POL00141489
POL00141489
Message
From: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd [:
Sent: 25 Jan 2013 ¢
To: Helen Rose I_ GRO !
Subject: Fw: In Strictest Confidence - Concern reported by John Armstrong
Attachments: Dispute 03.12.12.pdf; Lepton 14-12-12.doc; lepton sales & non sales.xls; image001.jpg; image002.png;
image003.png; image004.png; image00S.png; image006.png; image007.png
Helen,
As discussed,
Many thanks,
Angela
From: Andrew Winn
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 02:52 PM
To: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Subject: RE: In Strictest Confidence - Concern reported by John Armstrong
Hi Angela
Original dispute and my response.@ Spreadsheets are Credence reports I used for my analysis.
Happy to clarify where ican.
Andy
From: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Sent: 23 January 2013 13:32
To: Andrew Winn
Subject: In Strictest Confidence - Concern reported by John Armstrong
Hi Andy,
This is the e-mail I'm referring to. Once you've had a read would you give me a call please rather than e-mail as I'm
travelling at the moment.
Thanks
Angela
Angela Van Den Bogerd I Head of Partnerships
Post Of
POL-0142874
POL00141489
POL00141489
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: Ron Warmington [
Sent: 23 January 2013 12:42
To: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Simon Baker; Rod Ismay
Cec: ‘Ian Henderson’
Subject: FW: Concern reported by John Armstrong
As just mentioned here is a bit more detail on this new case. We have more on this case, which
I'll send you soonest... but the following email trail should give you a flavour of it... JA is one of
many SPMs who have referred to communication-fail-induced automatic (Horizon-generated)
Transaction Reversals where they are not advised of those reversals by Horizon, and only get to
know of (some of) them much later.
As you all know, Fujitsu have rejected assertions that communication blips can give rise to ‘lost’
transactions. We are seeing many of those assertions and some, like this one, that might just
be true.
By the way, my apologies for the fact that, in the first (bottom of the pages supplied here)
emails in this chain, John Armstrong's summary - and my consequent grasp - of what happened,
and of the amounts involved, was slightly out. We now have what T think is the complete and
accurate story.
We are at the stage where we need POL to assign us a point of contact, with clear instructions
on who to cc, to get to the bottom of these quite complicated transactional issues (the ones we
are handling as "Spot Reviews"). If we have to wait for the Fujitsu data to be supplied,
unravelled and examined for each one we'll not be able to clear them before next Christmas!
Regards, Ron.
From: Ron Warmington {.
Sent: 23 January 2013 12:16
To: ‘Ian Henderson’; ‘John Armstrong’
Cc: ‘Alan Bates’; 'kay(_-
Subject: RE: Concern reported by “John Armstrong
I've just spoken to John Armstrong and he has agreed to us advising POL of his name. I'm
right now seeking Andy Winn's side of the story. As far as I've so far penetrated this it looks
as though two people paid that BT Bill: First the Customer (a Mr Cooper) and second John
POL-0142874
POL00141489
POL00141489
Armstrong, the SPM. Horizon seems to have reversed all three transaction components (the
80.00 cash withdrawal; the 76.09 BT Bill accepted for payment by POL; and the @3.91 cash
back to Mr Cooper) but in spite of the reversal of the Debit Card Cash Withdrawal, the charge
to Mr Cooper's Account went through anyway. When Mr Cooper, having returned from holiday
to find his phone had been cut of f, spoke directly with Chesterfield (Andy Winn I think), Andy
Winn then arranged payment of the BT Bill and re-charged it to John, incidentally refusing to
provide Fujitsu data by reason of cost. Since John had NOT returned the full @80.00 to Mr
Cooper (only @3.91) he (John) finished up being out-of-pocket by the full @80.00. Correct me
if I'm wrong John (full write-up to follow shortly as promised). John had only been able to find
out about the (unbidden by him) transaction reversal - and to print out evidence of it - because
Chesterfield sent him the Transaction Error Notice BEFORE THE END OF THE TRADING
PERIOD. Had the transaction taken place before the end of a TP, he would have been unable to
go back and print the full Transaction Log for any day in that prior TP.
John: Please correct me if I've got any of this wrong.
Thanks, Ron.
From: Ian Henderson f._______.... GRO
Sent: 23 January 2013 11:31
To: ‘Ron Warmington‘: jslohn Annstrong’
Cc: ‘Alan Bates’; kay, GRO
Subject: RE: Concern reported by John Armstrong
Ron
lraised this case with POL on a “no names" basis last week and they asked that we brief them on the case on Friday
when we have our next conference call.
We can then ask that this formally goes in to the "spot review" category and the necessary information obtained from
Horizon and Chesterfield
With best wishes
Tan R Henderson CCE CISA FCA
Advanced Forensics - London, UK
Forensic computing expert witness and electronic disclosure specialist
POL-0142874
POL00141489
POL00141489
CONFIDENTIALITY. This email and any attachments are confid ileged.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me a
delete the email and any attachments.
From: John Armstrong
Sent: 23 January 2013
To: Ron Warmington
Subject: RE: Concern reported by John Armstrong
Hi Ron,
The BT bill was paid by the post office who then sent me a transaction error notice for €76.09. Initially for the
next few transaction periods I did not make good this error as I was awaiting a response from the resolution
manager. The customer still comes into the office fortunately and may be able to provide me with a copy of his
bank statement showing the debited amount. I do know that he has already supplied the post office with this
information and I forwarded a copy of that days transaction log to the resolution manager. As you are probably
aware I cannot access the transaction log for that date now as too much time has expired.
regards
__> wrote:
From: Ron Warmington
Subject: RE: Concern rey
To: "John Armstrong™
Ce: "Ian Henderson <{
Date: Tuesday, 22 January, 2013, 17:27
d
Thanks Alan: I've studied your email and the attached Word document and it all seems
pretty clear but as yet not absolutely crystal clear. Here's what I mean: At the end of
the day of the transaction (4th October 2012) it seems to me that your customer
ended up with @3.91 in cash and a debit on his current account of 80.00 whereas you
finished up with a shortfall of that @3.91. Meanwhile, the BT bill was not (at that
point) going to be paid by POL. When it was later paid - by POL in Chesterfield - do you
know from whose funds it was paid? Did they, for example, charge that 76.09 back to
to you?... or did they perhaps already have that amount sitting ina Suspense Account
and therefore pay it out from there? Do you know the answer to that? Also, you say
that the customer "provided evidence to BT that the @80 was debited from his
account". Do you happen to have a copy of that evidence?
Many thanks, Ron
POL-0142874
POL00141489
POL00141489
p.s. would you mind me copying Alan Bates and Kay Linnell, as well as by co-investigator Ian
Henderson, on these emails?
From: John Armstrong [mailto.
Sent: 22 January 2013 16:16
To: Ron Warmington
Subject: Re: Concern reported by John Armstrong
Hello Ron,
Sorry that my email to you was not very clear. I have attached a copy of the letter I wrote to Mr A Winn, the
resolution manager at Chesterfield, that perhaps explains the events in a clearer fashion. I included with the
letter to Mr Winn a copy of the transaction log for that day which clearly shows that the banking withdrawal as
well as the change given back to the customer was reversed along with the BT transaction. I have spoken to the
customer and he has provided evidence to the post office that the €80 was debited from his account.
In response to my letter Mr Winn stated that he could not verify what happened as there would be a cost from
Fujitsu to obtain the data.
At no stage of the transaction were there any warning screens telling me that there was a problem with the
transactions.
If you require any further information please dont hesitate to get in touch.
regards
John
--- On Mon, 21/1/13, Ron Warmington <_____ “> wrote:
From: Ron Warmington <_ GRO :
Subject: Concern report nstrong
To: jc_armstrong¢ i
Cc: "Alan Bates" <; : _>, kayl
<GRO TT , “Ron Warmington"
Date: Monday, 21 January, 2013, 14:12
Hello John: Thanks for advising us of the very interesting event. We are going to investigate
it. But could you please help us a little more?
POL-0142874
POL00141489
POL00141489
First of all I want to be crystal clear as to what happened. Here follows my understanding of it
- and the questions that arise from my failure as yet to COMPLETELY understand what
happened - so please reply to us all either to confirm that I am right in my understanding or to
correct the story. Also, as you'll see, it is vital to know whether the customer's bank account
was ever debited with the 80.00 cash withdrawal.
What I can't understand is why there was a loss, that you (JA) had to make good, of @76.90
{also, T think the amount was probably ©76.60, not 76.90, as explained below). In other
words, why was there any loss at all (other than the cost of getting the customer's phone line
reinstated!)? Just to make this point triple-clear: I would have thought that, if Horizon
spontaneously (on being momentarily disconnected maybe) reversed the transaction(s) (i.e. the
80.00 cash withdrawal AND the Utility Bill payment) then not only would the telephone bill
not have been paid (which is clearly what happened) but also the customer's current account
would never have been debited with the @80.00. Had that been the case, then the customer
(it seems to me) would have finished up with @3.40 in cash... but without his telephone bill paid
and without any 80.00 charge to his bank account. If that's what happened, then he GAINED
3.40 and only that small amount ought to have become part of the day's shortfall in the
branch. If, on the other hand, the customer's account WAS debited (with the full @80.00)
then we have a one-sided transaction that is not meant to be possible with Horizon. Tn any
event, the inference is that, if/when Horizon went into ‘Repair Mode’ (or whatever they call it),
it failed to put out any screen message to the counter clerk to notify him/her of its doing
so. John: is there any recollection (or even evidence) of any sort of transaction repair message
being flashed up on the screen?
Also, John, if you have any evidential material relating to the reported transaction set then
we'd very much like to see copies of it. If you have something then just let me know and I'll
tell you where to send it. Vitally, and as mentioned right at the start, do you know (or could
you find out) whether your customer's account was ever debited with that @80.00? And
lastly, could you please confirm that the telephone bill was for @76.60 not @76.90 (else the
numbers don't add up... 80.00 minus @76.60 equals 3.40).
Thanks and regards,
Ron Warmington
2nd Sight Support Services Ltd
Tythe Farm
POL-0142874
POL00141489
POL00141489
Maugersbury
Cheltenham
Gloucestershire
GLS4 1HR
Hello Ron, I have had agreement from John Armstrong to allow me to send this on to you. I don't know if there is any
value to the incident but there does seem to be a number of checkable points and it does seem to point to a possible
communications problem.
Alan
From: John Armstrong
Sent: 17
To: horizor
Subject: concern
Hi
On 4th October 2012 the internet connection to my office was lost due to work being carried out by B Telecom
at a local building site. This was reported to Horizon on that date (reference A1515053) As the connection was
intermittent some transactions could be carried out with little disruption however online payment and
withdrawals were sporadic, some transactions were ok others were not.
At sometime during the morning (transaction log no longer available) a customer withdrew 80.00 from a
POL-0142874
POL00141489
POL00141489
Lloyds account and then paid a telephone bill in the same transaction of €76.90. He was given the change of
3.40.No reciepts were printed out of the system so I datestamped the telephone bill as his receipt and assumed
the transaction had been completed.
Several weeks later the customer came back into the office telling me his telephone had been disconnected due
to non payment. I put him in touch with the helpline and shortly after received a telephone call telling me that I
had reversed the bill payment part of the transaction.
When I checked the transaction log all three components of the transaction appeared to have been reversed. As I
certainly had not reversed these tranasactions I wrote to Mr Andy Winn, the relationship manager at
Chesterfield, explaining the details and including the transaction log. In reply it was stated that he was not able
to obtain the transactional detail from Fujitsu because of cost and that I would have to make good the loss of
76.90 which I subsequently did as there seemed to be no alternative.
If there is any other information I can supply please do not hesitate to get in touch.
Regards
John Armstrong
Lepton PO
191 3204
POL-0142874