POL00025209
POL00025209
Message
From: Mark Underwood
Sent: 21/07/2016 21:42:30
To: Parsons, Andrew [/O=BOND PEARCE/OU=First Administrative Group/cn=Recipients/cn=ap6]; Thomas P Moran
C i
cc: Jai Tom Wechsler
; Rob Houghton [ Rodric Williams
Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Bourke f ; Nick Sambridge {f
Subject: RE: Remote Access wording - subject to litigation privilege [BD-4A.FID26859284]
Attachments: 160721 Statements Remote Access.docx
Patrick
All,
i have been through the Scheme Chronology and reviewed for statements made by Post Office re Remote Access. Please
find attached what I feel are the key staternents made publically.
Mark
From: Parsons, Andrew {_
Sent: 21 July 2016 20:00
To: Thomas P Moran; Mark Underwood:
Cc: Mark R Davies; Jane MacLeod; Tom Wechsler; Rob Houghton; Rodric Williams; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Patrick
Bourke; Nick Sambridge
Subject: RE: Remote Access wording - subject to litigation privilege [BD-4A.FID26859284]
Tom
I think we have agreed wording on the Post Office side. Tony has already signed off. I've sent the wording to both FJ and
Deloitte and asked for comments by cob tomorrow.
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Follow Bond Dickinson:
www.bonddickinson.com
From: Thomas P Moran [,
Sent: 21 July 2016 19:42
To: Mark Underwood}
Cc: Mark R Davies; Parsons, Andrew; Jane MacLeod; Tom Wechsler; Rob Houghton; Rodric Williams; Angela Van-Den-
Bogerd; Patrick Bourke; Nick Sambridge
Subject: Re: Remote Access wording - subject to litigation privilege [BD-4A.FID26859284]
All
POL-0021688
POL00025209
POL00025209
Sorry I couldn't dial in - I think Tom will have given my apologies.
Mark/Andy. Please can you set out the timeline for approving this text (eg Deloitte, FJ) if this is necessary.
Completely agree that making sure we are not contradicting previous statements is vital.
Tom
On Jul 21, 2016, at 7:31 PM, Mark Underwoo
Mark, I will take a look at what we have said previously
Mark
Get Outlook for iOS
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 6:21 PM +0100, "Mark R Davies" <_ GRO ~ wrote:
All
1am stuck with a live issue at present. My uneasiness on this issue is why we can't give a firmer position
on the super user point before we reply?
I suspect I know the answer but the current wording leaves us vulnerable and we would need to look at
what we have said publicly (select committee, panorama etc...) before we commit the position.
Mark
Mark Davies
Communications and Corporate Affairs Director
On 21 Jul 2016, at 18:02, Parsons, Andrew <7
All
in case it helps, please find attached an amended version including Rob's comments
earlier.
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Partner
<image001 .j
Direct:
Follow Bond Dickinson:
<image002,jpg><image003,jpg>
www.bonddickinson.com
POL-0021688
POL00025209
POL00025209
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 Underwoot
Subject: RE: Remote Access wording - subject to litigation privilege [BD-
4A.FID26859284]
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 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 Dickinsor
<image002.jpg><image003.jpg>
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
POL-0021688
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.
This section of the Report was based on the attached email sent to Second Sight.
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Follow Bond Dickinson:
<image002,jpg><image003 jpa>
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 Underwoor
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 <angela.van-den-
bogerdi7777777686 > wrote:
Thanks Andy
POL00025209
POL00025209
POL-0021688
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
<image004.png> Angela Van Den Bogerd
Director of Support Services
1% Floor, Ty Brwydran,
Atlantic Close, Llansamlet
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, Andre\ 5
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 / Fu.
Kind regards
Andy
POL00025209
POL00025209
POL-0021688
POL00025209
POL00025209
Andrew Parsons
Foltow Bond Dickinson:
<image002,jpg><image003.jpg>
www.bonddickinson.com
mail whic’
worsed by it
Bond Dickiz
JeIGIIGI aA a G AG SIO ICA aOR IR ICR IC ICICI A ICA ICA ACC ACCA ACCA IC CR BC AG ACC ACCA CC CC A
corr
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.
22 2 28 28 RF 282K OR FF 2428 2 2128 28 28 F212 09 2 FF 24 2829 29 A GR
eC
<_DOC_33442637(1) Remote Access Rider v3.DOCX>
POL-0021688