POL00129110
POL00129110
From: "Belinda Crowe" <IMCEAEX-
O=MMS_OU=EXCHANGE+20ADMINISTRATIVE+20GROUP+20+28F Y DIBOHF23SPDLT+29
CN=RECIPIENTS_CN=BELINDA+20CROWE79B93F 1 1-569F-4526-A078-
F5B4958A8917220
Sent: Fri 31/01/2014 8:47:12 AM (UTC)
To: "Chris Aujard’
Ce: "David Oliver:
Bec: "Belinda Crowe":
Subject: Fwd: Initial Complaints and Mediation Scheme — Settlement Policy
Confused as ever, I am. I have not seen any comments from Mark Davies and not sure whether he has any. I
had understood from Paula (when we had the catch up with Alice for the JA meeting that she wanted to actually
discuss the Settlement Policy with ExCo. I am not sure that it can go to the ARC without ExCo clearance.
Alwen's email yesterday suggested that we needed to put it to the ARC but I had thought that we had decided
that the Settlement Policy was for ExCo and not the Board.
Copying David and will copy him to the other email from Alwen so he can make a start on the papers we need to
have done.
Best wishes
Belinda
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Kevin Gilliland’
"Lesley J Sewell" Mark R Davies"
Martin Edwards
"
lenda C Hansen
ackie Meylak"
uth Phillips"
heresa Iles"
ina Gould" {
al Complaints and Mediation Scheme — Settlement Policy
Hi Amanda/Chris,
Please see my comments and questions below relating to the policy document.
I hope these are helpful. Please let me know if anything is unclear. Happy to discuss.
Regards,
K
Who is the audience for this policy?
POL00129110
POL00129110
3.5 should be updated.
On the 'value the complaints' and set settlement parameters' sections, it is not clear why we keep reviewing these
areas - isn't this moving the goalposts or changing the parameters, or are we completing both of these activities
before we move into the meditation phase?
Will we be reviewing not only the effectiveness of the process but more specifically outcomes, implications and
applying learnings?
In section 5 it seems that the initial cases will be critical in potentially determining what happens to the level of
settlement for the rest. What are we doing to ensure that we are especially vigilant in getting these right?
Reporting. Shouldn't we be monitoring stakeholder/media reaction?
What is the purpose of 4.2 - simply a statement or under what circumstances would we use this?
4.5 it may be a given but we need to ensure that anyone entering into mediation on behalf of POL has the right
skills, experience and training and as well as a clear mandate has an understands the full background and briefing.
5.9 I'm not sure I understand or agree the logic here. Eg if settlements are small and confidential they may be
preferable and less damaging than a public apology. And what do we mean by ‘commercial solution’?
Settlement thresholds:
The one that refers to lack of support to subpostmasters/helplines unhelpful, I think we need to qualify what we
mean by not properly supported eg could have mitigated the loss if appropriate support was given;
Subpostmaster was 'forced' to file false accounts. What if they can evidence that pol advised them to account in a
certain way?
Compensation matrix 5.31 whilst we have a 3 months notice period in the contract we don't exercise this clause.
My question therefore is because of custom and practice does this work?
Goodwill payment amounts. How have these 3 amounts been arrived at?
Sent from my iPhone
On 22 Jan 2014, at 11:32, "Amanda A Brown"
Hello
Please see email below sent out on the 6th January. Chris only received one response so
therefore he is assuming that everyone is content.
Kind regards
Amanda
POL00129110
POL00129110
“V1 PA to General Counsel
[cid:image004.jpg@01CF1765.71B5F680]
From: Jorja Preston
Sent: 06 January 2014 15:40
To: Alwen Lyons; Chris Aujard; Chris M Day; Fay Healey; Kevin Gilliland; Lesley J Sewell; Mark
R Davies; Martin Edwards; Martin George; Nicholas Kennett; Paula Vennells; Susan Barton
Ce: Jorja Preston
Subject: Initial Complaints and Mediation Scheme — Settlement Policy
Please see email below and attachment from Chris A.
Many thanks
Jorja
Jorja Preston I PA to Alice Perkins, Chairman & Alwen Lyons, Company Secretary
[Footer 5]
POL00129110
POL00129110
Initial Complaints and Mediation Scheme — Settlement Policy
On 19 November we discussed the settlement policy and ExCo asked for it to be resubmitted to
contain two new categories — “apology” and “no agreement but deeply regret any distress
caused”. I have amended the policy accordingly. However, please note that if Post Office
Limited has caused distress to a SPMR, then it must accept some fault which means the case
probably falls into the bracket of warranting a settlement. If Post Office is not at fault, then we
can only express regret for the distress suffered by the SPMR (even if we did not cause it).
Therefore the term ‘suffered’ rather than ‘caused’ has been used in the redraft of the policy. The
amendments have been highlighted for ease of reference and are on pages 10,11,12/13 and 21.
I would be grateful if you can confirm that the policy can now be sighed off by 13 January.
Regards
Chris
<_DOC_27643963(6) DRAFT Settlement Policy - AB.DOCX>
<image001.png>
<image002.jpg>
<image003 jpg>
<image004 jpg>
<image001.png>
<image002.jpg>
<image003.jpg>
<image004 jpg>