FUJ00152573
FUJ00152573
= ‘Ww
7 Dec 05
Re: Letter from Bond Pearce Solicitors Dated 18 Nov 05 PO Vs Mr Castleton
In response to your email request dated 28 Nov 05 concerning the questions raised at para (3)
of the above document;
QI. We need to explain to a Judge who will know nothing about Horizon exactly how it
works, what precisely happens when a customer goes into a Post Office to buy an item? How
is this recorded? Is it manually recorded into the Horizon system at the same time or later in
the day? Is the cash register linked to Honzon?
This should be directed to the POL IT probably Bob Booth
Q2. Precisely what steps Fujitsu took to examine the Horizon system at the Marine Drive
Post Office in 2004 and what their conclusions were.
Ann Chambers response: attached.
Q3. Whether there have been any similar or serious problems with the Horizon system at the
Marine Drive Post Office since Mr Castleton's suspension and dismissal.
No comment however Steve Holbert should be able to assist here
Q4. Whether you believe that the suggestion put forward by Mr Castleton's experts is likely
to be correct and your reasons, either way (if you are able to comment on this).
No comment.
QS. If there have been human errors in recording the transactions, could an explanation be
that:
(a) There was nothing wrong with Horizon, because it simply reflected the
information entered 6n to it; but
(b) If staff entered the wrong numbers into Horizon there may have been no
real loss (even though Horizon would show a loss), because there could be a
human error in accurately recording transactions.
If so, would that be a likely explanation?
Gareth Jenkins response :attached.
Q6. Any other Information, that you believe may be relevant.
No comment
Kind Regds
Brian Pinder
Security Manager PO Account
FUJITSU Services! }
FUJ00152573
FUJ00152573
Details of investigation by Ann Chambers
I looked at the reconciliation reports for any entries for this outlet for two weeks preceding
the date of the query (25/2/2005). There were none. This indicates that:
e the transactions completed on the Horizon system were correctly formed and written
e the value and quantity of transactions completed on the Horizon system at the outlet
matched the value and quantity of transactions copied to the Horizon central systems
e the Cash Account produced at the outlet at the end of each week included all transactions
completed on the Horizon system at the outlet
e the payments and receipts balanced on the Cash Account
I examined the messagestore - this holds, amongst other things, all transactions completed on
the Horizon system, also the stock, stamp and cash declarations entered by the clerk.
Firstly I checked the cheques recorded on the system during the week, to make sure that they
had been removed correctly from the system via the Remit Out process. There had been one
error in process on 10th Feb when the clerk forgot to cut off the report, but this didn't cause a
discrepancy.
Then IJ added up all cash components of transactions for an accounting week plus the cash
brought forward, and found that the difference between this system total, and the end of week
Cash Declaration, matched the discrepancy generated when the stock unit was balanced.
I then.repeated the process on a daily basis, comparing the system totals with the overnight
cash holding declarations, to see if I could identify a particular day when the discrepancy had
occurred. I found that there were varying and large differences between the system totals and
the declared amounts each day, and it was not possible to pin down the discrepancy to a
particular day.
Anne Chambers
FUJ00152573
FUJ00152573
Comments from Gareth Jenkins:
If there have been human errors in recording the transactions, could an explanation be
that:
(a) There was nothing wrong with Horizon, because it simply reflected the
information entered on to it; but
This is certainly True (ie Horizon simply reflects the information entered into it).
(b) If staff entered the wrong numbers into Horizon there may have
been no real loss (even though Horizon would show a loss), because
there could be a human error in accurately recording transactions.
Again, this could be True. However if there is some sort of miss-entering of data into
Horizon, then there would be another corresponding error which should be picked up eg as a
Stock Error or some AP Client being credited with an incorrect amount. Also, any such error
should show up as part of the Balancing Process.
If so, would that be a likely explanation?
Not able to comment on this.
Gareth Jenkins
Distinguished Engineer
Applications TDA
Post Office Account
FUJ00152573
FUJ00152573
Graham
7 Dec 05
Re: Letter from Bond Pearce Solicitors Dated 18 Nov 05 PO Vs Mr Castleton
In response to your email request dated 28 Nov 05 concerning the questions raised at para (3)
of the above document;
QI. We need to explain to a Judge who will know nothing about Horizon exactly how it
works, what precisely happens when a customer goes into.a Post Office to buy an item? How
is this recorded? Is it manually recorded into the Horizon system at the same time or later in
the day? Is the cash register linked to Honzon?
This should be directed to the POL IT probably Bob Booth
Q2. Precisely what steps Fujitsu took to examine the Horizon system at'the Marine Drive
Post Office in 2004 and what their conclusions were.
Ann Chambers response: attached.
Q3. Whether there have been any similar or serious problems with the Horizon system at the
Marine Drive Post Office since Mr Castleton’s suspension and dismissal.
No comment however Steve Holbert should be able to assist here
Q4. Whether you believe that the suggestion put forward by Mr Castleton’s experts is likely
to be correct and your reasons, either way (if you are able to comment on this).
No comment.
QS. If there have been human errors in recording the transactions, could an explanation be
that:
(a) There was nothing wrong with Horizon, because it simply reflected the
information entered on to it; but
(b) If staff entered the wrong numbers into Horizon there may have been no
real loss (even though Horizon would show a loss), because there could be a
human error in accurately recording transactions.
Tf so, would that be a likely explanation?
Gareth Jenkins response :attached.
Q6. Any other Information that you believe may be relevant.
No comment .
T hope this is helpful
Kind Regds
Brian Pinder
Security Manager PO Account
FUJ00152573
FUJ00152573
FUJITSU Services
Details of investigation by Ann Chambers
I looked at the reconciliation reports for any entries for this outlet for two weeks preceding
the date of the query (25/2/2005). There were none. This indicates that:
e the transactions completed on the Horizon system were correctly formed and written
e the value and quantity of transactions completed on the Horizon system at the outlet
matched the value and quantity of transactions copied to the Horizon central systems
e the Cash Account produced at the outlet at the end of each week included all transactions
completed on the Horizon system at the outlet
e the payments and receipts balanced on the Cash Account
Texamined the messagestore - this holds, amongst other things, all transactions completed on
the Horizon system, also the stock, stamp and cash declarations entered by the clerk.
Firstly I checked the cheques recorded on the system during the week, to make sure that they
had been removed correctly from the system via the Remit Out process. There had been one
error in process on 10th Feb when the clerk forgot to cut off the report, but this didn’t cause a
discrepancy.
Then I added up all cash components of transactions for an accounting week plus the cash
brought forward, and found that the difference between this system total, and the end of week
Cash Declaration, matched the discrepancy generated when the stock unit was balanced.
I then repeated the process on a daily basis, comparing the system totals with the overnight
cash holding declarations, to see if I could identify a particular day when the discrepancy had
occurred. I found that there were varying and large differences between the system totals and
the declared amounts each day, and it was not possible to pin down the discrepancy to a
particular day.
Anne
FUJ00152573
FUJ00152573
Comments from Gareth Jenki
If there have been human errors in recording the transactions, could an explanation be
that:
(a) There was nothing wrong with Horizon, because it simply reflected the
information entered on to.it; but
This is certainly True (ie Horizon simply reflects the information entered into it).
(b) If staff entered the wrong numbers into Horizon there may have
been no real loss (even though Horizon would show a loss), because
there could be a human error in accurately recording transactions.
Again, this could be True. However if there is some sort of miss-entering of data into
Horizon, then there would be another corresponding error which should be picked up eg as a
Stock Error or some AP Client being credited with an incorrect amount. Also, any such error
should show up as part of the Balancing Process.
If so, would that be a likely explanation?
Not able to comment on this.
Gareth Jenkins
Distinguished Engineer
Applications TDA
Post Office Account
29 Nov 05
David
Ref A: Letter from Bond Pearce Solicitors Dated 18 Nov 05 PO Vs Mr Castleton
Ref B: Email ref two cases; Marine Drive and Torquay Road. ARQ Ref No 405 & 421 - 423
I have received a copy of a letter regarding Marine Drive, from Bond Pearce
Solicitors Ref A refers, which concerns the loss of some £27,115.83 from Marine
Drive sub PO between 18 July 03 and 25 Mar 04 of which Mr Castleton was the Sub
Postmaster. Mr Castleton was suspended 23 Mar 04 and dismissed 17 May 04. The
PO have now issued a claim against him to recover these losses and he in turn has
issued a counter claim stating that any shortfall is entirely the fault of problems with
the Horizon computer and accounting system at the Marine Drive Post Office.
The process for the security team in dealing with all routine PO Investigations is
always initiated by an ARQ issued by Graham Ward from the PO Fraud
Investigations team. Both these cases were initiated within the last two months by an
ARQ from Graham and the details were forwarded to him on CD. After an initial
discussion with Graham on this matter he acknowledged the request and has asked us
(FJ) to formally respond through him to the solicitors concerned Ref B refers.
The letter (ref A) is directed at FUJITSU requesting answers to 6 questions which are
fundamentally outside of the scope of the POA Security Team and also outside the.
scope of the ARQ process. It is clear that some investigatory work has already been
undertaken by FUJITSU dated 5 May 04 by Julie Welsh (SDM) of which all parties
seem aware and for this reason I would recommend caution before any comment is
made without reference to any previous report and would also recommend that this
letter is re-directed through our Legal and Commercial team at the earliest opportunity
for guidance and-way forward. I am still awaiting requirements re Torquay Road
from Graham Ward.
Brian
Microsoft Word
Document
FUJ00152573
FUJ00152573
AUDIT RECORD QUERY
REQUIREMENTS:
Originator: I Graham Ward Date: I 04/11/05
Post Office Ltd Security +
Casework Manager
PO Box 1
CROYDON
CR9 1WN
Telephone:
Witness NO REFNO. I ARQ
Statement (delete 0506/4211 -
as applicable) 423
Information Requested
Date range: 01/01/04 — 31/03/04 Post Office I Marine Drive
213337
GENERAL
DESCRIPTION A report of all transactions and events for the office for the
FORMAT . relevant days (See attached list), including remittances
received, transfers between stock units and error notices.
We would like the following format for logs (in Excel format
with each category in a separate column):
Balancing Period; Cash Accounting Period;
Session Type - i.e. Serve Customer, Reversal. Rem In etc
Transaction No; Session Indicator; Date; Time; Stock; User
ID; Transaction Type; Amount £p
2 columns specifying whether an OBCS (& state) of scan
accompanied the transaction
(Session Indicator is whatever way the system has of
indicating that individual transactions are linked)
Specific Details:
(PAN or equivalent identifier)
Signed
Date I 04/11/05
Graham Ward
FUJ00152573
FUJ00152573
AUDIT RECORD QUERY
Originator: I Graham Ward Date: I 26/10/05
Post Office Ltd Security
Casework Manager
PO Box 1
CROYDON
CR9 1WN
Telephone: I) GRO
Witness NO REFNO. I ARQ
Statement (delete 0506/405
as applicable)
Information Requested
Date range: 1 Jan 2004 — 31 March Post Office I Marine Drive
2004 inclusive 213337
GENERAL Please also conduct an analysis of all Helpdesk calls for the
DESCRIPTION above period, commenting on any calls that may indicate
FORMAT faults / problems with the system
REQUIREMENTS:
Please also supply a report of all transactions and events for
the office for the relevant days, including remittances
received, transfers between stock units and error notices.
We would like the following format for logs (in Excel format
with each category in a separate column):
Balancing Period; Cash Accounting Period;
Session Type - i.e. Serve Customer, Reversal. Rem In etc
Transaction No; Session Indicator; Date; Time; Stock; User
ID; Transaction Type; Amount £p
2 columns specifying whether an OBCS (& state) of scan
accompanied the transaction
(Session Indicator is whatever way the system has of
indicating that individual transactions are linked)
Specific Details:
(PAN or equivalent identifier)
Signed
Date I 26/10/05
Graham Ward
FUJ00152573
FUJ00152573
FUJ00152573
FUJ00152573
Brian
As discussed by phone this morning, could I please ask that the request
below be expedited.
Both the ARQ requests detailed in the Subject title are Civil matters
where there is a suggestion that the losses incurred at the offices are
as a result of faults with the Horizon software.
Marine Drive - In this case Bond Pearce Solicitors acting on our behalf
have asked for an investigation into the workings of the system (their
letter dated 18/11/05 refers, copy posted back to you today details
exactly what analysis is required ). Could I ask that you deal with the
questions raised and prepare a formal response to be returned via me as
soon as possible.
Torquay Road - The same scenario as above applies. I am awaiting
details from our Solicitors dealing with the matter, outlining exactly
what is required and as soon as I receive this information, I will be
asking for a formal response from you, much the same as with Marine
Drive.
I am assuming that in both cases, you have copies of the ARQ
information already supplied.
Regards
Graham
Casework, Manager
Post Office Ltd Investigation Team
PO BOX 1, CROYDON, CR9 1WN
Postline: N/A sTD
N/A, Mobex
graham.c.wardI.
/ VoiceMail:
FUJ00152573
FUJ00152573
Pinder Brian
= —_ —
From: graham.c.ward___
Sent: 28 November 200:
To: Pinder Brian ‘
Ce: Lowther Neneh; Thomas Penny; Sewell Peter (FELO1)
Subject: Re: Marine Drive Post Office - ARQ 0506/405 & 421-423 & Torquay Road ARQ
0506/368
Brian
As discussed by phone this morning, could I please ask that the request below be
expedited.
Both the ARQ requests detailed in the Subject title are Civil matters where there is a
suggestion that the losses incurred at the offices are as a result of faults with the
Horizon software.
Marine Drive - In this case Bond Pearce Solicitors acting on our behalf have asked for
an investigation into the workings of the system (their letter dated 18/11/05 refers,
copy posted back to you today details exactly what analysis is required ). Could I ask
that you deal with the questions raised and prepare a formal response to be returned via
me as soon as possible.
Torquay Road - The same scenario as above applies. I am awaiting details from our
Solicitors dealing with the matter, outlining exactly what is requiréd and as soon as I
receive this information, I will be asking for a formal response from you, much the same
as with Marine Drive. .
I. am assuming that in both cases, you have copies of the -ARQ information already
supplied. . :
Regards
Graham
Casework. Manager
Post Office Ltd Investigation Team
PO BOX 1, CROYDON, CR9 1WN
Postline: N, VoiceMail:
N/A, Mobe:
graham.c.ward
Pinder Brian {
graham.c.wardé.
ce: Thomas Penny
"Sewell Peter (FELO1)"
<Peter .Sewel
<Penny . Thomas/
Lowther
Neneh <Neneh. Lowther}
22/11/2005 15:02 Subject: Marine Drive Post Office - ARQ
405/ 05/06 .
Graham
FUJ00152573
FUJ00152573
Please be advised I am sending you a FAX (today) for your attention re Mr Castleton.
I believe this refers to the helpdesk calls which we sent to you on CD on 2nd Nov 05.
Kind Regds
Brian
Security Manager
PO Account
FUJITSU
c/o FUJITSU Services, Lovelace Road, Bracknell. Berkshire RG12 8SN
+ Email brian.pinderf
Web http: //uk. fujitsu.com
Fujitsu Services Limited, Registered in England no 96056, Registered Ofice
26 Finsbury Square, London EC2A 1SL
This email is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a
duty of confidence and may be privilaged. Fujitsu Services does not. gurantee that this
email has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus free.
JESS ISIS ISIS ISIISI ISIS IEI ISI ISI ISI IOI IOSIS CISTI IIIS II IOI II II III II III I Ir
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.
FOSS IIIS SI SII IOI OIG SII ISIS IIIS T IGS IIE SIS III SII I II IEE
FUJ00152573
FUJ00152573
COMMERCIAL TEAM @o1
21/11 '05 11:25 FAX
—_ Bnd face
18 November 2005 Bond Panrce uP
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
Fujitsu Services
Our ref:
‘SID3/ABG1/348035,134
Your ref;
i
i
I URGENT
\
ear Sirs,
Post Office Limited -v- Mr L Castleton
14 South Marine Drive, Bridlington, WY15 3DB ("the Marine Drive Post Office")
‘ (1) Background
We act on behalf of the Post Office Limited (“PO”). From approximately 18 July 2003 to 23 March 2004, Mr
Castleton was a Sub Postmaster at the Marine Drive Post Office. He was strictly responsible for the safe
custody of cash and stock and was obliged to make good all losses caused through his own negligence,
1 carelessness or error and losses of any kind caused by his assistants.
Between 18 July 2003 and 25 March 2004, net losses of £27,115.83 occurred at the Sub Post Office. Mr
H Castleton was suspended on 23 March 2004 and dismissed on 17 May 2004. The Post Office has now
' issued a claim against him to try and recover these net losses. Mr Castleton has issued a Counterclaim
i claiming wrongful termination of his contract.
(2) Mr Castieton’s Defence
Mr Castleton’s case is that any shortfall {s entirely the fault of problems with the Horizon computer and
accounting system at the Marine Drive Post Office and that the PO wrongfully terminated his Sub
: Pastmaster contract in respect of which has suffered loss not exceeding £250,000.
We attach copies of the following:
A. Without prejudice letter dated 30 September from Mr Castleton‘s solicitors to Bond Pearce LLP.
B. Bentley Jennison’s Report dated 23 September and attachments;
C. White & Hoggard’s Report dated 18 August.
Bentley Jennison state that deficiencies have probably been brought forward despite the fact that they
have been entered onto the suspense account entry. They suspect this is because the Horizon system,
despite the suspense account entry, has failed to recognise the entry on the daily snapshots. They have
drawn this conclusion through looking at the discrepancy of £3,509.18 on Thursday 26 February 2004, -
They then suggest that this double accounting could have continued over a number of weeks and that as
such, Mr Castletan’s Defence, “appears to hold potential merit based on the limited documentation” they
have so far reviewed. White & Hoggard reach a similar conclusion in thelr Report.
Mr Castleton belleves that if he can obtain further documents, such as the daily snapshots, he will be able
to undertake a manual reconciliation of the cash account In order to substantiate his belief that the losses
are not real but attributable to computer error. We attach an email from Fujitsu to Richard Benton at the
Post Office dated 5 May 2004 In which Fujitsu state “It is possible that they are not accurately recording all
transactions on the system” and that there was no evidence whatsoever of any system problem.
v
Bond Pearce LLP, & Limited Liability Partnership. red in England end Wales numner OC}114:
Ragietered otfce: Brac Sridge House 134 tat Redeemer bristol bet aes WaT number Geis G2g2 07.
A list of members of Bond Pearce ls open for inspection at the ragistered office. Regulated by the Law Society, www.bondpeatce.com
1A_1090832_2
FUJ00152573
FUJ00152573
COMMERCIAL TEAM @o2
gaya. (U0 2arzd FAK
‘ (3) Report
" Please could you review Mr Castleton’s experts’ Reports and prepare-a formal Repart dealing with the
following points (to the extent you are able):
1. We need to explain to a Judge who will know nothing about Horizon exactly how It works. What
precisely happens when a customer goes into a Post Office to buy an item? How Is this recorded? Is it
manually recorded Into the Horizon system at the same time ar later in the day? Is the cash register
linked to Horizon?
2. Precisely what steps Fujitsu took to examine the Horizon system at the Marine Drive Post Office in
2004 and what their conclusions were.
3. Whether there have been any similar or serlous problems with the Horizon system at the Marine Drive
Post Office since Mr Castleton’s suspension and dismissal,
4. Whether you believe that the suggestion put forward by Mr Castleton’s experts is likely to be correct
I and your reasons, either way (if you are able to comment on this).
5. If there have been human errors In recording the transactions, could an explanation be that:
(a) There was nothing wrong with Horizon, because it simply reflected the information entered on to
It; but
(b) If staff entered the wrong numbers into Horizon there may have been no real loss (even though
Horizon would show a loss), because there could be a human error in accurately recording
transactions.
If so, would that be a likely explanation?
6. Any other information that you believe may be relevant.
(4) Duty to the Court
As a result of the instruction you may be asked to give evidence before the Court. Whilst the PO will be
liable to pay your fees, in preparing your Report and giving evidence; your over riding duty will be to help
the Court on the matters within your expertise.
You agree to meet the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules Part 35 Practice Direction (copy enclosed)
and that your Report will:-
1. Be addressed to the Court and not to the Post Office (but it should be sent to Mr Dilley of this firm).
2. Confirm that you understand your duty to the Court and that you have complied and will continue to
comply with that duty;
3. Contain a statement'setting out the substance of all material facts and instructions (whether written or
oral) on the basis on which your Report is written. This.statement should summarize the facts and
instructions given to you which are material to the opinions expressed in the Report or upon which
those opinions are based and if any of the facts are within your own knowledge which they ara;
4. Contain a chronology of the relevant events;
5. Contain a Statement of Truth in the following form:
“I confirm that insofar as the facts stated in my Report are within my own knowledge I have made
clear which they are and I belleve them to be true and that the opinions I have expressed represent
my true and complete professional opinion”.
6. You should nor that proceedings for contempt of Court may be brought against you if you make a false
' statement.and Report verified by a Statement of Truth without an honest belief it was true;
7, Contain a declaration that the Report has been prepared In accordance with the Code of Guidance on
I Expert Evidence (enclosed),
8. Give details of your qualifications;
wow.bondpearce.com Pus
1A_1090832_2
FUJ00152573
FUJ00152573
COMMERCIAL TEAM Mos
z1/ll 06 11:25 FAX {-
9, Give details of any literature or other material which you rely on in making the Report;
10. So who carried out any test or experiment which you use for the Report and whether or not the test or
experiment has been carried out under your supervision;
11. Give the qualifications of the pérson who carried out any such test or experiment;
12. Where there is a range of opinion on the matters dealt with in the Report - sub-paragraph 11.1
summarises the range of opinion.
13. Give reasons for your own opinion.
14, Contain a summary of the conclusions reached including any qualifications to the same;
Given the fundamental Importance of meeting these requirements, you shauld endeavour In your Report
to be not only accurate but complete. You should mention all matters which you regard as being material
to the opinions you express and draw the Court's attention to any matter to which you are aware which
might adversely affect the validity of those opinions. This applies in relation to the factual matters to which
you refer and also to the opinions which you express.
You should not Include In your Report anything that Is suggested to you by anyone withaut forming your
own independent view.
If, on reading the Report of any other expert in this matter, or for any reason, you consider, at any stage,
that any existing report of yours requires correction or qualification you will Immediately notify us in
writing of that fact.
(5) Duty to the Post Office
In performing all your duties for which the client will pay, you will owe a duty to the client to act with the
professional standards of skill, care and dillgence adhered to by experienced and competent consultants
acting as expert witnesses.
You will take reasonable care of any documents, materials or samples sent to you by the clients and shall
return them immediately (together with any copies taken) to the clients upon request.
In complying with your duties to the Court, you will not, without having first obtained prior written
approval of the client, divulge to any third party any information relating to the dispute.
You confirmed that you:
1. Are an independent party and not the client's employee or agent, ather than at the material time
Fujitsu was responsible for looking after the Horizon system;
2. Know of no reason why you should not act as a witness for the Post Office in relation to the dispute;
3. WIIl advise us in writing immediately If any conflict between your Interests and the Post Office’s
interests should arise In relation to the dispute.
We would be grateful If you could treat this matter as urgent, because Mr Castleton’s solicitors have
applied for Judgment against the Post Office, so we will need to obtain your report quickly.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Yours faithfully
Bonch Powe Lio?
Bond Pearce LLP
10100082 3 weew.bondpearce.com P3/3
FUJ00152573
FUJ00152573
21/11 ‘05 11:25 FAX [ COMMERCIAL TEAM Goa
Date: 30 September 2005
Your ref: DEG1/NIM1/348035.134
Our ref: MDT.113969
Please ask for: Mark Tamer...
Direct dial: i i
Direct fax :. G RO
E-mail: m.tumei
RECEIVED (
03 SEP 2005 IS) pevecony
SONO PEARCE LLP
oh PLYMOUTH
Bond Pearce
Solicitors
DX 8251
PLYMOUTH
Without Prejudice
Dear Sirs
Our cent: Mr L Casticton — Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington
Your ellant: Post Office Limited
We refer to our recent without prejudice telephone discussions (Mark Tumer/Denise Gammack).
As we mentioned when we spoke, we have instructed an expert accounting witneas, Chris Hine of Bentley
Jennison, to review the documentation that your client has made avnilable to date. His brief was to consider
certain of those documents in light of our client’s pleaded defence to the effect that the alleged shortfall is (at
least in part — nd we cannot be any more specific than that given the incomplete disclosure which has been
given) attributable to problema with the Horizon system.
In order to assist you and your client in understanding our client’s position, we are prepared to disclose to you
on a without prejudice basis the report which Mr Hine has prepared. Since the report refers to a report
prepared by Andrew Richardson of White & Hoggard, a copy of his report together with supporting
documentation is also enclosed.
By way of explanation, Mr Richardson acts as auditor to the business owned by our client’s father in law. His
Teport was obtained directly by our client as a “second opinion” on the methodology that our client had used
in reviewing the available documentation, To avoid any question of partiality, we commissioned Bentley
Jennison to consider the same documentation ax had been available to Mr Richardson, as well as his report,
and to comment on whether they agreed with its findings.
For the complete avoidance of doubt, both documents are made available to you and your client on an entirely
without prejudice basis. Whilst the substance of the Bentley Jennison report is likely to form the core of any
formal report prepared for uze in court, we reserve the right to rely on a report which may differ in form to
that which we have presently disclosed.
As you will see, both Mr Richardson and Mr Hine concur with our client’s position that there, at the very
least, discrepancies in the way in which the Horizon system appears to treat weekly balances. This simply
serves to reinforce what both we and our client have seid from the outset, namely that the daily balance
snepshots which have not yet been disclosed will be of fundamental importance is enalysing whether there is a
problem caused by the way in which the Horizon system operated during our client’s tenure as sub-postmnaster
as Marine Drive Post Office.
(Quay Howse « Quay Sermer » Marcramr 3 2JE + Tal +44 (O)161 O30 4600 « Fax +44 (0161 034 7582
DX MAREMG + Eyal lmdromexhen,com = \Watate wemyrowensher.con
‘Pactusa: BA, Calan + 1 Bows © DAS Harpich + LM Lowis « BOY Hyoanumy « O,P Send» A Denki # 1.7 Gogh = JX De + . on
MCN = RJ Bye + he + Gar Mor pH Deere Li eg" Oma BE ae he ae Cees MT Herth ( )
TROND PEARCE
Thnfrm b phere La ig
en QUAN ENARBEYCASTLETONSONEDS Fo Bonn
FUJ00152573
FUJ00152573
21/11 ‘OB 11:25 FAX COMMERCIAL TEAM Mos
We look forward to hearing from you once you and your client have had an opportunity to review the
enclosures to this letter.
Yours faithfully
WW
ROWE COHEN
Enc
G.vaRITABBEYCASTLETON\OOMS LETTER TO BOND FenRCH
21/11 05 11:25 FAX {
FUJ00152573
FUJ00152573
COMMERCIAL TEAM 06
Ourref: CH/PIB/C1024 Litigation Support
Your ref, MDT.113969 26 Pall Mall
Manchester
M2 IR
Rowe Cohen ‘Telephone
Quay House
Quay Street
Manchester
DX 14418 Mancheseer 2
M3 3JE
23 September 2005
Dear Sirs
The Post Office -v- Lee Castleton
Further to your letter of instruction dated 6 September 2005 in the above matter, I set out
below my thoughts on the papers provided for my review.
Thave reviewed the following documentation:
Various correspondence between Rowe Cohen and Bond Pearce, between 8 February
and 3 August 2005
Daily ‘snapshots’ for the Marine Drive Post Office, from Thursday 26 February 2004
to Wednesday 3 March 2004, representing week 49 of the accounting year
Letter dated 18 August 2005 from Andrew Richardson, principal at accountants White
& Hoggard, to Mr Lee Castleton
Copy of final audit, dated 25 March 2004, as carried out by Miss Helen Hollingworth
(and az attached to the letter dated 25 May 2005, from Bond Pearce to Rowe Cohen)
Horizon Cash Account (Final) for Week 49
Statement of Claim, dated 9 June 2005
Defence and Counterclaim, dated 15 August 2005
Offices ae, Birmingham Brinol Cardi’ Haroge Leeds Landon Milton Reyne Nottingham Sroke-on-Trent Swindon Telford
4 list Gf Parepen' names is available for inspection ar 26 Pall Mall, Manchester M2 WR,
Bendey Jennizon is registered wo carry on audir work by che Instirave of Chartered Accountana in Bpgland and Waler and
authorised and regulated by che Fimmeial Servicer Authority for Trvermment Business
A member of “Egg [AIG] EBAMOME An Auociation of Independent Profasional firms in Rurope
FUJ00152573
FUJ00152573
COMMERCIAL TEAM 07
21/11 ‘06 11:25 FAX
Rowe Cohen 23 September 2005
Page 2 of 5
Daily snapshots for week 49
At Document 1 is a copy of the daily snapshot printed at the end of Thursday 26 February
2004, being Day One of the week. ‘This shows a discrepancy of £3,509.18.
I note that this an identical amount to that recorded by the Horizon system as having been
deficient in week 48, as identified in the audit undertaken by Helen Hollingworth, the
schedule for which is set out at Document 2.
This schedule also shows that cumulative deficiencies of £8,243,10 were put into a suspense
account relating to weeks 43-46, although I note that no figure appears to be disclosed
specifically for the following week, week 47.
The identical amounts of £3,509,18 point to two possible scenarios, either that (a) there has
been a deficiency suffered on day one of week 49 that exactly matches the sum of the
deficiency for the whole of week 48, or (b) the figure is the brought forward deficiency from
week 48. I consider it reasonable to assume that option (b) is the most likely scenario.
On Day Two of Weck 49, being Friday 27 February 2004, an entry for £3,509,6B is shown as
“Loss 2 2a in”, per Document 3.
J am unable to explain the difference of 50 pence between the suspense account figure and the
daily snapshot deficiency, although I note that in White & Hoggard’s report they explain that
Mr Castleton informed them this was a manual entry following instructions from Horizon
technical support.
‘The £3,509.68 appears to represent the entry on the suspense account (Document 4) for the
Same amount, processed on 27 February 2004, which I would expect given the daily snapshot
entry.
Suspense account
A suspense account is generally used by accountants to ‘park’ transactions that have either
been erroneously posted and are pending correction, or which, as is the case here, are
transactions that are either unreconciled or unexplainable.
From my experience, the impact of a suspense posting would allow a line to be drawn under
the cumulative deficiencies on the daily prints, effectively resetting the figure to zero, which
should be reflected as such on the end of day print,
However, it is evident that on the end of day print (Document 5) there is still a deficiency of
£3,509,18, notwithstanding the suspense account entry.
Bentley Jennison
FUJ00152573
FUJ00152573
21/11 '05 11:25 FAX! COMMERCIAL TEAM Bos
Rowe Cohen 23 September 2005
Page 3 of 5
This again Jeads to two possible scenarios, either thar (a) following the suspense account
entry an identical shortage of £3,509.18 was again borne by the branch during the course of
the day, or (b) the Horizon system, despite the sispense account entry, has failed to recognise
the entry on the daily snapshot, leaving the figure of £3,509.18 unchanged,
Again, after considered reflection, it is more probable that scenario (b) has occurred.
For Days 3, 4, 5 and 6 (Saturday 28 February 2004 - Tuesday 2 March 2004), identical entries
occur in relation to the figure of £3,509.68, with a cumulative deficiency of £3,509.18 being
shown at the end of each day.
For the final day of week 49, Wednesday 3 March 2004, the entry of £3,509.68 again is
recorded, however the total deficiency now shows £3,512.26 (Document 6), an increase of
£3.08, and supported by the final Horizon Cash Account print (Document 7).
I note that in weck 49 the cost of a first class stamp was 28 pence. The increase of £3.08
could, therefore, represent (and in line with Andrew Richardson’s opinion) a scenario
whereby a book of 12 first class stamps was sold, but only money for one single stamp was
taken (ie (12 x 0.28) — 0,28).
Having already concluded that the system should have no longer been recognising the
£3,509.18 (posted to suspense) on a daily basis, the only discrepancy for the week should, in
my opinion, have been the £3.08 deficiency apparently borne on Wednesday 3 March 2004.
The system has, therefore, appeared to overstate the deficiency for the week by the amount of
the deficiency in week 48, being £3,509.18.
The report of White & Hoggard essentially appears to reach the same conclusion, in thet this
sum has been erroneously double counted.
Cwnulative deficiencies
I would note that the Horizon aystem, from the documentation I have reviewed, appears to
tecord deficiencies on a cumulative basis, hence the running total of £8,243.10 up to the end
of week 46 being rolled into week 47's suspense account and carried forward to week 49
(Document 4),
Based on this approach, the integrity of the system is heavily dependent upon weekly figures
being both accurate, and carried forward correctly,
In the isolated case of week 49 thia appears not to have taken place, with the implication that
errors could, theoretically, have been double counted: over a number of weeks,
Bentley Jenniaon
FUJ00152573
FUJ00152573
21/11 '05 11:25 FAX COMMERCIAL TEAM @oo
Rowe Cohen 23 September 2005
Page 4 of S
As such, Mr Castleton’s defence, that the root of the problem lies with the inaccurate figures
produced by Horizon, appears to hold potential merit based on the limited documentation I
have so far reviewed.
Clearly, however, I have only had sight of the daily snapshots for week 49, which although
appearing to indicate an error within the Horizon system for that short period, does not
necessarily mean that it has been replicated for other weeks. This can only be checked
through an analysis of the daily snapshots for all relevant periods,
Andrew Richardson’s conclusion that “the balance of probabilities would suggest that it is
quite likely that this has also happened in earlier periods” is, I suspect, a little premature and
can only be proven following a more detailed review.
Equally, other issues aside from the discrete problems evident in Week 49 maybe uncovered,
upon a more detailed inspection of relevant Horizon documentation.
Disclosure
The documentation I would ideally need sight of (further to that listed in your letter dated 11
April 2005, and presuming such papers were used in the normal course of business at the
branch) to gain a clearer picture of bow Horizon worked, and whether it was working as
intended, is as follows:
« Daily snapshots for the period preceding, during, and following the alleged
deficiencies borne under the management of Mr Castleton, which as suggested in copy
correspondence might be from weeks 39-52 inclusive, although for completeness (and
if considered cost effective) it may be appropriate to analyse the period from when
Horizon was first used in the branch to gauge the effectivencss of the system from
Day One
s Copy of the full audit report following the inspection made by Helen Hollingworth
and Chris Taylor, on 25 Marth 2004, to include a breakdown of the week 51 balance
of £11,210.56 (Document 2)
° P&A reports produced for weeks 39-52, summarising sums paid to customers in
allowances through vouchers, and any vouchers supporting the reports
© Cash and stock count at the points in time when Mr Castleton began/left his post as.
subpostmaster
© Events log produced by the Post Office centrally, summarising which individuals are
working on the Horizon system, and when the various reports were produced within
the branch - for weeks 39-52 inclusive
Bentley Jennison
FUJ00152573
FUJ00152573
21/11.'05 11:25 FAX COMMERCIAL TEAM B10
Rowe Cohen 23 September 2005
Page S of 5
e Transaction log produced by the Post Office, which should summarise all financial
transactions undertaken by the branch - weeks 39-52 inclusive
e Any contemporaneous notes made by Mr Castleton in relation to the Horizon system,
or by any other etnployees, or by anyone who may have been assisting Mr Castleton in
the initial period following his appointment as subpostmaster
T trust the contents of this letter are self-explanatory, but if you should require clarification on
any of the matters raised herein, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours faithfully
tt Chris Hine
National Litigation Support Partner
Enc.
chris.hing GRO!
Bentley Jennison
FUJ00152573
FUJ00152573
ot soaear
ar PE"
on ize
won oct 3 arre
* eo: gee
re
; # oy gs
oe eee
of HEH
one F ‘SIF od
ne
Bf ae
a re
fee Ua
qf See
be OR RURER
‘ oy Fe
7 ew raed!
go sancgg
I ae
: st ob
ie. ates
Bee “Suet
ae
By oe
ae 2
we A)
mn mame al) Dos
sosesteseeasetbueeetn04t0s430
sadam 58
ou gay Lomi ny
dstrtocnI
1 Blea on nates ;
Lee retin ~ geen seeiey I
weg pret ihan. ere mL
Tiere at" MRR Se ‘
I Tamemmnaoq - © 6 ‘ ee : A
IT AVAL TVTONAWHND
e7ttt an rrr
21/11
"O05 11:25 FAX:
COMMERCIAL TEAM
To: From: co:
Cath Oglesby Helen Hollingworth
Inspector
Date: 25" March 2004
Audit of Post Office ® Marine Drive branch, FAD 213337
An audit took place at Marine Drive Post Office on the 25” March 2004.
Helen Hollingworth led the audit and in attendance was Chris Taylor. The audit -
commenced at 8.00am and on our arrival the sub postmaster was very pleased to
see us. He explained problems he had been having at the office regarding
balancing. His problems with balancing started in week 43 with a mis-balanca of
4230.97. He was adamant that no members of staff could be committing theft
and felt that the mls-balances were due to a computer problem. He had been in
cantact with the Retail Line Manager Cath Oglesby and the Horizon help line
regularly since the problems began. The following table gives further weeks
balance declarations on the cash account .
48 3509.18
46 = -8243.10
45° -8730,01
44 875409
43 4230.97 .
48 3509.78 This amount put Into suspense week 49
AG -8243,10 This amount put Into. suspense week 47
45 = -8730.0t Rolled loss
. 4 -BT54.09
43. 4230.97
In week 47 £8243.10 was put info suspense. Although horizon had been
contacted and tbe Reteil Line was aware of this figure, this was not authorised. Jn.
wesk.49 £3509.68 was added to’ make the amoynt carried i in the suspense
account totel £11752.78. This waa also not suthorised?
week 51 balance ”5£14210.58
suspense account - * ~£11752.78
expected audit result + £22563.34
difference at audit + £2795.41 (-£1769.00 lottery +£1026.41 cash)
audit result ~ £25758.75
On the completion of the audit the Retail Line Manager Cath Oglesby was
contacted, along with the Investigation team and the Audit Line Manager. The
sub postmaster was suspended pending enquiries and an interim postmaster w was
put in charge at the office.
FUJ00152573
FUJ00152573
@12
Document 2
FUJ00152573
FUJ00152573
is
COMMERCIAL TEAM
‘05 11:25 FAX
2a/il
3
3
35
a
Snuge fy
100,13
WSL
wr 09 EOS
2
Sissi pe sxe 1 1
ssg2¥02358 #433 7 3
SRL, PATENTS
‘ote eleerypacicn
Blew Uru
FUJ00152573
FUJ00152573
COMMERCIAL TEAM M14
21/11 ‘OB 11:25 FAX ¢
Document 4
ap 7133377 a
1738700 03/03/2004 oP
Suspense Account - Office Copy
‘WARNDIG - Check the C/Pad column for negetive volues. If present refer to the
Horizon User Guide for {natruetions en hoy to procecd
= date = Preaict volume Volun* Byrrea crea
RD Cheques A
TOTAL ° 9.00 ‘9.00 9,99
TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00
Vouchere
TOTAL 0.09 0.00 0.00,
Ghortagus in Reas ate
TOTAL 9 0.09 0.00 9.00
Burglary stc looses
TOTAL : ° 0.00 0.00 0.00
FOL cheques
‘Tora o 0.00 0.00
igretion UP . .
‘TOTAL o 0,00 0.00 0.00
ash shortages A
AA 21/02/06 Loan ) to Table 2a 2 3,809.68
TOTAL 1 @,243.10 14, 752.78
Cash Shortages B
TOTAL ° 0.00 9.00 2.00
Caan gportages Cc
TOTAL ° 0.00 0.00
Cash Shortages D
TOIL ° 0.00 0.00 0.00
Propurchases
TOTAL ° 0.00 9.00 9.00
Cash Surpluaes pot yer adjusted A
TOTAL ° 00 0.00 0.00
Cash Burpluces not yet adjusted B
FUJ00152573
FUJ00152573
@is
COMMERCIAL TEAM
=
"OB 11:25
21/11
Document'$
ie)
Ra 29 B22B9838SS32aR 5.
Sead dddaddcdsgtece
SAS BSRIHTIISSRRESHLISSITS2328a9as
sini
‘ced
age sean ans
by in feccmetarees
“ praveaccasds nescesreases aoa
sa
‘aAE dhecrepmty
ber cel
C=
Reenggeerereereasas feazgerer
crepes
ae ga §. Feecesoeltt febeesh
ee
areas parnssaytuivprernsdsrturvicanerraee
+ VOLE SMS 0 OLE
te. an
Dinerepery
'
Turion a
acura
ges
FUJ00152573
FUJ00152573
93tamN2og
91 WVAL ‘IVIOSRWOD eziTT gn. TT/TZ
COMMERCIAL TEAM
24/11 '05 11:25 FAX
Date
Pager —F-UlEice code: 2133277 Week No: 49 Weak Ending: 03/03/2004
, 2003/2004 Week No
R
OFFICE IME” Maine Drew nnn
soonest I HORIZON -
: I G RO Cash Account (Final)
THErHOnE "Weel Fade: = RID :
OFFICECODE: = 249.3377 30 a
pate Tau: TQ BE SIGNED BEFORE DESPATCH OF CASH ACCOUN
‘SUBPOSTUASTER/FRANCHISEE/BRANCH MANAGER:_!
EXAMINED IN TP:
TABLE 2 UNCLAIBED PAYMENTS ‘TABLE 10g) NUMBER OF TRANSACTIONS
50 Gp 2 Aa
. 260~C~S apes es 11 Corti
6 27 Opes Ongar B 08 Chge
2a guid gat SISA Gach Crocs Ee
29 e2 ‘Giherk M Otay
30 \ostere a1
31 ‘Soragar bh RBBB ee 3B Prrctnby 9 8 10
32 Baga of Loree 65° Pareto 148
33 POL Che porn bores 66 ‘ried Delage
34 71 Low Qner
35 Mon a3 edun oer
36 75 Woh oer
37 80 (Opraract Perera beret
38 67 (Gener Perce heart
96 eee edn ‘Speci Debary Bars
BB UNPA Gringmey
a 14. “0. ue
‘TABLE 2fa) AUTHORISED CASH BHORTAGES .yi* - an Heeutind dot br ¢
50 34 Sat .
46 ++-+11,752, Quh Bortege A Parade by on
a Och Setar 8
4a Cn Srartagss C (Css wert Pacts
49 Gan Sere erry Pogmars Rashes
6a RN
69 8Gey Renin
92 (Cnmit Vache
e ‘TABLE $ UNCHARGED RECOPTS: 53 TWLUTS Prodppieats
10
50. 3 Procrter Bay Bact
4
60 BT vee eee 2o Home Shap Roker
ee 59 Sct Lis SP gp
9
63 Popréan 60 POL Srencard Appicione
6a _ Gams 61 eA. Pont Appian
65 Gon antsB 62
66 ‘Srpltaa Rens et 86
67
66 Mercier
7 SVELEB
72
{UND Baten Eoeples
(Cord Accord tatores ereptites
DISCREPANCIES TABLE ABL Beers Enger
Shure Cafery by tne
07
o1 Says 26
OZ +++++3,512,26 Sere 27
28
29
FUJ00152573
FUJ00152573
@i7
03/2004 Time: 07:46
Document 7
FUJ00152573
FUJ00152573
21/11 '05 11:25 FAX COMMERCIAL TEAM gis
— White y Hoggard
Chartered Cxrtified Aecountarts
Registered to carry on 13 Whedpals
audds work and regulated for a MaLon
range of Invasiment Business Noth Yorkshire
activities by the sociation of YOR FAT
lartored Cortified Semuntants Tliyhons:
Gas.
PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL -
Mr Lee Castleton
Marine Drive Post Office Our Ret: AWR/GL/I/F031
14 South Marine Drive Your Rel:
Bridlington
East Yorkshire Dale: 18" August 2005
YOIS 3DB
Dear Lee
You have asked me to produce a report on my findings following my exemination of the
documents presented to me for Marine Drive Post Office in respect of the week ended 3% March
2004 and the apparent discrepsncy claimed by the Post Office which I understand at 4% March
2004 amounted to £15,265.04,
Uhave therefore examined the daily balance printouts that you produced covering the period 26"
February 2004 to 4" March 2004 and also the report marked “Horizon Cash Account (Final)”
dated 4" March 2004 in relation to the week ended 3 March 2004,
My conclusions are as follows:~ ~
a) The Horizon Cash Account (Final) Report for week 49 (week ended 3% March 2004)
produced on 4" March 2004 (time 07:46) indicates the following:
Table 2 (a) authorised cash shortages (A) 11,752.78
Discrepancies Table 3,512.26
Total £15,265.04
b) The Suspense Account summary attached to the report — office copy dated 3 March 2004
(time 17:38) produces the following under the heading “Cash Shortages A”
AA 27" February 2004 Loss A to Table 2a 3,509.68
Brought forward 8,243.10
Total £ 11,752.78
PRINCIPAL: Andrew W. Richardson F.C.C.a.
MANAGERS: Kolth A. Rhodes F.C.C,A,
Mfrs Lesley R. Richardeon
21/11
d)
e)
8)
"05 11:25 FAX {”
COMMERCIAL TEAM
‘The difference between the above two reports is £3,512.26 (I will refer to this figure later in
my observations).
The Horizon Cash Account (Final) Report for weelc no.49 (week ended 3 March 2004) dated
4" March 2004 (time 07:46) indicates the following:
Balance Due to Post Office 97,014.07
Less Stock (Table A) (9,036.41)
Less Cash (Table 5) (72,712.62)
Shortfall . £15,265,04
The above entry at (d) above appears to me to comprise the following:
1. Discrepancies Table 3,512.26
2. AA 21" February 2004 Loss A to Table 2a 3,509.68
3. Brought forward from earlier periods 8,243.10
Total £15,265,04
It follows, therefore, that we need to ascertain how each of the above apparent discrepancies
at paragraph (ce) have arisen:
In order to attempt to explain the apparent discrepancies I have prepared a detailed analysis of
the daily balance printouts covering the period 26” February 2004 (time 17:30) to 4° March
2004 (time 07:46). 1 have used the Horizon Cash Account (Final) Report for the analysis of
the movements on 4" March 2004. My conclusions are as follows:
1. Discrepancies Table - £3,512.26
This figure is not on the Suspense Account Summary dated 3" March 2004 but appears to
comprise part of the overall shortfall (see a and c above). This figure appears to include the
“discrepancies in this account” summary on the “final balance” sheet dated 26" February
2004 but is recorded as £3,509. 18 increasing by £3.08 (which I believe is a book of stamps) to
£3,512.26 on 3 March 2004. It is understood that the sum of £3,509.18 is a discrepancy
from en earlier period. I have seen no evidence to reveal how this discrepancy from the
earlier period has been arrived at.
2. AA 27" February 2004 Loss A to Table 2 a - £3,509.68
On the “final balance” sheet dated 26" February 2004 (time 17:30) there is an entry for “net
discrepencies” of £3,509.18 which equates to the “discrepancies in this account” entry — sce g
(above.
On the “balance snapshot ~ office copy” sheet dated 27 February 2004 (time 17:31) there is
an entry “OTHER PAYMENTS” loss a — 2a amounting to £3,509.68. This entry is then
repeated daily. .
(understand from my telephone conversation with you that this amount was input manually
under instructions from Horizon technical support which probably explains the difference of
50p from the previously mentioned sum of £3,509, 18.
If the sum of £3,509.68 is indeed the same entry as the sum of £3,509.18 recorded in g 1
above, and it seems highly likely that this is the case, there is a duplication in the apparent
shortfall.
FUJ00152573
FUJ00152573
@19
21/11
h)
"06 11:25 FA:
COMMERCIAL TEAM
Ic follows that a retional explanation is needed for this apparent double counting in the
Post Office records,
3. Brought forward from Earlier Period - £8,243.10
In addition to having no documentary evidence to support the discrepancy of £3,509.18,
which appears to be duplicated by the further entry of £3,509.68, there is no documentation to
support the discrepancies from earlier periods amounting to £8,243.10. It is therefore
absolutely essential to obtain documentary evidence supporting the discrepancies that
are claimed to have arisen in the earlier periods of £3,S09.18 and £8,243,10.
Conclusion .
From the limited available evidence of one weeks tunsactions referred to above my
conclusion is that it is highly likely that the sum of £3,509.18 has been recorded twice
increasing the apparent discrepancy during the week ended 3% March 2004. On the
assumption that I am correct in this conclusion, and there seems to be no rational explanation
for this amount appearing twice other than my conclusion, then there has to be doubt as to
whether or not the discrepancies brought forward from earlier periods of £3,509.18 and
£8,243.10 can be substantiated. Ik is therefore absolutely imperative that the Post Office
produce documentation to justify their claim for the earlier periods in order to produce
evidence that the system is operating correctly, At the present time it would eppear to me that
during the week ended 4" March 2004 an incomplete instruction to input a manual entry of
£3,509,18 (incorrectly entered as £3,509.68) bas created a double counting of this amount in-
the calculations produced by the Post Office of shortfall. If this has happened for the one
week where we have documentary evidence then the balance of probabilities would suggest
that it is quite likely that this has also heppened in earlier periods and has to cast doubt on the
credibility of the claim made by the Post office which therefore needs to be examined in some
further detail with the benefit of supporting documentation.
Thope that the above report is of sore assistance.
Kind regards
Yours sincerely
Andrew W Ri habdson ;
FUJ00152573
FUJ00152573
@20
Vv
FUJ00152573
FUJ00152573
21/11 ‘06 11:25) FART COMMERCIAL TEAM @a1
gEmall: ris I
----> Forwarded by Ri
v mall)”
05/05/2004 12:32 Subject:
Richard,
T have had a chat with Anne, she used the message store viewing to
investigate this. If you want coples of extracts for the particular
Incorrect declarations please submit an ad hoc request requesting this
Information. Hope this heips, see below:
NO TRANSACTION DATE AND TIME WAS PROVIDED FOR THIS ACTION USING CURRENT
DATE
AND TIME By Anne Chambers at 26-fab-2004 15:16:00 Category 94 - Advice and
guidance given I have checked various things on the system, All the
Internal
reconciliation checks are ok. Cheques are being handled correctly (except
for 10th Fab when the clerk forgot to cut off the report - but this didn't
cause a discrepancy). Cash declarations look ok, they usually use drawer Id
11. Occasionally they have used a different drawer Id, this can lead to
amounts apparently doubling on the cash flow report, and should be avoided,
But again It will not cause a discrepancy, Checking the cash transactions
on
the system against the declarations shows that they are not working
particularly accurately (i.e, at the end of the day the cash they declare
In .
the drawer Is tens, hundreds or thousands of pounds astray from what has
been recorded on the system). It Is possible that they are not accurately
recording all transactions on the system. There Is no evidence whatsoever
of
any system problem. I've mentioned this outlet to Julle Welsh (Customer
Services) who will try to get POL to follow It up, but In the meantime
please tell the PM that we have Investigated and the discrepancies are
caused by the difference between the transactions they have recorded on the
system and the cash they have declared, and are not being caused by the
software or hardware.
Julle Welsh
Service Delivery Manager HSH
Business Service Management, Post Office Account
FUJITSU SERVICES
Lovelace Road
Bracknell
Berks
RG12 8SN .
Tel: Internal: I
flle://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\administrator\Local%2... 01/02/2005
ron ee
FUJ00152573
FUJ00152573
21/11 '05 11:25 FAX © COMMERCIAL TEAM 22
PRACTICE DIRECTION — EXPERTS AND ASSESSORS - This Practice Direction ..._ Page 1 of 4
ww dca Conetttional A Affairs
Justcovrghtsanddemccrcy Civil Procedure
Rules
What's Updates & Current ‘Statutory Consultation Commentaries Contact Search
New? Zips Versions Instruments
wigs & Practice Directions Schedule 1-.RSC Schedule 2-CCR Pres Glessaw Forms CoutGuides Index
See also Part 35
PRACTICE DIRECTION — EXPERTS AND
ASSESSORS
THIS PRACTICE DIRECTION SUPPLEMENTS CPR
PART 35
Contents of this Practice Direction
EXPERT EVIDENCE ~ GENERAL
QUESTIONS TO EXPERTS
SINGLE EXPERT
QRBDERS
ASSESSORS
ANNEX
Part 35 Is Intended to limit the use of oral expert evidence to that which is reasonably required.
In addition, where possible, matters requiring expert evidence should be dealt with by a single
expert. Permission of the court is always required either to call an expert or to put an expert’s
report in evidence. There is annexed to this Practice Direction a protocol for the instruction of
experts to give evidence in civil claims, Experts and those Instructing them are expected to have
regard to the guidance contained in the protocol,
EXPERT EVIDENCE — GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
1.1. It is the duty of an expert to help the court on matters within his own
expertise: rule 35.3(1). This duty Is paramount and overrides any obligation
to the person from whom the expert has received instructions or by whom he
is paid: rule 35.3(2),
http://wunw,dea.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/practice_directions/pd_part35.htm —_ 18/11/2005
FUJ00152573
FUJ00152573
COMMERCIAL TEAM 23
AND ASSESSORS - This Practice Direction... Page 2 of 4
eara4 U0 447400 PAA
1.2 Expert.evidence should be the independent product of the expert uninfluenced
by the pressures of litigation.
1.3 An expert should assist the court by providing objective, unbiased opinion on
matters within his expertise, and should not assume the role of an advocate.
1.4 An expert should consider all material facts, Including those which might
detract from his opinion.
1.5 An expert should make it clear:
(a) when a question or Issue falls outside his expertise; and
(b) when he Is not able to reach a definite opinion, for example because he
has insufficient information.
1.6 If, after producing a report, an expert changes his view on any material
matter, such change of view should be communicated to all the parties
without delay, and when appropriate to the court.
FORM AND CONTENT OF EXPERT'S REPORTS
2.1 An expert's report should be addressed to the court and not to the party from
whom the expert has received his instructions.
2.2 An expert's report must:
(1) give detalls of the expert's qualifications;
(2) give details of any literature or other materlal which the expert has relied
‘on In making the report;
(3) contaln a statement setting out the substance of all facts and instructions
given to the expert which are material to the opinions expressed in the
report or upon which those opinions are based;
(4) make clear which of the facts stated In the report are within the expert's
own knowledge;
(5) say who carried out any examination, measurement, test or experiment
which the expert has used for the report, give the qualifications of that
Person, and say whether or not the test or experiment has been carried
out under the expert's supervision;
(6
where there Is a range of opinion on the matters dealt with in the report —
(8) summarise the range of opinion, and
(b) give reasons for his own opinion;
(7) contain a summary of the conclusions reached;
(8) if the expert Is not able to give his opinion without qualification, state the
qualification; and .
(3) contain a statement that the expert understands his duty to the court, and
has compiled and will continue to comply with that duty.
http:/Awww.dea.gov.ul/civiV/procrules_fin/contents/practice_directions/pd_part3S.htm 18/11/2005
FUJ00152573
FUJ00152573
44/42 (UD Aiizd FAA COMMERCIAL TEAM @2a
PRACTICE DIRECTION — EXPERTS AND ASSESSORS - This Practice Direction... Page 3 of 4
2.3 An expert's report must be verified by a statement of truth as well as
containing the statements required in paragraph 2.2(8) and (9) above.
2.4 The form of the statement of truth is as follows;
"I confirm that Insofar as the facts stated in my report are within my own
knowledge I have made clear which they are and I belleve them to be true,
and that the opinions I have expressed represent my true and complete
professional opinion.”
2.5 Attention is drawn to rule 32.14 which sets out the consequences of verifying
a document containing a false statement without an honest belief in its truth.
(For information about statements of truth see Part 22 and the practice
direction which supplements It.)
INFORMATION
3 Under Rule 35.9 the court may direct a party with access to Information which
Is not reasonably available to another party to serve on that other party a
document which records the information. The dacument served must include
sufficient details of all the facts, tests, experiments and assumptions which
underlie any part of the information to enable the party on whom it is served
to make, or to obtain, a proper interpretation of the information and an
assessment of its significance.
a
INSTRUCTIONS
4 The Instructions referred to In paragraph 2.2(3) will not be protected by
privilege (see rule 35,10(4)), But cross-examination of the expert on the
contents of his instructions will not be allowed unless the court permits it (or
unless the party who gave the instructions consents to it). Before it gives
permission the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to
consider that the statement in the report of the substance of the instructions
is inaccurate or Incomplete, If the court Is so satisfled, It will allow the cross-
examination where It appears to be in the interests of justice to do so.
a
QUESTIONS TO EXPERTS
5.1 Questions asked for the purpose of clarifying the expert’s report (see rule
35,6) should be put, In writing, to the expert not later than 28 days after
receipt of the expert’s report (see paragraphs 1.2 to 1.5 above as to
verification).
5.2 Where a party sends a written question or questions direct to an expert, a
copy of the questions should, at the same time, be sent to the other party or
parties,
5.3 The party or parties instructing the expert must pay any fees charged by that
expert for answering questions put under rule 35.6. This does not affect any
decision of the court as to the party who is ultimately to bear the expert’s
costs.
http://www, dea. gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/practice_directions/pd_part3S.htm 18/11/2005
FUJ00152573
FUJ00152573
zasi. “us 21:z5) FAA COMMERCIAL TEAM es
.’ PRACTICE DIRECTION ~- EXPERTS AND ASSESSORS - This Practice Direction... Page 4 of 4
a
SINGLE EXPERT
6 Where the court has directed that the evidence on a particular Issue Is to be
given by one expert only (rule 35.7) but there are a number of disciplines
relevant to that issue, a leading expert in the dominant discipline should be
identified as the single expert. He should prepare the general part of the
report and be responsible for annexing or incorporating the contents of any
reports from experts In other disciplines.
a
ORDERS
6A Where an order requires an act to be done by an expert, or otherwise affects
an expert, the party Instructing that expert must serve a copy of the order on
the expert instructed by him. In the case of a jointly instructed expert, the
claimant must serve the order.
a
ASSESSORS
7.1 An assessor may be appointed to assist the court under rule 35.15. Not less
than 21 days before making any such appointment, the court will notify each
party in writing of the name of the proposed assessor, of the matter In respect
of which the assistance of the assessor will be sought and of the qualifications
of the assessor to give that assistance.
7.2 Where any person has been proposed for appointment as an assessor,
objection to him, either personally or in respect of his qualification, may be
taken by any party.
7.3. Any such objection must be made in writing and filed with the court within 7
days of receipt of the notification referred to In paragraph 6.1 and will be
taken Into account by the court in deciding whether or not to make the
appointment (section 63(5) of the County Courts Act 1984).
74 Coples of any report prepared by the assessor will be sent to each of the
partles but the assessor will not give oral evidence or be open to cross-
examination or questioning.
ANNEX
Protocol for the Instruction of Experts to give Evidence in Civil
Claims
PDF
Civil Matters Page CA Homepage CPR Homepage Search
© Crown Copyright 2001
http://www.dca.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/practice_directions/pd_part35.htm —_ 18/11/2005