POL00025167
POL00025167
Message
From: Rodric Williams
Sent: 21/07/2016 17:30:19
To: Parsons, Andrew [/O=BOND PEARCE/OU=First Administrative Group/cn:
ce: Thomas k
Houghton Tom Wechsler
Jane MacLeod §”
Subject: RE: Remote Access wording - subject to litigation privilege [BD-4A.FID26859284]
All — this is the wording we have just discussed for para. 1.3.4:
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
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;
Subject: RE: Remote Access wording - subject to litigation privilege [BD-4A.FID26859284]
All
In case it helps, please find attached an amended version including Rob's comments earlier.
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Partner
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’; ‘Patrick Bourke’; 'Rob Houghton’; 'Tom Wechsler’; ‘Nick Sambridge'; ‘Jane
MacLeod’; ‘Mark Underwoo
Subject: RE: Remote Access wording - subject to litigation privilege [BD-4A.FID26859284]
Mark
POL-0021646
POL00025167
POL00025167
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 what POL was told and what POL has said on this topic. One to discuss on our call later.
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Follow Bond Dickinson:
in)
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 Underwood=!
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.”
POL-0021646
POL00025167
POL00025167
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.
This section of the Report was based on the attached email sent to Second Sight.
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Follow Bond Dickinso:
www.bonddickinson.com
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 sre}
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
Communications and Corporate Affairs Director
On 21 Jul 2016, at 14:33, Angela Van-Den-Bogerd <j” wrote:
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
POL-0021646
POL00025167
POL00025167
& 1° Floor, Ty Brwydran,
Atlantic Close, Llansamiet
@® Swansea SA7 9F)_
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
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
POL-0021646
POL00025167
POL00025167
JASCO SIO IGOR IIE SIO ICSI OI SIOSIOR SIO CIO CIO IARI OSI OIG I OCI IO IA
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.
SRR RR fo RR A RK RR Sf RR a RR a
POL-0021646