POLO0086582
POL00086582
Message
From: Jessica Madron [jessica.madrot
on behalf of —_ Jessica Madron <jessica.madront_ jessica.madroni
Sent:
To: [Victoria.Brooks\_
ce: Rodric Williat Sabrina Jethwa [sabrina.jethwai__ Paul Inwood
[paul.inwood:
Subject: Re: Charge letter - Newcastleton branch
All
{ note Victoria's comments and agree that the whole process of how breaches are dealt with under the new contracts
and whether interviews serve a useful purpose needs to be properly considered. POL's desire to maintain continuity of
service may mean that we should not jump straight to termination in all cases until alternatives have been explored, and
this may involve a meeting with the operator or its representative. However this must be explicitly without prejudice to
POL's contractual rights.
In addition we should clearly delineate any such new process/policy from that which applies under the subpmr contract
- with its right of appeal by subpmr - and this should include not calling this a "charge" letter or any meeting an
“interview” as these imply a quasi-legal process which I think we should avoid.
Paul - is there a meeting on the new process in the offing?
Many thanks
Jessica
From: Victoria Brooks [mailto:Victoria.Broo!
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 05:30 PM
To: Kate Newton
‘odric Williams; Jessica Madron; Sabrina Jethwa; Paul Inwood
Subject: RE: Charge letter - Newcastleton branch {.
Dear Kate
Many thanks for sending this through.
A few points just to flag / mention:
1. You have seen my emails with Rodric and Paul Inwood regarding the interview process, where this comes from
and whether it is necessary. Paul has said that these points will be picked up as part of a review that is
imminent, so for now I have proceeded on the basis that POL wants to allow the opportunity for an interview
to take place. I should point out that here this process seems more unusual than in the case of Daineigh,
because in Daineigh the Operator was an individual (and as such I understand the interview process may be
being used as I understand a similar process was used for subpostmasters) but here the Operator is not an
individual, but a company (Lumsdens Newsagent Ltd). Therefore there is not the same elernent of an
individual being asked to answer a charge against them in a personal capacity. From the contractual (rather
than criminal) point of view here, the company is being asked to answer the charges.
It seems to me that on the basis of the facts in the charge letter, POL has the right to terminate immediately
and therefore again I am not sure of the point of having an interview, particularly as the Operator is a
company. Is there something still to be considered and would the interview in reality ever result in the
Operator not having its agreement terminated? I have added in a sentence towards the end of the letter to
say that POL's rights are reserved, as I would not want it to be said that we had somehow waived our right to
terminate immediately because we allowed the Operator the chance to answer the charges.
. This Agreement is as discussed a little different from the Dalneigh one I reviewed previously. I have assumed
that the standard conditions you initially sent me are the same as the ones referred to in the signed contract
referred to below. If there is any chance that is not correct, please do let me know. However, the name of the
document did include Newcastieton within the description so I assume all is well.
l assume that the Agreement with Lumsdens did commence as agreed and the Consultation Condition
Precedent was met and the other reasons for terminating in Part B do not apply. Please let me know if this is
not the case.
POL-0083640
POLO0086582
POL00086582
5. In the draft letter it mentions that a transcript and a copy of the interview recording will be provided, but from
speaking to Andy Carpenter in relation to Dalneigh I understand that in fact only a copy of the recording is
provided and no transcript is prepared. I am not sure if there is a different practice in different areas but we
should just be sure that POL does not say it will provide a transcript if only a recording is in fact provided.
6. Iam not sure whether the missing money has been repaid. If not, there are a couple of sections in the letter
which I have included to cover that position. If the money has been repaid, these should be removed.
Do let me know if there is anything I can do to assist further. In particular, do let me know if you would to discuss any
of the changes in more detail.
Kind regards
Victoria
Victoria Brooks
Associate
For and on behalf
Bond Pearce LLP
For Bond Pearce news and more:
Bond Pearce - Best Legal Adviser 2010 and 2011 in the Legal Week Intelligence Client Satisfaction Report
From: Kate Newton [mailto:kate.newtor
Sent: 26 February 2013 14:52
e. ictoria Brooks
‘odric Williams; Jessica Madron; Sabrina Jethwa
Subject FW: Charge letter - Newcastleton branch
Victoria
Following our conversation this morning, I now attach the suspension letter and signed contract in relation to this
matter.
Let me know if you need anything else.
Many thanks.
Kate
POL-0083640
POLO0086582
POL00086582
Kate Newton I Legal Services
London. Civ 9HQ,
Kate Newton
postoffice.co.
From: Anne Allaker
Sent: 26 February 2013 14:47
To: Kate Newton
Cc: Sabrina Jethwa; Rodric Williams.
Subject: RE: Charge letter - Newcastleton branch
Kate,
Hope this is what you need?
Regards
Anne
Anne Allaker
Agents Contracts Advisor
6/16 New York Street, Leeds LS2 7DZ
®
From: Kate Newton
Sent: 26 February 2013 10:42
To: Anne Allaker
Cc: Sabrina Jethwa; Rodric Williams
Subject: Charge letter - Newcastleton branch
Anne
I have just spoken to Victoria at BP. Please can you send to me the following documents so that I can forward them to
her:
1. The suspension letter dated 12 February sent by David Southall to the agent; and
POL-0083640
POLO0086582
POL00086582
2. Acopy of signed contract for this branch (ie. rather than the template Local Off-site contract attached to your
previous email}.
Thanks.
Kate
Kate Newton I Legal Services
Nd Street, London. EClv 9HQ,
From: Anne Allaker
Sent: 25 February 2013 11:41
To: Kate Newton
Cc: Sabrina Jethwa
Subject: RE: Advice Please
Thanks Kate,
I'll await the outcome.
Regards
Anne
Anne Allaker
Agents Contracts Advisor
Upper Floors, The Markets Post Office, 6/16 New York Street, Leeds LS2 7DZ
From: Kate Newton
Sent: 25 February 2013 11:40
To: Anne Allaker
Cc: Sabrina Jethwa
Subject: RE: Advice Please
Anne - having discussed this with Rodric Williams, our Litigation lawyer, we have asked Victoria Brooks at Bond Pearce to
look at this and come back to us with comments today.
POL-0083640
POLO0086582
POL00086582
Kate
Kate Newton I Legal Services
oor, 148 Old Street, London. ECiv 9HQ,
From: Sabrina Jethwa
Sent: 22 February 2013 14:41
To: Anne Allaker; Kate Newton
Subject: RE: Advice Please
Thanks Anne
We might need to get Scottish lawyers to look at this.
Kind regards
Sabrina
From: Anne Allaker
Sent: 22 February 2013 14:39
To: Kate Newton; Sabrina Jethwa
Subject: Advice Please
Sabrina,
Could you have a look at this charge letter and advise me of any changes needed please?
This is a branch in Scotland so I'm also keen to make sure it won't set any precedents if there are any differences for
Scottish laws.
Please let me know if any further information is needed.
Regards
Anne
Anne Allaker
Agents Contracts Advisor
‘srs
®
POL-0083640
POLO0086582
POL00086582
Jessica
Pe
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: 148 OLD STREET,
LONDON EC1V 9HQ.
eeerr ter erererertceer ret treteerreterctertrcrtr ter trr tere ter tert try
sider th
ook
null carry out your o
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.
ROYAL MAIL GROUP LIMITED registered in England and Wales at 100 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y
OHQ with the registered company number 04138203
POL-0083640