@
POL00001642
POL00001642
Review of the Creation and Management of
Transaction Corrections in POLFS to
Correct Accounting Errors in Horizon
REFERENCE OWNER Martin Box
VERSION 1.0 AUTHOR(S) Jo Shooter-Holt
STATUS Baselined Reviewers I Martin Box
DATE 10/02/2010 ApprRovers_I Alison Bolsover
Dawn Brooks
Ops SIGN-OFF Rod Ismay
BASELINE
NuMBER
CLassiFicaT! I /n Strictest
ON Commercial
Confidence
Page I of 16
Transaction Correction Review V1.0
F/579/1
POL00001642
POL00001642
Change Control
“Version Number I Description Of Change
I New document
Baselined 0/02/2010
Contents
Review of the Creation and Management of Transaction Corrections in POLFS to Correct Accounting
Errors in Horizon ..
Change Control
1. Introduction.......
1.1 Methodology .
2. Ary Current Process
2.1 The Triggers that lead to Transaction Correction Creation .. .
2.1.1 Transaction Corrections resulting from POLFS generating Open Items, coctteeeeees
2.1.1.1 Table showing products where Transaction Corrections are created from matching routine
in POLFS.
2.1.2 Transaction Corrections resulting form external request..
2.1.2.2 Table showing products where Transaction Corrections are created by reques'
2.1.3 Error Li -
2.1.3.1 Matching Routine Maintained Error Limit (Provided from the PBA Write Off. Manual) . 5
2.1.3.2 Manual Limits (Provided from the P&BA Write Off Manual).
2.2 After the Transaction Correction has been issued
2.2.1 Failed Transaction Corrections...
2.2.1.1 Table of Rejected Transaction Corrections o9/ 10.
2.2.2 Non conformance and Branch investigation.
2.2.3 Blocking transaction corrections
2.2.3.1 Volume and Value of Blocked Transaction Corrections for period 9 09/10.
2.2.4 CHOWNS 00. tee eee
2.2.5 Multiple and Single agent Branches
2.2.6 High Value Transaction Correction Authorisation Sis anature Requirement...
3 Conclusions and Recommendations ..
3.1 Investigation and Creating Ti ransaction Corrections .
3.1.1 Table showing some examples of poorly constructed Transaction Correction text (taken from
the Fujitsu file)
3.2 After the Transaction Correction has been issued .
3.2.1 Tables showing Transaction Correction figures for period 8 and 9 09/10 .
Appendix .
Appendix 1 Table showing examples of Transaction Correction (extracted from the Fujitsu file). 13
Page 2 of 16 Transaction Correction Review V1.0
F/S579/2
POL00001642
POL00001642
Appendix 2 Terms of Reference for the Process Management Working Groups ............0.c0cccee 16
1. Introduction
From the Business Efficiency Programme a secondary programme has evolved called the Back Office
Efficiency programme. It will help forward:five2eleven by realising P&BA’s vision. The BOEP vision
is to develop, deploy and embed “one touch” accounting with minimal intervention for branches, P&BA
and Clients. This will be achieved by introducing modern product design principles as standard POL
terms of business, that are consistently deployed, with slick data feeds” and offer robust controls.
This document details the triggers that lead to the creation, the different types of and the parameters
around Transaction Corrections. Using this information the weaknesses within P&BA processing and
management of Transaction Corrections are documented
1.1 Methodology
Interviews were held with P&BA team leaders and experts in the areas where Transaction Corrections
are created and managed.
Reviews and feasibilities for products were used for reference to assist with understanding. These
included Client Interface, Cheques, Camelot and ATM reviews along with the POLFS Matching
Routines document.
Data containing information for Transaction Corrections sent to Horizon was also analysed.
2. The Current Process
2.1 The Triggers that lead to Transaction Correction Creation
2.1.1 Transaction Corrections resulting from POLFS generating Open Items
When a transaction is carried out at the Branch through Horizon the electronic data is interfaced into
POLFS. Each product has a specific table within POLFS called GL accounts. Many of these
transactions have a system external to Horizon in the branch where the customer transaction takes place,
e.g. ATM machines and Camelot terminals. In the case of Cheques and manual banking transactions a
physical item is sent to be processed by an external company, e.g. EDS. This data is interfaced or
uploaded into POLFS. Every night POLFS runs a series of routines that take all this data and matches
up the Horizon transaction to the client data in the various GL accounts. Part of the role of the P&BA
teams is to look at items that haven’t matched called an open item and to take corrective action. Where
an open item is found to be a branch error a Transaction Correction is created in POLFS and sent to the
branch via Horizon to correct the error.
2.1.1.1 Table showing products where Transaction Corrections are created from
matching routine in POLFS
Product
ATM’s ~ manual load with POL cash)
BOI
Hanco
Bank Machine
A&L
Page 3 of 16 Transaction Correction Review V1.0
F/579/3
2.1.2 Transaction Corrections resulting form external request
The other type of Transaction Correction is when the product team receive a request to create a
TRM
Cash in pouches
Currency in pouches
Personal Banking
MoneyGram
Cheques to EDS
Sodexho — Government services
Travellers Cheques
Camelot
POL00001642
POL00001642
Transaction Correction for the branch to correct an error found. These requests can come from the
Client, the Cash Centres or the Branch itself via the NBSC helpline. For many of the teams who raise
this type of Transaction Correction they are able to create a spreadsheet for many branches with the
details needed and upload this into POLFS instead of creating the Transaction Corrections branch by
branch.
2.1.2.2 Table showing products where Transaction Corrections are created by
request
2.1.3 Error Limits
Product
Alliance and Leicester
AON Travel insurance
NS&I
On line banking
Currency Rems*
Cash Rems*
Cash from 3™ parties
Debt/Credit card
DVLA
Post Office savings stamp
Stock
Unpaid Cheques
Paystation
AP transactions
Quantum
IPS
Postal Orders
First Rate Sell currency
Historically P&BA introduced a minimum value error limit as a balance against the volume of errors and
head count reduction to prevent products going into a backlog situation. The values were determined by
volume and net value rather than a more scientific analysis at branch level. There are two types of error
limits, a manual limit which is imposed by the processing team and a limit written into the matching
Page 4 of 16 Transaction Correction Review V1.0
F/S79/4
POL00001642
POL00001642
routine. Any errors found below the error limit is moved into a write off GL account for each product
and written off at the end of the financial year.
2.1.3.1 Matching Routine Maintained Error Limit (Provided from the P&BA Write
Off Manual)
Account Value £ Write Off I Write off £value— I Write Off Value £
Account up to period 09 year 08/09
09/10
FRES Pre order and Change 69.99 250127 24,867 -1,371
FRES Trav Chq 49.99 250726 75,756 179,499
MoneyGram sent received 40.00 250775 3,110 500,832
ATMs 40.00 250774 70,121 711,452
Personal Banking — 40.00 250776 6,517 35,127
Withdrawals and deposits
Cash / Bureau In Transit 1.00 250111 1,482,907* 11,267.45
2.1.3.2 Manual Lim
its (Provided
from the P&BA Write Off Manual)
Account Value £ Write Off I Write off £value— I Write Off Value £
Account up to period 09 year 08/09
09/10
Camelot 0.99 250725 6,388.07 59,701
DWP errors 50.00 250172 10,118 74,958
A&L errors 50.00 250720 20,523 791,273
Agent Debtors in customer I 20.00 debit 250511 26,941 82,790
accounts 5.00 credit
Unpaid Cheque postage 25.00 250712 61,705 92,937
loss
Personal Banking Unpaids 25.00 250704 6,517 110,439
P&BA Cheque Control 25.00 250701 2,167 8,126
Northern Ireland and 69.99 250710 13,702 34,375
Cheques to EDS
Bureau in Transit / 69.99 250111 Part of 1,482,907 as 11,267
Vouchers on hand (99.99 for above
closed
branches)
AP products 29.99 250797 467 17,524
AON Travel 1.00 250721 0 482,730
DVLA NI 9.99 250721 - :
DVLA 29.99 250721 394 161,765
FRES Bulk purchases, 69.99 250105 -3,715 42
returns, margins and
commission
* This figure is made up of £828k Cash Centre 559501 balance that had been there since POLFS went live
Cash services team could not explain the value, £516k+ is due to currency stuck in pouches and the rest is small
value write off and write back and maintained errors, £91k was for cash on hand at closed branches written off
against provision.
Page 5 of 16
Transaction Correction Review V1.0
F/S79/5
POL00001642
POL00001642
2.2 After the Transaction Correction has been issued
2.2.1 Failed Transaction Corrections
The reporting and Analysis team receive a weekly file from Fujitsu that details all the Transaction
Corrections sent from POLFS to Horizon. This report shows the status of each Transaction Correction.
On a monthly basis this data is used to create a report of all the Transaction Corrections that are not
resolved. Reasons why a Transaction Correction are rejected by Horizon or don’t get through the
interface are:-
The Branch is closed. When it is decided to close a branch the details are sent to the Reference
data team in the form of the OBC22 process. All branches when first closed are categorised as a
C2 on the form this means temporary closed, until Fujitsu and Network Change decide that the
branch will be permanently closed, a C1 category. The Reason why POLFS can still issue
Transaction Corrections to a category C2 branch is because the temporary status does not feed
through. Closed branch Transaction Corrections are transferred to the manual TP6 process and
becomes part of the Former Agents debt team processes.
The value of the Transaction Correction is not within parameters of product. As part of the
reference data for each product within Horizon there a parameters which dictate the value and
multiples of that value of the product, e.g. £5 scratch cards can only be in multiples of 5. These
parameters are also applied to Transaction Corrections coming through to Horizon.
The product is not valid. This is a reference data issue where the flag to allow Transaction
Correct mode for that product in POLFS has not checked.
Crowns settled centrally. Only single agent branches should be allowed to settle a Transaction
Correction centrally, which means deferring payment, but occasionally a Crown Office will do
this.
The wrong flag is chosen when creating the Transaction Correction. When a Transaction
Correction is created it is assigned a flag of N meaning new or E meaning evidence has been
provided. There is also an H and W flag. The H flag means on hold and if this is picked the
Transaction Correction will not be sent to Horizon and will stay in the system. The W flag
represents the ‘blocked’ or disputed Transaction corrections that originally had an N flag.
Horizon allows branch to roll over to next trading period without accepting all Transaction
Corrections. There is an anomaly in Horizon that when a multi terminal branch has two or more
terminals completing a transaction simultaneously the branch is able to roll over to the next
trading period without accepting all the Transaction Corrections. This is not a widely know or
occurring problem
2.2.1.1 Table of Rejected Transaction Corrections 09/10
Rejection reason N* TCs
Branch Closed 112
WrongValue 67
Product not valid 54
Crown settled centrally 10
Page 6 of 16 Transaction Correction Review V1.0
F/S79/6
POL00001642
POL00001642
Horizon allowed roll over Unknown but
without settling TC minimal
2.2.2 Non conformance and Branch investigation
The Fraud and Conformance team purpose is to look for high value Transaction Corrections and for
patterns of errors that may mean the branch is being fraudulent or needs extra help to understand
particular transactions that it is persistently non -conforming. The P&BA settlement teams will escalate
branches and some further investigation will be done. In some cases the conformance team will escalate
a branch to the field support team and request a special audit. The reason behind the top 20 worst loss
incurring Crown offices will be investigated and reported to the Crowns Senior Finance Manager,
Finance Analysts (BDM Area I & 2), Compliance Risk Reporting, and Finance Reporting Officer. The
conformance team are constrained to investigate only the top 20 branches due to the complexity of the
investigations and level of resource within the team. The work this team undertakes adds value by
preventing further loss through non conformance and prevention fraud
2.2.3 Blocking transaction corrections
Blocking a Transaction Correction is when a postmaster disputes that the discrepancy is the branch error
and whilst the dispute is investigated further a flag is applied to the Transaction Correction to stop any
further action being taken e.g. chasing the postmaster to pay the discrepancy amount. A Transaction
Correction that has had evidence provided and hence an E flag against it cannot be blocked unless it is
settled centrally first. This means that the majority of blocked Transaction Corrections have been closed
in the original GL account associated with the product and sit in the settle centrally GL which is either
the responsibility of the current or multiple agents’ debt teams. The way blocked Transaction
Corrections are managed differ depending on where they sit. W flagged blocked Transaction
Corrections are picked up by the Reporting and Analysis team and reported to the product team leader to
close. Single agent blocked Transaction Corrections that end up in the current agents’ debt GL are
reported to the product team leaders to investigate and close. Blocked Transaction Corrections for
multiple agents are picked up and investigated by the Conformance and Branch Investigation team. The
reason for this is because the team has a good working relationship with the branches head office.
2.2.3.1 Volume and Value of Blocked Transaction Corrections for period 9 09/10
Age Vol. single I £K single Vol. multiple I £K W flagged Vol I W
agents agent agent multiple flagged
agent
91—lyear I 44 58 61 84 8 8
60-90 days I 19 49 17 4l 7 79
Under 60 62 366 23 1 8 0.8
days
Total 126 473 101 126 23 16.7
2.2.4 Crowns
All debit transaction corrections are a loss to POL unless the contra credit or branch discrepancy is also
found. There is no distinction between the differing Branch types at investigation and creation level.
Once in Horizon the branch type depends on what the branch manger can do with the error. Crowns
have to accept Transaction Corrections into their Losses and Gains ledger which is reported monthly to
Page 7 of 16 Transaction Correction Review V1.0
F/S579/7
POL00001642
POL00001642
their Regional Support Advisors. The Crown Losses Review details the issues around Crown losses and
the relationships with Crown Account Manager and Regional Support Advisors.
2.2.5 Multiple and Single agent Branches
When a Transaction Correction is received by a Multiple agent branch they can either make good, which
means they will take out the value of credit or replace the debit into the holdings themselves or they can
assign to nominee, this means that a statement will be sent to the head office of the multiple agent, e.g.
MacColls who will settle all the outstanding amounts for it’s branches then deal with the branch
accordingly. Once assigned to nominee the value of the Transaction Correction sits in the multiple
agent’s debt team GL accounts to manage. More details of the process to produce statements and
manage to debt can be found in the Multiple Agents Debt Review.
Single agent branches can also make good a Transaction Correction or if it’s over £150 in value they
have the option to Settle Centrally, this means they defer payment and can roll over into the next trading
period. Once settled centrally the Transaction Correction sits in the Single agent debt GL account to
manage. More details of the process to recover this debt can be found in the Current Agents Debt
Review
2.2.6 High Value Transaction Correction Authorisation Signature Requirement
As part of the Transaction Correction creation process a high value authorisation series of signatures has
been introduced. This is a form that goes with the evidence and is signed by the level of manager
dictated by the value. Between £10k and £29.99K the team leaders’ signature, £30K to £49.99K Senior
mangers signature and over £50K requires the head of P&BA to sign. These forms are then filed with
the paperwork. The reason for creating this extra check step was two fold; firstly to prevent large credit
Transaction Corrections being issued , then a long period for the debit to be issued, which then might get
disputed and blocked. The second reason being to ensure that branches are not hit by a large value
Transaction Correction which is subsequently found to not be proper to that branch.
3 Conclusions and Recommendations
3.1 Investigation and Creating Transaction Corrections
There are several ways to create a Transaction Correction in POLFS.
The manual option is used by teams that don’t raise many Transaction Corrections. These teams
spend time investigation errors and enquiries that don’t result in a Transaction Correction.
The automated option creates Transaction Correction individually but carries data across into fields
from the original open item
Teams that are driven by requested Transaction Corrections are able to use a spreadsheet to upload
bulk branch details. This saves time and effort.
e¢ Recommendation 1 — Conduct a feasibility to look at an all encompassing issues logging system
for PRBA
e Benefit — Reduced input time into POLFS, increased accuracy and automation of text sent
to branches and so a consistent, professional approach and image. Visibility of all work
that P&BA teams are involved in that doesn’t end in a Transaction Correction. Better
audit trail of information if the Transaction Correction is disputed by the branch.
Camelot uses a process of rolling up or amalgamating all errors incurred by a branch over a period
and issues one Transaction Correction to the branch. They send a spreadsheet with details of the
errors to the branches to help them reconcile with there paperwork. This is not a popular method and
there is a feeling that branches find it difficult to understand the evidence.
Page 8 of 16 Transaction Correction Review V1.0
F/579/8
POL00001642
POL00001642
The reason for using this method is because there are too many errors to handle on an individual
basis without doubling the resource requirement or getting into a backlog situation
¢ Recommendation 2a ~ For all instances of Camelot errors sent to branches make the evidence
clearer to aid consistency.
¢ Recommendation 2b —When Ping has been introduced and errors reduced for Camelot, re- visit
the process and consider going back to handling errors on an individual basis
e Benefit - Less complaints from branches and better working relationship with the
network
e Recommendation 3 — Present a Change Proposal Document and Business Case to illustrate that
deploying additional agency resource to investigate errors within the maintained error limit, write
off values for the impacted products would be reduced.
e Benefit - The value in the write off accounts for maintained error 09/10 up to period 9
was £422K*. If additional agency staff were employed for a limited period of time for
the purpose of investigating and solving these errors, the value recovered is likely to
outweigh the cost of the agency staff and reduce the value written off.
(*minus the cash& currency figure which is not due to maintained error limit)
NB. It is anticipated that BOEP will produce the required CPD and Business Case documentation on
approval of this recommendation.
Fujitsu send a file containing all the Transaction Corrections sent to Horizon, the data shows all the
information the branch received, this includes the text.
Analysis of the Fujitsu file found c2000 Transaction Correction were found to have no contact
number within the text out of 40K issued between August and October 09 which is circa 5%. In
some cases this is because the branches are instructed to address any disputes in writing.
During the analysis of the long text of the Transaction Corrections there were many other issues
which made the task very difficult. E.g. the text 1 field was very inconsistent in teams approach,
some use a reference number some use the name of the product
3.1.1 Table showing some examples of poorly constructed Transaction Correction
text (taken from the Fujitsu file)
Date Text 1 Text 2
18/12/2009 I —
Notes, - Our investigations have revealed that thecheque card guarantee rules have not been adheredto
i. no guarantee card number endorsed on thereverse of the cheruie Therefore. ln Pounds40 needs to be
recovered fromMiss [MMMM by yourself. Ref, 38/P5/1CQMM GRO
18/12/2009 I GREEN GIRO I An enquiry form for Missing DWP Cheques was sentto your office, you have not provided any evidenceas
requested in the letter sent to you. Telephone disputes cannot be taken and must bemade in writing and
sent to Chesterfield
17/12/2009 11422464-1 THIS TC WILL INCREASE YOUR STOCK OF ELDERLY FREEDOM PASSES BY 50 TO CORRECT
FOR STOCK SENT 8 MAY NOT REM'D INPLEASE PRESS STOCK WO TO ACCEPTALSO PLEASE
READJUST STOCK AS REQUIREDIF ANY QUERY PLEASE CALL RII — TEL
THANK YOU
17/12/2009 I A&L DEP Please do not query this TC until you havereceived the corresponding paperwork, and thenonly in writing
ad I am unable to deal withtelephone disputes. Invalid account number or Non A&L deposit enteredon
daily record wk 35 2008 Evidence willbe ppsted.aulio.uau and should bereceived within the next couple
of days. 100.00 creditissued H GRO
Page 9 of 16 Transaction Correction Review V1.0
F/S579/9
POL00001642
POL00001642
1711212009 I CAMELOT —_I THIS TRANSACTION CORRECTION HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR THE DIFFERENCEBETWEEN
CAMELOT ACTIVATIONS AND REMS ENTERED INTO HORIZONFOR
SCRATCHCARDS.SCRATCHCARDS HAVE BEEN OVERSTATED BY In Pounds320,00 FROM 04.12.09
TO 09.12.09. THIS TRANSACTION CORRECTION WILLD! SE YOUR STOCK OF
SCRATCHCARDS. THANKYOU BEENNINTEL!""" GRO I DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CAMELOT
ACTIVATIONS AND HORIZON REM IN FOR SCRATCHCARDS.
e Recommendation 4 —On a monthly basis , P&BA Admin Section report back to team leaders the
‘fitness’ of the text within the Fujitsu Services Transaction Correction report, particularly
identifying poorly written and missing information. P&BA team leaders to tackle individuals
when poor Transaction Corrections are created
= Benefit — Branches will receive meaningful information and have less reason to dispute
errors. Reduce double handling and recovery time.
For some products like ATM and A&L, paperwork evidence is sent to the branch after the
Transaction Correction has been created. Evidence from clients often has to be requested which is
sent in hard copy format by post. Some branches do receive evidence electronically but this is only
done if the branch requests it and is an exception rather than a rule.
e Recommendation 5 — Complete an exercise led by the P&BA Change Team to set up a database
of all branches, including agency postmasters that are willing to receive Transaction Correction
evidence by email instead of by post. This to also include clients that could send data
electronically but don’t currently do so.
= Benefit — The Transaction Correction is clearer to the branch and they don’t have to wait
for paperwork to arrive in the post. A more professional approach. Reduction in business
mail cost, using period 6 data the postage cost for sending postal evidence is c. £1K per
month
The reasons for introducing a management authorisation of high value Transaction Corrections are valid,
the implementation of the process appears to have lost some of the purpose. A more robust process is
needed that ensures the authoriser has checked for contra errors. This is likely to involve changes to
POLFS to achieve this
¢ Recommendation 6a — The P&BA change team work with P&BA team leaders to re-establish the
current authorisation process with changes that ensure steps are followed and all checks are made
before sign off.
e Recommendation 6b — BOEP to produce a feasibility to help address the issues with the lack of
contra error notification.
" Benefit — Will encourage the right management behaviours and allow cross team
interaction. High value credit Transaction Corrections will not be issued without
consideration to the debit. Branches will not receive high value Transaction Corrections
in error.
3.2 After the Transaction Correction has been issued
During the review it became apparent that because the majority of blocked Transaction Corrections
are sitting in the Debt teams GL accounts it was the belief that the responsibility to manage and close
them sat with the debt team leaders.
Page 10 of 16 Transaction Correction Review V1.0
F/579/10
POL00001642
POL00001642
e¢ Recommendation 7 — Include within the Process Management Working Group a robust process.
that ensures those accountable and responsible for resolving the disputed Transaction corrections
are measured and seen to be taking action.
= Benefit — Reduce the time taken to resolve disputes and demonstrate a professional
process to branches so Transaction Correction are not forgotten about. In period 9 09/10
£599K of blocked Transaction Corrections was sitting in the debt GL accounts, £142K of
this was over 91 days old.
The Conformance and Fraud team look for branch debit or credit Transaction Corrections that cancel
each other out, i.e. contra. These might have been created by different teams and be in different
weeks due to the different timescales the products operate at. There are sometimes instances where a
branch will make good a credit and take the cash out of the holdings but will settle centrally the debit
and owe POL. An authorisation process was introduced to prevent high value Transaction
Corrections being sent without the contra as detailed in recommendation 6 above.
The Conformance team provide value in identifying potentially fraudulent branches and persistent
non conformance offenders. As long as a team exists that’s purpose is to investigate Transaction
Corrections once created the vision for One Touch Accounting will never be realised.
The over riding weakness is the feeling that the teams are working in ‘silos’. The product team’s
priority is to clear there GL’s and then have other teams picking up Branch issues.
Following on from the introduction of HNG later in 2010, there are planned developments such as
Ping that will improve counter processes and data inputs into POLFS. This in turn will reduce the
number of errors and improve the settlement process. Work has begun to address some of the ways
of working issues. A Skills Matrix has been established; development of a P&BA Process
Summary; establishment of Process Management Working Groups — see appendix 2 the draft Terms
of Reference for Process Management.
The work on process management is a move in the right direction. The Terms of Reference is
looking for cross team working and a cultural changes as well as documented processes with owners
and best practice. However, there is a lack of how this will be measured and progress reported.
e Recommendation 8 — Develop and implement measures that demonstrate the process
management improvements are making the right changes that positively impact internally and
associated external processes
= Benefit — P&BA will be able to demonstrate that the process management working
groups are effective. Better relationships internally, no more working in ‘silos’, less
frustration and better working with branches to resolve issues. Reduce double handling of
information, identify problem branches quicker and reduce the number of Transaction
Corrections issued. Problem branches identified earlier and so prevent higher losses and
fraud.
When an agent branch receives a Transaction Correction there are 2 options how to resolve it. The
make good option means that the branch is agreeing to accept the error and they will either take the
surplus out of the holdings or put a loss back in. Transaction Corrections under £150 have to be
made good. The only way of knowing if a branch has been putting the cash back is when a field
support manager conducts and audit on the branch.
If a Transaction Correction is over £150, single agent branches have the option of Settling centrally,
this allows the branch to roll over into the next accounting period but they can the pay the debt by
debit/ credit card, cheque or arrange to have small amount deducted from their monthly pay.
Page 11 of 16 Transaction Correction Review V1.0
F/579/11
POL00001642
POL00001642
e¢ Recommendation 9 —Undertake a feasibility to ascertain the benefits of making Agency branches
settle centrally for all (with a possible lower value limit) Transaction Corrections. The feasibility
also to consider reduction of the current limit from £150. To prevent increased resource in the
debt teams, the feasibility would have to include branch payment method options, e.g. direct
debits.
¢ NB. This recommendation compliments the recommendations made in the Current Agents Debt
Reviews to better manage repayment plans
= Benefit — When a branch makes good a Transaction Correction there is no evidence that
the loss has been returned to POL. A branch could get into a position of owing POL a
large amount and lose their branch if the field support team discover deliberate fraud. By
settling Centrally POL knows it has recovered the loss and cases of fraud would be
visible earlier and levels of former agents’ debt reduced. Reduction in the costs of the
Field Support and P&BA conformance teams.
3.2.1 Tables showing Transaction Correction figures for period 8 and 9 09/10
Period 9 Total vol. Transaction Correction issued; 10,438
Vol.TC I Net£ Credit £ I Debit £ N° of INet£ TC’s I Debit£ I Credit £
s TCs < I <£150
£150
Multiple 1,805 103,536 I 833,356 729,820 1,238 5077 Debit 21,887 16,809
agents credit
Single agents I 7.600 284,585 I 1.426.149 I 1,710,734 I 5,788 16,585 Debit 100,018 I £83,433
debit
Period 8 Total vol. of Transaction Corrections issued; 11,141
Vol. Net £ Credit£ I Debit £ N° of I Net£TC’s I Debit£ I Credit £
TCs TCs < I <£150
£150
Multiple 1,378 47,761 514,167 466.405 972 3,252 Debit 18,867 15,614
branches credit
Single agents I 8.664 101,866 I 1,613,887 1,715,752 I 6,539 29,820 Debit I 121,335 I 91,514
debit
Appendix
Appendix 1 Table showing examples of Transaction Correction (extracted from
the Fujitsu file)
[ Product [ Date [ Text 1 [ Text 2 ]
Page 12 of 16 Transaction Correction Review V1.0
F/579/12
POL00001642
POL00001642
sent
AON Travel 14/10/2009 I AON TRAV CREDIT TRANSACTION CORRECTION FOR In Pounds17.76 TO COMPENSATE THE In
insurance INS TC Pounds17.76 DEBIT THAT WAS ISSUED FOR AON TRAVEL INSURANCE POLICY
3048500421. THE RETURN DATE OF THIS POLICY WAS AMENDED FROM THE 28/09/2009
TO 27/09/2009 WHICH MEANT THAT THE CORRECT AMOUNT WAS CHARGED.PLEASE
ACCEPT BOTH TRANSACTION CORRECTIONS TO CLEAR THEM FROM HORIZON. THANK
You
ATM 18/12/2009 I BOI ATM BO! ATM RETRACTSTHIS TRANSACTION CORRECTION IS BASED ON INFORMATION
RETRACT PROVIDED BY THE WINCOR NIXDORF HELPDESK REGARDING A BANK OF IRELAND.
RETRACT OF80.00THE RETRACT OCCURRED ON THE FOLLOWING DATE80.00 ON THE
43.11,2009PLEASE ACCEPT THIS TC IMMEDIATELY THANK YOU
16/12/2009 I HANCO ATM I HORIZON / HANCO ATM MISBALANCED WEEKS 19, 20 / 2009WK19HORIZON 30.07.09
AT. =0.00 HANCO30.07.09=30.00 = 30.00 CREDITHORIZON 04.08.09 =350.00
HANCO04.08,09=440.00 = 90.00 CREDITWK 20HORIZON 06.08.09 =350.00
HANC006.08.09=380.00 = 30.00 CREDITHORIZON 12.08.09 = 10.00 HANCO12.08.09=30.00
= 20,00 CREDITTHEREFORE 170.00 CREDIT TO ACCEPT AND BALANCE ACCOUNT01246
542064HANCO DISPENSED = 18740.00HORIZON 18.08.09 =3520.00 HANCO
18,08,09=3620.00HORIZON UNDERSTATEDTHEEREFORE 510.00 CREDIT TO ACCEPT A
Cash in 18/12/2009 I *CIP DL THIS TRANSACTION CORRECTION HAS BEEN ISSUED TO CORRECT THE AMOUNT OF
pouches 40.00 POUNDS SHOWN IN YOUR SUSPENSE ACCOUNT AS CASH INPOUCHES
AWAITING COLLECTION. THE REM HAS BEEN COLLECTED BUT NOT SCANNED OUT
OF YOUR HORIZON SYSTEM.PLEASE PRESS ACCEPT THEN MAKE GOOD CASH IN
POUCHESTHIS WILL CORRECT THE SUSPENSE ACCOUNT ONLY.PLEASE NOTE THAT
YOU DO NOT HAVE TO PUT ANY MONEY INAND THIS TRANSACTION CORRECTION
WILL NOT AFFECT YOUR BALANCE
Currency in 18/12/2009 I * BIP MAL THIS TRANSACTION CORRECTION HAS BEEN ISSUED TO CORRECT THE AMOUNT OF
pouches 50.77POUNDS SHOWN IN YOUR SUSPENSEACCOUNT AS CURRENCY IN
POUCHESAWAITING COLLECTION. THE REM HAS BEENCOLLECTED BUT NOT
SCANNED OUT OFYOUR HORIZON SYSTEM.PLEASE ACCEPT THEN MAKE
GOODCURRENCY IN POUCHES.DO NOT SETTLE CENTRALLY. THIS WILL CORRECT THE
SUSPENSE ACCOUNTONLY. PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU DO NOT HAVETO PUT ANY
MONEY IN AND THISTRAN: FECTION WILL NOT AFFECTYOUR
BALANCE.
Personal 17/12/2009 I PB 1864246 I ABARCLAYS PERSONAL BANKING CHEQUE ENCASHMENT FORSO.00 DATED 27.11.09
Banking HAS BEEN ENTERED ONTO HORIZONAS BARCLAYS PERSONAL BANKING BUT ALSO
REMMED OUTAS CHEQUES TO PROCESSING. THEREFORE 50.00 TO BEMADE GOOD.
THE EVIDENCE IS BEING SENT BY POST.THANK YOU
Personal 15/12/2009 I PB AS DISCUSSED BY TELEPHONE A LLOYDS TSB PERSONAL BANKING MIXED CASH AND
Banking CHEQUE DEPOSIT TO THE VALUE OF 100.00 CASH AND 220.00 CHEQUEWAS TAKEN ON
18.11.09 BUT ENTERED INTO HORIZON AS 320.00 CASH IN ERROR. THEREFORE 220.00
TO CLAIM.THANK aa? E RSONAL BANKIN
MoneyGra I 422003 I mom 14.12.09 TC issued to clear surplus in the office caused by MGM received transaction
m completed but customer not paid out on10.12.09. Thank yo
Cheques to 18/12/2009 I CHQS TO ISSUED DUE TOBCV'S DATED 03/11/09 TOTAL 59.56 NOT REMMED OUT ON THAT DATE.
EDS EDS BUT WAS STOCK ADJUSTED ON 25.11.09. THEREFORE 59.56 CREDIT.DETAILS HAVE
BEEN SENT IN THE POST TO YOU TODAY, PLEASE LOOK AT THESE WHEN THEY
ARRIVE AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUERIES YOU CAN CONTACTME ON THE NUMBER
BELOW.
Sodexho —
17/12/2009_I LC 627090 PLEASE CHECK ALL DAILY TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTOHORIZON FOR ASYLUM.
Page 13 of 16 Transaction Correction Review V1.0
F/579/13
POL00001642
POL00001642
Government SEEKERS AGAINST SODEXHO SITERECEIPTS TO AVOID THE ISSUE OF
. TRANSACTIONCORRECTIONS. THIS TRANSACTION CORRECTION HAS BEEN ISSUED
services FORTHE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HORIZON AND SODEXHO
DAILYTRANSACTIONSSODEXHO TRANSACTIONS DATED 02.11.2009 TOTAL
VALUE7087.85HORIZON TRANSACTIONS DATED 02.11.2009 TOTAL
VALUE6939.07DIFFERENCE 148.78PLEASE ACTION THIS TRANSACTION
CORRECTIONIMMEDIATELY SELECT ACCEPT NOW AND MAKE GOOD CASH.THANK
YOU.
First Rate 26/11/2009 I PREORDPCT I DEAR POSTMASTERFIRST RATE EXCHANGE SERVICES HAS NOTIFIED POCL THAT A
1009523 FOREIGN CURRENCY PREORDER HAS BEEN HANDED OUT TO THE CUSTOMER BUT
pre order CANCELLED ON HORIZONORDER IS PCT1009523 148.75 CREATED 30/09/09 AND
CANCELLED 01/10/09FIRS RATE HAS NOW CHARGED POCL FOR THE CURRENCY AND.
THIS DEBT HAS BEEN PASSED ON TO YOUTHANKYOU,
Travellers ENCASHED TRAVELLERS CHEQUE ERRORNIL ACCOUNTED FOR ON HORIZON ON
cheques 17/12/2009 I TC BUYBACK I 03,08,20091000 USD TRAVELLERS CHEQUES ACTUALLY RECEIVED AT FIRST RATE
TRAVEL SERVICES
TRAVELLERS CHEQUE SALES ERRORO1.12.2009800.00 SHOWN ON HORIZONNO
16/12/2009 I TC SALE TRAVELLERS CHEQUES ACTUALLY SCANNED-SOLD ACCORDING TO FIRST RATE
TRAVEL SERVICES RECORDS]
Camelot 18/12/2009 I CAMELOT AS DISCUSSED, THIS IS A SCRATCHCARD TRANSACTION. CORRECTION FOR In
Pounds120.00 CREDIT.THANK YOUREBECCA KINSE®
17/12/2008 I CAMELOT HEATH
NATIONAL LOTTERY PRIZE PAYMENTSAS DISCUSSED 701.00 CREDIT. THANK YOUA.
1411212009 I CAMELOT ANATIONAL LOTTERY CREDIT FOR ONLINE SALES FOR In Pounds1575.00. THANK
YOUREBECCA KINSEY
THIS TRANSACTION CORRECTION HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
ACTIVATIONS ON YOUR CAMELOT TERMINAL AND REM-IN CLIENT MADE TO YOUR
HORIZON SYSTEM FROM 12TH NOVEMBER UP TO YOUR BRANCH TRADING OF STH
DECEMBER 2009. ATC FOR 3200 STOCK CREDIT IS ISSUED TO AMEND YOUR
STOCK HOLDINGS. ANY ADJUSTMENT YOU MAKE AFTER ACCEPTING THIS TC WILL
AFFECT YOUR CASH. FOR ANY FURTHER ASSISTANCE PLEASE CALL THE HELPLINE
ON 0845 6011022. PLEASE ACCEPT THIS TC INTO YOUR LOTTERY STOCK UNIT
16/12/2009 I CAMELOT
AUTO TC
18/12/2009 I 116564756 I A&L ONLINE BANKING H16564756 TXN DATE 01/12/09 AMOUNT 900.00 ISSUED BY [I
Pies
Alliance AL MANUAL I Please do not query this TC until you havereceived the corresponding paperwork, and thenonly
and 18/12/2009 COOP in writing as I am unable to deal withtelephone disputes.A Co-op cheque has been claimed on
Leicester horizon as awithdrawal. A&L will send the cheque to thecorrect section and a compensating
Claim will beissued in due course. Evidence will be posted out t ind should bereceived
within the next couple of days. Issued by eel
GREEN GIRO I Green giro received by A&L but not included infigures on horizonEvidence will be posted out to
you and should bereceived within the next couple of days. If youwish to query the evidence
please call J
17/12/2009
As per your enquiry raised with NBSC. On txn date 08/10/09 a customer paid 3818.77GBP to
16/12/2009 I ALCDOP222H I their A&L account but this was entered as5818.77GBP in error. Therefore 2000.00GBP to credit
FA office shortane. Customer Ref, 560373740028633918Ref, ALCDOP222HFAVH10110/HF Tel,
IAP Client Enquiries
NS&l
Automated products total for week 37 was incorrect. 04/12/2009 an NS&l investment account
deposit of 160.00 was scanned in error ascustomer withdrew a warrant. In this way an
overpayment was reported by the office via N.B.S.C which has been debited from
1812/2009 I Nsiop2026
Page 14 of 16 Transaction Correction Review V1.0
F/579/14
POL00001642
POL00001642
WA theclient. Therefore 160.00 to credit.ref jwinsiop2026walhorizon 10542Tel RO
any possible credit due to the warrant not being processed will be dealt with Neat”
ON THE 17/08/09 AN NS&!I DEPOSIT TRANSACTION FOR In Pounds40.00,PRN 207763802
NSIUP4212S I WAS ENTERED IN THE CUSTOMER'S BOOK CORRECTLY. HOWEVER
HSA THETRANSACTION WAS NOT ENTERED ON. EFORE In Pounds40.00
DEBIT.REF NSIUP4212SHSA/CASE4713.TEI
18/12/2009
to correct online banking error reported by NS&l ref.EEQ 783 for transaction dated
EEQ 783 02.11.09.whereby 1448.37 pounds incorrectlyentered into an INVAC account. Credit memo
15/12/2009 already sent by A.P.Team ref.CU/NSIOP1988/NSI 4582.
On line 02/12/2009 I 255832 PB LLOYDS TSB PERSONAL BANKING CHEQUE ENCASHMENTFOR 100.00 DATED 18.10.09
banking ENTERED ON TO HORIZON ASPERSONAL BANKING AND ALSO REMMED AS CHEQUES
TOPROCESSING. THEREFORE 100.00 INVOICE TO BE MADEGOOD (aaa 01246
542395
48/12/2009 I H16578112 tocorrect online banking error reported by you ref.H165781 12for transaction dated
Currency 10/12/2009 I 553101PR BUREAU236.42 POUNDS DEBITTHB AND AUD CURRENCY WAS SENT VIA SPECIAL
Rems DELIVERY, SJ862394110GB, TO YOUR OFFICE AROUND 16.10.9 BUT WAS NOT BOOKED.
INPOUCH NO 370206856764PLEASE PRESS "ACCEPT" THEN "MAKE GOOD"
IMMEDIATELY SE 8 UREAU TEAM!
Cash 03/12/2009 I 539106 JS TRANSACTION CORRECTION VALUESOO POUNDS ISSUED TO REMOVEOUTSTANDING
Rems AMOUNT FROM REMSHORTAGE SUSPENSE ACCOUNT.PLEASE ACCEPT AND SELECT
THESETTLE CENTRALLY OPTION. YOUR SUSPENSE ACCOUNT WILL THENBE
ADJUSTED AUTOMATICALLY.THANK YOUJILL SOUTHERN
Cash from
3% parties I 16/12/2009 I D3RD Cash Centre Reference 12933AW. For queries/disputes you must contact the Cash Centre. 20
PARTY JSS __ I Pounds issued for a shortage you sent ina PBNE/coin bag which was reported to the Cash
Centre. Please select accept now and make good cash or assign to nominee if you are a
franchise office. If this amount is in your surplus suspense dated around then redeem using
F1, F13, F16, F6
Debt/Credit
card 10/12/2009 I DEBIT Please accept this TC for a debit card transaction taken in your office on 25.11.09 for 38 pounds
CARDS and 35 pence this will remove theCash surplus. a
DVLA
ten22009 I DVLAOPt0as I AS REPORTED VIA THE HORIZON HELP DESK.ON THE 12/11/09 A DVLA
6SHSA TRANSACTION, BARCODE 826909010744668868629134 FOR In Pounds150.00 WAS
SCANNED ON HORIZON. OWING TO A SYSTEM PROBLEMTHE TRANSACTION WAS
ALSO RECOVERED. THEREFORE In Pounds150.00 .
CREDIT.REF DVLAOP10836SHSA/H10352, TEI j
Post Office
savings 17/12/2009 I POSS JG This TC is issued for post office saving stamps redeemed in Trading Period TPO6 ending
07/10/09 for 80.00 pounds. Nil stamps have been received in Chesterfield however, 80.00
stamp pounds have been claimed on horizon.To accept this TC please select the Accept and make
'y problems with this please call the number below, or helpline.
MoneyGra tan22000 I mem 14.12.09 TC issued to clear surplus in the office caused by MGM receive
m completed but customer not paid out 0n10.12.09. Thank yot
Stock
Page 15 of 16 Transaction Correction Review V1.0
F/579/15
POL00001642
POL00001642
qeriz72009 I SW rete call 18.12.09 - x60 in as monthly s/b weeklyPlease accept this TC invoice for the wypte
student plus monthly to reduce the stock by a quantity of GRO
Unpaid
Cheques 16/12/2009 I UNPAID As agreed in our telephone. conversation a credit transaction correction is issued re
CHEQUES, 312.N Ca
Paystation I 98/12/2009 I PAYSTATION I THIS TRANSACTION CORRECTION RELATES TO YOUR PAYSTATION TERMINAL. BCS
REFERENCE NO 61 FOR 5.00 POUNDS WAS SCANNED THROUGH YOURHORIZON
SYSTEM TWICE, ON 3.10.09 AND 5.10.09. THIS HAS RESULTED IN AN OVERPAYMENT
THEREFORE CREDIT TRANSACTION CORRECTION ISSUED TOYOUR OFFICE FOR 5.00
POUNDS.THIS.IS.A CREDIT TO YOUR OFFICE FOR 5.00 POUNDSA.P ENQUIRIES
TEL{___.GRO___REF,TM/ PAYSTATION BCS 61/ REPORT DATED 7.10.09
AP . 03/09/2009 I EDFOP22KLA I REGARDING YOUR CALL TO NBSC. ON TRANSACTION DATE 23.07.09 CUSTOMER PAID.
transaction 118.56GBP TO THEIR EDF ENERGY ACCOUNT, HOWEVER 188.56GBP WAS PUT
s THROUGH IN ERROR. THERE BP TO CREDIT THE OFFICE SHORTAGE.REF.
EDFOP22KLA/H9659/KLTEL JAP CLIENT ENQUIRIES
A71.28 CREDIT TRANSACTION CORRECTION WAS ISSUED TO YOU AS A DEBIT IN
1711212008 I CBOPTASWS._I ERROR BY AUTOMATIVE PAYMENTS THEREFORE 142.56 TO CREDIT-REF
WS/CBOP149WSA/259TEL!..__ GR’ CLIENT ENQUIRIES,
Appendix 2 Terms of Reference for the Process Management Working Groups
C:\Documents and
Settings\joanna,shoo
Page 16 of 16 Transaction Correction Review V1.0
F/579/16