POL00211412
POL00211412
INITIAL COMPLAINT REVIEW AND MEDIATION SCHEME
SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS
Background Information
Applicant details Claim no. M067
Name Mr Guy Vinall
Branch Funtington
Loss position
Branch loss
£27,991.21
Date of loss
Not stated by Applicant but indications from the
Applicant are that losses began accruing after the
Applicant's accident in 2005 meaning the period of
loss is 2005 to 2009.
Debt position
The Applicant's father repaid the figure revealed by
the audit which was conducted on 14 October 2009
(i.e, £28,298,00) but was later refunded a sum of
£306.79 following a later audit of the branch
meaning the total debt paid was £27,991.21.
Consequential losses
The Applicant has referenced the following
consequential losses but has not detailed any sum in
respect of the alleged losses:
1. Lost contract;
2. POL remuneration;
3. Closure of the Post Office; and
4. Lost footfall for the Applicant's shop.
Contract / termination
position
SPMR / employee / other
SPMR
Former or current SPMR?
Former
Termination route
Summarily Terminated
Termination date
5 January 2010
Applicant position Bankrupt / IVA? No
Prosecuted? No
Outcome of criminal Nia
prosecution
Civil proceedings? No
High profile media / MP —_I Not known
case?
Professional advisor? MS RISK
4A_29606501_2
Bond Dickinson Legal Analysis
Legal risk adjusted claim value
£0
Legal analysis of branch losses
POL00211412
POL00211412
Following losses claimed by the Applicant are not recoverable:
1.
Lost footfall for the Applicant's shop.
Legal factor Legal risk Legal risk
deduction (0% adjusted
= no risk to claim value
POL)
Claim value £27,991.21
£27,991.21 of branch losses
Claim already determined? 100% £27,991.21
No
Responsibility for loss 20% £5,98.35
No evidence of failure in Horizon.
Exact cause of loss not determined. However, Applicant did admit to
committing false accounting and therefore is liable for the loss.
POL conclusion is that loss was most likely to have been caused by human
action (for example user errors, poor controls in the branch and/or theft).
Legal analysis of consequential losses resulting from termination
Legal factor Legal risk Legal risk
deduction (0% adjusted
=no risk to claim value
POL)
Value of claim based on Applicant's figures Not known
The Applicant has not provided details of the value of his claim. He has merely
set out in his CQR that he is seeking the following in terms of compensation:
1. Repayment of the £27,991.21 his father paid to Post Office in
respect of the shortage at the branch
2. Lost contract;
3. POL remuneration;
4. Closure of the Post Office; and
5. Lost footfall for the Applicant's shop.
Are the claimed consequential losses recoverable at law? Not known Not known
4A_29606501_2
POL00211412
POL00211412
Has the claim already been barred / determined so that legal proceedings 100% Not known
cannot be brought against POL?
No
Is there the possibility of an unlawful termination claim because the 100% Not known
Applicant's contract was not terminated on proper notice?
Yes
Was contract termination unlawful? 0% £0
The Applicant admitted to false accounting so there is no evidence that the
termination was unlawful
Has evidence been provided that Applicant could have "sold" branch as a wa £0
going concern if given proper notice?
Not known
Suitability for mediation
All indications point to the losses being a result of user error, mismanagement and/or theft. There is no
evidence to suggest that the losses in the branch were caused by Horizon. Therefore, we do not
consider this case suitable for mediation.
Bond Dickinson contact
Name:
Tel:
Email:
Advice qualifications
41 This advice has been produced by applying the principles set out in the Advice from Linklaters
dated 20 March 2014.
2 No further legal analysis of the underlying legal principles has been carried out, in particular we
have not considered any other possible legal bases for the Applicant's claims including without limitation
malicious prosecution, defamation, malicious falsehood, breach of confidence, tortious causes of action
or privacy law.
3 We have not analysed the possibility that failures by Post Office in training or supporting the
Applicant, or subsequently investigating losses, may have contributed to the Applicant's ability to
prevent losses in branch.
4 Our advice is based on only the information in the Applicant's Case Questionnaire Response,
the Post Office Investigation Report and Second Sight's Case Review Report. Our advice does not
factor in the possibility of further information being available at a later date that may change our
analysis.
5 We have not considered the Applicant's appetite or capacity to bring proceedings against POL
or any of the "other" factors set out in the settlement mandate.
6 We have not considered any criminal law issues or whether any conviction / sentence may be
unsafe. We have assumed that there are no criminal law risks.
4A_29606501_2 3
POL00211412
POL00211412
7 We have applied a de minimis threshold to legal risk. Where the legal risk is very small (less
than 20%) we have recorded this as 0% in our analysis.
8 If this matter was to proceed to Court there is a risk that a judge, without the appropriate
expertise or knowledge, may find it persuasive that the discrepancies stopped when the telephone line
was disconnected. This is an inherent risk with any litigation.
4A_29606501_2 4
POL00211412
POL00211412
Post Office Settlement Mandate
Legal risk adjusted claim value
£0
Other settlement factors
Factor Adjustment Adjusted
settlement
threshold
Legal risk adjusted claim value £0
Actual cost of settlement to POL,
To settle this claim, would require a positive payment of cash to the Applicant
as the Applicant's father has previously repaid the losses.
Other admissions of fault by POL
None known
PR/ media implications
None as far as we are aware
Applicant expectations / experience from any previous negotiations
Unknown
Criminal case — need to protect safety of convictions
No
Risk of future litigation / court costs
Cost savings through early settlement.
None as mediation is not recommended.
Other factors
Mandated financial settlement range
Alternative / additional non-financial settlement proposals that can be offered
Other matters
Approved for mediation
4A_29606501_2 5
POL00211412
POL00211412
Post Office Approval
Name: Date:
4A_29606501_2 6