POL00029813
POL00029813
Message
From: Rodric Williams! '
on behalf of — Rodric Williams: GRO I
Sent:
To:
Subject: Narrative Boxes - RW comments on the “Difficult Questions (Boxes)” document - SUBJECT TO LEGAL PRIVILEGE
All — here are my comments on the “Difficult Questions (Boxes)” document.
Happy to discuss as necessary, Rod
1. COMPENSATION
- We set up the scheme to find out the substance of the complaints — suggesting compensation before knowing
that (and specifically whether we had done anything wrong) is illogical.
- Settlements will be reasonable and proportionate to the branch losses in issue.
- “But the amount which will go on financial settlements is in the thousands, not the millions”. We've settled for
more than thousands (i.e. a 4-figure number), especially if you factor in write offs. Can we pitch it as a best
estimate, e.g. “But on what we’ve seen so far, we don’t believe the amount which will go on financial
settlements is in the millions” — this may also help avoid a follow up question of “how many thousands?”, or
suggesting that we’ve put a cap on cases before they have all been through the full process?
- We haven't refused to mediate any case solely because of the level of compensation being claimed.
- “If an Applicant has very high expectation of large financial pay out when there is no evidence of any fault on
PO’s part, mediation is unlikely to offer resolution”. Can we change this to “If an Applicant has very high
expectation of large financial pay out which far exceed anything PO may be responsible for, mediation is unlikely
to offer resolution” — the question of fault is something that could be mediated.
2. CRIMINAL CASES
- Only a court can overturn a conviction:
© neither Post Office or mediation can usurp the role of the courts;
© it’s reasonable to refuse mediation when a court order is needed to achieve resolution; and
o only the applicant can appeal - PO can’t do this for them.
3. CULPABILITY
No comment.
4, REMOTE TAMPERING
- What the branch recorded (the “transaction data”) cannot be manipulated. It can be supplemented by new,
identifiable entries, e.g. if needed to balance the branch’s account.
- “Tampering” suggests something underhand. There is no evidence of this.
5. COST
No comment.
POL-0026295
POL00029813
POL00029813
6. PERSONAL/APOLOGY
No comment.
7. TREATMENT OF MPS
- Change “The Scheme is working as agreed with MPs” to “The Scheme is has been working as agreed with MPs
for the past year and a half”?
“PO has now completed investigation of all cases in the Scheme and no fault identified with Horizon. Progress of
PO’s investigations and their findings was fully transparent to the WG.”
8. SECOND SIGHT
- “What we can’t do is continually be asked to prove a negative....” [We have been doing quite a good job of
proving the negative thus far...]
- “Second Sight say that you have changed their terms of engagement to narrow the scope of their investigations —
is this true? No. Second Sight has agreed the scope of their engagement.”
- Re: “fettering” SS independence/”challenging” SS’s findings — this demonstrates their independence. SS make
findings and recommendations, NOT decisions. PO has always retained that power.
- Re: safeguards that SS are seeing everything, “Investigation process was agreed with JFSA and SS as part of the
Scheme. PO’s investigations have been fully transparent to SS and the WG throughout the Scheme.”
9. HORIZON
No comment.
10. SCHEME
- “But the Scheme is satisfying no-one?”:
o Adda bullet: “Complaints are being raised now, after Scheme has been running for past 18 months”?
o “We agreed with SS, JFSA and MPs exactly what we would do and that is what we are doing, as has been
visible to the WG throughout”
- Re: “secretive”:
o confidentiality is offset by Scheme being overseen by the WG and its Independent Chair, and PO’s
actions being fully transparent to the WG and the individual applicants.
- “How does mediation work?”:
0 should this be ““How does the Scheme work?”?
o If not, then first bullet should read: “The Scheme Mediation is a two stage process” (the numbered
points that follow relate to the Scheme, not mediation per se).
o “S51 cases” needs to be amended to “41”.
- Re: “legalistic approach”:
owe consider all factors, including SS recommendations, but PO retains decision making power.
© Only declined 5 out of 41 cases recommended
- Re: refusing to mediate:
o “Where there is no evidence that Post Office is responsible for allegations in a complaint — or where
neither Post Office nor mediation can provide what an applicant wants - there is no reasonable prospect
of resolution”
11. TRAINING AND SUPPORT
No comment.
12. CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS
POL-0026295
Re: “should not every single criminal case be allowed an appeal?”:
- Only the convicted person can appeal - PO can’t do this for them;
- They have to do this through the court process — only the court can overturn a conviction.
13. CONTRACTS
No comment.
Rodric Williams
Solicitor, Corporate Services
Post Office Ltd
148 Old Street, London EC1V 9HQ
POL00029813
POL00029813
POL-0026295