POL00022769
POL00022769
Cord Diclcingow www.bonddickinson.com
4 May 2016
Confidential and Legally Privileged
Investigations conducted by Bond Dickinson LLP, on behalf of Post Office
Ltd, into complaints about the advice provided by Call Handlers at the
Network Business Support Centre (NBSC)
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
This report has been prepared solely for Post Office Limited. It should not be used for any other purpose.
We do not accept liability to any other person other than those to whom this report is addressed.
Bond Dickinson LLP
Tel +44(0)345 415 0000
www.bonddickinson.com
POL-0019248
POL00022769
POL00022769
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
BACKGROUND
Post Office's Chairman, Tim Parker, is receiving legal advice from Jonathan Swift QC on Post Office's
handling of the complaints made by Sub-Postmasters as part of the Complaint Review & Mediation
Scheme (the Scheme).
To inform and support this advice, some further areas of investigation have been identified, to which end
Bond Dickinson have been asked to:
“cross reference specific complaints about misleading advice from NBSC call-handlers with the
possible employees who provided that advice and consider their personnel files, where available,
for evidence as to the likelihood that the complaint may be well founded”.
It was agreed this task could be discharged through making the following queries, in the sequence they
are set out:
(i) identify those applicants who included, in their complaint to the Scheme, an allegation
about the advice they received from the NBSC helpline;
(ii) identify, from the above list of applicants, those who had made sufficiently particularised
complaints to allow for further investigation (ie they provided dates and/or other
identifying information about specific calls on which, they allege, they received
inadequate advice);
(iii) for those applicants who had particularised their complaints to a sufficient level of detail to
enable further investigation, cross reference the calls made to the NBSC helpline (in
respect of which the allegations have been made) against the call handlers who took the
calls; and
(iv) check the relevant call handlers’ Personal Development Reviews (PDRs) / Coaching
Records to see if they had had any complaints made against them in respect of the
advice they were providing.
Bond Dickinson have co-ordinated this process and produced the following paper, which sets out the
findings of these investigations.
PROCESS
1. Identify those applicants who included, in their complaint to the Scheme, an allegation
about the advice they had received from the NBSC helpline.
Post Office provided Bond Dickinson with a spreadsheet which detailed, from the 150
applications made to the Scheme, 107 applicants who had made allegations about the advice
they had received from the NBSC Helpline.
2. Identify those applicants who had made sufficiently particularised complaints to allow for
further investigation (ie they provided dates and/or other identifying information about
specific calls on which, they allege, they received inadequate advice).
Bond Dickinson reviewed the core Scheme documentation (the CQRs and Post Office
Investigation Reports) for each of the 107 Scheme cases which contained complaints about the
NBSC and identified, from these documents, those cases where applicants made sufficiently
particularised complaints to allow for further investigation.
Bond Dickinson then drew up a schedule (appendix 1 to this report) to detail the results of this
initial review. In short, it was established that:
4A_32763924_1 1
POL-0019248
POL00022769
POL00022769
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
(a) 16' of the applicants provided sufficiently detailed information in their CQR to
allow a further investigation; and
(b) 11? further applicants included vague un-particularised complaints in their CQR.
Bond Dickinson advised that it would be reasonable for Post Office to investigate the 16 cases in
category A above but not those in category B as, given the level of presumption required, further
investigation of these complaints would involve disproportionate time and expense, with little
chance of being able to reach definitive conclusions.
The next stage involved:
. reviewing the NBSC call logs for each of the category A cases to try to identify the NBSC
call reference ID numbers for any specific calls mentioned by the applicants;
° reviewing the POIR and CRR for the category A cases to determine what had been said
about these calls/issues already; and
. providing an updated schedule to Post Office which included this additional information.
Of the 16 category A cases, it was determined, from our investigations, that only M007, M045
and M144 included a direct allegation of incompetence against the helpline staff. However, for
the sake of completeness, it was decided that we would continue to investigate the complaints
included in the other 13 cases.
Post Office also requested that Bond Dickinson, as part of their investigations into the remaining
13 cases, pay particular attention to resolving specific queries arising out of the information Bond
Dickinson had extracted from the POIRs / CRRs in respect of Applicants M001, M035, M042,
M080 and M143. Post Office's queries in respect of these cases were as follows:
. M001: a reference in the scheme documentation about a “complaint” made by the
applicant on 22.12.2003. This complaint was found to relate to a Post Office Card
Account application rather than the NBSC so no further investigation was necessary.
. M035: a call placed on 23.12.2003 where the applicant alleged the advice caused the
discrepancy to double.
. M042: a call placed on 1.6.2011 where the applicant alleged the advice caused the
discrepancy to double.
. M080: a letter dated 5.5.2009 made the allegation that the applicant received “conflicting
advice”. Post Office asked if any further specifics (eg. dates) were contained in the letter
to enable it to identify the relevant calls. The letter did not give any specifics in relation to
the advice so no further investigation was possible.
. M143: A call placed on 03.06.2009 where the applicant claims she was told to carry out a
certain process on Horizon and was subsequently told this process was incorrect.
For those applicants who had particularised their complaints in a sufficient level of detail to
enable further investigation, the next stage was to cross reference the calls made to the NBSC
helpline, in respect of which the allegations were made, against the call handler who took the call
The results of this exercise are contained in a table at Appendix 2 to this report. This list includes
the call references in respect of Post Office's specific queries above in relation to M035, M042
and M143.
* moo1, M007, M011, M026, M028, M029, M035, M037, M040, M042, M045, M062, M080, M081, M0143, M144
* M008, M036, M038, M048, M051, MOS6, M073, M132, M135, M139, M146
4A_32763924_1 2
POL-0019248
POL00022769
POL00022769
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
It was not possible to identify the call handlers in respect of the complaints made by M011, M080
and M144. This is because the dates provided by applicants did not correlate with any calls
received by the NBSC.
3. Check the relevant call handlers’ Personal Development Reviews (PDRs) / Coaching
Records to see if they had had any complaints made against them in respect of the advice
they were providing.
Bond Dickinson is instructed that personnel files of call handlers would not contain any records of
concerns raised about their performance. The personnel file would simply be a record of that
individual's personal data and any disciplinary actions or warnings for attendance.
If complaints were made against NBSC personnel, or concerns were raised internally about the
performance of a call handler, Bond Dickinson are instructed that those complaints and concerns
could be recorded in the following places:
. The NBSC call logs themselves; and
. Coaching records
Coaching records are based on a random selection of calls that have been recorded and
analysed by a call handler's team leader. Each call handler is marked using a quality framework
and feedback is delivered by the team leader in a coaching session, with the advisor also
listening to the recorded calls.
The areas reviewed are call handling techniques (politeness, listening skills etc.) and knowledge
provided and logged. There is a scoring mechanism that is levelled across all teams and team
leaders to ensure consistency.
Having determined the names of the call handlers, Post Office searched the coaching files, to
ascertain if there were any concerns about that individual's performance generally or in relation to
any specific advice they had given during their time on the NBSC helpdesk. The sources
searched and the results of those searches are set out in the table at Annex 3. Where a call
handler appears more than once in relation to a specific applicant they are only listed once.
Where a call handler appears on the logs for multiple applicants, they are listed against each
separate applicant for the sake of having a complete record for each applicant.
CONCLUSIONS
In summary, the findings of this exercise are as follows:
. Many of the call handlers identified were employees of Royal Mail at the relevant time so Post
Office is unable to investigate their personal performance records.
. In relation to those call handlers who did work for Post Office, based on the above searches there
is no evidence (aside from the applicants’ claims) of complaints having been lodged against
specific advisors nor any concerns raised internally at Post Office about the performance of those
advisors.
. In the three cases identified where specific allegations of incompetence were made against
NBSC staff it has not been possible to identify the call handler who was the subject of the
allegation from the information provided by the applicants.
These conclusions are unsurprising as the NBSC staff are comprehensively trained and draw on
a central body of information called the Knowledge Base to ensure that the advice they give to
postmasters is consistent and accurate.
4A_32763924_1 3
POL-0019248
POL00022769
POL00022769
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED.
APPENDIX 1
Specific complaints about helplines
Case I Reviewed I Specific complaint raised? Detail in CQR Comment in POIR Comment in CRR NBSC call
Ref by which ref number
paralegal? I NBSC I HSD I Help- I No
line specific
complaint
raised
M001 I Kerry x Para 2.3: Page 2 Page 4 Para 1.17 21.44
Arkins
“Week 43 - Calls to the help desks NBSC calls reviewed: Given the timescales H12987381
commenced. Three calls relate to Records of call logs applicable from involved, the available
queries on procedural matters. One I 19/07/03 - 23/03/04 (detailed summary _I evidence is limited to the 22.1.14
call on 21 January relating to provided in next section of document). —_I records of calls
x discrepancies and reporting the (Doc 001 refers) maintained by Post H12987919
shortage." Office's Network
Business Support
x "Week 44 - Three calls to the help I Page 3 Centre (NBSC) Helpline 112967957
desk on 22 January regarding the c aang ed : 21268317
discrepancies and requesting Helpdesk unable to answer queries when ig
assistance" raised. Unable to contact Helpdesk Judgement and the 27444
during busy periods. Calls were supporting witness a
"Week 45 - One call on 27 January I inappropriately transferred to other statements; and some
regarding the Sub-postmaster's Helpdesks. other documents 12999552
meeting. One call on 28 January retained by the
x regarding a system query and Applicant. We have 28.1.14
another on a procedural matter. Call logs do not show trends where Post I ‘herefore been unable to
Calls to the help desk on 29 Office determine either the H13003838
January 2004 re ‘rem issues, are I has failed to provide advice. (Doc 001 sctual cause of the
x quest for the Horizon transactional I refers) losses (i.e. the types of I 99.444
logs to be reviewed to establish if I Breakdown of call categories as follows: I ®!70rs that created them)
there is a system foult and to report I Calf Category or who benefitted from I bso nga5o
the shortage A further call on 2 Number of those errors.
‘ebruary which relates to the
installation of the new base station. I Gras, Accounting Procedures Page 4 Para 2.2 113005643
On 3 February a query regarding I 4g
the recording of pre-pay mobile Complaint Post Office accepts that I H21274188
vouches as well as requests for 1 the Applicant telephoned
switchboard numbers." Horizon its Helpline on multiple 2.2.14
occasions to report
Week 46 - "Further calls during the shortages; to voice his
4A_32763924_1
POL-0019248
POL00022769
POL00022769
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED.
week covering procedural matters I Horizon Balancing ‘suspicions that they had I H21276409
on which forms to use for certain been caused by ‘Rem’
transactions and how to rem out Office Process errors and/or by the 3.2.14
coin." 14 hardware or software
Performance faults that he was 121278583
"Week 47 - Called on 12 February 2 experiencing; and to
to transfer the difference into Switchboard complain that Audit Trail 40.2.14
suspense and also a procedural 23 deficiencies were ee
query. A hardship request was Utilities preventing him from
made on 12 February. Two calls on I 1 identifying the root 113036951
13 February re rem issues and also causes of the
doubling of cash declarations and discrepancies that 12.2.14
requesting assistance. A further Page 4 were arising. Post Office
procedural query was raised. In does not however 13041710
addition a call was made on 13 Of the above mentioned, 8 calls were accept that the issues
February about a system check. transferred to Horizon System Helpdesk I "aised in the calls were I 21290642
Two calls on 16 February relating to I (SH) 4 were due to the caller selecting I the cause of the
a frozen screen and a balance the wrong menu option when initially branch's losses. 13.214
check and the Horizon system. InI connected, and 2 at the request of the
adaition, two calls on the same day I caller to be transferred. The remaining 2 13045034
regarding processing matters.” were calls made by auditors.
The 30 calls relating to Horizon
“Weok 49- Cal between the help I balancing cover various aspects 418045120
as to whether the issues are Keenan balancing process and 21293406
software related. Four calls on 25 I ‘where the calls related to Horizon
February to the help desk regarding I specific issues, Post Office followed the 16.2.14
balancing issues and systems correct procedure in transferring the
checks. caller to HSH. H21294326
“Week 49 - Call 26 February The call logs confirm that calls were
requesting a call from service made about losses and branch 13048105
support and a further call on the accounting, but specific transactions are
processing of smartpost not identified. H13048468
transactions. No data relating to the calls to HSH can
be provided as they are now outside
"Week 50 - Two calls on 4 March to_I document retention periods. (Doc 008 113049190
help desk by the regional line refers)
manager re the discrepancies - the 24.214
call log notes the query was in Page 4
relation to “45 Discrepancy 9 H21305347
Problems” .Call on 8 March
querying the cash declarations and I The available information does not 25.214
also further procedural queries.
Procedural calls on 9 and 10
disclose that the Applicant raised any
complaints with the NBSC concerning
the RLM's performance while he was a
4A_32763924_1
POL-0019248
POL00022769
POL00022769
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED.
March." SPMR. H21307127
“Week 51 - Procedural calls on 15 13071268
and 18 March."
; 26.2.14
"Week 52 - Auditor made two calls
to the help desk on 23 March." 13073926
Para 3.44 . H13076461
At the end of a period when Mr
Castleton had a misbalance, he 43.14
found it difficult to contact the _
Helpline because it was always very
busy. From the logs, he does not 13093812
appear to have been given the
assistance requested to discover 15.3.15
the actual reason behind each
difference rather the differences H13118632
were transferred as an
“unauthorised” suspense H13118984
transaction to allow a Trading
Period to be closed. 18.3.4
21330891
M002 I Kerry
Arkins
M003 I Kerry
Arkins
M004 I Kerry
Arkins
MO06 I Kerry
Arkins
M007 I Kerry Para 2.3 Pages 5-9 Page 3 Page 6 Para 5.6 14.2.05
Arkins
"6/4/2005 - Contacted helpline re The branch contacted NBSC on 238 In several of the No call
Horizon issues but was passed occasions in the 10 year period from documented Helpline evident on
between departments requesting an I February 2004 to October 2013. The calls, the Applicant call log
engineer test the kit. No action
available evidence suggests that calls
4A_32763924_1
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
resulted."
"13/4/2005 - Call from Horizon to
notify Mr Bilkhu that one terminal
had not been transmitting for some
time and suggested rebooting — call
was during the balancing process
so reboot could not take place at
that time"
"14/4/2005 - Sought assistance
from helpline re the issues above
and the re-boot but no one appears
to have been available”
"20/4/2005 - Call to NSBC re
losses"
"21/4/2005 - NBSC rang to notify Mr
Bilkhu of that the £60 transaction on
22/3/2005 had not gone through —
helpline suggested a formal
complaint re Horizon which Mr
Bilkhu did"
"22/4/2005 - Terminal went into
standby mode — no apparent
reason. Reboot took place and
called the helpline. Occurred a
second time. On the same day
another terminal developed a fault
on the smartcard reader."
"25/4/2005 - Issues with a pin pad —
called the helpline and tested the
pad
which failed. Helpline arranged for
an engineer. Other issues were also
being suffered on another terminal.
Engineer serviced pin pad and
replaced keypad on the Gateway
terminal."
“w/c 25/5/2005 - Helpline called to
were transferred correctly and proper
advice given. The log of all calls made
are enclosed (Refer to Doc 022) with
specific calls as follows:
2006 — 1 call on the 8th September 2006
relating to a fault with the online banking
system (Refer to Doc 017)
2008 — 1 call on the 14th February 2008
relating to replaced
terminal being stored by Fujitsu (Refer to
Doc 018)
2010-1 call on 14th July 2010 relating
to a bill payment and 2 calls
on 4th August 2010 regarding National
Lottery processes (Refer to
Doc 019).
2012 - 4 calls in August 2012 regarding
system failure and Fujitsu response to
fault (Refer to Doc 020).
2013 — 1 call in January 2013 blaming
Horizon for on-going shortages in branch
(Refer to Doc 021).
It would be expected that as a
Subpostmaster became more
experienced in his role, the level of calls
to the NBSC would decrease; it appears
the opposite in this case as the level has
increased.
Page 5
Post Office records show that the
Applicant lodged a complaint with the
NBSC (Refer to Doc 037), and requested
a good will payment as Horizon was not
working in his branch for one week. At
the time, this was investigated by Laura
Darby (Post
Office Service Support, IT and Change);
complained that the
display would skip from
one transaction screen
to an unrelated one. If
this has occurred (and
we cannot reasonably
expect the Applicant to
have produced evidence
to prove that it did), it is
clear that it would have
materially increased the
possibility that the wrong
keys might be pressed
and data would be
incorrectly entered into
the system. The
question as to whether
or not one or more of
this branch's terminals
was sufficiently faulty to
generate transactional
errors is pivotal in this
case. Absent the further
investigative work
sought by the Applicant,
we have been unable to
determine whether there
really was a localised
but serious fault here. If
there was, then it seems
to us probable that it
would have contributed
to what Post Office
describes as the
“operational errors" that
caused this branch's
losses.
Page 8 Para 5.7
As the records show, the
Applicant made a large
number of calls to the
Helpline for a variety of
6.4.05
No call
evident on
calll log
13.4.05
No call
evident on
calll log
14.4.05
No call
evident on
calll log
20.4.05
No call
evident on
call log
21.4.05
No call
evident on
calll log
22.4.05
No call
evident on
call log
25.4.05
No call
evident on
call log
25.5.05
4A_32763924_1
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
notify a cash difference — told there
was no assistance available"
“w/c 15/6/2005 - Helpline called to
notify a cash difference — given the
same options of put in funds or
close the PO. Further errors with
terminals jumping screens"
"w/e 21/9/2005 - Two calls to
helpline re the cash differences. Mr
Bilkhu was told he was in breach of
contract and to close and go home
— expected a call back but none
received."
"2/2/2006 - Online systems failed —
call to helpline. Resolved after
reboots"
"w/c 8/2/2006 - Notified helpline of
cash differences"
“w/c 22/11/2006 - Unexplained cash
difference — checked everything but
could find nothing wrong — reported
to helpline. Paid £428.68 to allow
trading to continue the following
day.”
“w/e 10/1/2007 - Printer issues on
terminal 2 — printer of receipts for
unrelated products. Helpline
suggested the cause was a printer
test."
“w/e 14/3/2007 - Differences arising
ona very quiet day of £102 which
then changed to a loss of £330 two
days later — called the helpline and
checked everything — no reason
found.”
"w/c 20/6/2007- Balancing issues as
the Applicant's request for
a good will payment was refused (Refer
to Doc 041). Although there was a fault
at the branch, this only affected one
terminal, and the branch was still able to
operate with the other two Horizon
terminals.
On the 14th July 2010, the Applicant
reported a fault to the NBSC regarding
an issue with a payment of a Post Office
Credit Card; he claims the transaction for
£1022.99 settled itself. On this occasion,
it appears the Applicant reversed the
transaction at the time so suffered no
financial loss. However he states he
keeps getting issues like this (Refer to
Doc 023).
At the time, the NBSC and HSD tried to
resolve the issue. The Applicant asserts
that the HSD offered as an explanation
that the Horizon screen could be “settling
itself’. This may not have been the best
terminology to use as it may have related
to an old issue around screen calibration.
Page 6
There is a record of a complaint the
Applicant made to the NBSC in April
2007. The Applicant claimed a software
problem with E-Top transactions
However the explanation given and
highlighted at the time (Refer to Doc 038)
is the most likely explanation. The
Applicant claimed that Horizon was
producing E-Top vouchers without
having to swipe an E-Top card through
the system and this proved a fault with
Horizon. This is incorrect as Icons are
available on Horizon that enables
vouchers to be printed without the use of
a swipe card.
reasons. He does not
believe that his issues
were properly addressed
and complains that Post
Office staff were, in his
opinion, poorly trained
and, on some
occasions, abusive and
rude. He lodged a formal
complaint against one
member of staff, but no
action was taken. Post
Office states that the call
logs indicate that calls
were transferred
correctly and proper
advice was given,
adding that, when the
Applicant reported
problems with banking
transactions, training
visits were delivered.
Page 8 Para 5.8
The operators could not
resolve many of the
Applicant's calls to the
Helpline in relation to the
internet connection
issues at the branch,
because his broadband
provider was
responsible for the
failure and only that
provider could resolve it.
We are unable to
comment, from the
evidence provided, on
how Helpline staff
treated the Applicant.
No call
evident on
calll log
26.5.05
No call
evident
on call log
15.6.05
No call
evident on
call log
16.5.05
No call
evident on
call log
18.6.05
No call
evident on
call log
29.7.05
No call
evident on
call log
21.9.05
No call
evident on
calll log
28.11.05
No call
4A_32763924_1
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
system would not allow it to take
place - called helpline and told to
put 1p transaction through then try
again — successful. Mr Bilkh notes
he was told it was a glitch in the
system"
“16/10/2007 Mr Bilkhu sought
assistance from the helpline —
various discussions took place"
“w/c 5/03/2008 Differences in Icons
between terminals causing
confusion — rebooted but this did
not correct. Passed between
Horizon and NSBC. Mr Bilkhu notes
that he was frustrated as no one
could establish if this was a
software or hardware issue"
Para 3.28 — Page 12
“Since 2008 Issues with terminal
disconnections have been on going
but reduced since system went
online — gave up trying to get
through to the helpline every time
and rebooted when necessary as
this was usually what the helpline
recommended”
Para 3.30 — Page 13
"23/8/12 - Call to technical helpline
re online services — told to reboot
branch rooter — Fujitsu
acknowledge that this should have
been passed to the Communication
Management Team (CMT) -
incorrect handling of the call."
"24/8/12- Call to technical helpline
re online services — checks
undertaken and issue transferred to
Page 8 Para 5
In 2005, Rachael Oyston was the Area
Intervention Manager for the Applicant's
branch. The role was reactive and
involved visiting branches, who had
either raised issues themselves via the
NBSC which required a visit, or visiting
on behalf of different teams within Post
Office who escalated issues such as
rolling losses, suspense account, audit
follow up and post appointment visits.
Post Office records available on the EFC
for this time are not detailed; however
Rachael has provided her recollection of
events (Refer to Doc 036).
Page 11
On the 27th January 2014, the Applicant
contacted NBSC regarding an issue with
incorrect number of postage labels being
printed in the branch. Post Office
Management Information Reporting
System (Credence)(Refer to Doc 044)
shows that at 12:49 on the 27th January
2014, the branch did indeed process
seven postage labels at £1.10 each by
user IGA002; the Applicant's user ID is
RBI002. No other transactions are made
on the 27th January 2014 for this amount
so it would be reasonable to assume that
this is the transaction the Applicant is
alleging there was an issue with. NBSC
advised the Applicant that the user must
have said yes to all seven labels printing
successfully. Postage Labels are of no
monetary value until they have been
processed through Horizon; once a label
has been produced it then becomes of
value and is added to the customer
basket for settlement. After every label is
printed, Horizon prompts the user to
evident on
call log
9.1.06
H21971036
2.2.06
No call
evident on
call log
8.2.06
No call
evident on
call log
13.6.06
No call
evident on
call log
2.11.06
No call
evident on
call log
3.11.06
No call
evident
on call log
6.11.06
No call
evident
on call log
4A_32763924_1
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
CMT"
Para 3.49 — Page 15
"Mr Bilkhu then had three
conversations with Sandra, Neil and
Maureen from the Helpline on 16
October 2007, where he was given
advice to remove the funds and
keep them and latterly that the
adjustment would increase his stock
value and he would be expected to
pay the sum of £4,317."
Para 3.69 — Page 17
"11/2/05 - Customer card
withdrawal £100 — screen stated
authorised but receipt said declined.
Came out of customers account but
not on PO ~ advised by helpline
they did not know why"
“6/4/05 - Online banking transaction
£100 screen stated authorised but
receipt said declined — business
helpline transferred matter to
technical helpline"
"28/11/05 - Request for assistance
as believe may have been
incorrectly processing premium
bonds, creating duplications since
Sept — unclear how call dealt with"
"13/6/06 - Error during giro cut-off
reports process ~ initial call to
technical helpline — referred to
business helpline"
"6/3/08 - Giroscreen differences
between terminals — rang helpline
and told to re-boot, then no one
appeared to know what the issue
was. Told by technical helpline was
‘confirm the label has printed successfully
(Refer to Doc 049). If the user selects
YES, then Horizon will add the value of
that label to the basket. If a postage label
does not print correctly or does not print
at all, the user can select NO. Horizon
will automatically reject the postage
label, and generate a ‘Rejected’ postage
label transaction. The user will then be
returned to the Post Mails screen where
they can insert another label and print
the postage label again. Three
transactions will appear in the basket;
two will have positive values (one for the
production of the correctly printed label,
and one for the incorrectly printed label),
and the third will have a negative value
(for the rejected postage label). The
positive value for the incorrectly printed
label and the negative value for the
rejected label will cancel each other out,
and as a result only the amount of the
correctly printed label will be charged. It's
impossible to say
exactly what happened in the branch on
the 27th January 2014;however the most
likely explanation is that one of the labels
did not print, but the Applicant has
selected YES when prompted.
Page 12
At some point, a complaint was raised by
a Co-Op customer that the branch was
refusing the encashment facility and the
branch was contacted by Kevin Jarosz
from the NBSC, on the 9th January
2014. NBSC call logs (Refer to Doc 045)
suggest that the Applicant was refusing
to accept the cheques as the branch
code was hand written on the cheque
rather than printed. Kevin correctly
explained that the cheque could be
accepted if the branch code was hand
22.11.06
No call
evident on
calll log
10.1.07
No call
evident on
call log
16.1.07
No call
evident on
calll log
14.3.07
No call
evident on
call log
20.6.07
No call
evident on
calll log
10.9.07
No call
evident
‘on call log
16.10.07
H22439562
5.3.08
H22488683
23.8.12
4A_32763924_1
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
X (alll)
either system error or probable a
software error — transferred to the
business helpline who said to re-
boot all three terminals and told it
was not a business issue and to go
back to
Technical"
Para 3.70 ~ Page 18
(ili) Mr Bilkhu asked Deborah to file
a complaint with Customer Helpline.
This she did and she received a
patronising letter noting that:
‘investigations continue will take a
little longer’.
(iv) The letter was sent to Deborah
in October but to date (26
November 2013) nothing has been
sorted out and it appears that the
money is still within POL and the
charity has received nothing.
Para 3.72 — Page 19
“In an attempt to assist, Mr Bilkhu
contacted the helpline (Call Ref:
H18135135)
on 10th October 2013 about this
issue. He has heard nothing and
notes that
nobody has even had the courtesy
to ring back and explain what went
wrong."
Para 3.76 — Pages 19 — 20
9/03/05 - CP is overprinting —
cleaning required
16/05/05 - CP only printing half
label and receipt
written. Kevin went on to navigate the
Applicant to the correct page on Horizon
Help that explained how to complete the
transaction. Horizon Help is an integral
facility within Horizon which allows
individuals to find and also print Post
Office instructions on products and
services, which can be accessed whilst
serving a customer. The Applicant was
still not happy on how to process the
transaction and advised he would
contact NBSC the next time for them to
talk him through the transaction. On the
13th January 2014, the Applicant
contacted the NBSC and claims he was
advised not to cash the cheque unless
the branch code is printed on the
cheque. NBSC call logs (Refer To Doc
045) show that this call H18250380 is
logged as “WANTING TO PAY A
CHEQUE INTO A CO OP ACCOUNT”. It
appears in this instance the Applicant
and the NBSC Operator were at cross
purposes; further investigation has
confirmed this (Refer to Doc 046).
Michala Millington (Post Office Client
Advisor) contacted the branch on the
23rd January 2014, after another
complaint from a customer being
refused the service; during this call it
came to light that there had been some
confusion between the NBSC and the
Applicant as to which process to follow.
Michala instructed the NBSC to contact
the Applicant to explain the correct
process (Refer to Doc 047). Sharon
Jamasb (NSBC operator) contacted the
Applicant on the 23rd January 2014 and
made it clear to him that handwritten
cheques could be accepted (Refer to
Doc 048). Sharon has informed this
investigation it was the Applicant that
jumped onto the subject about lack of
training at the NBSC. Sharon did not get
No call
evident on
call log
24.8.12
No call
evident on
call log
10.10.13
H18135135
4A_32763924_1
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
17/5/05 - Printer label issues —
replaced printer
36/05 - Issues re Tele2 phonecards
— RS1 was not received to allow
stock returns
13/7/05 - Obsolete stock on system
= request for assistance to clear
entry
18/7/05 - Loss for philatic items
when balancing — resolution is
noted as “KB” but it is not known to
what this relates
29/7/05 - 2 calls - Requested
procedure then called back to notify
shortage from Tele2 phonecards —
advised been looked into and SPM
needs to make good
8/8/05 - Spoilt labels re packages to
Argentina
03/10/05 - Skipping MLP printing
screen — worked using manual
keyboard but not screen
17/10/05 - Label not printing but
transaction settled and authorised
07/11/05 - CP not accepting labels
23/11/05 - Misbalance on redeemed
stamps not showing correct amount
— unclear how call closed
24/11/05 - Losses on stamps every
week — advised to call technical
helpline as business helpline
believed it to be a system error
16/3/06 - Query re how to account
drawn into any conversation with the
Applicant and did not comment herself
on any issues regarding training at the
NBSC.
It appears that there may have been
some confusion has gone on between
the Applicant and the NBSC regarding
this issue, with at times both parties
talking at cross purposes. In the
Applicant's CQR, it could be easily miss-
read when the Applicant states “The
cheque was crossed and did not have
our branch code printed on it’; this could
mean one of either the cheques had no
branch code on it, or the cheque did
have the branch code, but it was
handwritten rather than printed.
4A_32763924_1
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
for spoiled label — unclear how
resolved
24/3/06 - CP not printing labels —
cleaned and replaced ribbons —
intermittent so will call back if further
problems
24/3/06 - Call back re above — still
not working — engineer called and
replaced
29/3/06 - Trying to print licence but
printer shows no paper — advised to
call business helpline - appears to
be ongoing
05/04/06 - Printer issues on-going
also with Giros — engineer replaced
apart
26/04/06 Discrepancy on stamps —
unclear how resolved
12/06/06 Not printing certificate of
postage — referred to business
helpline — new process
28/06/06 Overprinting on labels —
printer repaired by engineer
02/08/06 Node 2 not printing labels
— engineer repair
16/01/07 Printer started producing
receipts for stock products
unrelated to Post Office products —
contacted helpline and was told it
was probably a printer test and not
to worry
11/04/07 Barclaycard withdrawal by
customer but printer generated a
Tesco topup voucher
4A_32763924_1
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
16/04/07 Printer out of paper
message — paper there and helpline
could not assist
09/05/07 Label receipt would not
print — a different receipt was
printed with no package weight
20/06/07 Could not balance on the
system — helpdesk said to sell a 1p
stamp and then print a receipt - this
worked — helpdesk noted that it was
a “glitch” in the system
29/06/07 Printer started to print
zeros with a line through —
contacted help desk and was told
printer was not configured properly
Para 3.79 Pages 20 - 21
16/02/05 Pinpad error — not
initialised, corrected
08/03/05 Keyboard showing orange
light — rebooted and restarted after
second attempt
06/04/05 Problems with Node 2 —
technical line referred SPM to
business helpline
22/04/05 Node 2 switching off
unexpectedly — engineer repair
22/04/05 Keyboard required
replacing by engineer
25/04/05 Pinpad not accepting any
numbers — engineer installed
04/05/05 Critical_NT Error message
~ keyboard node 2 replaced and
4A_32763924_1
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
tested
11/05/05 Cash account printed was
for the previous week — told to roll
stock again then roll office to move
into next period
16/05/05 CP Printer problems
17/05/05 Printer problems —
engineer on site said the issue was
software, log then notes considered
unlikely — no real resolution
18/06/05 System freeze while
scanning BT bill — transferred to
technical helpline
26/10/05 System slow when running
balance snapshot — advised known
issue
09/01/06 Faulty pinpad — call
transferred to technical helpline —
pinpad replaced
20/03/06 Device lock timed out
when using CP — engineer repair
05/04/06 Printer issues re the
printing of licences and giros —
replaced part and tested ok
02/05/06 Pinpad error — advised
reinstallation
14/06/06 Base node errors as
keeps looking for PMMC and pin
codes — visual checks done — base
replaced by engineer
10/07/06 Pinpad error reporting
unexected problem and to contact
Horizon — told to reinstall pinpad
4A_32763924_1
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
September Nonpolling and BT
issues as previously noted
27/10/06 Bar code reader not
working — engineer swapped reader
01/11/06 Pinpad not working -
cards not accepted on one
workstation which then worked
when used on the other
02/11/06 Pinpad not working
reported to helpline
03/11/06 Pinpad not working
reported to helpline
06/11/06 Pinpad not working
reported to helpline — engineer
replaced unit
17/03/07 Barcode scanner issue —
replaced by engineer 20/03/07
13/04/07 Screen locked —
suggested waiting to print previous
receipt - reprinted and unlocked —
helpline unable to explain
27/04/07 Screen froze for 45
minutes
10/09/07 Screen frozen for 1hour 45
minutes — contacted helpline 3
times and was told to re-boot each
occasion — eventually came back on
12/12/07 Base station 3 shut down
unexpectedly — contacted helpline
and re-booted 17/12/07 Terminal 1
printer would not print - engineer
sent out
07/01/08 Terminal 3 crashed —
restarted after 30 minutes
4A_32763924_1
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
10/01/08 Terminal 3 crashed again
and came back
From approximately 2010 Mr Bilkhu
notes that the Fujitsu Counter
Printers were changed over to
Epson printers and significant
difficulties encountered since then —
telephone logs will demonstrate the
extent of these issues
Para 3.118 Page 26 - 27
06/04/05 Contacted Michelle on the
helpline re Horizon issues Mr Bilkhu
was passed between departments
and did not get anywhere
14/04/05 Jeanette from Horizon
called and discussed situation with
Mr Bilkhu Mr Bilkhu notes that
Jeanette confirmed that the RLM
role had gone, that no assistance
was
available and that there were
“hundreds of issues with on-line
banking”
14/04/05 Denise from Area Office
called to confirm that no assistance
was available
20/04/05 Lynne from business
helpline re £60 banking anomaly
and that transaction had not taken
place Per Mr Bilkhu, Lynne stated
that she could not do anything and
he should submit a formal complaint
against Horizon
26/05/05 Rang helpline re cash
shortage and seeking help Darren
4A_32763924_1
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
called Mr Bilkhu and
Stated that no help was available
16/06/05 Rang helpline re cash
shortage and seeking help Emma
called and gave same
options: close post office; pay etc
21/09/05 Rang helpline re rollover
and balance issues: Spoke to
Sandra. Follow-up call agreed the
following morning which was never
received Mr Bilkhu notes that he
explained his difficulties in
balancing and rolling over. Sandra
on helpline, he has noted
that she stated he was in breach of
contract, to close and go home and
that he would not be able to open in
the morning.
21/09/05 Mr Bilkhu called helpline a
second time that evening and spoke
to Joanne Explained the issues and
asked for amounts to be put into
suspense as disputed — Mr
Bilkhu was told that she could not
authorise this and he supervisor
would make contact
by 10pm
21/09/05 Call scheduled for prior to
10pm was never received
11/04/07 Customer wanted to
withdraw £10 but printed a top up
voucher for Tesco mobile —
contacted helpdesk Told different
things — technical issue/ staff error/
previous
transaction completing. No help in
resolving.
16/05/07 Call from Rachel Oysten.
4A_32763924_1
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
re Misprint of voucher from 11/04
and called again on 22/05 Promised
assistance but at the end of August
07 Mr Bilkhu had not heard anything
further
20/06/07 Could not balance on the
system Mr Bilkhu states that the
helpdesk said to sell a 1p stamp
and then print a receipt (this
worked) helpdesk noted that it was
a “glitch” in the system
Moos
Kerry
Arkins x
Para 4b — Page 4
“In September 2006 a further
shortage of £463 occurred on the
cheque listing line of the balance.
The SPM spoke with Gillian
Hoyland at Chesterfield. He sent
documents to her which proved that
the cheques had been processed
correctly. Ms. Hoyland could not
explain how the difference had
arisen or what could be done to
correct it. No Error Notices came
through to the SPM subsequently."
M010
Kerry x
Arkins
M011
Kerry
Arkins x
Para 2.3 — Page 3
"Subsequently, on 17th December,
his daily reconciliation showed a
cash shortage of £2400. Mr Prince
said he found the shortage
inexplicable. Having run the post
office for 5 years, he knew the
typical size and volume of daily
transactions and recognised that
occasional small shortages could
occur through miscounting or some
other oversight. However, £2400
was an exceptional amount — he
said there had been no unusually
Page 4 to 5 Para 3
The Applicant complains that two calls to
the helpline resulted in conflicting advice.
Helpline records for the period, Dec 2010
to Jul 2011 (Doc 08 refers), identified
that 27 calls were made; however there
is no evidence of the 2 calls made by the
Applicant on 17 Dec 2010 and 05 Jan
2011,
Helpline records for the period Dec 2010
to Jul 2011 identify that 27 calls were
made (Doc 08 refers). Of the 27 listed
calls, 2 relate to transaction processing:
Page 3 Para 3.7
When the Applicant
experienced an
inexplicable cash
shortage on 17
December 2010 he said
that the Helpline simply
told him not to worry and
when a further
discrepancy occurred,
he says he was advised
that the shortage was
“nothing to do with us”
and that he should “put
4A_32763924_1
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
Targe transactions that day and
nothing untoward had occurred. He
spent about an hour and half
checking and rechecking his cash
count and transaction log but could
not find the problem. At about 7 pm
he called the Helpline. A man
reportedly answered and told him
“not to worry” as the shortage would
balance out at the end of trading
period balancing."
1 call on 17 Dec 2010, made by Sandra,
the part time assistant, at 10:55,
requested a telephone number and a
second call on 06 Apr 2011, made by
The Applicant at 10:26, related to a
personal banking customer account not
being credited. There is no evidence of
the 2 calls which the Applicant alleges he
made on 17 Dec 2010 nor at the next
branch trading balance period on 05 Jan
2011. It should be noted that the helpline
would have closed at 19:00 on 17 Dec
2010 and the message in place after
19:00 advises callers to ring back the
following day or leave their details for a
call back.
The Horizon Service Desk (HSD) records
(Doc 03 refers) identify that between the
periods of Oct 2010 to Jul 2011, 3 calls
which should have been made to the
helpline were in fact made to the HSD.
On all 3 occasions the user was referred
back to the helpline.
The helpline were asked to produce the
guidance that they would provide to
subpostmasters if the cash declaration
identified a cash shortage (not at period
end) and a cash shortage was still
evident at period end. The helpline staff
would guide the caller to carry out a
number of accounting checks (Doc 09
refers). For the initial cash declaration
discrepancy, the caller would be advised
that checks could only be made on
production of a trial balance, whereas at
period end there is a requirement for the
account to balance. Therefore the
guidance would reflect a requirement to
make good any resultant losses. It
should also be noted that this guidance
includes help in settling the account.
Settled locally is a term used to describe
the cash in’.
Page 4 Para 5.2
The Applicant reports
that, on 17 December
2010, his daily
reconciliation showed an
inexplicable cash
shortage of £2,400. He
says that, despite
checking the cash and
transaction log, he was
not able to identify the
cause of the shortfall,
and that he called the
Helpline at about 7pm
and was advised “not to
worry” and that the
shortage would “balance
out at the end of Trading
Period”.
4A_32763924_1
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
repayment at the time of balancing,
where the agent physically makes the
shortage good; whereas there is a facility
to settle centrally, which transfers the
shortage to the agents account for
repayment at a later agreed date. The
Applicant had used the settled centrally
facility before for the Lottery debt, so he
was evidently aware of this facility.
There is no evidence in the helpline
records of the 2 calls, as stated in the
CQR, made by the Applicant on 17 Dec
2010 and 05 Jan 2011. However, the
guidance held by the helpline would
indicate that a loss, incurred during the
trading period, would warrant a different
response to a loss showing at balance
period end. The same guidance would
also be given by other areas of the
business.
M012 I Kerry x
Arkins
Mo713 I Kerry x
Arkins
M017 I Kerry x
Arkins
078 I Kerry x
Arkins
M020 I Kerry x
Arkins
M021 I Kerry x
Arkins
M024 I Kerry x
Arkins
4A_32763924_1
POL-0019248
POL00022769
POL00022769
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
M025 I Kerry x
Arkins
M026 I Kerry Page 13 Page 14 Para 5.13 Page Para 4.8 26.10.10
Arkins
x 121. On the posting entry 27 Due to the limited nature of the NBSC The Applicant reports H16950858
October 2010, a loss of £4,319.38 I call logs, it is difficult for us to assess that a loss of £4,319.38
arises. I recount these events to the I whether or not questions raised by the arose on 27 October 29.10.10
best my recollection. Applicant were dealt with in a way that 2010 at the end of the
Trading Period. She H16955919
122. This discrepancy showed up
on the TP. So, as was the practice
at the time I sent the paper copy of
the TP back to POL at Chesterfield.
I sent this on the Thursday following
the posting date (28 October 2010).
123. On the Thursday I also rang
the POL helpdesk and told them
that there was a discrepancy at this
value and that it had gone down on
the TP to them. I explained that I did
not know what it was and was
advised that they would look into it
and get back to me.
124. The following day (29 October
2010) I was contacted by POL and
advised that the discrepancy did not
reflect or appear to correspond to
anything. I cannot recall the name
of the operator, but I was advised I
have to pay the sum back.
met her expectations. It is clear that the
Applicant expected the NBSC to take an
active role in investigating discrepancies,
which Post Office insists is not within the
NBSC's remit.
Page 15 Para 5.20
The Applicant reports that, when Horizon
was introduced at the branch, she
received just three days of on-site
training from an auditor. She describes
the level of training she received as
“appalling” and states that the auditor
was “perpetually on his telephone” and
showed a general lack of interest
towards the Applicant and her branch
She asserts that she made a request
through the Helpline for further training,
but was told that no one was available to
attend the branch.
Page 15 Para 5.22
Post Office asserts that the Applicant is
unclear as to the identity of the trainer
who visited because she refers to him by
two different, albeit similar, first names in
her CQR. It states there is no record, in
the NBSC Helpline logs, of the Applicant
at any point complaining about the
quality of her training or requesting
further training. Post Office reports that
two days of further training were
provided on 31 March and 1 April 2011,
states that she sent the
Trading Period records
to Chesterfield the
following day and called
the Helpline to report the
shortfall. She says that
the Helpline told her that
they would look into it
and get back to her. The
Applicant asserts that
she was contacted by
Post Office the next day
and told that ‘the
discrepancy did not
reflect or appear to
correspond to anything”.
She states that she
reluctantly agreed to
centrally settle the
shortfail and repay
through deductions from
her remuneration, Post
Office's position is that
"The Applicant is
contractually obliged to
make alll shortfalls good.
Post Office offers the
DFR [Deductions From
Remuneration] facility to
Subpostmasters as a
goodwill gesture to
reduce financial
hardship".
4A_32763924_1
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
as a condition of the Applicant's:
reinstatement. It refers to the notes of the
11 October 2011 Appeal Hearing, in
which the Applicant states “a trainer
came out one Friday morning (referring
to Friday 1 April 2011) but I was serving,
no training got done”. Post Office asserts
that the Applicant knew that training was
to take place on that day, but failed to
ensure adequate staff were present at
the branch for her training to be carried
out.
Page 7 Para 4.12
The Applicant reports
that she received a
phone call from Post
Office, in November or
December 2010,
explaining that Horizon
was showing £9,000.00
of Stock Vending
Machine stock, despite
the branch not having a
SVM. She says that she
was “confused and
startled” by the news
and took the
precautionary measure
of placing £9,000.00 into
the suspense account.
She states that she
contacted the Helpline
the next day to try to get
an explanation, but all
that they could tell her
was that there was
£9,000.00 in the
suspense account. The
Applicant states that she
told the Helpline that she
would wait until the end
of the Trading Period to
see if anything arose
and invited them to
investigate the matter.
This amount is listed on
the Applicant's
Statement of Debt on 4
January 2011 with the
label ‘stamp vending
machine’, the Applicant
questions why she is
liable for this amount.
4A_32763924_1
20
POL-0019248
POL00022769
POL00022769
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
Page 7 Para 4.13
Post Office refers to the
Horizon transaction logs
(Post Office Document
031), which show that,
on 4 January 2011, two
entries regarding SVM
stock were made on the
system. The first entry,
made with the
Applicant's user ID,
decreased the SVM
stock by £5,000.00 and
the second entry, made
using a staff member's
user ID, decreased the
SVM stock by a further
£4,000.00. Post Office
states that there is no
evidence of the
Applicant transferring
these amounts into the
suspense account.
Page 7 to 8 Para 4.14
Post Office reports that it
would have taken a
deliberate action by the
Applicant or one of her
staff members to
activate the SVM icon
on Horizon. It presents
evidence of two more
entries, made using the
Applicant's User ID,
which decreased the
SVM stock by £6,000.00
on 6 July 2011 and
£2,000.00 on 12 July
2011. Both of these
entries were cancelled
out by reverse
4A_32763924_1 24
POL-0019248
POL00022769
POL00022769
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
transactions on 20 July
2011. Post Office states
that, whilst it is possible
for the SVM icon to have
been selected in error, it
is unlikely that this error
would be made on
several occasions. It
asserts that any genuine
error would result in a
corresponding cash
surplus, but the erratic
pattern of the cash
declarations made by
the branch have made it
difficult to establish any
relationship between the
figures. It suggests that
the Applicant and her
staff could have
purposefully decreased
the SVM stock figures,
which would inflate the
cash on hand figure, in
order to conceal
shortfalls. In its
comments on the
previously issued draft
of this report Post Office
states that "entries were
made in the suspense
account against Stamp
vending Machine (SVM)
losses but as there was
no SVM or stock of
stamps for an SVM (and
there could not,
therefore, be a loss
associated with this
product), this action
would have created a
gain or covered a loss
that was already
present".
4A_32763924_1 22
POL-0019248
POL00022769
POL00022769
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED.
M027 I Kerry x
Arkins
M028 I Kerry x Para 2.7 — Page 3 Page 7 29.10.09
Arkins
x (Date identified later in statement as The Applicant asserts that the move H16528419
29/10/09) "The new safe in the of her branch to temporary
Portakabin was completely different I accommodation in a portacabin was 17.11.09
and I received no training - as a chaotic, that Network Business No call
result I was unable to open the safe I Support Centre (NBSC) was unhelpful evident on
and balance at the end of the first and that Post Office was call log
x day in the Portakabin as I wanted to unwilling to meet with the Applicant to
- the Horizon Helpline told me that I compare Horizon data in order 5.1.10
could leave it." to try and establish reasons for
‘unexplainable losses’. No call
Para 2.9 — Page 3 evident on
The Applicant did raise her concerns on call log
"The next trading statement on 9 a regular basis and requested support
x December 2009 showed a shortage I via the Network Business Support Centre 6.1.10
of £2,584.65. I spoke to the NBSC I (NBSC). Records indicate that the
but received no advice. Again I Applicant's concerns were acted on and No call
assumed that, as everything had forwarded for others to take action. The evident on
been so chaotic and given that it Contract Advisor arranged for call log
was the run up to Christmas, some _I intervention visits by a Field Support
paperwork or stock had been Advisor. Additionally the Contract 9.2.10
misplaced and would be found." Advisor requested checks on transaction
logs and investigated whether there were No call
x Para 2.11 - Page 3 any Horizon issues. Responses received evident on
from the Duty Manager confirmed that calll log
"It was therefore a major shock to there were no issues.
me to produce a trading statement 10.2.10
on 6 January 2010 to find that I had
a shortage of £9,033.79 which I Page 5 H16634409
immediately reported. Various calls
ensued and I was advised to settle I Record of NBSC Logs (Doc 013 refers) 13.2.10
x this centrally. Fortunately during 27/10/2009 -08/06/2010 46 calls logged
‘one of the calls it was suggested as detailed below:- 16615606
that I should ask that this shortage I 23 x relate to issues with the Horizon
be declared in dispute, which I did." I System, balancing discrepancies or both. 8.6.10
5 x relate to issues regarding the
Para 2.24 Page 4 relocation to the Portacabin. No call
18 x non-relevant enquires e.g. request evident on
“The purpose of including the for a country code etc. call log
4A_32763924_1
23
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
transaction log for § January 2010
is that a serious shortage had been
identified in my office on 5 January
2010 by Horizon. They were
contacted by someone I spoke to on
a call back resulting from my call to
the Helpline to report my loss of £
8,436.86 on 13 February 2010."
Paras 3.4 — 3.6 — Pages 5/6
"1 telephoned the Helpline
immediately after my first full
balance after the move on 11
November to query the shortage
which I had assumed was due to an
administrative error during the
move. At the time I assumed this
would right itself and put the cash in
to cover the shortage.
The next trading statement on 9
December 2009 showed a further
shortage of £ 2,584.65 and
attempted to telephone the Helpline
again. I was unable to speak to
anyone and the Helpline were not
able to return my call until after I
had "rolled over" for the office to
open. They did not give me any
assistance or advice.
The next trading statement on 6
January 2010 produced a shortage
of £9,033.79 which I immediately
reported. I telephoned many times
and it was only during one of these
calls that I was told that I had to
request that the shortage be put in
dispute for it to be registered as
such. This I did and: From that point
my telephone calls became more
frequent and more agitated given
the complete lack of any resolution.
‘NB Call on 20/11/2009 request for
reversal process for cash remittance.
Page 9
NBSC call logs indicate that the
Applicant on 27/10/2009 was awaiting
arrival of CVIT.
Page 16
Records show that during the period
27/10/2009 to 08/06/2010 46 calls to the
NBSC were logged
23 of these relate to issues with Horizon,
balancing discrepancies or both
There is also evidence that these calls
were actioned by the CA and Branch
Support team. There is evidence of the
CA requesting Horizon checks and
intervention visits to support the branch
NBSC log 03/02/2010 suggests that the
BDM had not replied to the specific
questions raised. Post Office has
assumed that this is the issue referred to.
Page 17
Records show that 46 calls were made to
NBSC during the period 27/10/2009-
08/06/2010. Evidence available indicates
that the calls were acted upon as contact
was made with FSA, CA, Duty Manager
and FSC. The actions are reflected in the
correspondence by various parties.
However it is noted that the steps taken
to try and resolve the Applicant's issues
were still not deemed to be sufficient
support by the Applicant.
The audit shortage differs due to an error
4A_32763924_1
24
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
I asked for, but was refused, direct
access to Horizon/Fujitsu. I was told
that the Helpline would contact
them since I was convinced the
issues had arisen as a result of the
move."
Para 3.20 — Page 7
"Yes, I did request assistance. On
every occasion from the November
2009 balance but
particularly from the 6 January 2010
balance until my suspension on 8
June 2010. I made many phone
calls and sent letters asking that
Horizon/Fujitsu compare my data
logs with their records, in my
presence. All were ignored or
refused and I simply received
requests to give all my paper
evidence to the Post Office. I was
passed to the Second Tier Helpline
and was informed that they had
been told that Horizon
investigations were requested.
Nothing has ever happened."
Document 1 — Page 12
“The next Trading Statement on
9/12/09, showed a shortage of £
2584.65. I spoke to the NBSC
(Judith) about this, but received no
advice and paid the shortage by
cheque. Again, everything had been
so chaotic that I assumed that some
paperwork or stock had been
misplaced, and would be found.
This was the period leading up to
the rush of Christmas Post.
“When I produced the Trading
Statement on 6/1/10 the shortage
‘on the audit report.
The decision at this time was taken not
to precautionary suspend. Cash
declarations were to be completed 3
times a day with a variance check and
anything over £50 to be reported to
NBSC. The NBSC would advise the CA.
Records indicate that this was carried
out. (Doc 007 refers).
4A_32763924_1
25
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
had leapt to £9033.79. I reported
this immediately to NBSC. I was
advised to settle this centrally as
this would give me time to check all
the figures for extra 'Os'. None were
found. During one of the phone calls
when were discussing my Post
Office history and the two previous
shortages, it was suggested that I
should actually ask that this
shortage be declared ‘in dispute’.”
Document 1 — Page 13
"The system would only allow me to
go back to 17/11/09 so I had to be
content with that. I made a further
telephone call to the NBSC to
confirm that this loss was listed as
disputed’ as I had just received a
demand from the Agent Debt
Recovery Team. This was
confirmed."
Document 1 — Page 13/14
"My next Trading Statement was on
13/2/10 and this resulted in a further
loss of £8436.86. I rang the help
line to report and ask again for
some help (ref:H16615606). On call
back I spoke to a young man who
contacted Horizon for me. He came
back with the message "the nodes
are working, there is nothing wrong
with Horizon". However, Horizon
had identified a serious shortage in
my office on 5/1/10:ONCH 4/1 £
30,275
5/1 Cash Dep.of £6063 Cash
wdrwl of £1663 ONCH 5/1 £8940
Short Approx. £26,000 I asked if
they had happened to mention a
remittance out on that day of £
4A_32763924_1
26
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
26,000. He said he would get back
to them and check. I never heard
another word, Nobody ever notified
me of this "serious" shortage on
5/1/10. I also rang Horizon about
the balance shortage and asked for
it to be checked. The young lady I
spoke to just said,"We've checked
our nodes, it's your problem". After
a fruitless discussion with her, I
asked to speak with a Manager. I
got a Supervisor called Ken
(Hor Ref:1960164). He aded very
little to the conversation about
checking that Horizon was working,
but brought up the "shortage" on
5/1/10. I asked him if he had any
knowledge of a remitance
of £26,000 on that day. He went
away to check and then came back
to ask me for the time and
Trans.Ref.. So much for Horizon
being infallible. However, even this
did not trigger any form of
investigation. I pointed out to him
that I had actually printed out all the
transaction logs for the Office since
17/11/09 and that I would not
accept that the Horizon system was
not at fault until someone from
Horizon/Fyjitsu had come out with
copies of their logs and put them
side by side with mine to prove they
were exactly the same. My offer
was ignored or declined”
4A_32763924_1
ar
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
Mo29
Kerry
Arkins
Para 2.3 - Page 6/8
25/05/01 Technical helpdesk call
(0105250519) - engineer being
sent
27/12/01 Problems logging on - 1
system would not accept new
password — had to telephone
12/02/02 Rang helpline re
Horizon
13/12/02 Horizon
disconnected 12.10pm also
problems with printer — called
technical helpline (E021213044)
28/05/03 Horizon not
processing APT error
— rang Horizon
16/07/03 Horizon frozen on
confirming printing rollover
(E0307 160857) called three times
09/10/03 - Horizon off — rang
helpline — reboot (E0310090063 +
0225) Horizon still freezing transfer
to online — rebooted 4 times and still
the same
19/11/03 - Printer not working
(E0312100198 and E0312100928)
16/02/05 - Call to technical helpline
re difference of remming cheques —
technical helpline referred call to
business helpline
02/07/05 - Reboot had been done
but could not pass Automated
Payment recovery — technical
Page 1 0 Technical Issues
The Applicant estimated that he
contacted the helpdesk once a week
from
when the system was installed in
October 2000. Unfortunately,
Horizon Service Desk (HSD) call logs
for the period in question are no
longer available so these numbers
cannot be verified.
Call logs from the Network Business
Support Centre (NBSC) indicate that
only 3 out of 138 calls received in the
5 year period between October
2000 and October 2005 were relevant
to the HSD and transferred
accordingly.
Page 3 Para 2
The Horizon service Desk (HSD) call
logs are no longer available (Doc 004
refers). However, the NBSC call logs
from October 2000 — Oct 2005 are
available (Doc 003 refers)
The NBSC call data for the 5 year period
shows that 36 calls out of a total 138
logged were Horizon related (highlighted
in yellow on Doc 003). However, as
stated above, details of the calls made to
the HSD are no longer available so
interrogation of this data is not possible.
Page 5 Para 4
There are several instances on the
NBSC call logs of the Applicant
requesting guidance on the procedure
when "cut off" hadn’t been performed
Page 3 Para 1.13
In regard to how the
shortfall arose, the
Applicant states that he
received inadequate
training in handling
problems and a lack of
support when he needed
it, despite his numerous
requests to the
Helpdesk, especially
given the remote
location of the branch.
Post Office notes
however that there were
no calls recorded in the
NBSC helpdesk calll logs
in which the Applicant
requested additional
training. As referenced
in paragraph 2.3. below
it would appear that the
Applicant had a weak
understanding of how to
properly operate the
Horizon system which
introduces the possibility
that errors made at the
counter could have
caused some of the
losses.
Page 4 Para 2.3
The Applicant states that
he made frequent calls
to the Helpline,
averaging approximately
‘one per week over an
extended period. The
Post Office notes that
25.1.01
No call
evident on
call log
16.5.01
20338009
25.5.01
No call
evident on
call lo
27.12.01
No call
evident on
call log
12.2.02
No call
evident on
call log
13.12.02
No call
evident on
call log
28.5.03
No call
evident on
call log
4A_32763924_1
28
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
helpline referred call to business
helpline
02/07/05 - Business helpline
referred call to technical helpline as
screen had frozen — advised reboot
02/07/05 - Counter frozen and
screen goes to AP recovery screen
— advised to leave off for 5 minutes
and reboot but did not work so
advised to re-calibrate the screen
13/10/05 - Card account
withdrawals have a zero value -
technical helpline referred call to
business helpline
29/11/05 - Ms Shodes returned to
reboot Horizon and noted to Mr
Thomas that she was having
difficulty. She apparently called
Horizon and her manager Mr
Hughes and that Horizon later went
out to check the system.
Para 3.30 Page 12
16/05/01 - Horizon off twice 1.15pm
(H20338009)
25/05/01 - Technical helpdesk call
(0105250519) — engineer being
sent
06/06/01 - Frozen screen reported
8.20am — power off and reboot
27/12/01 - Problems logging on - 1
system would not accept new
password — had to telephone
(Doc 003 lines 6,13,46,61,62,114 refer).
This suggests the Applicant was
struggling to understand this element of
the Horizon process over an extended
period of time despite help being
provided by NBSC.
Page 7 — Helpline Assistance
Within the NBSC call logs (Doc 003),
there are 3 calls (highlighted in green on
lines 44, 115, 121) in relation to attempts
to contact the RLM (Retail Line manager)
although no mention is made of the
subject matter. On one of these
occasions (01/03/02), a call was
escalated as the Applicant hadn't
received a response. Other than the
aforementioned escalation, there is no
evidence of calls or requests being
refused or ignored from the available
data.
In addition, 3 calls to the NBSC were.
transferred to the HSD (Doc 003, lines
10, 11 and 68 refer).
NBSC call logs show a high volume of
calls from the office on a variety of
subjects. There is nothing in the
available data to indicate that the
Applicant received anything other than a
professional service with satisfactory
outcomes to the issues raised in the
calls.
the Horizon Helpdesk
call logs are no longer
available but that such
of the NBSC call logs
that could be accessed
"show a high volume of
calls from the office on a
variety of subjects",
although Post Office
consider that these
averaged approximately
‘one per month. These
call logs confirm the
frequency of reported
hardware problems and
may also indicate a
weak understanding by
the Applicant of the
basic operations of the
Horizon system and how
some important aspects
were meant to operate.
16.7.03
12530313
9.10.03
H12760581
19.11.03
H12855576
16.2.05
13813795
2.7.05
No call
evident on
call log
13.10.05
H21903612
29.11.05
No call
evident on
calll log
29
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
12/02/02 - Rang helpline re Horizon
13/12/02 - Horizon disconnected
12.10pm also problems with printer
— called technical helpline
(E021213044)
28/05/03 - Horizon not processing
APT error — rang Horizon
16/07/03 - Horizon frozen on
confirming printing rollover
(E0307160857) called three times
08/10/03 - Horizon problem with
online server — reboot. Off again
2.15pm and stopped printing during
final cash account (E0310080263)
09/10/03 - Horizon off — rang
helpline — reboot (E0310090063 +
0225) Horizon still freezing transfer
to online — rebooted 4 times and still
the same
19/11/03 - Printer not working
(E0312100198 and E0312100928)
M030
Keny
Arkins
M031
Kerry
Arkins
Para 3.7 & 3.8 Page 9
“Mrs Jack states that the Helpline
did not give correct advice, and ona
number of occasions did not answer
the telephone, and when they did,
Post Office staff were often unsure
what advice to give."
"This was acknowledged by Glen
4A_32763924_1
30
POL-0019248
POL00022769
POL00022769
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED.
Chester of Post Office (Mobile
078509-13804) and Lesley Post
Office (Mobile 07725-704686) and
that a series of errors over time had
been due to lack of understanding
by Post Office staff, which in turn
was as a result of lack of training
and support.”
M032 I Kerry
Arkins
M033 I Kerry
Arkins
M034 I Kerry
Arkins
M035 I Kerry Para 2.5 - Page 2 Page 1— Issue 1 Page 3 Para 3.1 (b) 24.12.03
Arkins
“The first major difference arose for Due to retention periods, Post Office She had come to H21244679
the week ended 23 December 2003 does not hold training records for this distrust the Helpline, H21244829
when a net shortage discrepancy of I time (Doc 008 refers); however, the because following its
£ 2,032.67 arose after I closed at Network Business Support Centre advice in the past had 30.12.03
1pm. I called the Helpdesk who (NBSC) call logs indicate that Colin sometimes resulted in
gave me instructions on how to Woodbridge, Rural Support Manager _I the doubling of her H12935449
clear these. I followed these, but
this only led to the difference
increasing. Attached to this
questionnaire (as Document 1) are
balance snapshots taken at
15.18pm on 30 December 2003 and
15.21pm on 30 December 2003.
During this three minute period the
cash balance held was reduced by
£2,140.40, the stamp total by 46
pence and three £5
commemorative coins excluded. I
have no idea why the stamp, coin
and cash figures should have been
amended as I did not amend them
in any way. Afterwards a supervisor
called Janette called back to try and
from the Post Office, visited the
branch on the 21st January 2004 to
help
locate the shortage.
Page 1 — Issue 2 - TV Licence
At the time there were two types of TV
Licence application, the
manual process for first time
applicants and the barcode renewal.
Both transactions required the user to
enter the transaction on Horizon (Doc
009 refers). On the 25th May 2005 the
branch called the NBSC because they
had given a TV licence form back to
the
shortages;
Page 3 Para 4.1
Post Office's records
indicate that the
Applicant made
comparatively few calls
to the Helpline to seek
support. The Applicant
comments that the
difficulties she
encountered in being
able to
get through to the
Helpline on many
occasions, and
4A_32763924_1
3
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
sort the issue out but we could not
get the figures back to their original
position. Eventually I was told that I
had to repay the money under the
contract terms and so accepted a
deduction from my pay for the
amount."
Para 3.17 & 3.18 — Page 6
On the first occasion that I had a
large deficit I rang the Helpdesk and
eventually, after following their
instructions, the difference that I
had called about had approximately
doubled. Even though a supervisor
called me back to try to resolve the
issue they were unable to help me
get the difference back to its original
figure. In the event I eventually
repaid the money from my own
salary.
The next time that I had a
substantial deficit I rang again but
no attempt was made to help me or
find out why another large amount
of money was missing and I was
merely pressured to pay in the
difference myself. After this I lost
faith with the Helpdesk and felt
unable to ring for help as I did not
believe that any assistance would
be given to me to resolve the
matter.
customer when it should have been
retained by the branch
(Doc 010 refers). There is nothing to
suggest this error on 25 May was
connected with the transaction
complained about on 23 May.
However, it is possible that what has
happened is that during the
transaction on the 23rd May 2005, the
clerk has given the whole
documentation back to the customer
without entering or scanning the
Licence onto Horizon. This would be a
reasonable explanation as to
why the cheque was on the system
and the TV Licence was not.
Page 2 — Audit and Prosecution
The Applicant claims in her case
questionnaire she eventually called for
an audit, but there is no evidence in the
NBSC call logs of the Applicant
requesting an audit. There is an email
(Doc 011 refers) from Rebecca Porch,
Retail Cash Management Support, sent
on the 6th March 2006 to the area
intervention office highlighting problems
at the Post Office. There is a security
report (Doc 012 refers) that the Applicant
allegedly told Mrs Kan Matharu, who
represented National Federation of Sub
Postmasters, that there were some
problems at the Post Office. Mrs Matharu
informed Colin Woodridge, Rural Support
Manger for Post Office, who in turn
informed Mr Adrian Skinner, Area
Performance Manager, and this is
confirmed by Mr Skinner's response
(Doc 011 refers).
Page 2 — Applicants Issues and Post
Office Headline Response
particularly when new
products and
procedures were
introduced, would have
distorted any statistics
on this matter.
Page 3 Para 4.2
The Applicant's failure to
use the Helpline when
problems occurred
resulted in the Post
Office having no
knowledge of those
problems. The false
accounting by the
Applicant compounded
this situation, ensuring
that Post Office was
ignorant of the rising
shortfall.
4A_32763924_1
32
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
The lack of training that was provided by
Post Office:
Post Office does not hold training
records for this time. Operations Manuals
were available in branch and a weekly
“Counter News” was sent to every
branch in the network. These
publications provided details on how to
process all transactions in branch and
also included a detailed balancing guide.
The NBSC helpline was also available.
Page 3 - Issue 2: The perceived lack of
support provided via the helpdesk
The Applicant claims that there was a
lack of support from the NBSC from Dec
2003 to March 2006.
Page 5
NBSC call logs
Network Business Support Centre
answered 203 calls from the branch
during the period under review.
2003- 16 calls to the helpline, all in the
month of December: seven calls from
1/12/03-30/12/03 relate to the
misbalance call on the 3/12/03 £2082
shortage reported: a further call on the
30/12/03 about another £2000 loss.
2004- 99 Calls to the helpline: two calls
in relation to previous month misbalance
on the 2nd and 6th January.
Call on the 2nd Jan 2004 relates to
£4, 188.53 loss, it is most likely that this is
the previous two losses added together.
Call on the 3rd February 2004 regarding
£3, 191.00 loss; again it is most likely that
4A_32763924_1
33
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
this is part of the previous loss.
Six calls about faults with Horizon
System; all other calls were general
enquires.
2005- 69 calls to the helpline, 30 of
which relate to issues processing and
despatching cheques and other
accounting problems.
24/2/05 Call in relation to £750 loss
25/5/05 Call in relation to TV Licence
transaction
2006- 19 calls between Jan-March: 15
calls in January in relation to cheques,
system crashing, and branch trading
Call on 5/1/06 in relation to £1000 loss
after system crashed when processing
postage label.
There are no calls suggesting any
shortage in the region of £36,000
There is no evidence in the call logs that
the Applicant could not contact the
helpline. There is evidence that on one
occasion she had to chase a call in
relation to cheques despatch in January
2006 (Doc 006 refers).
Page 6 — The lack of training that was
provided by post Office:
The NBSC helpline was also available,
should the Applicant have issues with
accounting for the error notice.
Page 7
Call logs to the NBSC are available from
1°' December 2003-24 February 2004;
calls in relation to error notices and the
4A_32763924_1
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
issues that arose during December 2003
are submitted )Doc 004 refers; specifies
highlighted in yellow).
Page 7 —Para3
Call logs made to the NBSC suggest that
this may have been the case (Doc 004
refers). On 1% December 2003 the
Applicant contacted the NBSC regarding
a problem with the despatch of cheques,
the Application called back again on the
2" December and asked to speak with
someone else as she was not happy with
the help she had received the previous
day. It appears from the comments
section on the call logs that the NBSC
contacted the team at Chesterfield who
dealt with error notices at the time and
confirmed that the cheques had not been
despatched from the branch correctly
and arranged for an error notice to be
issued to the branch to clear the loss.
The Applicant was therefore clearly
aware of how to seek support in order to
investigate losses.
M036
Kerry
Arkins
Par 2.14-3.34 — Page 4/7
The Incidents relating to the
shortfall arose between February
and March
2003.
I was doing my weekly balance on a
Wednesday when the system
showed a shortfall of £15,000.00.
I contacted the Post Office help line
immediately on the day the
4A_32763924_1
35
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
discrepancy
arose
I was shocked as I could not
understand why the system was
showing a
shortfall of £15,000.
The staff at the Post Office helpline
were extremely unhelpful.
This was my general experience
with the Post Office helpline.
I cannot recall ever having had a
helpful conversation with the Post
Office helpline.
I had asked the Post Office for help
to trace the shortfall however all of
my requests for help were ignored.
The Post Office did not investigate
the possible cause of the shortfall.
Given that the Post Office failed to
investigate the cause of the
shortfall, I would like the Post Office
to explain the basis on which they
accepted the payment of £15,000
from me.
Furthermore, I would like the Post
Office to provide me with a detailed
breakdown with dates and details of
the transactions the shortfall of
£15,000 relate to.
I was always told by the Post Office
that we had to repay any
discrepancies
I therefore felt that I had no option
but to repay the £15,000 to the Post
Office.
4A_32763924_1
36
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
I took out a personal loan for
£15,000 to repay the Post Office
J was struggling financially as I was
paying the mortgage on my
mother's home as I was living with
her at the time, the mortgage on the
Post Office and the £15,000
personal loan.
I paid the £15,000 to the Post Office
in good faith as I believed that an
error notice would eventually come
through. I knew I had not taken the
money from the Post Office. I also
knew that Gemma had no
involvement with the shortfall.
J genuinely believed that an error
notice would eventually come
through and the Post Office would
refund me the £15,000 I had paid.
/t was not unusual for error notices
to come through up to six months
after. The Post Office should have
records of the error notices I was
issued and I would like the Post
Office to present these notices
which will confirm the delay in which
they were issued.
3 weeks after I paid the £15,000,
the Horizon system stated that there
was a further shortfall of £19,000.
J again contacted the Post Office
helpline immediately for assistance.
This time I asked the Post Office to
send in auditors. I had already
parted with £15,000 in good faith as
1 was expecting an error notice to
come through putting the system
4A_32763924_1
a7
POL-0019248
POL00022769
POL00022769
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED.
right. However, this had not
happened and the system was now
showing a second shortfall of
£19,000.00.
The Post Office failed to act on my
concerns and did not send auditors
out until three weeks after my plea
for help.
I had made the Post Office aware
that in the space of two months I
was told that there was a shortfall of
£34,000. I therefore am at a loss as
to why they waited 3 weeks before
sending auditors in.
M037 I Kerry Page 6 — Para 4 Support issues Page 2 Para 1.8 2.5.13
Arkins Para 2.5 — 2.13 : Page 2/3
The Applicant claims that when According to the H23209354
“Initially when the differences first discrepancies initially occurred he called I Applicant, the branch
x started to occur I called up the NBSC a number of times and was told to I started to encounter 29.5.13
Helpline (Networks Business rollover the loss until May 2013. significant losses at the
Support) a number of times. Initially end of April 2013. On 7 I H23213129
they told me to just roll over the loss I Records show that the Applicant made a I May 2013, he called the
until the end of the period on May call to NBSC on 7 May 2013 stating that I Network Business 3.6.13
21. By that time the shortfall was he had balanced the Balance Period and I Support Centre (NBSC)
over £3,000. At that stage they then I had a discrepancy of £2,358.44 and ‘still I Helpline to report a H18001128
told me to put in funds personally to I didn't know what was causing it. He was I discrepancy of
cover the differences in cash or advised to wait until Trading Period £2,358.44, which he 6.6.13
cheque. I refused as the losses Rollover (21 May 2013) (Doc 004). could not explain. The
were unexplained, I was confident losses continued and H23226490
that the money had not been taken I Page 7 accumulated and, as of
or misposted and the situation had 12 October 2013, 5.7.13
not been fully investigated as far as I The Applicant alleges that NBSC were of I totalled £17,549.83. The
1} could see." no help when he called on 3 June 2013. current value of the H23236947
outstanding debt is
I received a letter regarding the £17,969.04. 8.7.13
shortfall on 28 May and I called
Chesterfield on 29 May as I was 23248271
H23239054
concerned about what might
happen. They said to let the loss go
as the sum was not
significant enough to send anyone
out.
4A_32763924_1
38
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
I called the Helpdesk on 3 June
2013 but they were no help at all so
I called Chesterfield and spoke to
Andrew about my shortfall. He
agreed to go through everything
and from his end, but I did not hear
back from him.
I received a second letter regarding
the shortfall on 6 June 2013 and
called Chesterfield on 7June. They
said they would contact my contract
manager, Colin Burston, in respect
of the issue.
Chesterfield called me back and
said they would send someone out.
On 26 June 2013 Michelle Keohane
visited to go through things and
observe me working for a couple of
hours. She could not find anything
and told me that she could see
nothing wrong with how I worked.
Nothing was resolved so I called
Horizon (Ref: A3087487) and also
called Chesterfield and the Helpline
(Ref: H23226490) to no avail.
On 5 July I called the Helpline again
regarding a further loss (spoke to
Sarah Ref: H23236947) and also
called Chesterfield and spoke to
Dawn.
On 8 July I called the Helpline again
and spoke to Kirsty (H23239054)
and on 9 July I called
Chesterfield again. I also called the
Helpdesk again on 23 July and
spoke to Sarah again (Ref:
H23248271) and Chesterfield.
4A_32763924_1
39
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
The upshot was that Paul Jones, a
post office training manager visited
on 24 July 2013 and
went through the system and
observed me working. Again he
could not find anything.”
M038
Kerry
Arkins
Para 4(b) - Page 3
"The first discrepancy of any real
significance arose in May 2008
when a shortage of £1.7k appeared
on the balance with regards to
stamps. Despite checking and re-
checking by the SPM and his staff,
no posting errors could be identified
at the branch. The SPM contacted
the Helpline with regards to this
issue. The POL staff he spoke with
had no interest whatsoever in
investigating the difference or in
supplying the SPM with any
transactions documentation which
might have assisted the
identification of errors and
corrections. The Helpline’s only
response was ‘how do you want to
pay?”
M039
Kerry x
Arkins
M040
Kerry
Arkins
Para 2.3 — Page 6
06 February 2009 - Telephone
helpline calll6 re stock discrepancy
12 March 2009 - Helpline call re
ADSL fault reported
17 April 2009 - Call to helpline
requesting assistance
22 April 2009 - Helpline call10 re
Page 2
Call logs from the Network Business
Support Centre (NBSC) show that the
Applicant did not seek help for problems
with discrepancies or balancing issues.
Post Office has been unable to
determine whether or not assistance was
provided by BO! and/or Wincor
Nixdorf2as there are no telephone call
logs available
Page 4 Para 3.2
The Applicant also
referred to "the BT
modem not working" as
the primary reason why
the ATM training was
ineffective, although
Post Office states there
are "no records of the
BT issue reported by the
6.2.09
16256754
12.3.09
H22610115
17.4.09
No call
4A_32763924_1
40
POL-0019248
POL00022769
POL00022769
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED.
incorrect stock unit as accidently Applicant” The evident on
operating in ATM screen rather than I Page 3 Para 2 (a) — Process issues at Applicant says that it call log
AA the end of each trading period was because of this, that
the Wincor installation 22.4.09
6 May 2009 - Telephoned business _ I At the end of each period in which she engineer said he was
helpline and spoke to Sarah found differences contact was made with I unable to demonstrate H16326259
(H16734127) requesting assistance I the Helpline and BO! requesting the necessary
— told someone from the ATM. assistance; processes until the ATM I 6.5.09
department would call Mrs Burgess- was back in
Boyde back Page 4 Par 4 (e) — Lack of support from communication with its H16734127
Post Office (pre and post audit) host. She also later 27.5.09
27 May 2009 - Contacted both Bank inferred that the serious
ot role helpline and business The Helpline, audit team and and repeated problems I H22626029
helpline notifying period end investigation team were of no assistance I that she experienced
difference and requesting to her, she was unhappy with the way with the ATM might have I 9.6.09
assistance. Bank of Ireland the audit was conducted, which led to been partially
response was that someone would I her suspension, specifically the use of I attributable fo the same No call
look at the fax and come back to her own counting machine to count the I sort of evident on
Mrs Burgess-Boyde. Business ATM cash. telecommunications calll log
helpline response was that interrupts that had
someone would come back to Mrs. I Page 6 - NBSC call logs: (Doc 019) truncated the training I 2.6.09
Burgess-Boyde. No response from session. Post Office
Records show that there were 205 calls observes that "There are I H22652224
either helpline.
9 June 2009 - Contacted both Bank
of Ireland helpline and business
helpline requesting assistance. No
response from either helpline.
24 June 2009 - Contacted both
Bank of Ireland helpline and
business helpline notifying ATM
cash was being declared incorrectly
and requesting assistance. No
response from either helpline
Para 3.35 — 3.37 (Page 16)
"The full telephone logs from the
Post Office and also those of the
Bank of Ireland would be of
assistance. The logs that are
available cover the period from 01
to the NBSC between 31 January 2007
and 25 November 2009. One call on 22
April 2009 related to an issue with the
ATM: a user had mistakenly served
customers while attached to the ATM
stock unit instead of the AA stock unit.
Whilst this causes discrepancies
between the stock units themselves,
those discrepancies cancel each other
out and do not cause an overall branch
discrepancy and transaction and event
logs show that this issue was resolved
on the day. The remainder relate to
operational issues around transactions,
reversals and matters unrelated to the
issues raised in the Applicant's
complaint.
Page 8 — Conclusion
In conclusion, whilst the records are no
no records of calls to the
NBSC regarding this
issue nor was there any
contact with the
Applicant's Business
Development Manager".
Page 4 Para 3.3
The Applicant also
describes how her calls
fo the various Helplines
(Post Office's NBSC
Helpline; and the
separate Wincor and
Bank of Ireland
Helplines) were, in her
opinion, frustrating and
ineffective, often
involving each Helpline
directing her to another,
4A_32763924_1
4
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
January 2009 to 30 June 2009.
A review of these logs show the
“Resolution” against most calls as
“KB” and does not provide any
details.
The review further shows that the
listing is not complete, for example
Mrs Burgess-Boyde lists a call
reference H16734127 on 6 May
2009 which is not shown on the
telephone logs provided as part of
the criminal prosecution.”
longer available to confirm what training
the Applicant received, Post Office
cannot find any evidence that supports
the allegation that the Applicant's training
was inadequate. Whilst the Applicant
expressed her dissatisfaction in relation
to the training, she was viewed as being
very capable in operating the ATM and
the associated procedures. There also
do not appear to be any additional
requests for training made to NBSC.
Page 8 ~ Para 2 ~ Process issues at the
end of each trading period
Records show that no calls were made to
the NBSC regarding discrepancies on
completion of trading period balances.
Page 10 — Para 4
No response from Post Office or BOI in
relation to differences in the ATM figures.
A. The Applicant alleges that there was
no response from Post Office in relation
to issues raised in light of the differences
in ATM figures. Records show no calls to
the NBSC from the branch regarding
ATM
discrepancy issues. Records of calls to
the ATM Helpdesk provided by Wincor
Nixdorf are not available (Doc 016).
Although there is evidence that the
Applicant sent a fax relating to a
balancing query to Wincor Nixdorf (Docs
002, 003, 016), it is not clear whether
Wincor Nixdorf responded to the fax as
records are not available.
and frequently with no
response, or no
promised call back, at
all. In its comments on
the previously issued
draft of this report Post
Office states that it "has
only one call for the
period of 31 January
2007 to 25 November
2009 regarding an ATM
issue" and that "There
are no records for the
calls to the Wincor
helpline and therefore [it
is] impossible to
comment".
Page 6 Para 4.3
Not only were those
ATM output figures
clearly incorrect, but we
are satisfied, on the
balance of probabilities
(there being little in the
way of call records now
available), that the
Applicant was
inadequately supported
by the three helpdesks
that she says repeatedly
passed her to and from
each other without ever
addressing the important
and urgent matters that
she raised. In its
comments on the
previously issued draft
of this report Post Office
states that "There are no
call logs recorded at
NBSC for this issue" and
that "In the absence of
4A_32763924_1
42
POL-0019248
POL00022769
POL00022769
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
records from Wincor/BOI
it is not understood on
what evidence the CRR
relies to support the
conclusion on this
paragraph".
Page 9 Para 4.12
The Applicant has also
referred to being
unaware that she could
(and ought) to have
‘settled centrally’ the
ATM-related shortfalls.
She claimed, during the
disciplinary interview,
that she "was not aware
of that option being open
to me". The fact that the
Applicant had never
settled any shortfall
centrally lends support
to her claim. Post Office
states that "If the
Applicant had informed
Post Office through the
NBSC of her losses then
the option of settling
centrally would have
been explained as an
option whilst the
investigation had been
completed".
Page 10 Para 5.3
In that context, Post
Office asserts, on page
2 of its POIR, that its
Network Business
Support Centre (NBSC)
4A_32763924_1 43
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
call logs show that the
Applicant did not seek
help for problems with
discrepancies or
balancing issues, noting
that it "has been unable
to determine whether or
not assistance was
provided by Bol and/or
by Wincor Nixdorf as
there are no telephone
call logs available". This,
in our view, is an un-
evidenced and
unacceptable dismissal
of the Applicant's
seemingly valid
complaints, which were
in any event not about
general "discrepancies
or balancing issues" but
about specific, serious
and repeated issues
arising from the ATM
itself.
M041
Lisa West x
M042
Lisa West x
Page 4 to5 Para2.3
Approx. 2008 - installation of the
ATM
November 2010 - Difference arose
— blamed on the branch manager.
who Mrs Watson suspended and
investigated. Funds paid by the
manager and after establishing no
other differences allowed back in
January 2011
January 2011 - Allowed manager to
Page 3 — Commercially sensitive and
prepared in connection with Mediation
Other Issues
No advice given by NBSC when
£19,055.00 discrepancy reported
Errors not resolved despite numerous
telephone calls to NBSC
Page 4
Record of Network Business Centre Call
logs — (Doc 002, 018 refers)
27/11/2007 ~ 31/12/2007 - 14 calls were
Page 3 Para 3.2 1.6.11
She and her manager 17203918
found the Helpline
advice to be ineffectual, 1.7.41
misleading and
contradictory. In its H22890493
comments on the
previously issued draft 28.7.11
of this report Post Office “
states that the NBSC
call logs indicate that the
Applicant had only made
two calls personally as
H17261033
4A_32763924_1
POL-0019248
POL00022769
POL00022769
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED.
return — all fine between January recorded, 4 refer to ATM or ATM she was an ‘absent 17.8.11
and May 2011 — Mrs Watson had balancing issues Subpostmistress', which
no concerns and now considers that I 01/01/2008 — 31/12/2008 - 89 calls were I in its opinion would not I 422908953
the manager may have been recorded, 21 refer to ATM or ATM provide sufficient
unjustly accused — given the balancing issues evidence for her tomake I 6.9.44
subsequent events 01/01/2009 — 31/12/2009 - 120 calls this statement. Its
were recorded, 25 referto ATM or ATM I position is that the 22915051
April 2011 - ATM machine started I balancing issues advice provided by the
“chewing up” notes 01/01/2010 — 31/12/2010 - 125 calls Helpline was correct.
were recorded, 13 refer to ATM or ATM. 14.10.14
April 2011 - Two engineers came: balancing issues
First could not fix the problem and a I 01/01/2011 — 31/12/2011 — 199 calls Page 4 Para 3.5 H22932938
week later the second Engineer were received, 35 refer to ATM or ATM
came Reset/Reboot ATM machine I balancing issues At the end of Trading 14.1.12
zeroing balances ~ differences 01/01/2012 - 31/01/2012 - 10 calls were I Periods from June to
thereafter recorded, 2 refer to ATM or ATM 22975018
18/04/11 - ATM “chewed up” £870
of notes — sent with a claim
19/04/11 - £20 cassette showed
4,294,966,803 rejected notes =
£85, 899,335,580. Overall difference
on Horizon £12,050
04/5/11 - Branch Discrepancy
Shortfall £836.69
20/5/11 - “Chewed up notes —
evidence of posting provided as
Post Office appear to have lost the
documents
31/5/11 - Didn't realise what screen
they were in and remmed cash
£31,000 (loaded figure should be
£31,810) to AA not ATM, called the
helpline
01/6/11 - In conjunction with the
helpline tried to reverse and
managed to double up correction!
01/6/11 - Gain on ATM was
balancing issues
In summary, 100 calls to NBSC
regarding ATM between 27 November
2007 and 31 January 2012
NBSC other calls: 275 Customer
Service, 95 Operational Procedures, 50
Balancing Procedures, 15 Security, 8
Auditors, 6 Contractual, 8 Printer faults
Page 8 Para 2
NBSC call logs show a total of 100 calls
over a 4 year period relating to ATM
issues.
2011 — total of 199 logs of which 35 refer
to ATM accounting on Horizon or the
ATM
2012 — total of 10 logs which 2 refer to
ATM accounting on Horizon or the ATM.
(Doc 002 refers).
December 2011, when
seeking help from the
Helpline, the Applicant
was simply told to await
instructions, which led to
process issues at the
end of those Trading
Periods. Post Office
note that the NBSC call
logs indicate that it was
the manager rather than
the Applicant who made
these calls.
Page 6 Para 4.8
However, by contrast, the
following extract has been
taken from the Applicant's
own notes, as set out in
her COR:
31/5/11 - Didn't realise
what screen they were
in and remmed cash
£31,000 to AA not ATM,
called the Helpline
4A_32763924_1
45
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
£93,625.07 but cash in ATM was
£108,000 and had not been rolled
over although the stock unit had
been rolled as part of Trading
Period end
01/6/11 - When rolled over — gain
£13,540 in suspense
15/6/11 - Ended up with an overall
gain of £14,080 on 15 June 2011
29/6/11 - Next Trading Period
showed overall Loss of £19,055 —
called helpline spoke to Vicki and
manager Sarah (H22890493 and
H22978018)
17/8/11 - Helpline call H22908953
re Differences and Peter Jackson
Email
6/9/11 - Phoned Scott at Wincor re
ATM machine
14/9/11 - Final Balance: Net
shortfall £601.19
21/9/11 - Final Balance: gain
£801.60, shortfall £601.19, Net Gain
£200.41
27/9/11 - Trial Balance: Gain
£55,200
3/11/11 - Phoned Robert at Wincor
to query figures and engineer fitted
skimming device
11/11/11 - Helpline calls
H22932938/H17261033/H22915051
and H22908953 re Differences
30/11/11 - Helpline call H17411409
NBSC use a knowledgebase from which
they take the information required to
provide a satisfactory response, based
on the information provided by the called
This knowledgebase is managed by the
Post Office Core information team within
NBSC and there are provided with the
information by product managers and
other Post Office lead teams etc. They
also have some information from the
help pages embedded in Horizon.
NBSC advisors receive full training on
Horizon. The expectation is where
possible, to stick to knowledge provided
to them from knowledgebase and not
“assume" any responses. Although their
expertise can often require the right
questions to be asked in order to
understand what it is the branch needs
help with- not all questions asked are
straightforward.
The Tier 2 element within NBSC is used
if an advisor cannot:
« find the information required;
* isnot 100% sure on how to
address the issue;
« _ if information is not actually
available or on the
knowledgebase; and/or
° if there is something new that
has not yet been provided to
NBSC.
They will then liaise with other Post
Office departments, (Product managers
etc.) to gain the information.
Without the Applicant providing specific
examples of “ineffectual, misleading and
contradictory” advice allegedly provided
1/6/11 - In conjunction
with the Helpline tried to
reverse and managed to
double up the correction
1/6/11 - Gainon ATM.
was £93,625.07 but
cash in ATM was
£108,000 and had not
been rolled over
although the stock unit
had been rolled as part
of Trading Period end
1/6/11 — When rolled
over — gain £13,540 in
suspense
15/6/11 — Overall gain
£14,080
29/6/11 — Overall loss
£19,055
Page 6 Para 4.9
The differing
descriptions quoted
above demonstrate the
apparent confusion
between the Applicant
and her branch manager
on the one hand, and
the Helpline on the
other, as to how, and
when, the discrepancies
arose and what needed
to be done to bring the
branch back into
balance.
4A_32763924_1
46
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
re Differences
14/12/11 - Transaction Correction
Settled Centrally Shortfall £560.00
18/12/11 - Mrs Watson requested
an audit as she was concerned as
to why the differences had arisen
and assumed that the auditors
would help
28/12/11 - Branch Discrepancy
Shortfall £20,557.94
28/12/11 - Helpline call H17479884
re Differences — spoke to Neil
Page 8 Para 3.10
The telephone logs are not
available which would be of
assistance. The helpline references
supplied are:
(i) H22975018
(ii) H22890493
(ili) H22908953
(iv) H22932938
(v) H17261033
(vi) H22915051
(vii) H22908953
(vill) H17411409
(ix) H17479884
by NBSC itis difficult for Post
Page 13 Para 9
There are no recorded contacts with
NBSC on 29 June 2011 requesting
assistance with branch accounting.
Contact on 1 July 2011 shows the
Applicant asking to send paperwork to
NBSC for investigation. However, this is
not a role undertaken by NBSC (it would
be undertaken by FSC where
appropriate). The notes on the call log
show that NBSC advised the caller to call
back on next balance if still a problem.
28 December 2011 Branch Manager
contacts NBSC to ask if authorisation is
required to settle centrally, this is some
six months after when the discrepancy
occurred.
This means that the cash on hand figure
has been inflated at each Trading Period
from June to December 2011. This
constitutes a falsification of the Branch
accounts during this period.
As part of this investigation an extensive
examination of the figures taken from the
ATM print outs compared to entries on
Horizon has been completed for the
period 04 May 2011 to 29 June 2011.
These dates were selected because the
applicant claims that a shortfall of
£19055 was reported to NBSC on 29
June 2011.
Page 7 Para 4.13
The branch had sought
advice from the NBSC
on 6 June 2011
regarding the first
counterfeit device that
was found, but no
investigations were
undertaken by Post
Office, as it was
considered to be a
police matter. The
proximity of this
attempted fraud to the
subsequent ATM
problems cannot be
easily dismissed.
Page 8 Para 4.19
In relation to the
Applicant's view that the
Helpline was ineffectual
and gave misleading
advice, she gives the
example of calling to
seek help when the ATM
printout showed over
four billion rejected
notes. She says that no
‘one knew why this had
happened and that she
was told not to worry
about it. She also says
that when a difference (a
surplus) of £93,000 was
discovered, the Helpline
advice did not make
sense, and she was
simply advised that “it
would all become clear
on rollover”. She adds
47
POL-0019248
POL00022769
POL00022769
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
that they were ‘often told
to await instructions that
never came”. In its
comments on the
previously issued draft
of this report Post Office
explains that the call log
of 2 June 2011 states
that "the £93K has gone
and the office is now
balancing".
Page 8 Para 4.20 - Mis-
advice by Post Office's
Helpline
Post Office responds by
saying that its records
show that, between 1
January 2011 and 31
December 2011, the
branch made 385 calls to
the NBSC regarding the
ATM or ATM balancing
issues, and that without
specific examples of the
type of advice
complained of, it is
difficult to comment
further. It notes that
there are no records of
complaints being made
at the time and no
repeated calls ,
suggesting that issues
were resolved. Post
Office again also
comments that very few
of the calls to the
Helpline were made by
the Applicant but rather
by her manager.
Page 8 Para 4.21
4A_32763924_1 48
POL-0019248
POL00022769
POL00022769
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
We consider that, whilst
Post Office records
show that there was
considerable input in
terms of Helpline
assistance and further
training, there appears
to have beena
mismatch between what
Post Office considered
to be effective advice,
and how the Helpline's
advice worked in
practice for this branch
as it appears that much
of the guidance provided
was not followed by
branch staff. Additional
comments in an
addendum to the NBSC
call logs (see Post
Office's Document 26)
show that, whilst the
NBSC operator is
attempting to assist the
office with ATM
balancing, he does not
appear to have been
able to assist the branch
to resolve the issues
remotely. His comment,
following a call from the
branch on 15 August
2011, is recorded as
saying “at this point I
could think of nothing
further to be done, so
the request for a trainer
went out”. It is not clear
from Post Office's
records whether or not
this further training took
place.
4A_32763924_1 49
POL-0019248
POL00022769
POL00022769
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
What is clear is that the
branch was unable to
trace and resolve the
differences even with
the help that was being
provided.
Page 9 Para 4.22 —
Limitations in the Audit
Trail available by
Subpostmasters
In relation to the
Applicant's complaint
that deficiencies in the
audit trail meant that she
was unable to
investigate how
discrepancies had
arisen, Post Office
responds by saying that
Horizon transaction and
event logs are available
to branches for a period
of 60 days. It also says
that NBSC call logs
show no calls from the
Applicant regarding
assistance in identifying
transaction audit trails.
Post Office's NBSC call
log shows that, for the
period 27 November
2007 to 31 January
2012, out of a total of
557 calls made by the
branch, 100 were calls
relating to the ATM. Of
those, 50 related to ATM
and other balancing
procedures.
Page 10 Para 4.7
4A_32763924_1 50
POL-0019248
POL00022769
POL00022769
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
Of the two Helpline
references cited by the
Applicant in relation to
this £19,055 shortfall,
Post Office responds by
saying that there were
no recorded contacts
with NBSC on 29 June
2011 requesting
assistance with branch
accounting. There was
however a record of a
call requesting
assistance with branch
accounting on 1 July
2011 which appears to
relate to the same query
(call reference
H22890493).
Page 10 Para 4.29
The Applicant says that,
after phoning the
Helpline on a daily
basis, she finally
became so concerned at
the unexplained shortfall
that she requested an
Audit to assist her with
identifying the cause of
the differences,
However, the result of
the Audit was that she
was suspended and her
contract later
terminated, in her view
with no investigation as
to the true cause having
been carried out despite
the fact that crime was
clearly suspected. Post
Office states that there
is no evidence to
4A_32763924_1 st
POL-0019248
POL00022769
POL00022769
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED.
‘Support the statement
that daily calls were
made so there is clearly
a difference of opinion
on this important matter.
As noted earlier, Post
Office also maintains
that the Audit was
requested by a
Contracts Advisor.
M043 I Lisa West x
M044 I Lisa West x
M045 I Lisa West x Page 6 Para 3 Page 3 to 4 — The lack of training on Page 3 Para 3.4 5.8.08
Horizon
(ii) Also see my call logs to the POL She says that the 16060445
helpline (Appendix 3 (Notes 1-10) I Training records from the time of the training and support
which have records of numerous Applicant's appointment are not provided to her by Post 9.10.08
requests I made for further training. I available. However, a number of records I Office was very poor. In
Often I made these requests in have been retained on the Post Office _I its comments on the 16138223
desperation; given the Electronic Filing Cabinet (EFC) and the previously issued draft
discrepancies I was incurring and Network Business of this report Post Office 44.10.08
why I could not explain them. Support Centre (NBSC) call logs show states that "There is no a
that several intervention visits were evidence that this
The dates that I placed these calls I requested by the Applicant which took —_I training was in any way I 116143695
for training alone were as follows: place between August 2008 and sub-standard. The
available evidence in 3.12.08
February 2009. An intervention visit is
delivered by the Post
relation to the
4A_32763924_1
82
POL-0019248
POL00022769
POL00022769
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
5/8/2008, 9/10/2008, 14/10/2008 Office Field Support team, and would Applicant's interaction H16197531
and 3/12/2008 involve a visit to the branch by a Field with the Post Office
Support Advisor (FSA) to deliver training I helplines does not show I 8.1.09
(ili) Given the size of the POL, I am Post Office to have been
shocked that my Area Contract unsupportive in any H16227417
Branch Manager only came to my On 5 August 2008 the Applicant way". In her comments
knowledge personally once POL contacted NBSC (refer to Doc 001, on the previously issued 9 4 og
decided to take issue with me. Tab1) to request additional training and I draft of this report the “
Despite that, I even tried to contact I NBSC referred the request to the Outlet I Applicant states that "!
the Contract Support Team on Intervention Team (OIT). The was complaining about 115925877
8/1/2009 and speak to Tina Gibson. I intervention visit was allocated to FSA shortages/Surplus to
Jacqui Swinney (refer to Doc 002). Ms __I help me find the cause 122500243
Page 7 Parai Swinney was scheduled to attend the of it, so I could nip in
branch on 21 August 2008 to assist the I bud early, instead they 10.4.08
I have contacted and attempted to _I Applicant with issues regarding account I Were showing me how to
contact POL on countless balancing. Evidence suggests that the balancing which I did not I H15927120
occasions due to: cash training was not delivered due to the ask for".
discrepancies; transaction Applicant being ill at the time (refer To 22500368
corrections; cash declarations; Doe 003). Page 4 Para 4.5
balancing issues; printer 15.5.08
issues, and faults with Horizon In relation to her
These dates are noted in my POL On 14 Oct 2008 the Applicant contacted I training, the Applicant H15970185
helpline call logs as follows: NBSC again to request further training says that shortly after
(refer to Doc 001, Tab2). OIT allocated the introduction of 47.5.08
the intervention visit to Nitin Patel (FSA) I Horizon in 2001, she on
09/04/2008; 10/04/2008; (refer to Doc 004). Mr Patel joined the received one day of
15/05/2008; 17/05/2008: Post Office as a Crown Office counter training anda manual. 119972435
22/05/2008; 04/07/2008; clerk in 1978 and worked on the counter I She adds that there
07/07/2008; 04/08/2008; until leaving in 1984. Mr Patel re-joined I were numerous 22.5.08
13/08/2008; 14/08/2008; the Post Office in April 1999 again as a occasions when she
21/08/2008; 06/10/2008/ counter clerk, before joining the training I called the Helpline to 15979976
09/10/2008; 15/10/2008; team in 2001. Post Office records show I request further training
12/11/2008; 13/11/2008; that Mr Patel attended Rake Post Office on balancing and other 15980039
03/12/2008; 08;01/2009; on 15 October 2008 and documented the I matters, and that the
12/02/2009; 16/04/2009; agreed actions/outcome of the visit (refer I lack of training meant 4.7.08
28/04/2009; 18/05/2009; to Doc 004). During the visit Mr Patel she was unable to
26/05/2009; 05/06/2009; covered the balancing process with the resolve any of the 16028728
10/06/2009; 11/06/2009; Applicant and advised the Applicant to problems she
18/06/2009. balance on a weekly basis going forward I experienced. 7.7.08
rather than monthly (which contradicts _
the Applicant's claim that she balanced
ii. I have also had limited on a weekly basis throughout her Page 4 Para 4.6 116029302
conversations with the error notice I tenure). Mr Patel also noted in his report
department in Chesterfield and had_I ‘hat the Applicant was losing, on The Applicant says that
4A_32763924_1
POL-0019248
POL00022769
Page 10 to Para
J would invite POL to disclose all
branch was actually Caro! Ballan.
Evidence shows (refer to Doc 006) that
feeling frustrated and
anxious.
POL00022769
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED.
problems trying to get through to average, £1,000 in each trading period. the support provided by — 4.8.08
Cash Management. In fact, my POL I The report notes that this pattern Post Office was very
helpline call logs record my effort appeared to begin when Rake Post poor, and she often 16058685
placed on 22/12/2008 to that effect. Office was converted to an ‘open plan’ found that “the people
arrangement on 2 November 2006. Mr who were answering the 958.08
Patel’s view was that the open plan phone calls sounded as
Page 8 Para ii arrangement may have been causing frustrated as I did as Hreosa445
paperwork to be lost, though this was they were unable to help
1 have also contacted POL regards I Purely speculation on his part when us. Onlots of occasions 4, 4g
7 4, trying to ascertain the cause of the all I was told was that “
problems with stamp declarations
account shortfalls and is not supported someone would call me
previously, I called the hejpline on I ny evidence. back’. She also says 116444475
‘11/09/2008. y So say’
that the Helpline
Page 4 demonstrated a limited 14.8.08
ability to guide her
Page 9 Para 4 (C) On 3 December 2008 the Applicant through the frequent 16069889
. contacted NBSC again to request further I discrepancies, and that
There were numerous occasions training (refer to Doc 001, Tab3) as a result, they simply 21.8.08
where I called to the helpline to Information provided to this investigation I became bigger.
request further training (see from the Network Support Admin Team, 16079103
Appendix 3 (Notes 1-10)). On formally OIT, suggests that the
05/08/2008 (see Appendix 3(Note Applicant's daughter, Ms Jyoti Fatania Page 4 to 5 Para 4.7
3) — I notiied the operator that! I attended a Post Offce classroom course 1.9.08
required further training on startin
balancing correctly. Initially my on 1 December 2008 in Portsmouth Hopi s that Vow timteg 1119099766
concerns were not taken seriously I (refer to Doc 005). The course was led I in its support
and the operator attempted to talk by Adam Shaw (FSA). At the time, Mr particularly after the 6.10.08
me down on the issue. Reluctantly I Shaw had been working for Post Office operating hours were
the for 19 years. When delegates attend this I reduced and no calls H16131222
operator acknowledged my request. I course, they usually receive a were enswered after
The entire call was very frustrating I Performance Standards Assessment 6pm, rather than the 9.10.08
and left me anxious. (ren at the end of the course. Evidence I prior 9pm close, and that
(refer to
Doc 005) shows that Ms Fatania oe cloning the I Ores
Page 9 Para D achieved a final course score of 75% . Helpline’s advice 16138223
I made a similar request to the On 8 January 2009 the Applicant called resulted in tne lose
ma increasing rather than
helpline on 10/06/2009 (see NBSC refer fo Poe 00 Tab D, and being rectified. She 16.10.08
Appendix 3(Note 8). requested that her Contracts Advisor,
pendix (Note 8) Tina Gibson, contact the branch. Ms I Complains that het uzeqaeotz
Gibson worked in the OIT and the seriously, which left her
Contracts Advisor for the 12.11.08
POL-0019248
POL00022769
POL00022769
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED.
helpline logs concerning my branch I Ms Gibson did contact the Applicant to I Page 5 Para 4.8 H16176898
between discuss the problems she was having
2007 — 2009, as I am certain regarding balancing. Ms Gibson _ In regard to the 13.11.08
further unhelpful and empty arranged a further intervention visit and I Applicant's expectations
comments will be noted. passed om the information to Ms Ballan. I of answers from the ‘No call
Helpline as to the cause evident on
a) POL helpline called on of discrepancies, it is call log
15/05/2008 (see Appendix 3(Note clear to us that, as in
1) other cases that we
BALANCING - notified the operator I Page 8 - Unhelpful and negative have reviewed, this 03.12.08
that I was having issues with communication from Post Office Helpline I Applicant had an
‘ and Personal expectation that the
balancing and I requested Helpline would be able "16197531
assistance. I was merely advised to I esc call logs are available from 3 to tell her how those
rollover ASAP. No further assistance I January 2006 to 17 December 2009 discrepancies had 22.12.08
was offered to - (refer to Doc 001). During this period, the I arisen. It is also clear
the best of my recollection. branch contacted NBSC on 376 however that Post H16213318
occasions. All enquires were either Office's Helpline and its
b) POL helpline called on resolved by reference to the operator's I Chesterfield-based staff 8.1.09
04/08/2008 (see Appendix 3(Note knowledge base or transferred to the (who were issuing ENs
2)) — CASH DECLARATIONS - I relevant department. and TCs) cannot 16227417
notified the operator that I was reasonably be expected
having incurring fluctuations in my The Applicant highlights seven calls in to determine the cause 42.2.09
cash declarations and could not her CQR that she believes the NBSC did I from afar, though the
understand how Horizon would not deal with effectively. NBSC records I Applicant did expect 22597827
yield an incorrect higher result, only I (Refer to Doc 001) confirm that these them to be able to do
to then return the lower correct calls were logged with the NBS, although I that
orrereg f0 me to the best of MY ther information available (some of Page § Para 4.9 H116320504
. which are already included within this °
i, report) that does not support the 28.4.09
@) POL helpline called on Applicant's claim that the helpline was I P0St Office responds to
09/10/2008 (see Appendix 3(Note I “sheupportive the Applicant's
4)) - BALANCING SHORTAGE - I ipportive. complaints by saying I 116331667
notified the operator that when 15 May 2008- The Applicant contacted _I that there is no evidence
undertaking the TP balance from y e Applicant contacte to suggest that H16331664
/ the NBSC regarding balancing issues, de
the previous day I incurred an NBSC rd wt the Applicant's COPPESPONGENCS
records support the Applicant's between the Applicant I 18.5.09
anomaly of £846.75 - a shortage. I I claim that she was advised to follow and the Helpline was ne
explained that I could not standard procedure and rollover. No anything but
understand how this arose and information is provided in the logs that I rofessional and that 122635080
stressed that I had to make good this resolved the issue; however the evel
‘ f ry effort was made to I 26 5.99
on countless unexplained shortages I Applicant makes no further calls ic if 9.
th hundreds of ds, Ne rd help the Applicant with
wor jundreds of pounds. No regarding any issues raised.
4A_32763924_1
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
answer was offered to the best of
my recollection by the
operator.
d) POL helpline called on
15/10/2008 (see Appendix 3(Note
5)) -SOFTWARE/HARDWARE -Due
to ongoing problems with. Horizon
that were causing discrepancies, I
requested a new
Horizon Kit at the branch; which I
believe offered a potential cause of
the problem. To the best of my
recollection, I rrequested that the
operator confirm this request had
been
processed. By the next day I had
heard no confirmation from POL, so
I called again and placed a chaser
request.
e) POL helpline called on
13/11/2008 (see Appendix 3(Note
6)) - BALANCING SURPLUS —
Again, I notified the operator that I
was continually having issues with
balancing and loses, On this
occasion I had to settle a gain
centrally of £428.75, I advised the
operator that I was receiving
transaction ccorrections continually
and could not explain how the
discrepancy arose, Furthermore,
frustrated I vented a measure of
exasperation and explained that
these issues had been going on for
up to 10 years to the best of my
recollection. The response of the
operator was to rebalance again to
see where that left me by the end
of the day.
the issue.
4 August 2008- The Applicant contacted
NBSC regarding issues with cash
declarations. This call is logged as being
answered by the knowledge base,
however the Applicant contacts the
NBSC again the next day with the same
issue (refer to Doc 001) and this is
escalated to an intervention visit which is
detailed within this report in “The lack of
training on Horizon” section.
9 October 2008 and 15 October 2008-
The Applicant contacted NBSC regarding
balancing issues and issues with the
Horizon system. The Applicant had also
contacted the NBSC on the 14 October
(Refer to doc 001) regarding the same
issues. This was again escalated to an
intervention visit, which is detailed within
this report in “The Lack of training on
Horizon” section
13 November 2008 - The Applicant again
contacted the NBSC regarding balancing
issues. The Applicant was advised to
balance again and check postage
figures. No information is provided in the
logs that this resolved the issue; however
the Applicant makes no further calls
regarding the issue. When the Applicant
contacted NBSC on 3 December 2008
with similar issues this was again
escalated to an intervention visit which is
detailed within this report in “The lack of
training on Horizon” section of this report.
28 April and 10 June 2009 - The
Applicant contacted NBSC regarding
issues with REMS shortage and
balancing issues. On both occasions the
Applicant is requesting that someone
contacts her regarding these issues. In
Page 5 Para 4.10
The Applicant's
complaints in relation to
the Helpline have been
voiced by other
Applicants, as can be
seen from our Briefing
Report - Part Two.
However, we consider
that this Applicant was
provided with
considerable support by
way of four intervention
visits, which were
carried out to further
train her and help her to
trace and correct
discrepancies. We
return to those
intervention visits below.
Page 5 Para 4.11
In answer to the
Applicant's complaints in
relation to her training,
and subsequent support,
Post Office says that the
Applicant's training
records are no longer
available. The Applicant
says in her CQR that
she was given one day's
training in 2001,
although Post Office's
HR records only date
from her appointment as
a temporary
Subpostmistress in July
2002. However,
H16358130
5.6.09
16369060
10.6.09
H16373014
H16373385
11.6.09
16374669
18.6.09
H22649725
4.8.09
No call
evident on
calll log
5.8.09
No call
evident on
call log
4A_32763924_1
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
1) POL helpline called on
28/04/2009 (see Appendix 3(Note
7)) — REMS - I notified the operator
that I was continually incurring
inexplicable shortages of small
values. I advised the operator that
before any remittance is returned to
POL; the tender values are checked
by myself and double checked by a
member of staff.
To the best of my recollection, no
resolve or answer was offered to
me, The matter was treated as
"Priority: low’
@) POL helpline called on
10/06/2009 (see Appendix 3(Note
9)) BALANCING DISCREPANCIES —
Again I called and notified the
operator of my losses and gains. I
explained my sheer frustration and
that I did not know what was
causing the
problems. The matter was treated
as "Priority: low".
1) Furthermore see my handwritten
contemporaneous notes at
Appendix 5(a) of calls that I placed
to the POL helpline on 04/08/2009
[re Balancing issue]; 05/08/2009
[re Training
request], and 15/08/2009 [re
Shortage at branch].
Page 14 Para D (i)
The support provided by POL was
very poor and did not resolve the
issue at the time it occurred, Often
1 found that the people who were
answering the phone calls sounded
April 2009, Ms Ballan contacted the
Applicant to arrange a meeting (refer to
Doc 013) to discuss the branch losses.
The Applicant was unable to attend (refer
to Doc 014) and the meeting was
rearranged for June 2009, these issues
are addressed in the “Accounting
discrepancies and lack of proper audit
trail” section of this report.
There is no record of the Applicant
making any complaints to NBSC
regarding the service provided. There is
no evidence to suggest that any
correspondence between the Applicant
and the operators at NBSC was anything
but professional and every effort was
made to help the Applicant with any
issues raised.
following requests by the
Applicant and/or her
Contracts Manager, four
intervention visits took
place, when a Field
Support Advisor (FSA)
visited the branch to
deliver further training, in
October 2008, and again
in February, April and
August 2009. The
Applicant's daughter
also received classroom
training in December
2008. It is not clear
whether the Applicant
ever received any formal
classroom training,
however, Post Office
says in its POIR that the
Applicant had been
operating Horizon
without issue from the
time of her appointment,
until 2008. Indeed, we
note that she was
recorded as having said,
in a call to the Network
Business Support
Centre (NBSC) Helpline
on 13 November 2008,
that she had “been in
office for 10 years and
concerned as to why
things are now going
wrong”. Taking that
statement into account,
and notwithstanding the
lack of availability of
training records, we
have formed the view
that this branch's
problems are not
primarily attributable to
4A_32763924_1
87
POL-0019248
POL00022769
POL00022769
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
as frustrated as I did as they were training and support
unable to help us. On lots of deficiencies.
occasions all I was told was that
someone would call me back,
Page 6 to 7 Para 4.18
Page 15 Para D (ii)
The Applicant says that
They never demonstrated any ‘on one occasion, when
ability to guide me through my she contacted the
queries which we had in relation to Helpline for assistance
the Horizon system on a frequent with balancing, she was
basis. These queries then became simply advised to roll
bigger problems as a result of their over, and that no further
failure to adequately guide us assistance was offered.
through the queries. She also says that,
following a meeting to
discuss the branch's
outstanding debt, she
was warned in a letter
(Post Office’s Document
016 refers) that she was
not to settle anything
centrally, and that any
losses were to be made
good immediately. The
letter told her that if she
failed to meet this
requirement, Post Office
would “seriously have to
consider [her] suitability
to remain asa
Subpostmaster”. The
Applicant says that there
seems to have been a
presumption by Post
Office that they could
“just hold her liable for
everything without
explanation”. She adds
that she was “regrettably
forced to accept and roll
over, time after time”.
4A_32763924_1 58
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
M046
Lisa West x
M047
Lisa West x
M048
Lisa West x
Page 2 Para 10
The Telephone calls that you made
to the Post Office's helpline. Can
you recall and recount the advice or
help that you received?
On the first occasion April/May
2009, I phoned the helpline and
arranged payment by instalment.
Despite requesting a full report of
my personal data, the report I
received is inconclusive and does
not clearly show this transaction.
The subsequent 3 errors I made
good myself without referring to the
helpline.
M049
Kayleigh x
Whitman
Para 27
“I recall having a shortfall in excess
of £4,000 on one occasion in either
2006/2007. I am unable to recall the
exact date due to the passage of
time. I contacted the helpline and I
was told to wait for an error notice,
This never materialised and the
Post Office thereafter demanded I
repay the £4,000 out of my salary
on a monthly basis for one year.
This in itself was surprising as the
Staff at the helpline had initially told
me that I should receive an error
notice"
M051
Kayleigh x
Para 3.10
4A_32763924_1
59
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
Whitman Mr Rudkin has highlighted one
example which took place on in
September 2004 when £600 was to
be transferred from one account to
another and was incorrectly put to
the wrong account. The information
which he was given by the Helpline
was incorrect as he was told to put
£1,200 in Suspense. This then
replicated itself without any
intervention and created a £1,200
error.
M052 I Kayleigh X—no
Whitman reference to
any helpline
throughout
M053 I Kayleigh x
Whitman
M054 I Kayleigh x
Whitman
M055 I Kayleigh x
Whitman
M056 I Kayleigh Page 6, Para 30.
Whitman
Specific instances of POL
demonstrating their poor
investigative processes:
9 September 2010 Calls placed to
POL helpline
Page 7 Paras 39 (later discussed at
Para 69-74)
“In early July 2010 (1 or 2) a
nearby Post Office Blaydon Post
Office was closed for a week for
refurbishment.
4A_32763924_1
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
At the end of a day's trading, during
this time I had a loss of £33,000 on
a single day.
Having checked my figures several
times I contacted the helpline who
advised me to use the settle
centrally function at the end of the
trading period. They said that if it
proved to be an error that I had
made then I would be informed
later"
Phantom Login 29 July 2010
Para 94 -
"I therefore went back to the office
the next morning. I call the Helpline
for assistance. When I got through
to the Helpline I advised them of the
situation and in clear terms was told
that this was not possible and that
no other user was logged in. Initially
the first member of staff who
answered the phone advised me
that they were unable to rectify the
issue and escalated it to the second
line. I was transferred through and
spoke to a member of staff, but I
cannot recall their name. I was
advised in blunt and firm terms that
there was no possibility for any
other used to be logged in I was left
with the impressions that this was
impossible and it simply had to be
some sort of malfunction with the
Horizon system".
M058
Kayleigh
Whitman
4A_32763924_1
6
POL-0019248
POL00022769
POL00022769
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED.
M059 I Kayleigh
Whitman
M062 I Kayleigh Page 2 Page 1 — 2 Para 2 — Support Page 2 Para 1.10 15.12.05
Whitman
24-4-2006 Call ref No H1444 7370 The Applicant reports that he H14447370
Clerk Glenice The Applicant states that he reported hardware problems to
made a call to the helpdesk on the Helpline and that some 24.4.06
24-4-2007 Call Ref No H1534 2593 I 24th advice was provided. The —
Clerk Vicky April 2006 under reference Applicant says that he had, inI 4444447370
number H14447370. However, March 2007, received a notice
Helpline told me there is software the from Fujitsu informing him that 94 4.97
error and there is no problem from aforementioned reference a workstation had .
their point of view and cash number relates to a query disconnected, during which 115342503
shortage will resolve itself in due
course.
Page 3
Through the helpline. They told me
to roll over soon as possible or risk
losing data. Balance showed
shortage when I tried to correct it
doubled. Helpline also tried it
doubled again. They told me there
is no problem from their point of
view. Cash shortage will resolve
itself in due course.
Page 4
24-4-2007 Calll ref no> H1534 2593
Clerk Vicky
On 20-21-23 April 2007 message
came up on the screen saying
“branch roll over due you risk losing
data until branch is rolled over into
next TP. Stock unit CC rolled into
current TP 38 days ago. So balance
was done and branch rolled over
into next TP. Helpline questioned
me why I did not put the cheque for
raised in
December 2005 which is
unrelated to the Applicant's
complaint.
The Applicant states that when he
tried to correct the “shortage” it
doubled and when he rang NBSC
it doubled again following their
assistance. The Applicant states
that NBSC told him that the
discrepancy would resolve itself in
due course “within a maximum of
42 days”.
Page 3 — Passwords
Record of call reference number
H14447370 to NBSC. Record of
calls to NBCS 1 April 2006 - 31
May 2007
NBSC call logs:
The Applicant states in his
complaint that he called NBSC on
24th April 2006 and provides a
time transactions had been
entered into Horizon.
Page 3 Para 3.1
The Applicant is firmly of the
view that the losses listed in
paragraph 1.8 above are
directly related to hardware
problems. Also, the Applicant
maintains that he followed
advice from the Helpline that
resulted in a discrepancy
doubling in size and then
doubling again. The Applicant
says that he was then told that
the problem would sort itself
out within 42 days, though it
did not. Post Office's position
on this is that there is no
evidence to corroborate the
Applicant's claim that he
received advice, in April 2006,
which resulted in a
discrepancy doubling and we
have established that Post
Office's NBSC Call Log
records show no record of any
such a dialogue, but we do
4A_32763924_1
62
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
£2000 when I found it the balance
showed no shortage but the
snapshot showed the shortage.
They said why I had not shown the
shortage on the balance but the
balance is done every four or five
weeks and not weekly.
24-04-2006 Call ref no H1444 7370
Clerk Glenice
Helpline told me to roll over soon as
possible or risk losing data. Phoned
Steve Taylor and was told to pay up
and wait for error notice. I forgot the
call ref no at the time of
investigations interview.
reference number of H14447370.
Details of this reference number
were requested from NBSC and
the reference number applies to an
unrelated call made in December
2005 (Doc 001 refers).
« Between 1st April 2006
and 15th May 2007 there
were 146 logged calls to
NBSC (Doc 011 refers) of
which.7 relate to
balancing issues; and
* 2 relate to issues with
Horizon.
Page 6
The Applicant gives an NBSC
reference number of H14447370
relating to the call made regarding
the discrepancy on 24 April 2006.
However, examination of call logs
(Doc 001 refers) shows that this
preference number relates to an
unrelated incident reported to
NBSC in December 2005.
The call logs also show that the
only call made on 24 April 2006
was to inform NBSC that the
branch had run out of cash (call
reference H14688547). The call
logs show no evidence of calls to
NBSC regarding balancing on or
around 24 April 2006.
‘address virtually identical
assertions, made by other
Applicants, in our Part Two
Briefing Report.
Page 3 Para 4.1
Where there is
disagreement, a logical and
fully evidenced opinion on
the merits of that
Subpostmaster's complaint
where it is possible to do so
The Applicant has provided a
number of Helpline call
reference numbers together
with a screen print out dated
19 March 2007 showing a
“Workstation Disconnected”
warning message.
Unfortunately these do not
appear to correspond with
Post Office records and it has
not been possible to match
any of these events to the
reported losses.
M063
Kayleigh
Whitman
Page 6 Para 4.2.1
In the period of 2011-2012
shortages continued, contacts were
made with the Help Desk but all
requests for assistance were
4A_32763924_1
63
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
refused.
M064 I Kayleigh x
Whitman
M065 I Kayleigh x
Whitman
M066 I Kayleigh x
Whitman
M067 I Kayleigh x
Whitman
M068 I Kayleigh x
Whitman
M070 I Kayleigh x
Whitman
M071 I Kayleigh x
Whitman
M073 I Lisa West x Page 4 Para 2.2
April 2010 - Differences began to
arise which Mr Dickson could not
explain despite checking paperwork
which appeared to be correct, yet
Horizon system showed a different
figure to the cash and stock held.
April 2010 - Mr Dickson estimates
that the first difference was around
£200/£300.
April 2010 - Differences continue to
rise and reach around £3,000
Page 6 Para 3.6
4A_32763924_1
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
Mr Dickson has also stated that
when he started to have differences
around April 2010, he called the
Helpline for assistance, as he was
unable to resolve the position
himself. However, he found the
helpline of no assistance
whatsoever. He was told either to
put through a transaction correction,
or to refund the amount of the
difference.
Page 6 Para 3.9
At the end of a period when Mr
Dickson had a misbalance, he did
speak to the helpline, but he did not
find that they were of assistance, as
is set out in Paragraph 3.6 above.
Page 10 Para 4.3
Mr Dickson has stated and a set out
in Paragraph 3.6, that his initial calls
to the helpline were of little
assistance, and thereafter he did
not feel that calling would resolve
the issue of the differences.
M076
Lisa West x
Page 3 Para 3.2
The lack of competent and
adequate support, via the helpdesk
or any other means, which meant
the difference that arose could not
be resolved.
Page 4 Para 3.3
Over the period from December
2008 to February 2009 as outlined
above.
4A_32763924_1
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
M077 I Lisa West
M078 I Lisa West
M080 I Lisa West Page 20 Para 176: Page 3 - Network Business Page 5 Para 3.5 19.6.10
Support Centre (NBSC) Call Logs:
On 19, 22, 23, 24 June 2010, 29 August 2008-17 June 2011 In relation to the National No call
disconnections from the Horizon (Doc 001 refers) Business Support Centre evident on
system (NBSC) Helpline, the Applicant call log
happened. We called the helpline There are records of 114 calls. says that the support provided
and they promised to call me back I 38 relating to transaction and by Post Office was, in her
but it was a day operational enquiries; opinion, “very poor” and that it — 22.6.10
later before I received any 44 relating to errors made or “did not resolve the issue at
response. We could not serve balancing enquiries ; the time it occurred’. In her No call
people during the interning 13 relating to Horizon issues; comments on the previously evident on
and because of this we had to close I 19 reporting limited service or issued draft of this report the ail log
the shop. branch closure. Applicant states that "These
issues needed immediate
Page 7 response... what we were told 95.6 49
is that they would get back to nal
Records indicate that the Applicant I YOU in 24 to 48 hours & then I 4 oy
was present in the branch on 29 I You would speak to someone
August 2008, being the day of the I different that would give you call log
transfer of assets, as the Applicant I “iffere ent advice". She also
has signed the appointment says: “Overall, despite the
papers which are contained within I Many telephone calls, letters 24.610
the CQR and dated 28 and 29 and attendances, there was -
August 2008. little or no energy devoted to
resolving the issues reported No calll
Page 8 by me”. Post Office's reaction evident on
is to note that "she only made call log
NBSC records show that both the
Applicant and her daughter knew
how to obtain assistance from
NBSC with balancing issues as
support was obtained as early as
September 2008, only three
months after appointment. There is
also evidence that the Applicant
was given additional support by a
Subpostmaster from a nearby
branch. (Doc 001 refers)
a small proportion of the calls
to the NBSC made by her
branch" and "Therefore, whilst
she claims that support
provided was “very poor" she
does not have first-hand
knowledge of a substantial
amount of the support that was
provided to her branch".
4A_32763924_1
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
There is evidence that the settle
centrally option was used on 6
May 2009.
NBSC could also offer appropriate
advice.
Page 8 - Conclusion
There is no evidence that support
or training provided to the
Applicant/her daughter was
inadequate. It is Post Office's view
that in the unfortunate
circumstances of the Applicant
suffering from ill health during the
initial training, Post Office acted
swiftly and was supportive in
offering the training to her
daughter. Whilst it is
acknowledged the classroom
training did not include ATM
training this is for good reason as
set out above. There is evidence
that the Applicant and her
daughter knew how to contact
NBSC and how to use the settle
centrally function. There is
evidence of considerable support
for this branch, which exceeded
the standard training package. It is
Post Office’s view that the
Applicant's claims that the off-site
training focussed on daily
transactions only is unfounded and
that she is not in a position to
comment on this given that she did.
not attend the full course. In
recognition of the Applicant's ill
health, further training courses
were offered however the
Applicant failed to take up these
opportunities.
Page 9 Para 4.5
On 5 May 2009, the
Applicant's husband emailed
Post Office in relation to a
£5,000 discrepancy that the
office was unable to resolve. In
that email, he complained of
conflicting advice he says the
branch had received from the
trainer and the Helpline in
relation to variance checks and
balance snapshots. He also
requested training for all the
branch staff “with a competent
trainer and for more than two
hours, also one that knows
about the ATM because the
last two trainers knew nothing
about the ATM”. In its
comments on the previously
issued draft of this report Post
Office "questions why the
Applicant's husband felt able to
criticise the knowledge of its
trainers in relation to the ATM
fas he] was not trained on the
ATM [and] should not have
been as he was not registered
to work in the branch". In
regard to Post Office's
reference to the Applicant's
husband not being registered
to work in the branch, the
Applicant says, in her
comments on the previously
issued draft of this report:
"POL was always made aware
that Mr G Etheridge was part
owner of the post office" and
that he "had all the deals with
POL management”. This
matter is also referenced in
paragraph 4.8. below.
4A_32763924_1
67
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
Page 11 Para 2
On 20 February 2009 the Outlet
Intervention Team (OIT) received
an email from the NBSC relating to
a call received from the Applicant's
daughter.
NEEDS TO SPEAK TO THE
AREA OFFICE REGARDING
ANOTHER MEMBER OF STAFF
OVER THE BALANCE & A
PROBLEM SHE HAS CAUSED. A
member of staff created a zz unit
and put £210 in suspense account
and was then told to take it out;
now there is an amount of £649
which keeps coming up on the
system and pm does not know
where it's come from and what to
do about this.
Page 12 Para 5
On 30 September 2009 a FSA
attended the branch re ATM
issues, the outcome of the visit is
recorded as:-
Mr Etheridge has been dealing
with the ATM and his accounting
and paperwork appear to be
correct. They have a separate
‘stock unit for the ATM. Problems
arose when Mr and Mrs Etheridge
were on holiday. The money came
into the office and was not
transferred to the ATM stock. ATM
money was used to fund the post
office during August and
September. Explained to them that
on no account must the ATM
money be used to top up the Post
office. On the day that they receive
Page 15 Para 5.2
As noted at paragraph 3.7.
above, sometime after January
2011, the Applicant discovered
that the ‘Deputy Manager’, LP,
had been inflating the branch's
cash declarations. On 12 May
2011, the Applicant informed
the Helpline that she
suspected that a member of
staff was stealing cash from
the branch and “not entering
customer's deposits as she
had had a few complaints”. We
also note that, on 24
November 2011, a TC Invoice
for £1,421.91 was issued to
the branch, when a cash
pouch, that had been remmed
out of Horizon, was not
despatched to the Cash
Centre. It would appear that no
investigations were carried out
at the time either by Police or
by Post Office. From the
available evidence, we are
unable to conclude whether LP
was stealing cash from the
branch, or whether she was
inflating the cash declarations
to hide discrepancies caused
by errors. In either event, it
would have made it extremely
difficult, if not impossible, for
the Applicant to trace the
source of those discrepancies.
We note the Applicant's
comment that "LP was inflating
cash declarations to hide
discrepancies...".
4A_32763924_1
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
the money it needs to be
transferred to the ATM stock and
accounted for daily. Suggested
that Mr Gareth Etheridge runs
through the loading of the machine
and how to obtain the figures with
a member of staff or all the staff.
So that if he is unable to take the
figures there is a competent
person to do it. The training cannot
be done while the office is open
because it is a very busy benefit
office, so not practical for a trainer
to arrive at 17.30 and train all
members of staff. Mrs Etheridge
the postmaster could do with some
additional training as she is unsure
of some of the weekly balancing
procedures. Her daughter and
members of staff have been trying
to tell her what to do. The office
had not been balanced since the
last Trading Statement. Confirmed
with Chesterfield the ATM
shortage of £6210 and asked them
to send the evidence to Gurnos. It
appears that during the month of
August incorrect figures were
inputted .Sunday figures were
omitted totally. It has been correct
since 27 September.
Page 13 Para 2 (i)
The Applicant claims she logged
calls with NBSC requesting further
training. The Applicant requests
sight of the call logs. The Applicant
claims that she often found
communications to be vague or
unhelpful
Page 15
4A_32763924_1
69
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
NBSC call logs have been
examined and there is no evidence
of incorrect or unhelpful advice
being given to the Applicant or her
staff. 114 calls were made during
the Applicant's period of tenure, of
which were made by the Applicant.
There is a steady increase in the
number of calls made during
the Applicant's period of tenure. It
is significant that in 2010 (the last
full year of the Applicant's tenure)
41 calls were made by persons
other than the Applicant, who
made 3 calls. This year also
included a period when the branch
was closed. Appropriate
responses and action when
required was taken, which on
numerous occasions led to
additional on-site support being
provided. NBSC call logs are
provided as part of this response
(Docs 001 and 002 refer)
Records show that an email was
sent by the Applicant's husband to
the BDM on 5 May 2009 in which
he complains that he had been
given conflicting advice regarding
the end of day balancing. The
Applicant's husband stated in that
email that the “trainer” (FSA) had
advised that the variance check
should be used to complete the
end of day balance and the
“helpline” (NBSC) are advising that
the balance snapshot should be
used for this task.
(b) Producing an office snapshot
or a balance snapshot, viewing the
cash on hand figure and deducting
this amount from the cash
declared figure (as advised by
4A_32763924_1
70
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
NBSC)
Page 16
NBSC call logs have been
examined for the entire period the
Applicant was in post. There are
thirteen calls logged relating to
issues with Horizon.
Page 17
A further call is logged on 19
January 2010 reporting the branch
closed due to a system failure but
an engineer was expected. There
are two calls relating to the
recovery process, both logged in
August 2010. The first call is
recorded on 17 August 2010 and
reports that the system went down
half way through a card account
transaction; the second call is
recorded on 24 August 2010 and
refers to the recovery process. On
both occasions advice was
provided to the caller from the
NBSC knowledge base.
On 1 April 2010, 7 May 2010, 12
May 2010 and 21 September 2010
calls were made to NBSC which
were transferred to HSD relating to
on line services, rebooting, and
printer or faults, no other
information was provided. Analysis
of further HSD call logs is
contained in document 054.
On 25 March 2011 a call was
made to NBSC to report
discrepancies that the
Subpostmaster thought had been
caused by Horizon; the calll is
4A_32763924_1
1
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
transferred to HSD and there are
no further details logged. There
are two callls relating to engineer
visits on 10 March 2011 and 25
May 2011. The first call related to
a system failure which may have
been related to phone lines and
states that an engineer was
coming; the records do not
indicate if the engineer was from
HSD or BT. The office is logged as
closed at 08:55 and reopened at
10:03. Given the time of the initial
call (08:55) it is unlikely that the
branch was open and therefore
this incident could not have
occurred mid transaction or
affected a transaction. The second
call was a chaser to an expected
engineer visit the previous day; on
call back by NBSC the engineer
had been on site and resolved the
pin pad issue raised.
Page 22
There is a call logged at NBSC on
12 December 2008 which refers to
an amount of £210.00 which it is
presumed, given the limited data
available, is held on the cheque
line of the branch accounts. If this
was removed, as it should be if the
cheques were not physically on
hand, this could have created a
loss in the branch. However, the
actual cause of the loss would be
the fact that the cheques were not
physically on hand.
On 20 February 2009 the
Applicant's daughter logged a
request for OIT to contact her
4A_32763924_1
72
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
regarding another staff member
and a balancing issue and a
problem she had created. The O/T
logged the call as :-
NEEDS TO SPEAK TO THE
AREA OFFICE REGARDING
ANOTHER MEMBER OF STAFF
OVER THE BALANCE &
PROBLEM SHE HAS CAUSED. A
member of staff created a zz unit
and put £210 in suspense account
and was then told to take it out
now there is an amount of £649
which keeps coming up on the
system and pm does
not know where it's come from and
what to do about this.
The OIT raised a request for
additional training which was
delivered on 4 March 2009 (see
1(v) above). However, as referred
to below, there was a call on 31
December 2008 about this.
There are no calls logged to NBSC
during March 2009 in relation to a
loss or referring to a ZZ stock unit.
No TC's were issued during March
2009.
On 27 April 2009 a call was logged
by NBSC from the Applicant's
daughter reporting a £5,500.00
discrepancy due to an incorrectly
processed ATM figure. The correct
advice to reverse the entry was
provided by NBSC. If the correct
advice provided by NBSC was
followed there would not be a
discrepancy in the branch
accounts.
4A_32763924_1
73
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
There are numerous other errors
and discrepancies reported to
NBSC. These are either
mentioned in other parts of this
report or recorded in the NBSC
call log analysis. (Docs 001, 002
refer)
Although the Applicant claims that
the £700.00 discrepancy in March
2009 was her first loss and her
Manager was advised to create a
ZZ stock unit to resolve the issue
which it failed to do, records
show:-
On 31 December 2008 a call was
logged with NBSC requesting
assistance with creating a ZZ
stock unit.
HOW TO CREATE A ZZ SU ON
HORIZON SPMR HAS MESSAGE
THAT SAYS TO CORRECT DISC.
ON BALANCE NEEDS TO
CREATE A CORRECTION SU ZZ.
The branch was advised using the
knowledge base held at NBSC.
On 20 August 2009 a call was
logged at NBSC from the
Applicant's daughter relating to an
ATM discrepancy which it is
reported was “made worse by
figures being reversed”. The call
log is further annotated “£700
down on cash tried to reverse cash
dec and it didn't work”. A call back
to the branch to speak to the
Applicant is requested after 1pm
the following day when the
Applicant will be in the branch. It is
not known if this is the £700.00
discrepancy the Applicant refers to
(see 6(ii) below).
4A_32763924_1
74
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
There is one further reference to
the ZZ stock unit in the NBSC call
logs on 1 April 2010, when the
following is recorded:-
DID MONTHLY ROLLOVER
YESTERDAY BUT IS UNABLE TO
ROLLOVER OFFICE
The resolution states that
instruction was given on the ZZ
stock unit, the most likely
explanation is that the branch was
attempting to roll the office but had
failed to ‘roll’ the ZZ stock unit.
Records show that the ZZ stock
unit had been deleted by 1 June
2010 although Post Office cannot
determine from the available
records exactly when it was
deleted.
Page 25
NBSC records show a call made
by the Applicant's daughter on 27
April 2009 reporting a shortage of
£5,500.00. The logs are annotated
as ‘balance last week-Postmaster
put through ATM dispensed figure
incorrectly. Has attempted to
reverse but unable to do so”. The
Applicant's daughter was advised
to process the transaction as a
new reversal rather than as an
existing one. (The facility is
available via Horizon to correct an
error made by reversing the
transaction and then inputting it
correctly. There are two types of
reversals, new and existing. A new
reversal is used when the Horizon
user sells a stock item incorrectly
4A_32763924_1
75
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
for example a first class stamp
when the customer wants a
second class stamp. An existing
reversal is usually transactions
input to Horizon incorrectly and is
completed with the use of a
session number obtainable either
from the customer's receipt or from
the Horizon produced transaction
log.) In this specific instance
the user was attempting to reverse
the ATM dispensed figure input to
Horizon as an existing reversal.
However, the ATM dispensed
figure had been input into Horizon
as the sale of a product and
therefore the
correct method would have been
to process as a new reversal. This
would have corrected the
discrepancy reported. It is not
known if this is the £5,000.00
shortfall the Applicant refers to.
On 6 May 2009 there is a call
logged at NBSC at 18:10 by the
Applicant. This is recorded as
“office has got large discrepancy.”
A second call was made on the
same day at 18:30, again by the
Applicant, and the log states that
the large discrepancy related to a
transfer from the BOI stock unit to
AA stock unit. The Applicant
requested permission to place the
amount into the branch suspense
account, but was advised to settle
the shortfall centrally. There is no
amount recorded on the log
however records show that a
balancing
discrepancy of £4,824.78(-) was
settled centrally on 6 May 2009
which would correlate with both
4A_32763924_1
76
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
the advice given by NBSC and the
shortfall the Applicant refers to in
her CQR (Doc 024 refers).
There were further calls made to
NBSC during 2009. On 24 June
2009 the Applicant reported
cheques possibly being remitted
out of the branch twice. If this error
had been made then a surplus
would have been generated of the
additional amount remitted out but
for which no actual cheques were
sent. The call logged does not
record a value of the error made
and no balancing discrepancy was
settled centrally in August 2009
when the trading period balance
was completed (Doc 024 refers).
On 19 August 2009 the Applicant
again contacted NBSC regarding
cheques. By this time the
Applicant believed that she may
have remitted the same amount
out three times and reversed the
transaction once. The log records
that a TC had been received for
£832.00 and records show that a
charge TC was issued to the
branch on 23 July 2009 for
£832.42. It is apparent at this time
that the Applicant was receiving
assistance from a Subpostmaster
from a branch nearby, but he was
unable to resolve the issue either.
Page 26
The following day, 20 August
2009, the Applicant's daughter
made a call to NBSC relating to a
discrepancy with the ATM “made
worse by figures being reversed”
The logs show that the branch was
4A_32763924_1
7
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
reporting £700.00 in cash and that
they had tried to reverse the cash
declaration and it did not work.
(The correct procedure would have
been to re-declare the cash by
overwriting the previously declared
incorrect figure(s)).
On 8 December 2009 a call was
made to NBSC by the Applicant's
daughter regarding the ATM and
reporting that the ATM dispensed
figure of the 27th (the exact date is
not recorded but it is believed this
refers November 2009) had not
been entered. There was no
amount specified but the caller
was advised to the omitted figure
to Horizon on the day of the call.
Page 32
There is one calll logged with
NBSC on 6 May 2010 which
relates to an enquiry as to whether
a Premium Bond transaction for
£2,000 had been processed via
Horizon (Doc 003 refers).The
advice is given to review the end
of day reports. There is no
evidence (chaser calls for
example) to indicate that there are
any further issues with this
transaction. Records show that a
credit TC for £2,000.00 was issued
on 22 February 2010, as the TC
was issued prior to the call logged
with NBSC it is unlikely to be
related. However this could be the
issue to which the Applicant refers
(Doc 003 refers).
4A_32763924_1
78
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
M081
Lisa West x
Page 7 Para 3.35:
Mrs Ward contacted the helpline as
seen in Telephone Log H14900151
on 18 August 2006 to report the
flood. A printer was replaced
following the flood but no checks
were undertaken by the Post Office
on any other equipment. Mrs Ward
was informed that nobody would
come to inspect the system until
she could demonstrate it would not
occur again19. No further checks
were undertaken.
Page 1 Findings
The evidence shows that all calls
that were made to the Network
Business Support Centre (NBSC)
were resolved and closed, which
would indicate that the issue
raised had been dealt with. There
is no evidence in the call logs of
the
Applicant requesting assistance
with discrepancies or the other
issues raised within her case
questionnaire response CQR)
such as postage labels or
activation of scratch cards.
The Applicant's claims regarding
the transaction audit trail and
difficulties at the end of each
trading period are not supported
by contemporaneous; no calls
were made to the NBSC in relation
to either issue during the
Applicant's
time in post.
Page 3
NBSC
The NBSC call logs are available
for Priory Road Post Office for the
duration of the Applicant's tenure
and provide both a category for
every call and the resolution. From
6 June 2002 to 11 January 2007 a
total of 118 calls for the
branch were logged at the NBSC,
although eight of these were made
to the branch and not by the
branch (Doc 004). All Calls’ Tab
highlighted in yellow).
Page 7 Para 3.14 18.8.06
The Applicant comments that 14900151
in August 2006 the office
suffered a water leak, as a
result of which the back office
printer was damaged and the
office was closed for two days.
The Applicant states that
nobody from Post Office would
agree to come to check the
equipment until it could be
proved that the leak had been
properly and permanently
repaired and she says that
they never did carry out any
checks. Post Office agrees
that there is evidence that the
branch was closed as a result
of the flood and it also appears
to us from the evidence that
equipment was checked
following the incident, although
there are no records available
to confirm the conclusion of
calls made to NBSC or HSD
on this matter.
Page 7 Para 3.19
The Helpline logs also refer to
a number of issues relating to
cheques and deposits for
which no further information
was available to the Applicant
but which has now been
provided by Post Office as part
of its POIR submission. A
review of these call logs
indicate that a number of calls
were resolved by reference to
the Knowledge Base, a
database containing
4A_32763924_1
79
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
The calls to NBSC can be broken
down into the following categories:
Call Type
Total
Branch Trading Procedure
11
Client Counter Procedure
50
Horizon
2
Horizon Balancing
7
Network Implementation and
Equipment Team 2
Office Process
18
Performance
9
Switchboard
18
Utilities - Gas
1
Grand Total 118
NBSC Horizon related records
The Applicant claims in her CQR
(Doc 001 3.33, 3.36, 3.66 and
3.41) that telecommunication
failures were a common
occurrence at the branch. There
are no HSD call logs available to
substantiate this claim, however
there is some relevant information
within the NBSC call records.
* Three calls were made to
NBSC (on 20 December
2004, 14 March 2005 and
9 May 2005 where the
Applicant requested
contact with HSH and the
calls were transferred;
two calls were noted as a
information relevant to specific
products, services and
accounting matters. Post
Office has additionally stated
that "If reference is made to
the Knowledge Base without
further escalation it is likely
that the query was
straightforward and easily
resolved".
Page 8 Para 3.20
In 2006 a shortfall was caused
by a mis-keying of £2,776.95
as £27,779.95. The Applicant
states that although this was
not a cash loss, Chesterfield
informed her that she would be
required to immediately pay in
£25,000 to cover the
difference. It was only some
three weeks later that the
branch received a TC to
correct the problem. Post
Office comments that the call
logs indicate that the
processing errors which
generated the need for the TC
represent an additional area of
a lack of controls in checking
bill payment counterfoils. It
does however agree that the
Applicant did raise calls with
NBSC about this matter and it
states that she received
appropriate support and
guidance to bring the TC to
account and to resolve the
earlier mis-keying error. It is
not clear to us why the
Applicant would have been
told to immediately pay in the
4A_32763924_1
80
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
‘system issue and one call
was noted as an offline
indicator. It should be
noted that these three
calls from the branch
were made before the
Applicant states problems
started at the branch.
* Acall was instigated by
Fujitsu on 15 December
2005 regarding British
Telecom work that was
due to take place at the
branch (Doc 004
Telecomm).
« Acall was made on 25
April 2006 which was
noted as a system issue
and the call was
transferred to HSD.
* Acall was made on 2
May 2006 which was
noted as on line services
unavailable; this entry
was resolved by
Page 6 Para 1.2
From 6 June 2002 to 11 January
2007 a total of 118 calls for the
branch were logged at the NBSC,
although eight of these were made
to the branch and not by the
branch.
These were categorised under a
number of “Call Types” as can be
seen below:-
Call Type
Total
Branch Trading Procedure
1
Client Counter Procedure
£25,000 rather than settling it
centrally and await the
offsetting TC.
Page Para 4.1
In regard to the Applicant's
expectations of answers from
the Helpline, and of practical
on-site help from Post Office's
Investigations team, to help
her find out how discrepancies
had arisen, it is clear to us
that, as in other cases that we
have reviewed, this Applicant
had an expectation that the
Helpline would be able to tell
her how her branch's
discrepancies had arisen and
perhaps also that she could
call for experienced
investigators to come to the
branch and help her and her
staff to isolate and correct
them. The Applicant's position
is that, as a result of her
experience regarding
differences, she ceased to
notify the Helpline, which she
now accepts was "incorrect
and foolish”. It is our view that
Post Office's Helpline and its
Chesterfield-based staff
cannot reasonably be
expected to determine from
afar how every discrepancy
has arisen.
Page 9 Para 4.2
A review of the call logs, that
have been provided for the
period March 2006 to February
4A_32763924_1
81
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
50
Horizon
2
Horizon Balancing
7
Network Implementation and
Equipment Team 2
Office Process
18
Performance
9
Switchboard
18
Utilities - Gas
1
Grand Total 118
Although there are calls
categorised as ‘Horizon
Balancing’, analysis of all of the
logs has not identified any call
reporting a discrepancy or asking
for assistance in finding a
discrepancy was made.
Furthermore, the Applicant was
asked about the losses at
interview
Interviewer: “did you not think to
speak to somebody in the area
office or the helpline or whatever?”
Applicant: “No. And I felt ill every
week since just waiting for
somebody to knock on the door”.
In conclusion, calls to the NBSC
were made throughout the
Applicant's tenure and did not
reduce over her years in post.
However, there is nothing to
suggest that the answers she was
provided with by NBSC did not
resolve her
2007, reveal that the Applicant
sought assistance from the
Helpline on a variety of
transaction-related matters on
numerous occasions. These
appear to also include calls
from the Interim
Subpostmaster, appointed
following the Applicant's
suspension. However, as
many of the records do not
include information about the
amounts involved or how the
calls were resolved, it is
difficult to assess the extent to
which they may have had an
impact on differences.
Page 9 Para 4.3
In its POIR Post Office states
that there are no records of
calls being made to the
Helpline regarding transaction
audit trail problems; difficulties
at the end of a trading period;
or postage labels or
Scratchcards. Post Office also
notes in its comments on the
previously issued draft of this
report that "the Applicant did
not make any calls to seek
assistance in relation to the
discrepancies".
Page 9 Para 4.4
From the available evidence it
can be seen that 118 calls to
and from the branch were
logged at the NBSC, which is
the main point of contact for
Subpostmasters and their staff
with respect to non-technical
4A_32763924_1
82
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
issues. There is no evidence that
the Applicant made any calls to
NBSC or the area office requesting
support or assistance with the
Horizon balance, contrary to the
Applicant stating in the CQR, on
more than one occasion (Doc
001, 3.9, 3.10 and 3.27), that she
had contacted the NBSC for help.
Page 10 Para 3.2
Three calls were made to NBSC
on 20 December 2004, 14 March
2005 and 9 May 2005 where the
Applicant requested contact with
HSH and the calls were
transferred; two calls were noted
as a system issue and one call
was noted as an offline indicator. It
should be noted that these three
calls from the branch were made
before the Applicant states that
problems started at the branch.
According to the NBSC log (Doc
004 Tab Printer Faults) NBSC
were notified of water leaking
through the ceiling and a printer
being damaged. Notes made in
the incident log column seem to
suggest that the branch re-opened
on 21 August 2006. The resolution
column only reports that all parties
have been advised, but as HSD
call logs are no longer available, it
cannot be assumed that Fujitsu
were one of the advised parties. A
further call was made to NBSC on
23 August 2006 to report two faulty
printers and this call was
transferred to HSD, but again
there are no records to confirm the
outcome of this call
issues. Of these many related
to enquiries about procedures
and some to Horizon
balancing. Post Office states
that an analysis of these calls
has not identified calls
requesting assistance in
finding a discrepancy. We
agree with this analysis, which
appears to be supported by
statements made by the
Applicant during interview.
Post Office also considers that
all calls were marked as
resolved and closed, which
would it assert would indicate
that the issue raised had been
dealt with. We do not ascribe
any particular value to this
observation.
Page 10 Para 4.8
It is clear that this Applicant
experienced a number of
hardware issues, especially
those subsequent to the
flooding of the branch in
August 2006, and that she
reported these to the
Helpdesk. The Applicant
reports that, when a printer
was replaced, the engineer
also investigated the main
computer and was concerned
whether, due to the level of dirt
inside the machine, it was
operating correctly.
4A_32763924_1
83
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
M082 I Lisa West x
M084 I Lisa West x
M085 I Lisa West x
M087 I Lisa West x
M088 I Lisa West x
M089 I Lisa West x
MO90 I Lisa West x
M094 I Lisa West x
M095 I Lisa West x
MO96 I Lisa West x
M098 I Lisa West x
M100 I Lisa West x
M101 I Lisa West x
M102 I Lisa West x
M103 I Lisa West x
M105 I Lisa West x Page 7 Para 16:
I recall phoning the helpline and
speaking to one of my few contact
at the Post Office, a gentleman
called Colin McKingney. I was told
that the Post Office would not
authorise the fitting of surge
protection devices to their
equipment and so they were the
pieces of electrical hardware within
4A_32763924_1
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
out premises that were not
protected.
M106 I Lisa West x
M108 I Lisa West x
M109 I Lisa West x
M110 I Lisa West x
M113 I Lisa West x
M114 I Lisa West x
M119 I Lisa West x
M121 I Lisa West x
M127 I Lisa West x
M128 I Lisa West x
M129 I Lisa West x
M130 I Lisa West x
M131 I Lisa West x
M132 I Lisa West x Page 2 Para 2.1:
He had made repeated requests to
Helpline during 2007 and 2008 and
also later through his union
representative for help in sorting out
what he firmly believed were
accounting errors, caused largely
he then believed, by his son's
inexperience and inadequate
training.
4A_32763924_1
85
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
Page 4 Para 2.3:
Mr Khan told Ms Risk his repeated
requests to Helpline either for
advice over the telephone, a
meeting or a chance to speak to
someone more senior had led
nowhere.
Page 6 Para 3:
Mr. Khan made repeated calls to
Helpline throughout 2007 and 2008
and also asked advice from his
union, the NFSP. He got nowhere
and so asked for a meeting with his
Business Development Manager
Mr. David Overstreet which took
place on 28th October 2008.
M133 I Lisa West
M134 I Lisa West
M1365 I Lisa West Page 11 Para 2.6:
I then spoke to two different women
at Horizon. One was called Lindsey
and one was called Doreen. They
said there is no such thing as a
“polling issue". I told them what I
have been told by Mark Baker but
they just laughed it off.
M137 I Lisa West
M138 I Lisa West
M139 I Lisa West Page 6 Para 2.3
August 2001 - On return, found
£20,000 shortage. Helpline called,
4A_32763924_1
86
POL-0019248
POL00022769
POL00022769
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED.
advised not to worry “will fix itself”.
Put into suspense account.
M141 I Lisa West
M142 I Lisa West
M143 I Lisa West Para 2.4: Page 2 6.5.09
3 June 2009 - Rang helpline It is clear that accounting issues 16340369
(H16340369) re Inactive stock and were experienced throughout the
sold to zero stock out — later told whole of the Applicant's tenure 10.8.09
this was incorrect by Paul Jones4 and that he regularly called the
Network Business Support Centre 16440286
11 August 2009 - Rang helpline
(H16440286) re stock differences
was told to check everything and
call back by Paul Jones. Called
Paul Jones back with the figures
and was told to settle centrally5
(NBSC) for assistance. However,
despite the Applicant's propensity
for accounting errors, the errors
did not seem to result in significant
shortfalls on the account until 2009
following the onset of the
Applicant's condition.
Page 3 — Limitations in the
transaction audit trail available to
Subpostmasters
Calls to Helpline which appear to
have given contradictory advice
leading to errors on the Horizon
record.
Pages 6 — 7 — Record of NBSC.
call logs. (Doc 001 refers)
NBSC call logs were reviewed for
the period 04 July 2001 — 08
November 2013. During this period
1069 call logs were recorded.
Detailed in a separate document
are the total of logs per year and a
breakdown of the incidents that
4A_32763924_1
87
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
potentially relate to the issues
raised. (Doc 030 refers.)
The incidents relating to 2009
when the discrepancies
highlighted by the Applicant
occurred are listed below; a
breakdown of the total number of
calls for the other years of tenure
is also given below:
2009 — Total 138 logs
Total breakdown of caills by issue.
Branch trading procedure — 43
calls
* 23 calls related to
balancing discrepancies,
call log H16332348- 29
April 2009, the Applicant
had a discrepancy due to
working in the wrong
stock unit.
* 4 calls related to cheque
procedure, call log
H22589178- 27 January
2009, the Applicant had
received a call but still
confused, had cheques
for over £3,000.00 but not
remitted out - have added
to cheque line and now
remitted out but still left
with cheque figure of
£274.71 that he can't
account for not on any
listings.
* 1 call related to
Transaction Corrections,
the Applicant wanted
advice with regards to a
4A_32763924_1
88
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
Transaction Correction of
£6,000.00, call log
H16374026- 10 June
2009 refers.
Client counter procedures ~ 37
calls
* 2 calls related to Giro
accounting and dispatch,
the Applicant asking what
the procedures were, call
log H16503887-7
October 2009 refers.
* 2 calls related to banking
transactions, the
Applicant mis-keyed a
transaction and wanted to
reverse the transaction,
during the call the
Applicant said that he
does not know why he
wants to reverse this, call
log H16540734-9
November 2009 refers.
Forms/manuals/stores ordering — 1
call
¢ No calls related to issues
cited.
Horizon — 10 calls
* 8 calls related to Horizon,
where the Applicant asks
how to modify users,
create stock units and
attach users to a stock
unit, call logs
H16313836-9 April 2009
and H16353316-19 May
2009 refer.
Horizon online — 1 call
4A_32763924_1
89
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
* Call in readiness for 2010
migration. Did not relate
to issues cited.
Office process — 17 calls
2 calls related to the
Applicant asking for
assistance from a Trainer
as there was a
discrepancy in the office
due to someone serving
in the incorrect stock unit
and he needed help
resolving them, call log
H16328862-24 April
2009 refers.
* 3 calls related to office
closures, the Applicant
having hospital
appointments call log
H16499619-3 October
2009 refers.
¢ Call log H16501804-6
October 2009, the
Applicant's wife calls
asking for the Contracts
Manager to call with
regards to selling the
office.due.to. the...
« = Call log H22705236-11
November 2009, the
Applicants wife called to
notify NBSC that the
office would be closed
wot Further. notice as the
npr GRO The
branch Secad on the 11
November 2009 and re-
opened on 16 November
2009 with a relief staff
member carrying out the
Applicant's duties.
4A_32763924_1
90
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
Switchboard — 29 calls
. 2 calls related to the
Applicant requesting
contact with an Auditor
and Trainer.
* 8 calls related to
discrepancies in the
branch, call log
H16285069-11 March
2009 refers to a positive
discrepancy that was
settled centrally by the
Applicant previously.
2 calls related to Horizon, the
Applicant was transferred to
Horizon Helpdesk, call logs
H16342641-8 May 2009 and
H22635630-19 May 2009
Breakdown of calls for 5 July
2001-8 November 2013
Year Number of
Calls to NBSC
2001 51
2002 97
2003 115
2004 96
2005 101
2006 127
2007 93
2008 71
4A_32763924_1
1
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
2009 138
2010 95
2011 41
2012 27
2013 17
Page 13
6 May 2009 — NBSC call reference
H16340369
Post Office findings are that there
were no instructions by NBSC to
Zero the stock a claimed.
The Applicant stated he has an
incorrect figure and a discrepancy
of £30,000.00 in the suspense
account.
The problem appeared to be in
relation to the Applicant's use of
stock.
Page 15
Post Office findings are that there
are no NBSC call logs evidencing
that the Applicant's wife made a
request for an audit. Further, there
is no record of an audit having
been carried out on 30 September
2009. Rather, 30 September 2009
was the end of a Trading Period
and on the date the Applicant was
required to complete a balance.
Page 18 - 29 September 2009
4A_32763924_1
92
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
A balance snapshot produced by
the Applicant showed a negative
figure against the cheque amount
for the reasons explained above.
The Applicant contacted NBSC for
advice to correct this negative
figure. (Doc 021 refers). NBSC
advised the Applicant fo adjust the
figure positively so that there were
no discrepancies
on the cheque listing (i.e. the
Applicant added £10,490.08 to the
cheque on hand figure to create a
zero balance). This adjustment
created a surplus in the branch
accounts of £10,490.08 (+) (i.e.
the branch declared that it had
£10,490.08 more than it should
have based on the transaction
records recorded on Horizon)
Page 22 ~ Process Issues at the
end of each Trading Period
Post Office findings are that NBSC
call logs confirm that the Applicant
did contact the NBSC when he
experienced issues with balancing
at the end of each Trading Period.
There is no evidence that NBSC
failed to provide a suitable
response to any of the questions
raised by the Applicant. Records
indicate that there was only a
slight increase in calls to NBSC in
2009. Although it was the year
when most calls to NBSC were
placed, it was not by any means
exceptional,
with 127 calls being made in 2006
and 115 in 2003.
4A_32763924_1
93
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
M144
Lisa West
Page 11 Para 3.25
On 8 April 200447, Mr English
received an error notice from
Chesterfield regarding one of a
group of 10 pension dockets for
£102.25 which had allegedly gone
missing in the week ending 21
January 2004. Mr English was
adamant that he had followed the
correct procedure at his end, and
requested evidence from the Post
Office to support their claim
Page 11 Para 3.27
Mr English wrote again to Steve
Gibbs after receipt of the letter
disallowing the £102.25, but does
not appear to have received a
response51.
Page 9
It is clear from NBSC call logs and
the correspondence presented by
the Applicant that his wife
accepted this TC, but his wife
subsequently disputed it.
Page 9 to 10 — Para 2 Shortfall of
£500 experienced sometime
between 2008 and 2010
The Applicant claims to have
suffered losses of £250.00 per
month for two months running at
some point between 2008 and
2010. The Applicant claims he had
no option but to repay the losses,
despite his belief that he was not
responsible.
The Applicant has not specified
when this issue is said to have
occurred nor has he provided any
evidence in relation to it.
There is no record in the NBSC
call logs (Doc 003) of any calls
placed during the time period
quoted by the Applicant.
The record of TCs (Doc 002) and
NBSC call logs show that whilst
errors were rare at the branch,
they did occur and sometimes
resulted in losses and surpluses
which the Applicant would make
good by paying in or taking out
cash as appropriate. The Applicant
Page 3 Para 3.3
The Applicant also complains
about the lack of support he
says he received from Post
Office. He says that he
requested help on “several
occasions” both by letter and
by calling the Helpline,
asserting that, in his opinion,
“they would assist up to a
certain point and then would
ignore him’. In describing the
Applicant's experiences of the
Helpline, the Applicant's
Professional Advisor says, in
the CQR, “whilst he felt
comfortable with the advice the
Horizon helpline provided him,
the Helpline could only assist
with what he described as
“immediate things”, adding that
they would “often refer him to a
different department rather
than deal with him”. Post
Office states that "the
unsatisfactory level of service
experienced by the Applicant
prior to April 2012 was
addressed by way of the
apology and explanation made
in Post Office's letter dated 21
May 2012 (Doc 006) sent on
behalf of the Chief Executive".
Page 5-6 Para 4.1
In its POIR, Post Office says
4A_32763924_1
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
gives no detail regarding how he
reached the conclusion that
neither he nor his wife was
responsible for the £500.00 loss
experienced or what type of
transaction the losses are thought
to have related to.
Post Office rejects the Applicant's
claim that he had no option but to
pay back the missing money. It
would have been open to the
Applicant to dispute any shortfall if,
as he claims, he knew that neither
he nor his wife was responsible.
However, there is no evidence of
the Applicant disputing the
shortfalls either in the NBSC call
logs or in any correspondence
available to Post Office.
Page 10 Para 3 Shortfall of
£373.06 arising when a balance
was undertaken on 17 August
2011.
A shortfall of £373.06 appears to
have been declared when a
balance was carried out on 17
August 2011
Records show that a call to NBSC
was placed the same day (Doc
003) stating that the branch had a
loss of £373.06 and asking how to
settle it. Records show that NBSC
advised the caller to settle the
amount centrally.
The Applicant claims that his wife
placed two calls to NBSC and that
she requested that the branch
that a discrepancy in the sum
of £147.12 arose because the
Applicant accepted payment
for a water bill but failed to
obtain and/or supply the
counterfoil to Santander. It
says that a further discrepancy
in the sum of £3,873.05
occurred because the
Applicant failed to follow the
proper ‘cut off’ procedure. In
his comments on the
previously issued draft of this
report the Applicant states that
"I told P.O. of my error but
enclosed payment and a letter
of apology with the account
That would have been in
October 2011 I think. A week
later I submitted the counterfoil
also with a letter". He also
states "At no stage, and I ask
P.O. to produce my October
account, was there a shortfall
of £3,873". This resulted in the
report sent to Santander
showing figures that were
greater than those recorded on
Horizon. Post Office also says
that it issued Transaction
Corrections (TC Invoices) in
relation to both errors, and that
once those TCs were
processed, the branch's
accounts showed a shortfall of
£4,020.17. It says that, as
soon as the sources of both
accounting errors were
identified, two more TCs were
issued (TC Credits) in order to
bring the accounts back into
balance. In his comments on
the previously issued draft of
this report the Applicant states
4A_32763924_1
95
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
accounts be checked as the
Applicant and his wife did not fee!
that they were responsible for the
loss (see the applicant's letter to
FSC of 5 September 2011 at CQR
Tab 19). However, the Applicant's
recollections are contrary to NBSC
call records and there is no
evidence of such requests being
made. The NBSC call logs
showing only a request for
assistance regarding the process
for settling a discrepancy centrally.
Page 11
However, in the absence of
evidence to the contrary the
explanation for the loss of £373.06
declared on 17 August 2011 is that
there was an actual shortage of
cash or stock at the branch
meaning that value of actual cash
and stock in the branch was less
than the amounts that should have
been held according to Horizon.
Cash declaration records (Doc
004) show that the Applicant was
aware of a cash discrepancy as
early as 1 August 2011 and that
each cash declaration for which a
variance check was performed up.
to and including 17 August
showed a loss. Despite this, there
are no records of calls being
placed to NBSC between 1 August
and 17 August 2011 querying the
cause of the shortfall.
Page 11 Para C
The Applicant states that he
requested help from Post Office on
several occasions via both letter
that "I requested evidence
which didn't come and several
phone calls took place
between Chesterfield and
myself and this is when I found
(later the following year) that
Nikki [Cook] had left the
business in the October I
made the error for £147". He
also explains in some detail
the process that he followed in
processing this payment and
states that "I did not err in this
region. My accounts balanced.
That's why I was happy when I
was accused by Cook. Before
the end of the 2011 the Post
Office had my Giro account
three time before Cook
accused me. There wasn't a
shortfall. There wasn't a gain".
Page 6 Para 4.6
In relation to the Applicant's
suggestion that he was helped
up to a certain point and then
ignored, or passed on to a
different department, Post
Office says that the Applicant
made regular calls to its
National Business Support
Centre (NBSC) Helpline. It
says that the vast majority of
the Applicant's enquiries were
dealt with at the time of the
call, and that where the issue
could not be dealt with over
the phone, only then was
Applicant referred to a different
department. It says that the
reason for referring the issue
to other departments was to
“ensure the Applicant received
4A_32763924_1
96
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
and NBSC. The Applicant claims
that Post Office would assist up to
a certain point and then would
ignore him. He claims that NBSC
were only able to deal with
“immediate things” and would
often refer him to another
department rather than deal with
him.
the specialist support
appropriate to the issues being
experienced’.
Page 7-8 Para 4.12
We consider it to be clear that
the Applicant did not
understand the effect of
settling centrally, but we are
unsure as to the reasons why
that should have been the
case. It is possible that this
‘settle centrally and dispute’
option had not been explained
when the old method (whereby
disputed amounts could be
held in a branch suspense
account) was discontinued.
This explanation is consistent
with what we have learned
from other Applicants in the
Mediation Scheme, some of
whom have reported that they
were not aware of that option.
In its comments on the
previously issued draft of this
report Post Office states that
“NBSC call logs show that the
Applicant did request
assistance regarding the
process for settling a
discrepancy centrally. If the
Applicant did not understand
the effect of settling centrally,
he could have asked NBSC.
The process of settling
centrally and its effect is also
covered in the manuals
available to every
Subpostmaster and via
Horizon Online Help".
Page 8 Para 4.13
4A_32763924_1
97
POL-0019248
POL00022769
POL00022769
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
Post Office says that “in the
absence of evidence to the
contrary the explanation for the
loss of £373.06 declared on 17
August 2011 is that there was
an actual shortage of cash or
stock at the branch”. It says
that its cash declaration
records show that the
Applicant was aware of a cash
discrepancy as early as 1
August 2011 and that each
cash declaration for which a
variance check was performed
up to and including 17 August
showed a loss. It says that
despite this, there are no
records of calls being placed to
NBSC between 1 August and
17 August 2011 querying the
cause of the shortfall. It adds
that ‘the Applicant had access
to NBSC and Horizon Online if
he wished to investigate the
cause of the shortfall, but he
does not appear to have used
either of those services’.
Page 11-12 Findings
The Applicant made regular
calls to NBSC from his
appointment and throughout
his tenure. Call logs (Doc 003)
show a total of 1543 calls
between 9 November 2000
(the earliest date for which
records are available) and 21
December 2013 and show that
the vast majority of enquiries
were dealt with at the time of
the call. Where the issue could
not be dealt with over the
4A_32763924_1 98
POL-0019248
POL00022769
POL00022769
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
phone the Applicant was
referred to a different
department e.g. Horizon
Service Desk for Horizon
equipment issues or the Post
Office cash management team
for issues relating to the supply
of cash. Post Office has a
tiered approach to its support
services and does not agree
with the Applicant's claim that
NBSC staff referred him to
other departments to avoid
dealing with the issues
themselves. In fact the reason
for referring the issue to other
departments was to ensure the
Applicant received the
specialist support appropriate
to the issues being
experienced.
Page 14 — Problems in 2011
NBSC call logs (Doc 003) and
records of calls to the Horizon
Service Desk (Doc 009) show
that the branch experienced
issues with Horizon in July and
August 2011. Records show
that there were some
occasions when the recovery
process was used for
transactions that did not
complete because of an
interruption to the power
supply or loss of connectivity
to the Post Office Data Centre.
Page 14 — a) Lack of cash
supplied by Post Office forcing
the branch to close
NBSC call logs (Doc 003)
4A_32763924_1 99
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
show a total of 16 calls during
the Applicant's tenure relating
to the branch being short of
cash, 4 in 2006, 3 in 2008, 5 in
2009, 3 in 2012 and 1 in 2013.
Cash is supplied from Post
Office cash centres to
branches based on what the
branch declares it has on hand
compared to the expected
cash movements (data from
recent Horizon transactions)
until the branch’s next
scheduled delivery day.
Shortages of cash can be
caused by a variety of reasons
such as:
© — The failure of a cash
delivery to arrive on
time
* ~~ Higher than normal
customer withdrawals
* — Branch fails to order
extra cash for a
known peak period
ie. prior to. a Bank
Holiday
* — Branch does not
declare cash on hand
accurately on Horizon
* — Alarge deposit
customer stops using
the branch
It is not clear from available
records what caused the
Applicant's branch to run short
of cash. The calls to NBSC
suggest that the Applicant
believed he was not being sent
enough however this could be
for a number of the reasons
listed above. Whilst Post Office
4A_32763924_1
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
‘accept that this would impact
‘on the branch's ability to
service customers, the lack of
enough operating cash would
not in itself cause the branch
to experience losses.
M146
Lisa West
Page 5 Para 2.3
July 2001 - Mrs Stewart states that
she recorded a loss of £7,000. The
Helpline was contacted, but the
amount was not put into Suspense.
Telephone logs are required.
August 2012 - Mrs Stewart
recorded a loss of £6,000. Mrs
Stewart stated that she was “too
frightened” to contact the Helpline,
as on previous occasions when she
did the amount increased and she
had lost confidence in the Helpline.
Page 7 Para 3.8:
No further losses were discovered
at the branch until June 2010 when
Mrs Stewart discovered a difference
when balancing. She contacted the
Helpline and they instructed her to
carry out certain actions on the
Horizon system, giving her step-by-
step instructions and talking her
through the process. Mrs Stewart
cannot recall the instructions she
was given but she followed them
exactly as she considered the
Helpline staff to be experts in the
matter. When she had completed
the steps, the difference had not
changed.
4A_32763924_1
101
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
Page 8 Para 3.9:
Mrs Stewart was told to put the
amount into Suspense. The
Helpline assured her and told her
not to worry about the amount in
Suspense as this was the correct
procedure. She was told that the
Horizon system would reverse the
error and in time, everything would
be resolved. The difference never
corrected.
Page 15 Para 4.14:
Mr El Kasaby also believes that
advice from the Helpline staff after
the initial loss in June 2010 was
discovered also contributed to the
amount. Mrs Stewart states she
contacted the helpline, followed
their instructions, yet the amount of
losses increased.
M149
Lisa West
M150
Lisa West
4A_32763924_1
102
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
APPENDIX 2
Applicant Call References Call Handler
M001 H13118632 Joel Herbert
H21330891 Smiths
Note - the remaining call references for
this case were not present in NBSC’s
records despite a search having been
carried out back to 2000.
M007 H21971036 wright1
H22439562 priorv
H22488683 coateb
H18135135 ryan.bryson
M014 NO CALL REFERENCES - calls could not be identified in call logs from info
provided
M026 H16950858 spare1
H16955919 hultzs
M028 H16528419 laverm
H16634409 moorej
H16615606 fishwicks02
M029 H20338009 hadramk
12530313 cawthot
H12760581 robsong01
12855576 hutchij
H13813795 joel.herbert
H21903612 doylejo
M035 H21244679 bennetle
H21244829 glen.watson
12935449 rotherc
12927693 Call reference could not be located
M037 H23209354 tracy.wilson
H23213129 robsj
4A_32763924_1
POL00022769
POL00022769
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
18001128 sandra.warriner
H23226490 lawsb
H23236947 sarah.prest01
H23248271 sarah.prest01
H23239054 kirsty.harvey
M040 H16256754 carterr01
H22610115 maddisd
H16326259 alan.staves
H16734127 Call reference could not be located
H22626029 wright/1
H22652224 maddisd
M042 H17203918 paul.taylor01
H22890493 priorvO2
H17261033 paul.taylor01
H22908953 browna2
H22915051 wright}
H22932938 priorvO2
H22975018 sarah.prest01
M045 16060445 wardr01
H16138223 james.unsworth
H16143695 malcolm.laver
H16197531 plattc
16227417 alan.staves
15925877 guest!
22500243 maddisd
15927120 carol. johnson
22500368 coateb
15970185 guestl
H15972435 kevin.jarosz
4A_32763924_1
POL00022769
POL00022769
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
H15979976
15980039
16028728
H16029302
H16058685
H16060445
H16444475
H16069889
16079103
H16099766
H16131222
H16136785
H16138223
H16146212
H16176898
H16197531
H16213318
H16227417
H22597827
H16320504
H16331667
H16331664
H22635080
H16358130
H16369060
H16373014
H16373385
H16374669
H22649725
alan.staves
john.ashton
lyndsay.fishwick01
paul.mann
mick jezzard01
wardr01
brigid.brook
guest!
malicolm.laver
kevin jarosz
gillatsO1
rotherc
james.unsworth
browna2
james.unsworth
platte
kevin.jarosz
alan.staves
alison.walton
clive.robson
shaun.gray
shaun.gray
brayb
carterr01
lavern
fishwicks
sawickg01
paul.taylor
wright)1
4A_32763924_1
POL00022769
POL00022769
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
M062 14447370 sawickg
H15342593 alan.staves
M080 NO CALL REFERENCES - calls could not be identified in call logs from info
provided
M081 14900151 lipscov01
M143 H16340369 paul.taylor01
16440286 fishwicks
M144 NO CALL REFERENCES - calls could not be identified in call logs from info
provided
4A_32763924_1
POL00022769
POL00022769
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
APPENDIX 3
Applicant Call Handler Coaching File checked? Result
Reference
Moot Joel Herbert Yes Mr Herbert was
dismissed from his
position at Post Office
for disciplinary reasons
entirely unconnected to
his performance as a
call advisor. There were
no issues or concems
about advice given
present in coaching
records.
Mo01 Smiths No — former Royal Mail advisor — I Not Post Office
does not work for POL employee
M007 wright1 No — former Royal Mail advisor — I Not Post Office
does not work for POL employee
M007 priorv No — former Royal Mail advisor — I Not Post Office
does not work for POL employee
M007 coateb No — former Royal Mail advisor — I Not Post Office
does not work for POL employee
M007 ryan.bryson Yes No issues or concerns
about advice given
present in coaching
records
M011 The details provided by the applicant did not match with the call logs so no specific
calls could be identified against which to cross reference the call handler.
M026 Spare1 No — former Royal Mail advisor — I Not Post Office
does not work for POL employee
M026 hultzs. No — former Royal Mail advisor — I Not Post Office
does not work for POL employee
M028 laverm No — former Royal Mail advisor — I Not Post Office
does not work for POL employee
M028 moorej No — former Royal Mail advisor — I Not Post Office
does not work for POL employee
M028 fishwicksO2 Yes No issues or concerns
about advice given
present in coaching
records
M029 batleyi No — former Royal Mail advisor — I Not Post Office
does not work for POL employee
M029 cawthot No — former Royal Mail advisor — I Not Post Office
does not work for POL employee
M029 robsong01 No — former Royal Mail advisor — I Not Post Office
does not work for POL employee
4A_32763924_1
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
M029 huthij No — former Royal Mail advisor — I Not Post Office
does not work for POL employee
M029 joel.herbert Yes Mr Herbert was
dismissed from his
position at Post Office
for disciplinary reasons
entirely unconnected to
his performance as a
call advisor. There were
no issues or concems
about advice given
present in coaching
records.
M029 jaroszk Yes No issues or concerns
about advice given
present in coaching
records
M035 bennetle No — former Royal Mail advisor — I Not Post Office
does not work for POL employee
MoO35 greenr1 No — former Royal Mail advisor — I Not Post Office
does not work for POL employee
M035 moorej No — former Royal Mail advisor — I Not Post Office
does not work for POL employee
M037 tracy.wilson No — former Royal Mail advisor — I Not Post Office
does not work for POL employee
M037 robs} No — former Royal Mail advisor — I Not Post Office
does not work for POL employee
M037 sandra.warriner Yes No issues or concerns
about advice given
present in coaching
records
M037 lawsb No — former Royal Mail advisor — I Not Post Office
does not work for POL employee
M037 sarah.prest01 No — former Royal Mail advisor — I Not Post Office
does not work for POL employee
M037 Kirsty.harvey No — former Royal Mail advisor — I Not Post Office
does not work for POL employee
M040 carterr01 Yes No issues or concerns
about advice given
present in coaching
records
M040 maddisd No — former Royal Mail advisor — I Not Post Office
does not work for POL employee
M040 alan.staves Yes No issues or concerns
about advice given
present in coaching
records
4A_32763924_1
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
M040 sagwickg Yes No issues or concerns
about advice given
present in coaching
records
M040 wrightj1 Yes No issues or concerns
about advice given
present in coaching
records
M042 paul.taylor01 Yes No issues or concerns
about advice given
present in coaching
records
priorv02 No — former Royal Mail advisor — I Not Post Office
does not work for POL employee
browna2 No — former Royal Mail advisor — I Not Post Office
does not work for POL employee
wright/3 No — former Royal Mail advisor — I Not Post Office
does not work for POL employee
sarah.prest01 No — former Royal Mail advisor — I Not Post Office
does not work for POL employee
M045 wardr01 No — former Royal Mail advisor — I Not Post Office
does not work for POL employee
M045 james.unsworth Yes No issues or concerns
about advice given
present in coaching
records
M045 maicoim.laver Yes No issues or concerns
about advice given
present in coaching
records
M045 plattc Yes No issues or concerns
about advice given
present in coaching
records
M045 alan.staves Yes No issues or concerns
about advice given
present in coaching
records
M045 guest! Yes No issues or concerns
about advice given
present in coaching
records
Mo045 maddisd No — former Royal Mail advisor — I Not Post Office
does not work for POL employee
M045 carol.johnson No — former Royal Mail advisor — I Not Post Office
does not work for POL employee
M045 coateb No — former Royal Mail advisor — I Not Post Office
does not work for POL employee
4A_32763924_1
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
M045
kevin jarosz
Yes
No issues or concerns
about advice given
present in coaching
records
M045
john.ashton
No — former Royal Mail advisor —
does not work for POL
Not Post Office
employee
M045
lyndsay.fishwickO1
Yes
No issues or concerns
about advice given
present in coaching
records
M045
paul.mann
Yes
No issues or concerns
about advice given
present in coaching
records
MO45
mick.jezzard01
No — former Royal Mail advisor —
does not work for POL
Not Post Office
employee
M045
brigid.brook
No — former Royal Mail advisor —
does not work for POL
Not Post Office
employee
Mo45
gillatsO1
No — former Royal Mail advisor —
does not work for POL
Not Post Office
employee
M045
rotherc
Yes
No issues or concerns
about advice given
present in coaching
records
M045
browna2
Yes
No issues or concerns
about advice given
present in coaching
records
M045
alison.walton
No — former Royal Mail advisor —
does not work for POL
Not Post Office
employee
M045
clive.robson
Yes
No issues or concerns
about advice given
present in coaching
records
M045
shaun.gray
Yes
Mr Gray has now left
Post Office. There were
no issues or concems
about advice given
present in coaching
records. There is a
reference in the
coaching records to his
call handling time (ie.
the time taken to give
an answer) being an
issue but there were no
issues with the quality
of his advice.
M045
brayb
No — former Royal Mail advisor —
does not work for POL
Not Post Office
employee
4A_32763924_1
POL-0019248
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POL00022769
POL00022769
M045
carterr01
Yes
No issues or concerns
about advice given
present in coaching
records
M045
lavern
Yes
No issues or concerns
about advice given
present in coaching
records
M045
fishwicks
Yes
No issues or concerns
about advice given
present in coaching
records
M045
sawickg01
Yes
No issues or concerns
about advice given
present in coaching
records
Mo45
paul.taylor
Yes
No issues or concerns
about advice given
present in coaching
records
M045
wright)1
No — former Royal Mail advisor —
does not work for POL
Not Post Office
employee
M062
sawickg
Yes
No issues or concerns
about advice given
present in coaching
records
M062
alan.staves
Yes
No issues or concerns
about advice given
present in coaching
records
M080
The details provided by the applicant did not match with the call logs so no specific
Calls could be identified against which to cross reference the call handler.
M081
lipscov01
Yes
No issues or concerns
about advice given
present in coaching
records
M143
paul.taylor01
Yes
No issues or concerns
about advice given
present in coaching
records
M143
fishwicks
Yes
No issues or concerns
about advice given
present in coaching
records
M144
The details provided by the applicant did not match with the call logs so no specific
calls could be identified against which to cross reference the call handler.
4A_32763924_1
POL-0019248