POL00167751
POL00167751
From:
Sent:
To:
Ce:
Subject:
Attachment:
Attachment:
Let me check
Sent from my iPhone
On 12 Feb 2014, at 06:33 pm, "David Oliver1" 4
Chris Aujard[IMCEAEX-
_O=MMS_OU=EXCHANGE+20ADMINISTRATIVE+20GROUP+20+28FY DIBOHF23SPDLT+29
_CN=RECIPIENTS_CN=CHRISTOPHER+20AA0452485-80B7-40D2-ADE7-
6FEFEAE19CC3F88@C72A47. ingest. local]
Wed 12/02/2014 6:51:50 PM (UTC)
David Olivertf”
Belinda Crowe”
Re: 2014 02 11 ARC teleconference
image001.png
image002.png
Thanks — do you have the one that Paula sent too?
David Oliver
Programme Manager
Initial Complaint and Mediation Scheme
From: Chris Aujard
Sent: 12 February 2014 18:27
To: David Oliver1
Cc: Belinda Crowe
Subject: FW: 2014 02 11 ARC teleconference
Hi David — email to Neil is set out below. Cheers Chris
From: Chris Aujard
Sent: 11 February 2014 16:12
To: 'Neil McCausland"
Ce: virginia.holmes.t21
; susannah.storey}
susannah_hoopert
alasdairmarnoch;
lice Perkins'; Larissa Wilson; timfranklin1
Paula Vennells; Chris M Day; Alwen Lyons
Subject: RE: 2014 02 11 ARC teleconference
Hi Neil — thanks for your time yesterday on the phone, and many apologies for the delay in getting back
to you: the data was not easily amenable to analysing in the ways we both wanted! That said, hopefully
the following is helpful:
Are the figures correct?
© Yes - The figures are correct, though as explained on the phone, the amounts recovered in the
POL00167751
POL00167751
financial year 12/13 don’t necessarily relate to the cases brought in that year. Clearly cases can
take a number of months to work their way through the court process, so a debt recovered in
12/13 may not relate to a case brought in that year.
Why should we take a gradual approach to changing prosecution policy (ie option B not C)?
© The driver here was prudence from both a pragmatic and risk management perspective. In
other words, the thinking was to try to change prosecution policy in a gradual (and potentially
reversible) fashion. As an aside, we were conscious that there may also be a greater risk of
reputational damage associated with any dramatic change of policy.
© In any event POL, through the Business Improvement Programme, is changing its approach to
contract breach, suspension and the training and support it provides and that these changes have
not yet worked their way through the system. Accordingly the full effect of these changes is
unclear, and ideally it would be helpful to have a clearer understanding of how these changes
interact with the factors set in the paper before making any decision which limits optionality. That
said early indications are that “new debt” is substantially below expectations, and is ona
downward trajectory from last year.
Should we review the civil process?
¢ As you rightly note, the civil process is separate from the criminal process, though there is a
point in the lifecycle of investigating a loss where a decision has to be made whether to go down
the civil route, or the criminal route, or some other route (e.g. write off). As discussed, in practice
this means that any new prosecution policy approved by the Board would have to be actively
disseminated down through the organisation to those responsible for making these decisions.
* The civil recovery process, as it stands, does seem to be working though it is not something that
we have looked at in any detail. My suggestion would be that if ARC were to look at this it should
probably be done within the context of considering the approach to debt management as whole —
looking at it through the lens of Project Sparrow might end up with a skewed view!
Linkage between the two groups?
* Of the 147 applicants to the scheme 49 applicants were subject to criminal prosecution
* Of those, no prosecutions happened within the last 2 years, but one applicant was subject to
criminal prosecution in 2011, 6 applicants were subject to criminal prosecution in 2010 and 4
applicants were subject to criminal prosecution in 2009.
° We believe (but are trying to verify) that 31 applicants were subject to some form of recovery
processes. This includes recovery via POL’s “normal” debt recovery processes (e.g. by issuing a
letter of demand) and recovery through the use of full civil court proceedings.
© Weare chasing the MI, but we are currently aware that, of those 31 cases, civil court
proceedings were issued against at least 16 applicants, of which 8 were dealt with in the last 2
years.
¢ External solicitors also recovered debts from at least 5 applicants (without initiating court
proceedings), of which 2 were dealt with in the last 2 years.
Hope this helps.
Kind regards
POL00167751
POL00167751
Chris
From: Neil McCausland [mailto:
Sent: 09 February 2014 22:37
To: ‘Alice Perkins’; Larissa Wilson; timfranklin1¢
Vennells; Chris M Day; Alwen Lyons __
Ce: Chris Aujard; virginia.holmes.t21¢
susannah_hooper¢
Subject: RE: 2014 02 11 ARC teleconference
Hi all,
When I read the note I also had a couple of questions spring to mind, which in the interests of time I
thought worth sharing before the call.
The primary question in my mind was how we continue to deter our sub-postmasters from attempting
fraud.
I was interested to learn that in ‘12/’13 we brought 100 cases using external lawyers to the civil courts
and recovered £1.9m.
This felt pretty good compared with the criminal prosecutions, where we had 50 cases and recovered
£740k.
Are those figures right? If so, I wonder if it is right not to review the civil recovery process, as it does
seem to be closely linked with the criminal process.
My question that followed was about how these 2 groups of prosecutions interplayed with the Second
Sight Review? From the 100 civil cases, and the 50 criminal cases (which presumably saw no overlap
between the 2 groups), how many of these were affected by the Second Sight Review, and have we yet
any indication of what that impact will be?
Talk on Tuesday
All the best
Neil
From: Alice Perkins [mailto:i
Sent: 08 February 2014 12:04
To: ‘larissa.wilson¢
‘alasdairmarnocht
‘Alwen.lyons¢
Ce: 'christopher:aujard{
‘susannah.storey! $ 'susannah_hooperé”~"~""6Ro }
Subject: Re: 2014 02 11 ARC teleconference
GRO paula.vennells' ‘chris.m.dayi GRO
rginia.holmes.t21f
Alasdair,
It is not yet clear whether it will be possible for me to participate in this teleconference. I will if I can.
My reaction to this paper which is helpful and clear in many respects (and the BIP and its impact to date
is very good indeed), is that it does not spell out clearly enough for me, why we think it is right in
principle for us to maintain a different policy from other organisations (the Brian Altman point) ie option
Cis dismissed too summarily.
I do of course, understand that we couldn't just throw our cases at the CPS and walk away at a moment's
notice. And I appreciate that we might find the CPS route less satisfactory in cases where we were
convinced we should be prosecuting. But if it is the case that the banks and other financial institutions
are content to live with this, why are we different? And what would our public justification for being
different be? In considering this, I would like to understand better how much money would potentially
be at risk if we were to go for option C? And what are the relative costs of giving the work to external
lawyers rather than doing it in-house under option B?
I accept that option C could not be adopted immediately even if we did think it right. And I absolutely
POL00167751
POL00167751
agree we should have a financial cut off of between £20k and £30k and take other factors into
consideration before proceeding whoever is conducting the prosecutions.
If you'd like a word, do let me know.
All the best
Alice
From: Larissa Wilson [mailto
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 12:14 PM GMT Standard Time
Chris M Day
Cc: Chris Aujard ¢
; Susannah Storey
susannah_hooper€
Subject: 2014 02 11 ARC teleconference
All
Please find attached the agenda and paper for the ARC teleconference 5pm — 6pm 11 February. The
teleconference will focus specifically on Post Office as a prosecuting authority. An update on Project
Sparrow will come to the February Board.
In line with the decision at the last Board meeting, these papers have been circulated to the whole
Board. Papers are also available on BoardPad.
Room 501 has been booked for the meeting if you wish to attend in person and teleconference details
Chairperson passcodd
Participant passcode:
Kind regards
Larissa
Larissa Wilson I Company Secretarial Assistant
<image001.png>
48 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.
POL00167751
POL00167751
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: 148 OLD
STREET, LONDON EC1V 9HQ.
JER IORI IO III IO II II I IOSD III III III IID II III II IIIA
Click here to report this email as spam.
This message has been scanned for malware by Websense. www.websense.com