POL00023487
POL00023487
Message
From: Jane Macleod [{
Sent: 18/07/2016 22:24:26
To: Parsons, Andrew [/O=BOND PEARCE/OU=First Administrative Group/ct 1p6]; Thomas P Moran
; Rodric Williams I GRO § Patrick Bourke
; Mark Underwood "**"""""""ssssseenesnnsseseesisi----% Jessica Madron
1 tL H
ce: Prime, Amy [/O=BOND PEARCE/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP.
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Amy Prime439]; Porter, Tom [/O=BOND PEARCE/OU=EXCHANGE
ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Tp1]
Subject: RE: Draft Letter of Response [BD-4A.FID26859284] CONFIDENTIAL AND SUBJECT TO LEGAL PROFESSIONALPRIVILEGE
Thanks Andy
{have set out my comments below ~hopefully these make sense (references are to paragraph numbers)!
Happy to discuss,
Jane
Substantive comments
Second Sight
As discussed at the Steering Group I am concerned that we try and appear balanced in relation to SS given that it can
suit us in some cases to rely on their work.. the following comments are therefore for consideration:
@ 3.10.5 ~do we need the last 2 sentences in light of the accusation?
* 5.2—Final sentence: ‘Many of the conclusions reached in the Part Two report do not appear to be supported
by evidence and/or are in areas which SS contractually acknowledged are outside their area of expertise. In
particular:...”
e 5.2.1: ‘Findings in the Part Two Report are not supported by evidence and there is no description of the over-
arching methodology ...’.
« 5,3: ‘bizarre’ — suggest ‘inconsistent’
e 5.59-'SS often failed to distinguish between these two phases ..’
¢ 12.6.1 ~ ‘The expression by SS of opinions on areas outside its acknowledged areas of expertise has misled
many of the Claimants as to the strength of their cases.’
Other issues
« 4.8 - I'm probably being over-cautious, but as to suitability, my understanding is that PO requires assistants to
be CRB checked. Does this override ‘suitability’?
° 4,27 ~under Transformation, PO paid for the refurbishment of (at least) the PO counters. What was the
position prior to that — if PO made a contribution to the fittings in the PO part of the premises, then doesn’t that
assist the argument? Namely, PO makes a financial commitment in the postmaster’s business, but doesn’t
require anything back from the Postmaster?
© 5,10, 6.4, 6.29, 8.16 — I suggest that we flag that we may seek costs unless they provide details.
e@ 5,13, 6.8 - can we repeat here that (tens of) thousands of other postmasters over the 16 years have received
training without issue. {in 6.8 please replace some of the ‘It’ with ‘PO’ to make it easier to follow)
e 5.39.1 — Have we validated that these hours quoted are currently accurate? What were the minimum hours
that NBSC was available during the relevant period?
e 5.55 ~can we compare 5.55.1 with what we have actually said about whether we must/choose to comply?
* 5.56 — distinction of roles internally — would anyone external actually understand the split of responsibilities?
® 6.30.3 ~ while I agree that POL itself as a corporate entity is not a holder of public office, we need to be careful
about PO’s directors and employees — do we need the introductory words to this para? Similarly 6.30(c) - are
we sure about this statement? Given we seem to be caught by PSR, FOIA etc, then we may be relying on
POL-0019966
POL00023487
POL00023487
semantic distinctions of wording between different Acts/legislation rather on a more fundamental point of
principle.
13.7 ~ what are you envisaging in terms of the settlement agreement?
13.8 — should we include an additional statement to the effect that if sufficient details of the various claims
{including particulars of loss) were provided, then we may consider whether mediation could be an effective
way of resolving matters between us?
Schedule 1 para 30 ~ this suggests that as early as October 2008 we knew or at least had reason to suspect that
FJ had access ~ how did this subsequently morph into a denial????
Typos/Grammar/Stylistic/‘Emotive language’
Most of the following are a matter of personal preference and given the letter comes from BD, then this is your choice;
so I would just ask you to look at the following and on the basis that you have now slept on it for several nights - would
you still want to include the following???
oe ee @
eee eee 8 @ ewe
1.4 - ‘being entirely consistent with human nature’; and should the last 2 lines read: ‘... over a 16 year period it is
inevitable that a [statistically insignificant/small] proportion of branches will encounter shortfalis due to ....'
1.5 — ‘complaints of — should be ‘complaints by’?
1.6 ~ ‘un-evidenced — ‘unsubstantiated’ or ‘unsupported’?
2.1.2 ~ ‘ many tens of thousands’ - can we be more specific? Eg ‘more than [70,000]? penultimate line ~ the
words ’ or the require operating procedures ....network’: there seems to be a word missing?
2.1.3 — ‘Horizon system works reasonably well’ — delete ‘reasonably? Delete the sentence ‘had they done so,
they would not be making any claims.’?
2.1.4 — ‘advancing as may claims as possible’
2.1.5 ~ delete ‘therefore’ in first line on p 3?
2.1.6 — delete ‘the true meaning of the Postmaster Contract is that’?
3.4- 3" line ~ delete ‘be markedly different to the next one’ and then ‘turning’ becomes ‘turns’
3.10 .2 ~ ‘vociferous’?; ‘(and inaccurate)’. ‘We submit that the Claimants represent a statistically irrelevant
group
4.15 —first line - is the tense right here: ‘where requested to do so, PO cooperates with ...’?
4.17 ~‘... regrettably caused by a postmaster or his staff or are covered up ...’; delete: ‘is a particularly toxic act
that ‘? Replace ‘the culprits’ with ‘those responsible’? ...’false accounting and theft may result in...”
4,19 ~ delete ‘who may act through others’
4,24 — (top of p 15) ‘ lly confer those powers or discretions ..’
4.28.3 — fines 4-5: “ jon-employment relationships just because those relationships bear some limited
similarity to, employment relationships.’ Final lines:
arguably fall within ..’
4,31 ~ ‘bewildering variety’? ‘Ail the terms you advance fail that test’ ~ ‘The arguments you have advanced do
not satisfy that test.’
4,33 — ‘do not come close to satisfying...’?
5.24 ~ spelling “provided on-site support’
5.26 — delete ‘pause to’; ‘indicated’
5.34 ~ ‘the issue of access to information could only be addressed .’
5.39.9 ~ ‘this is preposterous’?
5.46 - ‘this allegation beggars belief’?
5.71.3 ~ ‘This is another aliegation that strikes us as preposterous’ ????
5.71.4 ~ ‘No attempt was ever made at the time to say that...’
6.4 ~ ‘provocative and meritless’
6.12 ~The House of Lords stated _.... Courts will have in mind ...”’
6.14 ~ final sentence ‘... was not an employee and while Sheil’s conduct was unattractive and unreasonable, it
did not amount to ...."
6.22 ~ ‘It is extraordinary’???
POL-0019966
POL00023487
POL00023487
© 6,25 ~‘are littered’????
e 6.26.1‘ this ground is a hopeless basis’...
* 6.26.2 — ‘this allegation is absurd’...
® 6,32/6.42 ~ ‘another hopeless claim’
e 6.34-‘you are not seriously maintaining a claim
e 6,44.4(a) ~ there seem to bE a word missing at the end of the 2” line?
© 6.44.4(b) ‘defies credibility’?
¢ 8.5.1~ 2" sentence: ‘even if Post Office ignored an issue we cannot see how this amounts to a deliberate
ce information from your clients.’
* 8.5.2 ~ ‘ridiculous’
@ 11.1.2 and 11.2 —repetition
e 13.8 —‘the lack of details on individual clairnants ..’
® Jane MacLeod
General Counsel
Ground Floor
20 Finsbury Street
LONDON
EC2Y 9AQ
Mobile number:
From: Parsons, Andrew [mailto:andrew.parson:
Sent: 16 July 2016 15:09
To: Thomas P Moran; Rodric Williams; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Patrick Bourke; Mark R Davies; Rob Houghton;
tom.weschlet.. lick Sambridge; Jane MacLeod; Mark Underwood'.}
Cc: Prime, Amy; Porter, Tom -
Subject: Draft Letter of Response [BD-4A.FID26859284]
All
Please find attached the draft Letter of Response (LOR).
The LOR is substantially ready for your review, save for two sections that will be addressed later: Remote Access (as per
our discussion at the SG meeting) and GLO (which is the subject of ongoing correspondence with Freeths).
Your comments are welcomed on all of the LOR but may I ask that, as a minimum, you review the sections marked for
your attention in the attached spreadsheet.
I should be grateful if you could provide your amendments / comments by close of business on Tuesday 19 July 2016
before our next Steering Group meeting on 20 July 2016. If possible, please could you send through comments /
amendments by way of track changes to the letter.
In order to preserve legal privilege, please do not circulate the draft LOR to anyone else. You may discuss it with
colleagues if necessary to do so but if you need to forward it to someone else for input, please can you speak to Rodric or
me first.
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Partner
POL-0019966
POL00023487
POL00023487
fegedl a pi
andrew.parsonsf
2H FR RR fk RR ARR Rf KR Rf A 4 2k 28 RR RR a aR
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the named
recipient, you must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication. If you
have received this in error, please contact the sender by reply email and then delete this email from your system.
Any views or opinions expressed within this email are solely those of the sender, unless otherwise specifically
stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: Finsbury Dials,
20 Finsbury Street, London EC2Y 9AQ.
23 I 2221 2K 2 2B FF 0 RR 010 0K 2 2 210K 0 08 FB 08 0 oR 0 0 0 ACG 0
POL-0019966