FOR USE OF COUNCIL MEMBERS ONLY
Z
NFSP00000492
NFSP00000492
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SUBPOSTMASTERS
REPORT OF A
VIRTUAL MEETING OF THE
COUNCIL
held on
16 JUNE 2020
via
MICROSOFT TEAMS
NFSP00000492
NFSP00000492
NFSP00000492
NFSP00000492
NFSP00000492
NFSP00000492
NFSP00000492
NFSP00000492
Report of a Virtual Meeting of the Council
held on Tuesday, 16 June 2020
via Microsoft Teams
Those present: Tim Boothman Chair
Susan Edgar Vice Chair
Calum Greenhow Chief Executive
Christine Donnelly
Uel Houston
Saj Hussain
Nilesh Joshi
Susan Jude
Paul McBain
Stuart Rogers, BEM
Bharat Visani
Cat Chick Spar
Deb Proud WH Smith
David Sanghera - Rymans
In attendance: Robert Clack Director of Commercial & Retail
Wendy Burke NC Facilitator & Operations Officer
Keith Richards Security & Network Transformation
Peter Hall Head of Policy & Research (part)
Paul Simmonds Director of Operations
The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting with a warm welcome to Cat Chick of Spar
who was attending her first Board meeting.
1. MOTION
The following new signatories to be added to the mandate:
Andrew Neil Watts
Calum Brian Greenhow
Both of whom have indicated their willingness to act as such, and provide
specimen signatures and any required identification td
The removal of the following signatories from the mandate:
George Thomson
James Nott
Philip Bloor
The motion was duly proposed and seconded and passed at vote. DECISION]
Board Meeting 16June 2020 ~~ Page 2 of 24
NFSP00000492
NFSP00000492
3. CEO REPORT
(a) Historical Shortfall Scheme (HSS)
Background
e As Board members aware of the scheme and understand
what we are doing to help and support colleagues impacted
by this. Nilesh Joshi would update in more detail later.
e Now in the lea of the court cases and GLO. Concern raised in
relation to the settlement agreed between claimants and
PO. £58 million agreed but the solicitors took their cut along
with the equity company so very little was left for the
claimants. On average they would receive around £20,000
in compensation, which fell short of the loss they incurred.
° it was important to know that this situation did not purely affect
subpostmasters, From a Freedom of Information request
recently, from 1997 to 2015 there were 796 prosecutions, of
which 44% related to Crown office staff, not spms. The NFSP
position is that not only should those impacted have their
reputation restored but all their losses repaid including
consequential losses.
im_of the scheme
e — To bring finality to colleagues, both past and present, who
believe that they suffered a shortfall as a result of Horizon.
° There would be an independent panel of three consisting of:
° Alex Charlton QC, forensic accountant € 7
° Susan Blower, retail expert «&
o Sunder Sandher
° Appointed by PO and they would act independently and
consider each case that came to the HSS. Decisions would not
be made by PO, decisions would be made by the panel solely.
. If a colleague feels the decision of the panel is incorrect, they
will have 28 days to apply via the Dispute Resolution Procedure,
which would result in a Good Faith Meeting either by telephone
or face to face.
° If the Good Faith Meeting proves unsuccessful, the colleague
has a further 28 days to write asking for an Escalation meeting.
e If there is still no resolution, then the colleague has a further 28
days to request that their case goes to mediation via
Wandsworth Mediation Service, which is a charity run by
Stephen Ruttle QC and was involved in mediating the £58
million settlement at the end of the GLO last year.
Board Meeting i 76 June 2020. Page 3 of 24
© National Federation of SubPostmasters
If it still can’t be resolved, even at that stage, if the sum is below
£10,000 then the case can go to the Small Claims Court. If it is
above £10,000 the case would be referred to arbitration under
the Arbitration Act, 1996.
Who can Apply?
Anyone who has operated a post office between 1 January 2000
and when the current HNG-A Horizon software and hardware
was installed during 2017-18.
Those who were part of the GLO cannot apply, nor can those
with a criminal conviction as it is only the Courts that can have
the conviction overturned, but they can go to the CCRC.
Currently 61 cases before the CRC currently, of which 47 had
been referred back for retrial, 7 upheld
All applications must be in by midnight on 14 August 2020,
It was not a lot of time but PO want to bring about fast results
and people are refunded in the correct manner.
Some cases can be very complex in calculating what colleagues
have submitted to the scheme. Consequential loss can become
very complex. Chair of NC and CEO had been ‘talking to
Hudgells, a no win, no fee, solicitors so we would refer cases to
them. If they felt there was an opportunity to win they may take
it forward.
Itis important that colleagues have the right to ask for help and
support through the process,
Complex Cases
Nilesh Joshi would explain exactly what the NFSP were doing
for colleagues, however first an explanation of some of the
complex cases, not just in terms of what went wrong but in
calculating what a colleague submits to the scheme.
When consequential loss is taken into account it becomes very
complex. How do you calculate loss of reputation, loss of liberty
and a criminal conviction, loss of business or loss of an asset
such as a home?
In these situations, the NFSP may refer the colleague to
Hudgells Solicitors, who operate on a no win, no fee basis may
take the case forward. It is important that colleagues with such
complex cases have the right support to help them through the
process.
Recording & Support
It is important for those sending links to colleagues to
encourage them to also complete the NFSP form and ensure
Nilesh Joshi is copied in and kept updated. Itis important that
the NFSP keep a central record.
NFSP00000492
NFSP00000492
Strictly Private & Confidential
‘Board Meeting 16 June 2020
Page 4 of 24
© National Federation of SubPostmasters
Some of the accusations made against the NFSP particularly by
the BEIS Select Committee was that I was having to answer
questions as we did not know what did or did not happen. We
could subsequently go away and find out some information.
There was no record if it was dealt with by a Branch Secretary
or others around the country. Want to be able to show that the
NFSP has changed and has a different way of looking at things,
and can prove we have offered help and support to colleagues.
Interesting that the majority of forms returned so far
demonstrates that they did not originally come to the NFSP for
help.
Nilesh Joshi
The scheme relates to the period 1 January 2000 and
31 December 2017 and the two previous Horizon versions.
Important to make sure spms understand that the scheme
is designed for issues caused by Horizon. Some claims
through where we can see it is nothing to do with Horizon.
Any issues post December 2017 need to contact the NFSC.
They could apply to the scheme would be referred back to
NBSC. There was a task force in Chesterfield to look at cases
and monitor branches.
Challenge was if someone was carrying surplus cash, why
would PO keep sending extra cash to the tune of £100k-
£200k. Issues should be picked up early.
How the NFSP deal with this will give members confidence
as to how we will support therm.
Historically we could have done things differently, The
support given was amazing but we did not have data which
states what individuals were dealing with the case. We need
to be better at doing that,
Processes now in place to ensure as we carry on from here
how do we capture data on a national basis? Important there
is an audit trail, a clear understanding of what spms can
expect from us, what the scheme looks like. Is it honest and
transparent? Is it looking at cases in a pragmatic way? As it
progresses through different levels, we expect soms to
contact us so we need to capture everything so we can
support that.
We have agreed internal process and what kind of journey
there should be internally and to make sure we have created
a template. This has already been sent to the Board, The
Word document should be copied and pasted to create the
email which can be personalised. important spms
understand there are two separate links, one of which will
come to us, They have to submit their claim direct to PO,
We have learnt from running the trial, and hope it is now
right. Let Nilesh know if you think there should be changes.
ACTION
NFSP00000492
NFSP00000492
trictly Private & Confidential
Board Meeting ; 16 June 2020
Page 5 of 24
© National Federation of SubPostmasters
\
oy
Have analysed some data already, and will keep you in the
loop with local knowledge, etc, as there will be historic issues
you may be aware of. Important the whole Board engages
and ensure as soon as someone contacts you, they are sent
the links. We have made it as simple as possible. If you need
any support contact Nilesh or Sharon. If they need support,
we can offer that. However, we have to be mindful of what
advice we can give. Need to be careful what we can ask
them to put on the form. We only have one side of the story.
Deadline is midnight on 14 August so spmMs need to get their
claims in as soon as possible.
A question that has arisen is the timeframe for everything.
These were part of the judgement and they agreed a
timeframe. Not something imposed by PO, they had to do it
based on the GLO judgement.
One question raised related to spms not keeping historic
records and if an estimated figure or figures from accounts
would be accepted, this would be answered in the slides,
Another question was whether it applied to ex-spms and if
the NFSP had checked old records,
Had to be remembered that it was not just spms who were
prosecuted it was also staff. Anyone who suffered a loss as a
result of Horizon could apply to the scheme. On records it is
not about if the judgement was right or wrong it is made.
Any information we have would only refer to that. This is
something completely different and new.
We can prove that some of the things we could not challenge
before could now be challenged. That is the whole point of
the scheme. It is structured where you have a completely
independent body who would look at the case, get all the
information together and pass on to the Review Panel to
review and make a decision. The PO or the NFSP are not part
of the process.
Looking at how the scheme will work. Going forward this will
give us much more credible and tangible data to work with
How far back does historical data go with Fujitsu and PO? Do
they have the ability to go into historic files to establish facts?
Looking at how records were kept not everything was digital.
In 1997 Horizon was put into Crown offices before being
rolled out to the network. For a long time, there was data
maintained in manual form. There were different systems
that could not talk to each other. It will be a laborious task.
PO cannot just give spms the dates of shortages. However,
PO could look for given identified shortages which was much
quicker. PO need a clue as to where to look. It is a mixture
of digital and manual data.
Again, it stressed that 14 August was the deadline for claims,
and spms shouldn't leave it until the last minute.
Strictly Private & Confidential
NFSP00000492
NFSP00000492
Board Meeting 16 June 2020
Page 6 of 24
NFSP00000492
NFSP00000492
© National Federation of SubPostmasters Strictly Private & Confidential
° At a previous meeting given a list of all the known faults on
Horizon, Did all those fauits result in a loss for soms and were
they reimbursed? If any new bugs are identified will spms
get automatic reimbursement?
° That question has been asked. A bug is a code. However, if
you use it one way it will not show up but another way it will
show up.
Back to Calum
° CEO now has a copy of the expert witness statements and
was working through them. Indicates a lot of the times as
soon as it was identified it was rectified. However, we can say
557 went to court because the accusation by Post Office was
that there was a bug but it did not impact them.
° Going forward being put in place, because we want an
assurance if a bug is identified the NFSP are informed
immediately so when it comes to representing a member
you have the list available and if it transpires that they are € ns)
describing meets with the bug it gives you confidence you <
can represent the member properly.
° We want to be in a situation where if you are dealing with a
colleague you are aware of bugs, defects and what outcomes
have been reached. ;
° Have also called for Horizon to be audited on an annual basis
and the results of that audit are transparently distributed.
important it is clear as far as Horizon is concerned operators
can have confidence in the system and its robustness going
forward. When something goes wrong it is rectified and
dealt with.
° Recently there were issues in relation to Horizon and people
not being able to log on. Plan is to keep CEO, Chair of NC
and Chair informed if there are problems to keep the Board
and members updated.
Back to Nilesh € my
oad
° Néed to point out, If a member contacts you and wants to
discuss their claim and what to put in, éven if you know that
falls outside the scheme, please do not discourage them
from submitting a claim, let PO come back to them and
point them in the right direction.
. Presentation attached as Appendix A.
. Purpose of the scheme is to take a. pragmatic view not all fact
based. Spms should just do the best they can with the claim
form even if they don’t have records. Some do have
information. Some settled with cash will be difficult to prove.
° On to other elements of the scheme.
Board Meeting 16 June 2020 Page 7 of 24
© National Federation of SubPostmasters
ae
When people are filing a claim, they need to be mindful of
any consequential losses, however although it is a pragmatic
approach rather than legal approach the reference point
would be the recognised legal principles. If it is going to
Proceed, that is important to remember, When you follow all
the steps, at the end of those steps you have the legal step
you can take. Personal viewpoint is, if the case did not stack
up and you didn’t have evidence, if you went to court you
would have to provide evidence. What are your chances of
winning the case? Many no win, no fee solicitors out there.
Clear from conversations they are not interested in small
claims, only those over £10,000 and they want to be involved
from the start.
PO will pay for lawyers involved in this and the arbitration
however if they take the legal route the spm will have to pay
and they may not win and would be liable for additional
costs including PO costs.
Working Group Update (various subjects together)
°
Meeting with Postal Affairs Minister day before, with Nick
Read and various other individuals from PO.
Opportunity to meet the new Minister. Paul Scully. Initial
evidence seems more engaged than his predecessor. Kelly
Tolhurst set. up the Group and it was quite clear reshuffles,
etc., her interest in the PO was not there. Paul Scully seems
to be engaged. .
Made clear he understands the needs of spms and in relation
to this whole situation, wants to put it right.
Set up Independent Review. Differs to a judge led enquiry.
Difference in the level of cost and time. A judge led enquiry
can take longer, sometimes years, and can cost up to £6
million. Also, the individuals themselves as witnesses may
need legal advice, etc. Independent Review looks at what
has gone wrong but also looks at what changes have been
made,
Takes a historic as well as future view, which is really
important. Quite surprised that some have taken a negative
view on the announcement of the Independent Review.
Stress Minister wants to make it right as does Nick Read and
it Is a good start. What the independent review would look
at what went wrong with Horizon covering 5 areas,
= Understand and acknowledge what went wrong in
relation to Horizon, leading to the Group Litigation
Order, by drawing on evidence from the Horizon
judgments and affected postmasters’ experiences and
identify what key lessons must be learned for the future;
Strictly Private & Confidential
NFSP00000492
NFSP00000492
Board Meeting 16 June 2020
Page 8 of 24
NFSP00000492
NFSP00000492
© National Federation of SubPostmasters Strictly Private & Confidential
= Assess whether the Post Office has learned the lessons
from the criticisms made by Mr Justice Fraser in the
“Common Issues” and “Horizon Issues” trials and those
identified by affected postmasters and has delivered or
made good progress on the organizational and cultural
changes necessary to ensure a similar case does not
happen in the future;
. Assess whether the commitments made by Post Office
within the mediation settlement - including the
historical shortfall scheme - have been properly
delivered;
. Assess whether the processes and information provided
by Post Office to postmasters are sufficient to i) enable
both parties to meet their contractual obligations; and
ii) to enable postmasters to run their businesses. This
includes assessing whether Post Office related
processes such as recording and resolving postmaster
queries, dispute handling, suspension and termination
are fit for purpose. In addition, determine whether the
quality of the service offer for postmasters and their
relationship with Post Office has materially improved
since the conclusions by Mr Justice Fraser: and
. Examine the governance and whistleblowing controls
now in place at Post Office and whether they are
sufficient to ensure that the failings that led to the
Horizon case issues do not happen again.
° Does have a backward looking ‘what went wrong’ but also
what have PO done now. The trial has identified what went
wrong. We want to know that colleagues impacted have the
reputation restored and losses refunded. Stressed the need
to past and present colleagues to have their reputations
restored as well as their losses refunded.
e Challenged them to look at Fujitsu's part in this. They
supplied a faulty software programme which was the root
cause of the problem. Any settlement reached should be
passed to thi
prefer the Gi nment
to look at the situation and seek redress from Fujitsu who
have remained very quiet and nobody seems to be going
after them. Justice Fraser has referred their witness
statements to the DPP. Serious investigations going on into
their part in this. On behalf of members we are pushing for
government to seek redress from Fujitsu and pass on any
settlement (without legal fees) to those impacted.
Board Meeting 16 June 2020 Page 9 of 24
NFSP00000492
NFSP00000492
OZOZ PUNE OL
IUSOE YSEIIN
yoddns dS4N SSH
NFSP00000492
NFSP00000492
Purpose
* How can we support members better - High Court ruling was very
critical of the NFSP
¢ Better records of data captured
¢ Clear view of the HSS from postmasters perspective
¢ Clear understanding of how we will support the postmasters
* Audit trail
* Ongoing support for the postmasters as the claim progresses
The voice of the
www.nfsp.org.uk UK's post offices
NFSP00000492
NFSP00000492
* Agreed internal process to capture and use the data ina meaningful way to
help support postmasters with their claims
* Create easy to use template for the directors to engage with the claimants
* Monitor types of claims and outcomes
* Ensure Directors remain part of the local support
* Tested the process with the NC team
* Tested the template with the claimants
* Roll out the template to Directors - To be sent out to both new claimants and
The voice of the
www.nfsp.org.uk UK's post offices
the ones who have already filed a claim that you're aware of
NFSP00000492
NFSP00000492
So far......
¢ Encourage PM to use the NFSP link as well as submitting their claim to
the Historical Shortfall Scheme
° Refer Claimants to Nilesh or Sharon for further help and guidance
* Post Office will only review claims received by midnight 14 August 2020
ice of the )
The voi
www.nfsp.org.uk UK's post offices
NFSP00000492
NFSP00000492
Role of the directors
* Please use the template provided to ensure we capture information
centrally in a meaningful way
* Contact either myself or Sharon with any follow ups
* Do not discourage anyone from putting their claim in
* Due to short deadline for the submission, please send out the link
immediately
* Copy either Sharon or Myself when you send a link out to claimants so
we can monitor their progress
The voice of the
www.nfsp.org.uk UK's post offices
NFSP00000492
NFSP00000492
Results so far
8. Are you currently a member of the NFSP?
Moro Details
@ ves 18
@ No ?
9. If you're currently not a member, were you a member at the time of the shortfall?
More Details
@ ves 13
@ No o
The voice of the
www.nfsp.org.uk UK's post offices
NFSP00000492
NFSP00000492
Results so far
10. Did you contact the NFSP at the time of the shortfall?
More Details
@ ves 8
@ No 7
11. If yes, whom within the NFSP did you contact?
More Details
Latest Responses
9 “cannot remember"
Responses "Yo not remember "
www.nfsp.org.uk The voice of the
UK's post offices
Results so far
12. Have you contacted the NFSP recently regarding the Historic Shortfall Scheme?
More Details
@ Yes 20
@ No Ey
13. If yes, who have you spoken to?
More Details
20
Responses
Latest Responses
“ec; email”
“Wendy Burke"
“No reply received.”
www.nfsp.org.uk
NFSP00000492
NFSP00000492
The voice of the
UK's post offices
Results so far
14. Who was your contracts manager at the time?
More Details
Latest Responses
2 5 "Unknown"
" o
Responses "Paul Wiliams’
"Do not remeber."
15. What were the values and dates of any shortfalls incurred?
More Details
Latest Responses
2 5 "£1,887.89 / £516.26"
4 ks £ jod totalling £34974"
Responses ‘Numerous shortfalls over a 12 year period ing a
“£ 1,500.00 were short. "
www.nfsp.org.uk
NFSP00000492
NFSP00000492
The voice of the
UK's post offices
16. Describe what happened. eg product design, mis-key, training issue etc.
More Details
Latest Responses
25 ‘Shortfalls on balancing"
Responses “Constantly short”
“Showed 13 dockets cashed and not one docket.”
17. Do you have any Horizon data, receipts, reference numbers, letters or reports from the
incident
More Details
@ ves ?
@ No 13
@ Maybe 5
www.nfsp.org.uk
NFSP00000492
NFSP00000492
The voice of the
UK's post offices
Results so far
18. Are you able to provide this evidence if required ?
More Details
Latest Responses
21 “Yes*
n
Responses "Yes
"Yes."
19, Was the incident reported to the Police?
More Details
@ ves 7
@ No 24
www.nfsp.org.uk
NFSP00000492
NFSP00000492
The voice of the
UK's post offices
20. Are you able to provide this evidence if required ?
More Details
1 1 Latest Responses
"No.
Responses
21. Additional Information that you feel may be useful
More Details
Latest Responses
4 5 “POL are being disingenuous as they have computer records of all 0...
‘T have sent 10 attachments to support my claim"
Responses
“T was sacked and post office was given to another postmaster who...
www.nfsp.org.uk
NFSP00000492
NFSP00000492
The voice of the
UK's post offices
NFSP00000492
NFSP00000492
¢ Is the Horizon system robust?
* Legacy 2000 - 2010 - not remotely,
* Online (HNG-X) 2010 - 2017 questionable not to justify the
confidence that PO placed in it and HNG-A
+ 2017 to present - is robust
The voice of the
UK's post offices
www.nfsp.org.uk