MINUTE
POL00026672
POL00026672
Working Group for the Initial Complaint Review and Case Mediation Scheme
40" July 2014
MATRIX CHAMBERS
Attendees
Sir Anthony Hooper (Chair)
Alan Bates (JFSA)
Kay Linnell (JFSA)
Ron Warmington (Second Sight)
lan Henderson (Second Sight)
Chris Aujard (Post Office)
Belinda Crowe (Post Office)
Angela Van Den Bogerd (Post Office)
David Oliver (Post Office)
Andy Parsons (Bond Dickinson)
Apologies
Chris Holyoak (Second Sight)
Page 1 of 14
21 July 2014
POL00026672
POL00026672
Agenda
1. Standing case agenda (Items 2 — 14)
15. Communicating with Applicants
16. Part Two report
a) ATM extract
b) Howe & Co email dated 4 July
17. Whether cases should be passed to Second Sight if Post Office investigation not
completed by deadline
18. Working Group role in recommending cases for mediation
19. MO76 — Working Group discussion and decision on whether to mediate
20. M028 — Working Group discussion and decision on whether to mediate
21. Communicating the Working Group decision not to recommend M054 for mediation
22. Howe & Co extensions and email dated 17th June
23. AOB — matters that Working Group members have asked to be put on the agenda
a) Kay Linnells’s email of 4 July (Kay)
b) Oliver Heald MP case (Post Office)
c) M057 (Second Sight)
Page 2 of 14 21 July 2014
1.
2.
3.
POL00026672
POL00026672
Status of accepted applications awaiting a funding application
1.1 Last application received 9 July 2014. This stage is now closed.
Status of accepted applications awaiting a Case Questionnaire Response
Number of I Number of
Advisor I cases with CQRs Status
Advisor overdue
Letter from chair sent 20 June to set final
Aver 16 0 deadlines — letter acknowledged by Bill
Cleghorn.
M004 due 4 July — SS to confirm if received
Howe & Co 9 2 a .
M114 due 9 July - SS to confirm if received
James 1 0 CQR deadline 5 August, however applicant
Cowper needs extension — see agenda item 10.
2.1 Second Sight have the CQR for M004 and still reviewing it
2.2 Second Sight have not yet received M114. If not received by tomorrow BC to
chase. Working Group agreed that if M114 not received by Monday TH to send
Howe and Co a final reminder letter.
NB: Secretariat subsequently granted an extension for this case on the grounds of
ill health of the applicant's mother following email from How and Co which arrived
on the day of the WG meeting.
New Questionnaire Responses
Case No.
WG Decision
M020
M037
M069
M077
Mogs
All accepted AVDB to circulate proposed timelines by email given the high
volumes of cases submitted over the last two weeks.
Page 3 of 14 21 July 2014
POL00026672
POL00026672
M106
M110
M130
M131
4. Priority cases
Case Status WG Comment
jo.
Moos SS draft report completed 30 June, Noted
comments from parties due 11 July.
CQR accepted by WG 26 June.
M073 I Investigation on-going. Post Office Noted
Investigation Report due 24 July.
. SS commented that they are on track to
M143 I Second Sight report due 11 July. deliver by 11 July
Bankruptcy cases
5.1 The Working Group noted the update on Bankruptcy cases.
Case Status
™Mo01 Post Office report passed to SS 30 May. SS report due 11 July.
M015 Post Office report passed to SS 9 May. SS report due 8 August.
M019 Post Office report passed to SS 8 May. SS report due 18 July.
Mo29 Post Office report passed to SS 12 May. SS report due 25 July.
M030 Post Office report passed to SS 15 April. SS report due 18 July.
M032 Post Office investigation on-going, report due 10 July. — see item 7
M036 Post Office investigation on-going, report due 10 July. — see item 7
Page 4 of 14
21 July 2014
POL00026672
POL00026672
Case Status
M069 I CQR released to WG 10 July.
M081 CQR deadline 31 July. Applicant represented by Aver.
Mosg Post Office investigation on-going, report due 21 August.
M100 I Post Office investigation on-going, report due 23 July.
M118 I Post Office investigation on-going, report due 10 July. — see item 7
M122 Post Office investigation on-going, report due 23 July.
M128 CQR deadline 31 July. Applicant represented by Aver.
M150__I CQR deadline 31 July. Applicant represented by Aver.
Post Office Investigation Progress
6.1 Reports to be uploaded:
Case No. I Status WG decision/comment
Investigation complete finalising report. Report
M005 due to be uploaded in next few days. Noted
Mo13 Investigation complete finalising report. Report I \ioteq
due to be uploaded in next few days.
6.2 Reports due:
Case No. Status WG decision/comment
Investigation complete. Finalising report.
M008 Extension (not 1*') to 7 August required. Granted
Investigation complete. Finalising report.
M024 I Extension (not 1°") to 7 August required. Granted
Investigation complete. Finalising report.
M025 Extension (1“) to 7 August required. Granted
M031 Investigation complete. Finalising report. Granted
Extension (not 1°") to 7 August required.
Page 5 of 14
21 July 2014
POL00026672
POL00026672
Case No. Status WG decision/comment
Moe2 I Eytenson (nt 1") 7 August required. Granted
moe4 eon aa Extension (not 1°) to 7 Granted
Mo74 eon hai Extension (not 1°) to 7 Granted
Page 6 of 14
21 July 2014
POL00026672
POL00026672
Case No. Status WG decision/comment
Investigation complete. Finalising report.
M121 Extension (not 1°") to 7 August required. Granted
Investigation complete. Finalising report.
M132 Extension (not 1°") to 7 August required. Granted
6.3 The Working Group discussed the length of extensions being requested and
6.4
where the bottlenecks were occurring. It was noted that the investigations were of
a high quality but they were taking much longer than anticipated. Delays had
occurred at all stages — submitting initial applications, submitting funding
agreements, submitting CQRs, hardening of CQRs, retrieving relevant Post Office
records, investigating CQRs and reviewing the investigation report. JFSA raised
M001 and M035 raised as examples of older cases and it was noted that these
had been with Second Sight since 30 May and 14 May respectively.
JFSA said that concerns had been raised with them that Post Office could be
determining the order of the movement of the cases. JFSA accepted this was not
the case and it was noted that the flow of cases was dependent on a number of
factors, including submission of CQRs by advisors and Second Sight releasing the
CQRs for Post Office investigation.
ACTION: AVDB and Second Sight to prioritise the oldest cases
7. Cases with Second Sight to review PO investigation reports
7.1. New case for scheduling:
Case SS planned scheduled
No. _ I Passed to SS delivery date WG
Mo03 08 July 2014 22 August 2014 noted
8. Cases that Second Sight have reported on
Case SS Draft Deadline SS Final Report a Sent to
Report for WG Decision
No. completed/due CEDR
completed I comments
M022 I 16May 14 June v.1) 13 June v.2) 18 I Mediate 19 June
June
M127 I 27 May 4 June v.1) 13 June v.2) 19 Mediate 19 June
Page 7 of 14 21 July 2014
POL00026672
POL00026672
June
M054 I 29May 6 June 11 June Not mediate N/A
M048 I 6 June 17 June 20 June PO to update
To be
M076 I 6 June 17 June 20 June discussed 10
July
To be
M028 I 13 June 24 June 1 July discussed 10
July
M062 I 20 June 22 July 29 July
M006 I 30 June 11 July 18 July
M057 I 4 July 15 July 22 July
8.1 M048 — The Working Group noted the update that Post Office have agreement in
8.2
8.3
principle to settle the case and that the paperwork is being finalised.
Second Sight explained their scheduling approach — they schedule cases for
delivery according to their capacity rather than adhere to the four week timescale
for each case. They would only ask for extensions if they were unable to adhere
to their scheduled delivery date. They confirmed that they will deliver three draft
CRRs per week and, provided comments were received from the parties in a
timely manner, three final CRRs per week. The Working Group noted that this was
a different approach to that being applied to Post Office.
It was agreed that both Post Office and Second Sight will make sure that they
work on a First in First out basis.
Any other queries raised by Applicants / Advisors
9.1
M142 has appointed Robert Holland from James Cowper. Robert is away on
holiday and his first meeting with the applicant is on 22 August so the applicant
has asked for an extension to 19 September (4 weeks from first meeting) to be
agreed by WG.
ACTION: Chair to write to Robert Holland along the following lines:
* Extension granted until 31 August.
e Final deadline and the matter will proceed,
Page 8 of 14 21 July 2014
POL00026672
POL00026672
e Acknowledging that the interview with the applicant may have to be dealt with
by another person in the firm.
9.2 Howe and Co expense request for M062 (responding to Second Sight draft CRR)
— The Working Group decided not to recommend that expenses are paid in this
case
ACTION — Secretariat to inform Howe and Co of the Working Group’s
recommendation.
10. Issues with resourcing / timings
10.1 N/A
11. Communicating with Applicants
11.1 In response to a request from JFSA the Working Group discussed whether and
how the Working Group should provide a further update for applicants on progress
of the Scheme. At a previous meeting AB had agreed to be the point of contact
for applicants and a letter from the Chair had been sent to all applicants to that
effect. AB commented that:
e the current approach was working reasonably well — he issues a monthly
email to applicants and also responded to specific queries.
e he considered that another general letter from the Working Group would be a
good idea but it should not include dates for particular stages unless the
Working Group could be certain those dates would be met.
11.2 The Working Group agreed that:
¢ The Chair writes to all applicants with a general update (including statistics on
the Scheme’s progress to date) and restate that applicants can contact AB for
an update on progress of their case.
« The letter should inform the applicant that they will be notified when the PO
report was sent to Second Sight for investigation and an indication from
Second Sight (according to their Schedule, when the draft CRR could be
expected.
e The 24 applicants whose cases are with Second Sight for investigation should
be provided with an indicative timescale for delivery of the CRR.
ACTION Secretariat to draft letter for the Chair, to be circulated to the Working
Group in advance
11.3. The Working group discussed whether the Post Office investigation report should
be disclosed to the applicant at the time it was passed to Second Sight. PO
agreed to consider this and report back at the next Working Group call. There was
Page 9 of 14 21 July 2014
POL00026672
POL00026672
a similar discussion about issuing the Part One report to all applicants and
advisors.
ACTION: Post Office to consider disclosing the Post Office Investigation report to
the applicant when passed to Second Sight.
ACTION: Working Group to consider sending the Part One report to all advisors
and applicants
ACTION: Secretariat to put both issues on agenda for next Working Group call.
12. Cover letter from Chair to the parties covering the draft Second Sight report
12.1. The Working Group discussed the wording of the current stock cover letter sent to
parties with the draft CRR. It was agreed that the wording should be modified to
reflect that this was a voluntary stage in the process introduced to assist the
applicant, no additional funding was available for it and the Working Group did not
envisage significant extra work being undertaken at this stage (see also below re
Howe and Co correspondence).
12.2 The Working Group agreed that it was for Second Sight to identify and set out in
the draft CRR the documents relevant for the case (e.g Part 1). Given this change
the Working Group agreed that Second Sight and BC should review whether the
letters already issued to applicants were adequate or whether further clarification
was required.
ACTION: Secretariat to provide revised draft for Chair
ACTION: BC and Second Sight to review the issued correspondence to ensure it
was adequate.
13. Howe and Co letter of 9 July 2014
13.1. The Working Group considered the various letters and emails from Howe & Co. In
discussion the Working Group agreed the following:
¢ the draft report stage is a voluntary stage and advisors are not being asked to
undertake significant extra work.
e advisors have been invited merely to make comments and there is no extra
funding.
¢ That the contribution towards funding is a fixed contribution not a grant.
¢ That the stage had been added to increase applicants understanding of the
Scheme
Page 10 of 14 21 July 2014
POL00026672
POL00026672
e That there is a further opportunity to make comments through the mediation
statement.
13.2 In light of this the Working Group agreed to allow an extension until 25 July to
comment on M006 and that they would copy their letter to the applicant.
ACTION: Secretariat draft a consolidated response for the Chair to the Howe&Co
correspondence
14. Second Sight Part Two report
a) ATM extract
14.1 The Chair opened the discussion and recapped the recent history of the Part Two
report and in particular the ATM extract. In discussion the Working Group agreed
that:
e The Part Two report was a Second Sight report and they retained editorial
control.
e The draft should have been shared with Post Office in advance to comment
on the accuracy
e The Working Group should have been given the opportunity to discuss the
report before it was sent to applicants.
¢ The report would have benefit from clarification in a number of areas including
the references to retract fraud, Second Sight’s use of the term “out of sync’,
the location of the ATM machines.
e Second sight and Post Office should meet to discuss the content of the
report.
ACTION: Second Sight and Post Office, with AB should he wish, to review the
ATM report.
ACTION: Second Sight to write to AVDB with any outstanding questions.
14.2 The Working group considered whether all cases should be put on hold pending
completion of the part 2 Report and agreed that they should not, unless the cases
required Part 2. Second Sight aim to have completed Part 2 by 25 July .
15. Whether cases should be passed to Second Sight if Post Office investigation not
completed by deadline
15.1 The Working Group considered whether cases should be passed to Second Sight
without a Post Office investigation report. It was agreed that Post Office needs to
be allowed to complete their investigation: passing a case to Second Sight in the
absence of a full investigation would not benefit the applicant and the case would
still sit with Second Sight until they were able to consider it. The Working Group
Page 11 of 14 21 July 2014
POL00026672
POL00026672
agreed that it should continue to keep the progress of cases at every stage under
review.
16. Working Group role in recommending cases for mediation
16.1 The Working Group discussed JFSA’s proposal to change agreed process for the
Working Group to decide whether a case should be referred for mediation. AB
made the following points:
e it was never envisaged that the Working Group would consider all cases and
decide whether to recommend them for mediation
e it was always envisaged that the majority of cases would proceed to
mediation.
16.2 Concluding the initial discussion the Chair noted that since October it has been
clear to him that the Working Group would make the decision on whether to
recommend a case for mediation in all cases and that position had been
discussed and documented on a number of occasions. Further the Chair noted
that one face to face meeting had been almost exclusively dedicated to discussing
the exact process for making a decision therefore JFSA’s proposal would
constitute a change from previous agreements.
16.3 At the Chair's invitation AB set out his proposal for deciding whether a case
should be referred to mediation as:
a) If Second Sight recommend a case is suitable for mediation then it
automatically goes to mediation
b) If Second Sight recommend that a case is not suitable for mediation the
Working Group should discuss that recommendation.
c) If Second Sight does not make a recommendation on whether a case should
be mediated the Working Group should make a decision
16.4 JFSA stressed that MPs had been promised, and were expecting, that all
applicants had an opportunity for their case to be mediated and that JFSA’s
engagement with the Scheme had been dependent on that point. Post Office
shared Chair's understanding that the decision on whether to recommend a case
for mediation was one for the Working Group.
16.5 During the course of the discussion the following issues were discussed:
¢ The value of the use of mediation in cases where there is a dispute
¢ Whether mediation should always be appropriate where there is a dispute
¢ The value of the applicant having a ‘day in court’ to achieve a better
understanding of the issues
Page 12 of 14 21 July 2014
17.
18.
19.
20.
POL00026672
POL00026672
e The extent to which mediating all cases provided value for money for the
taxpayer (as per the Working Group ToRs) if Post Office is clear at the outset
that the demands of the applicant cannot be met
16.6 The Chair invited AB to provide a paper for the Working Group setting out the
reasons for a change to the agreed process with reference to ‘historical’
statements and commitments and explaining in what way the Scheme as now
operating was inconsistent with that. Post Office would then have a right of
response via a paper to the Chair.
ACTION: JFSA to provide a paper for the Chair by 24 July
ACTION: Post Office to provide a response to the JFSA paper by 7 August
M076 — Working Group discussion and decision on whether to mediate
17.1 The Post Office did not consider this case suitable for mediation and relied on the
‘test’ that the Chair had applied in M054. The Working Group discussed the
‘Chair's test’ and whether it was the right one. The Working Group acknowledged
that this point was linked to the previous discussion on the role of the Working
Group but invited Post Office and JFSA to consider, in advance of the Working
Group call, whether the test was the right one. The Working Group deferred
discussion of this case to the following week to allow further reflection on the
‘Chair's test’.
ACTION: Secretariat to add M076 and ‘Chair's test to agenda for next Working
Group call
M028 — Working Group discussion and decision on whether to mediate
18.1 The Working Group recommended the case for mediation.
ACTION: Secretariat to issue final report to applicant and refer the case to CEDR
to arrange mediation.
Communicating the Working Group decision not to recommend M054 for
mediation
19.1 The Working Group acknowledged that the decision of the Working Group has still
not been communicated to the applicant. JFSA suggested a brief letter to the
applicant with no reasons, but that reasons should be provided if the applicant
requested more information. The Working Group agreed that there was no right of
appeal against a decision not to recommend a case for mediation but agreed to
defer notifying the applicant until a decision was made on the Chair's test.
Howe & Co extensions and email dated 17th June
20.1 Discussed under agenda item 13.
Page 13 of 14 21 July 2014
POL00026672
POL00026672
21. AOB — matters that Working Group members have asked to be put on the agenda
a) Kay Linnells’s email of 4 July (Kay)
21.1 There was a brief discussion of the email of 4 July. The Working Group noted
that, as per para 2.4 of the Working Group ToRs, Post Office may act in a manner
which promotes its own interests and JFSA can act in a manner which promotes
the interests of the applicants.
b) Oliver Heald MP case (Post Office)
21.2 Post Office has agreed to investigate the case as part of its business as usual
processes. The Working group agreed that the Chair would write to Oliver Heald
to that effect and Post Office would contact the applicant.
ACTION: secretariat to provide letter for the Chair to send to Oliver Heald
c) M057 (Second Sight)
21.3 Second Sight have recommended that this case is not suitable for mediation and
sought guidance from the Working Group on the criteria they should apply when
considering their recommendation. The Working Group agreed that it was for
Second Sight to determine its own criteria. However, Second Sight advised that
should the Working Group decide that the final decision on whether a case should
be mediated should rest with them they would be likely to recommend all cases for
mediation.
Page 14 of 14 21 July 2014