POL00021829
POL00021829
Message
From: Loraine, Paul
Sent: 29/01/2015
To: alisdair.camero!
cc: Parsons, Andrew [/O=! -/OU=First Administrative Group/cn=Recipients/cn=ap6]
Subject: RE: Suspense accounts - legally privileged - urgent [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Al
Further to Andy's email below, we have been restructuring the Suspense Account paper in light of your comments.
So you know where we are, Rod Ismay is looking at the “top 10” section (point 6 in your email below) and as soon as we
have a fully updated draft, we will circulate it.
Kind regards
Paul
Paul Loraine
Solicitor
for and on behalf of Bond Dickinson LLP
Follow Bond Dickinson:
Blin)
www.bonddickinson.com
From: Parsons, Andrew. TRO
Sent: 29 January 2015 11:15
To: Alisdair Cameron; Chris Aujard
Cc: Mark Underwood1; Rod Ismay; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Belinda Crowe; Tom Wechsler; Jane MacLeod; Loraine, Paul
Subject: RE: Suspense accounts - legally privileged - urgent [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Al
Thanks. We'll re-work and produce a new version asap in line with your comments.
On point 2 — there is no single question posed by SS. Rather they have verbally posed questions over time at Working
Group meetings. The reason for the delay is partly due to SS' questions not being sufficiently clear and partly due to us
taking time to decide on how to address this issue. My recommendation would be to stay away from this topic in the
paper but we can prepare an answer for the meeting with SS.
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Managing Associate
POL-0018308
POL00021829
POL00021829
Follow Bond Dickinson:
Blin
www.bonddickinson.com
From: Alisdair Camero! GRO i
Sent: 29 January 2015 11:00
To: Parsons, Andrew; Chris Aujard
Cc: Mark Underwood1; Rod Ismay; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Belinda Crowe; Tom Wechsler; Jane MacLeod
Subject: RE: Suspense accounts - legally privileged - urgent [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Thank you for this. It is a considerable improvement but still requires quite a lot of work to complete it.
My feeling is that the running order is wrong. I would suggest.
(1) Executive Summary.
(2) The question asked — are there specific question post July that we need to refer to. Is it clear why this has taken
so long?
(3) Aclear, high-level explanation of what a credit balance is.
(4) The scale of relevant transactions undertaken by POL in the last few years.
(5) The level of credits released from suspense accounts — the 0.01% - do we need 2011/12?
(6) The detailed explanations of the top 10, showing what percentage of the total released they cover. These are
very good on the whole but some are incomplete, there are lots of typos and the Aon one is just too vague. Each
one should end — if we agree - with an identical statement saying that “The existence of the balance in suspense
and the release of the credit to POLs’ p/I account should therefore have no impact on the financial position of
branches.”
Then it may be appropriate to do the section from the front trying to answer “Are the circs where a branch can
be out of pocket?” but this should be shorter and tighter, saying — balances in suspense or their release to p/I
should not impact branch profitability. Separately, if branches do not follow agreed procedures, they can lose
money but that is unrelated to credits in suspense.
(7
If you agree, please let me see another draft. If not, we should talk!!
It would be good to have agreed the wording of this before our session tomorrow morning.
Thanks Al
From: Parsons, Andrew:
Sent: 29 January 2015 10:10
To: Chris Aujard
Cc: Mark Underwood1; Rod Ismay; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Belinda Crowe; Tom Wechsler; Alisdair Cameron
Subject: RE: Suspense accounts - legally privileged - urgent [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Chris
POL-0018308
POL00021829
POL00021829
Please find attached a first draft of the Suspense Account paper. There are a few points that we are still working
on. However, I'd be grateful for your (and anyone else's) thoughts on the general direction of the paper and whether, with
a fresh eye, you think this will satisfy SS.
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Managing Associate
Follow Bond Dickinson:
Blin
www.bonddickinson.com
From: Parsons, Andrew
Sent: 29 January 2015 09:07
To: ‘Chris Aujard'
Cc: Mark Underwood1; Rod Ismay; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Belinda Crowe; Tom Wechsler; Alisdair Cameron
Subject: RE: Suspense accounts - legally privileged - urgent [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Chris
Rod has done a lot of work on this yesterday. I'm just reviewing the latest draft of the paper and will get you a draft by
10am.
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Managing Associate
Follow Bond Dickinson:
Blin
www.bonddickinson.com
From: Chris Aujard'
Sent: 29 January 2015 0838
To: Parsons, Andrew
Cc: Mark Underwood1; Rod Ismay; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Belinda Crowe; Tom Wechsler; Alisdair Cameron
Subject: RE: Suspense accounts - legally privileged - urgent [BD-4A.FID20472253]
POL-0018308
POL00021829
POL00021829
Andy — do you have an ETA on the draft suspense account paper- I have limited time today to review so it would be good
to be able to schedule a slot now. Cheers Chris
From: Parsons, Andrew I
Sent: 27 January 2015 16:25
To: Tom Wechsler; Chris Aujard; Alisdair Cameron
Cc: Mark Underwood1; Rod Ismay; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Belinda Crowe
Subject: RE: Suspense accounts - legally privileged - urgent [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Al
I've spoken to Rod. Plan of action is:
Rod and I will circulate a draft Suspense Account paper by COB Wednesday.
Any comments by email welcomed during the course of Thursday.
Meet on Friday (9am in Room 501) to sign off the paper / prepare for the meeting with SS
Paper to be released to SS asap after the meeting and by no later than COB on Friday.
Meeting with SS on Monday afternoon (time tbc).
eeeee
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Managing Associate
Follow Bond Dickinson:
Blin
www.bonddickinson.com
From: Tom Wechsler:
Sent: 27 January 201 5
To: Chris Aujard; Alisdair Cameron
Cc: Parsons, Andrew; Mark Underwood1; Rod Ismay; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Belinda Crowe
Subject: RE: Suspense accounts - legally privileged - urgent [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Just to confirm, Mark Underwood will produce the case breakdown requested in Al’s email
Thanks
Tom
Tom Wechsler
From: Chris Aujard
Sent: 27 January 2015 15:21
To: Alisdair Cameron
POL-0018308
POL00021829
POL00021829
Cc: Andrew.Parsons@ Tom Wechsler; Mark Underwood1; Rod Ismay; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Subject: FW: Suspense accounts - legally privileged - urgent [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Hi Al — see below for responses from Andy Parsons (and the responses in red below that). Andy will send through a
timetable shortly. BTW we are still aiming for a meeting with Second Sight on Monday afternoon — can you tell me what
works best for you? Cheers Chris.
From: Parsons, Andrew!
Sent: 27 January 2015 13:
To: Chris Aujard; Tom Wechsler;
Cc: Jane MacLeod; Loraine, Paul:
Subject: RE: Suspense accounts - legally pi
lela Van-Den-Bogerd
.FID20472253]
Chris
Alis referring to the draft paper that Rod sent to me last night - see attached.
It may be useful to talk through with Al his main concern (that we only provide 2 examples rather than a comprehensive
answer). Angela and I have already discussed this with Rod and found that getting clear answers was very difficult. Each
client/product has a different process and therefore the operation of the Suspense Account in relation to each product is
different. Drafting a comprehensive explanation for each product would therefore be a significant task. For this reason,
we focussed the draft paper on two specific examples, banking transactions and ATMs — these being SS' primary areas of
concern.
There is also a wider point that SS are fishing for information when they should be putting forward concrete examples of
how the Suspense Account has operated to disadvantage a SPMR in relation to a particular product or
transaction. Volunteering too much information may only encourage further fishing and less focus on specific cases.
I've inserted some further comments in Al's email below on his specific questions.
Tom/ Patrick - are you in a position to collate the statistical information that Al asks for at the end of his email? I have
some of this already - happy to discuss.
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Managing Associate
Follow Bond Dickinson
www.bonddickinson.com
----Original Messag:
From: Chris Aujard I
Sent: 27 January 2015
To: Tom Wechsler; Patrick Bourke; Rodric Williams; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Parsons, Andrew
Cc: Jane MacLeod
Subject: FW: Suspense accounts - legally privileged - urgent
FYI - I am not sure what draft written response he is referring to; can anyone shed some light on this and the other
questions that he has asked? Chris
-----Original Message-----
POL-0018308
POL00021829
POL00021829
From: Alisdair Cameron
Sent: 27 January 2015 12:43
To: Chris Aujard; Jane MacLeod; Belinda Crowe
Cc: Rod Ismay; Mark R Davies
Subject: Suspense accounts - legally privileged - urgent
Chris et al
In spending the day with Rod, he showed me the draft written response to SS, which I hadn't seen. I am slightly
disconcerted that we still haven't replied to them but as that seems to be the case I have a few observations. It would be
helpful if someone could confirm the diary plan for the next few days - when we reply, when we practice, is Monday on?
etc.
My main issue with the draft is that it doesn't do what they want and begs an obvious question. We effectively give them a
high level overview and then two specific examples. If I was them, I would say "not good enough, give us the specifics for
each material client." So my question is, rather than making them jump through hoops, why don't we just do that?
Secondly, we are very data light. Can we not get across a sense of volumes and values and percentages that would
highlight how small some of his activity is relative to the core - and how much activity there is in the wider business, which
may help them understand why we can't control every detail.
Rod Ismay is compiling this data
Less significantly:
- if our main contention is that there are many different versions of this, why refer to it as a singular Suspense Account?
I'll speak to Rod about getting this further level of detail — the reference to a single account was only there to help simplify
the answer.
- are we really clear that they are only interested in client suspense accounts and not the balancing accounts with the
branches?
Yes — SS have made this clear.
- in para. 2 of page 2 we talk about the various people affected but ignore customers. I would add them in.
Agreed
- I agree we should use "credit" consistently. Have we worked through a logic for a debits, so we can answer that question
if it arises? "Are there any circumstances in which a debit suspense item could leave a branch out of pocket?"
SS have made clear that they are only interested in credits but we can work up an answer on debits just in case.
- we hold strongly to the argument that if a branch has accounted properly it shouldn't be out of pocket. But it opens us up
to the argument that if a badly trained and unsupported branch made errors and were materially out of profit - to our
benefit - that would also be something we had accountability for. What's our answer to that? An example is if they don't
record cheques properly, create a cash shortfall they don't get paid for and don't get the matching cheque benefit?
We'll need to discuss this with Rod Ismay.
- we cover the same. 2 examples twice each and the two could be consolidated to better effect
Agreed
Also could I urgently see a breakdown of the cases in process showing amount claimed, where there has been a criminal
prosecution, where they are in the SS process, what any SS recommendations are etc?
Thanks Al
Sent from my iPad
ann EE EERE REE EEE OO
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.
POL-0018308
POL00021829
POL00021829
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: 148 OLD STREET,
LONDON EC1V 9HQ.
Please consider the environment! Do you need to print this email?
The
access this e-mail and any a
nation in this e-mail and any attachments is
nts. Ifyou are not}
ination, distribution, publication or copying of this comm
ly is authorised to
‘hs soon as possible and delete any
copies. Unauthorised use, disse
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.
This email is sent for and on behalf of Bond Dickinson LLP which is a limited liability partnersh
office is St Ann’s Wharf, 112 Quayside, Neweastle Upon Tyne, NEI 3DX, whe
the LLP, or an employee or consultant who is of equivalent standing. Our VAT re
gistered in England and Wales under number 0C317661. Ou
a list of members’ names is open to inspection. We use the term partner to refer to a member of
ration number is GB123393627.
Bond Dickinson LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority,
JOH OIG OUI IOI IODA DIO IOI IDI ISO IID ADI OAIIIIIAI IT
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 OHIO IOI IO DIOS ISI ODIO ODI SIDI IISA II III IIIS AI IAI I ATI
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 IOI SOI IOI IOI III IDI IO IDI OST IID AISA III AIA
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.
Prete te teeter ett rree rater teeter rer teerrett trac eer tere ter rer teTd
POL-0018308