FUJ00122197
FUJ00122197
Message
From: Lowther Neneh [/O=ICL/OU=RETAIL REA24/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=ILONAHN]
Sent: 23/03/2006 15:29:25
To: Jenkins Gareth Gl [/O=ICL/OU=ICL IT CONSULTANCY/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=GARETH.JENKINS]
cc: Pinder Brian [/O=ICL/OU=UKSOUTH FELO1/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=PINDERB]
Subject: RE: Gaerwen
Attachments: GI GaerwenMar06.doc
Hi, Gareth,
G
GaerwenMar06.d...
I have updated your WS with all the column headings you explained to me earlier.
I have not included your response below as I'm not quite sure where to fit it in.
Could you please help out with this.
Also I believe that Graham Ward is thinking that ‘system failures’ are drastic events. Could you please explain a little
further on this like you said that they are normal system occurrences.
Please send back to me when you've finished so I can send to GW to look at today if possible.
Kind regards,
Neneh
-Original Message:
From: Jenkins Gareth GI
Sent: 22 March 2006 17:40
To: Lowther Neneh
Cc: Pinder Brian
Subject: RE: Gaerwen
Neneh,
I’m not quite sure what his problem is with what I’ve said.
Basically, any value of Response Code that is greater than 10 does imply some end to
end system failure. The actual value makes it clearer what exactly the failure is and
where it has been detected.
In the example there are two such codes:
¢ 23: In the spreadsheet, this is marked as "Timeout". However this is
incorrect (I don't know where the look up value came from). 23 means "Failed
by Fi: Unexpected Response Code" and the clerk is requested to retry the
transaction
¢ 26: In the spreadsheet this is marked as "Failed by FI: System Unavailable
- Return Card" which reflects what has happened.
FUJ00122197
FUJ00122197
How do you want to play this? Do you want to add in specific text to the Witness statement
to cover these two codes or persuade POL that the generic statement is OK (perhaps with
some clearer words)?
Happy to discuss.
Regards
Gareth
This e-mail is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are confidential
and may be privileged. Fujitsu Services does not guarantee that this e-mail has not
been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free.
Gareth Jenkins
Disti
Applications TDA
Post Office Account
Fujitsu Services
Lovelace Road, Bracknell, Berkshire, RG12_8SN
mies I GRO
Web: http://uk.fujitsu.com
Fujitsu Services Limited, Registered in England no 96056, Registered Office 26, Finsbury
Square, London, EC2A 1SL
-----Original Message-----
From: Lowther Neneh
Sent: 22 March 2006 15:14
To: Jenkins Gareth GI
Cc: Pinder Brian
Subject: FW: Gaerwen
Hi, Gareth,
Ps see reply from Graham below regarding your statement.
Please ignore the first bit about exhibits. I will print out the exhibits and update
your statement with this.
I understand that you have copies of the spreadsheets sent to you yesterday from Brian
Pinder.
Could you please look at his second para and advise with your comments again.
I have attached a copy of your draft statement too.
Kind regards
Neneh
----- Original Message----- .
From: graham.c.ward GRO
Sent: 22 March 2006°12TIT : :
To: Lowther Neneh
Ce: brian.pindext
Subject: RE: Gaer
Neneh
FUJ00122197
FUJ00122197
The layout presumably is unfinished, paragraph spacings etc ?.
As per my earlier e mail, and more importantly the 3 spreadsheets sent with
ARQ data need to be produced as individual exhibits (GIJ / 1 2 and 3 and
each column header within these spreadsheets must be explained as you do
with your usual statements (I noticed that 401 differs slightly from 459
and 460).
Also the line which begins at the foot of page 1 "RespCd with a value
greater than 10...........05 " appears unfinished ? and I'm concerned at the
words 'system failure’ which is also in an earlier line.. "There has
been some sort of system failure" - What does this mean exactly and is
there any indication of a system lure at this office during the period
in question ?
Regards
Graham
Lowther Neneh
<Neneh.Lowthe¥ GRO
graham.c.ward{” Graham.c.war
cc
Subject: RE: Gaerwen
22/03/2006 13:01
Graham,
Please see the draft WS for the above re 'Nil Transactions’.
Could you see if this meets your requirements.
Kind regards,
Neneh
ae Original Messags
: graham.c.ward
o:graham.c.war
Sent: 22 March 2006 10:04
To: Pinder Brian
Cc: Lowther Neneh; Thomas Penny
Subject: Gaerwen
Brian
I'll get back to you once I have confirmed whether we need these statements
or not (in respect of Torquay Road & Marine Drive).
Can I also take this opportunity to clarify our requirements in respect of
the Gaerwen statement. In this case the Subpostmaster is blaming Horizon
FUJ00122197
FUJ00122197
for his losses claiming that for various banking related transactions the
counter desktop records amounts entered for payment but then shows ‘Nil!
when the transaction log is printed, and it is this we need to refute.
Various e mails passed between myself and your team on this matter and the
reply below was received from Penny on the 20/10/05
Nil transactions could also be caused by errors in PIN Pad, counter, agents
or host code depending on what constitutes a "nil transaction". This cannot.
be determined without access to the appropriate system logs.'
Penny also sent with the respective ARQ data, additional spreadsheets which
showed all 'Nil' transactions for the periods
(See attached file: ARQ459 Analysis Nov 04.xls) (See attached file: ARQ 460
Analysis May 05.xls) (See attached file: ARQ401 Analysis.xls
We therefore require the usual statement producing the Transaction and
Event logs (Penny has sent me a draft and I have suggested one or two minor
amendments). We will also need the above spreadsheets produced by whoever
put them together, explaining the headings and under what circumstances
'Nil' transactions can occur. Finally, 'to cover all the angles' I would
also like to produce the call logs during the entire period (01/11/04 -
30/11/05) so we can see whether the Postmaster ever reported this alleged
fault with the system... «+. a statement similar to the Bill Mitchell
statement sent in my e mail dated 10 March will be ideal.
Hopefully this will clarify our requirements in this case, but please ring
if there is any confusion.
Regards
Graham
Casework Manager
Post Office Ltd Investigation Team
PO BOX 1, CROYDON, CR9 1WN
Postline:
N/A, Mobex
External
VoiceMail:
Pinder Brian
graham.c.war
cc "Sewell Peter
(FELO1)" <Peter.Sewe
Subject: RE: ARQ's,
statement request and assistance
21/03/2006 15:29
Graham
No problem,
calls regarding Marine Drive and Torquay Road when required.
we are happy to provide a statement presenting the helpdesk
Grateful if
you could provide us with a heads up nearer the time.
Regds Brian
----- Original Message-
graham.c.ward
(mailto: graham.c.wardf
Sent: 21 Ma
To: Fujitsu
Cc: Peter.Sewel]”
Subject: ARQ's, statement request and assistance
Brian / Penny / Neneh
Can I enquire when the Gaerwan statement will be
paragraph below).........05 as it is required for
prosecution committal papers which have to be in
(Monday at the latest).
Also have you made any progress in deciding whether a similar statement as
ready please (bold
the submission of
by the end of this week
to the one previously prepared by Bill Mitchell will be possible in the
Torquay Road and Marine Drive cases........
Regards
Graham
Casework Manager
Post Office Ltd Investigation Team
PO BOX 1, CRO 1WN
CROYDON,
if we require one.
GRO
Postline
N/A, Mobex
graham.c.wardt
- Forwarded by Graham C Ward/e/POSTOFFICE on
Graham C Ward
10/03/2006 12:43
Subject: ARQ's,
request and assistance
21/03/2006 13:55 -
Fujitsu
ect
statement
FUJ00122197
FUJ00122197
All
Firstly sorry for the length of this e mail and the high volume of requests
attached.
(See attached file: 0506667-679 GW.doc) (See attached file: 0506680-690
GW.doc)
Both of the above requests relate to cases where PO Ltd are being
challenged
about the accuracy of the Horizon system (you are already aware of the case
at Torquay Road and have provided data between the dates now being asked
Zor).
- In the cases of Marine Drive and Torquay Road for which you have
usly provided written responses, I would like to ‘sound out' the
possibility of someone at Fujitsu providing a formal witness statement
along
the lines of the attachment below, which was provided by Bill Mitchell in
one of our criminal cases (whilst Marine Drive & Torquay Rd are not
criminal
matters, given the allegations being made by the Postmasters, I'm sure
you'll agree that it is very much in both ourselves and Fujitsu's interests
to challenge the allegations and provide evidence that the system is not to
blame for the losses being reported). Whilst it may not be a statement that
you, Penny or Neneh can provide, I'm sure there must be someone who can.
(See attached file: BM Shobnall Road SPSO 150405.doc)
On a separate matter, I also require a witness statement in respect of the
following ARQ's 0506/401, 459 and 460, all of which relate to Gaerwen SPSO.
We need the usual (leave out para's H(b) and J, but we do need para K (call
logs) covering an analysis over the period 01/11/04 - 30/11/05. Penny -
you
may recall this one which relates to nil transactions, my previous e mails
dated 14th, 2ist and 25th October refer. Can you add an extra paragraph in
your statement explaining how on-line banking transactions are processed
and
the data downloaded and how nil transactions can occur.
Finally, also attached are a few more 'normal' ARQ's
(See attached file: 0506697-700 CK.doc) (See attached file: 0506692-694
PS.doc) (See attached file: 0506695-696 CK.doc) (See attached file: 0506691
JL.doc)
Again apologies for the length of the e mail .......... and on a Friday as
well !!!!
Regards
Graham
Casework Manager
Post Office Ltd Investigation Team
PO BOX 1, CROYDON, CR9 1WN
FUJ00122197
FUJ00122197
Postline
N/A, Mobex
graham.c.wardt GRO
FUJ00122197
FUJ00122197
FESS I GIS ISIS SII SSIS SSIS i lili i ilelledeie lek
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 and then
delete this email from your system.
FAI III III ICI III III III III III III Ite
FE IS II SSIS IS IIIS ISIS IS ISI SII SII ISI ISIS ISIS ia isi ieleleaeieie le
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 and then
delete this email from your system.
FOI IG II I I IG I IO I ICIS II I ISG GIS II I I EI GIS I I I I I E I IOI I i eee
>>>> G Jenkins Gaewenr WS.doc attachment was removed from this email <<<<
JESSE SE ISB ISIS SI ISS IS ISSR I SSI ISG ISG I ISI ISI ISS IS I IGE IIS ibe
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 and then
delete this email from your system.
JOSE SSSI SISOS ISSO ISIS I ISS ISIS IIE ISSR ISGEISISGII ISI ISS ISSII ISS IIS BIISEI ISS