POL00040146
POL00040146
WORKING GROUP 30 APRIL BRIEFING NOTE
Meeting Objectives
e Challenge Second Sight’s Part one report where it makes non factual and
evidenced statements, making clear this is unacceptable to Post Office.
e Challenge the M022 report where it fails to make evidenced statements
e Review the Alan bates letter line by line and challenge the factual
inaccuracies
POL00040146
POL00040146
COMMENTARY ON THE ALAN BATES LETTER
Date of the Letter
The letter was sent on 16 April the day before the weekly conference call.
At that conference call the following issues were discussed:
e XX
© XX
e XX
Page 1
Timescales
POL target of 4 weeks is accurately reflected BUT
e POL made clear at Working Group on XXXX that these were aspirational
targets and that cases might well take substantially longer.
e JFSA blocked the attempt to set realistic deadlines for the POL investigations
at the Working Group on XXX.
Second Sight target of eight weeks is not accurate:
e Second Sight were set an internal target of 4 weeks — this target date has
been reported on in all Working Groups and not challenged by Second Sight
or JFSA
e Second Sight have not delivered any report within 4 weeks
e Second Sight have not delivered any report within 8 weeks DN check
e The 8 week timeline is probably reached by taking the 4 weeks for POL away
from the 12 week target in the published Scheme documentation.
Page 2
Mediators Briefing Pack
e This was first requested in XXX date in 2013
e The pack would be produced by Second Sight
e To assist Second Sight they were provided with a POL draft on the following
dates:
Thursday 13 March I First draft of Factfile sent to SS — cover email attached.
Wednesday 19
March
POL00040146
POL00040146
Initial comments received from SS — email attached.
Friday 21 March
Proposed meeting to discuss factfile - cancelled by SS — email
attached.
Thursday 27 March
Re-arranged date for meeting to discuss factfile — cancelled by
SS - email attached.
Monday 31 March
POL responses to SS initial comments sent to SS (via a
revised version of the Factfile being uploaded on to huddle in
advance of the WG meeting on 1 April)
Wednesday 16
April
Revised factfile with new sections sent to SS + invitation to
meet with SS to discuss — see covering email attached.
Tuesday 29 April
SS submit Part 1 Report
Scheme Documentation agreed in August 2013
e Scheme documentation was agreed in August 2013.
¢ Process set out in the documentation is not that in the letter.
e Documentation included FAQ:
“Is it possible that the structure of the Scheme may change over time?
Yes — the Working Group is tasked with making sure that the Scheme is
operating effectively. It may therefore be necessary to revise the Scheme as
appropriate.”
During the time the Scheme was open 150 applications were accepted
e Not accurate. 147 applications were received in time. 3 late applications
were considered on XX date and received.
e Of the 150 applications in total XX were rejected.
Others would have applied if they had been aware of the Scheme
e Scheme was publicised by JFSA and POL
e To date only one application has come through from an MP (Oliver Heald
case)
POL00040146
POL00040146
Stats breakdown on page 2
Serving SPMRs
e Alan states:
“As POL became aware of serving SPMRs submitting application forms, POL requested
these cases to be held back from fully entering the Scheme until such time as POL
had had an opportunity to discuss those cases directly with the SMPRs. Some of
these cases remain in that position.”
e This is not an accurate reflection of events. Page one of the Scheme
documentation (agreed with JFSA and hosted on their website) states:
‘If a serving Subpostmaster wants to use the Scheme, he or she must have
already raised their case with Post Office and have completed all Post Office's
internal complaint processes”
e Further the Scheme documentation FAQs state:
“What are the eligibility criteria for the Scheme?
You must meet both the following criteria.
First, your case must relate to a financial loss or unfair treatment that you believe
you have suffered as a result of the Horizon system or any associated issues.
Secondly, if a serving Subpostmaster wants to use the Scheme, he or she must
have already raised their case with Post Office and have completed all Post
Office's internal complaint processes. For example, a Subpostmaster who wishes
to dispute a transaction or series of transactions in their branch should first raise
this matter with NBSC and assist with any subsequent Post Office enquires. If a
currently serving Subpostmaster needs advice on how
with Post Office they should email branch.support. tean;
Page 3
POL have provided no reports to Second Sight.
e POL submitted first report to SS on 28 November (M009).
e POL invited feedback on report content (AVDB email of 28 November)
I'd appreciate your comments on the format, style and content of these
documents. We're trying to produce these documents in a way that is of most use
POL00040146
POL00040146
to you and, in the future, Spmrs — hence the short delay in providing these
documents. In particular, these documents have been prepared to assist with
identifying:
« Points of common ground between POL and the Spmr.
« Points of disagreement.
« Where there is disagreement, the foundation for a logical and evidenced
opinion on the merits of the SPMR's complaint.
« And ultimately, by pulling together the above 3 points, a recommendation
on whether the case is suitable for mediation.
I'm of course very happy to discuss how to review and refine our approach to
meet these objectives so that the Working Group will be able to reach a decision
when the case is presented to it for a decision on whether mediation is
appropriate.”
e SS commented:
‘Wow, this looks really good....
Really appreciate the work done to pull this together.
Let's discuss in a few days time
With best wishes
lan R Henderson CCE CISA FCA
Advanced Forensics - London, UK”
e SS produced reports on three case X, Y and Z for the WG meeting on XXXX.
e TH provided detailled feedback on structure of reports SS not yet delivered
any reports in new structure
e SS did not raise quality of POL investigations as a concern with JA when they
briefed him for his meeting with PV and AP on 24 January.
e SS commended Post Office investigators at MPs meeting on 24 March
e On 17 April the day after the letter was despatched the Working Group noted
that Post Office had sent 20 investigation reports to Second Sight (source
case tracker).
e On the 17 April call Post Office agreed to take these reports down while the
format of the executive summary was tweaked. This follows an action at the
previous face to face meeting to “review” the reports.
e By the date that Alan sent the letter he had downloaded eight POL
investigation reports:
POL00040146
POL00040146
Case ‘AB (JFSA)
Moog Downloaded 27.2.14 at 08:47
M014 Downloaded 27.2.14 at 11:00
M017 Downloaded 21.3.14 at 20:20
M019 Downloaded 21.3.14 at 20:23
M021 Downloaded 21.3.14 at 20:27
M022 Downloaded 21.3.14 at 20:30
Then again 27.3.14 at 19:29
Then again 29.3.14
M028 Downloaded 20.3.14 at 11:16
M054 Downloaded 29.3.14
Advisor Costs
e Insert quote from the FAQs
Advisor timeliness
e Reference the amount of overdue CQRs and amount provided in 2- 4 weeks
POL report quality insufficient to allow Second Sight to undertake their work
Deep concern about cost and that perfection is being sought where we should work
with the material available in the CQRs. Need to be make a decision at some point.
And soon. This scheme has to be consistent with value for money for the tax
payer.
POL have a contractual obligation to investigate where they believe a crime
has taken place
e No such obligation exists
POL00040146
POL00040146
It seems POL did not investigate in any of the 150 cases
This is not true.
Approximately 1/3 of the case load have some form of criminal conviction.
We have discussed on numerous occasions cases that are under
investigation and the Chair has provided updates to the Working Group on
these case.
Further we have discussed in detail case M001 with Alan including a detailed
discussion of the 5 day High Court Civil trial and the 30 page judgement.
“POL in these two cases, as they have done with so many others, went straight to
prosecution using a fall-back contractual clause that the SPMR is liable for all losses
regardless of how they occurred, without ever bothering to investigate the cause
behind the incidents”
This is not true.
The two cases Alan refers to were not prosecuted. (M054 and M022) DN
check
Not clear how the generalisation is arrived at.
Alan had only downloaded eight reports at this point and Post Office had
completed twenty reports it is unclear how this judgement on a caseload of
150 has been reached.
The clause is a core part of the SPMR contract.
Prosecutions for false accounting do not rely on the contract but on “the
knowing submission of inaccurate accounts.” DN Andy can you provide the
legal basis for the false accounting charges.
POL00040146
POL00040146
SECOND SIGHT CONCERNS
1. WG Confidentiality
a. Concern: it appears that SS (and AB) are communicating WG
discussions to Applicants / Third Parties.
b. Example: In the letters from Aver and Howe — they both reference that
POL was receiving repeated extensions — this could only have come
from inside the WG.
c. Objective: Reiterate the need for WG discussions to be confidential.
2. Objective of investigation process:
a. Is the objective to "build a foundation for resolution at mediation" or
“find the truth".
b. The former is quicker and more practical.
c. The latter requires SS to become a decision maker — much more
onerous in terms of resourcing / time / etc.
d. Also the latter is impossible — SS has no power to test credibility of
evidence (ie. no cross examination of witness testimony; no criminal
sanctions for lying; etc.) and therefore will never find the truth.
e. Objective: Agreement to limit investigations to practical conclusions
that help mediation process
3. Scope creep
a. SS are no looking at safety of convictions and the fairness of the
contractual structure between POL and SPMRs.
b. Example: this issue has been raised in drafts of both the thematic
report and individual reports.
c. Both items are outside SS' expertise and so they should not be
commenting.
d. These are also not "Horizon related" and are therefore arguably
outside the scheme.
e. Objective: Direction from the Chair to narrow scope of investigation.
4. SS investigation process
a. Should this be based only on the information provided by POL and in
the CQR, or
b. Should SS be free to ask questions of applicants?
c. If option "B", what impact will this have on the timetable.
d. Objective: push for option "A"
5. SS communication with PAs / Applicants
a. No transparency of SS' interactions with PAs or Applicants
b. Impacts on managing workflow if mixed messages are being relayed.
c. Objective: greater transparency of communications from SS.
6. SS "hardening of CQRs"
a. What does this entail?
20
POL00040146
POL00040146
Are SS maintaining impartiality or are they now helping Applicant's to
construct cases?
How is this impacting on the timings of the process?
Could the questioning process at 3(b) be integrated here?
Objective: Get greater clarity on what SS are doing to warrant this
work.
7. Lack of SS interaction with POL.
a.
b.
c.
d.
SS are not directing any questions to POL.
If not getting info from POL then there is a one-sided flow of info from
applicants.
Example: no engagement on factfile despite offers of meetings.
Objective: Encourage SS to pro-actively consult POL on issues rather
than raising matters in front of the WG.
POL00040146
POL00040146
SECOND SIGHT PRODUCTS
Factfile