POL00162068
POL00162068
From: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd[
Sent: Mon 23/09/2013 7:15:10 PM (UTC)
To: Susan Cri
Davies:
Subject: Fw: POST OFFICE READ THIS
Attachment: Hope Farm Road 238420 Culpability Case summary latest ver1 5 updated 080513.xIs
Attachment: URGENT - Hospitalisation I Hope Farm Road - 238420 - CH66 2RG
Both,
The case summary as promised.
Let me know if you need anything further.
From: Glenn Chester
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 07:02 PM
To: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Cc: John Breeden
Subject: RE: POST OFFICE READ THIS
Angela
Thank you for your e-mail. To give you some background to this case:-
e Mr Griffiths was appointed to the position of Subpostmaster, Hope Farm Road branch on 05.10.95
e On the 21.09.11, he was issued with a precautionary suspension following an audit shortage of
£23782,31 being revealed at the branch. Included as part of this shortage was an amount of
£19820.63 in debt which had been settled centrally with Chesterfield. This being made up primarily
of a number of significant losses reported at Branch Trading. The following discrepancies being
reported at Branch Trading in the 6 months prior to the audit:-
Branch Trading Date Discrepancy Cleared/settled centrally
30.03.11 £2906.88 short Settled centrally
04.05.11 £1937.96 short Settled centrally
01.06.11 £3474.89 short Settled centrally
29.06.11 £3404.91 short Settled centrally
03.08.11 £3388.42 short Settled centrally
31.08.11 £3552.41 short Settled centrally
Following completion of the conduct case, I took the decision to reinstate Mr Griffiths contract for services
with a final written warning. This decision was taken on the following basis:--
1. From inspection of Mr Griffiths's file, I could find no evidence of any previous warnings having been
issued to him in respect of performance. Indeed, prior to the start of the 2011 calendar year, his balancing
performance at the branch was satisfactory and gave no cause for concern.
2. Mr Griffiths had always reported discrepancies at Branch Trading correctly and there was no evidence
that he’d falsified any of the Branch Trading Statements to hide shortages.
3. Mr Griffiths admitted at his RTU interview on 20.10.11 that he’d panicked when he saw the audit team
POL00162068
POL00162068
and wrote out a cheque for £1k to make the account look more respectable. He has complied with any
requests to make good shortages and arrangements were made in May 2011 to recover circa £9k in debt
via the DFR process, Unfortunately the next 4 Branch Trading Statements resulted in losses of £13820.66
being reported but problems with Post Office Ltd's 'dunning process' meant that these losses were only
flagged up to the Contracts Team after the 4 months had passed. Mr Griffiths was therefore allowed to
amass a considerable debt without any timely action being taken by Post Office Ltd. All debt owing to
Post Office Ltd, had now been repaid by Mr Griffiths.
4. Athis RTU interview on 20.10.11 he informed me that if he was reinstated he would introduce individual
balancing at the branch and other spot checks to help improve the balancing performance.
5. I also spoke with Kevin Ryan, Security Manager on 01.11.11 and he informed me that from the Security
Teams perspective there were no grounds to proceed with any further action and he would be informing
Mr Griffiths of this on the 02.11.11.
Mr Griffiths was subsequently re-instated at the branch on 16 November 2011. A request was also placed with
the Outlet Field Support Team for some training to be provided to Mr Griffiths on how to introduce/operate
individual balancing at the branch.
Despite ad-hoc training being provided to Mr Griffiths on individual balancing his accounting
performance continues to be poor, with large discrepancies (shortages) regularly being reported at
Branch Trading. To help combat this Mr Griffiths was asked to complete two cash declarations per
day and contact me if any large discrepancies were reported. He was also reminded of the
importance in keeping the cash and stock contained within the Main Stock unit secured at all times
and under his sole control. Despite further significant losses appearing in his account I did not receive
any contact from Mr Griffiths highlighting discrepancies in his account.
Subsequent to his date of reinstatement on 16.11.11, Mr Griffiths has reported further losses to the
value of £53598.50 at Branch Trading and regularly fails to make good losses in a timely manner as
required under the terms of his contract for services. Of the 22 Branch Trading Statements
completed at the branch since the date of his re-instatement, 19 have resulted in large shortages
being reported and settled centrally at Chesterfield.
Mr Griffiths has been written to and reminded of the need to make good losses in a timely manner.
Accompanied by John Breeden, I undertook a performance interview with Mr Griffiths on 12.03.13
and it was made clear to him that any future ‘settled centrally’ debt must be made good within the
timescales stipulated in the documentation sent to him by the Financial Service Centre at
Chesterfield. It was also made clear to Mr Griffiths at the meeting that should there be any further
failings on his part to make good any future ‘settled centrally’ debt in line with these timescales,
then I would have no alternative but to consider issuing him with 3 months notice of termination of
his contract for services. Despite this clear instruction, Mr Griffiths failed to make good subsequent
losses and the decision was taken to issue him with 3 months notice . This decision was
communicated to Mr Griffiths in a letter dated 03.07.13.
As at the 05.09.13, Mr Griffiths had outstanding settled centrally debt of £12674.52p.
On the 02.05.13 the branch suffered an armed robbery and there was a loss to Post Office funds of
£54354.96. Following a review of the circumstances of the incident, the Post Office Security Team
Manager considered that Mr Griffiths should be held liable for the amount of £38504.96p. Following
completion of the culpability case, the decision was taken to hold Mr Griffiths liable for £7454.32 and
this was communicated to him on the 17.07.13. He subsequently appealed against this decision and I
understand his appeal was heard last week. I unfortunately don’t know the outcome of the appeal
and whether any decision has been communicated to Mr Griffiths. I’ve attached a copy of the
culpability case summary for your information.
POL00162068
POL00162068
e I received an e-mail today from the NBSC (copy also attached) informing me that Mr Griffiths had
been involved in a serious car crash. I telephoned his sister and offered my sympathies. Not wishing
to pry during this difficult time, I did not ask about the specifics of the accident but enquired about
Mr Griffiths condition and wished him a speedy recovery. I also spoke with Mr Griffiths’s mother
who asked me if I could help find someone to run the branch. I promised I’d make enquiries into this
and hopefully Zubeir Patel (Potent Solutions Ltd) will be able to offer some assistance. Mr Patel is
going to give me a ring tomorrow. During my discussions with Mr Griffiths’s family, I was under the
impression that he had been involved in a car accident and no one made me aware that he’d been in
collision with a bus.
I hope this information is of some help. Please do not hesitate in giving me a call if you need any further
information.
Regards
Glenn
Glenn Chester I Contract Advisor
, Upper Floors, 6/16 New York Street, Leeds, LS2 7DZ
Mobex 1
From: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Sent: 23 September 2013 18:07
To: Glenn Chester
Subject: Fw: POST OFFICE READ THIS
Glenn
This is what we are dealing with and the reason I need to talk to you .
From: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 05:00 PM
To: Mark R Davies; Kevin Gilliland
Cc: Susan Crichton; Roger W Gale; Paula Vennells; Ruth X Barker
Subject: Re: POST OFFICE READ THIS
All,
This is not related to the Crown branch but is a Spmr case. I'm talking to the Contract Advisor and will update asap.
Angela
From: Mark R Davies
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 04:50 PM
To: Kevin Gilliland
POL00162068
POL00162068
Cc: Susan Crichton; Roger W Gale; Paula Vennells; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Ruth X Barker
Subject: Re: POST OFFICE READ THIS
Thanks - Susan, given the potential media element please can we line up a specialist media lawyer in case we need
urgent advice this evening?
Sent from my iPhone
On 23 Sep 2013, at 17:36, "Kevin Gilliland".
I've spoken to Roger who's trying to find out the details.
Sent from my iPad
On 23 Sep 2013, at 17:32, "Mark R Davies" ¢_
twrote:
Just to reiterate we must get details of this this evening.
Mark
Sent from my iPhone
On 23 Sep 2013, at 17:19, "Susan Crichton"
wrote:
Roger - can you help find the facts on this incident? We really need them this
evening if you can do that.
Susan
Susan Crichton I General Counsel
pg>
‘al Wing,
treet, London, EC1V SHQ
<image002.jpg>
From: Alan Bates [mailto:
Sent: 23 September 2013 17:02
To: Paula Vennells; Susan Crichton; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Andy Holt
Cc: swinsonmpstcorrespondence¢
james.arbuthnot.mI
Subject: POST OFFICE READ THIS
This afternoon I received the following email, it is a prime example of the
thuggery being exerted on defenceless subpostmasters (as POL deny legal
representation) by arrogant and uncontrolled Post Office personnel. Despite
assurances from on high that this type of thing is in the past, it is clear from
POL's actions, it is still alive and active through the ranks.
Hello Alan
lam writing on behalf of my son-in-law Martin Griffiths who has recently
been in touch with you about the treatment doled out to him by the hierarchy
at the crown office in Chester. He had an armed raid in May, and the faceless
wonders at the crown office have intimated he was culpable. Had him at the
Kangaroo court where he was not allowed any representation of his own, he
was a broken man then.
However, he was sent for last Friday to attend a meeting with the crown post
office personnel again, and all week-end he has clearly not been himself.
This morning he drove off to work, got out of his car and walked in front of a
bus.
He is dangerously ill in Hospital at Liverpool, the post office had driven him to
suicide.
All the family are at the hospital, I am alone waiting by the phone for further
news of him.
I would urge you to publicise this, another incident that has been caused by
the Bully Boys at the crown office.
May God forgive them.
lam aware of Martin's case, and I know he was terrified to raise his shortages
with POL because of just this type of thing happening to him, but POL got him
in the end. Regardless of what may or may not have occurred with him, why
did POL have to hound him to the point of trying to take his own life? Why?
Despite numerous warnings of never to attend any discussion with POL
without legal representation, Martin, trying to be helpful, didn't take anyone
with him as per the conditions POL demand. If POL cannot control their
personnel, then the very least they can do is authorise and insist ona
subpostmaster taking legal representation with them to any meeting with
POL.
lam very, very angry about this, and as per the wishes of the family I will be
contacting many of the media contacts we have built up over the years.
POL00162068
POL00162068