POL00199179
POL00199179
From: Parsons, Andrew.
Sent:
To:
Ce: Jessica
Subject: RE: mediation [BD-4A.FID20472253]
All
My thoughts:
1. I highly doubt the mediators will want access to Huddle. CEDR will want a limited and finite bundle of
documents for each mediator so to speed up mediation prep.
2. In any event, it is for the parties (applicant and POL) to agree what information will go to each mediator — not
ss.
3. Introducing late information to mediations does happen however it tends to distract than assist. It causes the
parties to re-think their positions on the fly which is not productive (particularly if it pushes POL outside the
remit of its settlement mandate). Mediators are accustom to dealing with this type of situation and although
they will do their best to resolve any ad hoc issues, the normal approach is to park the new issues so to move
away from issues in dispute and towards talking about a resolution.
4. \f SS attend the mediation it will no longer be a mediation process. SS' role is to give an opinion. The
mediator's role is to remain entirely neutral and assist the parties to find their own solution. With SS in the
room, the role of the "independent" parties will become confused. The SPMR will inevitably look to SS for
answers rather than dealing with POL.
5. More voices in the mediation room tends to cause confusion rather than help reach a settlement. I fear that
putting SS in the room will cause such confusion.
6. In general, my view is that SS' role is to investigate each case, render a report and submit a recommendation
on whether the case should proceed to mediation. Following submission of their report, they have no further
role (and should have absolutely no further contact with any mediator, advisor or SPMR).
7. Ihave no idea what is Kay's "oversight" role.
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Senior Associate
for and on behalf of Bond Dickinson LLP
Follow Bond Dickinson:
POL00199179
POL00199179
www.bonddickinson.com
From: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Sent: 30 December 2013 09:29
To: Belinda Crowe; Chris Aujard; Parsons, Andrew
Cc: Sophie Bialaszewski; Jessica Barker
Subject: RE: mediation
Belinda,
We need to bottom this out as soon as possible as it will influence the way in which SS approach the
production of their investigation report. If they believe the mediation process to be an iterative process in
which they take an active part then I believe their report will be somewhat light on detail and incomplete
(they appear to find it easier to talk about bits of cases rather than the whole case). If this were to be the
case then virtually none of the cases will reach closure before the mediation process as the applicant will
feel the SS investigation is incomplete ie only one side of the story (ie POL’s) has been heard.
Then there is the consideration of SS’s exit? If they are part of the mediation process they will be active in
the process potentially until the back end of the Summer. And then there’s the question of who funds
them?
Angela
Angela Van Den Bogerd I Head of Partnerships
® 148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ
5
1)
@
(oy) Post Office stories
® @postofficenews
Confidential Information:
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. Any unauthorised review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient
please contact me by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
From: Belinda Crowe
Sent: 28 December 2013 11:26
To: Chris Aujard; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Andrew Parsons
Cc: Sophie Bialaszewski; Jessica Barker
Subject: mediation
Please see Ron's email below and my response.
POL00199179
POL00199179
Do we know what Kay's oversight work is? I have never heard of this.
I suspect the mediation issue arises from a conversation Jess and I had with Ron and Ian yesterday about
Huddle where it emerged (as Angela had previously highlighted) that Ron and Ian consider they may have a
role in the mediation itself. Although they claim not to want to as they will not have the time they believe that
this was something that was alluded to (when I pressed them on what exactly had been agreed they would go
no stronger than ‘alluded to! and that there was an expectation that they would be involved).
It also became clear that they consider that the mediation is an iterative and dynamic process. That is that if an
applicant raises new issues that have not been raised in the CQR then we will all need to be ready to deal with
those issues and provide further information. Ian's view was that if this is about closure for the applicants then
we need to be able to deal with all issues they raise, regardless of when they raise them. I made the point that
the whole idea of providing applicants with the opportunity to have a professional advisor to make their case is
that its a one off opportunity to document their complaints and have them properly investigated.
The reason these issues arose in the call we had yesterday was that Ian clearly believes that the mediators
should have access to Huddle and if they want further information during the mediation process we should put
that into Huddle. Aside from the points above, from a security and cost point of view we cannot give
mediators, applicants and their advisors access to Huddle. We have to pay for each licence (and potentially
this would be around 400 users) and also we could not have an open site whereby everyone could look at
everything. We could only allow the applicant, advisor, POL team and mediator look at the documents
appropriate to the individual case. It is important that the people involved in the mediation of a particular case
all get the same bundle of material (either electronically - by email - or in hard copy) and that is a one-off
provision of all relevant material.
I think the mediation requirements conversation is properly for the Working Group but my reason for
suggesting that I join the call today is that we hope to put something to the Working Group next week about
the mediation process and I want to make sure it addresses everything it needs to address and in a way that
gets agreement on how to proceed.
If Ron does provide me with information so that I can join the call I will report back.
Best wishes
Belinda Crowe
Begin forwarded message:
From: Belinda Crowe <t
Date: 28 D
To: "rjwi
Ce: "roi
“mediation€
Belinda Crowe
Subject: Re: M119 - mediation
GRO
Thanks Ron
I think if there is to be a conversation about what the mediators might want it would be helpful if I were involved too.
Although I would have thought that would be a conversation for the working group.
I am happy to dial in or to be called if you can give me a time.
Best wishes
Belinda
From: Ron Warmington [mailto
Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2013 10:45 AM
To: Belinda Crowe
POL00199179
POL00199179
Cc: 'Ron Warmington’ mediationé
Pe
‘Subject: RE: Mii9 - mediation
Many thanks Belinda. Ron.
All: Kay Linnell is calling in here today to carry out some of her ‘oversight’ work. We (Ian
and T) also hope to gain some insight as to what the Mediators will need (Kay is a Mediator
herself so knows where they'll be coming from). Ian and I will have a conference call with
Kay around lunchtime today. Alan: Are you in if we need to patch you into that meeting?
(and is your mobile number the best one to catch you on?).
From: Belinda Crowe [mailto:!_
Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2013 9:29 AM
Cc: Ron Warmington; mediation@
Subject: Re: M119 - mediation
Ron, Alan
You will have seen my mail to Marion.
I cannot explain why the letter took so long to arrive. I thought it best if I speak to Marion and I will find
what she has and talk her through it. If she appears to be missing anything I will resend everything special
delivery.
It is a standard pack that goes with the SLO1, and it all goes out on the day it is dated. I will let you know the
position when I have spoken to Marion. If she has only just got the letter then I would assume that the
timescale for appointing an advisor and completing the questionnaire starts from when she receives the
information and not from the date on the letter.
Alan, I am not taking any time off over the holidays (except Christmas Day, Boxing Day and New Year's
Day). If Marion calls you, please feel free to give her my number. Alternatively if you want me to call her,
drop me an email at this address. My number is}
Best wishes
Belinda
Sent: Friday, Dece:
To: ‘Belinda Cr
Belinda: Is it possible that Marion only received her letter only a week ago? Also, Marion has
referred to her "main application form". We had already received (on Nov 15th) the formal
Application Form and our acceptance of it was signified by my letter to Marion dated
November 26th. .
POL00199179
POL00199179
Marion: What do you mean by your "main application form"? I suspect that you mean the
form that you need to complete and sign in order to get funding from POL for help froma
Professional Advisor. On what exact date did you receive my November 26th letter? The
pack should also have enclosed a List of Professional Advisors plus an Application Form for
funding for such an Advisor and a set of Questions and Answers about the Mediation Scheme.
Regards,
Ron Warmington CFE, FCA
Director
Second Sight support Services Ltd
Tythe Farm
Maugersbury
Cheltenham
Gloucestershire
GL54 1HR
UL
From: Alan Bates [mailto:
Sent: Friday, December 27, 2013
To: ron.warminatont
Subject: FW: mediation
FYI
From: Alan Bates [mailto
Sent: 27 December 2013 07:26
To: 'Marion Drydale'
Subject: RE: mediation
The application form, funding application and list of Advisors to select from should have been enclosed with the letter
informing you that your case had been accepted. Was it just a single sheet you received or a pack?
I will chase this up for you when POL is back at work, was the letter only delivered by Royal Mail this week?
Alan
From: Marion Drydale [mailto: 7
Sent: 27 December 2013 01:01
Subject: mediation
I received a letter only this week saying my case had been accepted. saying I had a month from
POL00199179
POL00199179
the date on the letter which was the 26.11/.13 to submit my application. I have not received a
i lication form and am now worried that I have missed the date. please help
“I marion Drydale
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.
JESS ISI HDI IIIS IIS IODA III III II III III III IE
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.
Please consider the environment! Do you need to print this email?
The information in this ind any attachments is confidential and may
to access this e-mail an
any copies. Unauthorise
Any files attached to this e-mail will have been checked by us with virus detection software before transmission, Bond Dickinson LLP accepts no liability for any loss or damage
which may be caused by software viruses and you should carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment
Content of this email which does not relate to the official business of Bond Dickinson LLP, is neither given nor endorsed by it
This email is sent for and on behalf of Bond Dickinson LLP which is a limited
office is St Ann’s Wharf, 112 Quayside, Neweastle Upon Tyne, NEI 3DX, wh
the LLP, or an employee or consultant who is of equivalent standing. Our VAT re
tered in England and Wales under number 0C317661. Our reg
mes is open to inspection. We
GB1 23393627.
the term partner to refer to a n
Bond Dickinson LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority