02 March Fe
Subject: re: Post Office Limited -v- Mrs J Wolstenholme
B
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.
Transaction Handling on Reboot.
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.
Reasonableness of calls.
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.
FUJ00121535
FUJ00121535
FUJ00121535
FUJ00121535
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
I 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.
Worrying Discrepancies.
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,
Jason Coyne
> Please find allached
> Kathy Hopkins
> Secretary to Susanne Helliwell
> Commercial Litigation Department
> Weightman Vizards
The content of this message and attached file are confidential and/or
>>
FUJ00121535
FUJ00121535
> 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.
> 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
>
>
>
VVVV VY VY
vvvvy
vv
>
> -- NextPart —-
> Attached File:
\\bestpractice\goidmine\MailBox\Attach\Coyne - 270204.doc
> ~ NextPart
> Attached File: \bestpractice\goidmine\MailBox\Attach\Cleveleys letter1.doc
Confidentiality Notice:
The information in this document may be confidential. Itis 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 and 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.