POL00143827
POL00143827
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Rodric Williams[/O=MMS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=RODRIC WILLIAMSE9C1 14F4-B03F-4595-B082-
CE89BE5C79D47B]
Thur 01/11/2012
Hugh Flemington RO
Horizon Immunity Proposals - DRAFT COVER EMAIL
PM (UTC)
Hugh - starter for ten covering email
All,
Status
We have given lots of thought to JFSA’s “Immunity Agreement Proposal” ("JFSA Proposal” - attached)
The JFSA Proposal:
* tries to establish a system where SPMRs can raise Horizon concerns without fear of reprisal;
* refers to a “detailed investigation”, but gives no details, e.g. who will investigate, what the scope or outcome of
the investigation should be, or who will pay;
* seems to be a way to channel complaints to the Second Sight investigation already underway (ref — Martin
Edwards email of 05.10.12)
Our draft response (“POL Proposal” - attached):
* addresses JFSAs concerns on reprisals;
* establishes a no blame “Inquiry” to be carried out by Second Sight;
* would determine whether Horizon is fit for purpose, but would not rule on individual cases.
Options:
1.
Do nothing - JFSA can solicit and pursue concerns as it sees fit, and POL can respond accordingly.
Optically, this may not be palatable;
2. Put the POL Proposal to JFSA — this is however just another non-binding inquiry;
3. Mediate with JFSA — ideally to a resolution, but if not at least to agree a process for resolution. This may just
add further time and cost with no guarantee of a successful outcome.
Discussion Points
Hugh's take is “do we need to offer the Inquiry”? The POL Proposal reflects what we anticipate JFSA wants, and may
be more than it asked for. If anyone thinks JFSA wants something else, let us know as we might be able to back out
and leave SPMRs to raise concerns directly with JFSA.
If we do go down the Inquiry route:
* it would determine whether Horizon is “fit for purpose”, by reference to comparable systems;
* it would not “rule” on individual cases because of the very wider range of concern which could be submitted
(e.g. inadequate training, inadequate support, user error, third party intervention, Horizon itself).
* cases will be chosen by Second Sight/JFSA/SPMRs, not POL - this helps neutralises any suggestion that
POL “cherry picked” cases or that the process is a “whitewash”. POL can still advance its case on the
investigated concerns.
POL00143827
POL00143827
The risk with the Inquiry is that the “no blame” framework is likely to require POL to give immunity against civil (cp.
criminal) action for ay concern raised, i.e. POL should be able to pursue cases of criminal fraud, but might have to
give up any civil debt recovery action.
Mediation cannot resolve every individual concern with Horizon. However, it is a confidential process which
encourages free and frank discussion which a skilled mediator uses to test positions and expectations, and explore
consensual solutions (including non-legal solutions). If we cannot agree a hybrid JFSA/POL Proposal with JFSA,
mediation could be used to reach an agreed Proposal.
We look forward to discussing the options on Wednesday, but are happy to discuss anything in the meantime.
Rodric Williams I Litigation Lawyer
® 148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ
Postline!
@) rodric. william:
we teaticaiHamsg
® Post Office stories
® @postofficenews