POL00021686
POL00021686
Message
From: Parsons, Andrew
Sent: 15/02/2016 14:4:
To: Patrick Bourke [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group -
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=7ba264a5565445f7ac8ef1d16b512067-Patrick Bou]; Mark Underwood's;
[/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=805c109119d343eb8095dae62dbdc602-Mark Underw]; Rodric Williams
[/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group
(FYDIBOHF23SPDI ipients/ 905462543 146ffb391c2d83db6a9fd-Rodric Will]
cc: Fawcett, Daniel ii
Subject: RE: POL DSARs - ~
Attachments: FW: McCormack
Sensitivity: Private
All - attached is another interesting email chain between Ron and Alan — this time involving Tim McCormack who you
may recall is serial writer of complaints to Paula.
A
Andrew Parsons
sociate
From: Parsons, Andrew
Sent: 15 February 2016 09:10
To: Patrick Bourkef——C<“—SMGRD—“(i‘S;SCSCS 4; Mark Underwood
Williams? —
Cc: Fawcet
Subj FW: POL DSARs - SS Docs [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Sensitivity: Private
Patrick, Mark, Rodric
FYI below. Dan found this in the SS emails. It looks like SS feeding questions to Alan for use with MPs.
A
Andrew Parsons
Managing Associate
<< OLE Object:
Follow Bond Dickinso!
POL-0018165
POL00021686
POL00021686
<< OLE Object:
‘icture (Device Independent Bitmap) >> << OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >>
From: Chris Holyoak
Sent: 13 November 2!
To: ‘Ian Henderson’; rjwt
Subject: RE: Monday Meeting - MPs, Paula and Alan
Sensiti : Private
Agree with lan.
What could be added to his point (1) is the now constant challenge, even as early as in their comments on our Draft
CRRs, to every recommendation that we have made that the case is suitable for mediation.
There is also significant 'boiler plate' text in almost every response that consequential losses are outside the scope of
mediation.
Need to be a bit careful with point (3) as POL would argue that, in the main, an SPMR has access to (at least some) data
to allow investigation to take place - even if they don't know how to get it.
Agree - something for our breakfast discussion tomorrow.
Chris
Sent: 13 November 2014 15:38
3 ‘Chris Holyoak'
lay Meeting - MPs, Paula and Alan
Sensitivity: Private
But in fact Alan will not be attributing these points to us? (I hope not anyway...)
It’s an important strategic point that needs to be top of the list
-lan
From: Ron Warmington [mailto!
2.
‘Chris Holyoak'
Monday Meeting - MPs, Paula and Alan
Sensitivity: Private
Good stuff. I like them... Point 1, though hardly new news to anyone, does need to
be endorsed by us.
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 3:26 PM
To: riw i 'Chris Holyoak"
POL-0018165
POL00021686
POL00021686
Subject: RE: Monday Meeting - MPs, Paula and Alan
Sensitivity: Private
I think we need to respond at the strategic level — not down in the weeds...
My top 3 would be:
1. POL does not seem to be serious about achieving closure with Applicants — contrary to undertakings given. Very
limited information available about actual mediation — but POL does not appear to be making meaningful
offers. Seems to be doubt as to the authority of the POL representative to negotiate.
2. There is compelling evidence that POL has not supported SPMRs who find themselves with a problem, despite
POL having all the data and resources. This alone should result in compensation.
3. POL’s investigation and prosecution policy is inherently unfair. SPMR is not allowed access to the data and
cannot investigate (similar issues apply to evidence submitted to the mediation scheme). POL often brings
charges but ultimately offers no evidence or accepts “false accounting” admission without any effective
investigation.
We should discuss tomorrow
-lan
From: Ron Warmington [mailt
3 November 2014 14:05
i ‘Chris Holyoak’
londay Meeting - MPs, Paula and Alan
Sensitivity: Private
Alan has offered us the opportunity to list 3 short bullet points that he will
factor into his pre-Paula-meeting discussion with the MPs.
I'm thinking that, if we take him up on this, our bullets might be:
¢ Post Office is now constantly referring to the greatest likelihood of
unexplained losses as being “errors made, at the counter, by branch staff"
where it says: "there is no evidence that those errors are attributable to
Horizon". For example, in its response to the M132 CRR, Post Office said:
“The Applicant has failed to provide any evidence that indicates that
Horizon is at all
accountable for the losses suffered in the branch. The CRR agrees at
paragraph 4.9 with Post Office's view that the cause of the losses is
probably due to errors made at the counter or theft". We think that Post
Office's constant references, in this context, to HORIZON means that it
fails to acknowledge that there does exist compelling evidence that POST
OFFICE is accountable for some of the losses. We are unable to determine
POL-0018165
POL00021686
POL00021686
whether more or fewer errors are being made at the counter than in earlier
years, but it is obvious that SPMRs are less well able to investigate and
mitigate errors than they previously were.
Post Office's reliance on its apparent right of recourse to SPMRs, under
clause 12 of the Standard Contract, has meant that it has had no financial
incentive to seek out the underlying root causes of seemingly ‘mysterious’
shortfalls, nor to improve its systems and SOPs in order to reduce the
frequency and severity of the future impact of systematically-occurring
errors. This has led, in our view, to a progressive degradation of the
system's robustness and error-repellency (as evidenced by the errors that
have arisen following the replacement of trouble-free serviced ATMs with
BoI ones that have clearly caused substantial problems; the rollout of
Lottery and Scratchcard procedures that were for many years (until Feb
2012) probably unfit for purpose; the transition from weekly balancing to
Monthly Trading; the removal of branch Suspense Accounts; the phasing out
of two-part Paying In slips; the removal of experienced Helpline staff and
their replacement with the ‘Knowledge Base’; etc, etc.). We are minded to
describe the Horizon system as being unfit for purpose in our updated
Briefing Report - Part Two.
Post Office has objected, in its response to our Briefing Report - Part Two,
to our comments on The Contract; on Error Repellency; and on its
Investigations Process. It regards those topics as being out of scope or
outside our professional competency. Needless to say, we disagree. What is
more important is that there are now many cases where we have as yet to be
shown material from Post Office's Legal, Investigative and Prosecution Files
that we have requested. Absent access to those files, we are as yet, and will
be, unable to comment on the seven cases (so far received) where Post
Office charged SPMRs with theft but withdrew that charge after many
months, sometimes ‘on the courtroom steps’. We are anxious to determine
whether adequate evidence of theft had been gathered PRIOR TO THE
CHARGE BEING BROUGHT. In some instances, Post Office persevered
with a theft charge in the face of police investigators’ reports that
insufficient evidence, or no evidence, had been found to support such a
charge.
Thoughts?
POL-0018165
POL00021686
POL00021686
Ron Warmington CFE, FCA
Managing Director
Second Sight support Services Ltd
Please consider the environment! Do you need to print this emai
only is authorised to
'as Soon as possible and delete any
lawful
‘The information in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may ied and protected by law. mark.underwood1
this e-mail and any attachments. If you are not mark.underwood1 ph
se notify andrew.parsonsé
copies. Unauthorised use, dissemination, distribution, publication or eopying of this Cominiuunication or attachments mel cee ad may BE i
Any files attached to this e-mail will have been checked by us with virus detection software before transmission. Bond Dickinson LLP accepts no liability for any loss or damage
which may be caused by software viruses and you should carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment.
Content of this email which does not relate to the official business of Bond Dickinson LLP, is neither given nor endorsed by it.
LP which is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under number 0C317661. Our registered office isf.
} where a list of members’ names is open to inspection. We use the term partner to refer to a member of the LLP, or an employee or consultant
‘AT registration number is GB123393627
10 is of eq
Bond Dickinson LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
POL-0018165