POL00025787
POL00025787
Message
From: Parsons, Andre’
Sent: 27/01/2015 13:
To: Chris Aujard
Rodric Williams
ce: Jane MacLeod Loraine, Paul
Subject: RE! Stispense accounts - legally privileged - urgent (BD-4A.FID20472253]
Attachments: Suspense document
Chris
Alis referring to the draft paper that Rod sent to me last night - see attached.
It may be useful to talk through with Al his main concern (that we only provide 2 examples rather than a comprehensive
answer). Angela and I have already discussed this with Rod and found that getting clear answers was very difficult. Each
client/product has a different process and therefore the operation of the Suspense Account in relation to each product is
different. Drafting a comprehensive explanation for each product would therefore be a significant task. For this reason,
we focussed the draft paper on two specific examples, banking transactions and ATMs — these being SS' primary areas of
concern.
There is also a wider point that SS are fishing for information when they should be putting forward concrete examples of
how the Suspense Account has operated to disadvantage a SPMR in relation to a particular product or
transaction. Volunteering too much information may only encourage further fishing and less focus on specific cases.
I've inserted some further comments in Al's email below on his specific questions.
Tom/ Patrick - are you in a position to collate the statistical information that Al asks for at the end of his email? I have
some of this already - happy to discuss.
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Managing Associate
Follow Bond Dickinson:
www.bonddickinson.com
----Original Messag:
From: Chris Aujard [i
Sent: 27 January 2015 12:48
To: Tom Wechsler; Patrick Bourke; Rodric Williams; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Parsons, Andrew
Cc: Jane MacLeod
Subject: FW: Suspense accounts - legally privileged - urgent
FYI - I am not sure what draft written response he is referring to; can anyone shed some light on this and the other
questions that he has asked? Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Alisdair Cameron
Sent: 27 January 2015 12:43
To: Chris Aujard; Jane MacLeod; Belinda Crowe
POL-0022266
POL00025787
POL00025787
Cc: Rod Ismay; Mark R Davies
Subject: Suspense accounts - legally privileged - urgent
Chris et al
In spending the day with Rod, he showed me the draft written response to SS, which I hadn't seen. I am slightly
disconcerted that we still haven't replied to them but as that seems to be the case I have a few observations. It would be
helpful if someone could confirm the diary plan for the next few days - when we reply, when we practice, is Monday on?
etc.
My main issue with the draft is that it doesn't do what they want and begs an obvious question. We effectively give them a
high level overview and then two specific examples. If I was them, I would say "not good enough, give us the specifics for
each material client.” So my question is, rather than making them jump through hoops, why don't we just do that?
Secondly, we are very data light. Can we not get across a sense of volumes and values and percentages that would
highlight how small some of his activity is relative to the core - and how much activity there is in the wider business, which
may help them understand why we can't control every detail.
Rod Ismay is compiling this data
Less significantly:
- if our main contention is that there are many different versions of this, why refer to it as a singular Suspense Account?
I'll speak to Rod about getting this further level! of detail — the reference to a single account was only there to help simplify
the answer.
- are we really clear that they are only interested in client suspense accounts and not the balancing accounts with the
branches?
Yes ~ SS have made this clear.
- in para. 2 of page 2 we talk about the various people affected but ignore customers. I would add them in.
Agreed
- I agree we should use "credit" consistently. Have we worked through a logic for a debits, so we can answer that question
if it arises? "Are there any circumstances in which a debit suspense item could leave a branch out of pocket?”
SS have made clear that they are only interested in credits but we can work up an answer on debits just in case
- we hold strongly to the argument that if a branch has accounted properly it shouldn't be out of pocket. But it opens us up
to the argument that if a badly trained and unsupported branch made errors and were materially out of profit - to our
benefit - that would also be something we had accountability for. What's our answer to that? An example is if they don't
record cheques properly, create a cash shortfall they don't get paid for and don't get the matching cheque benefit?
We'll need to discuss this with Rod Ismay.
- we cover the same. 2 examples twice each and the two could be consolidated to better effect
Agreed
Also could I urgently see a breakdown of the cases in process showing amount claimed, where there has been a criminal
prosecution, where they are in the SS process, what any SS recommendations are etc?
Thanks Al
Sent from my iPad
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: 148 OLD STREET,
LONDON EC1V 9HQ.
POL-0022266
POL00025787
POL00025787
POL-0022266