19" August 2010
Mrs T Etheridge
Gurnos Post Office
19 Chestnut Way
Gurnos Estate
Merthyr Tydfil
CF47 9SB
Dear Mrs Etheridge
Re ATM Transaction Corrections
I have been asked to respond to your husband’s e mail to Colin Burston
on 5" August. I am sorry to learn that your branch continues to sustain
losses that you are attributing to the Post Office Ltd Product & Branch
Accounting (P&BA) ATM team.
I will attempt to clarify the specific points raised in the e mail.
On 22.7.10, £1,990 was entered into Horizon at your branch. This figure
then flows into Post Office Ltd Finance System (POLFS). Bank of
Ireland (Bol) also sends the 16.30 ATM withdrawal figure (£1,590) to
POLFS. In an ideal world the 2 values are equal and opposite and are
“cleared” from POLFS. In this case a difference of £400 remains for the
ATM team to resolve. As you rightly point out this would apparently
generate a gain at your branch. However we can see that no Horizon
entry was made for the previous day, whilst the Bol have reported a £300
withdrawal total. This would create a loss at your branch. Ifa value of
£1,890 had been entered into Horizon on 22.7.10 P&BA would have
cleared the 2 Bol and one Horizon entry over the two days. As an
additional £100 was entered into Horizon a net discrepancy of £100 is
rolled up along with the other discrepancies recorded.
Ihave no idea why you have entered WDL totals. Inputs to Horizon
should be the 16.30 withdrawal figures only. Cash that may have been
withdrawn after that date is included in branch cash declarations. This
process is covered within the operating process that has been supplied to
you on several occasions.
POL00073556
POL00073556
To further explain the POLFS entries. Minus figures represent the Bol
file whilst plus figures represent Horizon entries. The plus £400 figure is
a sub total of the 2 entries made on that day. That figure on its own
suggests that the branch would have a gain of £400 (as you have claimed
more money was withdrawn than actually was). Conversely the minus
£300 on the day before suggests a loss at the branch as Horizon would
still believe the cash is held at the branch when it has actually been
withdrawn.
The £5,540 Horizon entry on 8.6.10 does not represent the Bol totals of
6/7/8 June which total £2,950 (the 16.30 slips held at your branch should
confirm this). Therefore a net difference of £2,590 is generated over the
3 day period. As this is an overstatement of withdrawals a surplus should
have been generated.
The question around the 22/7/10 dispensed receipts is a good one and
illustrates well how branches could inadvertently make incorrect Horizon
inputs and how the transaction correction process would support a branch
to balance. Bol will attempt to “poll” the ATM totals immediately after
16.30. However this is not an exact science and, if for example the
machine is in use when the poll is attempted, it will try again shortly
afterwards. One would expect polling to have been completed by 16.44
but on this occasion the poll had not completed until 16.45. It would not
be unreasonable for a branch not to notice that the 16.30 totals were
exactly the same as for the previous day and input, what are actually the
previous day’s totals, into Horizon. Taking this example (and assuming
that every other Horizon entry equalled the Bol file) then £300 would be
entered into Horizon rather than the correct total of £1,590. Horizon
would believe that only £300 had been dispensed rather than £1,590. Ifa
full cash declaration (including a full count of ATM cash) was made the
branch would display a shortage of £1,290. The branch may at this point
identify the withdrawal input error and correct with a further withdrawal
input to Horizon. If not the branch would naturally be concerned at this
apparent loss. P&BA would identify the mismatch between the daily Bol
file and the Horizon entry and, assuming no compensating entry appears
over the next few days, would issue a credit transaction correction for
£1,290. This would return the branch to balance.
The problem, as I understand it, at your branch is that Horizon entries
overall, exceed the actual value dispensed. This should create surpluses
at the branch which will then be corrected by debit transaction
corrections. The surpluses do not appear to manifest themselves at your
branch.
POL00073556
POL00073556
POL00073556
POL00073556
The partial transaction log you have provided does not show anything
about the Bol file. The highlighted section simply displays the double
entry of £1,990 ATM withdrawals and (£1,990) cash on 22/7/10. I have
explained above that the correct entry for 21+22/7/10 should have been
£1,890. Therefore (if a full ATM cash check had been performed) the
balance snapshot should have shown a surplus of £100.
I am afraid it is not practical to request 8 months of transaction logs from
the Bol as this would represent a mammoth task as all personal data held
would need to be deleted. There is no evidence to suggest there is any
problem with these logs. Equally all the other detail you request is
already available at your branch so I cannot justify the resource to
provide what is already there.
Tam sorry you have been unable to find anyone, to include P&BA, Post
Office Ltd trainers, the National Federation of Subpostmasters or your
Business Development Manager, who has been able to support your view
that the losses being pursued are not proper to your branch. As explained
earlier, your ATM withdrawal and Horizon slips provide the evidence
that would support (or challenge) any transaction correction issued.
P&BA would certainly investigate any discrepancy in your records to
those recorded in POLFS. To date, I believe, none have been identified.
As Horizon entries have over time exceeded actual Bo! 16.30 withdrawal
totals, surpluses should have appeared in your branch. Debit transaction
corrections have been issued to your branch to correct these surpluses. I
strongly believe that your focus should be on why these surpluses have
not been declared.
There still appears to be a training gap in the accounting for the ATMs —
WDL figures should not be input to Horizon. This can be addressed.
Equally it should be possible to propose some effective controls
(segregation of duties, double counting of cash, restricted access to ATM
and ATM stocks) to minimise the risk of leakage within the branch. As
the branch assets have been checked on more than one occasion then it is
clear that the expected surpluses to offset the transaction corrections
issued are not physically at your branch. Unfortunately no one outside
your branch will be able to identify where the money has gone to.
POL00073556
POL00073556
I am sorry I am unable to present any potential for the losses you face, to
be compensated with unresolved discrepancies within POLFS. I do hope
I have answered all the points you have raised and provided some clarity,
even if I have been unable to provide the response type you would no
doubt have hoped for.
Yours sincerely
Andy Winn
Relationship Manager,
Product & Branch Accounting
1 Future Walk,
Chesterfield,
S49 1PF
CC Outlet Intervention Team
P&BA ATM team
ATM Service team
C.Burston
T. Gardiner
C.Lewis, NFSP