POL00029651 - Commentary on Second Sight Interim Report
POL00029651
POL00029651
STRICTLY PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL — SUBJECT TO LEGAL PRIVILEGE
COMMENTARY ON SECOND SIGHT INTERIM REPORT DATED 07.07.13
Generally
a. Soas to avoid any suggestion that we tried to “rewrite” the report or compromise its
independence, our comments on earlier drafts were focussed on correcting inaccuracies and
attempting to make the report clearer.
b. To stress the proportionality of these issues to Horizon as a whole, we asked SS to specify
hard numbers instead of using phrases like “in almost all of the cases” (para. 1.7), “ina
number of cases” (para. 2.6), or “multiple SPMRs” (para. 7.2). SS has not always done this.
Para. 2.4 — We are bearing the cost of the investigation. We have worked to respond to SS’s
requests for information by obtaining it from various sources in our business. We have no interest in
prolonging or increasing the cost of SS’s review.
Para. 2.6 — POL’s seven-year “Document Retention Policy” is reasonable by industry standards for a
business like ours.
Para. 3.5 — SS makes a point that there has been no closure. This is not surprising when SS has not
concluded its work on the Interim Report’s 4 Spot Reviews (see para. 7.6 — “preliminary
conclusions”; “substantial progress in investigating...”).
Para. 5.2 — Our Spot Review Responses were drafted to be read by SS as forensic investigators, not
SPMRs.
Para. 5.4 — We asked SS to clarify that its statement that “robust controls” can fail is not based on
anything from its Horizon review, but on its wider experience.
Para. 5.5 — We asked SS to clarify that no evidence of “control circumvention” had been identified in
its review to date. We also told SS that SPMRs have evidence (e.g. branch reports etc) from which
they can challenge transactions.
POL00029651
POL00029651
STRICTLY PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL — SUBJECT TO LEGAL PRIVILEGE
Para. 6.1 — We dispute the finding that we did not provide “timely, accurate and complete
information”. The delay was 4 minutes, and was caused by the SPMR’s actions in repeatedly
resubmitting (rather than cancelling) the transaction.
Para. 6.3 - We dispute the process change was connected to the SPMR’s issues - the change was
completed two years later.
Para. 6.6 — We asked that the Report reflect that there was no real cash shortfall of £9,800 because
the matter was addressed contemporaneously by the help desk. SS report suggests he was asked to
pay this. We do not believe that he was.
Para. 6.7 — SS asked to note that the anomaly first occurred in December 2011, and that it only
repeated itself annually (i.e. it would not reappear for another 12 months).
Para. 6.9 — We have confirmed with SS that no SPMR made a loss as a result of this issue.
Para. 7.2 — This sets out the SPMRs’ allegations, many of which have not yet been reviewed by Post
Office in conjunction with SS.
Para. 7.7 — The allegations here are based on data supplied to SS by JFSA which has not yet been
shared with us.
Para. 8.2(c) - We dispute this for the same reasons we dispute para. 6.1.
Appendix 1 — Spot Review 01
Para. 1.8 - We say the system did report the failed bill payment through a disconnection receipt.
Para. 1.11 — We dispute this for the same reasons we dispute para’s 6.1 and 8.2(c).
Appendix 2 — Spot Review 05
POL00029651
POL00029651
STRICTLY PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL — SUBJECT TO LEGAL PRIVILEGE
Para. 1.09 — SS has been provided with evidence to show that the Bracknell “Basement” is a test site
only. The “conflict of evidence” is therefore that the SPMR continues to believe what he believes,
and does not accept the response Post Office and Fujitsu have supplied.
Appendix 3 ~ Spot Review 21
Para. 1.10 — SS are yet to review the specific transaction data we have provided on this Spot Review,
which may resolve this issue.
Appendix 4 — Spot Review 22
Para. 1.20 — We agree, SS needs to complete this Spot Review.