POL00043631
POL00043631
MINUTE
Working Group for the Initial Complaint Review and Case Mediation Scheme
8'" DECEMBER 2014
MATRIX CHAMBERS
Attendees
Sir Anthony Hooper (Chair)
Kay Linnell (JFSA)
Ron Warmington (Second Sight)
lan Henderson (Second Sight)
Chris Holyoak (Second Sight)
Chris Aujard (Post Office)
Belinda Crowe (Post Office)
Angela Van Den Bogerd (Post Office)
Tom Wechsler (Post Office)
Andy Parsons (Bond Dickinson)
Agenda
1. Minutes of 14 November meeting
2. Update on Part 2 progress
3. Post Office provision of legal documents
4. Scheduling of proposed face to face meetings in 2015 and confirmation of call
frequency.
5. Standing case agenda:
5.1 Priority Cases
5.2 Bankruptcy cases
5.3 Post Office investigation progress
5.4 Cases with Second Sight to review PO investigation reports
5.5 Cases Second Sight have reported on
5.6 Cases that have been passed to CEDR
5.7 Queries from applicants/advisors
5.8 AOB
6. Cases for decision:
a) Second Sight do not recommend mediation
M116
b) Second Sight recommend mediation:
M008, M032, M046, M059, M067, M090, M132, M135
c) Second Sight recommend mediation:
M042
POL00043631
POL00043631
Kay Linnell informed the Working Group that Alan Bates had sent her a message that
morning to say that he was unable to attend the meeting.
1. Minutes of 14 November meeting
The minutes of the meeting of 14 November were agreed.
2. Update on Part 2 progress
Further to the discussion at November's Working Group meeting, lan Henderson reported
progress on the completion of Second Sight’s Part Two Report. Key points included:
e Second Sight were on track to submit their outstanding questions to Post Office by 9
December, in line with the agreed schedule;
e there were a 110 questions but these were intended to be comprehensive;
eit was a likely that there would be supplementary questions following Post Office’s
response;
e Post Office were due to respond to Second Sight’s questions by 6 January and
meeting had been set for 9 January to go through the detail of their responses; and
« inthe meantime, Second Sight would begin to update their draft report using Post
Office’s response and other material received from Post Office, along with cross-
referencing the questions to the relevant source material.
Chris Aujard asked if he may report Second Sight’s update within the Post Office. This was
agreed.
The Chair said that he still wished Second Sight to address the question of who the most
likely beneficiary from losses in branch was. If, for example, the customers were the most
likely beneficiary from counter errors generating a loss then he would like to see that
reflected in Second Sight’s reports. Post Office agreed that, where possible, they would also
set this out in the remaining POIRs and CRR responses. Ron Warmington suggested it if it
was not theft in branch, the beneficiary was likely to be the customer.
The Chair said that reading through a number of cases had left him with the impression that
a number of people appointed as Subpostmasters were unable to cope with the role.
3. Post Office provision of legal documents
Belinda Crowe reported progress on the provision of legal documents to Second Sight from
Post Office. Key points included:
* an update was sent to Second Sight on 4 December on progress with their requests;
« the Secretariat were now tracking progress against Second Sight’s requests;
¢ In asignificant number of cases there were no further documents to be shared.
However, Post Office were checking thoroughly in each case;
e where documents did exist it took some time for the files to be retrieved, papers
copied and information redacted (where for example it contains personal data such
as bank account numbers); and
* alist of priority cases had been agreed based on where progress in completing
CRRs or resubmitting them was dependent on the provision of legal documents
(should they exist).
POL00043631
POL00043631
4. Scheduling of proposed face to face meetings in 2015 and confirmation of call
frequency
It was agreed that Working Group meetings should be scheduled up to the end of June
2015, starting with a meeting on 14 January. It was also agreed that a Working Group call
would be scheduled on a fortnightly basis on the Thursday between each Working Group
meeting.
Action: Secretariat to circulate potential dates for future meetings and schedule when
agreed.
5. Standing Agenda
5.1 Priority cases
Case No. I Status
mos2 Final report originally received 18 September, revised version received 23
September. Second Sight awaiting further information from POL.
M073 Final CRR received 21 October. Second Sight to resubmit Final CRR
Mos6 Investigation has been prioritised — POIR finalised 2 December. Due for
circulation.
M119 POIR finalised. Due date for delivery of Draft CRR 06 February 2014.
Belinda Crowe reported that:
e M086 — The POIR had been uploaded on 4 December with a date for the draft
CRR set for 16 January.
e M119 — Second Sight had agreed to bring forward delivery of the draft CRR to
3 January.
5.2 Bankruptcy cases
Case No. I Status
Moot SS Final report received 18 September. Second Sight to review in light of
Working Group discussion of 17 October.
M029 SS Final report received 18 September. Second Sight to resubmit Final CRR.
Mo32 SS Final report received 15 November. See agenda item 6.b
M036 Draft CRR received 13 November. Final due 05 December.
M069. PO investigation received 11 November 2014. Draft CR due 30 January
POL00043631
POL00043631
Case No. I Status
M081 PO investigation on-going, report due by 8 December.
M089 PO investigation received 18 November 2014. Draft CRR due 06 February
M100 PO investigation received 17 October. Draft CRR due 12 December.
M118 PO investigation received 16 October. Draft CRR due 28 November.
M122 PO investigation received 01 October. Draft CRR due 05 December.
M128 PO investigation on-going, report due by 22 December
M150 PO investigation on-going, report due by 8 December.
Belinda Crowe reported that:
« M036 — the Final CRR was received on 3 December
« M118 — Second Sight had requested an extension until 15 January. This was
agreed.
Kay Linnell asked that the Working Group to note that the arrangements agreed
between Moore Stephens and Post Office could add a 4-8 week delay to a case
proceeding to mediation but that this was probably unavoidable.
5.3 Post Office Investigation Progress
i) New scheduling to note
No new scheduling to note
ii) Overdue cases
Belinda Crowe reported that:
e M096, M106, M110, M086 had been uploaded to Huddle.
e M094 was to be uploaded that day and all remaining overdue cases would be
uploaded that week.
5.4 Cases with Second Sight to review Post Office Investigation Reports
i) New scheduling to note
Case No. Date passed to SS SS planned scheduled delivery date
M004. 24 November 2014 20 February 2015
M010 24 November 2014 20 February 2015
M020 17 November 2014 30 January 2015
POL00043631
POL00043631
M037 13 November 2014 30 January 2015
Mo69 11 November 2014 30 January 2015
Moss 26 November 2014 20 February 2014
Mos9 18 November 2014 06 February 2015
Moss 20 November 2014 13 February 2015
M103 10 November 2014 23 January 2015
M113 18 November 2014 06 February 2015
M114 28 November 2014 27 February 2015
M119 18 November 2014 06 February 2015
M130 27 November 2014 27 February 2015
M131 27 November 2014 27 February 2015
M139 24 November 2014 13 February 2015
M142 20 November 2014 13 February 2015
ii) Overdue cases
Date passed to
SS planned scheduled
Case No. ss delivery date SS revised scheduled
y delivery date
M038 12 October 2014 28 November 2014 TBC
Mo40 12 September 31 October 2014 Drafts being held pending
2014 receipt of legal files
M077 12 September 07 November 2014 Drafts being held pending
2014 receipt of legal files
M118 16 October 2014 28 November 2014 TBC
M038 - Belinda Crowe reported that Second Sight had requested an extension until 19
December. This was agreed.
5.5 Cases that Second Sight have reported on
Case ss draft report Deadline for SS final report due SS Final Report WG decision
No. issued comments completed
Second Sight to
Second Sight review in light
04 September rewriting their CRR I 18September I of Working
Mo01 I 17 July 2014 2014 following WG 2014 Group
meeting of 17/10 discussion of 17
October
7 Second Sight to
Second Sight pecond Sight review light of
M003 I 11 September 2014 I 19September I rewriting their CRR I bmitted o7 I Working Group
2014 following WG discussion of 14
meeting of 17/10 November November
9 2014
Moos I 21 October 2014 I 30 October 2014 I 6 November 2014 I 28November I See agenda
2014 item 6.b
Second Sight to
MO011 I 25 September 2014 I 07 October 2014 I 24 October 2014 peter resubmit Final
CRR
POL00043631
POL00043631
Second Sight to
review in light
M013 I 26 September 2014 I 07 October 2014 I 24 October 2014 23 October of Working
2014 Group
discussion of 14
November
Applicant
provided
M017 I 15 September 2014 25 September 02 October 2014 05 October comments on
2014 2014 ‘
final CRR. SS to
refer.
Second Sight to
review in light
M018 I 15 September 2014 I 10 October 2014 I 17 October 2014 24 October of Working
2014 Group
discussion of 14
November
M024 I 07 November 2014 ” December 12 December 2014 I - :
M027 I 28 November 2014 I - : : -
Second Sight to
M029 I 27 August 2014 10 September 17 September 2014 I 18 September I omit Final
2014 2014
RR
06 November 28 November See agenda
M031 I 27 October 2014 2014 13 November 2014 2014 item 6.b
M032 I 16 October 2014 I 28 October 2014 I 04 November 2014 I 19 November I See agenda
2014 item 6.b
M034 I 10 November 2014 I 9 December 2014 I 19 December 2014 I - :
Second Sight to
M035 I 11 August 2014 04 September 11September 2014 I 19 September I oo bit Final
2014 2014
RR
Second Sight to
M039 I 27 August 2014 05 September 12 September 2014 I 14 September resubmit Final
2014 2014
RR
Mo41 I 13 November 2014 I 04 December 12 December 2014 I - -
2014
M042 I 14 October 2014 I 28 October 2014 I 04 November 2014 I 19 November I See agenda
2014 item 6.c
M045 I 24 November 2014 I 02 December 19 December 2014 I - :
2014
POL00043631
POL00043631
M046 I 7 November 2014 I 31 October 2014 I 28 November 2014 I 2>November I See agenda
2014 item 6.b
Second Sight to
Mo49 I 03 October 2014 I 23 October 2014 I 30 October 2019 I 29 OCtHEr Ts cibmit final
2014
RR
06 November
Mo51 I 27 October 2014 I 2014/Applicant I 94 November 2014 I Overdue -
11 November
2014
Second Sight to
review -
M052 I 28 July 2014 04 September 18 September 2014 I 18 September I siting legal
2014 2014 °
documentation
from POL
M053 I 10 October 2014 I 21 October 2014 I 28 October 2014 I 13 November I See agenda
2014 item 6.b
Second Sight to
M058 I 45 October 2014 I 14 October 2014 I 21 October 2014 I 2B October ec omit Final
2014
CRR
14 November 19 November See agenda
M059 I 31 October 2014 2014 21 November 2014 2014 item 6.b
31 July 2014
Revised Second Sight to
M062 I 20 June 2014 22 July 2014 31 July 2014 version resubmit Final
uploaded 23 CRR
September
17 October 2014 - I
Mo63 I 08 October 2014 I Applicant 27 17 October 2014 30 November FS to resubmit
October 2014
Second Sight to
M065 I 23 September 2014 I 02 October 2014 I 09 October 2014 08 October resubmit Final
2014
RR
M067 I 19 October 2014 I 28 October 2014 I 04 November 2014 I 19 November I See agenda
2014 item 6.b
M068 I 24 November 2014 I - - - -
09 December
Mo71 I 7 November 2014 I 5015 19 December 2014 I - -
Second Sight
M072 I 08 October 2014 I 17 October 2014 I 24 October 2014 I Waiting legal I _
documentation
from POL
Second Sight to
21 Octob
M073 I 24 September 2014 I 03 October 2014 I 24 October 2014 I 50S! I resubmit Final
CRR
POL00043631
POL00043631
M087 I 19 November 2014 I - - - -
M090 I 16 October 2014 I 28 October 2014 I 04 November 2014 I 28 November I See agenda
2014 item 6.a
Applicant has
requested
19 November extension.
M091 I 31 October 2014 2014 25 November 2014 I Deadline for -
comments has
not been
agreed.
14 November 25 November I See agenda
M093 I 31 October 2014 2014 21 November 2014 2014 item eh
MO95 I 7 November 2014 oa pecember 12 December 2014 I - -
Second Sight
M097 I 10 October 2014 I 23 October 2014 I 300ctober 2014 I Waiting legal I _
documentation
from POL
POL - 23 October
2014 Applicant
12 October 2014 requested 26 November 2014
extension - 19"
November 2014
M116 25 November See agenda
2014 item 6.a
M120 I 21 November 2014 I - - . -
M121 I 21 November 2014 I - - - -
M132 I 16 October 2014 I 28 October 2014 I 04 November 2014 I 13 November I See agenda
2014 item 6.b
M133 I 21 November 2014 I - - - -
13 November 19 November See agenda
M135 I 29 October 2014 2014 23 November 2014 3014 item 6.b
Belinda Crowe said that M031, M053 and M093 were listed for discussion today. However,
Post Office had agreed to mediation and the Secretariat had passed the cases to CEDR.
Tom Wechsler reported that the Secretariat had reported the Working Group’s decision on
granting an extension for comments to the applicant's advisor in case M091. The advisor
had still not provided a date when comments could be expected despite having been
reminded to do so.. Given the applicant's circumstances, it was agreed that the Working
Group would wait until after Christmas before pressing the matter further.
5.6 Cases where the Working Group has made mediation recommendation
Belinda Crowe said that the spreadsheet incorrectly showed that M048 was with CEDR. It
had in fact been settled prior to mediation.
Of the cases where the Working Group had concluded its consideration, 20 had been
passed to CEDR for mediation. Of those 20, Post Office had declined to mediate 2 cases.
5.7 Any other queries raised by Applicants / Advisors
POL00043631
POL00043631
No queries raised
5.8 AOB
None
6. Cases for decision
a) Second Sight do not recommend mediation
Kay Linnell said that Alan Bates had asked her to report to the Working Group that he
required 4 weeks to consider any case where mediation was not recommended rather than
10 days as previously advised.
Action: Secretariat to reschedule consideration of case M116 for January’s Working
Group meeting and draft a letter to inform the applicant of the delay in considering his
case
b) Second Sight recommend mediation
The Chair asked Kay Linnell if she was able to stay for the remaining discussion in order to
offer a view on behalf of JFSA. She replied that she was able to stay as an observer but not
to take part in the discussion.
Chris Aujard said that the Post Office continued to be concerned that JFSA were not taking
part in Working Group discussions on cases. There were a number of cases for discussion
where the decisions were very balanced. He wished to place on record Post Office’s
continued encouragement to JFSA to play a full part in Working Group discussions so that
the Working Group may benefit from their views and knowledge of the applicants.
The Chair said that JFSA’s decision not to participate remained unsatisfactory and placed a
significant burden on him when casting his determining vote and on Second Sight who were,
in effect, called up to make the case for the applicant. He understood that Alan Bates did
not agree with his ruling on the role of the Working Group in determining the suitability of
cases for mediation. However, he had made his rulingwas not prepared to change it. He
asked Kay to ask Alan to reconsider his position.
The Chair said that when he had made his ruling he had not anticipated that Post Office
would be inclined to vote against Second Sight’s recommendation in as many cases as they
appeared to be doing. His expectation was that cases would be subject to a Working Group
discussion and his casting vote by exception. This had not turned out to be the case.
Post Office responded that they had not determined how they wished to vote prior to the
Working Group meeting in a significant number of cases. The reason for asking for the
cases to be discussed at Working Group meetings was to establish greater understanding of
the rationale behind Second Sight’s recommendations. Post Office is particularly concerned
as Second Sight were recommending mediation in almost all cases. They were particularly
concerned about raising the expectations of applicants that resolution may be achieved
through mediation where cases had been described by Second Sight as “weak”, where there
was little information available or where Second Sight had also suggested that an applicant
might benefit from a discussion with Post office so that the relevant issues could be
explained.
The Chair suggested that these were issues that could be resolved prior to the Working
Group between Post Office and Second Sight. He wanted to be clear prior to the meeting on
exactly which cases he might be required to exercise his casting vote. .
POL00043631
POL00043631
He suggested that the meeting adjourn for a short period so that Post Office and Second
Sight might consider how to proceed with the remaining cases for discussion. This was
agreed.
The meeting reconvened.
Chris Aujard reported that following their discussion Post Office and Second Sight agreed
that under the present arrangements Second Sight only had the choice to recommend,
whether a case was Suitable for mediation or not. However, there was a category of cases
that whilst Second Sight believed them to be weak the applicant would benefit from an
explanation of events that had led to their difficulties. Despite the other weaknesses of the
case, they felt the benefit of an explanation tipped the balance of argument in favour of
mediation rather than no discussion at all. For its part Post Office had indicated on a
number of cases that they were content to meet with applicants and offer an explanation of
events but they remained concerned in such cases that agreeing to mediation raised the
expectations of applicants that alternative resolution may be achieved.
It was proposed that Post Office and Second Sight work up a third option for the Working
Group to consider in these circumstances currently described as a “structured discussion”.
This would not take the form of a formal mediation but instead offer a forum in which Post
Office and the applicant could work through the events that had led to the applicant's
difficulties so that they may understand them better.
Following a discussion, the Working Group agreed that Post Office and Second Sight should
work up a proposition for a “structured discussion” options for the Working Group to
consider. That proposition should take account of the following points:
¢ whether a 3” party might facilitate such a discussion;
¢ whether applicants might be accompanied by their legal advisors; and
«what would happen if new information emerged during the course of the discussion.
Post Office wereasked whether, should this alternative proposition be agreed, they would
agree to the majority of Second Sight's recommendations. Post Office said that they could
not commit to that but if Second Sight’s recommendations for cases suitable for mediation
were based on evidence of some wrong-doing on the part of Post Office there was a far
greater likelihood that they would consider it appropriate to do so.
The Chair asked Post Office to look again at its view on the suitability of cases for mediation
where there had been a criminal conviction. Post Office agreed to do so.
Action: Post Office and Second Sight to work up a proposition for an option of a
“structured discussion” for the Working Group to consider at its meeting in January.
It was agreed that no cases scheduled for discussion under item 6b would be discussed.
The Chair invited Second Sight to consider how many of those cases might be more suited
to a “structured discussion” rather than mediation in preparation for January’s Working
Group meeting.
Action: Second Sight to consider how many of those cases might be more suited to a
“structured discussion” rather than mediation in preparation for January’s Working
Group meeting.
Action: Secretariat to draft a letter to inform the applicants of the delay in considering
their cases.
c) Second Sight recommend mediation
Belinda Crowe explained that in case M042, Second Sight recommended mediation be
deferred until the completion of their Part Two report. Post Office had indicated that they
were content to mediate the case now. It was recommended that the precedent set at the
POL00043631
POL00043631
last Working Group meeting be followed and that the applicant be given the choice. This
was agreed.
Action: Secretariat to a draft letter to the applicant in case M042, informing them that
the Working Group had decided that their case was suitable for mediation and
offering them the choice of mediating now or when the Part Two Report had been
finalised, in the knowledge that this was not likely to be before end March 2015.
Date of Next Meeting
14" January, Noon