POL00029535
POL00029535
Message
From: Glenn Chester [/O=MMS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=GLENN.CHESTERBO64 7277-7 2DE-494B-8B60-F73112F672CD]
Sent: 05/09/2012 08:23:17
To: Contract Admin Team [/O=MMS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Network.contracts.s28fe8267-fa6a-4125-bb32-84e15b92f8]
Subject: ECT 178/12 Customer name: Paul Popov Feedback due: 13/08/12 Case signatory: ECT - Branch: Dunstan FAD 225329
- FOR FILING ON EFC PLEASE
Attachments: ECT 178-12 -Paul Popov vSri.doc
CAT
I would be very grateful if you could please add this e-mail plus attachment to the EFC for Dunston branch (225 329).
Many thanks.
Regards
Glenn
Mobex
From: Sharon V Green On Behalf Of ECT
Sent: 04 September 2012 15:19
To: Rod Ismay
Cc: Alwen Lyons; Andy Garner; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Donna Gilhooly; ECT; Glenn Chester; John Breeden; Lesley J
Sewell; Peter D Johnson; Sabrina Jethwa; Simon Baker; Susan Crichton; RodricWilliams/e/POSTOFFICE
Subject: RE: FOR ACTION: Ref: ECT 178/12 Customer name: Paul Popov Feedback due: 13/08/12 Case signatory: ECT -
Branch: Dunstan FAD 225329
Hi Rod
The consensus has been to retain the full paragraph and due to the follow up correspondence, I do believe that it
is necessary to include a thorough explanation of where losses can occur.
David Southall has advised that the branch was closed during the period of the suspension. Having reviewed the
information on the case, Interim Enterprises were found to act as an interim, however as terms could not be
agreed with the staff at the branch, the branch was closed. The reference to Interim Enterprises has now been
removed.
Please see attached for the final response.
(See attached file: ECT 178-12 -Paul Popov v5ri.doc)
Kind Regards
Sharon Green
Stakeholder Correspondence Team
Post Office Limited
1st Floor, Bunhill Row Wing
148 Old Street
London
EC1V 9HQ
POL-0026017
POL00029535
POL00029535
Rod Ismay
Sent by: Rod Ismay To: ECT
ce:
04/09/2012 14:56 Subject: Re: FOR ACTION: Ref: ECT 178/12
Customer name: Paul Popov Feedback due: 13/08/12
Case signatory: ECT - Branch: Dunstan FAD 225329
Have you checked in with Rodric as he tended to agree with me and he sent his email one minute after yours.
Thanks Rod
Rodric Williams <rodric.williams',
Rodric V
<rodric.
Sent by: Rodric
<rodric.williams'”
>To: Rod Ismay/e/POSTOFFICE, ECT, Andy
Garner/e/POSTOFFICE, Angela Van-Den-
P Bogerd/e/POSTOFFICE, Alwen
Lyons/e/POSTOFFICE, Susan Crichton
04/09/2012 14:28 <susan.crichton{
Jethwa/e/POSTOFFICE, Lesley J
Sewell/e/POSTOFFICE, Simon
Baker/e/POSTOFFICE, John
Breeden/e/POSTOFFICE, Glenn
Chester/e/POSTOFFICE
cc: Donna Gilhooly/e/POSTOFFICE, Peter D
Johnson/e/POSTOFFICE
Subject: RE: FOR ACTION: Ref: ECT 178/12
Customer name: Paul Popov Feedback due:
13/08/12 Case signatory: ECT - Branch:
Dunstan FAD 225329
All,
I agree with Rod that the main thrust of the response should be that the losses stopped when
improved controls were implemented (which I also note seem to have been implemented following
audit and suspension). It is for Mr Popov to establish that the losses were caused by something else,
and not for us to show that it did not.
I therefore also agree that we do not need to get into the detail about how Horizon operates, and
suggest the following (slightly) varied first sentence, which can run into the preceding paragraph,
“Despite this, losses will occur across our network for a number of different reasons. These include
incorrect data entry, staff or agent theft and customer fraud.”
I would like to see the reference to “incorrect data entry reinstated as an example of an “innocent”
cause for a loss.
POL-0026017
POL00029535
POL00029535
I hope this helps. Please let me know if you need anything further.
Rodric
Litigation Lawyer
Post Office Ltd
From: Rod Ismay
Sent: 04 September 2012 13:40
To: ECT; Andy Garner; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Alwen Lyons; Susan Crichton; Rodric Williams;
Sabrina Jethwa; Lesley J Sewell; Simon Baker; John Breeden; Glenn Chester
Cc: Donna Gilhooly; Peter D Johnson
Subject: RE: FOR ACTION: Ref: ECT 178/12 Customer name: Paul Popov Feedback due: 13/08/12
Case signatory: ECT - Branch: Dunstan FAD 225329
{attach my mark ups. I have had several days holiday so apologise for not having been able to respond earlier.
Whilst I have proposed a fairly significant rewording of the lengthy “losses and gains” paragraph I would also
like to query whether we actually need such a long section there at all.
We are robustly stating to Mr Popov that we rebut his assertion about equipment and robustly believe the
extra controls he finally introduced are the thing that made the difference. On that basis don’t we risk opening
an unnecessary avenue of dispute by getting into the miskeyed “loss and gain” arena?
Could that paragraph simply be reduced to its first sentence?
le. “However, losses do occur across our network for a number of different reasons. These include staff or agent
theft and customer fraud. ”
If you strongly feel that Mr Popov’s original concerns required the length of comment then I would prefer my
rewording, but I have read his original complaint and I don’t think we need to get into keying issues in such
detail to respond to his question.
ve also suggested some grammatical points.
Arn around to discuss oni
Thanks, Rod
From: Sharon V Green On Behalf Of ECT
Sent: 04 September 2012 11:58
To: Andy Garner; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Alwen Lyons; Susan Crichton; Rodric Williams; Sabrina
Jethwa; Lesley J Sewell; Simon Baker; Rod Ismay; John Breeden; Glenn Chester
Cc: Donna Gilhooly; Peter D Johnson
Subject: FOR ACTION: Ref: ECT 178/12 Customer name: Paul Popov Feedback due: 13/08/12 Case
POL-0026017
POL00029535
POL00029535
signatory: ECT - Branch: Dunstan FAD 225329
Importance: High
Dear All
Please see attached for the proposed response to Paul Popov, which has been reviewed by Pete
Johnson.
(See attached file: ECT 178-12 -Paul Popov v4(PJ).doc)
I am looking to send the response today, so if I could please have any feedback by 14:30 at the
latest.
Whilst I appreciate that this is short notice, the case is very overdue, and we have already had a
follow up letter from Mr Popov to chase a response.
Kind Regards
Sharon Green
Stakeholder Correspondence Team
Post Office Limited
Ist Floor, Bunhill Row Wing
148 Old Street
London
EC1V 9HQ
Tel:
Postline:I GRO
POL-0026017