POST OFFICE ACCOUNT
FAD 13.405 veleys Runnymede Ave, Thornton Clevely, Lancs, FY5 1DF
Review of Expert Witness Report : Claim CR101947
Report received 6" February from POL. Written by Jason Coyne from Best Practice
Group ple. Law Society 2003 Accredited Expert Witness No. 229.
Background
POL have been in dispute with PM of this Outlet since mid 2000. Essentially, POL
had made a claim against the PM for losses at the Outlet, against which she had.
counter-claimed that the problem was caused by the Horizon system and she was
refusing to release the equipment as she believed an examination of it would vindicate
her. A Court Order was made on 19" February 2003 that a computer expert examine
the equipment.
POA’s first involvement was a request made 8" August 2003 by POL that we provide
a Witness Statement “about the Horizon equipment and what it contains (or doesn’t)
and give Mrs W a chance to object”. POL wanted the Court to overturn the Court
Order so that POL could recover the equipment.
On 20" August a fax was received from POL explaining the situation and requesting a
Witness Statement to the effect that there was nothing on the equipment that would
assist the PM in her claim and that it should be returned.
The following day I replied, by email, stating that I was loathe to produce a Witness
Statement at this stage but explaining what information existed on the equipment,
what would happen if it was switched on and that we would not allow 3“ parties
access. I also explained how we could help POL. I received no reply to this email
On 6" February POA received a copy of the Expert’s report with a request from POL
for an early response. POL are concerned that the Expert’s opinion (that the system
was at fault) might set a precedent against future POL prosecutions.
The Expert’s Opinion
Taking each opinion as it occurs in the report I would offer the following by means of
explanation, confirmation or refutation.
‘Reasonableness’ of calls to HSH
The Expert was unable to make direct comparisons between similar Outlets due to the
absence of records. While this was true of audit data formally available to POL, POA
are able to review an unregulated archive of records of the other installed 6 Counter
Outlets over a comparable period. The table below shows the output from that
analysis :
FUJ00121486
FUJ00121486
FUJ00121486
FUJ00121486
FAD — POName Install A H K MNOS x Z %Non %
Date A&G Soft
005323 I Headingly osiosa I 74 I 20 5 7 3 I 27 6 73% I 36%
005715 I Dungannon I 18/10/99 I 25 I 8 2 1] 4 I 10 3 68% I 40%
009116 I Halstead 2809/99 I 16 I 3 1 1[1[7 2 81% I 44%
013613 I Haverfordwest I 04/11/99 I 48 I 7 8 2] 2 I 22 3 85% I 46%
153405 I Cleveleys [1] I 09/02/00 I 101 I 15 6 5 5] 4 I 35 14 I 16 85% I 35%
183405 I Cleveleys [2] I 09/02/00 I 85 I 15 6 5 5] 4 I 35 14 82% I 41%
176323 I Armley 13/0199 I 87 I 23 8 4 7 I 29 12 74% I 33%
185611 I Penarth ogioss I 58 I 15 5 1 3 I 15 14 74% I 26%
250704 I Yorkgate 2aogisa I 32 I 5 4 3 I 16 3 84% I 50%
292323 I Otley o7ioss I 34 I 10 1 5 [4 2 71% I 32%
333427 I Darwen 2inoss I 55 I 13 8 2 1[5 [13 3 76% I 24%
345432 I Wilmslow 2sriosa I 29 I 4 2 6 4I7 6 86% I 24%
431614 I Colwyn Bay I 05/11/99 I 89 I 19 2 3 2 I 38 13 79% I 43%
Call jend
Type
A Advice and Guidance
F Reference Data
H Hardware
1 Implementation
K Cash Account
M Customer Complaint
N Network
° Operational
Ss Software
T Training
x Other
Y Rollout Helpdesk
Zz Security
Discounting Rollout Helpdesk calls, which should have not been addressed to the
HSH, it can be said that in terms of total calls made (3 highest from 12), %ge that
were non Advice & Guidance (4" highest) and the %ge that were Software based (5
highest), Cleveleys numbers are broadly comparable with the group of Outlets.
To draw any firm conclusions as to why this is would require judgement over the
capabilities of the staff in the first place, correct operation of the equipment,
effectiveness of the training programme and the extent to which the Cleveley’s staff
resorted to the HSH at the first opportunity.
Statement by Ms Elaine Tagg
A total of 101 HSH calls were raised between 09/02/00 (install date) and 20/11/00
(termination date) of which 15 are classified as Advice and Guidance and 16 are to do
with the Rollout itself. Based on the analysis, and without analysing each and every
call record it would be hard to dispute the opinion of the Expert.
Operator advice to ‘Reboot’
The HSH operates under a strict Service Level Agreement covering aspects such as
pick-up time, first time fix, and time to close. These measures are imposed by Post
Office Ltd and are designed to ensure that PMs receive a quick response to their call
and, to the extent possible over the ‘phone, a timely return to normal business
operations. To re-boot is the quickest way to return the Outlet to normal working.
In this context the opinion of the Expert, that “this instruction treats the effect and not
the cause” is correct.
However, it would be incorrect to assume that no further work is carried out by POA
to address the various blue screen/system freeze/screen lock problems. Regular
maintenance updates are made to address these problems within the normal Release
programme.
Summary : Defective Equipment
The criticism that the technology installed at Cleveleys was ‘clearly defective’ is
subjective and based on the raising of 70 HSH calls over a 10 month period. There is
no attempt to substantiate the claim nor to draw any comparisons with external
benchmarks.
Summary : Closing Calls
It is true that the HSH is targeted at returning Outlets to normal working as fast as
possible and are not in a position to analyse system error messages displayed on
screens. This is governed by Service Level Agreements instigated and monitored by
Post Office Ltd.
Summary : Worrying Discrepancies
It is difficult to comment on the statement made by the Expert in this part of the
Summary although he is alluding to the fact that system errors may be responsible for
this.
This argument has been put forward by a number of PMs in the past when challenged
and prosecuted by POL for alleged fraudulent behaviour and each time it has fallen
when confronted by transaction data that demonstrates that the system was operating
normally during the disputed time period.
FUJ00121486
FUJ00121486