POL00102388
POL00102388
Message
From:
on behalf of
Sent:
To:
ce:
Paula Vennells
Subject: RE: Sparrow
Thanks, hugely frustrating that they have misunderstood (wilfully?) what we have told them. I gave Mark
and the team some rebuttal words yesterday, being
The balances of £96m and £66m were routine trading balances yet to be settled with the other organisation
at that particular month end. In other words, they represent amounts due not amounts that are
unreconciled. This description is therefore misleading. As previously reported to SS, the statistic that
gives genuine comfort is that neither account had any unreconciled balances which were over six months
old. If the client accounts were being operated as an alternative suspense account, this would not be the
case. Taking this with the work previously shared on the suspense account, we can see no evidence for any
ongoing concern.
Rod Ismay has all the detailed understanding if you need more help next week
Not sure I can add much more at this point....but we can and should be able to defend our position: there
is no evidence of issues.....
Al
~---- original Message-----
From: Mark R Davies
Sent: 10 April 2015 09:04
To: Alisdair Cameron
Cc: Jane MacLeod; Nei] Hayward
Subject: Sparrow
al
I am conscious that you are away next week and Sparrow is likely to rear its head again, and there could
be focus on suspense accounts.
We received Second Sight's part 2 report yesterday. It is flawed and inaccurate, and will inevitably leak
(unless we publish proactively alongside a rebuttal, which I am considering as an option).
On suspense accounts, the report, which I can forward to you if you wish, claims that Post office is
potentially profiting through money in suspense account that could be due to postmasters (big numbers are
quoted that could make headlines).
I am planning to send a summary of the report to GE later today, but wanted to give you an early heads
up. I can forward the full report if you wish. I have also asked for an assessment of any legal options
open to us.
The risk for us is that it will leak and be sensationalised by journalists. It is probably a one day
story, but it has the potential, because of the nature of the claims, to attract wider coverage than in
March [there are also lines about PO potentially committing an abuse of power in bringing prosecutions]
Please let me know if you would like to see the full report.
Mark
Mark Davies
Communications and Corporate Affairs Director
Mobile:
sent from my iPad
POL-0101971