POLO00080889
POL00080889
Message
From: Lukas, Elisa},
Sent:
To: ~
Subject: RE: Case closure - POLTD/1415/0064 - Glenmoriston
Attachments: _DOC_35104632(2)_Letter from PO to Frank Holt (Glenmoriston) 10 April 2017 3 months notice.DOCX;
image001.png; image002.png; image003.png; image004.png; imageaSe974.JPG; image8b99b8.PNG;
image452954.PNG; image347e22.PNG
Robert & Lin
We had previously discussed that if Mr Holt didn’t accept the reinstatement conditions offered, we would look to terminate
his contract on 3 months’ notice. The last update I had from Robert was that Mr Holt hadn't responded. On the basis that
Mr Hoit has not accepted the conditions of reinstatement offered, do you want to now move to terminate on 3 months’
notice?
Termination on 3 months’ notice
if so, I have been working with Keith Bridges and John Breeden on another branch that is in the same position (Sleaford)
and I would like to use the same approach so we appear consistent. I have discussed with them that the postmaster is
suspended and cannot be reinstated as he has not accepted the conditions offered. However, having reached the end of
PO's investigation there are not any contractual grounds to leave him suspended either. Grounds for suspension include
that irregularities or misconduct at the office where he hoids appointment have been established to the satisfaction of Post
Office, or admitted, or are suspected and are being investigated. Irregularities have not been established or admitted and
they are no longer being investigated.
{I had discussed with John and Keith that if it is decided to ieave the postmaster suspended in these circumstances, there
is a risk Freeths would argue he was owed payment for the final 3 months because there were no grounds to continue his
suspension. Terminating the postmaster on 3 months’ notice, leaving him suspended but paying him during those 3
months is preferable to reduce the risk of challenge and poses the least risk to PO's assets and reputation.
Offsetting pay
John and Keith had queried whether the 3 months’ notice pay could then be offset against the debt the Postmaster owes.
As the Postmaster owes a significant debt to PO, offsetting his 3 months’ notice pay against this debt would ensure that
PO is able to recover monies owed at this stage. This is a commercially acceptabie and pragmatic way to proceed, but it
is just worth highlighting at this stage that offsetting notice pay is not something which PO is contractually entitled to do
under the Community Contract.
Therefore, technically speaking, there is a chance that the Postmaster may seek damages for deduction of his notice pay,
particularly as he is a Claimant in the Group Action and disputes the debt that he owes to PO. However, the risk of this
happening in reality is minimal and, in any event, this could be handled in the course of the Group Action.
An alternative option to offsetting the Postmaster's notice pay would be to recover the Postmaster’s debt within the course
of the Group Action, such as via a counter claim. However, we acknowledge that this option will be commercially
unattractive, as this will delay PO's recovery of the debt.
Having spoken to Rod about this issue, he has suggested that we calculate the remuneration that the postmaster might
have received for the 3 month suspension period and agree to hold this pending the outcome of the Group Action. I've
attached a termination letter to reflect this. Please could you let me know if you are happy with this approach?
Kind regards
Elisa
Elisa Lukas
Solicitor
Bond D
inson LLP
POL-0077452
POLO00080889
POL00080889
www.bonddickinson.com
2 1) Leen Best Legal eek
OVERALL BEST
LEGAL ADVISER
From: Lukas, Elisa
Sent: 23 March 2017 11:04
To: Lin Norbury
Cc: Robert Findlay; Prime, Amy
Subject: RE: Case closure - POLTD/1415/0064 - Glenmoriston [BD-4A.FID26896945]
Thanks Lin.
We are waiting for Rod's sign-off to terminate Mr Holt’s contract on 3 months' notice.
As terminating on 3 months doesn't require grounds from PO, this seems to remain the preferable course of action as the
PF is not pursuing the case.
Kind regards,
Elisa
From: Lin Norbu
Sent: 22 March 2017 18:36
To: Lukas, Elisa; Prime, Amy
Cc: Robert Findlay
Subject: FW: Case closure - POLTD/1415/0064 - Glenmoriston
Elisa / Amy
In Robert’s absence I am forwarding below the internal notification that the PF will not be pursuing a criminal case
against Tiffany Holt.
Regards
Lin
Post Office Ltd
c/o Branch Support Services Team
1° Floor
Future Walk
West Bars
Chesterfield
S49 1PF
* Lin Norbury
Agents Contracts Deployment Manager South
POL-0077452
POLO00080889
POL00080889
Confidential Information:
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. Any unauthorised review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient please contact me by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
From: John Breeden
Sent: 22 March 2017 1
To: Lin Norbury!
Subject: FW: Case closure - POLTD/1415/0064 - Glenmoriston
Lin, Robert,
FYL
Regards
John
\ John Breeden
& Agents Contracts Deployment Manager North
c/o Branch Services Support Team
Post Office Ltd
1% Floor Future Walk
West Bars
Chesterfield
S49 LPF
From: Post Office Security
Sent: 22 March
To: Craig Tuthill
John Bigley
k>; Sharon Rai
‘Paul Blackmore
Sharron Logan
Post Office Security
John Breeden
; Brian Trotter i
5/0064 - Glenmoriston
POL-0077452
POLO00080889
POL00080889
Please see the case closure for Glenmoriston.
Thanks
Sandra Daykin
* Post Office Security
Admin Team
Post Office Ltd
Future Walk, Roon
posecurity. intelligence
From: Robert Daily
Sent: Wednesday, 22 March 2017 12:41 PM
To: Post Office Security:
Cc: Helen Dickinson
Subject: Case closure - POLTD/1415/0064 - Glenmoriston
‘To be ¢ mailed to Primary Stakeholder and all appropriate Stakeholders, plus micheliesteyen!
Case reference: POLTD/1415/0064
Date case set up: 22-Sep-14
Branch Name / Location Glenmoriston
Branch Code: 285840
Enquiry Type: Cash Loss
Name of Person(s) Interviewed: (if applicable)
Tiffany HOLY (by Police)
Subject type / Grade: Assistant
Primary Stakeholder: Robert Findlay, John Breeden
Secondary Stakeholder Post Office Security
Other Stakeholder 1 Operational Team Leader
Other Stakeholder 2 John Scott
Identified ‘Criminal Loss’: £30,244.79
NB: Only lesses attributable to fraud and/er where the loss is the result ef suspect fraudulent activity, should be recorded. For example if
the case is an audit shortage of £50k, but £10k is known to be outstanding/other TCs, then the Identified 'Criminal Loss is £40k.
Actual Recovery: I £0.00
NB: Actual recoveries include known cash repaid. known cheques repaid, either via funding notification, direct te Late Account, ete - ie
any known recovery that has been been physically recetved, as opposed to being in the pipeline.
Confiscation case: I Not applicable
POL-0077452
Sub Post Office Branch cases: has SPMR been made aware of
loss?:
POLO00080889
POL00080889
Yes
Is there a Financial Investigation still ongoing?: (if yes, this form
must be emailed to relevant Financial Investigator as case will
remain open within their remit)
Not applicable
Final outcome: (if prosecution include further details below)
PF marked case No Action due to reliance on
Horizon data and no additional supporting
evidence.
Prosecution Outcome: (Include court, date & sentence)
N/A
Costs / Compensation: (Compensation awarded in multiple
partner cases / Sub Office assistant cases must be repaid to loser —
contact P&BA cashiers 5309 2381 / 01246 542381 to ensure
compensation cheques dealt with correctly).
N/A
Debarment: (Confirm completed and date forwarded to
Intelligence Transaction Manager)
N/A
Procedural and organizational failings identified - (if yes,
complete PROCEDURAL FAILINGS form & e-mail to
Stakeholders, Post Office® Security and Security Programme
Manager.
Procedural and organizational failings discussion held with
Primary Stakeholder: (discussion must occur prior to closure -
outline any solutions, agreed actions, refer to next level if issues
remain e.g Crown Office failings via BM/Operations Manager).
N/A
Are there outstanding issues of a significant nature: (e.g. impact,
reluctance, refusal to implement solutions, business critical, etc - if
yes, the matter should be reported in more detail to Team Leader)
None
Any other comments:
None
Security Manager:
Robert Daily
Security Programme Manager:
Helen Dickinson
Date Completed:
22-Mar-17
POL-0077452
POLO00080889
POL00080889
Robert Daily
> Security Manager
The Guildhall,
57 Queen St,
SRR ACCC RRR I I F212 RR 12K 28 RR 01 2 RR RK OR RR AC 1K 08 ROR a
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: Finsbury Dials,
20 Finsbury Street, London EC2Y 9AQ.
JAERI RRR I ICCC KR OR FCF 0 OR OR FCO 0 OR C0 00 OR OR CCR OR OR CCG
Please consider the er
Teg
2 Authority
gulated by the Solicitors Regs
POL-0077452