POL00226357
POL00226357
From: Alisdair Cameron[/O=MMS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=ALISDAIR CAMEEFDEB93E-38D3-4144-9126-
98E439975012742]
Sent: Sun 12/04/2015 6:
To:
Cc:
Parsons, Andre\
Subject: Re: Second Sight's Final Part 2 Report. Your expertise required.
I am happy if rod is. Thanks Al
Sent from my iPhone
On 11 Apr 2015, at 17:06, Mark Underwood] “P wrote:
Hi Alisdair,
Are you happy for the below wording to be included in our Reply to Second Sights Report? It is very
slightly tweaked to the words you provided.
1.1. Similarly, the statements at paragraphs 2.18 and 2.19 about Post Office client accounts
are equally inaccurate. Second Sight appears to have misunderstood the information
provided by Post Office. The balances of £96m and £66m were taken from routine
trading balances yet to be settled with other organisations at a particular month end.
In other words, they represent amounts due other parties, not amounts that are
unreconciled and which may be due to Subpostmasters. As previously reported to
Second Sight, the fact that gives genuine comfort is that neither account had any
unreconciled balances which were over six months old. If the client accounts were
being operated as an alternative suspense account, this would not be the case.
Many thanks
Mark
Mark Underwood
Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme
From: Alisdair Cameron
Sent: 10 April 2015 15:12
To: Mark Underwood1
Cc: Rod Ismay; Patrick Bourke; Parsons, Andrew
Subject: RE: Second Sight's Final Part 2 Report. Your expertise required.
I haven't received anything. Thanks Al
From: Mark Underwood1
Sent: 10 April 2015 15:09
To: Alisdair Cameron
Cc: Rod Ismay; Patrick Bourke; Parsons, Andrew
Subject: RE: Second Sight's Final Part 2 Report. Your expertise required.
Hi Alisdair,
Presumably Second Sight never, as detailed in your email (attached for ease), got back in touch to say
they were not satisfied?
Mark
Mark Underwood
Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme
From: Alisdair Cameron
Sent: 09 April 2015 17:30
To: Mark Underwood1
Cc: Rod Ismay; Patrick Bourke; Parsons, Andrew
Subject: Re: Second Sight's Final Part 2 Report. Your expertise required.
Ok thanks, frustrating Al
Sent from my iPad
Thanks Alisdair, those words work for me.
Apologies for any lack of clarity but the report received by Second Sight is their Final
Report, so we are unable to change what they have written. Rather, the words you have
provided are for inclusion in our formal Reply which will be issued to Applicants and their
advisors along with their final report.
Mark
Mark Underwood
Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme
From: Alisdair Cameron
Sent: 09 April 2015 16:21
To: Rod Ismay
Cc: Mark Underwood1; Patrick Bourke; Parsons, Andrew
Subject: Re: Second Sight's Final Part 2 Report. Your expertise required.
How about.
The balances of £96m and £66m were routine trading balances yet to be settled with the
other organisation at that particular month end. In other words, they represent amounts
due not amounts that are unreconciled. This description is therefore misleading. As
previously reported to SS, the statistic that gives genuine comfort is that neither account
had any unreconciled balances which were over six months old. If the client accounts were
being operated as an alternative suspense account, this would not be the case. Taking this
with the work previously shared on the suspense account, we can see no evidence for any
ongoing concern.
POL00226357
POL00226357
POL00226357
POL00226357
Does that work - this should go in asap
I would prefer they didn't quote individual client names as well.
Thanks Al
Thanks, Rod
Rod Ismay I Head of Finance Service Centre
<image001.png>
2™ Floor West Block, No 1 Future Walk, West Bars, Chesterfield, S49 1PF.
a “Mobile & Email H
Post Office Finance — 2014 Winners Public & Voluntary Sector
Best Finance Team 2014 Best Annual Report & Accounts
<image002.png><image003,jpg>
From: Mark Underwood1
Sent: 09 April 2015 13:40
To: Rod Ismay
Cc: Alisdair Cameron; Patrick Bourke; Parsons, Andrew
Subject: Second Sight's Final Part 2 Report. Your expertise required.
Importance: High
Hi Rod,
Second Sight has, just now, released to us their finalised Part Two Report. We
are now busily writing our reply.
Below is an extract from their report.
2.18. In addition to the credits being taken to Post
Office's General Suspense Account we have been informed
very recently that at each year end substantial
unreconciled balances existed on many of the individual
suspense accounts. These unreconciled balances for the
2014 financial year were approximately £96 million in
respect of Bank of Ireland ATMs and approximately £66
million in respect of Santander. These unmatched
balances represent transactions from individual
branches that occurred in the preceding six months.
2.19. We have not been able to investigate these items
but we remain concerned that these unreconciled
balances may include transactions that ultimately
should be credited back to individual branch accounts.
Is the above correct? I would be grateful if you could draft some words in
response to the above and in terms of time frames — are you able to look at
this today please as we are trying to finalise our Reply and send it to
Applicants to the Scheme as soon as possible.
Many thanks
Mark
POL00226357
POL00226357
Mark Underwood
lai iew and Mediation Scheme