POL00139181
POL00139181
GRO. i
From: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd[é
Sent: Fri 21/08/2015 3:46:01 PM (UTC)
To: Mark Underwood fr. RO
Lynchf! RO } Ward, Alexandrali
Ce: Steve Allchorn[i GRO :
Corfield[i GRO
Subject: RE: Transcript of Panorama
Mark,
There is another part of RR & JS discussion that is relevant:
JS: Some people have been ruined financially. People have gone to prison. Is it possible that suffering could have
been caused because there are problems in the Horizon system?
RR: Yes, it is possible.
Any further comments/positioning on the above please?
Thanks,
Angela
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: Mark Underwood1
Sent: 21 August 2015 15:31
To: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Lorraine Lynch; Ward, Alexandra
Cc: Steve Allchorn; Melanie Corfield
Subject: RE: Transcript of Panorama
Hi,
With thanks to Mel for obtaining the large part of the below information from Peter Newsome...
Looking at the transcript, I think the below is the key sentence from RR. He states:
“RR: We went in through the backdoor and made changes. Sometimes you would be putting several lines of code in
ata time. If we hadn’t done that then the counters would have stopped working”.
What RR is actually talking about here is, I think, open to interpretation.
POL00139181
POL00139181
What we do know about RR is that he:
¢ worked in 3rd / 4th line support on the 6th floor for a couple of years in the early 2000's;
e worked on ‘estate management’ rather than the accountancy side;
e — left Fujitsu on good terms as he had become disillusioned with IT to become a chiropractor in the Bracknell
area.
What we know about Horizon pre- 2010 is:
e It was a ‘dial up’ system (encrypted) and Fujitsu application software specialists could access the system
remotely, as you would expect them to be able to do as part of any standard IT support function, but the
system did not allow remote agents to manipulate branch transactions. These remote agents perform tasks
like examining diagnostic information not transmitted to the central servers and modifying application
functionality on behalf of the subpostmaster that is not part of the standard interface e.g. forcing the counter
to re-download its personality and product set data.
¢ Remote agents could not ‘work’ the terminals as there was no functionality for this
e Every access was logged and so there is an auditable footprint where records are still within the retention
period
JS interpreted RR’s statement to be in relation to financial records. The reality is that, given the above- RR’s role
would have involved putting in codes for various and numerous reasons - updating, maintaining etc - but this would
have had nothing to do with branch transactions.
This in mind, I think our initial reply should be that, RR was actually referring to providing support rather than editing
transactional records.
As included in our Scheme report:
It is also possible for Fujitsu to view branch data in order to provide support and conduct maintenance but this
does not allow access to any functionality that could be used to edit recorded transaction data. Having reviewed
all the cases, no-one (including all the Applicants and Second Sight) has been able to identify a specific
transaction that did not originate in branch.
A number of different explanations were found for the ‘unknown’ transactions:
- The transaction was conducted by the Applicant but they could not remember the transaction. Every input into
Horizon is logged against the unique identity of the user. Each user ID is personal to that user and protected with
a password that must not be shared. Where the transaction data was available, the Post Office was able to
identify the user entering the questioned transactions. In some cases, this was the Applicant (where the
Applicant had confirmed that their password was secure).
- The transaction was entered using the Applicant's user ID but the Applicant had shared their password with
other staff members. In these cases, the most likely explanation is that a staff member had conducted the
transaction without the Applicant's knowledge.
- A staff member had conducted the transaction with their own user ID without the Applicant's knowledge
(albeit that a postmaster is able to determine this himself by accessing the branch records available through
Horizon).
- The entries correlated to periods when relief or temporary postmasters were running a branch.
- The entries were conducted by Post Office staff conducting audits of branches and who had logged on to the
POL00139181
POL00139181
branch terminals with the Applicant's full knowledge but these entries were determined not to affect the
branch's accounting position.
If, it is then asserted that RR was referring altering financial records or the Balancing transaction Process, I think
our lines should be similar to:
e As we have always said, Horizon does not have functionality that allows Post Office or Fujitsu to edit or
delete the transactions recorded by branches
e It has however always been possible for Post Office to correct errors in and/or update a branch's
accounts. This is most commonly done by way of a transaction correction however it could also be by
way of a balancing transaction or transaction acknowledgement.
e A Post Office employee could also, in special circumstances, log on to a branch terminal locally (i.e. by
being physically in a branch) using a new User ID and password and then conduct transactions (though
these would register against that unique User ID).
e All of the above processes for correcting / updating a branch's accounts have similar features. All of
them involve inputting a new transaction into the branch's records (not editing or removing any previous
transactions) and all are shown transparently in the branch transaction records available to
Subpostmasters (as well as in the master ARQ data).
e We have never made the BTP a secret. In fact we reference it in both our published Scheme Report and
our Reply to Second Sight’s Part Two Report.
Does this give you what you need?
Mark Underwood
i jew and Mediation Scheme
From: Mark Underwood1
Sent: 21 August 2015 12:11
To: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Lorraine Lynch; Ward, Alexandra
Cc: Steve Allchorn
Subject: RE: Transcript of Panorama
Hi Angela, understood — leave it with me
Mark
Mark Underwood
Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme
From: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Sent: 21 August 2015 12:05
To: Mark Underwood1; Lorraine Lynch; Ward, Alexandra
Cc: Steve Allchorn
Subject: RE: Transcript of Panorama
Mark,
Would you also provide our (PO) response to what Richard Rolls’ said on the programme. I expect this
POL00139181
POL00139181
to be a key discussion point on Monday and I'd like to have a robust response/explanation of the
mention of going in by the back door and altering the coding - I need a lay person’s explanation on
what this actually means.
Thanks,
Angela
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: Mark Underwoodl
Sent: 21 August 2015 11:29
To: Lorraine Lynch; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Ward, Alexandra
Cc: Steve Allchorn
Subject: RE: Transcript of Panorama
Angela & Lex,
With reference to the below — please see attached
Mark
Mark Underwood
Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme
From: Lorraine Lynch
Sent: 21 August 2015 11:08
To: Mark Underwood1
Cc: Steve Allchorn
Subject: Transcript of Panorama
Mark
Would you be able to send the transcript of Monday night’s Panorama to Angela and Lex Ward (BD) please. They are
mediating M005 on Monday and her mediation statement has mentioned the programme.
L
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 error,
please contact the sender by reply email and then delete this email from your system. Any views or opinions expressed within
POL00139181
POL00139181
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: Finsbury Dials, 20 Finsbury Street,
London EC2Y 9AQ.