POLO0059567
POL00059567
Message
From: Alwen Lyons
on behalf of — Alwen Lyons <
Sent: 29/01/2013 08:
To: Susan Crichton [i GRO 1
Subject: Re: Issuance of TCs” “
Yes because in Rona head the sub postmaster if innocent doesn't know they have made a mistake eg not up a cheque
through properly so they will carry on thinking they have balanced. Then later after the 42 days they get a TC transaction
correction notice which they have to out through and then they are short and have no way if going back to check what
they have done. Tracy Merritt the James A case got lots of £250 cheques from the local 'squire' , my word not hers and
he now says that some were never cashed.
So you are right not a Horizon issue but Ron's point is that if TCs come late and there was a horizon issue spm have no
chance to look at the evidence.
Lets catch up later.
Thanks
Alwen
Alwen Lyons
Company Secretary
On 29 Jan 2013, at 07:46, "Susan Crichton"
So is the argument that we didn't send the transaction correction through in time?
Sent from my iPad
On 28 Jan 2013, at 18:36, "Alwen Lyons" wrote:
%.
So the issue in Ron's head is around a 42 day time within which spm can interrogate the
system by getting reports about their transactions and therefore know if there is an
issue with horizon or its their cock up!
When they get a TC {transaction correction) through after this time they cannot see the
transaction and have to accept it is right
Thanks
Alwen
Alwen Lyons
Company Secretary
Sent from Blackberry
Susan Crichton
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 06:27 PM
To: Alwen Lyons
Subject: Re: Issuance of TCs
POL-0056046
But this is not Horizon... How do we box this off?
; Simon Baker; ‘Ian Henderson’
; Susan Crichton; Alwen Lyons; Rod Ismay; Angela Van-
Subject: Issuance of TCs
Hello Rod/All: As just mentioned, I'm afraid we now have to seek
information on the time it has taken to notify the SPMs (in our
sample) about TCs.
The issue here is whether SPMs have been able to get to the bottom
of a TC in the event that they have been unable to print out, or even
to view on screen, the underlying transactions that went through (and
in some cases were also reversed) on the day of the challenged
transaction.
What we need to establish is: HOW MANY of the TCs (that were
raised in the 32 cases that we now have in our sample) were notified
to the SPMs AFTER 42 days had expired. To get that into
perspective we need a list, covering every one of the 32 cases in our
sample... and during the period in each case during which the shortfall
can possibly have accumulated... showing:
e <!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]--> The date that each TC was notified
to the SPM,
° <!-[if !supportLists]--><![endif]->the amount/value of that TC,
© <!-[if supportLists]--><![endif]->the nature of that TC (i.e. type of
transaction that is being corrected),
© <I-[if supportLists]--><![endif]->the date that the underlying
transaction (that was being corrected by that TC) was originally
processed in the branch.
T appreciate this is no small request but could it be done?
Many thanks, Ron.
From: Ron Warmington!
Sent: 28 January 2013
To: ‘Simon Baker'; ‘Ian Henderson’; 'Susan Crichton’; ‘Alwen Lyons'; 'Rod Ismay’; ‘Angela
Van-Den-Bogerd'
Subject: RE: 2nd Sight Weekly Update
POLO0059567
POL00059567
POL-0056046
POLO0059567
POL00059567
This is principally for Rod...
Red: I've followed up with Jo Hamilton and a few things emerged:
1. <!-+fif !supportLists]--><![endif]->JH thinks that the cheques she
received from Mrs Hancock might have been up to 50% of all
the cheques that she processed. This was in answer to my
questioning as to why it might be that so many cheques drawn
by one person (Mrs Hancock) on one bank (Barclays) and payable
to one payee (usually ‘cash’ and handed over to JH in the Post
Office) would all bounce or for some other reason fail to
complete the cheque processing procedure. It would be easier
to rationalise if ALL cheques sent in by JH had failed, wouldn't
it? Any thought on that?
2. <!-[if !supportLists]--><![endif]->JH has found that, ina session
(number 1-725629-1) on 14"* February 2005, she processed a
receipt for a £250.00 cheque given to her by Mrs Hancock.
The cheque number that JH at the time entered into Horizon
was 204907. As you'll see, Mr Hancock's list of 14 cheques
that never cleared includes cheque number 204908 dated
(according to the cheque stub) 14" February 2005. I don't
know whether there were two cheques (204907 AND 204908)
or just one and, if there were two, why 204908 never cleared.
It may be because of the ‘dual cheque/cheque guarantee card’
issue that you've already raised. Any thoughts?
3. <!-[if !supportLists]--><![endif]->I get the sense that some (maybe
most) of the TCs that JH received would have been outside the
42-day ‘window’ that we have all been discussing... but I've not
pushed her on that point. If some or most TCs were notified
after 42 days then POL might find it hard to assert that it has
acted reasonably in its dealings with her in respect of TCs. I'm
afraid this means that Ian and I are going to have to ask POL to
gather the raw data on those TCs (to establish how many were
notified more than 42 days after the transaction that was the
subject of the TC). I'll shortly send out another email
requesting that data, not only, I'm afraid, for the JH case but
also for the 31 other cases in our sample.
Best regards, Ron.
From: Simon Baker [/
Sent: 25 January 2013 16721
POL-0056046
POLO0059567
POL00059567
To: Ron Warmington; Ian Henderson; Susan Crichton; Alwen Lyons; Rod Ismay; Angela
Van-Den-Bogerd
Subject: 2nd Sight Weekly Update
All
Notes and actions from today's meeting below. Next meeting rescheduled to Monday
4" at 3pm.
Regards, Simon
Notes from 2nd sight meeting 25' January 2013
1. Cheques & Jo Hamilton: At that time could not cash more than one cheque per day if more
than £250 per day. This could explain why some of the cheques "bounced". Also there was
no cheque guarentee card number on the cheque. Ron thinks he can extrapolate what may
have happened - will document.
2. Angela noted that you can produce a horizon log for the last 42 days.
3. Ron/lan starting to go through the Alan Bate cases. Ron/Ian will do a spot review on these to
determine which ones warrant further investigation. So far have 8 cases have been received
from JFSA, Ron estimates there will be many more (maybe 20)
Actions:
1. Jo Hamilton & Cheques: Rod to send Ron a written explanation of what might of
happened. Rod to send Rod the list of cheques from the bank.
2. Rod to determine the average time to turn around TCs.
3. Angela to get a log for the Armstrong case to understand what happened - can we determine
how the transaction get reversed
4. Angela to determine the difference in printing transaction logs between the systems(old / new
Horizon). We also need to determine if sub postmasters can go into the system understand
the transactions behind the TC.
Angela to talk to Helen Rose to request the XML data when requesting Horizon data.
Ron to send out a write-up on Tracy Ann Merritt.
Alwen to contact Janet to see if it would be appropriate for Post Office to attend the JA meeting
on the 25% March.
Nom
Simon Baker Head of Business Change and Assurance
<image001.png>
148 Old Street, London, EC1V 93HQ
@postofficenews
<image002.png>
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.
JOHOR ISSO IOI ISIS RISO TAITI A SOIT I III III III III III
POL-0056046