POL00042132
POL00042132
Message
From: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd GRO
Sent: 14/11/2018 14:35:11
To: Dave Panaech [7 Andrew Parsons:
cc: Rodric Williams my Prime [amy, lexander
Kj; Shirley Hailstones [
Subject: RE: Urgent Query Dispute Process 2007-2009
Hi Andy
As I mentioned briefly I agree this is more a language point but I will pick up with Alison when she's back from
holiday.
Angela
Get Outlook for Android
From: Andrew Parsong__
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 7:
To: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Dave Panaech
Ce: Rodric Williams; Amy Prime; Kathryn Alexander; Shirley Hailstones
Subject: RE: Urgent Query Dispute Process 2007-2009
18 AM
Angela
Here is the question and answer that went to Alison:
Q. Could branches dispute discrepancies with NBSC, or was it limited to asking for assistance to identify the cause of a
discrepancy? If NBSC could not identify the cause of a discrepancy, could the branch raise a dispute?
A. they seek assistance in resolving the discrepancy, we would not take up a dispute for a discrepancy but if settled
centrally and they believed a TC was due for a product when we call branches for payment we would investigate with the
product team to establish if there was an open items and put the debt on hold, If we had an open item we would then
issue the TC and they are able to Settle Centrally to offset the debt, if there was no open item they we wouid advise and
request payment.
I think this might be down to the language used.
Once a shortfall is "made good” in branch, there is nothing that can be “disputed” in the sense that a payment is put on
hold. This is because the "make good" process immediately results in money being put into the branch accounts and so
there is nothing that can be put on hold. So in that sense, a SPM cannot “dispute” a shortfall of less than £150.
in a broader sense however they can get NBSC / FSC to investigate any shortfall and this might generate a TC to offset
the shortfall. This is effectively “disputing” the shortfall, albeit after it has been made good.
I think that Alison's understanding probably reflects the Cs view of the word "dispute". They understand “dispute” to mean
"I don't have to pay now" which is not correct for iosses under £150.
fll speak to Counsei about making sure we are precise in the use of our language.
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP
POL-0038614
POL00042132
POL00042132
Stay informed: sign up to our.
: > WOMBLE womblebonddickinson.com
_/ BOND
DICKINSON Ain)
From: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd i
Sent: 13 November 2018 23:37"
To: Andrew Parsons; Dave Panaech
Cc: Rodric Williams; Amy Prime; Kathryn Alexander; Shirley Hailstones
Subject: RE: Urgent Query Dispute Process 2007-2009 [WBDUK-AC.FID26896945]
Hi Andy
That’s correct.
Angela
Angela Van Den Bogerd
Business Improvement Director
4" Floor,Ty Brwydran,
Atlantic Close,Llansamiet
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: Andrew Parsons t.
Sent: 13 November 2018 2
To: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd ¢
Ce: Rodric William
Subject: RE: Urgent
Angela
This supports what I always thought - if a SPMR gets to the end of the trading period and has a shortfall of less than £150,
they must make it good in order to roll over. They then contact NBSC to raise a compiaint about the shortfall, which is
then investigated and, if appropriate, a TC is generated in a later TP creating an offsetting gain.
POL-0038614
POL00042132
POL00042132
So in effect, for genera! branch losses under £150, it is "pay now, argue later". And if the SPMR is right to dispute, then
they get the money back later.
Asimilar system applies for TCs under £150 which cannot be resoived during the same trading period. The TC must be
accepted before roil over, thus creating a joss that must be made good (because it is for less than £150). The SPMR can
contact the named person on the TC (or NBSC who will put them in contact with the right person) to raise a dispute. That
may then generate a further offsetting TC if the dispute was found to be vaiid.
Correct?
Dave ~ please can you pick this up with Jonny re Alison's evidence.
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP.
Stay informed: sign up to our e-alerts
WOMBLE womblebonddickinson.com
BOND
DICKINSON / A)
From: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd [:
Sent: 13 November 2018 15:21 I. a eneeeeencennnenin a a at
To: Andrew Parsons; Dave Panaech
Cc: Rodric Williams; Amy Prime
Subject: Fwd: FW: Urgent Query Dispute Process 2007-2009
Hi all
The info on the earlier question about the entry level for raising a dispute. Kath's view supports mine that we
would and do investigate losses less than £150.
I'll pick up with Alison Bolsover when she returns from leave to understand what documentation/policy she is
referencing.
Kathryn Alexander
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 3:11:29 PM
To: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Subject: FW: Urgent Query Dispute Process 2007-2009
Hi Angela
I have looked through the dispute process info I have and have also contacted Paul Smith from FSC - see
email chain below
POL-0038614
POL00042132
POL00042132
« Essentially, the only reference to £150 that I (and Paul) are aware of is the ability to settle
centrally limit
e The attached Accounting Losses Policy (2003) refers to at Section 3 (extract below) £150
(community) and £400 (commercial) on authority to hold losses in suspense, but no reference to
being unable to dispute threshold and cant see this in a later version 2005/2006 (3' attachment)
e Attachment - (dispute process) this was in 2008 (according to email that it was attached in sent to
Andy P from Andy W on 11/04/2013). The appeal process part doesn’t refer to £150 limit either
e SSRT has investigated less amounts <£150 and over the years in various roles I can’t ever
remember telling a Pmr that they could not dispute rather the opposite that we would support
Below is from Accounting Policy for Agency Branches (2003)
SECTION 3 - AUTHORITY TO HOLD LOSSES
Where authority is given, it will only be provided for the amount of loss discovered above a threshold amount (£150 for
those in the community segment and £400 for those in the commercial segment) and providing that no other losses are
held in suspense at the time. A unique reference number will be allocated to any authority, which the agent should note
for audit purposes.
PDF — email refers to this 2008
Regards
Kath
e Kathryn Alexander
& Support Services
. Resolution Manager
SwyDoraR
1% Floor Admin,
Ty Brwydran,
Clos
Swansea SA7 9FJ
Confidential Information: This e-mail 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 e-mail
and destroy all copies of the original message.
From: Kathryn Alexander
Sent: Tuesday, 13
To: Paul I Smith <i.
Subject: RE: Urgent Query Dispute Process 2007-2009
Hi Paul
Thanks, that my thinking, appreciate your time again
Regards
Kath
\ Kathryn Alexander
Support Services
. Resolution Manager
® 15* Floor Admin,
‘Ty Brwydran,
Atlantic Close, Swansea SA7 9FJ
POL-0038614
POL00042132
POL00042132
Confidential Information: This e-mail 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 e-mail
and destroy all copies of the original message.
From: Paul I Smith
Sent: Tuesday, 13 November, 2018 2:40 PM
To: Kathryn Alexande} ~ GRO-
Subject: RE: Urgent Query DISPUTE Process" 20U7=20UT™
Hi Kath,
The only thing that I know of that is £150 related js the ability to settle centrally. Maybe the query is thinking about the
fact it can’t be settle centrally and blocked while disputed so the branch has to take the cash loss at the time.
Regards
® Paul Smith
Operations Support Manager
Fire Precautions Officer/FSC H&S
Finance Service Centre
PO Ltd,
No.1 Future Walk,
Chesterfield,
Private and Confidential - Subject to Legal Privilege:
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: Kathryn Alexander
Sent: 13 November. 2018 14:37
To: Paul I Smith I. GRO
Subject: RE: Urgent Query Dispute Process 2007-2009
Hi Paul
Thanks for helping, I have gone through these and what I had already and can’t so far see that there is anything that
mentions anything under £150 can’t be disputed? (which is a further query from AVB)
l was of the opinion {irrespective of the limit prior to settling centrally) that a loss below this threshold could be
investigated? I know we have in SSRT
can see reference to limits of £150 & £400 in some older Losses Policy for authority to hold losses but nothing about
can’t be disputed
The attached from Andy Winn refers to the Appeal Process for a TC/BD ~but doesn’t refer to a threshold being >£150
Would FSC block a debt and/or investigate for <£150?
POL-0038614
Regards
Kath
‘a Kathryn Alexander
& Support Services
Resolution Manager
Sz) 1° Floor Admin,
Ty Brwydran,
Atlantic Close. Swansea SA7 9FJ
Confidential Information: This e-mail 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 e-mail
and destroy all copies of the original message.
From: Paul I Smith
Sent: Tuesday, 13 November, 2018 1:37 PM
To: Kathryn Alexander
Subject: RE: Urgent Query Dispute Process 2007-2009
Hi Kath,
I will perform a search on sharepoint and see what I can find. I don’t personally hold a copy though.
Regards
* Paul Smith
Operations Support Manager
Fire Precautions Officer/FSC H&S
Finance Service Centre
PO Ltd,
No.1 Future Walk,
Chesterfield,
Private and Confidential - Subject to Legal Privilege:
POL00042132
POL00042132
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: Kathryn Alexander
Sent: 13 November 2018 13:36
To: PaulISmith¢ GRO !
Subject: Urgent Query Dispute Process 2007-2009
Importance: High
Hi Paul
POL-0038614
POL00042132
POL00042132
I have an urgent query from the lawyers/AVB — do you have a document that covers the dispute process during period
2007-2009
tam checking my own documents but would really appreciate it If you can put your hands on anything quickly
Thanks
Regards
Kath
=
Kathryn Alexander
Support Services
Resolution Manager
1* Floor Admin,
Ty Brwydran,
Atlantic Close, Swansea SA7 9F)
Confidential Information: This e-mail 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 e-mail
and destroy all copies of the original message.
SRR A EO AR RR I RRR Rf ARR RR FR RR RR CARR RR CA RR RO A
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.
2A 3 A 2124 2 2 2 2 A200 2 210K 08 RR F010 0 28 00 0 RK 08 ROR
“Post Office Limited is committed to Protecting your privacy. Information about how we do this can be found
on our website at w
This email is sent by 9
POL-0038614
POL00042132
POL00042132
POL-0038614