POL00073598
POL00073598
Mandy Talbot
271072006 16:54 T°: Vicky Hatrison/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE
ce: Andy Bayfield/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE, Area Intervention Office 4@POSTOFFICE,
Graham C Ward/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE, stephen dilley: —
Subject: Re: P.O -v- Castleton: Transaction logs GRO
This is a test case as far as the business is concerned so I think that Fujitsu should be invited to explain but this assumes
that they understand the content of the cash accounts. Graham do you think that they have sufficient understanding of
the cash accounts to do this for us recalling the rather one line responses we have had from them in the past.
Mandy Talbot
Litigation Team Leader
Company Secretary's Office
Royal Mail Legal Services
148 Old Street
London EC1V 9HQ
Postline:
External
Vicky Harrison
Mandy Talbot/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE
Graham C Ward/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE, Andy Bayfield/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE,
Area Intervention Office 4@POSTOFFICE
Subject. Re: P.O -v- Castleton: Transaction logs
2710712006 18:50 '°:
cc:
Mandy I think Graham's suggestion below is the best way forward really as I could check through transaction logs and see
if I could match them to the cash account but this would be a major exercise and I don't have the time to allocate to such a
lengthy task right now or probably before moving onto another role as a result of OD. Plus yes Graham is right in that
should I find anomolies I would not be able to explain them and also I don't have any cash accounts or other paperwork to
actually check the figures against either.
Please could you let me know how you wish to proceed?
Steve please place on the EFC.
Regards
Vicky Harrison
Contracts and Services Mgr area 4
2nd Floor
Markets Bo
6-16 New York Street
Leeds
LS2 7DZ
_— Forwarded by Vicky Harrison/e/POSTOFFICE on 27/07/2006 15:46 -----
POL00073598
POL00073598
Graham C Ward
To: Vicky Harrison/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE
ce:
Subject: Re: P.O -v- Castleton: Transaction logs
27/07/2006 15:38
Vicky
Sorry for butting in & without wishing to become involved in this case myself .. his analysis could be a long
exercise with each entry on the weeks transactions logs having to be thoroughly and methodically examined & cross
referenced with the cash account. Presumably you are already involved in this case and have the expertise to undertake
the task but I was wondering whether such an analysis might be best dealt with by someone from Fujitsu (if there were
anomalies then they would be the one's who'd have to explain them !!).
Give me a call if you wish to discuss ........... or perhaps you might like to run my suggestion via Mandy Talbot as there
would no doubt be a cost implication if we were to approach Fujitsu.
Regards
Graham
Casework Manager
Post Office Ltd Investigation Team
PO BOX 1, CROYDON, CR9 1WN
<vicky.harrisol 7
“Tom Beezer" +
<graham.c.ward
Subject: P.O -v- Castleton: Transaction logs
27/07/2006 15:09
Dear Vicky,
I attach a copy letter dated 25 July from Mr Castleton's solicitors. Its long winded, but they seem to be saying that
they've compared the transaction logs you sent to me with the cash accounts for week 42 (just for an initial analysis) and
they don't match. They conclude that Horizon is therefore only recording half the transaction.
As you know, the P.O says its irrelevant that it doesn't have all the giro and other receipts for the relevant period when
the losses occurred because it can instead rely on the electronic transaction logs which are effectively a full audit trail.
However, if Castleton is correct that the transaction logs are inaccurate, this would completely undermine the P.O's claim.
POL00073598
POL00073598
I don't want to prejudge this issue, because Mr Castleton has got the maths wrong before and leapt to erroneous
conclusions. However, what would be helpful is if someone at the P.O could review what Castleton is saying, compare
the transaction logs with the cash accounts and let me know if he's right or wrong and explain why.
If Castleton is wrong, we should explain why. Perhaps it will dent his confidence and at last persuade him to settle. If
Castleton is right, then I need to know what the implications are for the claim sooner rather than later as we are now in
the period when we're incurring more costs preparing witness statements and expert reports etc for trial.
I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.
Kind regards.
Stephen Dilley
Solicitor
for and on behalf of Bond Pearce LLP.
The information in this e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be legally privileged and
protected by law. The intended recipient only is authorised to access this e-mail and any
attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender as soon as possible and
delete any copies. Unauthorised use, dissemination, distribution, publication or copying of this
communication is prohibited.
Any files attached to this e-mail will have been checked by us with virus detection software before
transmission. You should carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment. Bond
Pearce LLP accepts no liability for any loss or damage which may be caused by software viruses.
Bond Pearce LLP is a Limited Liability Partnership registered in England and Wales number
00311430.
Registered Office: 3 Temple Quay, Temple Back East, Bristol, BS1 6DZ.
A list of Members is available from our registered office. Any reference to a Partner in relation to Bond
Pearce LLP means a Member of Bond Pearce LLP. Bond Pearce LLP is regulated by the Law
Society.
>>>> eCopy scanned document.pdf attachment was removed from this email <<<<