POL00220084
POL00220084
From: Chris Aujard[imceaex-
mms_ou=exchange+20administrative+ 20group+20+28fydibohf23spdit+29_cn=recipients_cn
=christopher+20aa0452485-80b7-40d2-ade7-6f6feae1 9cc3f88@c72a47.ingest.local]
Sent: Tue 27/01/2015 3:21:28 PM (UTC)
To: Alisdair Cameron:
Cc: andrew.parsons _
Subject: FW: Suspense accounts - legally privileged - urgent [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Attachment: Suspense document.eml
Hi Al — see below for responses from Andy Parsons (and the responses in red below that), Andy will send through a
timetable shortly. BTW we are still aiming for a meeting with Second Sight on Monday afternoon — can you tell me
what works best for you? Cheers Chris
From: Parsons, Andrew [mailto:
Sent: 27 January 2015 13:19
To: Chris Aujard; Tom Wechsler; Patrick Bourke; Rodric Williams; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Cc: Jane MacLeod; Loraine, Pau
Subject: RE: Suspense accounts - legally privileged - urgent [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Chris
Al is referring to the draft paper that Rod sent to me last night - see attached.
It may be useful to talk through with Al his main concern (that we only provide 2 examples rather than a
comprehensive answer). Angela and I have already discussed this with Rod and found that getting clear answers was
very difficult. Each client/product has a different process and therefore the operation of the Suspense Account in
relation to each product is different. Drafting a comprehensive explanation for each product would therefore be a
significant task. For this reason, we focussed the draft paper on two specific examples, banking transactions and
ATMs - these being SS' primary areas of concern.
There is also a wider point that SS are fishing for information when they should be putting forward concrete examples
of how the Suspense Account has operated to disadvantage a SPMR in relation to a particular product or transaction.
Volunteering too much information may only encourage further fishing and less focus on specific cases.
I've inserted some further comments in Al's email below on his specific questions.
Tom / Patrick - are you in a position to collate the statistical information that Al asks for at the end of his email? I
have some of this already - happy to discuss.
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Managing Associate
Follow Bond Dickinson:
www.bonddickinson.com
~~ Original Message-----
POL00220084
POL00220084
From: Chris Aujard [mailt
Sent: 27 January 2015 12:48
To: Tom Wechsler; Patrick Bourke; Rodric Williams; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Parsons, Andrew
Cc: Jane MacLeod
Subject: FW: Suspense accounts - legally privileged - urgent
FYI - I am not sure what draft written response he is referring to; can anyone shed some light on this and the other
questions that he has asked? Chris
From: Alisdair Cameron
Sent: 27 January 2015 12:43
To: Chris Aujard; Jane MacLeod; Belinda Crowe
Cc: Rod Ismay; Mark R Davies
Subject: Suspense accounts - legally privileged - urgent
Chris et al
In spending the day with Rod, he showed me the draft written response to SS, which I hadn't seen. I am slightly
disconcerted that we still haven't replied to them but as that seems to be the case I have a few observations. It would
be helpful if someone could confirm the diary plan for the next few days - when we reply, when we practice, is Monday
on? etc.
My main issue with the draft is that it doesn't do what they want and begs an obvious question. We effectively give
them a high level overview and then two specific examples. If I was them, I would say "not good enough, give us the
specifics for each material client." So my question is, rather than making them jump through hoops, why don't we just
do that?
Secondly, we are very data light. Can we not get across a sense of volumes and values and percentages that would
highlight how small some of his activity is relative to the core - and how much activity there is in the wider business,
which may help them understand why we can't control every detail.
Rod Ismay is compiling this data
Less significantly:
- if our main contention is that there are many different versions of this, why refer to it as a singular Suspense
Account?
I'll speak to Rod about getting this further level of detail — the reference to a single account was only there to help
simplify the answer.
- are we really clear that they are only interested in client suspense accounts and not the balancing accounts with the
branches?
Yes — SS have made this clear.
- in para. 2 of page 2 we talk about the various people affected but ignore customers. I would add them in.
Agreed
- I agree we should use "credit" consistently. Have we worked through a logic for a debits, so we can answer that
question if it arises? "Are there any circumstances in which a debit suspense item could leave a branch out of pocket?"
SS have made clear that they are only interested in credits but we can work up an answer on debits just in case.
- we hold strongly to the argument that if a branch has accounted properly it shouldn't be out of pocket. But it opens us
up to the argument that if a badly trained and unsupported branch made errors and were materially out of profit - to our
benefit - that would also be something we had accountability for. What's our answer to that? An example is if they
don't record cheques properly, create a cash shortfall they don't get paid for and don't get the matching cheque
benefit?
We'll need to discuss this with Rod Ismay.
- we cover the same. 2 examples twice each and the two could be consolidated to better effect
Agreed
Also could I urgently see a breakdown of the cases in process showing amount claimed, where there has been a
criminal prosecution, where they are in the SS process, what any SS recommendations are etc?
POL00220084
POL00220084
Thanks Al
Sent from my iPad
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.
JES IS ISIS III IO II IIS IIODIIIDI IO IOI II IIIS III II II III
Please consider the environment! Do you need to print this email
formation in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may be I leged and protected by law. ch
{is e-mail and any attachments, If you are not christopher aujardt notify andrew. parsons}
copies. Unauthorised use, dissemination, distribution, publication or copying of this communication or attachments is prohibited and
be unlawful.
Any
which
d to this e-mail will have been cheel
ed by us with virus detection software before transmission, Bond Dickinson LLP accepts no liability for any loss or dam
wased 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 neithe
‘en nor endorsed by it
This email is sent for and on behalf of Bond Dickinson LLP which is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under number OC3 17661. Our n
office is St Ann’s Wharf, 112 Quayside, Neweastle Upon Tyne, NEI 3DX, where a list of members’ names is open to inspection. We use the term partner to refer to a
the LLP, or an employee or consultant who is of equivalent standing. Our VAT registration number is GB123393627
ered
nber of
Bond Dickinson LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority
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.