FUJ00092139
FUJ00092139
To: Holmes Alan[Alan.Holmes@
From: Hulme Jon[/o=Exchange/ou=AdminGroup1/cn=Recipients/cn=HulmeJ]
Sent: Tue 8/4/2015 4:16:38 PM (UTC)
Subject: FW: Making Good discrepancy by Cheque
Ideas discussed:
Does it really happen — could it be handled by a non-Horizon rem-out process?
Don’t allow make good to cheque — could be a problem if the amount is large.
Can’t transact cheque in new TP and branch would not be all square in previous TP.
Thought about cheque listing working off last cut-off irrespective of TP, not pleasant and Rem was still be outstanding in
old TP (but presumably that is how it is at the moment).
5, Thought about make good to cash, then change cash to cheque somehow in next TP — doesn’t sound very nice, don’t want
to encourage clerk to do this.
6. Andy Winn suggesting resolving prior to rollover, but Housekeeping clear loss from local suspense settles to cash not
cheque (via ModeParameters).
7. Could abort rollover when make good needed and make them do it manually (same problem as not cheque make good
option on Housekeeping, so could add a button to do this on Housekeeping).
8. Could abort after making good and force them to rem out manually.
9. Could rem out cheque automatically once it has been accepted, just prior to rollover. Not sure how easy/hard that is code
wise.
PweNr
Jon
From: Peter Prior-Mills [mailto:pete: fl
Sent: 04 August R
To: Hulme Jon
Cc: Dave Ireland <
Subject: FW: Making Good discrepancy by Cheque
Hi Jon,
It seems we may have a problem around the “settle to cheque” function at TP rollover as you predicted in your earlier
mail (extract used below).
I think that we need to look at viable options around this, although there are a limited number of occasions where this
happens we need to stop the problem so that we can eventually remove the old manual Rem out and Cut off
processes currently hidden under the “NBSC use only” button.
Do you want to have a call to discuss this first?
Regards,
Peter Prior-Mills
Lean Consultant / Business Analyst
PO Box 634
Chichester,
PO19 9HJ
From: Sarah Hulse
Sent: 04 August 2015 09:57
To: Andrew Winn; Peter Prior-Mills
Cc: Paul I Smith; Maria L Hutchinson; Anne Allaker; Ibrahim Kizildag; Dave Ireland; Michelle Stevens
Subject: Making Good discrepancy by Cheque
FUJ00092139
FUJ00092139
HIAII
Has a resolution been put in place for branches that will make good by cheque when correcting discrepancies on TP rollovers?
Below is the last communication we received regarding the issue
Mead Regarde
Sarah Hulse
ESG Team NBSC Helpline,
south Wing, Dearne House, Cortonwood Drive, S73 OUF
From: Andrew Winn
Sent: 19 June 2015 15:16
To: Peter Prior-Mills
Cc: Paul I Smith; Maria L Hutchinson; Sarah Hulse; Anne Allaker; Ibrahim Kizildag; Dave Ireland; Michelle Stevens
Subject: RE: CRO pilot branches
Hi Peter
Technically the branch cannot be in the next trading period when they press make good cheque as that clears the misbalance from
the current trading period. The branch trading report will show the cheque value on it to make it balance. I would have thought it
would be possible to redirect the branch around if the option is selected but I may be trying to spend next year’s IT budget here.
Branches can clear losses from Local Suspense to cash immediately prior to rolling. That might be an option to add the make good
cheque option here to enable the mandatory rem out to kick in at that point?
Cheers
Andy
From: Peter Prior-Mills
Sent: 19 June 2015 14:58
To: Andrew Winn
Cc: Paul I Smith; Maria L Hutchinson; Sarah Hulse; Anne Allaker; Ibrahim Kizildag; Dave Ireland; Michelle Stevens
Subject: RE: CRO pilot branches
Sorry Andy,
Our mails crossed over.
The CRO process is mandatory at balancing, this was always part of the requirements catalogue. The practice of
remitting out cheques at this point and cutting the report off has always been in the guidance on HOL help to cover
those branches where the postal despatch occurs before the end of day and additional cheque payments may occur
prior to balancing.
Your suggested sequence hits a problem at TP rollover, as described by Jon Hulme:
Towards the end of the balancing process, the clerk can clear a loss from local suspense via product 6489 “Make good to cheque”,
which is recorded as a product 2 “Cheque”. If this happens, the cheque is accepted, but will not appear on the subsequent Cheque
Listing report since the stock unit is now in a new Trading Period. The report ignores cheques from the previous Trading Period.
All this is unchanged behaviour; what is different with the new Cheque Rem Out process is that because it doesn’t appear on the
report it cannot be remitted out using the automatic process.
Thus the “cheque” would be stuck in the old TP and the stock unit would be in the new TP.
FUJ00092139
FUJ00092139
If we look at the alternatives I am sure we can find a workable solution for the longer term, given that removing the
manual entry of cheque value was one of the original objectives of the change I don’t think leaving the old manual
process on the system is a viable option.
Regards,
Peter Prior-Mills
Lean Consultant / Business Analyst.
PO Box 634
Chichester,
From: Andrew Winn
Sent: 19 June 2015 14:27
To: Peter Prior-Mills
Cc: Paul I Smith; Maria L Hutchinson; Sarah Hulse; Anne Allaker; Ibrahim Kizildag; Dave Ireland; Michelle Stevens
Subject: FW: CRO pilot branches
Hi Peter
Coming back into this a bit late but I strongly do not want branches recording things that have not happened i.e. make good cash
with no cash added.
If as I’ve been told the new solution enforces any cheque values to be remmed out prior to branch trading then to my mind the
make good cheque option remains valid:-
1. Branch goes through mandatory processes including remming out cheque holdings.
Proceeds to roll and chooses to make good loss by cheque.
Branch has cheque stock so is unable to roll.
Cheque is remmed out.
Branch then rolls with no discrepancy to resolve.
WRWN
Puts another layer in for the branch but marginal extra effort and accounting is accurate — if they actually put a cheque in and
despatch!
Again playing catch up but I’m not clear if the mandatory rem out applies to TP only or BPs as well. I think making BP rems
mandatory would be a mistake and discourage branches from doing what is a recommended but optional process.
Andy
From: Paul I Smith
Sent: 19 June 2015 14:10
To: Andrew Winn
Subject: FW: CRO pilot branches
For info. We are looking for alternative ways to work already :S
Regards,
FUJ00092139
FUJ00092139
\ [ y Paul Smith
Finance Analyst/B&PA Team1 Leader,
— & — Fire Precautions/FSC H&S/Car Parking
~ ~“N Finance Service Centre
PO Ltd,
No.1 Future Walk,
Chesterfield,
S49 1PF
From: Peter Prior-Mills
Sent: 19 June 2015 13:46
To: Sarah Hulse; Maria L Hutchinson; Paul I Smith; Ibrahim Kizildag
Cc: Dave Ireland; Anne Allaker
Subject: RE: CRO pilot branches
Thanks Sarah,
That sounds like a plausible solution to me, does anyone else have a view on this?
I know that Crowns and multiples are not currently allowed to settle to cheque in this way, so in a sense we would be
standardising the approach across the network. Does anyone know if there are other necessary circumstances in which
a branch would need to settle to cheque rather than to cash?
Regards,
° Peter Prior-Mills
Lean Consultant / Business Analyst
PO Box 634
Chichester,
19
From: Sarah Hulse
Sent: 19 June 2015 13:40
To: Peter Prior-Mills; Maria L Hutchinson; Paul I Smith; Ibrahim Kizildag
Cc: Dave Ireland; Anne Allaker
Subject: RE: CRO pilot branches
Hi
What about disabling the make good cheque function altogether and only have make good cash. If an office wishes to use a
cheque, then they add this into adjust stock after balancing?...just a thought!
Kad Regarde
Sarah Hulse
FUJ00092139
FUJ00092139
ESG Team NBSC Helpline,
Ground Floor South Wing, Dearne House, Cortonwood Drive, S73 OUF
From: Peter Prior-Mills
Sent: 19 June 2015 13:33
To: Sarah Hulse; Maria L Hutchinson; Paul I Smith; Ibrahim Kizildag
Cc: Dave Ireland; Anne Allaker
Subject: FW: CRO pilot branches
Sorry, this extra update arrived just after I had sent the previous mail to you...
I guess we need to have a think about how this situation might best be handled in the future. We don’t really want the
old manual process left around permanently. Perhaps we should have a conference call next week once the pilot
branches are live
Regards,
Peter Prior-Mills
Lean Consultant / Business Analyst
PO Box 634
Chichester,
PO19 9HI
From: Hulme Jon [mailto:Jon.Hulme@
Sent: 19 June 2015 13:26
To: Peter Prior-Mills
Cc: Dave Ireland; Holmes Alan; Kay Alastair
Subject: RE: CRO pilot branches
So the “unwind” process would be to use the manual button to rem out . However this would lead to a negative value on the
Cheque Listing report, and so they should also cut-off the report with the negative balance to get back to an all square position.
Of course, if they had accepted cheques in the new TP prior to doing this (quite likely), then similarly they are going to need to use
manual buttons to Rem Out the correct amount, and then cut-off.
Kind regards,
Jon
From: Hulme Jon
Sent: 19 June 2015 13:12
To: 'Peter Prior-Mills'
Cc: Dave Ireland; Holmes Alan; Kay Alastair
Subject: RE: CRO pilot branches
Hi Peter,
Yes, this is a good spot.
FUJ00092139
FUJ00092139
Towards the end of the balancing process, the clerk can clear a loss from local suspense via product 6489 “Make good to cheque”,
which is recorded as a product 2 “Cheque”. If this happen, the cheque is accepted, but will not appear on the subsequent Cheque
Listing report since the stock unit is now in a new Trading Period. The report ignores cheques from the previous Trading Period.
All this is unchanged behaviour; what is different with the new Cheque Rem Out process is that because it doesn’t appear on the
report it cannot be remitted out using the automatic process. The clerk would have to use the manual rem out button.
Having said all that, I’m not sure that Post Office allow branches to make good to cheque.
The options available to the clerk come from products that are part of product group 6480 (clear loss from local suspense). This
group contains the product in question which is 6489 “Make good to cheque”, but this product is disabled by default and so would
not appear. I’m not sure which branches, if any, that Post Office enable this product in. That is a question for the POL Ref Data
team.
Kind regards,
Jon
From: Peter Prior-Mills f
Sent: 19 June 2015 09:46
To: Hulme Jon
Cc: Dave Ireland
Subject: FW: CRO pilot branches
Hi Jon,
Can you have a think about the point raised below and let me know if it looks like it may be an issue for us or not? If the
situation is as described then we need to understand how to correctly unwind things for a branch.
Regards,
Peter Prior-Mills
Lean Consultant / Business Analyst
PO Box 634
Chichester,
PO19 9HJ
From: Sarah Hulse
Sent: 18 June 2015 13:43
To: Peter Prior-Mills
Cc: Ibrahim Kizildag
Subject: FW: CRO pilot branches
Good Afternoon Peter
I have thought of a possible issue following on from our meeting this morning
When a branch is balancing and making good a discrepancy, they have an option for making good by cheque. When this button in
selected, it adds the cheque on to the cheque line. As far as I am aware this process doesn’t also add the figure on to the cheque
listing. I am thinking this may create a problem as branches will print or preview the cheque listing, not see the cheque and will try
to adjust stock but the cheque will already be there.
FUJ00092139
FUJ00092139
Kexd Regards
Sarah Hulse
ESG Team NBSC Helpline,
uth Wing, Dearne House, Cortonwood Drive, S73 OUF
From: ESG
Sent: 18 June 2015 13:28
To: Annette Caddick; Carole Clements; Irene Barnard; Kevin Jarosz; Louise Liptrott; Malcolm Laver; Paul J Mann; Paul X Taylor;
Sarah Hulse; Sarah Swales
Subject: FW: CRO pilot branches
Please see attached.
Kind Regards
Annette Caddick I NBSC ESG
Dearne House, Cortonwood, Barnsley, S73 OUF
From: Ibrahim Kizildag
Sent: 18 June 2015 13:23
To: POL Core Info Management Team
Cc: ESG
Subject: FW: CRO pilot branches
Hi All;
Please see attached list, this is the pilot list for the new cheque remittances procedure.
Kind Regards;
Ibrahim Kizildag Team Leader
NBSC
Dearne House
Cortonwood Drive
Brampton
Barnsley
S73 OUF
Phi
From: Peter Prior-Mills
Sent: 18 June 2015 12:39
To: Ibrahim Kizildag; Paul I Smith
Cc: Anne Allaker
FUJ00092139
FUJ00092139
Subject: CRO pilot branches
Please see attached list...
Regards,
“ Peter Prior-Mills
Lean Consultant / Business Analyst
PO Box 634
Chichester,
PO19 9HJ
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the named recipient, you must
not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication. If you have received this in error, please contact
the sender by reply email and then delete this email from your system. Any views or opinions expressed within this email are solely
those of the sender, unless otherwise specifically stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: Finsbury Dials, 20 Finsbury Street,
London EC2Y 9AQ.
Unless otherwise stated, this email has been sent from Fujitsu Services Limited, from Fujitsu (FTS) Limited, or from
Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, together "Fujitsu".
This email is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be
privileged. Fujitsu does not guarantee that this email has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free.
Fujitsu Services Limited, registered in England No 96056, registered office 22 Baker Street, London W1U 3BW.
Fujitsu (FTS) Limited, registered in England No 03808613, registered office 22 Baker Street, London W1U 3BW.
PFU Imaging Solutions Europe Limited, registered in England No 1578652, registered office Hayes Park Central, Hayes
End Road, Hayes, Middlesex, UB4 8FE.
Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, registered in England No 2548187, registered office Solihull Parkway,
Birmingham Business Park, Birmingham, B37 7YU.
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the named recipient, you must
not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication. If you have received this in error, please contact
the sender by reply email and then delete this email from your system. Any views or opinions expressed within this email are solely
those of the sender, unless otherwise specifically stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: Finsbury Dials, 20 Finsbury Street,
London EC2Y 9AQ.