POL00070520
POL00070520
Stephen Dilley
Stephen Dilley
17 November.2005.16:: 3 +
cath.oglesby._ GR' i
Subject: FW: Urgent The Post Sas “v- Lee Castleton (Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington)
Importance: High
Attachments: Ecopy Scan.pdf
Ecopy Scan.pdf
(566 KB)
Dear Ms Oglesby,
I refer to my earlier email and to our telephone conversation today.
l attach to this email your letter to Mr Castleton dated 26 April 2004, the interview minutes of 10 May 2004 and
your subsequent notes.
In addition to the queries raised below, it would be helpful if you could please explain in detail precisely what
happens when a person goes into a post office to buy something. Precisely how is it recorded? Is it manually
inputted into Horizon at the same time or later in the day? Is the cash register linked to Horizon? How does the
Horizon system work? Could Mr Castleton be correct that the daily snapshots will not match the I will need to
explain this to the judge who will know nothing at all about Horizon, so it would be helpful if you could be as
thorough as possible.
I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.
Kind regards.
Stephen Dilley
Solicitor
for and on behalf of Bond Pearce LLP.
coonn Original Message-----
From: Stephen Dilley
Sent: 17 November 2005 11:50
4
°
9
2
o
>
2
o
2
&
S
x.
Cc: 'cheryl.woodwar
Subject: Urgent The Post Office -v- Lee Castleton (Marine Drive Post Office, Bridlington)
Dear Ms Oglesby,
I have tried unsuccessfully to speak to you today.
Mr Castleton's solicitors are seeking the return of documents that they say you removed from the Marine Drive
Post Office when you did an audit. I understand that not all those can be found.
I attach copies of the following:-
(a) A without prejudice letter dated 30 September from Mr Castleton's solicitors to Bond Pearce;
(b) Bentley Jennison's Report dated 23 September and attachments; and
(c) White & Hoggard’s report dated 18 August.
Bentley Jennison state that the deficiencies have probably been brought forward despite the fact that they have
been entered onto the suspense account entry. They suspect this is because the Horizon system, despite the
1
POL00070520
POL00070520
‘spense account entry, has failed to recognise the entry on the daily snapshot. They have drawn this conclusion
through looking at the discrepancy of £3,509.18 on Thursday 26 February 2004. They then suggest that this
double accounting could have continued over a number of weeks and that as such, Mr Castleton's Defence,
“appears to hold potential merit based on the limited documentation" they have so far reviewed. White & Hoggard
reach a similar conclusion in their report.
Bentley Jennison seek:
(i) A full list of all the transactions carried out within the Post Office (he says that it is not good enough that
management information is not available simply because the "month end has been closed down".
(ii) The actual audit report you prepared. He says that the actual report would have been a manuscript writing
document rather than a typed document.
(iii) P and A Reports for weeks 39-52.
(iv) Cash and stock counts for when Mr Castleton began trading and when he stopped being a Post Office Sub-
Postmaster.
(vi) The events log for weeks 39 to 52.
(vii) Transaction log.
(viii) The daily snapshots.
Mr Castleton believes that if he can get these documents, he will be able to undertake a manual reconciliation of
the cash account in order to substantiate his belief that the losses are not real but attributable to computer error.
1. Do you believe the suggestion put forward by the experts could (at least in theory) be correct? If not, why
not?
2. Do you have a list of what documents you removed to do the audit? Is it normal for sub post office masters to
do daily snapshots?
3. Would it be possible to regenerate the above missing records from computer records at the Post Office? If
computer records are not kept centrally, would they be stored on the hard drives of the computers at the Marine
Post Office? If so, could you obtain them?
4. In an email from Fujitsu to Richard Benton dated 5 May 2004, Fujitsu stated "It is possible that they are not
accurately recording all transactions on the system. " If there have been human errors in recording the
transactions, could an explanation be that:
(a) there was nothing wrong with Horizon, because it simply reflected the information entered on to it; but
(b) if staff punched in the wrong numbers into Horizon, there may have been no real loss (even though Horizon
would show a loss) - it is simply an error in accurately recording transactions.
I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.
Kind regards.
Stephen Dilley
Solicitor
_for and on behalf of Bond Pearce LLP
-Original Message-
cheryl.woodward}
Sent: 17 November 2005"
Cc: Stephen Dilley
Subject: Urgent Re: FW: The Post Office -v- Lee Castleton
Hi Cath
POL00070520
POL00070520
Could you please contact Stephen Dilley at Bond Pearce Solicitors in relation to Lee Castleton formally of Marine
Drive Po, They_need to know what documentation was removed from the office.
Stephen} i
Hi Stephen
Thanks Cheryl.
JES OSI CSI SISSIES IESE IOS SASSI IORI IDIOKISRA IOIIOEA AEA KAGE
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 and then delete this email from your system.
JESSIE SOI II IO IEI SI SOE CORBIS ASE EESTI ARIES IS IORI CIA II AI ACI ACA.