POL00268606
POL00268606
From: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd[!” ae : GRO. _ = I
Sent: Mon 18/03/2019 1:51:31 AM (UTC)
To: andrew.parsons —_
Ce: Jonathan Gribber, _. _
Subject: RE: Angela van den Bogerd's evidence tomorrow
Attachment: HOL Recovery - Quick Reference Guide v5 Rev (002).pdf
Andy
Answers below in red text
Angela
; Angela Van Den Bogerd
Business Improvement Director
1* Floor,Ty Brwydran,
Atlantic Close,Llansamlet
Swansea SA7 9FJ
Confidential Information:
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any
unauthorised review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact me by reply
email and destroy all copies of the original message.
From: Andrew Parsons i _.GRO
Sent: 17 March 2019 21:29 _ . .
To: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd jn cnsnsnnmnnnnmnns PRO crrenung neneninnonn }
Cc: Jonathan Gribben
Subject: FW: Angela van den Bogerd's evidence tomorrow
Angela
Are you able to help with the questions below?
A
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP
POL00268606
POL00268606
Stay informed: sign up to our e-alerts
Join us for Disrupting Disputes 2.0
20 March 2019 at the British Library
Book your place here
womblebonddickinson.com
\ DICKINSON ) (in)
From: Anthony de Garr Robinson}
Sent: 17 March 2019 18:05
To: Andrew Parsons; Jonathan Gribben
Ce: Simon Henderson SRO
i _,GRO. engl) _.GRO J
Subject: Angela van den Bogerd’s evidence tomorrow
}; Owain Draper; Rebecca Keating
Dear Andy and Jonny,
I have been reviewing Angela’s witness statement today and a few issues have arisen in relation to which I'd like to
know whether anything further in her statement may need to be explained or corrected:
1. Paras 18.44 and 18.5 — we now know from Roll and Parker 2 that in Legacy Horizon transactions could be
inserted that looked as if they were entered at the counter. Is this consistent with these two paras? Will Angela be
happy defending what she says here when the point is put to her? From my understanding of Parker 2 paras 27-
35 this is consistent with what I say at paras 18.4 and 18.5. I have never seen this happen myself — my knowledge
of this is from information provided by FJ. So if asked about this I am comfortable defending it on the basis that
this is my understanding as advised by FJ. Seeking advice from FJ about how Horizon works is normal practice as
I’m not a technical expert.
Incidentally, I would not put it past Green to ask her whether she knew about the ability to make transaction
insertions remotely when Post Office made public statements several years ago that remote access was not
possible. What will she say? As my point above my knowledge of FJ technical ability to do anything would be
on confirmation from FJ. So at the time that we Post Office made public statements about remote access that is
what I genuinely believed and had no reason to doubt what FJ had advised us. At the point that I became aware
that transactions could be inserted to branch accounts it was on the understanding that this was only done in the
rarest of cases; with the express permission from Post Office; and with the knowledge of the Spmr or Branch
Manager for Directly Managed Branches.
2. In para 53, she says that the recovery process involves several questions being asked on the screen, including
whether cash was handed to or taken from the customer. Is it a problem that this does not seem to have happened
in Burke’s case? Does it call into question Angela’s statement that Horizon worked as it should in Burke’s case
(paras 103)? The most important element of the Horizon Recovery Process is that the Horizon user reads the
recovery screen and the receipts automatically printed at the time as these will reflect the situation of that
transaction at the time. As it states on page 3 of the attached HOL Recovery Guide “In some cases the system will
ask you a series of questions to determine the status of a particular transaction’ In Mrs Burke I don’t believe it
asked her whether she had given the money to the customer or not but the banking withdrawal for £150 had
POL00268606
POL00268606
already been authorized by the bank and the receipt had been printed advising her to pay the customer. So this
might be why she wasn’t asked to verify the status of the transaction. That said it could have been due to the fact
that connectivity was lost during the recovery process.
3. In para 103, she describes Horizon asking the user more than once whether to attempt the recovery process.
Did this happen in Burke’s case? If not, is this a problem? I don’t believe it did happen in this case. I don’t think
it is a problem as per my response to Q2 above.
4. Paras 98, 145 and 147 show no fewer than 3 incorrect TCs in relation to two witnesses. Burke receiving a TC
identifying the wrong bank could be seen as a fourth example. Green may well put that this suggests that the TC
process was often erroneous. What will Angela say? The TC sent to Mrs Burke’s office was to correct the missing
cash withdrawal within the branch accounts on Horizon not settle the transaction with the bank as Post Office
already had confirmation via the BIMs report from FJ that the reconciliation with the bank had already taken
place. Therefore the detail of the bank on the TC from Post Office perspective was irrelevant. I have been advised
by a colleague with FSC knowledge that the PO person generating the TC know this so simply took a bank details
from the list as populating the TC with a bank’s details was necessary to generate the TC. So in the instance the
TC was not issued erroneously.
5. Unless I reversal was by Horizon, not by the SPM. If that is right, why does Angela say that the extracts
Coyne quotes from the Helen Rose report “mistakenly claim” this (para 154)? Second, I think that the concern
expressed in that report was not just based on what the reports to the SPM showed but also on what the ARQ data
showed, but paras 154 and 154.2 suggest otherwise. What is the true position? Revisiting Coyne I para 5.175
and what I’ve stated at para 154 — 155 inclusive then I believe I missed the point he was making. From looking at
Helen Rose’s report I believe she made a mistake when she referred to the BT bill being process at 10:42 as the
Credence report from which she said she extracted stated 10:32 and the sequence of other the subsequent
transactions would need to follow 10:32 not 10:42. So the credence data and ARQ data from that perspective was
aligned although out by GMT hour (which I agree is confusing although branches don’t get this data currently).
The point(s) I was trying to make was that the Spmr was aware of the reversal as the disconnected receipts and the
recovery receipts had printed at the time although he hadn’t disclosed them to Second Sight when did their initial
spot review and what Helen was recommending in her report was to make it evident on the branch logs when a
recovery was initiated by the system rather than by the Spmr.
6. Para 175 — this is something I was banging on about when this witness statement was being drafted. Paras 173-
175 seems to suggest that prior to 2005, one could not dispute a discrepancy in one’s accounts except by putting
it into the suspense account with the permission of the RNM. All one could do was ask NBSC for assistance with
identifying the cause of the discrepancy, which is not the same thing. Can this really be the case? No. Putting a
discrepancy into suspense with the permission of the RNM didn’t necessarily mean that loss was being disputed.
It usually meant the branch had identified an error and expected an error notice (now TC) to be issued. To my
knowledge a branch has always been able to dispute a discrepancy by contacting NBSC. Depending on what the
branch reported to NBSC, they would refer to the relevant section eg Horizon help desk if believed to be system
associated; training or audit team if on site help required; or security & investigation team if they believed the
discrepancy was due to theft.
Best wishes,
Tony
Anthony de Garr Robinson QC Switchboard:
Fax:
www.oeclaw.co.uk
ONE ESSEX COURT
One Essex Court, London One Essex Court, Singapore
Temple Maxwell Chambers #02-15.
London EC4Y 9AR 32 Maxwell Road
United Kingdom Singapore 069115
Chambers UK Commercial Litigation
Set of the Year 2015
LEADING SET
The. contents.
{GRO
is email are CONFIDENTIAL and may be PRIVILEGED. If you are not the intended recipient, please telephone
ind delete this email,
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
Please consider the environment! Do you need to print this email?
POL00268606
POL00268606
The information in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may be and protected by law. angel
access this e-mail and any attachments. If you are not angela.van-den-bogerd{” please notify andrew.parso1
du
copies. Unaut issemination, distribution, publication or copying of this communication or attachments is prohibite:
personal data is in our Privacy Policy on our website
authorised to
"Ossible and delete any
¢ unlawful, Information about how we use
Any files attached to this e-mail will have been checked by us with virus detection software before transmission. Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP accepts no liability for any loss
or damage which may be caused by software viruses and you should carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment
POL00268606
POL00268606
Content of this email which does not relate to the official business of Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP, is neither given nor endorsed by it.
This email is sent by Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP which is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under number 0C317661. Our registered office is 4
More London Riverside, London, SE1 2AU, where a list of members’ names is open to inspection. We use the term partner to refer to a member of the LLP, or an employee or
consultant who is of equivalent standing. Our VAT registration number is GB123393627.
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP is a member of Womble Bond Dickinson (International) Limited, which consists of independent and autonomous law firms providing services
in the US, the UK, and elsewhere around the world. Each Womble Bond Dickinson entity is a separate legal entity and is not responsible for the acts or omissions of, nor can bind or
obligate, another Womble Bond Dickinson entity. Womble Bond Dickinson (International) Limited does not practice law. Please see www.womblebonddickinson,com/legal notices
for further details
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.