POL00145553
POL00145553
Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Sent: Thur 18/07/2013 6:03:21 PM (UTC)
To:
{Gayle A
Subject: RE: Nelson Post Office Mid Glamorgan Horizon technical issues.
Kevin,
There is a process for logging and acknowledging the case. The second part of the process ie how we
work with the Spmr to get to the bottom of the issues needs to be reviewed.
Gayle — would you track this case through the process making the necessary improvements as
appropriate. We'll need to log any process improvements as we go along so that we can demonstrate the
changes we've made and why.
Thanks,
Angela
Angela Van Den Bogerd I Head of Partnerships
@® 148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ
©
()
© Post Office stories
®© @postofficenews
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: Kevin Gilliland
Sent: 18 July 2013 13:59
To: Susan Crichton; Nick Beal
Cc: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Subject: Fwd: Nelson Post Office Mid Glamorgan Horizon technical issues.
One to discuss.
Is there a process now for handling these?
Thx
K
POL00145553
POL00145553
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Mark Baker
Date: 18 July 2013 1
To: <colin.burstoni
Ce: Paula Vennells Kevin Gilliland
Dear Mr Burston
Mr Steve Phillips is the Postmaster of the above PO Branch, he is one of my members. He has
reported to me that he has been experiencing problems with his Horizon system since April of this
year.
His records show that his system reports daily discrepancies of random amounts these being both
surpluses as well as losses. Currently the losses exceed the surpluses and you are in the process of
pursuing him for the repayment of the current outstanding minus figure of £3,203.2. You have
apparently ignored his calls for help and his insistence that it is not his or his staff's actions that
have caused these discrepancies, instead you appear to be engaged in a default action of holding
him liable without proving that these losses were actually caused by his carelessness, negligence,
or error, or that of his staff, and further more you have written to him to inform Mr Phillips that
you intend to recover this money from his remuneration.
In one phone call to Mr Phillips I was able to establish that he has had a new security alarm
system installed (I believe the system is called Tyron? ) this was about 18 months ago.
This system shares the same communication line as Horizon.
The alarm system started to malfunction soon after installation, some stability was established, but
in June, Romec arrived at the Branch to tell Mr Phillips that in the space of 4 weeks his alarm
system had reported low or loss of connection of the line 470 times. The huge peak of these
reports prompted Romec to investigate, the engineer who called said that these loss of signal
reports are common but unless they reach a certain level no action is taken.
Mr Philiips has reason to believe that his new alarm system has not been working correctly since
the time of installation, and he has no idea what it was that that Romec did to the communications
line in order to seemingly resolve the problems that were occurring during the first 6 months
following installation, but it appears that intermittent loss of communications have occurred ever
since.
Given Mr Phillips balancing record prior to April of this year which was normal, and the problems
with a another communication system that shares the same line as Horizon causing loss and or
low signal during the period of discrepancy reporting, we have to ask what impact has all this had
on the smooth flow of data generated by Horizon?
POL00145553
POL00145553
Mr Phillips daily reporting of Horizon discrepancies since April is indeed indicative of a technical
failing, and we have reason to believe that there is a connection between the Horizon
discrepancies and the communication issues with the Romec alarm system that shares the same
line.
As we are aware there is currently work underway by forensic accountancy firm Second Sight
into technical issues surrounding the Horizon system. In their interim report, they said that
although there appears to be no systemic problems with the Horizon software, meaning generally
the system performs as it should do, this does not preclude that individual units within the
Network cannot develop faults, and they did highlight that some of the reported problems are
hardware related rather than software.
Given the commitment made by Paula Vennells in her response to the Second Sight report to set
up 3 working groups, which are to be independently Chaired, to find a suitable way forward to
resolve technical/accounting problems that a Postmaster reports, something that is not currently
available, I would like an assurance that no abatement of Mr Phillips pay is made until further
enquires are made into the problems at his Branch. I would also like an assurance that as the
discrepancies are continuing that all further discrepancies found at balance period end, both
surpluses and losses are placed in the suspense account until we can get to the bottom of what is
causing this erratic accounting.
I have copied in the senior team at Old St, given the circumstances, as I am sure that they may
wish to take a view on how Mr Phillips case should be handled.
The present approach you are advocating is unacceptable, knowing what we now know,
particularly as the lack of independent processes for a Postmaster to use to defend him/herself
against losses that they believe have not been caused by their own actions was heavily criticised in
the Second Sight report.
I would appreciate your urgent attention to this matter.
I trust that I am not going to be treated to the usual deflective response that Post Office Ltd does
not recognise the CWU and therefore will not communicate with us when trying to resolve issues
with our members. Recognition is granted for collective pay bargaining reasons, this is not a pay
or even a contractual matter, this is a matter where representation is required by a member to try
and resolve an unusual set of circumstances, where no internal resolution procedures exist.
Working with the CWU to help Mr Phillips does not imply or set any precedent in relation to
Trade Union recognition which is an entirely separate issue .
Yours sincerely
Mark Baker
National Branch Secretary
Postmasters Branch
CWU