FUJ00237386
FUJ00237386
From: Newsome Pete[/o=Exchange/ou=AdminGroup1/cn=Recipients/cn=Blagg-NewsomeP]
Sent: Thur 11/06/2015 10:56:29 AM (UTC)
To: Bansal Steve (BRA01)
Subject: I FW: Bugs
Attachment: FW: March 2010 - Incident Details
Attachment: Castleton Judgment.pdf
Attachment: RE: Questions from the Call
Pete Newsome
Business Change Manager
Post Office Account, Fujitsu UK&l
E-Mai
Web: hito://uk fujitsu.com
I £/¥inIe
Fujitsu is proud to partner with Shelter, the housing and homelessness charity
[557 Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email?
From: Mark Underwood1
Sent: 11 June 2015 08:46
To: Newsome Pete
Cc: Patrick Bourke; Melanie Corfield
Subject: Bugs
Hi Pete,
Thank you for your time yesterday. I picked up an action to send through the extract from Second Sight’s Interim
Report- which alludes to have being 3 bugs. This is pasted below.
I realise, we are going over old ground, but I would be keen to put a line in the sand and once and for all, pull together
the definitive detail on each of these bugs.
Clearly SS have been provided information in relation to Bugs 1 & 2 — do you have a copy of what they were provided
with and how these were captured in the TFS or PEAK systems?
I have attached what I have in relation to Bug 1 & also Bug 3 (see para 23 of attachment 2). I have also attached a
prior email chain we had in relation to Bug 1 — the only question that I do not think we got to bottom of in respect of
that email chain is the Pilot number of branches in Q1 2010.
Basically what I am after is, as much information as possible about each of the 3 bugs. Do not fear, once supplied, this
information will be filed religiously so that the pain will never have to be revisisted.
Thank you for your patience!
Mark
“The first defect, referred to as the "Receipts and Payments Mismatch Problem", impacted 62 branches. It was
FUJ00237386
FUJ00237386
discovered in September 2010 as a result of Fujitsu's monitoring of system events
(although there were subsequent calls from branches). The aggregate of the discrepancies arising from this system
defect was £9,029, the largest shortfall being £777 and the largest surplus £7,044.
POL has informed us that all shortages were addressed at no loss to any SPMR.
6.6. The second defect, referred to as the "Local Suspense Account Problem", affected 14 branches, and generated
discrepancies totalling £4,486, including a temporary shortfall of £9,800 at one branch and a surplus of £3,200 at
another (the remaining 12 branches were all impacted by amounts of less than £161).
6.7. POL was unaware of this second defect until, a year after its first occurrence in 2011, it re-occurred and an
unexplained shortfall was reported by an SPMR.
6.8. POL's initial investigations in 2012 failed to reveal the system defect and, because the cause could not be
identified, the amount was written off. Fujitsu looked into the matter early in 2013 and discovered, and then
corrected, the defect.
6.9. It seems however, that the shortfalls (and surpluses) that occurred at the first occurrence (in 2011) resulted in
branches being asked to make good incorrect amounts.
6.10. POL has informed us that it has disclosed, in Witness Statements to English Courts, information about one other
subsequently-corrected defect or “bug” in the Horizon software.”
Mark Underwood
Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme
JES OE ID IIHS III IIIS IIS IODIDE
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 by reply email and then delete this email from your system. Any views
or opinions expressed within this email are solely those of the sender, unless otherwise specifically stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: Finsbury Dials, 20
Finsbury Street, London EC2Y 9AQ.