POL00142539 - Post office meeting agenda re: Horizon integrity.

Evidence on official site

POL00142539

POL00142539

Meeting agenda

www.postoffice.co.uk

Attendees: Location:
Keith Baines — Fujitsu Contract Manager The Juniper Room
Marie Cockett Project Manager, Finance Coton House, Rugby
Mike Systems Architect
Gallagher
Dave Hulbert Service Manager, Ops Control Date: 06.12.05
John Legg Agency Contracts Manager
Jennifer Debt Recovery Manager
Robson
Mandy Talbot Litigation Team Leader, Legal

Services
Graham Ward _ Investigation Team Casework

Manager
Alvin West Risk & Internal Control Manager

Horizon Integrity
Background:

There have been several recent cases where subpostmasters have
cited errors in the Horizon system as explanations for discrepancies in
their accounts — either as part of a challenge against termination of
their contracts, or in challenging the Post Office’s right to recover error
notices / transaction corrections from their remuneration.

Recently, a letter was published in “The Subpostmaster’” in November
(see enclosure) asking readers to send in detail of incidents where
they believed that Horizon has caused errors in their accounts.
Lawyers acting on behalf of a subpostmaster currently in dispute with
Post Office have written stating that they are contemplating a joint
action on behalf of a number of current and former subpostmasters.
This would challenge the accounting integrity of the Horizon system
and Post Office’s right to make transaction corrections and recover
resulting debts based on Horizon data.

In one past case (Cleveleys branch), Post Office settled out of court
following an adverse report on Horizon’s potential to cause errors from
an expert appointed by the court. Fujitsu advised that the report was

Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

not well founded, but Post Office and Fujitsu were not able to
persuade the expert to change it. This report was largely based on a
review of Help Desk logs, since it related to events more than 18
months prior to the case, and Horizon transaction data was retained
for 18 months only. (It is now retained indefinitely.)

There are well-defined (though costly) procedures for analysing
Horizon data and getting evidence and witnesses from Fujitsu in
support of investigations for potential criminal cases. This is not so for
civil cases (unless there has been a related investigation) and external
lawyers acting on Post Office’s behalf have found it difficult to obtain
information of sufficient quality from Post Office in timescales needed
for these cases. No one seems to hold budget to fund provision of
such information.

The above was discussed at a meeting called by Dave Smith on 25
November and as a result urgent actions have been taken to support
current live cases, and this workshop was organised to recommend
further actions to reduce this risk area in future.

Meeting purpose:
To review the above issues and recommend on the following:

1. Who manages dealings with subpostmasters and their lawyers
relating to actual or potential civil cases? What processes are
required to identify as early as possible those cases that with a
Horizon aspect? Who needs to be involved in such cases, and
how will they be co-ordinated?

2. Are any new processes required with Fujitsu to obtain data,
analysis, reports or witness statements for civil cases?

3. Is there a need for an independent expert to be appointed in
advance who could on request provide evidence to the court in
such cases? If so what exactly would the expert’s role be, what
qualifications and qualities are needed in such an expert, and
how would we go about appointing one? What preliminary work
would be required by the expert to “get up to speed”?

4. Who will act as the client briefing external lawyers and facilitating
their obtaining relevant information in these cases?

POL00142539

POL00142539
POL00142539
POL00142539

Page 3 of 3

5. What are the budget implications of the above?

Item: Timing:
1. I Introduction 10:00
to

Required Outputs: Shared understanding of the 10:20
meeting objectives.

2. I Review current roles, responsibilities and 10:20
processes in relevant cases or potential cases. to
10:50

Required Outputs: Common understanding of who
currently does what

3. I Review recent and current cases. 10:50

to
Required Outputs: Lessons learnt; process gaps_ I 44:20

and problems logged on flipcharts.

4. I Identify gaps in current roles and processes 11:20

to
Required Outputs: Flipcharts with prioritised list of I 42-99

gaps and improvements in POL processes and
Fujitsu processes

5. I Lunch 12:00
to
12:45

6. I Checkpoint 12:45
to

Required Outputs: Confirm that we are on track to I 13-00
produce the required recommendations and agree
corrections if not.

7. I Review possible Expert role. 13:00

to
Required Outputs: Flipcharts with key points on 13:30

approach to use of Expert.

Page 4 of 3

8. I Review findings and develop recommendations 13:30
on issues (1) to (5) to
14:30
Required Outputs: Flipcharts with recommended
approach (and options if a single approach not
agreed) on each issue
9. I Meeting Review and close 14:30
to

14:45

POL00142539
POL00142539