POL00149578
POL00149578
From: Mark Underwood1{,__ ~
Sent: Thur 20/11/2014 10:47:36 AM (UTC)
To: Tom Wechsler”
Ce: Patrick Bourke
Subject: Remote access - papers and plan
Attachment: _DOC_28614498(2)_ Horizon data.DOCX
Attachment: Once a transaction is recorded in a Branch.docx
Hi Tom,
Note drafted to get my mind straight and to try and agree a process to push this to conclusion.
I have attached two docs:
1) A paper produced by AP with my proposed track changes. PB envisages this as the all-encompassing paper,
that going forward we can refer to in response to claims in, for example, draft CRRs of transactions
mysteriously appearing in SPMRs accounts.
2) Amuch shorter bulleted high level list of what can / cannot be done with regards to remote access. To be
used in, for example public rebuttals.
Whenever we have spoken to FJ about this issue, they seem puzzled as to why we are so concerned citing ‘data
integrity’ However I think we are now of the opinion it is a semantics issue. By ‘data integrity’ FJ are, I think, referring
to ‘audit trail’ — in that, whatever is done leaves a clear and identifiable audit trail behind it and thus — if there is no
‘remote access car’ in the branch’s data — it simply did not happen. This therefore allows us to prove the negative.
On a call — FJ confirmed they already had downloaded all the branch data available for the 150 scheme cases and
performed searches for any such ‘scars’.
As such, everything appears to be golden. We just need FJ to confirm this once and for all.
In terms of process, I would think it seems sensible to:
1) Send the attached papers to AP for his approval — particularly as I have changed his paper in parts. We also
need to incorporate any changes Andy Holt sent AP.
2) Then, with the below disclaimer (crafted by AP) — send to FJ to answer the questions posed in the attached
"This draft document, and any communications or other documents associated with it, are
confidential, privileged and prepared in contemplation of litigation. They must be kept confidential
and not disclosed to any other person.”
3) Send to SS for their approval as they are quoted as agreeing AP’s paper (or remove that reference as,
although nice to have, we don’t need their approval)
4) Finalise
Once you have digested — lets catch up
Mark
Mark Underwood
Initial Complaint and Mediation Scheme
POL00149578
POL00149578