POL00040790
POL00040790
Message
From: Patrick Bourke GRO i
Sent: 09/01/2015 19:
To: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd: ' Belinda Crowe
Q 5 Mark R Davies
cc: jelanie Corfield: Parsons,
Andrew [/O=BOND PEARCE/O 6]
Subject: RE: The "dossier"
Attachments: POST OFFICE RESPONSE TO WESTMINSTER HALL DEBATE v2 - pb - clean working version - 1900.docx
As promised, slightly reworked version which I hope reads ok ~ the whole document was in good shape - again, I have
tried to do a bit more signposting and while acknowledging the interconnection between some of these issues, trying to
make specific accusations and rebuttals to stand on their own a bit more.
Vl be looking at this between now and Monday, so comments always welcome.
Best wishes
Patrick
From: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Sent: 09 January 2015 16:43
To: Belinda Crowe; Patrick Bourke; Tom Wechsler; Mark R Davies
Cc: Melanie Corfield; Rodric Williams; Parsons, Andrew
Subject: RE: The "dossier"
All,
I've answered the questions/points highlighted for my attention. Pve tried to keep the explanation as simple as possible
which is somewhat difficult when trying to explain branch accounting. Hope this is helpful. If you need anything further
please let me know.
- JAsuggestion that at the end of the day, accounts were sometimes over, and sometimes under, and changing
balances between a Sat and a Monday
Unless a branch does a full cash and stock balance at the end of the day there is likely to be some variance (over
or under) in the derived accounting position of the branch. It is only at the point in which the branch does a full
balance is that true accounting position of the branch evident. Balances would vary from day to day if
transactions are processed either after the cash declaration had been made or where some post office products
are offered from the retail side of the business after the post office has closed and input to the Horizon system
ata later time.
- JAsuggestion about discrepancies doubling following helpline advice
Where Post Office has investigated this type of claim as part of the Scheme the findings are that the helpline has
given the correct advice. The NBSC call advisor offers advice on the information told to them by the branch as
they are unable to see what the branch has actually done. So by way of an example if a branch were to ring
NBSC and say that they had ‘remmed out’ £2000 rather than ‘remming in’ £2000 the correct advice from NBSC
would be to reverse the £2000 ‘remmed out’ transaction and then ‘rem in’ the £2000 amount. As a result of
correcting the situation the this would result in a £2000 loss which on the information the branch had provided
to NBSC this was the correct accounting position for this branch.
- Calls to helpline abandoned (10s of thousand)
’'m awaiting this info and will update separately.
- 25% cut to support staff
POL-0037272
POL00040790
POL00040790
Post Office continuously looks to provide effective and efficient support to its network. Making better use of
technology will enable Post Office to enhance the effectiveness of the support it offers in a value for money way.
The training of new postmasters is an area that Post Office has recently reviewed and identified that by using
modern technology a proportion of the existing classroom training could be delivered on-line. As a result new
postmasters and their staff will be able to access on-line training at a time and from a location that is convenient
for them. The duration of the on-site training remains unchanged. An added benefit is that this on-line training
will be accessible to the whole network not just new postmasters. Technology has also been used to reduce
‘paperwork’ and administration time within the support team. The overall impact of these changes means that
less people are needed to deliver an enhanced level of support to the network
Angela Van Den Bogerd I Head of Partnerships
© Ty Brwydran House, Aflantic Close, 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.
From: Belinda Crowe
Sent: 09 January 2015 12:28
To: Patrick Bourke; Tom Wechsler; Mark R Davies
Cc: Melanie Corfield; Rodric Williams; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Parsons, Andrew
Subject: RE: The "dossier"
Yellow, Angela
Red ~ Jess has contact details for the Andy Holt replacement
Belinda Crowe
LONDON, EC1V 9HQ
From: Patrick Bourke
Sent: 09 January 2015 12:09
To: Tom Wechsler; Mark R Davies
Cc: Belinda Crowe; Melanie Corfield; Rodric Williams; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Parsons, Andrew
Subject: RE: The "dossier"
Tom
POL-0037272
POL00040790
POL00040790
We spoke.
Some of Mark's questions fall into the technical and I'd very much welcome Rod’s advice on another two, as below:
For techhie:
- JAsuggestion that at the end of the day, accounts were sometimes over, and sometimes under, and changing
balances between a Sat and a Monday
- JAsuggestion about discrepancies doubling following helpline advice
- Calls to helpline abandoned (10s of thousand)
- 25% cut to support staff
For Rod please:
- The specific Bridgen accusation that we bring criminal cases even when CPS has advised against
- Statute of limitations
{ think there is something of a limit to the number of accusations we can expect the dossier to cover, notin the sense
that there are so many (although there are), but some just don’t really lend themselves to an easy answer: for instance,
it seems highly improbable that a discrepancy would double as the direct result of a call to the Helpline — what would
have doubled it, presumably, were the actions taken by the relevant SPM following the call but this then becomes case-
specific and off bounds.
Most of the others will simply involve adding to your draft which, as we noted yesterday, is already in good shape.
Speak later
Patrick
From: Tom Wechsler
Sent: 08 January 2015 16:26
To: Mark R Davies
Cc: Belinda Crowe; Melanie Corfield; Rodric Williams; Patrick Bourke; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Parsons, Andrew
Subject: RE: The "dossier"
Thanks Mark — really helpful.
Some of it is covered (eg the substance of Rudkin if not as a named case) but your suggestions are probably a level of
detail below that I originally pitched at. Now we have the shorter version, I think a more detailed rebuttal probably is
the way to go. A fair amount of this is in Second Sight’s questions so we'll get on to it.
Cc others for info and the potential need for help
Tom
From: Mark R Davies
Sent: 08 January 2015 16:10
POL-0037272
POL00040790
POL00040790
To: Tom Wechsler
Subject: RE: The "dossier"
Hi Tom
This looks very good.
Apologies if I have missed these points as I have read through but if they are not there could we directly respond to the
following as well:
- The Rudkin case
- JAsuggestion that at the end of the day, accounts were sometimes over, and sometimes under, and changing
balances between a Sat and a Monday
- JAsuggestion about discrepancies doubling following helpline advice
- The specific Bridgen accusation that we bring criminal cases even when CPS has advised against
- Have we covered off sufficiently the JA suggestion that we have broken ‘agreement’ with MPs re range of the
scheme?
- ~‘set out to sabotage’ — I think we need to specifically rebut this
- Lost or destroyed documents
- Calls to helpline abandoned (10s of thousand)
- 25% cut to support staff
- Put it in an envelope
- Statute of limitations
- Horizon was ‘second hand’ and designed for other purposes
Mark Davies I Communications and Corporate Affairs Director
_--l:{ Floor, Banner Wing, 148 Old Street, London, ECIV 9HQ
From: Tom Wechsler
Sent: 08 January 2015 15:33
To: Patrick Bourke; Rodric Williams; Mark R Davies; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Parsons, Andrew; Jarnail Singh; Jane Hill
Cc: Belinda Crowe; Melanie Corfield; Chris Aujard; Georgia Barker; Jessica Barker
Subject: The "dossier"
All
With thanks to Belinda and Mel for their input so far, please find a first draft dossier attached. This would be for the us
to offer to the Minister to place in Parliament and for us to use with MPs etc / publicly.
POL-0037272
POL00040790
POL00040790
Please note: As colleagues are still commenting on the “short version” there will need to be a reconciliation of the two
documents mostly for style / language rather than substance.
All comments welcome.
Thanks
Tom
JOH SERS IOI AIO IO IODA OSI DIAS IID I ISO II IDI ADS AIA AIA
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: 148 OLD STREET,
LONDON EC1V 9HQ.
POL-0037272