POLO0030002
POL00030002
Message
From: I
on behalf of — Mark R Davies. a
Sent: 22/07/2016 10:
To: Jane MacLeod},
Subject: Re: Remote Access wording - subject to litigation privilege [BD-4A.FID26859284]
Jane
I'm away as of tonight so perhaps we should speak this afternoon?
Mark
Mark Davies
ind Corporate Affairs Director
On 22 Jul 2016, at 07:25, Jane MacLeod
wrote:
Thanks Mark this is helpful (ish!)
To all on this email chain, please do not forward this email to anyone else as it is critical that we
maintain privilege around it.
Given the statements that Mark has collated, can we please reference the advice from Fujitsu that we
have relied on in making these statements (for example did we show FJ the drafts of these before
making them etc?), as clearly there is a gap between these and what we now understand may be the
case.
Andy, once this is available would you please consider whether this affects the legal risk and approach?
Mark D (and others) - we need to consider the positioning around the current wording in light of these
statements.
Thanks all.
Jane MacLeod
Sent from my iPad
On 21 Jul 2016, at 22:42, Mark Underwood1;
All,
{ have been through the Scheme Chronology and reviewed for statements made by Post
Office re Remote Access. Please find attached what I feel are the key statements made
publically.
Mark
From: Parsons, Andrew
Sent: 21 July 2016 20:00
POL-0026484
POLO0030002
POL00030002
To: Thomas P Moran; Mark Underwood1
Cc: Mark R Davies; Jane MacLeod; Tom Wechsler; Rob Houghton; Rodric Williams;
Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Patrick Bourke; Nick Sambridge
Subject: RE: Remote Access wording - subject to litigation privilege [BD-
4A.FID26859284]
Tom
i think we have agreed wording on the Post Office side. Tony has already signed
off. I've sent the wording to both FJ and Deloitte and asked for comments by cob
tomorrow.
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Partner
SsimaneQQt. ino...
GRO
Follow Bond Dickinsor
<image002,jpg><image003.jpg>
www.bonddickinson.com
From: Thomas P Moran
Sent: 21 July 2016 19:42
To: Mark Underwood1
Cc: Mark R Davies; Parsons, Andrew; Jane MacLeod; Tom Wechsler; Rob Houghton;
Rodric Williams; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Patrick Bourke; Nick Sambridge
Subject: Re: Remote Access wording - subject to litigation privilege [BD-
4A.FID26859284]
All
Sorry I couldn't dial in - I think Tom will have given my apologies.
Mark/Andy. Please can you set out the timeline for approving this text (eg Deloitte, FJ) if
this is necessary.
Completely agree that making sure we are not contradicting previous statements is
vital.
Tom
On Jul 21, 2016, at 7:31 PM, Mark Underwood.
wrote:
Mark, I will take a look at what we have said previously
Mark
Get Outlook for iOS
POL-0026484
POLO0030002
POL00030002
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 6:21 PM +0100, "Mark R Davies"
r wrote:
All
tam stuck with a live issue at present. My uneasiness on this issue is
why we can't give a firmer position on the super user point before we
reply?
I suspect I know the answer but the current wording leaves us
vulnerable and we would need to look at what we have said publicly
(select committee, panorama etc...) before we commit the position.
Mark
Mark Davies
ications and Corporate Affairs Director
Andrew
wrote:
On 21 Jul 2016, at 18:02, Parsons,
2
All
In case it helps, please find attached an amended
version including Rob's comments earlier.
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Partnel
<image002,jpg><image003.jpg>
www.bonddickinson.com
From: Parsons, Andrew
Sent: 21 July 2016 15:02
To: ‘Mark R Davies’; ‘Angela Van-Den-Bogerd'
Cc: 'Thomas P Moran’; 'Rodric Williams’; 'Patrick
Bourke’; ‘Rob Houghton’; 'Tom Wechsler’; 'Nick
Sambridge’; ‘Jane MacLeod’; ‘Mark Underwood1'
Subject: RE: Remote Access wording - subject to
litigation privilege [BD-4A.FID26859284]
Mark
In response to your question in the other email thread
about seeing everything we have said about "remote
access", we don't have a central log of everything POL
has said on remote access. However, the language
POL-0026484
used in the email referenced below (attached again) is
reflective of the language used by POL towards the end
of the Scheme.
We have also previously compiled POL's comments on
this topic that were made in individual case reports (see
attached), which gives a flavour of the responses
given. This should however be treated with caution as
these responses span a two year period and POL's
understanding of the situation changed over time.
One of the tasks we could do (albeit this will need to be
after the LOR has been sent) is fo compile a complete
chronology of what POL was told and what POL has
said on this topic. One to discuss on our cail later.
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Partner
<image002,jpg><image003,jpg>
www. bonddickinson.com
From: Parsons, Andrew
Sent: 21 July 2016 14:49
To: 'Mark R Davies'; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Cc: Thomas P Moran; Rodric Williams; Patrick Bourke;
Rob Houghton; Tom Wechsler; Nick Sambridge; Jane
MacLeod; Mark Underwood1
Subject: RE: Remote Access wording - subject to
litigation privilege [BD-4A.FID26859284]
Quote from SS' Report:
" This ability to directly amend branch records is
something that Post Office has consistently denied was
possible. This recently discovered evidence appears to
confirm, that in 2010 at least, it was possible for Fujitsu
/ Post Office to directly amend branch data without the
knowledge of the relevant Subpostmaster.
14.16. In commenting on a draft of this report Post of
Office told us that the references to “amend” and
“correct” in the documents mentioned above, are not
strictly correct as neither Post Office nor Fujitsu have
the ability to directly change or delete existing records.
All that can be done is that additional records can be
added by Post Office / Fujitsu without the consent (and
possibly the knowledge) of the relevant Subpostmaster.
This will, however, have the effect of altering balances
POLO0030002
POL00030002
POL-0026484
at the branch, as both debit and credit entries can be
made.
14.17. Post Office also told us:
“All of the above processes for correcting / updating a
branch's accounts have similar features. All of them
involve inputting a new transaction into the
branch's records (not editing or removing any previous
transactions) and all are shown transparently in the
branch transaction records available to Subpostmasters
(as well as in the master ARQ data).
The language used in the documents produced by Post
Office / Fujitsu and to which you refer is unfortunate
colloquial shorthand used by those working on the
Horizon system. I can see how it could be read to
suggest that Post Office was "altering" branch data but
the above explains why this is not the case.”
14.18. This is not something that we have been able to
test or validate.
14.19. Clearly, the fact that such an ability exists, is not
necessarily evidence that such ‘amendments’ were
actually made. This is not something that we have been
able to investigate.
This section of the Report was based on the attached
email sent to Second Sight
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Foliow Bond Dickinsor
<image002,jpg><image003.jpg>
www.bonddickinson.com
From: Mark R Davi
Sent: 21 July 2016 14:36
To: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Cc: Parsons, Andrew; Thomas P Moran; Rodric Williams;
Patrick Bourke; Rob Houghton; Tom Wechsler; Nick
Sambridge; Jane MacLeod; Mark Underwood1
Subject: Re: Remote Access wording - subject to
litigation privilege [BD-4A.FID26859284]
POLO0030002
POL00030002
POL-0026484
POLO0030002
POL00030002
Exactly - it's hard to assess this without seeing what
we've previously said
Mark Davies
c ae
id Corporate Affairs Director
On 21 Jul 2016, at 14:33, Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Thanks Andy
Would you please circulate the extract
“The use of balancing transactions was
explained to Second Sight and is
referenced in its Part Two Report at
paragraph 14.16.” so that we can see
what was referenced at the time.
Thanks
Angela
<image004.png> Angela Van Den Bogerd
Director of Support Services
1% Floor, Ty Brwydran,
Atlantic Close, Llansamlet
Swansea SA7 9FJ
Confidential Information:
This email message is for the sole use
of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged
information. Any unauthorised review,
use, disclosure or distribution is
prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient please contact me by reply
email and destroy all copies of the
original message.
Fr
Sent: 21 July 2016 14:05
To: Thomas P Moran; Rodric Williams;
Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Patrick
Bourke; Mark R Davies; Rob Houghton;
Tom Wechsler; Nick Sambridge; Jane
MacLeod; Mark Underwood1
Subject: Remote Access wording -
POL-0026484
subject to litigation privilege [BD-
4A.FID26859284]
All
Please find attached the proposed
wording on the remote access issue —
for discussion on our call at 6pm today.
Three points to bear in mind when.
reviewing:
1. In light of comments yesterday,
we've provided a slightly longer
explanation so to hopefully
present this issue in a better
light.
2. Tony agrees with the current
wording but has reiterated the
importance of dealing with this
point candidly, even if that does
cause some short-term pain.
3. We do not yet have a 100%
clear picture on some of the
technical and operation issues
on this topic. We therefore
need to be careful not to
overstate our case. This draft
wording will also need to be run
past Deloitte / FJ.
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Partner eee
GRO
Follow Bond Dickinson:
<image002,jpg><image003,jpg>
www.bonddickinson.com
POLO0030002
POL00030002
POL-0026484
POLO0030002
POL00030002
HE 2K 2 2 ff AR RRR Rf a aR a eae
FERC OR RRR ICICI OR RR I ICC HCCI RR ROE
This email and any attachments are confidential and
intended for the addressee only. If you are not the
named recipient, you must not use, disclose,
reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this
communication. If you have received this in error,
please contact the sender by reply email and then
delete this email from your system. Any views or
opinions expressed within this email are solely
those of the sender, unless otherwise specifically
stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England
and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: Finsbury
Dials, 20 Finsbury Street, London EC2Y 9AQ.
ECE RR Rf RRR RA RR I RR a ea
AEC OR RR Rf I ICR OR RR A ICCA RR aR
<_DOC_33442637(1) Remote Access Rider
v3.DOCX>
<160721 Statements Remote Access.docx>
POL-0026484