POL00107144
POL00107144
Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
moeeereit cnsmnememnee
From: Peter Prior-Mills
Sent: 20 January 2015 16:53
To: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Subject: Spoiling postage labels
Hello Angela,
On a call with Fujitsu earlier today I was made aware that there is an issue from mediation around spoilt postage
labels, this is an area where I have been previously involved having worked on the improvements which correctly
account for the reversal of VAT in such cases.
The problem originates when the clerk answers “yes” to the question on screen about whether the label printed
correctly. If they have answered in this way when the label did not print fully or correctly, they should follow the spoilt
label process to reverse the transaction correctly and all will be well. Should they answer “yes” when no label has
printed at all they cannot use the spoilt label process as to do so they need the incorrectly printed label on hand
(spoiling without this is fraud).
The reason behind this is that without the evidence of the faulty/misprinted label there is no proof that it was ever
transacted at all, and there is therefore an open door to fraudulent abuse. Without the label as proof of printing
someone has to pay for it. This is now more important than ever as to reverse the VAT correctly (some transactions
are zero rated for VAT, others chargeable) the clerk needs the code characters from the label, without a label on hand
you can’t reverse the VAT correctly which is a very serious matter as far as HMRC are concerned.
If we are to provide postmasters with a fall back way of getting a refund even if they have no label on hand, it will be
entirely at POL’s expense (and we couldn't even claim back the VAT element legally).
In the end, our clerks need to pay attention and check there is a label before answering the question, that way they
can recover the situation via the spoilt label process even if they answer the question on screen incorrectly.
I hope this helps.
POS MKE LIBS
Regards,
Peter Prior-Mills I Lean Consultant / Business Analyst
Change Management
PO Box 634, Chichester, PO19 9HJ
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
ok
Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
saeenieresemremennoo sere sonoma see al
From: Kevin Lenihan
Sent: 20 January 2015 12:24
To: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Ce: Newsome Pete
Thompson Peter (
Subject:
Cc—FYI
Angela,
I have attached the Fujitsu answer to your query for your reference.
In summary though, in answer to the questions that you raised yesterday :-
«© Q Whether we (POL) are aware of a problem with the postage label transaction as cited by Mr McCormack?
A. POL are not aware of a problem with the postage label as cited by Mr McCormack
e —Q. Whether Fujistu is aware of such a problem?
A. Fujitsu is not aware of such a problem
* Q. Ifthe answer to the above is no, is there any way we can establish from Fujistu if there is a problem with the
transaction? (although at this point I think the problem is with the
user accepting the label as correctly printed by mistake)
A. Fujitsu have explained how the process operates and they are not aware of any system problems as described
by Mr McCormack. (see email detail attached).
If Mr McCormack can share the evidence to support his claim we can investigate accordingly. In the meantime, if you
need to discuss further please let me know.
Thanks,
Kevin
Kevin Lenihan I Senior Information Services Manager
nf Floar.A48.0ld St
ECiv 9HQ
From: Newsome Pete!
Sent: 20 January 2015
To: Kevin Lenihan
Cc: Thompson Peter; Davidson James; Jenkins Gareth GI
Subject: RE: URGENT RESPONSE REQUIRED
Kevin
POL00107144
POL00107144
Je
POL00107144
POL00107144
We know of no issue with the system printing of labels. The system asks the user if the label has printed properly and
will allow re-printing if No is chosen. There is also a procedure in place to enable Horizon users to report a spoilt label if
they have a problem post printing with sticking the label on the parcel (this does require information from the label)
which gives a credit for that label.
Regards
Pete
Pete Newsome
Business Change Manager
Post Offi Fujitsu UK&l
Fujitsu is proud to partner with Shelter, the housing and homelessness charity
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email?
From: Kevin Lenihan __
Sent: 20 January 2015 10:23
To: Newsome Pete
Subject: FW: URGENT RESPONSE REQUIRED
Pete —as requested.
If any problem opening please let me know.
Essentially what is being asked is are FJS aware of any known printer faults linked to the Horizon system — if yes do they
tie up with what is outlined. From a POL / Atos perspective we are not aware of any such fault either as a known
problem or emerging incidents.
Thanks,
Kevin
Kevin Lenihan I Senior Information Services Manager
2" Floor, 148 Old Street, London EC1V 9HQ
From: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Sent: 19 January 2015 12:54
To: Kevin Lenihan
Subject: FW: URGENT RESPONSE REQUIRED
Hi Kevin,
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
Could you help me with this please - this is something I would have previously gone to Andy Holt with. The e-mail
chain will give you the background but essentially what I’m trying to establish is a couple of things:
« Whether we (POL) are aware of a problem with the postage label transaction as cited by Mr McCormack?
e Whether Fujistu is aware of such a problem?
«Ifthe answer to the above is no, is there any way we can establish from Fujistu if there is a problem with the
transaction? (although at this point I think the problem is with the user accepting the label as correctly printed
by mistake)
Thanks,
Angela
Angela Van Den Bogerd I Head of Partnerships
Ty Brwydran House, Atlantic Close, SWANSEA SA7 9FJ
®
© angela.van-den-bogerd@
o
SWYDDFAR
~ POST A
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: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Sent: 13 January 2015 09:21
To: flagcaseadvisor; Belinda Crowe; Eamon Price; Melanie Corfield
Ce: Craig Tuthill; Rodric Williams; Contract Admin Team; Alwen Lyons; Nick Beal; Martin Humphreys; Connie Hewitt;
Tom Wechsler
Subject: RE: (D.A)FOR ACTION: Ref: ECT 1153/14 Customer name: Tim McCormack Feedback due: 15/01/15 Case
signatory: TBC
Donna,
Thanks for sight of this. Given the implications of Mr McCormack’s claim then I suggest:
we need join up with Royal Mail (cc’'d to Eamon Price).
we need a legal view - Rodric could you provide please.
we need to flag to Fujistu. I'll pick this up with Belinda.
we need Comms team input (cc’d to Melanie Corfield)
By way of background I spoke to Tim McCormack a few weeks ago; a lengthy conversation lasting 45 mins which
concluded with me asking Tim to provide me with details of specific instances so that I could investigate the claims. He
said that he was unable to do that as he was getting his information via closed Spmr forums and that Spmrs would
not want him to share their details. I have since asked NBSC for call clogs of branches that have reported such claims
3
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
From: Rod Ismay
Sent: 20 January 2015 12:04
To: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Subject: RE: Postage Labels
Hi Angela,
Upon further discussion this morning, and having read Horizon Help on the intranet, I can see that there are references
to “labels that did not print” and what should be done to respond to that.
If these processes are followed then a situation such as Tim alludes to should not happen. This would depend on the
counter colleague properly checking the quantity and quality of labels printed and then pressing the right button when
asked “did the labels print OK Y/N?”
lattach links and extracts from the processes at the foot of this note. If those are not followed (and if either a printed
damaged label gets lost or a label never printed but the wrong choices were made in Horizon) then there could be a
dispute situation, however, that would be due to conformance and lack of retained evidence. There has been acute
fraud sensitivity on labels as the early days of labels saw several attempts at cash fraud via spoils. Hence the
requirement for paper evidence.
There is no documented process for the further, more extreme scenarios, (perhaps like Tim’s) because those would be
processes in the event of “correction process failure” following on from “transactional failure”. Or it would bea
scenario that we don’t believe happens, but which has been alleged as a risk by SS, of a ghost transaction in the stack.
Ihave asked for stats on labels. I will update you on what we can obtain. It will depend on how the “items” are defined
in Horizon but { am seeking totals for label sales, rejects and spoils.
We don’t have stats on the type of incident Tim suggests. We are not aware of claims of it happening, just the
conformance failures explained above. Whether he logged it at the time with NBSC and whether peers would have,
would be only metrics we can think of, but given the inherent uncertainty of what is being described it is unlikely it
would have its own call type indicator. It would probably be subsumed within general balancing calls.
We can establish a process for dealing with this extreme situation of no evidence. There would obviously be a risk with
it due to lack of paper evidence, but with “realtime” Horice data and retrospective trend analysis etc we could monitor
levels of cases to determine whether the new process flushed out a specific transactional issue or whether it became a
new vehicle for attempted fraud. We would need to acknowledge the resource cost of such a new process and we
should take counsel from POL Security before defining and deploying such a new process.
The references on Horizon Online Help are as follows:
\\portal.royalmailgroup.com@ssi\DavWWWRoot\sites\POA003\HNGonline\HNG
online\HNG_Help\postal\general_info_2\p\pl_rej_labels.htm
© Arejected label is a label that did not print properly or did not print at all, and you acknowledged this by
selecting No at the screen prompt which says 'Was the print successful?" Selecting No at this screen will always
reject the label.
* Toensure that the security of postage label production is maintained, you will not be able to use the Void or
Reversal functions on the system once you have produced a label. It cannot be removed from the Basket.
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
¢ You must always retain and reconcile all rejected labels with your stock unit balance snapshot. If you reject a
label because it has not printed at all, you must print a session receipt and keep this in place of the rejected
label.
© Associate all rejected labels (or in the case of labels which did not print at all, the relevant session receipts) with
the postage label weekly report and file in your branch for two years (the report must be signed by the
manager/postmaster as a declaration to confirm that all rejected postage labels are associated with the report).
\\portal.royalmailgroup.com@ssl\DavWWWRoot\sites\POAQ03\HNGonline\HNG
online\HNG_Help\postal\general_info_2\p\p!_not_prt.htm
© Ifa postage label does not print correctly or does not print at all:
Select No (the Horizon Online™ system will automatically reject the postage label, and generate a ‘Rejected’
postage label transaction)
¢ You will then be returned to the Mails screen.
Insert another label into the printer and select Label to print the postage label again.
© Three transactions will appear in the Basket.
© Two will have positive values (one for the production of the correctly printed label, and one for the incorrectly
printed label), and the third will have a negative value (for the rejected postage label). The positive value for the
incorrectly printed label, and the negative value for the rejected label will cancel each other out, and as a result
only the transaction for the correctly printed label will be accounted for.
jected Label:
e You must retain the rejected postage label Rejected Labels @
© Retain the receipt in place of the rejected label F1
If a rejected label did not print, you will not have a rejected label to retain. To prove you have rejected the label you
must produce a session receipt at the end of the transaction session. To do this, press the receipt key on the keyboard
after the transaction has been completed. This receipt will show the value of the rejected label.
Would you like us to do any Horice analysis and would Tim be amenable to attempting to provide more specific dates
for his branch or for any colleagues if others have raised this with him?
Thanks, Rod
Rod Ismay I Head of Finance Service Centre
—
2" Floor West Block, No.4. Future Walk, West Bars, Chesterfield, S49 LPF
H “iMobile,___ GR _} Email rod.ismay( }
Post Office Finance ~ 2014 Winners Public & Voluntary Sector
Best Finance Team 2014 Best Annual Report & Accounts
BusinessFinance “
Awards 2014 /
From: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Sent: 19 January 2015 17:22
To: Rod Ismay
Subject: RE: Postage Labels
Rod,
Once a label has been accepted as printed correctly it cannot be reversed - hence the problem.
2
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
Angela
Angela Van Den Bogerd I Head of Partnerships
@® __ Ty Brwydran House, Atlantic Close, SWANSEA SA7 9FJ
©
©
SWYDDFAR
~ POST
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 destray all copies of the original message.
From: Rod Ismay
Sent: 19 January 2015 16:47
To: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Subject: RE: Postage Labels
Hi Angela,
I don’t think it would be fair. But I don’t think we are in that extreme position.
An Spmr is able to do a spoil either:
- Inthe customer session if they choose “N” when asked if it printed OK, or
- Asasubsequent session ie. After completing the session where there is more in the stack (due to them pressing
“Y” wrongly and then realising their error later)
We can run data that would tell us the levels of such spoils.
However, these would not have led to “debt”. These would have resolved the record keeping at source.
I believe that the operational instructions advise branches how to do that spoil in the session or a spoil as a follow on
session.
I will, however, confirm that.
For those situations then, and so long as the instruction is there, then I don’t think we are in an unfairness situation. It
may, of course, be prudent for us to review the intuitiveness of the instructions.
The area where we do seem to lack instructions is the more convoluted error scenario of wrongly pressing “Y” and then
failing to do a corrective spoil at any point in the remainder of that Trading Period.
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
Here the branch would find itself with an apparent shortage. If it remembered it was due to the label then the “help”
option to call NBSC is always there. I sense we may need to add something to NBSCs scripting for this scenario, but in
the case last week they referred the branch to FSC who are able to resolve it without it becoming a “debt” question.
We would not have stats on such shortages where they are unresolved and in reality if the branch had forgotten it had
had a “spoil” issue then it could be subsumed with other gains and losses. It would not have a flag to enable us to run
stats.
All we can run is the Y N transactional stats, not a stat of something where an issue arose but was not then processed.
I will talk this through with Gill in my stock team tomorrow though.
At a wider level, yes I can get a report of monthly and annual spoils but those are by their very nature resolved events,
they would not have led to debt. And so they would be misleading as indicators of the type of incident Tim
alleges. They are measures of satisfactorily resolved spoils, not indicators of the scale of a wrongful debt issue.
Does that make sense?
Happy to discuss
Rod
Rod Ismay I Head of Finance Service Centre
Ik, West Bars, Chesterfield, S49 1PF
‘mail rod.ismay¢
Bost Office Finance - 2014 Winners Public & Voluntary Séctor
Best Finance Team 2014 Best Annual Report & Accounts
BusinessFinance ‘
Awards 2014 /
From: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Sent: 19 January 2015 16:28
To: Rod Ismay
Subject: RE: Postage Labels
Rod,
What you've set out is clear and is my understanding of the current process. The follow on question therefore
is. ...is it fair that a Spmr is held liable for a mistake at the counter that isn’ 't actually a loss of money but is
indeed a loss (by wrongly accepting that the label had been printed correctly) of the label? Should we not have a
process in place that enables the Spmr to correct this mistake?
My view is that we should have a process in place whereby the Spmr is able to exceptionally claim as a spoilt label via
the Horizon system. We'd need to agree a process and ensure we build in safeguards to protect against abuse of the
process however this should all be doable. What I need to understand therefore is what is the monthly and annual
claim for spoilt labels - could you provide me with this number please?
Thanks,
Angela
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
Angela Van Den Bogerd I Head of Partnerships
@® — TyBrwydran House, Atlantic Close, SWANSEA SA7 OFS
Mob
© angelavan-den-bogerdt
SWYDDFAR
~ POST
Confidential Information:
This email message is for the sale 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 hy reply
email and destroy all copies of the original message.
From: Rod Ismay
Sent: 19 January 2015 16:09
To: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Subject: RE: Postage Labels
Hi Angela,
Ihave made some enquiries.
As regards your question, the short answer is no. However, let me expand on a potential conformance issue where a
branch makes a wrong decision during a transaction.
It does seem that, if a branch does not know what to do and does not ask for help, then they could get in a position of
confusion.
When serving a labels transaction, the counter colleague is prompted “did the labels print OK Y/N”.
The labels would not go into the stack before that point.
If the clerk chooses “No” then it won’t go into the stack at all. If they choose “Yes” then it does go into the stack.
\f, however, the clerk then finds that they shouldn’t actually have pressed “Yes” (ie. They didn’t check their labels
properly) then an extra layer of work can arise because you cannot reverse a label sale,
What you should do is to spoil the label (as a new session). However, since it is now in the stack (and not reversible) the
branch would have to explain to the customer why the receipt is too much and then tackle the “spoil” as their next task.
In doing so they and the customer could be frustrated.
If the clerk then forgets to do the spoil in that Trading Period, then the cash figure in Horizon would be wrong
{overstated because the spoil has not been dealt with).
And when they enter the next Trading Period, they are no longer able to spoil it at all.
5
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
As I say, we are not aware of the simple case of “more in my stack than printed” but we did have a branch with the
scenario above last week. In their case £500 was at stake and they were put through to my Stock Team who are
agreeing a TC process to clear the discrepancy from the branch “debt” as clearly it is not debt. We are in the process of
awaiting sight of the actual labels in question, in order to confirm authenticity of the chain of events.
We believe that because labels are not a “stock item” then the basic Horizon reversal process could not be adopted for
Labels ie. A multi part process was needed with the spoil event.
We do not believe one would see any event in Horizon for the short scenario Tim describes, but in Horice or Credence
we can run stats on levels of sales and spoils.
It seems to me in summary that this is another situation where:
- Amistake is made by the counter colleague
- The correction process exists in Horizon but the clerk may be unaware or confused
- And if left beyond the end of the Trading Period it enters an extra level of complexity which is not scripted and
which perhaps now needs scripting
If Tim could give specific dates then we could try to provide more info on events and transactions but we believe the
records would align with the stack, not with the allegation of less than the stack.
I hope that helps. Happy to discuss. I hope it was clearer setting it out though.
Rod Ismay I Head of Finance Service Centre
Walk, West Bars, Chesterfield, S49 4PF
Email rod.ismay
blic & Voluntary Sector
Best Finance Team 2014 Best Annual Report & Accounts
BusinessFinance
Awards 2014
=. ——
From: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Sent: 19 January 2015 15:02
To: Rod Ismay
Subject: RE: Postage Labels
Rod,
Thanks for your voicemail.
I don’t have a specific incident to quote which is why this is proving so difficult. Without this level of information what
I'm trying to identify is the size of the problem hence my questions to you about spoilt and rejected labels.
Angela
Angela Van Den Bogerd I Head of Partnerships
RE RE
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
@© Ty Bruydran House, Atlantic Close, SWANSEA SA7 9FJ
lobex:
© angela.van-den-bogerdi
SWYDDFAR
~ POST
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. /f you are not the intended recipient please contact me by reply
email and destroy all copies of the original message.
-----Original Message—---
From: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Sent: 15 January 2015 19:37
To: Rod Ismay
Subject: Postage Labels
Rod,
There is a bit of noise around postage labels reporting to the customer stack but not printing. SS and Tim McCormack
(ex-Spmr) are generating a fair bit of this but if what I'm told is correct we need to correct the situation.
Are you aware of such a problem?
Are you able to see spoilt labels claimed by branches? Rejected labels also?
Please advise.
Thanks
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
~ POL00107144
Angela Van-Den-Bogerd _
From: Avene O'Farrell
Sent: 19 January 2015 11:03
To: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; ECT; flagcaseadvisor
Subject: FW: Probably too late now...
Hi Angela,
Please see a further email from Tim. Are you ok to go back to him?
Avene
Avene 0’Farrell I Executive Assistant to Paula Vennells, Chief Executive
148 Old Street, London, ECAV 9HQ
postoffice.co.uk
@nostofficenews
From: Tim McCormack
Sent: 19 January 2015
To: Paula Vennells
Subject: Probably too late now ....
Hi
Shortly after receiving your email yesterday I received the email below from Angela. I
presume the two events are linked.
Yesterday morning though I completed my report into this matter. On my own I have
‘got to the bottom! of this matter and highlighted the issues that pertain to it.
Angela's email I am afraid is pretty damning in many respects, to you, to her and Post
Office Ltd.
I could explain why but in order to do so you would first need to see my report and
remind yourself of all the emails I have sent you on the subject since I first reported it
to you. There isn't much new in the report - just a summation of what I have already
passed on to you via email. Angela should have been able to produce something
similar.
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
Perhaps you have a copy already - I did send it to several people for comment who may
or may not pass it on.
Tam sorry you did not take this more seriously - I had no idea when I first got involved
with this just how serious it would become.
I presume in due course it could lead to your resignation. I am truly sorry about
that. Read my emails again and you will see I was trying to help you identify the
weaknesses in your organisation that surround you. Angela has shown she is a prime
example of what I was warning you about.
Perhaps there is a way out for you though. Should Angela ‘leave' as a result of this and
is replaced by someone who is capable of resolving issues like this one then all blame
could be passed on to Angela. You would be seen as having taken decisive action. I
do know of one person who would fit the bill completely and you know her quite well
too. It is about time POL have a senior manager who was also a former
subpostmaster.
For the sake of clarity I would stress that I am personally not interested in such a
position nor am I seeking any form of compensation for
my investigation. My involvement with all of this is purely altruistic being for the
benefit of my former subpostmaster colleagues.
Tim
You learn more from one criticism than from ten compliments
To: timandagi
Subject: Bulk Ps
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 17:52:15 +0000
Hi Tim,
Since our conversation I have tried to source some information from NBSC but have drawn a blank. This may be
because the issue hasn't been logged as a ‘bulk postage label issue’ or maybe as you have said previously that the
branch is dealing with the issue in-branch and not reporting it.
The Branch User Forum met on Thursday 15" Jan and I took the opportunity to ask them if they had experienced this
issue or knew of fellow Spmrs who had. This also drew a blank other than one of the members (a Spmr) recalling that
she had experienced something similar but had realised at the time that she had inserted the label incorrectly causing
it to overprint. So her fault she concluded.
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
It is important that I get to the bottom of this issue and would therefore appreciate you sharing any evidence of such
events happening. You mention in your recent correspondence to Paula that CCTV is available. Would you please
share the details of this Spmr so that I can make contact? This would be really helpful in assisting me trying to
establish what's the cause of the incidents you've described to me.
With regards,
Angela
Angela Van Den Bogerd I Head of Partnerships
@ Ty Brwydran House, Atlantic Close, SWANSEA SA7 9FJ
©
©
angela.van-den-bogert
G
SWYDDFAR
~ POSTA
Confidential Information:
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and pri vileged information. Any
unauthorised review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact me hy reply
email and destroy all copies of the original message.
From: Tim McCormack j. _
Sent: 12 December 2014 11:
To: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Subject: RE: Second Sight - Horizon Errors - Media Coverage
Hi
Brief update - certainly raised a big debate on the forum.
We have a new case - which I would have to question if the system was responsible - 71
labels requested - 71 labels printed - 70 labels on stack - transaction log checked - no
rejects.
I think it is not worthy of investigation unless other examples of the same problem
come to light and it certainly wouldn't be reported to NBSC.
Cheers, Tim
You learn more from one criticism than from ten compliments
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
' From: timandagi
To: angela.van-den-boger
Subject: RE: Second Sight - Horiz:
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 08:55:30 +0000
Hi
Sorry the folk remember it happening but not the actual dates.
L have one date from the incident with Cyril though - I should have looked closer at the
photo of the label - I assumed it to be a recent event as his Facebook post was in the
present tense. However it was details of an event he recorded that occurred in early
2013.
Paula can be assured he his fit and healthy.
The photo of the label suggests to me that the label was put into the printer slightly
squint so again ruling out the possibility of an overprint and in any case this was 2
missing from a batch of 8.
What you could look at or find out for me is what type of data is sent to the
printer. Epson receipt printers can print bitmap images as well as line by line
printing. If it was a bitmap then I can see a possibility of how the errors might occur in
that the printer fails to send or the PC fails to recognise a command that the printout
was successfully completed (often CRLF) so that the PC sends down another image of a
label which overwrites the image in the bitmap stored in the Printer.
Its not the only way it could happen but it is where I would start looking.
I cannot obviously reveal the date or branch code for Cyril's case. Buta search of
NBSC records will surely through up multiple instances of this problem. I would be
interested to know how many but I guess you won't be able to tell me.
Cheers, Tim
You learn more from one criticism than from ten compliments
From: angela.
To: timandagi
Subject: Re: Second Sight - Horizon Errors - Media Coverage
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 05:59:24 +0000
Tim,
Thank you. If you are able to give me specifics that would be helpful for me going forward.
Kind regards
Angela
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
07801091624
From: Tim McCormack’, .
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 07:24 PM
To: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Subject: RE: Second Sight - Horizon Errors - Media Coverage
Good to talk to you today. Sorry I didn't realise it went on so long!
A quick update - after we finished I put out a request via a forum and despite it being
Xmas and Dinner time I have already 4 new incidences of the same problem plus a very
quick scan through the history files revealed 3 more.
Earliest occurrence pre-june 2013
Several reported to NBSC and got several different replies! One recalls several
happening in rapid succession which clearly discounts overprinting in my opinion - if you
did overprint once or twice you would certainly learn your lesson - in this case 6 times
he recalls.
Cheers, Tim
You learn more from one criticism than from ten compliments
To: timandag! im
Subject: RE: Second Sight - Horizon Errors - Media Coverage
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 08:48:04 +0000
Dear Tim,
Are you available to have a chat this afternoon sometime after 3pm? Is so, what number should I call you on.
Best regards,
Angela
Angela Van Den Bogerd I Head of Partnerships
a]
©
angela.van-den-bogerdé _
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
Confidential Information:
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient t(s) and may contain confidential and privileged informa tion. Any
unauthorised review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact me hy reply
email and destroy all copies of the original message.
From: Avene O'Farrell On Behalf Of Paula Vennells
Sent: 10 December 2014 13:48
To: Tim McCormack
Cc: Gavin Lambert; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Rod Ismay; Lesley J Sewell; Kevin Gilliland
Subject: RE: Second Sight - Horizon Errors - Media Coverage
Tim, hi.
If there is one thing you should know about me is that I do listen.
But please be careful that you don't over generalise or conflate different points.
We are not defending the indefensible - all systems have issues from time to time. And they need to be (and are) fixed
when they occur. We have records of when that has happened, of alerting users and then putting in place an
appropriate fix, We operate in a dynamic market and Horizon, like all epos systems is constantly updated.
To your challenges. I listen and I'm therefore concerned at what you say. I'm copying three people who I expect to get
to the bottom of it. And who I trust to do so: Gavin Lambert who works directly for me, Angela van den Bogerd, and Rod
Ismay. I am also copying Lesley Sewell (CIO) and Kevin Gilliland. I want Lesley and Kevin to be in the loop - they are the
directors responsible for ensuring our branches have the appropriate service.
Angela will be in touch with you directly.
In the meantime, I wish you a happy Christmas when it comes.
Paula
Ps, If the colleague you mentioned needs support, please let Kevin know.
From: Tim McCormack [
Sent: 10 December 2014 08:00
To: Paula Vennells
Subject: FW: Second Sight - Horizon Errors - Media Coverage
Angela ...
I think you should make sure that Paula gets to read the message below.
In an absolutely bizarre coincidence shortly after sending the email I was made aware
that yesterday, as a result of the stress caused by an occurrence of this problem and
6
)
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
the subsequent refusal by NBSC to acknowledge that it could happen, a Subpostmaster
was rushed to hospital with stress related heart problems. He had the presence of
mind to record details of the incident as proof that it had happened which for the first
time gave me an indication of what might be happening to cause it.
This could well make the news today or at the weekend as a follow up to yesterday's
events. Paula should be prepared to answer the obvious questions.
Cheers, Tim
PS I have never in my life come across such an amazing coincidence - if I was in the
least bit religious and knowing of Paula's faith I would declare it a divine intervention.
You learn more from one criticism than from ten compliments
From: timandagi(.w. i
To: paula.vennells¢
Subject: Second Sight - Horizon Errors - Media Coverage
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 00:04:28 +0000
Dear Paula
Yet again today Mark Davies, speaking on behalf of POL, relied on the defence that
there are no systemic errors in Horizon and this is proved because we deal with so many
customers per day in so many branches. I think Mark and yourself might like to review
the periodic Message to Branches that are sent out via Horizon. There are a catalogue
of systemic errors that arise from time to time and are fixed. Some involving
automatic transaction corrections.
Paula, as I keep saying, you are surrounded by people in your office that tell you all is
well. You have no personal knowledge of operating Horizon nor probably any in depth
technical knowledge. What if the people that are telling you all is well have the same
attributes?
So forget systemic errors for the moment and consider ‘intermittent’ errors which by
and large are caused by communication problems.
I know of more than one but one in particular:
It exists.
It occurs at different times in different branches.
It is noticed.
They are reported to NBSC (I would really like to see the number of times this has been
reported to NBSC)
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
It causes a financial loss to the SPMR.
They are not fixed BUT the wise SPMR knows how to get his money back so you don't
hear many complaints. You would from the Audit team if they caught someone doing it
though.
So why haven't these intermittent errors been fixed. To put it simply - because they
are intermittent. There is no known sequence of events that can cause this error to re-
occur in any particular branch. How can you fix something if you don't know what
caused it in the first place? You have to throw the whole thing out and start all over -
the only way.
On our 'chat' forums, there are documented reports over the years of the same error
repeating itself randomly in a wide number of branches, including at Duns and my
previous PO.
I am pretty sure I can arrange for the error to be replicated though by asking a large
sample of offices to repeat the process until the error occurs - and Iam also sure that I
can obtain transaction logs and associated CCTV coverage of the error manifesting itself.
I can show you it happening. I can explain the financial consequences but neither I nor
your best technical team will be closer to fixing the underlying problem. You cannot
make it go away.
I would also be happy to stand up in court and declare that Horizon has intermittent
faults, probably caused through communication errors, provide clear and undeniable
evidence as well as bring along a fair number of your most trusted SPMRs to bear
witness that it has happened to them too.
I hope you get my point - I can show one error occurring that you can't fix nor can you
explain - if you could explain it then you could probably fix it - so how many other
intermittent errors like this are in the system that cause unexplainable financial losses
to SPMRs?
Iam trying to help you but the hole you are digging for yourself is getting deeper by the
day. Please stop trying to defend the indefensible.
Cheers, Tim
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
‘
Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
—— seman csr oes scare 2
From: flagcaseadvisor
Sent: 13 January 2015 09:51
To: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Belinda Crowe; Eamon Price; Melanie Corfield
Ce: Craig Tuthill; Rodric Williams; Contract Admin Team; Alwen Lyons; Nick Beal; Martin
Humphreys; Connie Hewitt; Tom Wechsler
Subject: RE: (D.A)FOR ACTION: Ref: ECT 1153/14 Customer name: Tim McCormack Feedback
due: 15/01/15 Case signatory: TBC
Hi Angela,
Many thanks for the update.
Regards
Donna Alder
Chief Executive's Correspondence Team
(148.0ld. St_Landon. EGAN SHQ
From: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Sent: 13 January 2015 09:21
To: flagcaseadvisor; Belinda Crowe; Eamon Price; Melanie Corfield
Ce: Craig Tuthill; Rodric Williams; Contract Admin Team; Alwen Lyons; Nick Beal; Martin Humphreys; Connie Hewitt;
Tom Wechsler
Subject: RE: (D.A)FOR ACTION: Ref: ECT 1153/14 Customer name: Tim McCormack Feedback due: 15/01/15 Case
signatory: TBC
Donna,
Thanks for sight of this. Given the implications of Mr McCormack’s claim then I suggest:
we need join up with Royal Mail (cc'd to Eamon Price).
we need a legal view - Rodric could you provide please.
we need to flag to Fujistu. I'll pick this up with Belinda.
we need Comms team input (cc’d to Melanie Corfield)
eoceve
By way of background I spoke to Tim McCormack a few weeks ago; a lengthy conversation lasting 45 mins which
concluded with me asking Tim to provide me with details of specific instances so that I could investigate the claims. He
said that he was unable to do that as he was getting his information via closed Spmr forums and that Spmrs would
not want him to share their details. I have since asked NBSC for call clogs of branches that have reported such claims
however despite a search they could not provide me with anything. So it would appear that branches are not
reporting the issues but perhaps as Tim suggests dealing with the issues themselves. I will go back to Tim and ask
him for the CCTV footage details as without specifics we will struggle to put this to bed.
Thanks,
Angela
Angela Van Den Bogerd I Head of Partnerships
I
POL00107144
POL00107144
’
POL00107144
POL00107144
@® Ty Brwydran House, Atlantic Close, SWANSEA SA7 9FJ
@® = Mobile
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: flagcaseadvisor
Sent: 12 January 2015 14:28
To: Belinda Crowe; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Ce: Craig Tuthill; Rodric Williams; Contract Admin Team; Alwen Lyons; Nick Beal; Martin Humphreys; Connie Hewitt;
Tom Wechsler
Subject: (D.A)FOR ACTION; Ref: ECT 1153/14 Customer name: Tim McCormack Feedback due: 15/01/15 Case
signatory: TBC
POST OFFICE LTD
CHIEF EXECUTIVE CORRESPONDENCE TEAM
INVESTIGATION & FEEDBACK REQUIRED
CASE REF NO: ECT 1153/14
COMPLAINT RECEIVED: 12/01/15
DEADLINE FOR FEEDBACK TO ECT: 15/01/15
CUSTOMER DETAILS: Tim McCormack
SUBJECT: Problems with Horizon
BRANCH NAME: Duns ? BRANCH CODE: 108 803
FOR THE SIGNATURE OF: 7BC
Dear All
Please find some emails pasted below and copies also attached sent to Paula Vennells & Moya Greene.
As this appears to be an ongoing matter, can you let me know what the current position is and what the response to Mr
McCormack will be. I will send the usual acknowledgement.
Angela - In one of the emails he mentions talking to you so not sure if he was expecting a response off the back of your
conversation.
Nick - Copied for your information only at this point.
Please reply to: ECT@
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
Thank you
Donna Alder
Chief Executive’s Correspondence Team
N.B. Should you have any problems meeting this deadline or need to discuss further, please contact the Chief Executive's
Correspondence Team at ECT! *
From: Tim McCormack
Sent: 10 January 2015 10:59
To: Moya Greene
Subject: FW: New Year Update - This has now got quite serious
Hi
My name is Tim McCormack and I was previously a Subpostmaster.
I have been in communication with Ms Vennells regarding an intermittent problem with
Horizon whereby when a SPMR requests a batch of labels to be printed, one or more
labels are in fact not generated by the system. The POL Help desk, when informed of
such an error by the SPMR explains to the SPMR that there is no problem with Horizon,
the error is the SPMRs fault and they must make good the cost of the missing labels
from their own pocket. In my opinion this happens as a result of a poor communication
link between printer and the Horizon terminal and I have examples of it occurring from
all around the country in a multitude of unrelated sub post offices.
As you can see from the example below in the Email to Paula I explain how both RMG
and POL profit from this error which may or may not be the fault of the SPMR.
The Theft Act clearly defines this as Appropriation - I am not a lawyer and could not
advise whether or not you should face criminal charges - but I must admit it does look
likely.
Indeed in my personal opinion, having knowledge now that your company has obtained
money in such a way and recorded that in their accounts it could be held as False
Accounting - a term I am sure you are familiar with.
L have offered a solution to the problem below. I trust you take this seriously enough
to act upon it in conjunction with POL and Paula.
Kind regards
Tim McCormack
You learn more from one criticism than from ten compliments
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
From: timandagi¢
To: paula.vennel
Subject: RE: New Year Update - This has now got quite serious
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 08:46:56 +0000
Hi
I hope you don't mind but I have copied Moya Greene as she should know of this.
I had quite a long chat yesterday with a representative of the BBC who contacted me for
some background information on POL and the NT program and it was while I was trying
to explain the label problem to them briefly it dawned on me that this is more serious
than it looks.
An example using some easy figures rather than real ones:
A SPMR requests 10 £5 postage labels from Horizon for a customer who obviously has
10 parcels to post.
As a result of the error I have pointed out to you only 9 are printed yet 10 are on the
stack.
The Help Desk informs the SPMR that it is their loss and they have to make good the
missing label.
So the customer pays £50 to the SPMR for the Postage.
The SPMR pays £5 for the extra label.
BUT only 10 labels have been produced and RMG incur the cost of delivering these to
their destination.
For simplicity sake the breakdown of costs for each label are £1 TRP to the
Subpostmaster, £1 Profit/Handling Fee to POL and £3 Profit/Handling Fee to RMG.
So therefore POL have received £1 for a label that was never printed, and RMG £3 for a
package that never existed.
This despite POL being informed by the SPMR that the label never appeared.
I have been informed that such circumstances are covered by the Theft Act and it is
perfectly possible that both POL and RMG could be held liable.
Proof: Other than CCTV footage there can be no proof that these events occur by their
very nature on an individual basis. (e.g. think of someone who puts £1 in a vending
machine and the chocolate bar does not appear). However there is clear and
overwhelming evidence from around the country just from my enquiries alone that this
error occurs quite frequently at random times. There is also a clear paper trail of POL
4
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
having been informed of this error multiple times via the Help Desk over a number of
years. Plus of course the fact that you were personally made aware of this error by
myself before Xmas yet nothing has been done about it yet.
Overprinting: The SPMR can also cause this error to manifest itself in another way by
re-inserting a label that has already been printed and I have received several messages
from SPMRs that they readily admit to having done this. This is just as serious or
perhaps even more serious, because POL's stance on this is that in this case the SPMR
should still make good on the missing label as the SPMR has confirmed via Horizon that
the label had printed correctly. POL's correct course of action in these cases would be
at a minimum not to seek financial gain and indeed RMG should not receive
consequential financial gain. In POL's case they have lost only the intrinsic value of the
label that has been printed which is clearly negligible.
Recovery of Loss by SPMR: As I have previously mentioned to you, the majority of
colleagues I have communicated with regarding this problem recover their losses arising
from such an error by fraudulent means. Should POL find out that this is what they are
doing then it is clearly a criminal offence for which they could be prosecuted. It would
make for a very interesting court case should it go that far.
Possible Solution: The SPMR is not provided with the means to print duplicate labels
without first confirming to HOL that the label did not print correctly. This is for obvious
reasons but as I have pointed out there is clearly a requirement for POL to allow
this. If you consider that a SPMR may decide to scan several DG barcodes in order to
recover his losses on the missing label then this is clearly just as unacceptable and hard
to track. POL do not even get to hear about the original lost label. If a system was put
in place to allow the SPMR to use official postage to replace the missing label and having
to indicate via HOL the reason was because of this label printing problem, then POL (and
RMG) would no longer be liable under the Theft Act, POL could make allowances for
these errors in settlement with RMG so that would absolve RMG, and the SPMR would
suffer no loss and no longer be tempted to perform a criminal act. In addition you
would get a clear audit trail of the extent of this problem throughout the network which
may help you track down the source.
Clearly it will be difficult to monitor misuse of the system but a track record of frequency
of missing labels per branch could be built up over time and a warning issued to a SPMR
that an auditor / engineer will spend two weeks in his branch in order to see the
problem occurring will quickly stop that SPMR from misusing the system.
I think the solution I propose would be acceptable all round however it does not cover
the losses that many SPMRs have incurred over the years. May I respectfully suggest
that you offer a settlement to all SPMRs based on a percentage of the number of labels
they print per annum? It should cover the period from the introduction of Label
Printing to the time you put in place a solution to the problem.
Hope this helps.
Cheers, Tim
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
You learn more from one criticism than from ten compliments
To: paula.vennells¢~”
Subject: New Year Up
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2015 21:25:15 +0000
Hi
Happy New Year to you and your colleagues.
Subsequent to my phone call with Angela and my search for other examples of the
intermittent Horizon fault I reported to you I was contacted discreetly (off forum) by an
SPMR who claims to have CCTV footage of the Horizon screen when such a fault occurs
showing the system adding two printed labels to the stack when only one was printed.
They want to remain anonymous because of the way they handle the error - i.e. the way
they collect back the money from POL.
That got me thinking ...
I know of many ways to extract money from POL ranging from the downright dishonest
methods to the ones that are no more than mischievous (although your organisation
would of course not approve)
Last Summer I helped an SPMR in reviewing his last 6 months pay slips and calculating
for him how much he would earn (stand to lose) if he converted to Mains. Looking at
his transactions there was something so obviously wrong in what he was doing that I
called him and warned him to stop as he would be found out. Despite spending several
hours doing unpaid work for him that was the last I heard from him. He was
clearly embarrassed at what I had seen. Not only this but I know he is a senior local
councillor of many years good standing.
So I wondered what if a Horizon error such as the ones that have happened to at least a
few of the Second Sight cases had happened to me. Several thousand pounds short,
what would I have done? I don't know the details but I assume in most of these cases
the total amount is a result of accumulated losses of smaller amounts. I could easily
generate £50 to £100 of additional income from POL related sources each day. You
don't have to be particularly smart to know how to do this - just dishonest.
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
So why did these people not resort to similar tactics to cover their losses? Don't you
think if they were dishonest they would do this? It doesn't add up. It doesn't make
sense. These are surely honest people (for the most part) that have had their lives
destroyed by POL. Do you feel no compassion towards them?
You have a chance to put this right. Put in place the Second SIght recommendations to
prevent re-occurrences, eliminate the shock and terror tactics of the auditors and
arrange a blanket settlement. As I keep repeating you need to look seriously at the
people who continue to advise you that there are no problems with your organisation in
the face of clear evidence to the contrary. Have you ever heard of the Peter Principle?
I sincerely hope you take my advice.
Kind regards
Tim
PS We all make mistakes - after we closed the PO - the Audit team had been and gone -
the night before we realised a £500 gain which we pocketed - fair enough. Later that
week I was dismantling our combi till and stuck between the top of the drop safe and
the counter was a cash cassette containing £200 - in hindsight a simple mistake to
make as there is very little distance between the two openings.
So whose money was that? Obviously mine. £700 up at the end of 4 years
trading?? Don't start jumping to conclusions with regard to what I said earlier - Tam
honest through and through as is my wife. Remember also you only hear about the
mistakes that cause losses not the ones that produce gains.
But consider this. The same mistake made but with £2k in the cassette instead, just
before the Auditors walk in? What then? £2k down and money nowhere to be seen? I
would be adamant that nothing untoward had happened. Not a Horizon error this time
a physical error. No money missing, just hidden by a design fault. End up in Jail for
something like that - you have to be kidding.
PPS Branch Finder - you do know its been out of commission for some time now? You
do know how they have been phoning the branches to find out their opening hours -
operative word 'how' as in method. Totally bizarre.
You learn more from one criticism than from ten compliments
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
Flag Case Fact Sheet:
The information contained in this
sheet will be used to prepare the final
response and will be shared with the
signatory. It may also be recalled in
any FOI enquiry.
Background information & actions
taken
This should include details relating to
customer complaint.
(what went wrong/why it went wrong/
what has been done about it)
Additional Information:
Please supply any additional
information - including any In
Commercial Interest or In Confidence,
which may assist in completing
response or provide a better
understanding to the background.
Also advise if information can be used
in response.
Information supplied by:
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Pel CRC sss coms el
From: Judy Balderson
Sent: 05 January 2015 09:13
To: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Subject: RE: Second Sight Question - further info required please
Morning Angela
I have spoken to NBSC a very helpful gentleman.
If the operator incorrectly selects yes the label printed correctly but it did not then this would be a loss to the branch as
there is no label to spoil.
If the amount is in the basket and the customer is paying by card they would recommend using the part cash icon to
settle the defective label to cash and create a loss to the branch for that element and then settle the remainder of the
basket by card.
He could not supply a screen shot of the knowledge base to me but confirmed this information was contained within
it. Ineed to ask Kendra for the screen shot which I presume you will require? If you could let me know I will ask for the
information.
Regards Judy
Judy Balderson Field Team Leader
Central Team
C/O Network Field Support 4" Floor 120 Bark Street
AK
From: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Sent: 04 January 2015 21:06
To: Judy Balderson
Subject: Re: Second Sight Question - further info required please
Judy
This is really helpful. If you could find out the correct procedure ie that is detailed in the Ops Manual or other
instructions to branches that would be really helpful. I would also like to see what NBSC advice is - I presume this can be
extracted from the KB?
Thanks again
From: Judy Balderson
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2015 08:56 PM
To: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
Subject: RE: Second Sight Question - further info required please
Hi Angela
OK the full response now:-
Ifa clerk answers that a label has printed correctly but it has not this creates a problem as Horizon will obviously record
this as a sale and add the amount to the customers basket. It is not possible to remove the item as you can for example
a bill payment using the “remove item” icon as this is not permitted likewise a postage label cannot be reversed. I will
refer to the label that has not printed correctly but been recorded as such, henceforth as the defective label.
If the customer is paying by cash then the clerk has to manually deduct the cost of defective label from the amount due
from customer. The customer pays for any other items in his basket and the customer is happy. The clerk then has a
sale recorded that he has not received payment for and is therefore short, the label cannot be reversed as there is no
facility on Horizon to reverse a label. The defective label can be treated now asa spoilt label provided it has not been
peeled off the backing of the label. It all now depends on exactly what state the defective label is in , as to spoil a label
certain information printed on it has to be input to Horizon. If the label can be read sufficiently to input the required
information to Horizon then this is acceptable and this action would bring the branch back into balance. If the label
cannot be read sufficiently to input the details to Horizon then my understanding is this is an Operator error and the
branch has to stand the loss.
if the customer is paying by card then as a defective label amount cannot be removed from the basket there is a
problem. There are two ways to resolve the issue.
1) The customer pays the full amount on his card and the cost of the defective label is handed back in cash to the
customer.
2) The customers transaction is completed and the total of the amount from the customer is noted or a receipt
printed. The cost of the defective label is then deducted from this amount and the revised total input to
Horizon as an ‘open postage’ sale. This is then settled to card and the customer has only paid for the labels
actually purchased. The clerk then reverses out the ‘open postage’ sale.
Neither option is actually allowed but it does resolve the problem created by the original operator error and the
customer is not overcharged. In reality the second option is used in branch.
Whichever option 1 or 2 is used to resolve the cash difference, the defective label is then accounted for (if it is possible
to do so) in the same way as it would be if the customer was paying cash.
1am not sure what NBSC would advise in this situation if the customer is paying by card and/or the label cannot be read
and therefore cannot be spoilt, I can check with them tomorrow (Monday) as I am not out and about if that would assist
you and they may have a ‘correct’ procedure.
Sorry this is long winded
Regards Judy
Judy Balderson Field Team Leader
Central Team
C/O Network Field Support 4" Floor 120 Bark Street
Bolton BL1 2AX
"GRO
Tua BaMersoR
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
From: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Sent: 04 January 2015 20:09
To: Judy Balderson
Subject: FW: Second Sight Question - further info required please
Hi Judy,
Would you mind answering this for me as I'm not sure Andy Winn is best placed to do so. My question is in the
comments section.
Thanks,
Angela
Angela Van Den Bogerd I Head of Partnerships
@ Ty Brwydran House, Atlantic Close, SWANSEA SA7 9FJ
@ angela.van-den-bogerd™
2
SWYDDFAR
~ POST A
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 destray all copies of the original message.
From: Mark Underwoodi
Sent: 04 January 2015 12:47
To: Andrew Winn
Cc: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Subject: RE: Second Sight Question - further info required please
Hi Andy,
Sorry to trouble you again, but could you also address the additional question posed to the answer provided ie. Can
transactions be reversed after the Clerk incorrectly pressed Y —I presume they must be able to?
Could you also let me know where about on horizon online I would be able to find the instructions in relation to dealing
with spoilt labels? I will then get them PDF’d and embedded.
Thanks again
Mark
POLO00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
4. Transaction anomalies associated with Stamps, Postage Labels, Phone Cards or Premium Bonds
4.1. We are aware that occasionally postage labels are purchased by customers, but the printer fails to print correctly. Please
describe the procedure whereby the Subpostmaster can recover the cost of the missing label in circumstances where the
missing label has not been processed as a ‘reject’.
After printing, Horizon explicitly asks the clerk “has this label printed correctly Y/N”.
The clerk can therefore flag the issue there and then.
If for some reason the label had not printed and the clerk chose to press Y then that is user error] .
If the clerk presses No, then they get chance to print the label again.
Post Office is aware of situations of damage in the printing process and there is a process to “spoil” them so that the
Branch is not disadvantaged, There is a clear process in Horizon is required to r
In terms of missing labels, if the Branch has chosen to hand the damaged label to the customer then Post Office has no
evidence of the spoil and the Branch would be liable because there is no evidence that it was not spoilt.
From: Mark Underwoodt
Sent: 04 January 2015 12:31
To: Andrew Winn
Ce: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Subject: Second Sight Question - further info required please
Hi Andy,
One of the answers you have provided (7.9a and pasted below for ease). Do you have a copy of the recovery
instructions referred to that you could forward on please?
Many thanks
Mark
1.1. We are aware that in some circumstances Horizon does not record transactions accurately. Specific examples include:
a) Where, during Horizon's recovery mode processing, some transactions, that were not processed, or were only
partially processed, may not be properly corrected when the system invites the counter clerk to correct the errors or
omissions and, if the screen instructions to the counter assistant are interrupted (as would be likely to happen where
there are telecommunications or power interrupts) then discrepancies may ensue;
The transaction may not be recorded accurately but that is due t
instruction __” which have been issued to, it may have been the system that had a conn it
issue, the error in accounting would be du .r conformance with a defined process, not a failure by
Horizon to record it accurately. Accounting process is covered by the Recovery Instructions.
‘0 how the clerk applies and follows the ‘recovery
jay have been the system that had a connectivi
Mark Underwood
Complaint and Mediation Scheme
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
From: ESG
Sent: 05 January 2015 15:14
To: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Cec: Judy Balderson; Ibrahim Kizildag; Kendra Dickinson; Andrew J Perkins
Subject: RE: Spoilt labels
Hello,
The only thing I can find is as below, I have copied this from the HOL Help pages (page ref pl_spo_labels v1.0). I have
highlighted the information that would suggest without a label to spoil there would be no way to claim back the cost
of it. I don’t think there is any process on how to deal with the transaction in the basket being paid by debit card but
the advice given was correct. Settle part payment to cash for the required value and then the balance to the
customers card, alternatively if payment has already been taken then a cash refund can be offered as highlighted
below.
Generally HOL Help and the information we work with is how a transaction should be done and doesn’t usually advise
on how to resolve something that has been done incorrectly.
All Horizon Online postage labels now have extra code characters printed on them for the spoilt postage label
accounting process. These codes will need to be entered onto Horizon Online to process a spoilt label. The
codes ensure the label being spoiled is correctly accounted for by product and VAT type.
Royal Mail labels
A one code character (a letter) will appear at the end of the Royal Mail line of the label, the other code
character (a number) will appear at the end of the Postage Paid line.
Parcelforce Worldwide labels
Similar to the Royal Mail arrangement except that both the code character at the end of the Parcelforce line and
the one at the end of the Postage Paid line are numbers.
Counter Procedure
The new Spoilt Postage Label process is accessed via the [Spoilt Label] button on the Postal Services [F1]
Home screen. The onscreen prompts will let you know what information you need to input.
A label can only be spoilt if the label is on hand (Horizon Online will remind you of this when you select the
Spoilt Label button).
When you have selected Spoilt Label [83], you're prompted to select the carrier [Royal Mail] or [Parcelforce]
named on the label, then the first code character on the label (a letter for Royal Mail, a number for PFW).
You will only be asked to select the second code character where there is more than one possible option.
Horizon Online will summarise the entries you have made and ask you to confirm if they are correct. (see
image on right).
You will then be asked to write “SPOILT” across the label, add it to the printed system receipt and store these
safely in branch for two years.
POL00107144
POL00107144
—
POL00107144
POL00107144
The credit value due to the customer should normally be used to transact a new label of the appropriate type.
Only in exceptional circumstances should a cash refund to the customer be necessary.
Kind Regards
Annette Caddick I NBSC ESG
From: NBSCEnquiries
Sent: 05 January 2015 14:20
To: ESG
Subject: FW: Spoilt labels
Hello
No doubt you will get this from Kendra as well
Alan Brown I NBSC Admin Section
Post Office Contact Centre
Dearne House
Cortonwood Drive
Brampton
Barnsley
$73 OUF
Desk Phon:
alan.x.browi
From: Judy Balderson
Sent: 05 January 2015 12:45
To: Kendra Dickinson
Cc: NBSCEnquiries
Subject: Spoilt labels
Morning Kendra
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
Hope you are well and Happy New Year to you and your team.
I have been looking at the spoilt label process for Angela Van Den Bogerd and in particular the advice we give to
branches if they select Yes when asked by Horizon if a postage label has printed correctly but in actual fact it had failed
to print correctly.
I spoke to a very nice gentleman at NBSC this morning and he confirmed my thinking that in this situation a loss would
be proper to the branch as it was an Operator error. Although your operator gave the information off the top of his
head he confirmed, when I asked, that this information was held on your KB. Angela would like sight of the relevant
information that you hold is that possible please?
Likewise I went on to ask if the customer was paying by card how would the amount for the label that failed to print,
although confirmed by the Operator that it had and consequently in the customer’s basket, be deducted from the
basket and was advised to use the part cash settlement for the label amount and then settle the remainder to
card. Again Angela would like the information you hold on the KB to confirm this. Is this possible please?
If you want to send this information direct on Angela that is fine with me but please copy me in so that I know Angela
has what she requires. Alternatively I can send on to Angela if you would prefer.
If you have any questions please let me know (telephone number below if easier for you).
Thanks very much in anticipation
Judy
Judy Balderson Field Team Leader
Central Team
C/O Network Field Support 4" Floor 120 Bark Street
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
From: Tim McCormack <_
Sent: 11 December 2014 09:33
To: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Subject: RE: Second Sight - Horizon Errors - Media Coverage
Hi
Any time should be OK -
Cheers, Tim
You learn more from one criticism than from ten compliments
From: angela.van-den-boge!
To: timanda; y
Subject: RE: Second Sight - Horizon Errors - Media Coverage
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 08:48:04 +0000
Dear Tim,
Are you available to have a chat this afternoon sometime after 3pm? Is so, what number should I call you on.
Best regards,
Angela
Angela Van Den Bogerd I Head of Partnerships
@® Ty Brwydran House, Atlantic Close, SWANSEA SA7 9FJ
SWYDDFAR
POST
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 hy reply
email and destroy all copies of the original message.
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
From: Avene O'Farrell On Behalf Of Paula Vennelis
Sent: 10 December 2014 13:48
To: Tim McCormack
Cc: Gavin Lambert; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Rod Ismay; Lesley J Sewell; Kevin Gilliland
Subject: RE: Second Sight - Horizon Errors - Media Coverage
Tim, hi.
If there is one thing you should know about me is that I do listen.
But please be careful that you don't over generalise or conflate different points.
We are not defending the indefensible - all systems have issues from time to time. And they need to be (and are) fixed
when they occur. We have records of when that has happened, of alerting users and then putting in place an
appropriate fix. We operate in a dynamic market and Horizon, like all epos systems is constantly updated.
To your challenges. I listen and I'm therefore concerned at what you say. I'm copying three people who I expect to get
to the bottom of it. And who I trust to do so: Gavin Lambert who works directly for me, Angela van den Bogerd, and Rod
Ismay. I am also copying Lesley Sewell (CIO) and Kevin Gilliland. I want Lesley and Kevin to be in the loop - they are the
directors responsible for ensuring our branches have the appropriate service.
Angela will be in touch with you directly.
In the meantime, I wish you a happy Christmas when it comes.
Paula
Ps. If the colleague you mentioned needs support, please let Kevin know.
From: Tim McCormack!
Sent: 10 December 2014
To: Paula Vennells
Subject: FW: Second Sight - Horizon Errors - Media Coverage
Angela ...
I think you should make sure that Paula gets to read the message below.
In an absolutely bizarre coincidence shortly after sending the email I was made aware
that yesterday, as a result of the stress caused by an occurrence of this problem and
the subsequent refusal by NBSC to acknowledge that it could happen, a Subpostmaster
was rushed to hospital with stress related heart problems. He had the presence of
mind to record details of the incident as proof that it had happened which for the first
time gave me an indication of what might be happening to cause it.
This could well make the news today or at the weekend as a follow up to yesterday's
events. Paula should be prepared to answer the obvious questions.
Cheers, Tim
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
PS I have never in my life come across such an amazing coincidence - if I was in the
least bit religious and knowing of Paula's faith I would declare it a divine intervention.
You learn more from one criticism than from ten compliments
From: timandagi¢
To: paula.vennells¢
Subject: Second Sight - Horizon Errors - Media Coverage
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 00:04:28 +0000
Dear Paula
Yet again today Mark Davies, speaking on behalf of POL, relied on the defence that
there are no systemic errors in Horizon and this is proved because we deal with so many
customers per day in so many branches. I think Mark and yourself might like to review
the periodic Message to Branches that are sent out via Horizon. There are a catalogue
of systemic errors that arise from time to time and are fixed. Some involving
automatic transaction corrections.
Paula, as I keep saying, you are surrounded by people in your office that tell you all is
well. You have no personal knowledge of operating Horizon nor probably any in depth
technical knowledge. What if the people that are telling you all is well have the same
attributes?
So forget systemic errors for the moment and consider ‘intermittent’ errors which by
and large are caused by communication problems.
I know of more than one but one in particular:
It exists.
It occurs at different times in different branches.
It is noticed.
They are reported to NBSC (I would really like to see the number of times this has been
reported to NBSC)
It causes a financial loss to the SPMR.
They are not fixed BUT the wise SPMR knows how to get his money back so you don't
hear many complaints. You would from the Audit team if they caught someone doing it
though.
So why haven't these intermittent errors been fixed. To put it simply - because they
are intermittent. There is no known sequence of events that can cause this error to re-
occur in any particular branch. How can you fix something if you don't know what
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
caused it in the first place? You have to throw the whole thing out and start all over -
the only way.
On our 'chat' forums, there are documented reports over the years of the same error
repeating itself randomly in a wide number of branches, including at Duns and my
previous PO.
Iam pretty sure I can arrange for the error to be replicated though by asking a large
sample of offices to repeat the process until the error occurs - and I am also sure that I
can obtain transaction logs and associated CCTV coverage of the error manifesting itself.
I can show you it happening. I can explain the financial consequences but neither I nor
your best technical team will be closer to fixing the underlying problem. You cannot
make it go away.
I would also be happy to stand up in court and declare that Horizon has intermittent
faults, probably caused through communication errors, provide clear and undeniable
evidence as well as bring along a fair number of your most trusted SPMRs to bear
witness that it has happened to them too.
I hope you get my point - I can show one error occurring that you can't fix nor can you
explain - if you could explain it then you could probably fix it - so how many other
intermittent errors like this are in the system that cause unexplainable financial losses
to SPMRs?
Lam trying to help you but the hole you are digging for yourself is getting deeper by the
day. Please stop trying to defend the indefensible.
Cheers, Tim
You learn more from one criticism than from ten compliments
i ary a" res
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
4
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
POL00107144
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.
Tricia ASIII TI III II III AID
POL00107144
POL00107144