POL00151487
POL00151487
From: Tom Wechslerf.
Sent: Thur 05/03/2015
To:
Cc:
‘andrew.parson: - _
Subject: RE: JS Commitment to a Second Review
Thank you all for your comments — all of which I have tried to reflect.
Below is the line I have given BIS. I’ve also reiterated our views WMS and fallbacks.
Tom
¢ After nearly 3 years of investigation and review by Post Office and Second Sight, no system wide issue with
Horizon has been found.
* Nonetheless, Post Office has reflected on whether improvements can be made in addressing any concerns
that serving SPMRs may have. Asa result we have made a number of changes including:
© changing the approach to dealing with breaches in contract by SPMRs so that the SPMR stays in the
branch while Post Office investigates issues wherever possible (i.e. without suspension). This has resulted
in 123 remaining in post this year who would have been suspended under the previous approach; and
© establishing the Branch User Forum to provide a way for SPMRs and others to raise issues and insights
around business processes, training and support, feeding directly into the organisation’s thinking at the
highest level.
* These changes have been discussed with NFSP, the independent body representing the vast majority of
subpostmasters, and implemented following their feedback.
* We also intend to introduce a process where the NFSP executive may escalate cases within Post Office where
they believe a Subpostmaster may have been treated unfairly.
If Pressed
e When the commitment was made in 2013 we hadn't investigated the cases and the claims made by
Applicants. We have now completed all our investigations and no system wide issue with Horizon has been
found.
e We believe the changes that have been implemented are a more appropriate response reflecting how Post
Office and Subpostmasters operate today rather than in the past.
Tom Wechsler
From: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Sent: 04 March 2015 21:53
To: Nick Beal; Tom Wechsler; Mark R Davies; Jane Hill; Melanie Corfield
Cc: Rodric Williams; Patrick Bourke; Belinda Crowe; 'andrew.parson:
Subject: Re: JS Commitment to a Second Review
Nick
You are correct there is no formal appeal process in the new contracts but there is a 'conversation type clause’ for
POL00151487
POL00151487
certain situations.
Angela
From: Nick Beal
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 08:36 PM
To: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Tom Wechsler; Mark R Davies; Jane Hill; Melanie Corfield
Ce: Rodric Williams; Patrick Bourke; Belinda Crowe; 'andrew.parson:
‘Subject e: JS Commitment to a Second Review
Maybe we could say "we intend to introduce...".
Please note I think that the new contracts do not have an appeals process.
Reds
Nick
Head of Agents' Development & Remuneration
Post Office Ltd
148 Old Street
London
EC1V 9HQ
From: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 06:34 PM Coordinated Universal Time
To: Tom Wechsler; Nick Beal; Mark R Davies; Jane Hill; Melanie Corfield
Cc: Rodric Williams; Patrick Bourke; Belinda Crowe; 'andrew.parson:
Subject: Re: JS Commitment to a Second Review
Tom,
The 112 is now 123 at period 11.
Nick - I've not discussed/mentioned the escalation process to George before but as you know this is what I've done on
occasion. Whilst the ultimate decision sits with POL George has been appreciative of my review of these cases.
Angela
From: Tom Wechsler
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 06:27 PM
To: Nick Beal; Mark R Davies; Jane Hill; Melanie Corfield; Angela Van-Den-B«
ic Willi i inda Crowe; andrew.parsons:
POL00151487
POL00151487
Nick
To answer your question, it may be used in full or just elements of it in:
a) The report that will accompany our announcement of the scheme’s future
b) In briefing that BIS officials may use to brief Jo Swinson
c) And in defensive lines to take for either POL or Jo Swinson
In the longer term, BIS and I expect the commitment made and the lack of visible action on it to form part of JFSA’s
campaign against us and it already features prominently in their letters to MPs etc. Therefore we can expect it to be
used in response.
Part of the point of the response (as well as heading off the argument against us) is to put distance between JFSA and
POL by restating NFSP’s proper role in representing SPMRs. I hope that would be a welcome development for NFSP
but I would be grateful for your steer on that.
Thanks to others — especially Angela and Rod - for their comments. Below is an amended line:
° After nearly 3 years of investigation and review by Post Office and Second Sight, no system wide issue with
Horizon has been found.
* Nonetheless, Post Office has reflected on whether improvements can be made in addressing any concerns
SPMRs may have. As a result we have made a number of changes including:
© changing the approach to dealing with breaches in contract by SPMRs so that the SPMR stays in the
branch while Post Office investigates issues wherever possible (i.e. without suspension). This has resulted
in 112 remaining in post this year who would have been suspended under the previous approach; and
o establishing the Branch User Forum to provide a way for SPMRs and others to raise issues and insights
around business processes, training and support, feeding directly into the organisation’s thinking at the
highest level.
* These changes have been discussed with NFSP, the independent body representing the vast majority of
subpostmasters, and implemented following their feedback.
* We have also agreed to introduce a process, in addition to the existing appeals process, where the NFSP
executive may escalate cases within Post Office where they believe a Subpostmaster may have been treated
unfairly.
If Pressed
e@ When the commitment was made in 2013 we hadn't investigated the cases and the claims made by
Applicants. We have now completed all our investigations and no system wide issue with Horizon has been
found.
e We believe the changes that have been implemented are a more appropriate response reflecting how Post
Office and Subpostmasters operate today rather than in the past.
The if pressed lines are not 100% necessary but may help convince BIS.
I am very keen to get these to BIS. So grateful for any further comments by noon tomorrow.
Nick — Should we run this past NFSP?
Tom
POL00151487
POL00151487
From: Nick Beal
Sent: 04 March 2015 13:06
To: Mark R Davies; Tom Wechsler; Jane Hill; Melanie Corfield; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Cc: Rodric Williams; Patrick Bourke; Belinda Crowe; andrew.parsonsf
Subject: RE: JS Commitment to a Second Review
The statement is technically true but as the scheme has always been sensitive to NFSP, we might want to discuss with
George later today when we update him on related aspects. Please can you advise where this will be used/published.
Nick Beal
Head of Agents’ Development & Remuneration
People & Engagement Team
1st Floor
148 Old Street
London EC1V 9HQ
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the named recipient, you must not use,
disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication.
If you have received this in error, please contact the sender and then delete this email from your system.
From: Mark R Davies
Sent: 04 March 2015 12:00
To: Tom Wechsler; Jane Hill; Melanie Corfield; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Nick B
Cc: Rodric Williams; Patrick Bourke; Belinda Crowe; andrew.parsons!
Subject: RE: JS Commitment to a Second Review
Copying Nick
Best wishes,
Mark
Mark Davies
Communications and Corporate Affairs Director
1* Floor, Banner Street Wing
148 Old Street
POL00151487
POL00151487
From: Tom Wechsler
Sent: 04 March 2015 11:27
To: Jane Hill; Melanie Corfield; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Cc: Rodric Williams; Patrick Bourke; Belinda Crowe; Mark R Davies; andrew.parsons'
Subject: JS Commitment to a Second Review
All
We’ve been discussing how to respond to the commitment JS made in Parliament in 2013. Extract below:
This (highlighted) was the particular commitment I mentioned — part of Jo’s statement on 9 July 2013 (Hansard
column 198):
The Post Office statement issued yesterday welcomed the broad thrust of the report’s findings and outlined
three initiatives to deal with the issues raised. First, it will set up a working party to complete the review of
cases started by Second Sight, and will consider all 47 cases brought forward by the Justice for
A—and MPs. The JFSA has been invited to join the working part
Subpostmasters Alliance—the J
Finally, a new branch user
highest level on business
The
forum
in
will provide a channel for sub-postmasters and others to raise issues at the
processes, training and support. The company will take forward the proposals as an urgent priority. I
commend this statement to the House.
I think it is really important that the response relates to Horizon as that was the context in which the commitment was
made, not any complaint any SPMR makes on any issue.
I propose the following line:
After nearly 3 years of investigation and review by Post Office and Second Sight, no system wide issue with
Horizon has been found.
Nonetheless, Post Office has reflected on whether improvements can be made in addressing any concerns
SPMRs may have. Asa result we have made a number of changes including:
o changing the approach to dealing with breaches in contract by SPMRs so that Post Office investigates
issues without a precautionary suspension wherever possible. This has resulted in 112 being kept in
post this year that would have been suspended under the previous approach; and
© establishing the Branch User Forum to provide a way for SPMRs and others to raise issues and insights
around business processes, training and support, feeding directly into the organisation’s thinking at
the highest level.
These changes have been discussed with NFSP, the independent body representing the vast majority of
subpostmasters, and implemented following their feedback.
Question — Can we say the last line and would NFSP agree?
I’m open to other suggestions but I think less is more.
Views?
Tom
POL00151487
POL00151487
Tom Wechsler
Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme
148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the named recipient, you
must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication. If you have received this in error,
please contact the sender by reply email and then delete this email from your system. Any views or opinions expressed within
this email are solely those of the sender, unless otherwise specifically stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: 148 OLD STREET, LONDON
EC1V 9HQ.