FUJ00153121
FUJ00153121
From: Thomas Penny[/O=EXCHANGE/OU=ADMINGROUP1/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=THOMASP]
Sent: Fri 25/06/2010 ‘59 AM (UTC)
To: Wilkerson GuyI
Jenkins Garett
Cc: D'Alvarez AlanI
Subject: I RE: Duplication of Transaction Records on ARQ Returns
Attachment: ARQ Report.xls
OK, I will not communicate with POL.
I do have questions and more information for your review; please see attachment.
My assumption is that any records which have been duplicated and presented to Court will need to be replaced. The 2
forthcoming, high profile cases, West Byfleet and Porters Avenue, immediately spring to mind.
We have only been presenting duplicate records since the beginning of the year and, although not an impossibility, it is
unlikely that we would have provided records for any cases heard in such a short timeframe. I can find no record of
any witness statement provided, apart from those listed on the attachment. However, we need confirmation of this
from POL; and guidance from legal.
All of the returns listed may not end up in Court, but we need to be aware that a significant amount may need
replacing.
Kind regards
Penny
Penny Thomas
Security Analyst, Customer Services
ces Retail & Royal Mail Group Account
e Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 8SN
Fujitsu Services Limited, Registered in England no Registered Office 22, Baker Street, London W1U 3BW
This E-mail is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence 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.
From: Wilkerson Guy
Sent: 24 June 2010 20:57
To: Butts Geoff; Thomas Penny; Jenkins Gareth GI
Cc: D'Alvarez Alan
Subject: Re: Duplication of Transaction Records on ARQ Returns
My nose never fails!
Guy
From: Butts Geoff
To: Wilkerson Guy; Thomas Penny; Jenkins Gareth GI
Cc: D'Alvarez Alan
Sent: Thu Jun 24 19:25:39 2010
Subject: RE: Duplication of Transaction Records on ARQ Returns
Guy/Penny,
FUJ00153121
FUJ00153121
Please do not make any communication on this issue with POL for the moment. We've been looking at this today and
are waiting to determine if a proposed workaround is adequate. I'll come back to you either tomorrow or Monday on
progress.
Regards,
Geoff
From: Wilkerson Guy
Sent: 24 June 2010 17:25
To: Thomas Penny; Jenkins Gareth GI
Cc: D'Alvarez Alan; Butts Geoff
Subject: RE: Duplication of Transaction Records on ARQ Returns
Yes please, just until we get a chance to speak to the HNG-X team tomorrow.
From: Thomas Penny
Sent: 24 June 2010 17:24
To: Wilkerson Guy; Jenkins Gareth GI
Cc: D'Alvarez Alan; Butts Geoff
Subject: RE: Duplication of Transaction Records on ARQ Returns
Guy
Should I hold off advising my counterpart of this issue?
Kind regards
Penny
Penny Thomas
Security Analyst, Customer Services
\d may be privileged. Fujitsu Services does
From: Wilkerson Guy
Sent: 24 June 2010 17:12
To: Jenkins Gareth GI; Thomas Penny
Cc: D'Alvarez Alan; Butts Geoff
Subject: RE: Duplication of Transaction Records on ARQ Returns
Importance: High
Gareth/Penny,
I think we need Alan D’Alvarez or Geoff Butts to look at this — I'd hate to have POL raise this as an issue with a HNG-X
Acceptance Board on Tuesday.
Guy
FUJ00153121
FUJ00153121
From: Jenkins Gareth GI
Sent: 24 June 2010 17:03
To: Thomas Penny; Wilkerson Guy
Subject: RE: Duplication of Transaction Records on ARQ Returns
Penny,
No, that pretty well covers it. NB there is no guarantee that the duplicates are even complete sessions in which case
the sum of all transaction may even be out.
In summary, any detailed analysis of the finances of a Branch which is done with duplicate transactions without
realising that there are duplicates (and so removing them) will give incorrect results.
Regards
Gareth
Gareth Jenkins
Distinguished Engineer
Applications Architect
Royal Mail Group Account
Gareth Jenkin:
b http:/uk fuji
cs Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email?
Fujt
This e-mail is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence 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.
From: Thomas Penny
Sent: 24 June 2010 14:25
To: Wilkerson Guy
Cc: Jenkins Gareth GI
Subject: RE: Duplication of Transaction Records on ARQ Returns
Guy
These are original records which have been duplicated when copying to Audit Server. We are not suggesting
that original records have been duplicated.
If analysis was undertaken on the audit data some transactions would be duplicated; both plus and minus (we
hope!). Analysis on stock units could be out as TI would show duplicated transfers and equally would TO.
Cash on hand analysis would also be out.
Gareth — is there anything else I need to add?
Penny
FUJ00153121
FUJ00153121
Penny Thomas
Security Analyst, Customer Services
6, Registered Office faker Street, L N1U 3BW
This E-mail is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence 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.
From: Wilkerson Guy
Sent: 24 June 2010 14:16
To: Thomas Penny
Subject: RE: Duplication of Transaction Records on ARQ Returns
Penny,
Would the additional transactions make any difference to the charges for a Sub-Postmaster?
Guy
From: Thomas Penny
Sent: 24 June 2010 12:39
To: Welsh Graham; Van Achte Gaetan; Munro Donna; Thompson Peter; Wilkerson Guy
Cc: Jenkins Gareth GI; Holmes Alan
Subject: FW: Duplication of Transaction Records on ARQ Returns
Importance: High
An update to my note sent yesterday.
More detailed analysis shows:-
Number of ARQs affected 112
Number of ARQs where 1 or 2 instances highlighted 17
which indicates bona fide activity
Number of ARQs WIP 7
12 ARQs where court action is known; number of cases 2
8 ARQs returned where witness statement requested 3
but not yet provided; number of cases
ARQs where no court activity is known 76
Audit Development are currently working on a fix which is expected to be available Tuesday 29 June.
FUJ00153121
FUJ00153121
Gareth has suggested the following explanation for POL:-
With Horizon counters, the mechanism by which Data is audited has always worked on the principle
that it is acceptable to audit the same data more than once — in particular if in doubt as to whether or
not it has been previously audited successfully.
The Mechanism used on Horizon to retrieve the data took this into account and only presented one
instance of such duplicate data in the ARQ extracts.
However it has recently been noticed that the HNG-X retrieval mechanism does not remove such
duplicates and a quick scan of the ARQs provided to Post Office Ltd since the change to the new
system indicates that abut 35% of the ARQs might contain some duplicate data. A Peak has been
raised to remove such duplicate data in the future. However until the fix is developed, tested and
deployed, there is a possibility that data is duplicated.
The reliable way to identify a duplicate transaction is to use the <Num> attribute that is used to
generate the unique sequence numbers. Unfortunately, this attribute is not currently included in the
Excel version of ARQ data that has been passed to Post Office Ltd in the past. This will be included in
all future ARQs until the problem is fixed.
Meanwhile all that can be done on existing ARQs is look for transactions that appear to be duplicates.
Note that we have identified a scenario with Postal Services transactions where multiple, identical
mails items are accepted (ie the Quantity button is set to greater than 1), but Postage Labels are
printed for each individual item. This results in separate transactions being generated for each item,
which are identical in the ARQ extracts (there is another minor difference in the raw data apart from
the <Num> attribute, but this different attribute is not currently included in the ARQ extract).
I'd like to speak with my counterpart this afternoon, please could you give comments by return?
Kind regards
Penny
Penny Thomas
Security Analyst, Customer Services
uk fujitsiceorn
Fujitsu Services Limited, Registered in England no 6, Registered Office 22, Baker Street, London W1U 3BW.
This E-mail is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence 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.
From: Thomas Penny
Sent: 23 June 2010 13:12
To: Welsh Graham; Van Achte Gaetan; Munro Donna; Thompson Peter
Cc: Jenkins Gareth GI; Holmes Alan
Subject: Duplication of Transaction Records on ARQ Returns
Importance: High
All
Please find attached an initial report on this problem.
Kind regards
FUJ00153121
FUJ00153121
Penny
Penny Thomas
Security Analyst, Customer Services
Fujitsu Services Retail & Royal Mail Group Account
Lovelace Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 8S!
GRO
Tel
Mob
Fax
E-Mail: penny.thomag
Web: _ http://uk fujitsu.
Fujitsu Services Limited, Registered in England no 96056, Registered Office 22, Baker Street, London W1U 3BW
This E-mail is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence 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.