POL00225340
POL00225340
From:
Sent:
To: Alisdair
Camerort
Belinda
Andre’
Subject: RE: Second Sight outstanding request for information in relation to Suspense Accounts
Hi Mark,
Unmatched differences are where the stream of data from the branch differs to the stream from the client and where,
at the point in time, the reason for the difference has not yet been resolved (ie. it has not been matched). When it
becomes resolved / matched it would lead either to an evidenced transaction to a branch or to a challenge to the
client about their data.
The types of issue they could indicate were included in the 30 January note to lan at Second Sight. That was the letter
which we worked through in the Old Street boardroom and which was sent by email from Chris Aujard on 30 January.
Thanks, Rod
Rod Ismay I Head of Finance Service Centre
, West Bars, Chesterfield, S49 1PF
Best Finance Team 2014 Best Annual Report & Accounts
BusinessFinance ‘
Awards 2014 /
SS
From: Mark Underwood1
Sent: 23 March 2015 17:30
To: Alisdair Cameron; Jane MacLeod; Belinda Crowe; Parsons, Andrew
Cc: Rod Ismay
Subject: RE: Second Sight outstanding request for information in relation to Suspense Accounts
Thanks Alisdair,
Forgive my ignorance, but could I ask:
- What an unmatched difference is?
- How and what type of issue(s) this could, in theory, mask?
Mark
From: Alisdair Cameron
Sent: 23 March 2015 17:03
To: Jane MacLeod; Mark Underwood1; Belinda Crowe; Parsons, Andrew
Cc: Rod Ismay
Subject: FW: Second Sight outstanding request for information in relation to Suspense Accounts
Is everyone happy with this as a proposed reply? And do you want me to e-mail lan today? Thanks Al
POL00225340
POL00225340
From: Rod Ismay
Sent: 23 March 2015 16:41
To: Alisdair Cameron
Cc: Jane MacLeod
Subject: RE: Second Sight outstanding request for information in relation to Suspense Accounts
Al. Yes that would be fine.
Thanks, Rod
From: Alisdair Cameron
Sent: 23 March 2015 16:35
To: Rod Ismay
Cc: Jane MacLeod
Subject: RE: Second Sight outstanding request for information in relation to Suspense Accounts
So would it be right to go back to them and say:
“You were satisfied that the Suspense Account was effectively controlled and did not include a risk to branch
accounting. You asked for some contextual data to reassure you that unmatched differences were not left for long
periods in the underlying client accounts, thereby masking issues.
To give you two specific examples relevant to your concerns:
- The Bank Of Ireland account relating to customer withdrawals of cash from ATMS. At the end of the 2014/14
financial year, this had a balance of £96m and no unmatched items more than six months old.
- The Santander account relating to customer payments into branches. This had a balance of £66m and no
unmatched items over 6 months old.
\f differences were being left unresolved in client accounts, balances more than 6 months would be building up. On
this basis, we think this should satisfy you that there is no evidence of any issues relating to branch accounting in the
suspense account or left unresolved in the client accounts.”
From: Rod Ismay
Sent: 23 March 2015 12:54
To: Alisdair Cameron
Subject: RE: Second Sight outstanding request for information in relation to Suspense Accounts
Al,
We have several products and consequently several GL’s with clients such as these.
I have therefore enquired into the accounts which I believe relate most closely to the comments Second Sight have
made.
For those (see below), the short answer to the question of items a year or more old, is none.
Bol — taking the ATM account. le. Not savings accounts or insurances etc.
At the end of March 2014 (period 12 of 13/14) we had:
- Total debt on the account of £96m. Moneys due back to Post Office Ltd in respect of customer cash
withdrawals from ATMs
- There were no unmatched items more than a year old. The oldest items were 3 (dated period 4 of 2013/14)
related to an engineer fraud incident which has had a dedicated security investigation and due consideration
within Sparrow. They amounted to £6k. Other items being investigated were all less than 2 months old
POL00225340
POL00225340
Santander — creditor of £66m, payable to Santander in respect of customer inpayments in branches
There is a formal G/L for differences notified by Santander which can lead to Transaction Corrections or to
adjustments to settlement values between the companies. There were no items in there more than a year
old. Oldest 6 months
Thanks, Rod
Rod Ismay I Head of Finance Service Centre
lock, No 1 Future Walk, We:
Best Finance Team 2014 Best Annual Report & Accounts
BusinessFinance
Awards 2014 /
From: Alisdair Cameron
Sent: 23 March 2015 07:16
To: Rod Ismay
Subject: Fwd: Second Sight outstanding request for information in relation to Suspense Accounts
Rod, I think the ask was for two key clients, one Santander, one BOI maybe, at the end of 2013/14, what was the value
and volume of outstanding differences, gross debits and gross credits, that were more than a year old - and
potentially what has happened to them since. Can you give me the answer to the first part, quickly? Thanks Al
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Mark Underwood1!
Date: 22 March 2015 16:39:42 GMT
Alisdair Cameron
, Belinda Crowe
Subject: Fequest for information in relation to Suspense Accounts
Hi Jane,
Yes no problem at all, though I wouldn't expect a particularly useful answer to be provided.
I would expect at best, they will say it is for contextual reasons but I agree it would be useful to know.
Mark
From: Jane MacLeod
Sent: 22 March 2015 16:35
To: Mark Underwood1; Alisdair Cameron
Cc: Tom Wechsler; Belinda Crowe; Rod Ismay
Subject: RE: Second Sight outstanding request for information in relation to Suspense Accounts
Mark
POL00225340
POL00225340
One thought on this — it would be useful to understand the context in which SS believe that this
information is relevant to their Part Il report (which they are supposed to be finalising by mid this
week). Can you ask them (tactfully) where this fits in? If it is just data for its own sake, then I don’t
really see how this helps.
Thanks
jane
From: Mark Underwood1
Sent: 20 March 2015 17:25
To: Alisdair Cameron; Jane MacLeod
Cc: Tom Wechsler; Belinda Crowe; Rod Ismay
Subject: RE: Second Sight outstanding request for information in relation to Suspense Accounts
Hi Alisdair (Rod also now Cc’d)
I have pasted below an email we received from Second Sight on Wednesday which makes it clear they
are expecting us to provide some further information. As a side issue, it would be really useful if we
could include in our Reply to their Part 2 Report that we have provided this additional information.
Rod, with reference to our discussion this morning about what it is they want - does this clarify things at
all?
Mark
From: Chris Holyoak
Sent: 18 March 2015
To: Tom Wechsler
Subject: RE: Action points following Scheduling meeting
Thanks Tom - noted.
All looks OK to me.
Just one point is that I believe that we are also still expecting POL to provide further information relating
to Third Party account reconciliations (part of the whole Suspense account question) following the
meeting that lan and I attended with Jane and Alisdair on 4 March.
Regards
Chris
From: Alisdair Cameron
Sent: 20 March 2015 17:18
To: Jane MacLeod
Cc: Mark Underwood1; Tom Wechsler; Belinda Crowe
Subject: Re: Second Sight outstanding request for information in relation to Suspense Accounts
It was vague - but numerical data around the quantum of old items still on accounts, using examples.
We aren't working on it, should we be? Al
Sent from my iPhone
On 20 Mar 2015, at 17:07, Jane MacLeod
Mark
I don’t think they asked for anything specific at that meeting as the conversation around
client accounts arose out of the suspense account discussion . My recollection is that they
said they would think about what they might want and I don’t recall them asking for
anything specific on client accounts.
Copying in Alisdair in case he has received anything directly?
Thanks,
Jane
From: Mark Underwood1
Sent: 20 March 2015 12:36
To: Jane MacLeod
Cc: Tom Wechsler; Belinda Crowe
Subject: Second Sight outstanding request for information in relation to Suspense
Accounts
Hi Jane,
Though Second Sight has no outstanding questions in relation to Suspense Accounts per se,
they do apparently have outstanding requests for information in relation to numerical data
on aspects of the client accounts themselves.
These were brought up at the meeting held on 04.03.2015.
lam trying to ascertain exactly what it is we have committed to provide / look into. Having
spoken to Rod Ismay, he is unclear and has no documentation detailing their request. He
mentioned you made some notes at this meeting. By chance, did you manage to capture
their request?
Thanks Jane
Mark
POL00225340
POL00225340
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.