POL00151770
POL00151770
From: Melanie Corfield!_ GRO }
Sent: Mon 20/04/2015 1:19:52 PM (UTC)
To: Rodric Williams{~
Daviesf~
Cc: Patrick Bourk
Wechsler, GRO. }; Mark
Underwood: GRO 1 Jane
MacLeod} i
Subject: RE: BBC
That’s great — thank you. It’s a response I have been using quite a lot for all sorts.
From: Rodric Williams
Sent: 20 April 2015 13:46
To: Mark R Davies
Cc: Patrick Bourke; Tom Wechsler; Melanie Corfield; Mark Underwood:i; Jane MacLeod
Subject: RE: BBC
Much better!
POST
OFFICE
From: Mark R Davies
Sent: 20 April 2015 13:44
To: Rodric Williams
Cc: Patrick Bourke; Tom Wechsler; Melanie Corfield; Mark Underwood!?; Jane MacLeod
Subject: Re: BBC
Why don't we simply say, this is nonsense. And leave it at that?
Mark Davies
Communications and Corporate Affairs Director
On 20 Apr 2015, at 13:28, Rodric Williams;
Can we not just say that Post Office does not accept that assertion, whatever BBC may have been told,
and leave it at that?
Even though the assertion is nonsense (let me know if you’d like to know the how and why), it strays into
areas of legal privilege (namely our assessment of liability for the claims and how damages ina
successful claim might be calculated), that I don’t want to get into.
POL00151770
POL00151770
From: Patrick Bourke
Sent: 20 April 2015 13:27
To: Tom Wechsler; Melanie Corfield; Rodric Williams; Mark Underwoos
Cc: Mark R Davies; Jane MacLeod
Subject: RE: BBC
Yes, I am fine with this.
From: Tom Wechsler
Sent: 20 April 2015 13:12
To: Melanie Corfield; Patrick Bourke; Rodric Williams; Mark Underwood
Cc: Mark R Davies; Jane MacLeod
Subject: RE: BBC
There are many responses but yours works for me.
If pressed, you could point to how much we have “invested” in this using the material in the Scheme
report.
Tom Wechsler
From: Melanie Corfield
Sent: 20 April 2015 13:06
To: Patrick Bourke; Rodric Williams; Tom Wechsler; Mark Underwood:
Cc: Mark R Davies; Jane MacLeod
Subject: BBC
They have ‘been told’ that the Post Office ‘knew two years ago’ it might have to pay ‘millions of pounds’
in compensation — and they want response to this.
Too ridiculous really. I am thinking of going back and simply saying: “There could never be pre-
determined outcomes. After investigations over nearly three years there is no evidence of systemic
flaws in the Horizon system . The small number of cases in the mediation scheme are all different and
continue to be considered individually.
“Where the facts indicate genuine grievances, for example that the support provided in a particular
instance fell short of the desired standards, those issues are being discussed with scheme
applicants and a number of complaints have been resolved. However, many cases are based on
allegations which, following investigation, are not supported by the evidence.”
Comments welcome.
POL00151770
POL00151770
Mel Corfield
Communications Team
1* Floor — Old Street