POL00103207
POL00103207
Message
From: Patrick Bourke!
on behalf of — Patrick Bourke
Sent: 24/05/2016 06:
To: Jane Macleod}
Subject: FW: Post Office Limited - Update and Request for Further Advice
Attachments: Sealed claim form (defendant's copy).pdf
You obviously have the magic touch...
From: Rodric Williams
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 12:33 AM
To: Jonathan.Swift!._
Cc: Christopher Knight; Patrick Bourke; Jane MacLeod; Mark Underwood1; John.Davitt!
Subject: Post Office Limited - Update and Request for Further Advice bene
Jonathan,
POL has been progressing the 8 recommendations you made in your January 2016 Chairman’s report concerning the
further steps that POL might reasonably take in respect of the SPMR cases. With respect to the recommendations
concerning Horizon (recommendations 3, 4 and 5) and POL’s suspense accounts (recommendation 8), Deloitte LLP has
scoped work that could be taken to address the recommendations, and has provided to POL a range of procedures
which could be performed.
POL is now considering the further instructions it could provide to Deloitte. Influencing these considerations is that on
11 April 2016, court proceedings were started against POL when 91 Claimants issued a Claim Form in the High Court of
Justice, Queen’s Bench Division (copy attached). The Claim Form has not been served (it was provided to us for
information only), and is not currently supported by a Statement of Case. It has however been supplemented by a letter
dated 28 April 2016 from the Claimants solicitors, Freeths LLP, purportedly sent pursuant to the Practice Direction on
Pre-Action Conduct. The letter is long (53 pages) and references (among others) issues with Horizon and POL’s suspense
accounts which overlap your recommendations 3, 4, 5 and 8, as well as issues with Post Office’s prosecution practices
(overlapping your recommendation 1) and branch support systems (overlapping your recommendation 7).
When you first considered this matter for POL’s Chairman, the SPMRs had been advancing their concerns through
extrajudicial means, e.g. through MPs and in the media. Now that POL has been sued, is it reasonable for POL to
address any further steps it might reasonably take in respect of the SPMR cases through the proceedings, rather than in
response to your report and recommendations?
I appreciate you may not have given this matter much thought over the past few months, so we would be happy to
discuss this with you further by telephone in the first instance. I have copied John Davitt to help with the arrangements
if you would find that more convenient.
With thanks and kind regards,
Rodric
“ Rodric Williams
Solicitor, Corporate Services
Post Office Ltd
_20 Finsbury Stre ndon EC2Y 9A\
POL-0102790