POL00054175
POL00054175
Royal Mail Group
Witness Statement
(CJ Act 1967, s9; MC Act 1980, ss 5A(3)(a)
and 5B, MC Rules 1981, r 70)
Statement of Andrew WINN
Ageifunder18 Over 18 (If over 18 insert ‘over 18')
This statement (consisting of two (2) pages each signed by me) is true to the best of my
knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to
prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or do not believe
true.
Dated 22% dayof February 2010
the
Signature
I am employed as a Finance Relationship Manager for Post Office Ltd and have been so
employed since 0411/2008. I have worked in the Finance Division at Chesterfield since 2005
I have read the statement of Eleanor Nixon, former subpostmistress of Highcliffe Post Office.
I have drafted a generalised response to the matters raised in the statement but without
further information such as times, dates and amounts I cannot be more specific. Even with
this data, there may no longer be records available.
There are two scenarios that Mrs Nixon may be referring to.
Initially debit/credit card transactions were performed on line on a discrete terminal that was
separate from the Horizon terminal. Card transactions were then subsequently associated
with the appropriate sale on Horizon with debit/credit card being recorded as the method of
Signature} Signature witnessed by
5011 (Side A) Version 5.0 05/07
Royal Mais a trading name of Reyal Mail Group ple Registered nurnber 4138703 Registered in Erland and Wales. Registered office: 148 Old Street, LONDON. ECV 9H
1
POL-0050654
POL00054175
POL00054175
POL00054175
POL00054175
Witness Statement
(CJ Act 1967, s9; MC Act 1980, ss 5A(3)(a) and 5B, MC Rules 1981, r 70)
Continuation of statement of Andrew WINN
payment. If cash was recorded in error then a loss would manifest itself as the system
expects more cash to be present than actually is there. However Post Office Ltd would
identify a discrepancy between the Streamline (Card processor) reports and branch Horizon
reports. A transaction correction would be issued to resolve this discrepancy. This might
well be how Mrs Nixon’s losses were resolved over a period of time.
Mrs Nixon is quite correct that losses will materialise if proposed debit/credit card
transactions are settled as cash now that card transactions are performed with a direct
interface into the Horizon system. This is because the Horizon system will assume cash has
been taken as the method of payment whilst the customer intended to pay by card and no
cash will have been handed over. When a cash declaration is made, the actual cash in
branch will be less than the “derived” cash position thus creating a loss. Whilst it would be
quite possible to press the cash button in error, the mistake should be obvious at the time
of the transaction as:~
1. The system would not generate a request for the customer to input their pin number
to proceed with the transaction.
2. No debit/credit card receipt would be generated.
3. The final settlement screen would request the cash value to be tendered.
Once the transaction has been completed there would be little that Post Office Ltd could do
to help to recover the money as:-
1. There would be no way to identify the customer - although the branch may be able
to. If they knew the customer they could have explained their mistake and invite the
customer to check their statements and make good the shortfall to the branch.
2. The customer will hold a valid Horizon receipt “proving” they paid by cash.
Signature G RO I Signature witnessed by
CSO11A Version 3.0 11/02
POL-0050654
POL00054175
POL00054175
Witness Statement
(CJ Act 1967, s9; MC Act 1980, ss 5A(3)(a) and 5B, MC Rules 1981, r 70)
Continuation of statement of Andrew WINN
3. The relevant client, who would know the customer details, would not support any
approach to the customer as there is no proof that a valid cash transaction was not
performed.
I agree a loss would be generated at the branch in both instances. However this would be
reflected by Horizon recording what the user told it had happened as opposed to a system
malfunction.
Signature : ‘Signature witnessed by
esoa Version 3.0 11/02
POL-0050654