POL00253410
POL00253410
From: Charlotte Power!
Sent: Thur 15/02/2018 2:48:32 PM (UTC)
To:
Ce:
Subject: FW: Sparrow narrative
Hi Mark,
I completely support Jane’s position....... I think proactively setting out to ‘tell our story’ (as nicely written as Al’s
statement is) could lead to a rather ugly public ‘slanging match’ and draw attention to this issue completely
unnecessarily.
I will write something from the JFSA POV and I hopefully it’ll help everyone to realise that it’s best we continue to take
the same approach as we have always done.......
Many Thanks,
Charlotte
Charlotte Power
Strategic Communications Manager
2017 Winner of the 20 Finsbury Street
Global Postal Award for London
Customer Experience "v
From: Jane MacLeod
Sent: 15 February 2018 14:29
To: Charlotte Power ¢__ GRO ____>; Paula Vennells <7
>; Mark R Davies
Alisdair
Cameron <_
Subject: RE: Sparrow narrative
You will all appreciate my nervousness at this discussion.
Before any more pens are put to paper, we need to be clear in what circumstances any narrative would be used, and
then work out what the messages could be.
At the moment it is entirely unclear to me in what circumstances we would want to use such a narrative, although I
anticipate we would want to say something in the ARA.
One of the reasons we currently say very little about the litigation, is to avoid providing fuel to the JFSA and others,
who are only too keen to raise stories of individual postmasters which makes for even more prejudicial coverage as
they have no incentive to be calm and balanced, and to steer criticism away from current management who continue
to suspend & terminate postmasters, pursue debt collection etc, even if prosecutions are not the current issue. The
Comms team have been very successful over the last 12-18 months at fending off adverse publicity, and we need to
be mindful of the risks of changing that strategy.
POL00253410
POL00253410
Jane
Jane MacLeod
Group Director of Legal, Risk & Governance
Ground Floor
20 Finsbury Street
LONDON
EC2Y 9AQ
Mobile numberd”
From: Charlotte Power
Sent: 15 February 2018 13:58
To: Paula Vennells
MacLeod
Subject: RE: Sparrow narrative
l agree. It feels very measured and reasonable. Although the paragraph Paula mentions is perhaps a slight departure
from the tone of the rest of the piece and feels a little emotive.
I’m very happy to look at drafting a version for the JFSA if that would be helpful?
Many Thanks,
Charlotte
Charlotte Power
Strategic Communications Manager
2017 Winner of the 20 Finsbury Street
Global Postal Award for London
Customer Experience
From: Paula Vennells
Sent: 15 February 2018 13:39
To: Alisdair Cameron
Davies ¢~
Cc: Charlotte Power <__
Subject: Re: Sparrow narrative
Jane MacLeod
I like this - it is calm, factual (when we put the facts in - from memory some date back to the 1990s so we should be
accurate) and I think gets the scale and the background facts into the open.
To be able to decide whether it is the right approach, you have to write the JFSP’s own calm and factual version as
POL00253410
POL00253410
well. We have to put ourselves in their shoes, to anticipate how balanced and engaging a story they have too. Can we
draft that? Al I don’t know if you want to have a go? Or we ask Portland, or Charlotte if she can get close to Sparrow,
as she writes well too.
Back to us, it may be that this is a narrative which we use internally and possibly even in the ARA?
But as Mark says, that’s the debate to have. (What's the sign off date for the ARA?)
There is one para which doesn’t wholly work for me, beginning ‘Unfortunately, ...’
Whilst the account of what is likely to happen is probably right, a couple of descriptions become emotive and
statements stray into speculation or opinion: ‘disappear into the misty world of off-shore finance’ ‘astronomic
proportions’ ‘a few wealthy individuals even richer’. It’s a good account of what we want people to know, so not a re-
write but re-adjust some phrases.
Al, thanks for the work on this - you’ve missed your way - an accountant that can write!
Mark, will you pick up next week as you suggest?
Paula
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Alisdair Cameron
Sent: Friday, February 9, 2018 09:30
Subject: Sparrow narrative
To: Jane MacLeod <}"
Vennells <
It feels as though we are about to come into a new period of discussion and public attention on Sparrow — the claim
value, the impending court case, higher costs all point in that direction. It was the central point of the UKGI briefing of
our new Minister, was raised by CWU yesterday and by EY as their most pressing issue for the ARA.
Our traditional practice has been to say as little as possible in public, focus on our legal positioning and quietly explain
in the background why interested parties shouldn’t believe everything they hear. And that may well be the right way
forward over the next 6-9 months.
Before we all conclude that, I was just wondering what it would look like if we were to say “let’s get out in front and
bring this issue to peoples’ attention starting with our perspective”? It might increase coverage but equally it might
help shape its nature.
So I have quickly written down below what we might say, bearing in mind that this will be a rubbish first draft full of
errors and omissions because I am not that close to it....For the record I am not recommending this and I am sure
there are lots of PR and legal objections, I am just testing the water....even if we did it, there will be a much better
version in your minds.
Thanks Al
“As everyone knows, a number of former Postmasters have alleged that between 200X-Y their branches appeared to
lose money because of IT issues, for which they were unfairly held to account, in some cases being prosecuted for
false accounting and theft. As the litigation around these historical issues will come to court in 2018, we thought it
would be helpful to explain our position.
These allegations started in 20XX and have been addressed repeatedly in public including [Panorama, Select Cttee].
POL00253410
POL00253410
After its independence in 2012, the new leadership team of POL, who were not accountable for how the business had
been run in the period under debate, sought to ensure a full, open and fair resolution of these issues, including a
mediation scheme, investigations and an independent review by a third party. At no point was there any evidence
that the branch systems either had systemic issues or that anyone had interfered with them. The reviews did
conclude that in some individual cases, POL could have managed people with more sensitivity and support and we
apologised for that in XXX. In the round, of the active Postmasters over this period, [99%] have managed to conduct
their business without an issue or loss. Out of total trading of some £60b a year, with 10.5m customer sessions a
week, we only have to correct c. 100,000 transactions a year, a process that is transparent to Postmasters and [is
supporting by their National Federation]. It may also be worth noting that if the Post Office was profiting from such
discrepancies as alleged, it is surprising that far from suffering in subsequent years, the business has become
systematically more profitable.
Some XXX former Postmasters went through the mediation process and XXX agreed settlements. Of the remaining
Postmasters some XXX had criminal convictions for theft from POL.
We have stated in public on a number of occasions that we want individual former Postmasters to be given the fullest
opportunity to air their concerns and grievances and for them to be judged fairly and independently. This is not PR
bluster: Postmasters are the heart, soul and face of the Post Office and we must always be able to work together,
disagreeing often and openly but in an atmosphere of trust.
The mediation process did not fully resolve matters as we hoped and we still therefore support the right of aggrieved
former Postmasters to have their day in court. In addition, we are very content that the CCRC is reviewing past
convictions to ensure that there has been no miscarriage of justice. At the same time, Postmasters have an obligation
to look after the public money we provide to fund their businesses and we have found no evidence that losses were as
a result of system errors. Given our duty to use public money well, we have therefore to defend our position unless
and until we see evidence to the contrary.
Unfortunately, the nature of access to justice means that the case against us is being funded, initially offshore, by a
speculative hedge fund. We have yet to see the claim but our understanding is that it will be very large, bearing no
relationship to the earnings of Postmasters but rather an ill-judged attempt to panic us into settling so that
Government money, better spent elsewhere, will be used to make a few wealthy individuals even richer. It has not
been disclosed in public but our understanding is that no individual Postmaster would receive any money froma
successful or settled claim until it reached astronomic proportions because so much would go to the hedge fund. We
are going to court to ensure that we get security of costs as we are concerned that if the claim does not succeed, the
funders would disappear into the misty world of offshore finance.
We regret having to spend time and money defending ourselves from this financial speculation but, given that we
have found no evidence of wrongdoing, we really have no choice. Our Board could not, in conscience, use public
money to pay off and then encourage such threats. We have spent c. £2m a year over the last few years on the
mediation and on the legal issues. We are facing two trials next year and the case may well continue beyond that,
with appeals and ongoing claims. Next year’s costs alone could well be in the order of £9m.
In summary, we have found no evidence of significant issues, we have sought to mediate with individuals, some of
whom have joined the claim ins spite of signing settlements with us. We welcome a process that will bring us and our
former colleagues a settlement that is seen to be fair and that must include the view of the CCRC. Of course, we will
continue to present the facts as we know them throughout. In addition, we will defend the Post Office against
exaggerated and wild claims intended to enrich a few financial speculators.
In our Annual Report, we will provide an updated view of the claims against us, we will disclose the value of claims
against us but based on where we are today, we will not provide for the value of any claim because we can see no
evidence of loss created at our accountability. That is what the Courts will decide and we will keep stakeholders
informed.”
2017 Winner of the
Global Postal Award
for
Customer Experience
Alisdair Cameron
Chief Finance & Operating Officer
20 Finsbury Street
London EC2Y 9AQ.
GRO!
POL00253410
POL00253410