NFSP00000727
NFSP00000727
Message
From: Calum Greenhow
Sent: 21/09/2023 07:47:38
To: Calum Greenhow
Subject: FW: NFSP follow up
From: Julie Mead
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 11:59 AM
To: Jenna khalfan!_
Cc: George Thomson
Subject: RE: NFSP follow up
Dear Jenna
Many thanks for your email to Julian. He is away from the office today returning tomorrow when I will bring your email to
his attention.
With kind regards
Julie
Julie Mead
PA to Julian Blake
Charity & Social Enterprise Department
Bates Wells Braithwaite
I@i
VV)
Bates Wells Braithwaite
From: Jenna khalfan
Sent: 19 December 2016
To: Julian Blake
Cc: George Thomson
Subject: NFSP follow up
Hi Julian,
Great to meet you last month and thanks for your time.
I Web: www.bwbllp.com
We're proudto be the first UK law firm to certify as a B Corp
We talked about you doing a number of pieces of work for us during that meeting. The first on the grant agreement and
the second on the NFSP’s response to proposed cuts to transaction rates. Further detail about the work is below.
1) Onthe grant agreement:
NFSP00000727
NFSP00000727
The grant agreement (8.5/8.6) states that ‘POL shall advance the annual grant payment which has become payable
within thirty business days of receipt of an undisputed drawdown request from the NFSP’. However there have been
numerous times when this has not happened and POL have not offered a reason. We would like you to draft a letter so
that should the next payment be withheld, we are able to request that it be paid subject to POL providing us with clear
information about why it has been disputed.
We would also like you to do some work on how far we can go with campaigning. For example, if POL do ever dispute
the grant payment because - in their view - we have done something which may prevent them from implementing a
strategy or have undertaken a negative media campaign, then can we say that under 5.2 of the grant agreement, and
within the subpostmasters individual contracts, we have a duty to represent our members, and this means publicly
commenting on issues that materially affect them.
2) Transaction cut response
As we discussed, we want to be able to respond quickly should POL announce a reduction in the commission paid to our
members. We would like you to work up a letter that we can send to POL covering the actions that we will take unless
they desist with rates reduction. We outlined the actions at the meeting (and below). Alongside the letter, we would like
you to work some of the individual actions up; initially the ones on the restrictions policy, mis-selling, misuse of public
money and employment law (as we think these are our strongest points).
Restrictions Policy: Currently existing subpostmasters who are on traditional and community contracts or those who
have signed up for the new Mains or Local contracts, are expected to adhere to a Restrictions Policy. However some new
agents have been given wavers (for example on products such as Camelot and money transfers). This is obviously
unfairly restrictive on our members who have invested in their own franchise. We believe this would be of interest to
the Competition and Markets Authority.
Mis-selling: Over 7000 subpostmasters have signed new contracts for Mains or Locals. Before being awarded the
contract, each of these subpostmasters was asked to put forward a five-year business plan. The business plan was based
on information that the post office provided to them about transaction rates. We know that POL have been looking at
cuts to transaction rates for a while, indeed cuts to Travel Money and MoneyGram have already taken place (Oct 2016).
If transaction rates are to be significantly reduced, we believe that there is a strong case that these contracts were mis-
sold as people signed the contracts on the basis of the current transaction rates. Further, over the next six months more
subpostmasters will change to new contracts. Many will sign these contracts on the basis of the current rates of
transactions. We think that the National Audit Office would be interested in this because many of the branches that
signed the new contracts will become unviable after transaction rate cuts.
Misuse of public money. The government has given POL £2bn to transform the network. Much of this money has gone
on investment in existing branches, and many have had £70,000 - £100,000 spent on them. The Post Office has been
talking publically about significantly expanding the network and increasing the number of post offices. If a new office is
opened in close proximity to an existing modernised office, it will destroy the existing branch’s viability. Therefore the
money spent on modernisation will have been wasted and a mis-use of public funds. This also highlights the lack of
strategy behind Network Transformation. We believe that the National Audit Office would be interested in this.
Employment law: All subpostmasters are self-employed. For example they don’t give personal service. However, there
are a number of community branches that receive a small office payment from the Post Office. This is because these
branches are essential for communities, but are unprofitable. The small office payment is calculated based the income
of the small office and how many hours they’re open. Their income is then topped up by the small office payment. We
understand that when the new Living Wage came in earlier this year, POL chose not to award these branches an uplift in
their small payment - instead they have been encouraged to open for fewer hours. Also, with customer numbers falling,
we believe that there is a growing minority of subpostmasters (about 1000) who own small Mains that are entirely
reliant on PO income. Should transaction rates fall, these Subpostmasters will not be able to look for income elsewhere -
for example retail, as they have no space. Therefore we believe these offices could be reasonably judged to be
employees rather than truly self-employed.
NFSP00000727
NFSP00000727
The other areas that we talked about at the meeting were the issues around the Horizon system and a potential Judicial
Review of Network Transformation. However, we don’t think these are our strongest arguments at the moment. We
would like these kept on the backburner, and we may want further work done on this after the work above is
completed.
Please do get in contact if you have any further questions.
Jen
Jenna Khalfan
Director of Communications and Strategy
National Federation of SubPostmasters
A company limited by guarantee (Company number 9771284 England)
Evelyn House, 22 Windlesham Gardens, Shoreham by Sea, West Sussex, BN43 5AZ.
Tel }
This email and any attachments are confidential and may be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Itis intended solely for the
addressee. Any unauthorised use is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender immediately and delete the email and any attachments.
While BWB take care to protect its systems from virus attacks and other harmful events, the firm gives no warranty that this message (including attachments) is free of any virus
or other harmful matter, and accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage resulting from the recipient receiving, opening or using it.
Bates Wells Braithwaite is the tradi Well ite London LLP, a limited liability partnership, registered in England and Wales, No. 0C325522. 10 Queen
Street Place, London, EC4R 1BE. Tels} }www.bwbllp.com A list of members is available from the above address.
The firm is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority.