WITNO9020116
WITNO9020116
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 15:33:51 +0000
From: ‘jcoyne} GRO i <jcoynee GRO >
Subject: re: Post Office Limited -v- Mrs J Wolstenholme
To: Susanne Helliwell (Weightmans Solicitors <susanne.helliwell _ “"E
Mime-Version: 1.0
Organization: Best Practice Group
X-Mailer: GoldMine [5.70.20404]
Best Practice Group PLC
TO: Weightman Vizards
India Buildings Water Street Liverpool, L2 OGA
27/02/04
Dear Ms Helliwell,
to briefly summarise our discussion regard the letter from Fujitsu services:-
Horizon System Helpdesk.
I think this is a matter for the Post Office and Fujitsu rather than requiring any comment from me, for the avoidance of
doubt nothing contained within this section of the letter alters my current opinion.
In jon Handling on Rs q
Whilst this section is helpful and assists my understanding of the process of transaction handling it would not be proper
of me to alter my opinion based on this explanation, the supporting evidence of which has been destroyed. Should
further supporting evidence come to light, I am more that happy to consider it, if it is material to either of the parties
case.
Re nablen: f
It has always been my expressed position that direct comparisons of calls to HSH are required and your clients position
that they have been destroyed, barring direct comparison, and that I should give opinion on the surviving material that
is available to me.
Now it seems that your client has located data that they believe enables comparison. Although the raw data has not
been made available to me they say that it displays that Cleveleys is ‘broadly comparable’. As I do not have the raw
data I am unable to say if my opinion is effected or not.
From the sample presented the mean for software issues is 20 although Cleveleys had 35, for Network a mean of 1
against 5 from Cleveleys, Software 20 against 35 and hardware 4 against 6. So all of these issue factors are
significantly higher for Cleveleys than the respective mean which is inconsistent with the statement broadly comparable
when considering these measurements.
Although I must stress that no raw data has been presented so I am disadvantaged, is it your clients intention to relied
upon this data sample referred to in this letter?
Operator advice to ‘Reboot!
The issue of further work being conducted behind the scenes has not yet been a matter for expert determination, If
you would like me to comment on this, again I would be more that happy and would require the findings from the
"crashdumps" as referenced in the blue screen error messages which the second line support at the HSH will have.
Defective Equipment
1 am confident in my statement considering that this technology is a business tool and the level of acceptance of flaws
in operation is considerably lower than for mainstream computing.
rrying Dis inci
I'm unsure how this can be resolved as the documentation suggests the PM reported discrepancies that seem to fall
after a reported upgrade, without further information this seems to be only resolvable by witnesses of fact.
In short to answer the question posed in your letter, No my opinion, currently, remains as stated in my original note.
Best Regards,
WITNO9020116
WITNO9020116
Jason Coyne
> Please find attached letters.
v
Kathy Hopkins
Secretary to Susanne Helliwell
Commercial Litigation Department
Weightman Vizards
vvvv
Address: 41 Spring G:
Email: kathy.hopking”
> Website www.weightmanvizards.com
>
> The content of this message and attached file are confidential and/or
> privileged and are for the intended recipient only. If you are not the
> intended recipient, any unauthorised review, use, re-transmission,
> dissemination, copying, disclosure or other use of, or taking of any
> action in reliance upon this information is strictly prohibited. If you
> receive this message in error, please contact the sender immediately and
> then delete the e-mail from your system. Copyright in this e-mail and
> attachments created by us belongs to Weightman Vizards. Any attachment
with this message should be checked for viruses before it is opened.
Weightman Vizards cannot be held responsible for any failure by the
recipient to test for viruses before opening any attachments. Should you
communicate with anyone at Weightman Vizards by e-mail, you consent to us
monitoring and reading any such correspondence.
v
Weightman Vizards does not accept service of documents by e-mail unless
express prior approval has been given in writing. If an attempt at
service meets with a standard Out of Office Assistance reply, consent to
e-mail service is revoked because the intended recipient will see your
message not earlier than the time set in the Out of Office reply.”
A list of partners is available for inspection from the above office.
VV VVVVVVVVV VV VV VV VV VV VV
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
v
-- NextPart --
Attached File: \\bestpractice\goldmine\MailBox\Attach\Coyne - 270204.doc
v
> -- NextPart --
> Attached File: \\bestpractice\goldmine\MailBox\Attach\Cleveleys letter1.doc
Confidentiality Notice:
The information in this document may be confidential. It is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Internet communications are not secure and
therefore Best Practice Group does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us
immediately Ce then delete this document. Do not disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor take any copies. Violation of this notice
may be unlawful.