsequently in a transaction correction.
All users are accountable for any actions undertaken using their
own log on ID and password. Therefore any compromise of
passwords would be as a result of the user allowing access to
their password.
Records show that the Migration Officer used her own log on,
JLAQ01, on the day after migration.
Records show that The Migration Officer recalled the Applicant
mentioning cheques listings and issues with these, however she
denied undertaking a dummy transaction for a cheque of
£2,000.00. ( Doc 016 refers)
Further issues cited as part of the Applicants’ complaint
The Applicant states that she had shown a £2,000.00 loss on the
day the new horizon on line was transferred. Evidence from the
event log shows that at 16.56pm on the day following migration
the cash variance showed a discrepancy of £1019.54(+). There is
evidence that on the previous balancing day, 30" June 2010 there
was a discrepancy of £2360.93(-) On the 5" July 2010 migration
13
WBD_000002.000013
WBON0000132
WBON0000132
COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE AND PREPARED IN CONNECTION WITH MEDIATION
day, the applicant, under her log on ID adjusted her cash toa
cheque figure of £2,000.00 and then remitted out of Horizon a
‘non-existent’ £2,000.00 cheque. It was communicated to
Subpostmasters that the trainer on this day would be conducting
a cash check.
Reference to the £2,000 shortage from the new system going live
‘on 05" July 2010 and FSC ringing on the 18" August 2010 to say
discrepancy is now £4,000(Doc 008, 015 refer).
For the Trading Period of 17" June2010 to 14™ July 2010 the
following should be noted:
1. A Charge Transaction Correction for £2,596.34 was
accounted for within the period.
2. Aloss of £976.32 was removed from the Suspense
Account in preparation for migration.
3. There was a discrepancy of £2,360.93(-) on 30" June
2010.
The above covers the Trading Period after the date of the
migration and relate directly to the loss on the 14" July for
£4074.49, which the Applicant states is explained by the £2000
cheque (doubled up).
Customers Red Phone bill The bill for £11.82 dated 18” May 2010 has been identified on the
processed on Horizon, yet did I Transaction logs and was incorrectly processed as a Santander
not reach phone company and _I payment and not as it should have been as a Barcoded Bill. It would
customer was ‘cut off’. appear from the photocopy that the customer did not produce a
barcoded bill. This would therefore be the cause of the delay in
payment being made to the phone company. In addition, it could
have resulted in the payment not being identified once it reached
the phone company. These factors, ultimately lead to the
customer's complaint.
Problem with Paystation and no I This is standard practice if a Paystation is faulty new leads would be
engineer attended. sent out for the Subpostmaster to changeover and if the fault still
existed a new terminal would be posted out.
The Paystation is a stand-alone terminal, where transactions are
accounted for the following morning by means of a Transaction
Acknowledgment (TA) being sent electronically to Horizon.
Operational & Procedural
Unexplained losses through the I Balancing records (Doc 003 refers) and Transaction Corrections
Horizon system and unable to I (Docs 010/011 refer) show a trail of numerous discrepancies in the
trace why losses occurred. accounts.
In the period the Applicant was in post at Yetminster Post Office she
received Transaction Corrections giving a net charge of £18,293.45
Post Office can identify surpluses of £15,830.87 in the accounts
14
WBD_000002.000014
WBON0000132
WBON0000132
COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE AND PREPARED IN CONNECTION WITH MEDIATION
which would almost have covered these errors.
All TC’s would have been sent with evidence or a contact number
for the Subpostmaster to query if necessary.
Post Office took £500 a month
from wages.
The amounts of (£428.96 for the 1* month and £430.00 for the next
8 months) were deducted from the Applicant’s remuneration as per
the letter from the Contracts Manager 27°" September 2010 to
repay an outstanding amount of £3,868.96. The discrepancy of
£4,074.49(-) being held at FSC from the Trading Statement of 14
July 2010 was reduced by £205.53 (+) again from the Trading
Statement of 18" August 2010
As it is recognised that a large discrepancy could be difficult to
repay immediately, payment in instalments was set up to prevent
financial hardship.
Issues were raised regarding the
time between when the taped
interview with the PO Security
Operations Manager actually
finished and the period
between driving to the
Applicant’s house where a
search was conducted.
Scripts of the taped interview (Docs 004/005 refer) undertaken at
Morton Law Solicitors state no questioning occurred when the tapes
were changed.
There is no evidence of further questioning, as stated in the e-mail
from Post Office Security Operations Manager.(Doc 006 refers)
The interview was conducted for the contemplation of criminal
proceedings given the Applicant’s admissions to the auditor and the
fact the Post Office cash was missing. Nothing was explained to the
Applicant, as it is not standard practice to hold conversations ‘off
record’.
The Applicant’s solicitor remained with the Post Office Security
Operations Manager and his colleague at all times.
(Doc 006 refers)
Problem with Paystation
accounting
There is evidence of issues which has resulted in 8 Paystation errors
received — £70 in credits and £45 in charges. This resulted in a net
credit of £25. Therefore there was no loss to the Applicant. .
Records do not show any request for support was made in
connection with these issues.
Sales figures — unable to verify
for commission purposes.
This would normally be covered at the on-site training. The NBSC is
available for this type of question and this could be explained over
the telephone.
There is no evidence of this information being requested.
As part of the initial training a Balancing work-aid is supplied to new
Subpostmasters. This work-aid shows details of how to obtain a
Sales Report.
15
WBD_000002.000015
WBON0000132
WBON0000132
COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE AND PREPARED IN CONNECTION WITH MEDIATION
Final Audit The audit on 29" September 2011 discovered a shortfall of
£11,886.77 (-).
On the day of the Applicant’s suspension when the final audit was
carried out there was a personal cheque of the Applicant’s on hand
for £9,500.00 which had not been accounted for on Horizon. The
Applicant stated she had removed the cash the previous night for
‘something personal’ at home and nothing to do with the shop.
It has been suggested that cash was found after the audit. This has
been discussed with the Field Support Advisor on 02" January 2014
who attended the branch to conduct removal of all cash and stock.
He categorically states that no cash was found on his visit. Had any
cash been accounted for during the audit and not have been
received back at the cash centre this would have been queried by
the audit team. Only cash produced at the audit is able to be
included.
Further issues cited as part of the Applicants’ complaint
Applicant states ‘Chesterfield (FSC) phoned, adjustments carried out
incorrectly causing more discrepancies’, FSC at the time of the call
were not aware that these adjustments had been made as part of
the audit verification.
These adjustments would have been made by the Field Support
Advisor to correct the stock and also to account for the Outreach at
the time of the audit.
No changes would be made to the original audit discrepancy by
making these adjustments.
Additional Information
Records show that a Security Investigator received Information from
a third party raising concerns about the branch and suggested that
an audit may be required. There is evidence in the Cash
Management Records that Cash Declarations being reported may
not have been a true reflection on what was actually in the branch.
(Doc 022 Refers).
Training & Support
Lack of training, including Initial training of the Applicant revealed no concerns. (Doc 009
Horizon migration, lack of refers).
support.
There is no evidence of the Applicant requesting further training
through the NBSC. Support was provided for migration to Horizon
On-line. There is no evidence to show that further support was
requested. Records suggest that the Applicant was under the
impression that she would be able to undertake the migration
16
WBD_000002.000016
WBON0000132
WBON0000132
COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE AND PREPARED IN CONNECTION WITH MEDIATION
herself.
Training materials were issued to all branches in advance of the
migration. This package contained a DVD and workbooks.
The Applicant stated that the Migration Officer ‘left early’. There are
no records to establish this.
It was standard procedure that the Migration Officer attended for
approximately % day on the day the migration took place. They also
attended the following morning to support for the first hour or two
at most.
The Migration Officer in this instance was an assistant from a local
Post Office Branch. All Migration Officers received full training in
preparation for this role.
12. I Requests for Contracts Manager I Call logs from NBSC support the Applicant’s complaint that the 2
to call were said to have been calls stated were received at NBSC on 28" & 30" December 2011.
made on the 28" and 30”
December 2011. Letters from the Contract Manager were sent to the Applicant on
21° December 2011 and 4" January 2012.
13. I The Post Office failed to Records show that FSC did investigate this matter, however on
investigate the ‘unexplained’ reflection this may have been better explained in a visit to the
cheque error for £2,000.00 that I branch.
appeared to double to ; , ; h
£4,000.00 This was communicated by letter to the Applicant on the 27'
September 2010, which stated that the matter had been
investigated at Chesterfield and the error would have created a
surplus in branch and not a loss as suggested in the Applicants letter
of 21" October 2011. (Doc 007 refers).
With regards to the cheque for £2,000.00, this is explained at
number 2 above.
14. I Numerous calls to call centre Between May 2007 to September 2011 there were 296 calls made
to the NBSC.
Of these 10 related to accounting issues, 3 were Horizon
equipment faults, 1 was a training request the remaining 282 were
procedural/general enquiries. These are detailed above.
15. _ I Harassment by telephone calls I The Branch was incorrectly contacted on 03 October 2011
after branch closed
regarding adjustments completed by the FSA on the Final Audit. The
Branch was also contacted again between 20" to 24°" October 2011
regarding compliance tests and also on 10" November 2011 by FSC
regarding completion of Branch Trading Statement (BT).
Once it was established that the Applicant had been suspended and
should not have been contacted, measures were taken to ensure no
17
WBD_000002.000017
WBON0000132
WBON0000132
COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE AND PREPARED IN CONNECTION WITH MEDIATION
further telephone calls were made (Doc 029 refers).
This would suggest that these calls were a breakdown of
communication within Post Office and that not all relevant business
units were informed of this as part of a round robin process.
Part of this complaint has been addressed under the Freedom of
Information request -see 17.
Also this has been subject to a Spot Review — SROO6
Further issues cited as part of the Applicants’ complaint
Later in January 2012 contact was made with the branch regarding
removal of equipment by a Field Change Advisor (FCA), referred to
as Max by the Applicant. The FCA visited the area on the 25"
January 2012 on a ‘fact finding’ mission to look at options for
reintroducing a service in the village. The FCA also visited the
branch to collate information on equipment to be removed.
Confirmation with the FCA has established that no attempt would
be made to access the Horizon as an FCA has no user access, which
would explain the perception that there seemed to be a problem
with Horizon.
All emphasis put on the The Subpostmaster is ultimately responsible for all discrepancies,
Subpostmaster and operational procedures at the branch.
Notwithstanding this Post Office through its support system at NBSC
offer advice and support to Subpostmasters.
Freedom of information request I 2 letters of correspondence were sent from the Post Office
in response to harassment Freedom of Information unit.
telephone calls, failed to give
o 7
any answers On 02 March 2012 a letter was sent requesting further
clarification to deal with the request. On 02" May 2012 a further
letter was sent advising that without sufficient details the Post
Office are unable to identify the information requested.
The response included the rationale that the cost limit set for Post
Office is £450 and due to the size and scope of the organization the
task required to provide the information would exceed this limit and
therefore Post Office is not obliged to comply with the request.
18
WBD_000002.000018
WBON0000132
WBON0000132
COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE AND PREPARED IN CONNECTION WITH MEDIATION
Documents being provided to Second Sight
M054_POL_Spot Review SRO10_JH_001
Re multiple receipts on Horizon printer
MO054_POL_Response from IT_JH_002
E-mail from IT explaining equipment issues/faults
recorded
M054_POL_Balancing records_JH_003
Details of losses/gains at end of Trading Period
MO054_POL_Scripts of taped interviews_JH_004/JH_00S
Interview at Morton Law Solicitors
M054_POL_Security Operations Manager
response_JH_006
E-mail from Security Operations Manager
confirming no further questioning took place
M054_POL_Debt recovery by instalment letter_JH_007
Letter from Contracts Manager
M054_POL_Debt recovery concurrence report_JH_008
Comments from Contracts Advisor re disputed debt
at time of migration to HOL
MO054_POL_Learning Action Plan_JH_009
Training Record/Action Plan
M054_POL_Low value TC’s_JH_010
Record of Transaction Corrections
MO054_POL_High value TC’s_JH_011
Record of Transaction Corrections
M054_POL_Suspension letter_JH_012
Letter from Contracts Manager advising Applicant
of suspension
MO054_POL_Charge letter_JH_013
Letter from Contracts Manager advising Applicant
of charges
M054_POL_Applicants response to charges_JH_014
Letter from Applicant to Contracts Manager
M054_POL_Adjustments at HOL migration_JH_015
E-mail to FSC £2000 cheque discrepancy
M054_POL_Fact finding around migration_JH_016
Enquiries from Contract Advisor in response to
applicant
M054_POL_Termination letter_JH_017
Letter from Contracts Manager terminating
contract and explaining reasons why
M054_POL_Audit Report 290911_JH_018
Report of Final Audit on 29.09.11 from auditor
M054_POL_Horizon Fujitsu call data_JH_020
Calls to Horizon Service Desk
M054_POL_NBSC Calls_JH_021
Calls to NBSC (transactions etc.)
M054_POL_ONCH figures _JH_022
Cash figures declared
M054_POL_P356 Staff Employed_JH_023
Record of staff employed
MO054_POL_Offender Report Preamble_JH_024
Investigation Report
19
WBD_000002.000019
WBON0000132
WBON0000132
COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE AND PREPARED IN CONNECTION WITH MEDIATION
M054_POL_Balancing records_JH_025
Record of Trading Period discrepancies
M054_POL_Transaction Corrections_JH_026
TC's issued to branch to correct accounting errors
M054_POL_TC’s issued net value_JH_027
Net value of Transaction Corrections issued
M054_POL_Outreach Balancing Records_JH_028
Balancing Records for Yetminster Outreach
M054_POL_Harassment with Applicant after
suspension_JH_029
E-Mail in response to phone calls received from FSC
after suspension
M054_POL_Final response from Post Office Freedom of
Information Unit_JH_030
Letter giving final response from Post Office
Freedom of Information Unit
M054_POL_Spot Review SROO6_JH_031
Re calls from helpdesk after suspension about
transactions at Outreach
M054_POL_Spot Review SRO11_JH_035
Re query about loss of audit trail on Giro payments
M054_POL_Audit Report 300909_JH_033
Audit Report from 30.09.09
MO054-POL_Compliance Audit 191010_JH_034
Report from Compliance Audit from 19.10.10
MO054_POL_Duplicate_040112_JH_032
Duplicate letter from Contracts Manager following
no response to letter sent 25.11.11
M054_POL_Duplicate_160112_JHO36
Final letter in attempt to get response from
Applicant
20
WBD_000002.000020