POL00061506
Submissions on behalf of Mr. Carl Page
Initial Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme
Reference Number M118
Mr. Page was born on
Staffordshire. He attended Great Wyrley High School where he
obtained O levels. He left school nd became an
apprentice professional footballer at Walsall FC. He undertook various
jobs, including working as a Production Manager for an industrial floor
paints company.
Mr. Page began working as a sub postmaster in February 1997 with his
then wife Deborah. They formed a business partnership called Rugeley
Post Shop. They were equal partners, however as they had two
children, Deborah did not always work office hours. Mr. Page had no
relevant financial services or banking experience. He assumed the role
of Postmaster, as he was the only one person who could fill this
position. Mr. and Mrs. Page were given 2 weeks on the job training at
Wolverhampton Post Office and, having bought the right to run
Rugeley sub post office for £102,496, were thereafter expected to
manage what was in effect a combination of a small bank, government
office and shop in strict accordance with the Post Office’s internal rule
and regulations.
Training consisted primarily of computer training on a system known
as ECCO. This was a branch computer system unique to the post
office. This involved training on how to carry various transactions that
would occur in a branch style office and included dealing with car tax,
stamps, various licences, Royal Mail services etc.
Mr. and Mrs. Page decided to retain the services of the four existing
members of staff for continuity purposes.
A Bureau-de-change was installed in 1998. Mr. and Mrs. Page received
a grant from English Partnership and some personal financial input
from the business. It involved having to set aside a separate room,
which was to be used solely for Bureau de change. A man came from
the Training Department of the Post Office, and provided information
and instruction on the workings of the Bureau to Mr. and Mrs. Page
and one other member of staff. This training lasted for about 3 hours.
They were also given an operation’s manual. The transactions within
the bureau built up slowly, and were more popular in summer months
and during Post Office promotions. They won an award in 2000 for
increasing sale of foreign currency and received a certificate from
Royal Mail which was hanging up in Rugeley Post Office.
POL00061506
m Coney was informed of
this development including the fact that partnership which owned and
ran Rugeley Post Office no longer existed. Mr. Page informed him that
he alone would now be running the administration side of the post
office. The Post Office raised no concerns or issues with the new state
of affairs nor did they enquire if Mr. Page was coping with the business
working alone. Deborah had worked for Midland Bank since she left
school and was much more adept at accounting matters than Mr. Page.
When they worked as a partnership Deborah tended to deal with the
accounting side of the business.
When Deborah left, Mr. Page relied on the existing staff. However,
staff turnover was also an issue and within the first few years, three of
the original four left and were replaced by new staff. Mr. Page did
struggle when Deborah left and had to rely heavily on the staff, who
from his point of view were all brilliant. After Deborah left, he began to
receive correspondence from the Post Office which included
irregularities found at audits, performance of Rugeley Post Office
against the transaction Accuracy Monitoring Standard, the level of
errors being noted, weakness noted with an emerging pattern of a
10.
failure to cross sells and that excess cash was not dispatched [TAB1].
These include disciplinary notes of an interview held on 3 June 2002,
copy of letter from Post Office to Mr, Page dated 28 June 2002, copies
of warning letters from Post Office to Mr. Page dated 6 March 2001, 6
March 2002, 21 May 2002 and 7 August 2002 plus documents relating
to the audits on 9 November 2001, 27 June 2002 and 14 January
2003. From these it can be clearly seen that the Post Office was on
notice that continued and repeated accounting problems. Despite all of
this, Mr. Page received no further training.
In the absence of any formal training, Mr. Page started to develop his
own way of doing things particularly in relation to accounting. He had
found that it was always very difficult to balance the bureau de
change, which was required weekly. The reason he found this difficult
was because the system required cheques to be sent off daily so when
it came to the end of the week he didn’t have the cheques to assist
him with balancing the account. He decided it would be easier to keep
the cheques until the end of the week so that they would be available
for him reconcile the accounts.
He also started storing Bureau Euros as AM stock. He started doing
this shortly after the Bureau de Change was installed in an office. The
reason this practice developed was again to make accounting easier
and to keep things easier to count up. The larger amounts were kept
in the AM stock for ease of counting and left in the safes separate from
the other currency.
Mr. Page perception was that his Area Manager was the boss. During
his time at Rugeley Post Office, there were at least four Area
Managers. They were the people who Mr. Page would deal with
directly, and although he was aware of other managers he had no
dealings with them. One such Area Manager was Steve Geraty. Mr.
Page got on very well with Mr. Geraty, who had worked in the Post
Office for many years. He encouraged Mr. and Mrs. Page to try new
POL00061506
POL00061506
ventures. He helped them to introduce the Bureau-de-change and
National Lottery. Mr. Page would communicate with him as to what he
could and could not do. During these discussions, the issue of
exchange rates came up. He suggested that Mr. Page could sell
currency at a level provided that everyone gained. He also told Mr.
Page that he could provide favourable exchange rates for someone
buying in bulk as long as they were less that the buyback rate. He
encouraged the introduction of other franchises within the post office
(without post office permission and contrary to the lease agreement)
e.g. local paper and travel agent. He provided assistance on the retail
side and on growing the business of the post office. Mr. and Mrs Page
considered him a good friend to the business and relied very much on
what he said.
11.1 The agreement with Mr. Geraty was a verbal agreement as was
many other agreements with him. Mr. Page relied upon what
Mr. Geraty and then other Area Managers told him. He was told
that the selling rate should always be higher than the buyback
rate so the POL would still make a profit. A daily sheet was
faxed over from POL every morning with the rates. Mr. Page
and others in the Post Office would use this as their guide.
There was no real strategy as exactly what values to use — just
that it should be higher than the buyback rate. He and others
would follow this procedure, which by January 2013, had been
going on many years. Mr. Geraty was on occasion in the
Rugeley Post Office when} GRO i came in to purchase
currency.
11.2 Mr. Page assumed that Mr. Geraty had cleared it with others at
POL. Mr. Page would have no direct dealings with anyone other
than his Area Managers. Furthermore, cash accounts were sent
on daily/weekly bases to POL. This clearly showed the rate at
which Rugeley Post Office were selling currency. As Mr. Page
had agreement with Mr. Geraty and no-one from POL said
POL00061506
anything upon receipt of the documentation, Mr. Page believed
that everything was content with the arrangement.
11.3 POL first reacted in January 2013 after : “was
arrested. Prior to that, despite providing the information every
week for a number of years and having undergone various so
called audits, no one ever said anything.
11.4 The issue of rates used was raised at trial. It was concluded
then that it was or must have been a mistake. It must be
remembered that Mr. Page was not the only person to input the
rates. At his trial, it is believed that it was concluded that Mr.
Page was away on holiday when some mistakes were made.
The general rule of the rate being higher than the buyback was
the norm.
11.5 There was no credit approval sought or obtained. All cheques
provided by iwould be presented to POL. No-one
from POL raised any concerns with Mr. Page. Mr. Page had not
considered that he might be at risk. The amount of currency
purchased by gradually increased. As it
increased, obviously the payments got bigger too. As no
problems occurred, Mr. Page perception that he was at any risk
was dissipated by the previous course of business.
11.6 In addition, at the first trial, POL confirmed that they had a
policy of telephoning any Post Office ordering a substantial
quantity of foreign currency. The person that would make the
call to ask some further questions was based at Hemel
Hempstead. It was accepted that not a single telephone call
was made to Rugeley Post Office despite it being one that sold a
largest amount of foreign currency. Furthermore, at trial all the
above issues were ventilated. After listening to all the evidence
over two months, the jury unanimously found both Mr. Page
not guilty of conspiracy to defraud POL.
Mr. Geraty gave evidence for the Crown
11.
12.
13.
POL00061506
Following the assurances from Mr. Geraty, Rugeley Post Office started
offering Bureau de Change selling rates very slightly higher than
recorded on the Post Office daily fax (dollars/euro’s only), so that they
could attract and keep more customers coming into the Post Office.
This practice continued for many years and the details of the change in
exchange rate was provided to the Post Office. They were on notice
that the selling rate was slightly different from the rate on the daily
sheet. With Mr. Geraty blessing, and the fact that the Post Office could
see from the information provided what he was doing, Mr. Page did not
consider what he was doing was wrong.
he came into Rugeley Post Office.:_
Office as a customer to purchase a large amount of Irish Punt. He
asked whether he would get a more favourable rate if he ordered a
significant amount of currency. Mr. Page told him that he would make
enquiries and get back to him. He spoke Mr. Geraty who confirmed
that Mr. Page could provide favourable rates as long as they were less
that the buyback rate, which is the exchange rate the Post Office,
sends the money to the bureau. Mr. Geraty did say that this could not
be offered widely and should be restricted to preferred customers.
This was sometime during 1999.
jreturned to the Post Office, Mr. Page told him he
had authority to give him preferential rates. Therefore a system
developed of selling bulk currency but always below the retail buy back
rate. As well as believing he had authority to do so, Mr. Page believed,
which is backed up by expert evidence, that the Post Office would still
be making a profit. In his mind he believed that if he was able to sell a
substantial amount of currency, then the Post Office would make an
increased profit based on volume.
14.
15.
17.
GRO started to come in regularly buying punt and
purchasing Dutch guilders, both being offered at a preferential rate.
When the European Union introduced the Euro r -I started
I purchased
to purchase Euros instead. Initially, :
currency about once every two weeks. He then began to purchase it
more regularly.
paid for the currency normally by cheque and little
more consideration was given to the matter. All the transactions were
declared and the transaction details provided to the Post Office. There
was no attempt to conceal matters. Furthermore, the large amounts of
current had to be ordered from the Post Office and at no time did
anyone say, why is Rugeley Post Office buying so much currency ?
This went on for years. All of this, plus the fact that they had been
audited a few time, gave Mr. Page no concerns that he was doing
anything wrong.
I arrangement was known to all staff and Deborah,
and they would all serve him, providing a preferential rate. He came to
the Post Office on many occasions when Mr. Page was not present and
everyone knew what the position was.
Mr. Page was arrested by appointment on 13 January 2003 by
Staffordshire Police. It was initially as a result of a Custom and
Exercise being alerted by the movement of large amounts of cash.
Even though this had been happening for many years and had been
clearly identifiable to the Post Office from the own records, they
decided to become involved in the Police/Customs investigation. Mr.
Page was offered a solicitor, but declined because he knew he had
done nothing wrong and was keen to get the matter over and done
with soon as he could. At that time, he thought that it must all be a
misunderstanding. The officers interviewed him and he provided full
responses to all questions asked. He provided details of his bank
accounts, savings etc. He also provided his telephone numbers
POL00061506
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
POL00061506
including my mobile phone. The police later confirmed to Mr. Page
that following their investigation, no further action would be taken
[TAB2].
However, the Post Office continued with their investigation. Mr. Page
was again interviewed under caution by the Post Office for over 6
hours. He co-operated fully with the investigation. He denied all
allegations.
The Post Office commenced civil proceedings against Mr. Page. This
included proceedings to freeze his assets at the High Court in London.
Mr. Page lost the entire money he paid to acquire the right to operate
Rugeley Post Office [TAB3]. However, as will be seen later, much
worse was to come. The civil proceedings were never concluded.
In December 2003, the Post Office instigated criminal proceedings
against Mr. Page and Mr. Page was charged with two
offences; jointly with} of conspiracy to defraud the Post
Office in relation to the purchase of foreign currency and alone with the
theft of £282,000. A full set of the Prosecution Papers are available,
should they be required. The charges were denied by both men.
In June 2005, following a 9 week trial, Mr. Page and;
were found not guilty of the conspiracy charge. However, there was a
hung jury in relation to the theft charge. The Post Office decided that
Mr. Page should be retried in relation to the theft charge.
During the first trial, Mr. Page’s defence team instructed a forensic
accountant to consider all the papers. The charge of theft against Mr
Page follows the conclusions of a Post Office audit on 14 January 2003
that a sum of £282,000 of foreign currency was missing from Rugeley
Post Office. Mr. Liddell’s reports are at TAB4. The Prosecution alleged
that the £282,000 was a shortage in AM stock which had been built up
over a period of time. They could not say what was taken or how it
8
23.
24.
was taken. The case was that The HORIZON snap-shot identified
foreign currency with a sterling equivalent of £282,000 but during an
audit on 14 January 2003, the auditors did not find any currency held
in the 'AM' stock unit. The assertion was that the theft occurred over a
period of time by inputting false figures onto the Horizon computer
system. They produced a schedule illustrating how the difference of
£282,000 was built up on a weekly basis. The schedule covers the
period 7 March 2002 to 14 January 2003. Mr. Liddell identified the
potential for timing differences to build up between the amounts of
cash recorded on the Horizon and FM systems that form the basis for
this schedule (please see paragraphs 6.26 - 6.43 of his report).
Mr. Liddell also investigated whether the £282,000 actually existed by
comparing the number of Euros delivered to the Rugeley Post Office
with the Euros sold per the COMM 10 print outs. He sought to establish
whether a surplus of Euros had built up in the ‘AM’ stock in the manner
alleged. He concluded that a surplus of Euros of approximately
€456,840 (£282,000 converted at €1.62) could not physically have
been built up in the ‘AM’ stock or elsewhere. All the Euros delivered to
Rugeley Post Office were entered into FM and his analysis of sales
shows that they match, or exceed, the deliveries. It is our submissions
that these explanations were logical and demonstrated that there were
equally viable explanations for the alleged discrepancy.
In the second trial by the Post Office, there was only one single
charge; theft of £282,000. They again asserted that Mr. Page had
stolen £282,000 from the Post Office. Again, and of huge significance,
particularly given the findings of the police investigations, the Post
Office could not say when the money was stolen, nor by what means,
nor from what account or fund within the sub post office. Mr. Page’s
defence teams were incredulous that a prosecution would proceed on
that basis. Essentially, the Prosecution case was “the Computer” says
there is money missing so it must be theft.
POL00061506
25.
26.
In the first trial, the Prosecution’s case was that the money had come
from the foreign exchange till. Having thought about it, and having
accepted the verdict of the jury, the Post Office now suggest that a
separate amount which is nothing to do with AM Stock, but had been
stolen by Mr. Page from somewhere else in the office but hidden by
some means in the foreign exchange account using the Post Office’s
Horizon computer system. They appeared to accept Mr. Liddell’s
evidence, or at least part of it. However, all they did during the first
trial was to question Mr. Liddell’s independence. This was entirely
unfair and a simply a prosecution tactic rather than dealing what he
was actually saying.
In order to overcome the suggestion of independence (which was
ridiculous in the first place) Mr. Page’s defence team second time
around decided to instruct another forensic expert accountant, Mr.
Timothy Taylor. He produced his expert’s report of April 2006 [TAB5].
He concluded that it was extremely unlikely that any money was
concealed by hiding it by some means in the foreign exchange account
using the Post Office’s Horizon computer system because of what the
Post Office itself found when it examined the accounts after the 14 and
21 of August 2002. The case was that the entire accounting system of
the Post Office relied on the accurate inputting of information by the
on-site staff who send the weekly returns off by post to various
centres. Thus once an input error is made because of the way the
system works there is a serious danger of it being carried forward
forever. Although the indictment period ran from the 1 March 2002
the Post Office did not know whether the opening balances are correct
and has no way of knowing what the real as opposed to the imputed
figures are or should have been. It is a significant feature of the case
that in the middle of the indictment period a Post Office audit team
went into Rugeley closed the office and audited the entire operation.
They concluded that the office was not well run but did not find
evidence of theft or fraud.
10
POL00061506
27.
28.
29.
POL00061506
Expert analysis by Mr Taylor supports the above analysis of the Post
Office’s accounting system. Without knowing how much ought to have
been in the system at the beginning of the period it is simply not
possible to say how much ought to have been in it at the end. When
Mr. Page was arrested in January 2003 the police conducted an
exhaustive enquiry into his finances. They were assisted in their task
by the grant of freezing and information orders by the High Court. The
police were satisfied that there was no evidence at all of high living or
concealed assets. The Post Office did not and could not show that Mr.
Page had had a penny of the money he had allegedly stolen.
Mr. Page was not dishonest but as the Post Office’s own records show
he was neither an efficient nor a competent post master. They also
knew that for no apparent reason and from a standing start Rugeley
sub post office, between January 2002 and January 2003, was the
Country’s leading sub post office bureaux de change. During that
period it sold, to one man, over 14 million euros: then worth nearly £9
million. The Post Office, over the whole of the same period, failed to
notice that anything out of the ordinary was happening or that it had
made no profit at all out of these huge transactions. Against this
background of incompetence and ineptitude it is not surprising that it
was not the Post Office which alerted the authorities to worries about
money laundering but a wholly independent bank. Ironically even that
turned out to be wrong because as the police and the customs and
excise satisfied themselves very early on there was no money
laundering involved at all. The Post Office assumed that Mr. Page
behaved dishonestly in relation to the foreign exchange and
prosecuted him for it but the jury would have nothing of it and he was
acquitted by them. The also linked that dishonestly to the Theft.
During the course of each year Mr. Page was responsible for
performing some 7,500 transactions for the Post Office as well as those
connected with the retail sales within the sub post office. In addition
to an enormous volume of rules and regulations there would be
11
30.
31.
monthly initiatives and weekly mailings from the Post Office. Given
the time which has elapsed since the offences are alleged to have
taken place, the enormous volume of transactions over the period, the
quantity of paperwork and the complexity of the regulatory framework
in place Mr. Page is now at some disadvantage in attempting to answer
the allegations made against him.
In summary the Post Office failed to train Mr. Page adequately or at
all; failed to supervise him; failed to pay any attention to the huge
quantities of foreign exchange which he was quite openly ordering;
failed to notice that it was apparently making little profit out of those
dealings and failed to pay any attention to its own error notices which
showed that Mr. Page was not running the sub post office in the way in
which its own rules and regulations required. Its own systems were
confused, bureaucratic and confusing. The internal audit appeared to
show that the Post Office itself did not think that anything significant
was amiss. Not only was Mr. Page not dishonest but the Post Office’s
systems are such that the Post Office could not show how much money
ought to have been in the various accounts at the beginning of the
indictment period, could not show what money ought to have been in
the accounts at the end, could not show when money was taken, could
not show from what accounts and could not say how it was actually
taken. Having failed to establish any of these crucial matters the Post
Office should have accepted that there was not a scintilla of evidence
that Mr. Page ever had a penny of the £282,000 that he was alleged to
have stolen.
The Post Office in considering whether and on what basis they could
properly go on with a trial had a duty under the Code for Crown
Prosecutors to consider the state of the evidence and review the
decision to go on with the prosecution in the light of matters as they
stand at a particular time. The question was not simply whether it is in
the public interest to prosecute a post master who is in a position of
public trust and responsibility but whether, objectively, the evidence
supports such a decision. Given the serious criticisms of systems such
12
POL00061506
32.
33.
34.
that the Post Office could not say when or how the theft occurred and
could not say whether any accounts relied on at the start of the period
were correct so that they could not be satisfied as to the accuracy or
fact of deficiency, it was the defence’s position that the case that the
decision to continue with the prosecution was itself a breach of the
Code.
In truth, Prosecuting counsel recognised this. Just before the second
trial commenced, he made an offer to the defence. The offer was to
change that amount that was allegedly stolen from £282,000 to
£94,000. It was known that if the alleged amount was less that
£100,000 the likely custodial sentence would be 2 years or under. This
offer was put to Mr. Page.
Mr. Page had been arrested in January 2003 it was now January 2006.
He himself admits he had been beaten by it all. He was suffering from
and be treated for depression. He had spent nearly three years living
with the nightmare of criminal proceedings. He was a man of good
character. He was facing another lengthy trial. He was advised that a
two year sentence would mean that he would only serve one. He was
further advised that he would be a candidate for open prison and
would serve about half of the year living at home on a tag. He thought
that pleading guilty would be the easiest way out. He therefore decided
to plead to the charge based on an alleged theft of £94,000. He did so
saying “I didn’t do this, but I just want it to go away”. By making such
an offer, the prosecution made a mockery out of the entire justice
system.
After his plea, Mr. Page spent about 3 weeks in prison before being
moved to an open prison. He was released on tag after about six
months. His second wife left him. He consequently lost his family
home. It would not be unfair to say, Mr. Page lost everything as a
result.
13
POL00061506
In addition to all of the above and in relation to the specific key questions from
the Initial Case Overview, Mr. Page asserts the following:
What is the main issue or issue you wish us to consider that relate to
Horizon or to its associated processes
35.
Mr. Page would like you to consider the contents of Messrs Liddell and
Taylor’s reports. Mr. Page asserts that’s a figure on a spread sheet
does not equate to theft. To this day, he does not understand how any
errors occurred. They most certainly were not inputted intentional. If
the only explanation is human error and or inputting the wrong figures,
based on lack of knowledge. It is clear from the experts’ reports that
the system itself was defective, not least as it relied on the skills of
human beings. In this instance the Post Office were on notice that
repeated inputting errors had occurred.
What Prior contact have you had with the Post Office in regard to the
incidents/issues that you are now reporting ?
36.
Mr. Page was subject to a disciplinary hearing, warning letters and
audits [TAB1]. They were clearly aware that all was not well in terms
of the number of errors being found. In the end, it was those errors
that led to the allegation of theft.
How was the issue or issues resolved at the time they occurred ?
37.
The Post Office sent Mr. Page letters outlining the problems, but in
reality nothing further was done. There was at one time a suggestion
that Mr. Page need further training, something which he accepted was
necessary. Regardless, nothing materialised.
What is the monetary value of the issues of issues you are now
reporting ?
14
POL00061506
38.
It is not entirely clear what is meant by this question. The allegation
was that Mr. Page stole £282,000. The Post Office changed this to
£94,000 just before the second trial. They also changed how they said
it was stolen between the first and second trial. The facts have been
outlined above. However, Mr. Page’s losses were also substantial. He
lost his liberty and lost out personally, not to mention the financial lost.
If this question is seeking to determine the loss to him personally and
financially, the position at the moment is that there would have to be
that an analysis to determine quantum and that this would take a
significant period of time, well outside the scope of these submissions.
Were you the subject to either civil recovery action or criminal
prosecution regarding the main issue or issues you are now reporting?
39.
Yes, the full details are set out above. The civil proceedings did not
appear to progress. In his termination letter, Mr. Page was granted
three months to sell the Post Office. Potential purchasers were
identified. The Post Office needed to agree that the purchaser would be
a suitable person to fulfil the role of Postmaster. The then Area
Manager, Mark Irwin, undermined any interest shown in the sale of the
Post Office. Hand Morgan & Owen (Solicitors), who acted for Mr. Page
in the civil matter, wrote to the Post Office about Mark Irvin’s antics
challenging his motives. The Post Office gave Mr. Page until 17
November 2003 to sell Rugeley Post Office. Hand Morgan & Owen
were unhappy with this, as although they were giving this time, it was
subject to the restriction that the Post Office must be satisfied and
approve whoever was to become the new Postmaster. Hand Morgan
& Owen considered this too restrictive and wrote to the Post Office in
these terms. Mr. Page was advised to apply to the Court to prevent the
lease being forfeited. But this was at a cost of £5,000. On 17
November Mr. Page agreed to sell the Post Office to Mr. & Mrs. Dhillon
for £60,000. All parties were informed, including the Post Office.
The sale was blocked by the Post Office on the basis that he had
ceased to be the Postmaster. All the proceeds went to the Post
Office. During the negotiations for the sale of the post office for
15
POL00061506
around £60,000, Mr. Dhillion confirmed that Mr. Mark Irvin had
contacted him suggesting that he should delay the purchase of the
post office, as he would be able to get it at a cheaper price at a later
date. It later transpired that the Post Office was sold to Mrs. Dhillon
for £25,000. The result of all of this was that Mr. Page lost his entire
investment which was over £100,000. Furthermore, in order to finance
the purchase in the first place he had to obtain loan, which he still
paying off. It is clear that the conduct of the Post Office in this respect
was not in line with what one might expect.
How were these actions against you (if any) resolved ?
40.
Mr. Page pleaded guilty. His reasons for doing so are set out above. He
regrets very much having done so, but felt that his barrister at the
time was indicating that it was a good deal and a quick way of
resolving matters. The civil case appears to have halted when the
criminal case progressed. Mr. Page belief is that this has now ended
from the perspective of the Post Office.
What is your explanation for the events forming the main issue or issues
you are now reporting?
41.
Mr. Page does not know what occurred. The experts have given their
views. In the first trial the allegation was that the £282,000 was a
shortage in AM stock which had been built up over a period of time.
Mr. Liddell addressed this point. In the second trial, the Post Office
said the theft had nothing to do with AM Stock, but had been stolen by
Mr. Page from somewhere else in the office but hidden by some means
in the foreign exchange account using the Post Office’s Horizon
computer system. If there were any errors in the figures, it is Mr.
Page’s position that these must have been due to erroneous inputting
of figures by either him or members of the staff. Mr. Taylor has
identified why these figures should not be relied upon in any event.
Both Mr. Liddell and Mr. Taylor question the Post Office on whether the
“audits” actually constituted an audit in the sense that data was not
16
POL00061506
verified back to source documentation nor critically examined before
conclusions were drawn. Both concluded that it was more akin to a
stock take at a particular time and that it was dangerous to draw the
conclusions the Post Office had drawn from them.
Did you request assistance from the Post Office regarding the issues you
are now reporting?
42.
Following the disciplinary hearing, Mr. Page agreed that he would
benefit from shadowing another Postmaster. The Post Office was to
sort this out. For whatever reason, this did not happen. The Post
Office clearly recognised that there were problems, given the number
of errors they detected.
What assistance if any was provided?
43.
No assistance was provided.
Frisby & Co Solicitors
Updated 27 March 2014
17
POL00061506