Subpostmaster Appeal Panel Process Review
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to review
the Subpostmaster Appeals Panel process
the associated documentation
a sample of completed appeal cases
the management information collected to date
any identified process improvements
any identified learning points
eoeeee
Background
Following the Organisation Design Review (ODR) in November 2010 a
revised approach was required to handle Subpostmaster summary
termination appeal cases. Prior to the ODR there was a standalone
templated role that dealt with all Subpostmaster appeal cases. This role did
not flow through into the new organisation therefore a revised approach was
designed and introduced in April 2011.
The revised approach detailed that all Subpostmaster appeal cases would in
future be heard by seniors managers (band 3a and above) with the correct
skills and attributes from within Network Services and Transformation. This
recognised the level of expertise required to undertake Subpostmaster
appeals. These managers would not be required to undertake employee
appeals unlike their senior manager colleagues elsewhere in the business.
Twenty five senior managers were identified to undertake Subpostmaster
appeals, some of which were already trained and others were new to the role.
Their commitment was to undertake a minimum of 4 appeal cases per year.
The target was to complete appeal cases within 6 weeks from the date when
the intention to appeal was notified to Post Office Ltd. During 2010/11 there
were 37 appeal cases.
A training course was devised and offered to all twenty five managers with
twenty two subsequently attending. Each inexperienced Appeal Manager
was then linked up with a mentor for their first appeal case. The resultant
panel of twenty two Appeal Managers reduced over time, due to role changes
etc, to a panel of eighteen.
Findings
Management Information
POL00086828
POL00086828
As at the end of period 11 (26.02.12) there had been 31 appeal requests, all
of which were allocated within timescale by the Contract Admin Team (CAT).
Of these, twenty two cases had been completed and nine were still in
progress. Of the twenty two cases, thirteen were completed within timescale
with the remaining nine cases being completed within a range of seven weeks
to in excess of 18 weeks where in that instance there were mitigating
circumstances.
It was noted that the completion of the appeal was calculated 6weeks from
referral to the Appeal Manager rather than 6 weeks from the date of intention
to appeal notified to Post Office Ltd.
Management information is not currently being collected on requests for
contact following the issuing of 3 months notice where a Subpostmaster has
the contractual right of a meeting with a senior manager.
Recommendations
1) Management information to be compiled on allocation of 3 month
notice cases
2) Additional management information to be collected showing individual
performance against 6 week completion target and whether
documentation was fully completed as per checklist.
3) Align the measures to the appeal process timescales.
4) Review completion timescales.
Allocation
Given the number of appeal requests received and the number of trained
appeals managers the requirement of undertaking 4 cases per year should
not be necessary. However 12 requests for appeal (39%) were received in
periods 9-11 which may be linked to the communication events for Network
Transformation (NT), so the allocation is not equal and may require appeals
managers to take cases in quick succession. No Appeal Manager should be
allocated a new case until they have completed the case they have on hand.
During the year there have been 10 occasions where Appeal Managers have
rejected requests to pick up a case. These rejections have been for a
number of reasons including being too busy, annual leave etc. The most
cases undertaken by an individual Appeal Manager is four cases to date,
whereas two managers have yet to undertake a case. Despite there being
restrictions on which cases can be allocated through geography and role, this
suggests that some people are more receptive to undertaking cases than
others.
There is a fine line between allocation and keeping the expertise ‘live’ and
whilst we don’t want to reduce the requirement to undertake 4 appeals per
year we can influence this by recruiting additional Appeal Managers given the
increase in 3a roles with the onset of NT. This will hopefully ensure that
nobody gets 4 appeal cases per year but everybody performs 2 cases per
year.
Requests for senior manager involvement following 3 months notice are not
currently recorded or reflected in overall allocation numbers.
Recommendations
POL00086828
POL00086828
1) Obtain commitment from Network Services and Transformation Lead
Team to support the Subpostmaster appeal process and the
requirement to complete 4 appeal cases per year.
2) The importance of the Appeal Manager role and the consequences of
the decision outcomes to be reiterated to all.
3) Re-circulate list of current Subpostmaster Appeal Managers and notify
HR that these managers should not be allocated employee appeals.
4) Line managers to be copied into appeal allocation requests so they are
aware of workload.
5) Agree that the only acceptable reason for not taking on a case is
where the Appeal Manager is about to take extended leave (more than
2 weeks).
6) Appeals not to be allocated to an Appeal Manager whilst they are
absent on leave (annual / sick).
7) Introduce an allocation process whereby appeals are allocated ona
rotational basis with appeals being allocated to the manager at the top
of the list and once the appeal has been accepted the manager then
moves to the bottom of the list. Previous caveats (section 5.3 of the
Subpostmaster Appeals Panel Document) to apply.
8) Ensure CAT team have a conversation with the Appeal Manager
gaining their commitment to hear the case before despatching the case
summary.
9) Agree those senior mangers within Network who will deal with contact
requests following the issue of 3 months notice and record these cases
in overall allocation management information.
10)Three month notice cases to be allocated by the Contract Admin
Team.
11)Recruit a further 8 appeals managers from the newly appointed 3a
Area Managers in Network.
Documentation
je
Supostmasters
Appeals Panel Proces
The Subpostmaster Appeals Panel Document above was originally prepared
and circulated in March 2011 by Andy Bayfield who was the dedicated Appeal
Manager prior to ODR. Its purpose was to introduce the revised working
arrangements and provide guidance to the newly appointed panel of appeals
managers. The document covers the key activities of the overall process and
also emphasises some of the thought processes that need to be undertaken
when hearing an appeal. Whilst the document was used during the original
training, elements have not been widely adopted by Appeal Managers as will
be highlighted in the section below covering case reviews. There are no
supporting standard letters etc (eg invite letters, notes templates or outline
decision rationale documentation etc) contained in the guide. The
consideration for taping appeal hearings has not been adopted and note
POL00086828
POL00086828
POL00086828
POL00086828
takers are still widely used. The requirement to have notes agreed is not
being consistently deployed. There is minimal information provided on how
to deal with a three month notice case where a request is received for a
meeting with a Post Office Ltd representative from the ex-Subpostmaster.
Recommendations
1) Separate process document to be drafted covering allocation and
administration of the appeal process.
2) Separate guidance pack for appeals managers to be drafted covering
how to handle an appeal with supporting standard letters, templates
and notes for decision rationale.
3) Equip all Appeal Managers with the capability for voice recording
appeal hearings.
4) 10 voice recorders to be purchased held centrally by the CAT and
allocated to appeals mangers 5 working days before a scheduled
hearing date.
3 Month Notice Cases
The Subpostmaster Appeals Panel Document makes reference to appeals
managers dealing with requests to address Post Office Ltd following the issue
of 3 months notice but it does not give any guidance on:-
e How these requests should be handled eg face to face etc
e The scope of the resultant meeting
e Follow up documentation and communication
Recommendations
1) Agree those senior mangers within Network who will deal with requests
to address Post Office Ltd following the issue of 3 months notice. It is
proposed these are undertaken by the Agents Contracts Deployment
Manager North and South. The north manager would handle requests
from the south and vice versa. The Network Services National Support
Manager would also be available handle these requests but would not
be the first person the case is allocated to.
2) Prepare guidance notes and supporting documents to support these
senior managers.
3) Timescales for completion of these cases to be reviewed and aligned
with timescales for appeal cases.
Training and Support
Whilst the training was comprehensive there has been a time lag, in some
instances of as much as nine months, before an appeals manager has heard
their first case. Buddies have been made available but it has mainly been
driven by the Appeal Manager requesting assistance rather than being paired
off upfront. The outcome of these relationships has not been consistent —
see case reviews and feedback below.
The training consisted of working through some example cases and
discussing likely outcomes, but did not supply any reference documentation
that could be referred to at a later date.
Recommendations
1
2
3
4
)
Face to face training to be supplied to all new Appeals Managers
Timeliness of delivering training and first live case to be managed in
future.
Formal buddy arrangements to be put in place. Buddy’s to be
identified as part of the allocation process.
New guidance pack to be utilised during training.
Case Reviews and Feedback
A sample of cases has been reviewed in line with The Subpostmaster
Appeals Panel Document for both consistency of approach and application.
This identified a number of issues
Use of incorrect terminology eg contract of employment, dismissal.
Extending beyond the remit of the Appeal Manager's decision power
eg future of branch as defined in the above document (section 8.13)
Extent to which the rationale for the decision is stated within the
decision letter (section 8.14)
Variable quality in documented decision rationales (section 8.11)
Wrong contractual clauses quoted in decision letter.
A number of cases have extended outside of the target six weeks
completion timescale without good reason.
Uncertainty surrounding how to deal with cases where appellant
repeatedly cancels hearing dates or is generally unavailable.
Circulation of case papers back to Contract Admin Team.
Lack of identification of improvement opportunities (sections 8.15 /
8.16).
Uncertainty surrounding the appellant's right to have legal
representation.
Recommendations
1) Remedial training / advice to be compiled in an aide memoir and
circulated to all appeals managers along with copy of the
Subpostmaster contract documentation.
Standard letter templates and decision rationale documents to be
supplied to all Appeal Managers.
Contract Admin Team can assist in sourcing suitable venues for
appeal hearings and allocation of notes takers if required (note takers
would not be required if the recommendation to purchase voice
recorders is accepted).
Appeal case checklist to be developed and deployed within the
Contract Admin Team to ensure consistent return of key
documentation.
Quality Assurance
POL00086828
POL00086828
The intended quarterly review by the Head of Network Services of completed
appeal cases has not been regularly undertaken during 2011/12.
Recommendations
1) The reviewer role to be reallocated to the Network Services National
Support Manager (NSNSM).
2) Contract Appeals & Admin Manager to initiate quarterly review cycle
and forward a random sample of cases to NSNSM within 1 month of
end of quarter.
3) Random sample levels to be based on no less than 20% of the total
number of completed cases in the previous quarter.
Next Steps
e Agree recommendations
e Develop resultant work plan
e Identify owners and resource
.
If recommendation agreed, order/purchase voice recording equipment.
Lin Norbury & John Breeden
Agents Contracts Deployment Managers
March 2012
POL00086828
POL00086828