POL00021808 - Email chain from Rod Ismay to Andrew Pheasant: RE: SS Doc - Rod’s feedback - 29/8 2.30pm update [BD-4A.FID20472253]

Evidence on official site

POL00021808
POL00021808

Message

From: Rod Ismay {_

Sent: 29/08/2014 3

To: Pheasant, Andrew [/O=BOND PEARCE/OU=First Administrative Group/cn=Recipients/cn=ajp4]
Subject: RE: SS Doc - Rod's feedback - 29/8 2.30pm update [BD-4A.FID20472253]

Good stuff. Speak soon. R

From: Pheasant, Andrew {,
Sent: 29 August 2014 14:51

To: Rod Ismay

Subject: RE: SS Doc - Rod's feedback - 29/8 2.30pm update [BD-4A.FID20472253]

In that case I will review your latest comments and give you a call about 3:15?

If another time is better for you just let me know — my afternoon is clear.

Best
Andy

From: Rod Ismay
Sent: 29 August 2014 14:49

To: Pheasant, Andrew

Subject: RE: SS Doc - Rod's feedback - 29/8 2.30pm update [BD-4A.FID20472253]

My preference, if OK with you, would be to try to clear the decks of the stuff here just leaving section 17 as the
outstanding.
Reason being:
(a) If we need to do more on the other sections, and
(b) Monday is go live day for new back end Finance systems following separation from Royal Mail so it is probably
the biggest change day up here for a few years. I am keen to clear the decks from other stuff.
Is that OK?
Thanks, Rod

Rod Ismay I Head of Finance Service Centre

, West Bars, Ch
Email rod.ismar
inance — 2014 Winners Public & Voluntary
Best Finance Team 2014 _— Best Annual Report & Accounts

BusinessFinance e
Awards 2014 /

i.

From: Pheasant, Andrew {
Sent: 29 August 2014 14:44

To: Rod Ismay

Subject: RE: SS Doc - Rod's feedback - 29/8 2.30pm update [BD-4A.FID20472253]

Rod,

POL-0018287
POL00021808
POL00021808

Would it be easier to arrange a call Monday. Alternatively, im happy to have a chat through the other comments today?

Many thanks
Andy

Andrew Pheasant
Associate
for and on behalf of Bond Dickinson LLP

Follow Bond Dickinson:

oo

www.bonddickinson.com

From: Rod Ismay: GRO i
Sent: 29 August 2014 14:34

To: Pheasant, Andrew

Subject: FW: SS Doc - Rod's feedback - 29/8 2.30pm update

Andy — now updated for the “damaged cheques” points. Updated below.

I suspect we may need to talk through what I have sent. I also have Section 17 outstanding. All the people who could
help me are away today. Back Monday.

Thanks, Rod

Section 14 — The comments that “Damaged cheques will never be the cause of loss to a branch” (ie. Where they are
mutilated in transit or at the cheque processor) — Damaged cheques, if they cannot be processed due to missing MICR
line for example, are treated in the same way as missing cheques and therefore branches would not be held liable for
these unless there has been a breach of operational procedures.

**The final bullet point of para 13 of the response document needs changing. It says “..if the missing cheque...is
stamped...and endorsed on back..” [If it is missing there is no way of seeing if it is stamped or endorsed]. Suggest
revised wording of “..Post Office will absorb the loss of the cheque provided discussions with the branch and review of
transactional data does not indicate breach of operational processes.”

Section 17 — Point 4.2.3 in the detailed response to “Audit Trail on Girobank Deposits” — ANSWER O/S still
Section 17 — Point 5.1 about one part paying in books. - ANSWER 0/S still

Section 18 — Errors & Fraud Repellency — point 6 of the response. Suggestion below.

“With the exception of the early phases of Horizon Online rollout, comms interruptions have typically been of short
duration and therefore we would expect the counter colleague faced by the recovery prompts to remember what
transaction they were performing and what stage it had got to at the point of interruption (ie. What product it was,
whether cash had exchanged hands etc). In that situation the criticism would not seem fair. During Horizon Online
rollout and in other rarer cases, longer interruptions have arisen and we acknowledge that it could have been the next
day or after a change of staff on split shifts when the recovery prompt came up. However, in such a situation common
sense would indicate that the original clerk would make a note of what transaction they were performing at the point of

POL-0018287
POL00021808
POL00021808

failure (and what stage it was at) before finishing their shift. In any situation the branch would be able to call the
Helpline for advice.”

Section 18 — point 7 of the response. [Should be checked by IT too]

“Whilst the Branch User Forum, established following the first report, is clearly an example of a process for reviewing
and improving Horizon, Post Office has had other processes and forums in earlier years. These have included
subpostmaster representation in design forums and in user acceptance testing groups. For several years Post Office had
a formal Problem Management Team in Service Management. Post Office has also had joint working groups with NFSP
forums focussed on conformance, efficiency and security.”

Section 19 — One Sided Transactions — not sure I understand how paragraphs 6,7,8 of the response have been drafted. I
would suggest the alternative to them below.

6. Comms failures can have 2 broad impacts. The main impact would be the type of interruption that is addressed by
recovery prompts that are referred to separately in this document. The other impact (which would affect the customer,
not the subpostmaster) would be where a debit card payment was interrupted after the bank had ringfenced the
customer funds for the payment but before the counter confirmed that the transaction was complete. This can lead to a
situation where the transaction is declined, there is no issue for the branch accounts, but the customer is no longer able
to draw down on funds in their bank account because they remain ringfenced for the original attempted

transaction. Banks have routine processes to clear down ringfences within a couple of days or on an accelerated basis
by specific enquiry. This would not affect the subpostmasters accounts but could of course lead to customer complaints.
7. Where examples of recovery issues have been raised in spot reviews, we have responded to those specific cases. If
Second Sight has specific other examples from mediation then we would be happy to investigate such specific examples.
8. Otherwise we consider that by properly following recovery places, Post Office has safeguards in place and that
Subpostmasters would not be disadvantaged

OTHER SECTIONS
6. MVL

The barcode on V11C forms does not define the duration of the tax disc and therefore the assertion, as stated, is not
valid. A V11C is printed with boxes on it for the customer to choose whether they wish for a 6 or 12 month disc. Upon
scanning the V11C, which identifies the registered vehicle, the counter colleague is prompted to enter whether the
customer wishes for a 6 or 12 month disc for that vehicle.

However, if it is true that erroneous barcodes were printed on V11C’s then if so it could lead to a charge based on a
different vehicle and potentially different tax band.

That would disadvantage the customer, if neither the customer nor counter colleague spotted the unexpected

price. However, Horizon would then invite payment of that amount and so long as the counter clerk took payment of
the amount on screen then the branch would not have a shortage or gain from the transaction. It would simply be that
the customer paid the wrong amount. That is a different issue, but not in scope of this Second Sight Review.

7. Lottery — paragraph 13 of the response related to the “complication”
Suggest replacing paragraph 13 with the following:

At paragraph 7.7 of the Report, Second Sight highlight the “complication” of timing of processes. Whilst Lottery
branches are, and were, advised to balance the following morning, that was the same for every day of the month for
them (it was not a difference or “complication” of month end). The difference is that non lottery branches were
encouraged to balance on Wednesday night. The most obvious confusion from that would be for serial subpostmasters
who ran both lottery and non lottery branches, but that is not the issue raised by Second Sight. We do not therefore
agree that the “complication” as raised is a complication. It is rather a difference of process for different branches.

POL-0018287
POL00021808
POL00021808

In practice many branches chose not to follow “next day” guidance and may have balances several days later. Post
Office operational instructions have however always focussed on next day accounting.

What has not been raised but may be worth noting is that a significant feature of non conformance prior to the rollout
of Transaction Acknowledgements was for branches to bring stock into their records by way of “stock adjustments” as
opposed to be way of the advised “stock remittance” process. Stock adjustments have the accounting effect of sales or
sales reversals, impacting stock and cash records. That non conformance by Subpostmasters often created confusion for
them and in some cases may not have been easily visible if it was offset by cash discrepancies of similar magnitude on
other products.

Thanks, Rod

Rod Ismay I Head of Finance Service Centre

West Bars, C!
GRO. ‘mail rod.isma’
Post Office Finance — 2014 Winners Public & Voluntary Sectot
Best Finance Team 2014 Best Annual Report & Accounts

BusinessFinance s
Awards 2014 /

S__

From: Pheasant, Andrew { GRO
Sent: 28 August 2014 18:
To: Belinda Crowe; Parsons, Andrew
Cc: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Rod Ismay
Subject: Re: SS Doc - Rod's feedback

Belinda,
Thank you. I will review and call Rod tomorrow.

Best regards
Andy

Andrew Pheasant
Bond Dickinson LLP

From: Belinda Crowe! _
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 06:23 PM
To: Pheasant, Andrew; Parsons, Andrew
Cc: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd <i GRO
Belinda Crowe <
Subject: FW: S!

>; Rod Ismay <- TP;

For information — Rod Ismay’s comments on the doc.
As you will see below, Rod is happy to speak and is still awaiting some answers on outstanding questions.

Best wishes
Belinda

POL-0018287
POL00021808
POL00021808

Belinda Crowe

148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ

From: Rod Ismay

Sent: 28 August 2014 18:00

To: Belinda Crowe

Subject: SS Doc - Rod's feedback

Hi Belinda,

Mark ups attached and a list of comments. Probably best if you read and then call me. I am around all of tomorrow. If I
don’t answer my phone immediately it will because tomorrow is the last day of the Finance Roadmap Programme
before new systems go live. So we have a lot happening up here just now.

lalso need to ask some questions in my team tomorrow to try to close down some o/s points.

Thanks, Rod

Rod Ismay I Head of Finance Service Centre

a
2" Floor West Block, No I Future Walk, West Bars, Chesterfield, $49 1PF

Email rod.ismay,
inners Public & Voluntary Sector
Best Finance Team 2014 Best Annual Report & Accounts

BusinessFinance ‘
Awards 2014 /

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: 148 OLD STREET,
LONDON EC1V 9HQ.

JOH EI OIG ISOS III IDI DIOL SIDI II ODI ODI AISA AI OSI AIA

Please consider the environment! Do you need to print this email?

\d any attachment ly is authorised to access this

1 are not rod.ismay

The information in this e-m

e-mail and any attachments. If
U;

soon as possible and delete any copies.

ichmenis is prohibited and may be unlawfitl,

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

POL-0018287
POL00021808
POL00021808

caused

n Avthority

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: 148 OLD STREET,
LONDON EC1V 9HQ.

JOH EI OIG SOIC IDOI ISO III IIIA O DIDI ISO DDI AISI AAI AI

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: 148 OLD STREET,
LONDON EC1V 9HQ.

pe rerete tree terete tert re ttre teetre terrier tert re tec ter terete crater

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: 148 OLD STREET,
LONDON EC1V 9HQ.

SOHO SOIC HSIAO IORI SII ODI I III ODI IIIS AISA IOI AI

POL-0018287