POL00024876
POL00024876
Message
From: Parsons, Andre’
Sent: 21/07/2016 17:
To: Mark R Davies { Rodric Williams;
cc: Thomas P Moran
Patrick Bourke { ; Rob Houghton
}Tom Wechsler [~~ Nick Sambridge
4; Jane MacLeod}.
Subject: RE: Remote Access wording - subject to litigation privilege [BD-4A.FID26859284]
Mark - I'm happy with your suggestion.
All - Slight tweak in yellow below because there are definitely users at FJ who have this access (confirmed by Deloitte).
Andy
Database and server access and edit permission ean-be is provided, within strict controls, to a small, controlled number
of specialist Fujitsu personnel. Use of these permissions is logged but rare. Enquiries are continuing as to whether this
particular form of access could be used to affect a branch's accounts, and if so, whether this has happened.
Andrew Parsons
Partner
www.bonddickinson.com
From: Mark R Davies [mailto:
Sent: 21 July 2016 18:36
To: Rodric Williams
Cc: Parsons, Andrew; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Thomas P Moran; Patrick Bourke; Rob Houghton; Tom Wechsler; Nick
Sambridge; Jane MacLeod; Mark Underwoos
Subject: Re: Remote Access wording - subject to litigation privilege [BD-4A.FID26859284]
Would it help to include "whether this particular form of access" in final sentence which emphasises that we've never
actually been asked about super users but are going over and beyond to establish position?
So sorry to miss call.
Mark Davies
Communications and Corporate Affairs Director
On 21 Jul 2016, at 18:30, Rodric Williams wrote:
All — this is the wording we have just discussed for para. 1.3.4:
POL-0021355
POL00024876
POL00024876
Database and server access and edit permission can be provided, within strict controls, to a small,
controlled number of specialist Fujitsu personnel. Use of these permissions is logged but rare. Enquiries
are continuing as to whether this access could be used to affect a branch's accounts, and if so, whether
this has happened.
From: Parsons, Andrew [mailto! __
Sent: 21 July 2016 18:02
To: Mark R Davies; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Cc: Thomas P Moran; Rodric Williams; Patrick Bourke; Rob Houghton; Tom Wechsler; Nick Sambridge;
Jane MacLeod; Mark Underwood):
Subject: RE: Remote Access wording - subject to litigation privilege [BD-4A.FID26859284]
All
in case it helps, please find attached an amended version inciuding Rob's comments earlier.
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Fottow Bond
cmeceor po Lid
www.bonddickinson.com
From: Parsons, Andrew
Sent: 21 July 2016 15:02
To: ‘Mark R Davies’; ‘Angela Van-Den-Bogerd'
Cc: 'Thomas P Moran’; 'Rodric Williams’; ‘Patric!
Sambridge’; ‘Jane MacLeod’; ‘Mark Underwood
Subject: RE: Remote Access wording - subject to litigation privilege [BD-4A.FID26859284]
urke'; 'Rob Houghton’; 'Tom Wechsler’; 'Nick
Mark
in response to your question in the other email thread about seeing everything we have said about
“remote access”, we don't have a central log of everything POL has said on remote access. However,
the language used in the email referenced below (attached again) is reflective of the language used by
POL towards the end of the Scheme.
We have also previously compiled POL's comments on this topic that were made in individual case
reports (see attached), which gives a flavour of the responses given. This should however be treated
with caution as these responses span a two year period and POL's understanding of the situation
changed over time.
One of the tasks we could do (albeit this will need to be after the LOR has been sent) is to compile a
complete chronology of wnat POL was told and what POL has said on this topic. One to discuss on our
call later.
POL-0021355
POL00024876
POL00024876
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Follow Bond Dickinson:
emageon2jpg> Ladd
www.bonddickinson.com
From: Parsons, Andrew
Sent: 21 July 2016 14:49
To: ‘Mark R Davies’; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Cc: Thomas P Moran; Rodric Williams; Patrick Bourke; Rob Houghton; Tom Wechsler; Nick Sambridge;
Jane MacLeod; Mark Underwoodere!
Subject: RE: Remote Access wording - subject to litigation privilege [BD-4A.FID26859284]
Quote from SS’ Report:
"This ability to directly amend branch records is something that Post Office has consistently denied was
possible. This recently discovered evidence appears to confirm, that in 2010 at least, it was possible for
Fujitsu / Post Office to directly amend branch data without the knowledge of the relevant
Subpostmaster.
14.16. In commenting on a draft of this report Post of Office told us that the references to “amend” and
“correct” in the documents mentioned above, are not strictly correct as neither Post Office nor Fujitsu
have the ability to directly change or delete existing records. All that can be done is that additional
records can be added by Post Office / Fujitsu without the consent (and possibly the knowledge) of the
relevant Subpostmaster. This will, however, have the effect of altering balances at the branch, as both
debit and credit entries can be made.
14.17. Post Office also told us:
“All of the above processes for correcting / updating a branch's accounts have similar features. All of
them involve inputting a new transaction into the branch's records (not editing or removing any previous
transactions) and all are shown transparently in the branch transaction records available to
Subpostmasters (as well as in the master ARQ data).
The language used in the documents produced by Post Office / Fujitsu and to which you refer is
unfortunate colloquial shorthand used by those working on the Horizon system. I can see how it could be
read to suggest that Post Office was "altering" branch data but the above explains why this is not the
case.”
14.18. This is not something that we have been able to test or validate.
14.19. Clearly, the fact that such an ability exists, is not necessarily evidence that such ‘amendments’
were actually made. This is not something that we have been able to investigate.
POL-0021355
POL00024876
POL00024876
This section of the Report was based on the attached email sent to Second Sight.
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Fotlow Bond Dickinson:
imageonnjpgp Ladd
www.bonddickinson.com
From: Mark R Davies
Sent: 21 July 2016 14:36
To: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Cc: Parsons, Andrew; Thomas P Moran; Rodric Williams; Patrick Bourke; Rob Houghton; Tom Wechsler;
Nick Sambridge; Jane MacLeod; Mark Underwood!
Subject: Re: Remote Access wording - subject to litigation privilege [BD-4A.FID26859284]
Exactly - it's hard to assess this without seeing what we've previously said
Mark Davies
‘ions and Corporate Affairs Director
On 21 Jul 2016, at 14:33, Angela Van-Den-Bogerd?,
Thanks Andy
Would you please circulate the extract “The use of balancing transactions was explained
to Second Sight and is referenced in its Part Two Report at paragraph 14.16.” so that we
can see what was referenced at the time.
Thanks
Angela
\ Angela Van Den Bogerd
Director of Support Services
Swiooean 1st Floor, Ty Brwydran,
POST Atlantic Close, Llansamiet
Swansea SA7 9FI}
POL-0021355
POL00024876
POL00024876
Confidential Information:
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorised review, use, disclosure or
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact me by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
From: Parsons, Andrew [mailto} ~ GRO.
Sent: 21 July 2016 14:05
To: Thomas P Moran; Rodric Williams; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Patrick Bourke; Mark R
Davies; Rob Houghton; Tom Wechsler; Nick Sambridge; Jane MacLeod; Mark
Underwood:
Subject: Remote Access wording - subject to litigation privilege [BD-4A.FID26859284]
All
Please find attached the proposed wording on the remote access issue — for discussion
on our call at 6pm today.
Three points to bear in mind when reviewing:
1. In light of comments yesterday, we've provided a slightly longer explanation so to
hopefully present this issue in a better light.
2. Tony agrees with the current wording but has reiterated the importance of dealing
with this point candidly, even if that does cause some short-term pain.
3. We do not yet have a 100% clear picture on some of the technical and operation
issues on this topic. We therefore need to be careful not to overstate our
case. This draft wording will also need to be run past Deloitte / FJ.
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Follow Bond Dickinson:
cimageo0aipg> Ladd
www.bonddickinson.com
iby ew, angela.van-
van-den-
POL-0021355
POL00024876
POL00024876
the Solicitors
FEI OO FOR oI SI IEICE 2K 2 OF oF ICCC 0K oR oF FCCC 08 2 oR CCC 0 of of 2 CC 008 oF CCE oo a
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.
ECR RR AC ICH CR RR I CCAR RR I S028 oR CCS oR RR AGAR oR CEG oR oo
POL-0021355