POL00024326
POL00024326
Message
From: Rodric Williams
Sent: 06/12/2017 01:
To: Patrick Bourke j; Mark R Davies I Tom Wechsler
cc: Thomas P Moranf Mark Underwood! i
Jane Macleod! GRO
. Mark Ellis
5 Nick Beal
; Amy Prime ; Kevin Morgan
Subject: RE: PLSG Call on Wednesday 6 December @14:00pm (0.15 Walton Street is booked if people are in FD and wish to
attend in person)
All ~ apologies but I am in branch tomorrow so cannot attend the meeting. My thoughts on the settlement paper are:
Generally, while we should always be looking at settlement options, I don’t think we need to rush this and would
want to see some pretty strong advice to support sending something to Freeths this side of Christmas before we
took any action.
\ like the idea of trying to hive off the settled cases:
oO. They are a significant number of claimants;
©. Their clams can be dealt with on a discrete point, namely they should pay back the NT payment if they
no longer want to be bound to their settlement (i.e. they can’t have their cake and eat it);
oO The claimants should see the sense in abandoning their claim, given that it should be worth less than the
NT payment they are putting at risk (i.e. the bird in the hand is worth more than two in the bush).
oO The suggested approach doesn’t involve us paying anything, just foregoing legal costs (which we should
not lead with but could negotiate to}, limiting how much confidence Freeths/the claimants could take
from any settlement proposal.
{do not like the suggested approach for “Active Claimants”:
oO. I think it will be very difficult to limit this to the 45 current claimants, or even their existing claims (e.g.
they could raise the same challenges next time they get a loss).
oO Inthis regard, I do not consider the closing of the Group Litigation to be an effective mitigation - it has
already been extended twice.
oO At the moment, the impact of the litigation on BAU is fairly confined, albeit disproportionately
frustrating. That could change if it became known that the litigation provided a way to circumvent BAU
branch accounting process.
oO Settlement is likely to involve some form of payment. This would give confidence to the claimants (and
their funders}, flag our vulnerability to claims from active postmasters, and increase the risk of
contagion.
oO My experience with the mediation scheme is that significant resource would be required to put the
proposal into practice, which resource gets quickly strained by even small increases in the number of
cases,
oO {doubt whether Freeths’ will go for it:
= What we consider to be realistic settlements are unlikely to be attractive at this stage of
proceedings, bearing in mind Freeths apparently need >£20m before the claimants get
anything.
= The approach they have taken to date to dealing with active postmasters is to slow our
processes without dealing with the substance.
= Based on that, I would expect them to require wide ranging and costly disclosure for each case,
and that the claimants only speak to us with legal representation, before agreeing to engage
with us. That would put further strain on our resources.
POL-0020805
POL00024326
POL00024326
oO inshort, I am concerned that the suggested approach runs the risks of increasing the number of claims
we need to deal with, consuming resources and weakening our overall positon for questionable return.
- ido however agree that we should try to hive off the Active Claimants, but think it could be done through
different means which should be properly considered, e.g. by using BAU means to circumvent the litigation
rather than the other way around as proposed, and/or by highlighting to the Active Claimants that they are
engaged in a dispute which is going to take a long time to resolve but which is unlikely to give them a big payout
given they are still in post.
- Finally, I don’t think we need to run the two proposals simultaneously. We could just focus on one, lower risk
option (i.e. the settled cases) and see where that takes us.
Again, I am sorry that I cannot join the meeting to hear the discussion on this important issue.
Rod
From: Patrick Bourke
Sent: 05 December 2017 19:49
To: Mark R Davies
Cc: Thomas P Moral
Jane Macleod 47
; Rob Houghton
% Parsons, Andrew{
Slanie Corfield
Amy Prime
Subje PLSG Call on Wednesday 6 December @14:00pm (0.15 Walton Street is booked if people are in FD and wish
to attend in person)
Hi
I agree with what's already been said.
I just wondered whether something had cropped up for this proposal to emerge now ? I was away last week,
and may have missed something so forgive me if I have, but I hadn't been expecting a suggestion settlement
of any kind at this stage, although I can quite see the appeal of the proposal.
The other thing which occurs is what the likely position of the litigation funders is likely to be in respect of this
approach, if the consensus is that we ought to make it. While these 2 subgroups were never going to be the
ones to generate the sort of pay day which gives them a reason to be in business, it would be just be
interesting to know what WBD think their likely stance will be.
Kind regards
Patrick
From: Mark R Davies
Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2017 6:40:26 PM
To: Tom Wechsler
Cc: Thomas P Moran; Mark Underwood}Jane MacLeod; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Stuart Nesbit; Patrick Bourke; Rob
Houghton; Rodric Williams; Parsons, Andrew; Mark Ellis; Melanie Corfield; Nick Beal; Amy Prime; Kevin Morgan
POL-0020805
POL00024326
POL00024326
Subject: Re: PLSG Call on Wednesday 6 December @14:00pm (0.15 Walton Street is booked if people are in FD and wish
to attend in person)
Hi
My points would be similar to those of Tom and Tom.
I welcome the approach but would want to be assured that all internal stakeholders are aware of the strategy and
supportive.
I would also want to be sure that it is clear that we would always seek to resolve issues via non-legal avenues,
and there is substantial evidence of this from the deployment of the mediation scheme.
This is particularly true of "active" cases. I would be very anxious about settling cases where there is no cause
to do so: it is public money and while I can see the benefits of splitting the claimants, I do not believe we should
do so when it would not be right to do so: as well as a reputational risk as set or above there is also a risk around
signals being sent to the network.
I wholly agree re those cases where there are criminal records.
I think it is a really clear and helpful paper. I do think it requires a full discussion.
Mark
Mark Davies
Group Communications, Brand and Corporate Affairs Director
Winner of the 2017 Global Postal Award for Customer Experience
On 5 Dec 2017, at 09:29, Tom Wechsler wrote:
Hi
As my attendance has been curtailed by events recently, I have also reviewed the papers and agree with
Tom’s comments and annotations. Settling any of these claims does not sit easily with me {and I would
be especially concerned if there were large outstanding debts we were writing off as a result —
particularly amongst active claimants). However, I recognise the sense in pursuing the recommended
approach.
also agree that this needs socialising with PV and AC.
Thanks for a very clear paper.
Tom
Tom Wechsler
From: Thomas P Moran
Sent: 04 December 2017 23:25
To: Mark Underwoo:
Mark R Davies:
Patrick Bourke
Rodric Williams
Parsons, Andrew
; Rob Houghtor
Tom Wechsler
Mark Ellis
POL-0020805
POL00024326
POL00024326
5 Nick Beal
Cc: Kevin Morgan
Subject: RE: PLSG Call on Wednesday 6 December @14:00pm (0.15 Walton Street is booked if people
are in FD and wish to attend in person)
Thanks, Mark, very helpful.
With my Chair’s hat on, please can I ask that from now on we are strict with ourselves in either
attending or providing comments on any decision papers in advance? This will be really important as we
get nearer to trial.
A good example is the decision paper here.
Mark, 1am in branch on Wednesday so here are my comments on the paper as comments on the pdf.
Overall I think I am supportive but this feels like a very big decision and one that could be seen as a
significant change of direction. The paper is very good and I would like us to share it with PV and AC
{could Jane do this?). [don’t feel it would be right for them, or the Board, to hear of this decision after
the fact.
Thanks
Tom
From: Mark Underwood:
Sent: 04 December 2017 22:27
To: Jane MacLeod ¢
Mark R Davies :.
Patrick Bourke I.
Stuart Nesbit
Melanie
1>; Nick
Beal i
Cc: Kevin Morgan
Subject: PLSG Call on Wednesday 6 December @14:00pm (0.15 Walton Street is booked if people are in
FD and wish to attend in person)
Dear all,
On Wednesday @14:00pm we have our first PLSG call, which will take place on a fortnightly basis going
forward.
Ahead of that call please find attached:
1. Decision paper on settlement (+ draft letter).
2. Briefing Paper on EDQs
if possible, I would like these calls to be shorter than the meetings and to focus only on issues raised. As
such, I do not intend to circulate:
POL-0020805
POL00024326
POL00024326
* Agendas - unless a specific point is raised beforehand by an attendee on behalf of the area of
the business that they represent; or
# Open actions — unless they are urgent. I will pick these up with the individuals outside of the call
and or in the F2F meetings.
Many thanks
Mark
Dials in Detail below:
Dial-in numbers:
United Kingdom Freephon:
United Kingdom international
Chairperson passcode: 85009207 then #
Participant passcode: 82368934 then #
<image001.png> Mark Underwood
2017 Winner of the Global Postal Award ead of Portfolio: Legal, Risk & Governance
for Customer Experience Ground Floor
20 Finsbury Street
London EC2Y 94Q
Mobite numbe
JESSE S SEIS IOI OIORI ORI IG SIS IO IORI ISIE ISIS IORI OKI ORI ORI RI II SK IGKI OKA II IR IG HOR BOK Ho
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.
2H AER RR RI AEF 1 RR Rf 2128 28 2 2 FFARR RR BKK 8 RR A KR oR of a
POL-0020805