POL00228329
POL00228329
Confidential - subject to litigation and legal advice privilege
Cond Dideingow
INITIAL COMPLAINT REVIEW AND MEDIATION SCHEME
SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS
Background Information
Applicant details
Claim no.
M130
Name
Mr Revti Raman Bhanote
Branch
Langley
Loss position
Branch loss
£7,500 in CRR/CQR (although due to age of
case, this figure cannot be verified by Post
Office)
Note — also mentioned in the CQR are “missing
coins and pension shortage” in the sum of £5.9k
— it is not clear why the Applicant has not added
this loss to the “differences” totalling £7.5k and
has included it instead with the consequential
losses.
Date of loss
Unknown but prior to 2002
Debt position
Unknown. Applicant claims to have paid back
£7,500 to POL but due to lack of documentation
this cannot be verified.
Consequential losses
claimed
Loss on sale of business - £20k
Cost of replacement counter - £4.5k
One year's lease - £3.5k
Solicitors’ fees — 5k
Compensation for personal impact - £150k
Flight costs - £500
Total: £183,500.00
Contract / termination I SPMR/employee/ other I SPMR
position
Former or current Former
SPMR?
Termination route
Contract summarily terminated
Termination date
Applicant claims September 2002. POL records
show last day of service was 15 August 2002
prosecution
Applicant position Bankrupt / IVA? NIA
Prosecuted? No
Outcome of criminal N/A
[DOCPROPERTY DooRef \* MERGEFORMAT]
[PAGE]
POL-BSFF-0066392
Confidential - subject to litigation and legal advice privilege
POL00228329
POL00228329
Cond Dideingow
Civil proceedings?
N/A
High profile media / MP
case?
N/A
Professional advisor
Bill Cleghorn (Aver)
NT case?
No
[DOCPROPERTY DooRef \* MERGEFORMAT]
[PAGE]
POL-BSFF-0066392_0001
POL00228329
POL00228329
Confidential - subject to litigation and legal advice privilege
Bond Dickinson Legal Analysis
Legal risk adjusted claim value
POL has no responsibility for the loss (see analysis below) so should make no payment to the Applicant.
Legal analysis of branch losses
Legal factor Legal risk Legal risk
(0% = no risk adjusted
to POL) claim value
Claim value £7,500
The Applicant claims he repaid losses totalling £7,500 to Post Office.
Has the claim already been barred / determined so that legal 0% £0
proceedings cannot be brought against POL?
Yes — beyond limitation
Responsibility for loss 0% £0
Post Office's position is that to the extent there were losses, the Applicant
is responsible. There is evidence that errors were made by staff and there
is no evidence that Horizon was at fault.
Legal analysis of consequential losses resulting from termination
Legal factor Legal risk Legal risk
(0% = no risk adjusted
to POL) I claim value
Value of claim based on Applicant's figures £183,500.00
Are the claimed consequential losses recoverable at law? 0% £0
Remuneration for three month notice period would be recoverable but has
not been claimed.
Has the claim already been barred / determined so that legal 0% £0
proceedings cannot be brought against POL?
Yes — time barred
Is there the possibility of an unlawful termination claim because the 100% £0
Applicant's contract was not terminated on 3 months’ notice?
Not known
[DOCPROPERTY DocRet \* MERGEFORMAT} [PAGE]
POL-BSFF-0066392_0002
POL00228329
POL00228329
Confidential - subject to litigation and legal advice privilege
Was contract termination unlawful? 0% £0
No evidence to suggest unlawful termination occurred.
Is there evidence that the Applicant could have "sold" his / her N/A £0
branch as a going concern if given 3 months’ notice?
N/A
Suitability for mediation
On the basis of the available evidence, Post Office is not responsible for any portion of the losses in the
branch and this case should not be mediated.
- There is no evidence to support the Applicant's claims that the shortfall was caused by Horizon
or that the level of training and support provided by Post Office was inadequate.
- There is evidence in the call logs of performance issues at the branch
Bond Dickinson contact
Name:
Tel:
Email:
Date: 17 March 2015
UPDATE FOLLOWING RECEIPT OF FINAL CRR
Changes made by Second Sight: Summary of differences between draft and final CRR
e Atparagraph 1.2, the final CRR notes that Post Office has provided comments on the draft CRR but
the Applicant has not.
e Atparagraph 1.5 (b)(iii), the reference to “bank/giros/cheques, including automated payment (AP)
transactions” has been deleted as these issues do not form part of the Applicant's complaint.
e Atparagraph 1.6, it is noted that Post Office cannot ascertain from the available records whether the
loss at the branch amounted to £7,500.
e Atparagraph 1.8, it is noted that Post Office records indicate Horizon was installed in the branch in
November 2000 (the Applicant claims it was installed in September 2001). The paragraph also now
includes Post Office's observation that there is no evidence that: (a) there was a loss of £7,500; and
(b) that this alleged loss was settled by the Applicant.
« Atparagraph 1.9, the CRR quotes from Post Office's comments on the draft CRR, stating that the
purpose of the audit would have been to verify Post Office assets rather than detecting fraud. It is
also noted that Post Office cannot verify the Applicant's claim that he had an appeal against his
termination turned down, owing to a lack of available documentation.
e Atparagraph 3.3, the final CRR notes that it is standard practice for a copy of an audit report to be
sent to the Subpostmaster after an audit. This is Post Office's response to the Applicant's claim that
the results of the audit were not disclosed to him.
e Paragraph 3.5 has been amended to add Post Office’s comment that there is no evidence to suggest
the Applicant was treated in a derogatory manner during the investigation process. It is also noted by
Second Sight that, in its view, Post Office's comment has “little evidential value”.
« At paragraph 4.1, which deals with alleged discrepancies flowing from remittance issues, the final
CRR incorporates Post Office's view that errors of this type would only occur through user errors.
[DOCPROPERTY DooRef \* MERGEFORMAT] [PAGE]
POL-BSFF-0066392_0003
POL00228329
POL00228329
Confidential - subject to litigation and legal advice privilege
Cond Dideingow
e At paragraph 4.5, which deals with the Horizon recovery procedures which follow power failures,
Second Sight suggest that it is impossible for it, or for Applicants, to prove a negative (ie. the
absence of on-screen instructions) and therefore they remain unconvinced that this “suspected
systematic flaw” does not exist.
e Atparagraph 5.2, the CRR confirms that the Applicant's original training records are not available
(further to Post Office's comments on the draft CRR). This paragraph also includes Post Office's
response to the observation that “Post Office no longer offers full Horizon training for branch staff
and...such support is expressly excluded from the Standard Contract”. Post Office's position is that
while it is Post Office's responsibility to train Subpostmasters, where it is appropriate, it will grant a
request for staff training.
e Atparagraph 5.5, the wording in the draft CRR speculating that a call being marked as “resolved”
may simply mean that the operator was unable to give further assistance, has been deleted.
e Atparagraph 5.8, the CRR has been amended to give marginally more weight to Post Office's
position. The CRR notes that the Applicant may have sometimes called the TC team rather than the
NBSC and it flows from this that a lack of evidence in the NBSC call logs “provides some evidence
for Post Office's position but is not conclusive.” Previously, the draft CRR suggested little value could
be attached to the lack of evidence in the call logs.
Are there any new legal risks as a result of the final CRR?
No. We confirm that the Bond Dickinson Legal Analysis section above remains unchanged following the
final CRR.
Has the recommendation as to suitability for mediation changed as a result of the final CRR?
No. We confirm that the Suitability for mediation section above remains unchanged following the final
CRR.
Date: 6 May 2015
[DOCPROPERTY DooRef \* MERGEFORMAT] [PAGE]
POL-BSFF-0066392_0004
POL00228329
POL00228329
Confidential - subject to litigation and legal advice privilege
Cond Dideingow
Advice qualifications
1. 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 unless such risks have been
previously highlighted by Cartwright King.
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.
[DOCPROPERTY DooRef \* MERGEFORMAT] [PAGE]
POL-BSFF-0066392_0005
Confidential - subject to litigation and legal advice privilege
“Court Ruling” assessment
Is the case subject to a Court Ruling?
No
Default mediation position?
Yes to mediation
Are there any exceptional circumstances?
No
[DOCPROPERTY DooRef \* MERGEFORMAT]
POL00228329
POL00228329
Cond Dideingow
[PAGE]
POL-BSFF-0066392_0006
Confidential - subject to litigation and legal advice privilege
Post Office Settlement Mandate
Legal risk adjusted claim value
£0
Other settlement factors
POL00228329
POL00228329
Cond Dideingow
Factor Adjustment Adjusted
settlement
threshold
Legal risk adjusted claim value £0
Actual cost of settlement to POL
Not known due to lack of evidence
Other admissions of fault by POL
N/A
PR / media implications
We are not aware of any special PR / media issues specific to this case.
Applicant expectations / experience from any previous negotiations
N/A
Criminal case — need to protect safety of convictions
N/A
Risk of future litigation / court costs
Appears to be low given the limitation issue and the lack of merit in any
claim by the Applicant
Cost savings through early settlement
This is not applicable as settlement is not being considered.
Other factors
N/A
Mandated financial settlement range
Alternative / additional non-financial settlement proposals that can be offered
[DOCPROPERTY DooRef \* MERGEFORMAT]
[PAGE]
POL-BSFF-0066392_0007
POL00228329
POL00228329
Confidential - subject to litigation and legal advice privilege
Other matters
Approved for mediation
Post Office Approval
Name: Date:
[DOCPROPERTY DooRef \* MERGEFORMAT] [PAGE]
POL-BSFF-0066392_0008