MINUTE
INITIAL COMPLAINT REVIEW AND MEDIATION SCHEME
WORKING GROUP 16 JUNE 2014
ATTENDEES
Sir Anthony Hooper
Alan Bates (JFSA)
Kay Linnell (JFSA)
Ron Warmington (Second Sight)
Chris Holyoak (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
lan Henderson (Second Sight)
1. Minutes of 6 May 2014 and 20 May 2014
1.1. The Chair opened the discussion of the outstanding minutes of the face to
face meetings in May and invited the Working Group to comment. In the
absence of any comment the 6 May minutes were agreed.
ACTION Secretariat to post final version to huddle
1.2 Discussion moved to the minutes of 20 May:
POL00026673
POL00026673
e The outstanding action for CA to discuss surpluses with the Post Office CFO
was raised. CA updated the Working Group that he had spoken to the CFO
and also to a further member of the finance staff. He was awaiting written
confirmation detailing the exact position
e There was further discussion of a number of issues around the
processing of discrepancies between Bank of Ireland and Post Office and
it was agreed that to ensure the answer exactly addressed Second
Sight’s questions, RW would set out his question to CA in writing.
1.3. Following that discussion the minute of 20 May was agreed.
ACTION: RW to write to CA with the exact question SS needs answering.
ACTION: Secretariat to post final version of minute of 20 May to huddle.
1
POL00026673
POL00026673
2. Cover letters for parties to issue with Second Sight’s final report
2.1 The letters were reviewed and agreed subject to AB having an opportunity to
provide any comments on the draft before they are used beyond the
immediate cases.
ACTION: AB to provide DO with comments
ACTION: Secretariat to post letters in Huddle casefolder when they are issued
3. M054 - Working group decision on whether to recommend mediation
3.1. Case M054 was discussed to inform a decision as to whether the Working
Group should recommend the cases for mediation. Second Sight had, in
their final report, recommended mediation. The following points were
considered during the course of the discussion:
e Regardless of a decision to recommend mediation by the Working Group,
either party had the right to decline to mediate.
e — The extent to which the case raises issues that had not been previously
explained to the satisfaction of the applicant in the context of the benefit
of mediation for the applicant in terms of being able to ‘move on’ after
mediation from the events being mediated.
e Whether making a recommendation for mediation was the only outcome
of the Working Group’s consideration or whether a structured discussion
might be recommended instead.
e The fact that an admission of guilt by the applicant might make a case
unsuitable for mediation.
e The need to have regard to value for money which is written into the
Working Group’s terms of reference
e The fact that a case may be better pursued through alternative means
e Whether the fact that a case is an ‘MP’s’ case should mean it must be
mediated
3.2 It being apparent that the matter of whether the Working Group should
recommend M054 for mediation might proceed to a vote, the Working Group
agreed the test the Chair should consider if called upon to use his casting
vote as:
e “On the assumption that both parties approach mediation in a genuine
attempt to reconcile their differences. Is it reasonably likely that the parties
will reach an agreed resolution of their issues.”
3.3
3.4
3.5
POL00026673
POL00026673
The Working Group then moved to a vote on whether case M054 should be
recommended for mediation. Post office voted against a recommendation to
mediate, JFSA voted for.
The vote being tied, the Chair undertook to decide the matter and provide the
working group with his reasoned, written decision by next Monday 23 June
2014.
During the course of this discussion the working group also considered and
agreed that:
« The Working Group would make a recommendation on the length of
mediation (1/2 day or full day) but that recommendation could be varied if
CEDR took a different view.
« This case should not be delayed pending the completion of second sight’s
Part 2 report.
Action: SAH to provide his written decision, with reasons, on whether the
Working Group by 23 June 2014.
4. M127 — Working group decision on whether to recommend mediation
41
The Chair opened a brief discussion of case M127 asking for initial views on
whether the case was suitable for mediation. There was a discussion about
the extent to which it might be preferable for Post Office to hold a preliminary
discussion with the applicant prior to a decision on whether to recommend
mediation but on balance the Working Group decided that the case should be
recommended to mediation:
Action: Secretariat to send Second Sight’s final report and associated
documents, and the agreed covering letters, to the parties and CEDR
5. Bankruptcy
5.1
5.2
KL opened a short discussion of Bankruptcy explaining that she had reached
agreement for the full rights to the claim to be assigned in case M030 and for
an IP firm to take forward the claims of the other 14 cases subject to further
discussions. This achievement was welcomed by the Working Group
The Working Group agreed that:
e Bankruptcy cases were not to be treated as a priority, but were to proceed
through the Scheme as normal.
« If Second Sight produced a final report on any of these cases before the
rights had been assigned the case would be brought back to the Working
Group for discussion.
POL00026673
POL00026673
6. Aver deadlines
61 The Working Group discussed the further information provided by Aver in
support of their extension requests and Twas concerned at the length of the
extensions requested. It was agreed that:
e The Chair would write to Aver granting the extensions but setting out that
no further extensions would be granted and should the CQRs not be
submitted by the deadline the case would be referred to Post Office for
investigation on the basis of the information available and any CQR
subsequently submitted would be ignored. The Working group also
agreed that the letter should be copied to the applicants.
ACTION: The Chair to write to Aver, copied to applicants as per the Working
group’s decision.
7. AOB
M073 - AP updated the Working Group on the position with M073. The Working
Group noted the position and the Chair commented that he would ask the
applicant’s criminal lawyers whether they wished him to write a letter which could
be presented to the District Judge at the hearing.
ACTION Chair to write to the applicant’s criminal lawyer
NOTE FROM SECRETARIAT: Before the letter from the Chair was sent the
applicant’s lawyer contacted the Chair and requested a letter which was
subsequently sent.