POL00046625
POL00046625
Royal Mail Group
ROYAL MAIL GROUP - CONFIDENTIAL
Record of Taped Interview
Short Descriptive Notes
Record of Taped Interview Summary
Full Taped Interview Transcript (delete as applicable)
Person interviewed: LYNETTE HUTCHINGS (LH) Exhibit No:
Place of Interview: Number of pages: 12
Signature of interviewer producing record
Date of Interview: 20.4.11 Time commenced: 13.17
Tape reference no.: 073453 Time concluded: 13.40
Duration of Interview: 23 MINUTES
Interviewing Officers: GRAHAM BRANDER (GB) GARY THOMAS (GT)
Other persons present: IZZY HOGG (IH)
Tape counter Person TEXT
times speaking
Voice identification of everyone present and the nature of the enquiry
explained. Permission to tape record given.
1.25 LH cautioned and reminded of legal rights. LH told (1) she is not under
arrest, (2) is free to leave, (3) is entitled to legal representation and
advice including the right to speak with a Solicitor and (4) is entitled to
read the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Codes of Practice
setting out the rules and rights governing the conduct of this interview.
The necessary form completed and signed - Solicitor present but no
friend.
2.50 LH confirmed the matter was not discussed during the break and she said
she did not require any further time to consult with her Solicitor.
eso1s Version 8 07/09
POL00046625
POL00046625
SI
Royal Mail Group
ROYAL MAIL - CONFIDENTIAL
Record of Taped Interview - Continued
Tape counter I Person TEXT
times speaking
3.36 GB On the 14" April 2010 when completing the branch trading statement
the 50's increased by 4,300, the dates I’m going to read you out are just
purely when you've completed a branch trading statement, I know there
are other examples I gave you when the £50 had jumped but just on the
dates when you completed the branch trading statement, 19'" May the
£50 notes increased by £5,000 and the 14" July they've increased by
6,400, I'm not referring to June because as I said to you it looked to me
quite possibly the £10 notes had been inflated in June but just sticking
with the £50 notes so on the 18'" August they've been increased by
6,350, very similar to the previous month the 6,400, then the increase
goes up to 8,150 on the 15" of the 9" 2010, 13" of the 10" 2010 it
jumps to 10,200 and it's round about that mark on the 17° of the 11"
9,900 and then after that on the 15" of the 7" 2010 the increase was
8,950, 12"" January 2011 the increase is 11,050, 16" February is
10,250 and 16" March it's 10,600 so in a nutshell it looks like round
about in my opinion the 14" April 2010 there was a deficit in the
accounts circa £4,300 which steadily increased over a period of time up
until the 16" March when the £50 notes increased by £10,600 and
ultimately the fact that your accounts when checked on the 30'" March
coupled with the two errors that are outstanding which I explained to
you showing the accounts have been about £10,700 out so to me it
seems like a pattern whereby an ever increasing deficit in the office prior
to Horizon on Line has been covered up by predominantly inflating the
£50 notes, can you give me any explanation as to whether that is the
case or whether that's not the case?
6.06 LH No comment.
eso1s Version 8 07/09
POL00046625
POL00046625
Ga
Royal Mail Group
ROYAL MAIL - CONFIDENTIAL
Record of Taped Interview - Continued
Tape counter Person TEXT
times speaking
GB Ok can you give any explanation to explain this pattern of jumps in the
£50 notes over this period of time that I've just explained to you?
LH No comment.
GT Can I just ask on the day when the auditors turned up on the 30°" March
I think it was, when they arrived given obviously the prepared statement
again that you're aware that there was problems and you've been
inflating your accounts to obviously cover up the problems that had
happened since Horizon came in, did you actually say to the auditors or
was it a meeting them at the door if you like or meeting them on entry
“oh I'm glad you're here I've been having lots of problems, I'm
experiencing all these problems with stock and adjusting my stock and
I've had to you know that I've had a problem in the office and you know
there will be some missing because obviously I've had these problems,
did you actually say that to the auditors when they came?
LH No comment.
7.10 GT Because that would have been the ideal opportunity I would have
suggested that you could have obviously brought it to somebody's
attention at the time when the auditors turned up ‘cos you would have
been fully aware that they were just about to obviously identify the fact
that there was money missing from the actual account wouldn't they?
LH No comment.
GB (indistinct) the auditors did actually (indistinct) statement that they made
saying that you were unable to offer any explanation for the shortages
whatsoever is that correct?
LH No comment.
GB Do you recall receiving a telephone call from the Cash Management
Team on the 7°” March 2011 asking you to return £30,000 in cash?
Gso15 Version 8 07/09
POL00046625
POL00046625
Royal Mail Group
ROYAL MAIL - CONFIDENTIAL
Record of Taped Interview - Continued
Tape counter Person TEXT
times speaking
LH No comment.
GB Well it refers to a lady that they spoke to you so in your prepared
statement it says only you and your husband work there so I think I'm
making a reasonable presumption it must have been you that they
spoke to, this call log, I don’t know if you're aware, whenever the Cash
Management Team actually contact the Branch, particularly (indistinct)
saying return X amount of cash, they have to record it so it’s captured so
on the 7" March 2011 the record a conversation ‘called the branch as
they were holding onto far too much cash, I've asked for 30K to be
returned tomorrow, the lady I spoke to stated that they were hanging
onto the excess cash as they were expecting people to come back from
the holiday period and withdraw more cash. I explained that they would,
I explained that they have held onto the excess cash all year and to
return 30k tomorrow’. So would that have been you that they spoke to?
LH No comment.
8.45 GB Being the only lady working at Rowlands Castle Post Office?
LH No comment.
GB And who are these customers that would have been coming back from a
holiday period in March that would have been looking to withdraw more
cash?
LH No comment.
GB So it then goes on to say, well actually when I looked at the, let’s look at
that schedule so you asked on the 7" March you were asked to return
£30,000 so let's have a look at March 2011 on this schedule.
IH Sorry did you say 7" March or 17" March?
GB Sorry 7".
IH Thank you.
gso15
Version 8 07/09
POL00046625
POL00046625
SS
Royal Mail Group
ROYAL MAIL - CONFIDENTIAL
Record of Taped Interview - Continued
Tape counter Person TEXT
times speaking
GB So on the 7" March you've actually made up a remittance for £14,000
and that's the amount expected on the 8" March so they don't just pluck
these figures out of the air they have what's called a ‘Planned Order
System’ which calculates average holdings and it can calculate how
much over an average period accepted how much money an office
needs to operate so this system's telling the person that phones you up
that you're holding in excess of more than £30,000 so that’s why they've
asked you to return £30,000 so why did you only return £14,000?
LH No comment.
10.07 GB Is it because you obviously didn’t have £30,000 to return?
LH No comment.
GB Ok let me rephrase that, you might have had £30,000 in the office but if
you returned £30,000 would it have left you too short to have served
your customers?
LH No comment.
GB And the reason I believe it may have left you too short to have served
your customers is because round about that time of the amount
declared on the 7" March of, where are we, well actually phoned you on
the 7° March we'd obviously been looking at the figures the day before
so you'd be looking at the figures on the 6" March which was 37,934 so
of that it's asking you to return 30,000 so I suspect that at that time, of
that 37,934.00 that you declared, around about 10,000 of that was an
inflated figure is that correct?
LH No comment.
GB So in reality you only actually had about £27,000 in the branch when
you received that phone call is that correct?
LH No comment.
Gso1s Version 8 07/09
POL00046625
POLO00046625
Co
ae
Royal Mail Group
ROYAL MAIL - CONFIDENTIAL
Record of Taped Interview - Continued
Tape counter
times
Person
speaking
TEXT.
11.10
13.009
Gso1s
GB
LH
GB
LH
GB
LH
GT
In which case it wouldn't have been possible to have returned 30,000
and that’s why you only returned 14,000 is that correct?
No comment.
Ok. Right now with Horizon data, as you're probably aware as an
Investigator I can obtain Horizon data for any branch for any period of
time but we have access to a data base that constantly over-rights itself
for Management Information Purposes over a three month basis so if
you like I could go into my office now I could go into any office and I
could get Horizon data going back over the last 90 days so that’s what
I've done and I’m just looking at some extracts, I’m not going to go into
massive detail but on the 26" January 2011 and we refer to our main
schedule again on the 26" January 2011, you can see that £50 notes
jumped from 1,500 to £12,500. The only person that was logged on
that day was LHU001. Now in your prepared statement you're saying
that was your user name and that you didn’t share users and passwords
weren't comprised so am I right in thinking that it would have been you
that would have declared that cash on that day?
No comment.
Likewise on the 16" February and also the 16" March when 2 branch
trading statements were produced and I've already explained the 50's
have jumped up on those days but basically you're the only person I can
see that was logged on on those 2 Wednesdays when you produced the
branch trading accounts so would it have been you that produced the
accounts with those what I’m suggesting are inflated cash figures on
those days?
No comment.
Whilst you're on that page there Graham the transactions obviously you
Version 8 07/09
POL00046625
POL00046625
Royal Mail Group
ROYAL MAIL - CONFIDENTIAL
Record of Taped Interview - Continued
Tape counter Person TEXT
times speaking
said about those days, is that reference to what was paid in on those
days?
GB No these are reports yeah and that would have been, so just for the
benefit of the tape we're just looking at some Horizon data which is
obtained from a database known to us as Credence and this report is
just showing events if you like that occurred on specific days, we're just
referring to some events on the 26" January and you're referring to,
what is it the?
GT Well it looks like there’s an Alliance & Leicester deposit for £9,089.36p
or 38p.
GB That would have been the summary so that would be all deposits.
GT All the deposits.
GB There’s 13 deposits according to that amount.
GT Right so it would be fair to say that for the £50 notes to have jumped up
by 11,700, the deposits totalled that day were only 9,000 and they
would all have had to have been paid in in £50 notes plus £2,000 worth
of genuine customers paying for say stamps etc for it to have been able
to have.
GB So the average amount of those deposits would have been £100,000.
GT It was only ‘cos it referred to a question I asked earlier on about
customers coming in with 50's and the next day having paid them out so
obviously.
GB Ok.
GT I wasn’t aware of that.
14.27 GB Right just so that you and Izzy just are aware of what we're looking at,
we're just looking at those dates there that I printed off the Credence
system and what Gary's saying is that on the 26th January you can see
6s015 Version 8 07/09
POL00046625
POL00046625
a
47
Royal Mail Group
ROYAL MAIL - CONFIDENTIAL
Record of Taped Interview - Continued
Tape counter
times
Person
speaking
TEXT
15.42
16.15
so1s
LH
GT
GB
GT
GB
GT
GB
GT
it's got A & L deposit PDR, these are just showing the reports that have
been printed or what we call events as oppose to transactions.
Obviously transactions we get 100’s of ther on any given day I suspect.
What that's saying is on 17.32 when the Alliance & Leicester deposits
have been cut off and summarised if you like there were 13 of them
totalling £9,089.38 so if, what Gary's suggesting, if the £50 notes have
gone up by say over £10,000, it doesn't look like it could be the result of
money paid in so could you give any other explanation as to why your
£50 notes would have jumped up on that day?
No comment.
And would that probably be the same on the other days ‘cos they're only
a few hundred aren't they?
Yeah.
‘Cos the Alliance, so the one further down for example the 16"
February, the daily deposits that day were actually only equating to
£121.99p so again it couldn't have been large deposits of £50 notes
coming into the branch.
Obviously this is just a summary of events I've not looked into the
Horizon data really in any great depth other than really I just wanted to
see who was logged on on those days was the main reason for this
report being produced but as I say you might hang onto that copy that's
fine.
Towards the bottom of page 11 it just says.
Right ok.
I'm unable to explain why the balances are incorrect but would give
examples of some difficulties as follows and the very first thing at the
top of the page is ‘the helpline was difficult to access and unreliable’.
Version 8 07/09
POL00046625
POL00046625
3
Royal Mail Group
ROYAL MAIL - CONFIDENTIAL
Record of Taped Interview - Continued
Tape counter Person TEXT
times speaking
GB Ok well I've given Izzy a copy of this, I literally got an e-mail with this call
log to the Post Office helpdesk just before we done the interview so I've
not had any chance to look at it in any great detail but it runs from the
23" June 2010 up until the 5" April 2011 so that’s not going to relate
to your 5" April so the last thing that relates to you is the 3” to the last
entry on the 2 of the last page on the 30" March obviously related to
the fact that your branch was closed ‘cos you got an audit but looking at
that you look like you've probably got round about.
GT 20?
17.10 GB Well I'd say at least 20 or 30 calls roughly to the helpdesk so what
exactly was the problem accessing the helpdesk ‘cos it looks like you've
contacted them on quite a number of occasions for varied reasons to
me?
LH No comment.
GT Now if you had, and I don’t know the lay out of your office but if you've
contacted the helpdesk on a number of occasions, certainly in well from
June through July, obviously you transferred over as we're aware on the
5th July, phone calls have been made on the 8" July, 9" July, 29" July
going through August and September, I would have suggested that there
was ample opportunity when you got through to the helpline on those
other occasions to have explained the, if it’s like the problems that you
suggest that you were experiencing and if you maybe had a customer in
front of you at the time, it wouldn't stop the fact of requesting a call
back out of hours or a situation, I don’t know whether you have a mobile
phone or anything where someone could contact you away from the
counter position so would it be fair to say there was ample opportunity
during all those other conversations when you did get through to the
so15 Version 8 07/09
POL00046625
POL00046625
ga
Royal Mail Group
ROYAL MAIL - CONFIDENTIAL
Record of Taped Interview - Continued
Tape counter Person TEXT
times speaking
helpline to actually ask for help or request?
LH No comment.
18.26 GB Ok I'm looking through this and I can’t see anything relating to you
reporting that you're having losses at your branches. Again I'm not, I've
only just flicked through it, apologies if I've missed something but I can’t
see anything relation to you reporting any losses or saying you're having
a problem with losses. On, as I say the one that’s in the column under
‘balancing’ on the 16" of the 41" 2010 it says ‘pm’ which I assume is
Postmaster, has remmed in stock from a previous TP incorrectly so it
looks like you know you've made calls to the help?
IH Sorry on the 16" of the 11°"? No it’s ok I've found it.
GB Yeah so it looks like you've you know you've contacted the helpline in
respect of balancing difficulties and this is obviously to do with a stock
remittance but nothing that I can see really that in respect of the fact
that month in month out the £50 notes have been inflated obviously to,
in my opinion hide a deficit and an ever increasing deficit. Ok is there
any reason why you didn’t contact the help desk regarding balancing
difficulties?
LH No comment.
GB Was it, so what exactly did you mean then by, in your prepared
statement ‘the helpline was difficult to access an unreliable’?
LH No comment.
20.21 GB Are you prepared to ask any question in relating to yours and/or your
husband's finances?
LH No comment.
GB Ok to help us in our investigation, would you prepared to supply us with
bank statements?
Gso1s Version 8 07/09
POL00046625
POL00046625
£0
Royal Mail Group
ROYAL MAIL - CONFIDENTIAL
Record of Taped Interview - Continued
Tape counter Person TEXT
times speaking
IH I'll need to discuss that and give advice on that.
22.00 GB So one final opportunity then Lynette, can you give any explanation as
to why your branch was initially 9,000 odd out on the 30" March which
coupled with the errors outstanding would have meant if they hadn't
been made those errors would have been £10,700 out, can you give any
explanation as to why you're that amount short?
LH No comment.
GB Ok and are you aware of anyone having stolen money or taken without
permission from the Post Office?
LH No comment.
GB Ok are you in a position, whether you've taken it or done anything wrong
or not, I'm sure you're aware as Postmaster, you're contractually liable
to repay that money to the Post Office, are you aware of that?
LH No comment.
GB Are you in a position at this moment in time to repay any or all of that
money?
LH No comment.
GB If at any stage, whether nor or later you are in a position to repay any of
that money then you can send the payment to me and I will issue what I
call a ‘receipt without prejudice’. What that means is we'll take the
money, I'll notify all relevant parties that you repaid that amount of
money, but it's taken without prejudice in that it doesn’t affect what
action the Post Office may take. The job I’m doing which is the criminal
investigation and also with prejudice the roll in which Nigel Allen which is
your contractual issue so just so you're clear, yes you're required to
repay that money as your contract, part of my job is to recover that
money but if you do recover that money it doesn’t make, excuse me, my
sos Version 8 07/09
POL00046625
POL00046625
i
Royal Mail Group
ROYAL MAIL - CONFIDENTIAL
Record of Taped Interview - Continued
Tape counter Person TEXT
times speaking
investigation go away and it doesn’t make Nigel's contractual issue go
away, does that make sense?
LH No comment.
23.50 When asked if she required any further clarification or had anything to
Gso1s
add, LH again replied ‘No comment.’
Master tape seal signed on number 073453
Interview terminated at 13.40
Version 8 07/09