POL00040805
POL00040805
Message
From: Mark Underwood!
Sent: 19/01/2015 13:21:09
To: Belinda Crowe I; Parsons, Andrew [/( ICKINSON DEES/OU:
(FYDIBOHF25SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=ap6]; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd{
cc: Loraine, Paul [/O=DICKINSON DEES/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Loraine, Paul]
Subject: RE: suspense accounts - Legally privileged for the purpose of seeking advice
Attachments: 150119 D310F708 BC & AVDB & MU tracks.docx; 150110 answers splits.xlsx
Hi All,
With reference to the below note, please find attached 2 docs:
1} Part 2 questions V2 with my minor track changes added to those supplied by AVDB & BC
2) Aspread sheet detailing the revised response splits. The summary of which is pasted below. This takes into
account all those questions we have or will provide answers to, that previously were not answered.
The key stat for me and one that could come in handy at the select committee is that:
“PO has only refused to answer 8% of questions posed by Second Sight”. These are indicated by red
text in the below table (numbers don’t add up due to rounding). The rest are either:
¢ Already answered in their own right or through reference to an additional document / previous
answer or correspondance;
¢ Statements;
* Duplicate questions.
Not
Answered
- but
stated
Answer that PO
Answer Provided will Not
provided by provide Answered - Not Not Not Not
with reference I an answer I stated PO have I Answered
Stand alone * Answered I Answered I Answered -
. reference toa if Ss already -as " ian i
Question answer . . - 1 ., I - question - question is
. toadoc previous identify answered the ‘question + a
provided . " . . + is out of I duplicate not
provided answer specific question during isa .
+ . . scope question I understood
in provided cases previous statement
the Annex I in the where I correspondance
Paper Applicants
inthe
Scheme
are
affected
Total 58 15 12 7 4 3 2 1 1
% 53% 14% 11% 6% 4% 3% 2% 1% 1%
Answered
Vs Not
Answered
split 78% 22%
POL-0037287
POL00040805
POL00040805
Mark
From: Belinda Crowe
Sent: 16 January 2015 14:28
To: Parsons, Andrew; Angela Van-Del
Cc: Belinda Crowe; Mark Underwood:
Subject: FW: suspense accounts - Legally privileged for the purpose of seeking advice
-Bogerd
Both
{understand that you are speaking with Rod today about suspense accounts. Please see below and attached. I do not
know whether Chris A will ask for someone other than Rod Ismay to attend a meeting with Second Sight but as things
stand the new CFO thinks it should be him.
In light of this, could you form a view when you put him through his paces this pm. He will be populating the answers to
the questions and Al and CA will sign off.
We need to get this done urgently and then set up a meeting with Second Sight (not the Working Group as Al suggests}
and at least aim to get something in the diary within the next couple of weeks.
fam sure that Mark (copied) will set that up but if, when you have spoken to Red you can get some idea of
timescale. We will need to get the written answers to Second Sight before we have the meeting.
fam happy that Mark does whatever in terms of supporting in this but grateful if you could let us know what that is after
you have spoken this afternoon.
Best wishes
Belinda
Belinda Crowe
148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V SHQ
Froi lisdair Cameron
Sent: 16 January 2015 13:59
To: Chris Aujard
Cc: Belinda Crowe; Ruth Phillips; Peter Goodman; Rod Ismay
Subject: RE: suspense accounts - Legally privileged for the purpose of seeking advice
Chris, Belinda thanks very much.
Rod Ismay is the right person to do this. He will fill in any blanks on the attached document and send it back to us. I
suggest that you and I review the final draft before it goes back.
As ever, I may be more inclined to be open, while recognising the desire not to set more hares running. Talking to Rod,
he is comfortable that we work systematically to stop branches being disadvantaged and where we have worked
through client suspense accounts and released monies back to credit the p/I account, this operates independently of the
branch accounting and the branches have not been disadvantaged. That is a good clear story.
POL-0037287
POL00040805
POL00040805
in terms of the daily run of differences between the till and the system, which we used to call suspense accounts (but
don’t any more}, we don’t know what has happened and start from the premise that we are owed any till shortfall.
There have been two circumstances where we identified that by pressing a particular sequence of keys a branch could
create such a gap, erroneously. Those have been corrected and the branch compensated. So while we can demonstrate
that we are alive to the possibility of error and behave correctly when it is identified and can state that we are not aware
of any other such systematic issues, we cannot, I would suggest, categorically state that it couldn’t happen elsewhere.
in addition, there can be circumstances in which by making a series of errors, a branch can, for example, create a cash
deficit and a cheque surplus but make it impossible for us to align the two, which would benefit us at their expense. But
we do try and stop this. Rod will try and quantify this in the expectation that the amounts are tiny compared to the
agents’ remuneration.
While Rod and I agree that he is the guy to sit with the Working Group and answer questions, I think he needs to be
properly prepared. I would ask your team to arrange a rehearsal for Rod at which you can hurl all the most hostile
questions at him, to make sure that the balance of the script doesn’t set hares running.
f assume that you will be in the Working group and can offer some protection to Rod if required?
Does that work? Thanks Al
From: Chris Aujard
Sent: 16 January 2015 08:28
To: Alisdair Cameron
Subject: FW: suspense accounts
Al - FY! — just in case the well-oiled PA machine fails to ensure that this gets to you promptly.
As you will see, I really need someone from your team who is technically switched on re suspense accounts, and can
handle themselves in front of an adversarial audience.
As you can imagine, I am concerned that we give Second Sight no more information than is necessary to address the
narrow proposition that money that is “missing” from an SPMR account is somehow taken into our suspense account
and then appropriated to our P&L.
Chris
From: Belinda Crowe
Sent: 15 January 2015 16:59
To: Ruth Phillips
Cc: Chris Aujard; Belinda Crowe
Subject: suspense accounts
Tracy
As discussed, could you please pass this to Alisdair. Many thanks Belinda
Dear Alisdair
lunderstand that Chris Aujard has spoken to you about the discussion at yesterday’s Working Group meeting of the
Complaint and Mediation Scheme. For some months, Second Sight and the independent chair of the Working Group —
Sir Anthony Hooper — have been asking for information on the operation of the Post Office’s Suspense Account. Put
simply, this amounts to:
« How much is absorbed into Post Office P&L from the suspense account each year; and
POL-0037287
POL00040805
POL00040805
® How much of that relates to money which is/may be properly due to Subpostmasters.
The nub of the issue is whether it is possible for a Subpostmaster/Subpostmasters to have made good a loss in branch or
held accountable for a loss where it later transpires that the money was not owed therefore Post Office gains.
Please find attached a more detailed note on Second Sight’s questions which you will see ask for rather more detail. it
has become essential that we address these questions as a matter of urgency (although it could be that we cannot
provide all the information Second Sight have requested in the attached document). The Chair of the Working Group is
now pressing to provide answers as he has been asking for answers for some time. I'd be very grateful of you could give
this your urgent consideration,
in addition, we have taken an action from the Working Group to organise a meeting between Second Sight and POL
finance on these issues. I'd be grateful if you would also urgently consider who might attend such a meeting.
Thank you in anticipation
Belinda
Belinda Crowe
148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ.
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-0037287