POL00021872
POL00021872
Message
From: Andy Holt
Sent: 27/05/2014 17:55:39
To: Parsons, Andrew [/O=BOND PEARCE/OU=First Administrative Group/cn=Recipients/cn=ap6]
Subject: RE: New Requests: APP201405130915 & FOI201405130944 - Horizon Software Faults Impacting on Accuracy of
Accounts - Reply Due by: 29 May [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Hi Andy
Will you create a final version of this please. I need to submit this to a sub committee early next week (before it is sent
out officially).
Thanks
Andy
From: Parsons, Andrew [mailto:
Sent: 19 May 2014 10:17
To: Belinda Crowe; Andy Holt
Cc: David Oliveri Sophie Bialaszewski; Rodric Williams; Kett, Rhiannon
Subject: RE: New Requests: APP201405130915 & FOI201405130944 - Horizon Software Faults Impacting on Accuracy
of Accounts - Reply Due by: 29 May [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Belinda
Rhiannon and I agree this is a sensible way forward.
A
Andrew Parsons
Senior Associate
for and on behalf of Bond Dickinson LLP
Follow Bond Dickinson:
LB Tin}
www.bonddickinson.com
From: Belinda Crowe [mailto}
Sent: 19 May 2014 09:06
To: Andy Holt; Parsons, Andrew
Cc: David Oliver}; Sophie Bialaszewski; Rodric Williams; Kett, Rhiannon; Belinda Crowe
Subject: RE: New Requests: APP201405130915 & FOI201405130944 - Horizon Software Faults Impacting on Accuracy
of Accounts - Reply Due by: 29 May [BD-4A.FID20472253]
My view is (provided what follows is accurate in terms of Horizon):
POL-0018351
POL00021872
POL00021872
In relation to Mr Bates' IR, our response should be that the original response was correct. Whilst a question can
be a valid request for information, under the Act, if we have information in our records that answers the
question should and will provide it response to the request. We are not required to answer a question if we do
not already have the relevant information in recorded form but requesters do have a right to all the relevant
recorded information we hold.
In order to answer a yes or no question we need to able identify the scope of the question and search through the
relevant material. With a totally open ended question that is a considerable task, hence invoking the cost
regulations.
However, Mr Bates may find the following information helpful - the link to the SS report.
In relation to the other request I would cut the response down even further and simply say that we note he is not
making a request for recorded information and does not want to narrow down his request. He may therefore
find the report (link attached) a link about Horizon, commissioned by the Post Office, helpful. The report was
published and senior managers were made aware of its contents.
If he requests an IR, I think we should point out (depending on the grounds, of course) we should make it clear
the Act only covers recorded information we hold. However we do not have to generate information to answer
a request if we do not already hold it in recorded form.
In terms of handling, I think I should speak to Alan Bates under the best practice of trying to clarify what he
wants. I would like to do that sooner rather than later unless anyone has any objections. In line with best
practice. Sending him the SS report link may be irritating to him and I would prefer that we speak to him
before responding along those lines.
In terms of the other requestor, I cannot see from the tone of the correspondence that calling him and explaining
the purpose of the Act will assist at all.
Views?
Best wishes
Belinda
Belinda Crowe
From: Andy Holt
Sent: 15 May 2014 14:38
To: ‘andrew. parson: 1; Belinda Crowe
Cc: David Oliver's; Sophie Bialaszewski; Rodric Williams; 'rhiannon.ke'
Subject: Re: New Requests: APP201405130915 & FOI201405130944 -
Accounts - Reply Due by: 29 May [BD-4A.FID20472253]
‘aults Impacting on Accuracy of
POL-0018351
POL00021872
POL00021872
Andy
Please go ahead and draft this response. Could you make it sound less like SS identified the bugs. Maybe something like;
"There are 2 issues/bugs explained in the SS report, these were dealt with by teams within the post office and resolved
so that Subpostmasters were not negatively impacted from a financial perspective. Senior Management are aware of
this report".
On the previous response we avoided making reference to these examples, is it ok to do so this time?
I think these were bugs in Horizon but am waiting for confirmation.
Regards
Andy
From: Parsons, Andrew [mailt
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 09:41 AM
To: Belinda Crowe; Andy Holt
Cc: David Oliveri} Sophie Bialaszewski; Rodric Williams; Kett, Rhiannon <__
Subject: RE: New Requests: APP201405130915 & FOI201405130944 - Horizon Software Faults Impacting on Accuracy of
Accounts - Reply Due by: 29 May [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Belinda, Andy
I've discussed with Rhiannon here at BD (who knows much more about FO! than I dol).
Our view is that because Post Office is aware of the Second Sight report, it therefore does hold information about Horizon
related faults and therefore needs to give an affirmative answer the FOI questions. There may well be a number of other
issues out there that are currently unknown or untraceable but that is not being requested at present and any further
request for that level of detail could potentially be opposed on cost grounds.
One tricky point is that my understanding of the 2 bugs raised in the SS report is that arguably those bugs did not occur in
the Horizon system - they occurred in a separate but connected system (Rodric - shout if I've got this wrong). At some
point in the future, we may wish to argue that the bugs were not in Horizon and therefore need to be careful about giving a
"yes" answer to the FOI questions as this may not be actually correct.
There is also Belinda's important point below about FOI being about recorded info and not yes/no questions.
We therefore recommend using the following language in the response that (i) avoids the yes/no problem but (ii) does
answer the question posed.
"Second Sight have produced an interim report that states that there are two "bugs" in the Horizon system. This report
has been passed to senior management at Post Office."
It also avoids having POL clearly stating "yes" there are bugs in Horizon which will undoubtedly be then misused by AB at
some later point.
This can then be top and tailed to make clear that we believe we have complied with FOIA and reject Tony Williams
request that we speak to every board member.
If you agree, we can draft some responses to both requests for your consideration.
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Senior Associate
POL-0018351
POL00021872
POL00021872
for and on behalf of Bond Dickinson LLP
Follow Bond Dickinson:
Blin
www.bonddickinson.com
From: Belinda Crowe [mailto!
Sent: 13 May 2014 17:58
To: Parsons, Andrew; Andy Holt
Cc: Belinda Crowe; David Oliveri; Sophie Bialaszewski
Subject: FW: New Requests: APP201405130915 & FOI201405130944 - Horizon Software Faults Impacting on Accuracy
of Accounts - Reply Due by: 29 May
Importance: High
Andy (both)
Please see below. In my view:
a) Our response was not wrong in that we have asked him, I think, to narrow down the request.
b) Fol is about the provision of information, not answering questions so it's not a yes or no point.
We can probably point out the document to which Kerry refers when we prepare the response to the internal review
response but I think we should do so in the context of 'in the absence of any clarification we can point to the report on
our website etc etc. or some such.
Best wishes
belinda
Belinda Crowe
148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ
From: Kerry F Moodie
Sent: 13 May 2014 12:14
To: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Belinda Crowe
Cc: Martin Humphreys; Mike Granville; Rodric Williams; Nick Beal; Peter D Johnson; Ruth X Barker; Nina Arnott; Sophie
Bialaszewski
Subject: New Requests: APP201405130915 & FOI201405130944 - Horizon Software Faults Impacting on Accuracy of
Accounts - Reply Due by: 29 May
Importance: High
Hi Angela/Belinda,
POL-0018351
POL00021872
POL00021872
Please find attached a request for an Internal Review (Complaint) about our recent handling of the request
from Alan Bates on his request for our awareness of software faults, which he is now stating was for a
yes/no answer. Additionally we have now received a request for information from Tony Williams who we
believe to be the spmr from Boston Spa, essentially asking the same yes/no question.
The Internal Review will need to be managed and referred to the Information Law Appeals Panel for a
decision (next sitting 16 June), however both requests can be managed together and the same response
provided and approved by the panel.
It is clear from the original request from Mr Bates (attached) that he was asking if there was awareness if
the information was held on faults in the software impacting on the accuracy of accounts. Neither of the
requests has set a time limit period of findings, although in our reply to Alan Bates we had asked for
clarification on his request.
In order to understand a bit more about this issue I have just reviewed the 'Interim Report into alleged
problems with the Horizon system' found on the Post Office website, I have noted a particular paragraph
which reads:
8.2. Our preliminary conclusions are:
a) We have so far found no evidence of system wide (systemic) problems with the Horizon software;
In light of the above, it appears the information provided to Mr Bates initially was incorrect and under the
spirit of the Act we should have shared the above information with the applicant.
Therefore can you review the new requests and let me know your views on the findings above and this
possible way forward.
Regards,
Kerry Moodie I Information Rights Manager
Street, London, ECIV 9HQ
J
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 EIU SOI IOI IOI IDOI DISD IID I IISOUIODI A I SAI III AIK
POL-0018351
POL00021872
POL00021872
Please consider the environment! Do you need to print this email?
The information in this e-mail and any attachments is con!
e-mail and any attachments,
iS
use, dissemination, distribution, publication or eopyiiig OF this eon
egally privileged and
notify andrew parsons
ion or attachments is prohibited and m:
led by law. andy holt! “Jonly is authorised to acce:
Ths soon as possible and delete any copies. Unauthorised
unlawful
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 vinus checks before opening any attachment
Content of this email which does not relate to
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 partnership registered in England and Wa ber OC317661. Our registered
office is St Ann's Wharf, 112 Quayside, Neweastle Upon Tyne, NEI 3DX, 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 who is of equivalent standing. Our VAT registration number is GB123393627.
es under
Bond Dickinson LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority
Jotinnodinonidodinbiibibidodnbbididiidiiiddiinbidiaiidoiniiiniidiniidiet ide
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 III SOI IOI IODA SII IDI III IIIDII OS IIIIDI A II OAT 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.
rere teeter ert rreeret ter tre eret rer tee tect tracert terete trator
POL-0018351