uN
oo
POL00226090
POL00226090
Cond Diclingow
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
Draft response to SS
By email
From: Patrick
To: lan Henderson
lan
Thanks for your email below and the opportunity to comment on the new Section 14 of the Part Two
Report.
As we have said, always-stated—Horizon does not have functionality that allows Post Office or Fujitsu to
edit or delete the transactions recorded by branches_and —wWe have previously deseribed-provided you
with details of the controls in place to step-this-happeningensure the integrity of Horizon's data. [I don’t
understand how we have controls against something which we have just said can’ nt happen, as a matter
of functionality — please clarify for me ? me-know. As
you are aware, + note-thatthere has been no evidence presented in any case 2 reviewed as part of the
Scheme that shows that these controls have failed or that the above statement is incorrect.
It has however always been possible for Post Office to correct errors in and/or update a branch's
9,10 I accounts. This is mMost commonly this-is-done by way of a transaction correction however it could also
be by way of a balancing transaction or transaction acknowledgement. A Post Office employee could
11 I also, in special circumstances [do we need to over this example/does it happen’, log on to a branch
terminal locally (i.e. by being physically in a branch) using a new User ID and password and then
conduct transactions (though these would register against that unique User ID).
The two Post Office / Fujitsu documents you refer to in the new Section 14 relate to the Receipts /
Payments issue that affected a small number of branches that were the pilot branches for Horizon
Online in 2010. This information was disclosed to Second Sight back in 2013 and I thought that this
matter had already been resolved.
However, in the short time available, I have been able to speak to Fujitsu and can confirm that most of
the branches affected by the Receipts / Payments issue were resolved by Post Office writing off the
discrepancies (being "Solution 2" as you correctly state at paragraph 14.12). In one branch, a balancing
transaction was used to correct the discrepancy in the branch's accounts (being "Solution 1" in the
documents). The affected branch was not a branch in Scheme - we know this because Horizon
automatically logs any use of balancing transactions and this log shows that a balancing transaction, has
only ever been used once across the entire Post Office network since the roll out of Horizon Online’
Given the passage of time, we have not been able to conclusively determine why this one branch was
treated differently however the overall effect is the same: no branch suffered a loss as result of the
Receipts / Payments issue.
All of the above processes for correcting / updating a branch's accounts have. similar features. They are
12 I only used with a Subpostmaster’s consent [this seems strong ~ is that right i , all of them involve
13, 14, 15
16, 17, 00
20,21
inputting a new transaction into the branch's records (not editing or removing any previous transactions)
and all are shown transparently in the branch transaction records available to Subpostmasters (as well
as in the master ARQ data).
UnfortunatelyTthe language used in the documents produced by Post Office / Fujitsu and to which you
refer is unfortunate colloquial shorthand that-was-only-intended for internalt-used by those working on
who-understeed-the Horizon system. I can seeunderstand_how it might -whyth da re id-be
read to suggest that Post Office was "altering" branch data but I hope the above explains why this is not
the case.
Kind regards
Patrick
1 I 4a s0sezaes 144_s0ssee23.2 1
POL00226090
POL00226090
Page 1 Comments
Al Good point — re-drafted to make clearer.
AP6, 08/04/2015 05:01 PM
A2 It happened in the case of Tracy Ann Merrit so SS will know this already.
AP6, 08/04/2015 04:57 PM
A3 Are you comfortable with this wording? Strictly speaking, the BT process also applied
to old Horizon but the audit log does not go back that far.
AP6, 08/04/2015 12:37 PM
A4 The BT process could theoretically be used without consent but in practice POL say
that they would only use a BT after informing the branch. So I think this statement is
correct.
AP6, 08/04/2015 04:59 PM
Track Changes
1 Change AP6, 08/04/2015 05:02 PM
2 Change Patrick Bourke, 08/04/2015 04:48 PM
3 Change AP6, 08/04/2015 05:00 PM
4 Change AP6, 08/04/2015 05:00 PM
5 Change AP6, 08/04/2015 05:00 PM
6 Change AP6, 08/04/2015 04:59 PM
75 Change Patrick Bourke, 08/04/2015 04:49 PM
8 Change Patrick Bourke, 08/04/2015 04:49 PM
9 Change Patrick Bourke, 08/04/2015 04:51 PM
10 Delete Patrick Bourke, 08/04/2015 04:51 PM
11 Insert Patrick Bourke, 08/04/2015 04:51 PM
12 Insert Patrick Bourke, 08/04/2015 04:53 PM
13 Change Patrick Bourke, 08/04/2015 04:53 PM
14 Delete Patrick Bourke, 08/04/2015 04:53 PM
15 Insert Patrick Bourke, 08/04/2015 04:53 PM
16 Insert Patrick Bourke, 08/04/2015 04:54 PM
17 Delete Patrick Bourke, 08/04/2015 04:54 PM
18 Insert Patrick Bourke, 08/04/2015 04:54 PM
19 Change Patrick Bourke, 08/04/2015 04:54 PM
20 Change Patrick Bourke, 08/04/2015 04:55 PM
21 Change Patrick Bourke, 08/04/2015 04:55 PM
POL00226090
POL00226090