POL00026656
POL00026656
FACE TO FACE MEETING OF THE WORKING GROUP
INITIAL COMPLAINT REVIEW AND MEDIATION SCHEME
7 March 2014
1130 — 430
Attendees
Sir Anthony Hooper (Chair)
Chris Aujard
Belinda Crowe
Angela Van Den Bogerd
David Oliver
Alan Bates
Kay Linnell
Ron Warmington
lan Henderson
Chris Holyoak
Andrew Parsons
Apologies
Claire Parmenter
1. Terms Of Reference
A. The Working Group discussed the revised Terms of Reference. The
reworked Clause 4.9 was agreed. Clause 4.10.1 was agreed subject to the
addition of the phrase “and any associated issues” after Horizon. It was
confirmed that the Terms of Reference allowed for different lengths of
mediation. It was agreed that the Working Group should not have its own
budget but would use the process set out in Section 8 where funding was
required. The Terms of Reference were agreed.
ACTION Post Office to post the Final agreed Terms of Reference on Huddle.
2. Letters from Howe and Co and Aver
B. The Working Group discussed the correspondence from Howe and Co and
Aver. The Chair, as previously agreed with the Working Group, had written to
the two firms to advise them that the Working Group would be discussing their
correspondence at this meeting.
Aver Letter
POL00026656
POL00026656
C. It was agreed that:
a.
b.
Paragraph 2 sub paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 were accurate
bullet 1 of paragraph 3 was inaccurate, BC had authorisation from the
Working Group to grant the two week extensions in the same way that
RW had previously. This authority had transferred over at the same
time as the general administration.
there cannot be a situation where advisors do not ask for permission
for an extension otherwise the delivery of the Scheme will slide and
therefore a written request was both reasonable and necessary.
. BC would continue to have the Working Group’s authority to grant
extensions up to two weeks and that in general if a request was made
the Working Group’s expectation was that it would be granted.
However this was not automatic and should be applied for in good
time. It was also agreed that BC would turnaround such applications
within 24 hours.
Paragraph 3 bullet 2 - BC explained that that bullet related to case
M014 and the action had been discussed previously with the Working
Group. RW commented that he did not believe that Aver had incurred
significant costs on this case. The Working Group agreed that an
itemised breakdown of the costs incurred on this case should be
requested.
. Sub bullet (ii) the draft response should make clear that the Working
Group would be sympathetic to an extension.
For sub bullet (iii) it was agreed that BC would discuss these cases
with Aver and the point raised in sub bullet (v). It was noted that sub
bullet (iv) was not the case.
Bullet 3 - BC clarified that the invoices had been refused as they were
above the level agreed in the Scheme documentation. This stage of
the Scheme did not include travel expenses. It was decided that the
Working Group would recommend to Post Office that these were paid
but that in future prior authorisation for exceptional expenses should be
sought.
Page 3 - The draft response should be along the following lines:
“Extensions have been applied for by Post Office and agreed by the
Working Group”
POL00026656
POL00026656
I. Page 4. The Working Group agreed that they would grant extensions
save where the date had already passed, where it would agree a new
date.
ACTION Post Office to consider the recommendation of the Working Group
that the Aver expenses be paid.
ACTION: BC and TH to draft a response to Aver taking account of the points
agreed Draft letter responding to Aver to be circulated to the Working Group
for comment.
Howe and Co Letter
M. The Working Group did not agree with the suggestion of no time limit for the
cases. As with Aver, Howe and Co should be required to apply for
extensions.
N. The point on “inequality of arms” was discussed. It was noted that it was not
the role of Howe and Co to investigate the case and that they were not being
funded to do so. With regard to expenses it was agreed that, as with Aver
they should seek prior agreement from the Working Group before incurring
any exceptional expenses. It was also noted in discussion that it had never
been the intention for Post office to bear all the costs of the Scheme.
ACTION BC and TH to draft letter to Howe and Co to be circulated to the
Working Group for comment.
3. Bankruptcy
O. BC tabled the list of cases where the applicants were thought to be bankrupt (
“Case Tracker: Bankruptcy”). It was not necessarily an accurate list, compiled
from information obtained from applications and CQRs. AB had checked with
the firm of insolvency practitioners that JFSA had used and also with all of the
professional advisors. Two firms of advisors had not responded but these
enquiries showed that M069 and M001 could be added to the list.
P. The Working Group discussed the need to check that the applicant has
bought back the rights to the action against the Post Office and that the
applicant would need to produce a document that proves that they have the
right to bring the action and that this would need to be produced in advance of
mediation. This only applied if they were made bankrupt after the losses were
incurred.
ACTION AP to obtain advice and then provide a draft letter to all applicants
setting out the steps they would need to take if they had been made bankrupt
after their claimed losses.
ACTION KL to review the bankruptcy letter prior to issue.
POL00026656
POL00026656
4. Late Applications
Q. AB introduced the three late applications that had been received. The first
two applicants, from a mother and son applicant, had completed the wrong
form and submitted it to the wrong place. They had completed the incorrect
forms on 11/11/13 and 30/10/13. Both applicants had now completed the
correct forms. The Working Group agreed that they should be accepted onto
the Scheme subject to the usual procedures. The third late applicant had
contacted AB and Second Sight in October (29/10/13) informing them that
they would apply for the Scheme when their bankruptcy was discharged. This
had not been brought to the Working Group’s attention at the time. It was
agreed that the third case should also be admitted into the Scheme subject to
the usual procedures. Both Second Sight and JFSA confirmed that there
were no further outstanding cases.
ACTION all three late applications to be admitted into the Scheme subject to
the usual procedures.
5.
Criminal Cases
R.
The Chair updated the Working Group on the criminal cases. He explained
that he could assure the Working Group that the cases were being considered
at the right level within Post Office and undertook to report back further to the
Working Group at their next conference call.
Second Sight Reports
Ss.
The Working Group had agreed, as a temporary procedure for the first three
or four Second Sight reports, that it would review the reports, alongside the
Post Office investigation reports, to satisfy itself that that the package of
information would provide the mediator with what was necessary for a
successful mediation. Second Sight reports for M001 and M014 were
discussed in detail. As a result of that discussion the Working Group agreed
that the Second Sight reports needed to be revisited to:
a. where appropriate reflect the position in relation to losses and
surplusses.
b. record the value of the claim and consequential losses claimed
whilst making it clear in the scope of its report that:
“It is not for Second Sight to examine the propriety of any consequential loss”
make clear the central case in their report.
include both the applicant and the Post Office position
e. include a clear treatment of any judgement that has been handed
down in a case making clear if Second Sight agree with the
judgement or not and providing clear evidenced reasons.
f. ensure conclusions are reasoned and supported by evidence
ao
POL00026656
POL00026656
T. There was a discussion of the Second Sight generic/thematic report. It was
noted that this would not cover the factual position of what Horizon did and how it
acted. The Working Group agreed that a document that clearly documented the
role of Horizon and the Post Office was key to successful mediation and that this
document could not be produced by one of the parties to mediation. Therefore
the Working Group agreed that Second Sight would produce the factual Part One
briefing document. It was agreed that case report work should be paused to
allow Second Sight to focus solely on the production of the Part 1 and the
Thematic Report (referred to as part 2).
U. It was agreed that the Working Group would return to reviewing the individual
reports after they had looked at Part One and Part Two reports which would be
circulated by close of business 26 March at the latest. The next Working Group
meeting will take place on 1 April at 1130 at Bond Dickinson’s offices. This
means the projected timeline is that the first case should be released to CEDR by
the end of May.
ACTION Post Office to provide Second Sight with a copy of the Factfile.
ACTION Second Sight to urgently review the factfile and consider using it as
the basis for the production of the Part One report (the “mediator briefing”).
ACTION Second Sight to discuss with AVDB any outstanding issues, areas of
disagreement or queries before the circulation of the Part One and Part Two
reports.
ACTION Second Sight to circulate their draft Part one and Part two reports as
soon as possible to the Working Group.
ACTION Second Sight to urgently provide a list of all outstanding issues to
AVDB and BC.
POL00026656
POL00026656
7. Status of accepted applications awaiting a Case Questionnaire Response
Case I Status WG action
No.
M037 I SLO1 letter sent 26 February; awaiting a I Noted
response.
M059 __I Missing funding agreement: 3 telephone I Letter to issue “unless we hear
conversations had with son of applicant I from you within 14D your
(CC), late January, 28 February, 4 application will be excluded from
March and email sent as the Scheme”
requested. Nothing received. AB to follow up in parallel
moe1__I No contact from applicant since AB to follow up with applicant
application form. Sensitive case - we are
dealing with SPMRs widower. Second
Sight asked him to provide evidence he
was entitled to act on behalf of his late
wife’s estate. No response to letter
received.
M071 I Funding agreement received 5 March. Noted
Awaiting professional advisor details. In
contact with applicant (CC) - late
submission due to personal
circumstances.
M074 _ I Funding agreement received 22 Letter to issue “unless we hear
November. Awaiting professional from you within 14D your
advisor details. Attempted contact (CC) I application will be excluded from
in January and February; no response I the Scheme”
to voicemail messages. AB to follow up in parallel
M081 I Applicant advised (CC) in January that I Applicant to proceed.
they were unable to proceed at this time
due to bankruptcy status.
M100 I Missing funding agreement: telephone _I Letter to issue “unless we hear
conversation had with applicant (BC) in I from you within 14D your
January and message left with mother _I application will be excluded from
28 February (CC). No response/no the Scheme”
POL00026656
POL00026656
funding agreement received.
AB to follow up in parallel
M126 I SL01 letter sent 26 February; awaiting a I Noted
response.
M128 I Funding agreement received 1 Letter to issue “unless we hear
December. Awaiting professional from you within 14D your
advisor details. Telephone conversation I application will be excluded from
had (CC) with applicant 3 March and the Scheme”
voicemail left 6 March; applicant still to I 1B to follow up in parallel
confirm advisor.
M140_ I Funding agreement received 5 March. Noted.
Awaiting professional advisor details.
Telephone conversation had (CC) 28
February — applicant waiting for meeting
with Howe & Co (advised this would not
be for 3 weeks) and will confirm after
this has taken place.
M141 I SL01 letter sent 29 January; awaiting a I Letter to issue “unless we hear
response.
from you within 14D your
application will be excluded from
the Scheme”
AB to follow up in parallel
. New Case Questionnaire Responses
Case Status
No.
Mogo Accepted onto Scheme
M132 Accepted onto Scheme
. Post Office / Second Sight investigation progress
Case
No.
Status
WG Action
POL00026656
POLO00026656
Case
No.
Status
WG Action
M004
Meeting 20 January. Letter from POL
sent to SPMR advising that confirmation
was required so that the case could
progress to the next stage of the
Scheme. POL chased the applicant on
7 February; the applicant responded on
5 March — that he will provide an update
by 12 March
Noted
Mo06
Further information required to
complete the investigation. Extension
(2nd) to 27 March required
Agreed
M007
Investigation complete. Finalising
report. Extension (not 1%") to 20 March
required
Agreed
Mo11
Investigation complete. Finalising
report. Extension to 20 March required
Agreed
M019
Investigation complete. Finalising
report. Extension (not 1) to 20 March
required
Agreed
M028
Investigation complete. Finalising
report. Extension (not 1) to 20 March
required
Agreed
M035
Submitted to Second Sight 6 March
Noted
M048
Investigation complete. Finalising
report. Extension (not 1§) to 20 March
required
Agreed
M065
Investigation complete. Finalising
report. Extension (not 1%*) to 20 March
required
Agreed
=
POL00026656
POLO00026656
Case I Status WG Action
No.
M094 __I Further information required to Agreed
complete investigation. POL to update
WG 27 March
M107 I Investigation complete. Finalising Agreed
report. Second extension to 20 March
required
M114 I POL internal investigation complete. Noted
Findings to be discussed with SPMR.
POL to update WG 20 March
0.
0. Any other queries raised by Applicants / Advisors
Case I Query WG action
No.
M054 Update requested from applicant WG agreed that applicant could
be updated on the stage her
application was at
M130 I The Professional Advisor would like to Agreed
M131 on .
amalgamate the two applications into a
joint submission