POL00277535
POL00277535
Message
From: Kim Abbotts c
Sent: 27/06/2019 09:56:28
To: isdai
} Rob Houghton
[ss] 4 Patrick Bourke! i Julie Thomas
ngela Van-Den-Bogerd I GRO )
Subject: RE: Another computer error
HiAl,
As per action point below, I’ve done some digging, findings below:
Kim, Can we find out what the problem is, if its widespread and how we resolve it. Can we identify?
* — Itisa known issue and is logged on the CWC —ELS incident log, reference ELS — 254, date added to the log 14"" May 2019.
The incident is still open, details below.
«It appears that this is more branch impacting than the project initially realised / flagged.
e Basically, the branch scans the pick list barcode and it brings up the incorrect value, see example on the incident log below.
[have been told that there are around 5 / 6 incidents per day and that they are mostly coin but it can affect notes as well.
Prior to CWC, there would only be an occasional issue of this type.
There is a control in place in Supply chain, which monitors the value of rems sent out to branches against the value actually
showing as a rem into the branch.
e This duty will contact each branch where this happens with an emergency barcode number to input, which will then correct
the difference. These calls are not logged. Where the branch does not answer, they are written to.
Sometimes the branch will call in instead and Supply chain will follow the same emergency barcode process.
I have checked with FSC and since migration on the 25.01.2019, they have 552 entries against the emergency barcode
reference number.
I have spoken to Ben Cooke and he has given me the name of someone on the project to speak with, to establish progress
on a solution.
e The project will be completing an issue management document to capture all the details.
14/05/2019 I Norwich I Coin order Coin order The P3 Sean ELS NEW
Coin associated with TU associated branch Farrow/
397850035918 was I with TU has a Fiona
£1140. However 397850035918 I £1120 Greatorex
when the branch was £1140. surplus
scanned the pick However on
list barcode only when the Horizon
£20 populated branch - but
Horizon scanned the notin
pick list cash
barcode only
£20 populated
Horizon.
Branch:
Lingwood,
5651360.
Service date:
8th May 2019
I am down in London today until around 3.45, if you would like to discuss, I can leave my meeting to accommodate.
POL00277535
POL00277535
Kim.
Kim Abbotts
Head of Branch and Customer Support Centre
1* Floor, South West,
Future Walk
1, West Bars,
Chesterfield,
S49 1PF.
Mobile 4
From: Alisdair Cameron
Sent: 24 June 2019
To: Rob Houghton Kim Abbotts ; Ben Foat
+; Julie Thomas
su ject: FW: Another computer error
Spoke to Tim. I said nothing other than banalities with no comment on the case.
Contact contacted by a sub-postmaster. REM in, accepted by an assistant. Normal
receipt print. Money to safe. Did cash dec. Found he was £20k gain. The receipt
printed only for part of the REM. Reported it to the helpline. They have done
nothing.
Not prepared to identify the Subpostmaster. Not the only one and “they” know
that.
Kim, Can we find out what the problem is, if its widespread and how we resolve it.
Can we identify?
Secondly, Mag stripe readers, bar code scanner, touch screens etc are not
reporting accurately “prevalent”, missing out first few characters. 2k facebook
group of Pms with screen shots. Also shows data it shouldn’t. Could have the same
POL00277535
POL00277535
root cause. Rob can someone look into this — it cant be a secret of 2k postmasters
are facebooking about it?
Ben. Seema Misra - read the transcript. Can I see it please.
Kind regards and thanks Al
Al Cameron
Interim Chief Executive
20 Finsbury Street
London
EC2Y 9AQ
From: Alisdair Cameron
Sent: 23 June 2019 11:45
To: Tim McCormack {
Subject: Re: Another computer error
Thanks Tim, I am going to struggle to call you today but would you have any time tomorrow after 6? Al
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Tim McCormac
Sent: Sunday, June 23,2 19 11:
To: Alisdair Cameron
Subject: Re: Another computer error
Dear Al
Please call me Tim if you don't mind.
I am greatly encouraged by what you say with regard to criticism. I regard that as far
more important than praise and as you say, when it is justified it can only lead to
making things better.
The error in question is serious. Details of it are being treated as confidential within my
circles and it is pretty certain that the media will be publishing something on it fairly
soon. Breaking that confidence with the people I trust could have consequences I
suppose - most notably that I will not be party to future disclosures.
POL00277535
POL00277535
However my interest in matters to do with Post Office will cease after the CCRC report
back on the Seema Misra case, presumably with a return to the Appeal court so it
doesn't matter too much I suppose. So perhaps we could have a quick chat and I will
let you know what I have heard. I would really hope that you have been told all about
it already but given the inaction of the Helpline and FSC in responding (the SPMR was
told that it would take a week or so for the FSC to get in touch) I doubt it. As Paula
pointed out when I first told her about Dalmellington her main concern was the
lackadaisical response to what was a £24k loss. This is a similar amount!
Although I might pop out for a bit duri
of minutes and can be contacted on:
ng the rest of the day, I finish working in a couple
Kind regards
Tim
From: Alisdair Camero:
Sent: 23 June 2019 10:
To: Tim McCormack
Subject: Re: Another computer error
Dear Mr McCormack,
Thank you so much for contacting me, I do appreciate it.
I agree we share an absolute focus on building a sustainable network for our customers and that must involve a closer
partnership with Postmasters.
You will see that I am making very substantial changes in advisers and culture and I suspect there may not prove to be as
much difference between us as you assume. Certainly I have no dislike of you and as I say repeatedly within PO,
criticism, challenge and questioning should not be taken as attacks to be defended but as opportunities to do better.
If you are aware of any computer issue then I would be very grateful if you would share the detail with me so I can
ensure it is investigated. In exchange I will happily sit down with you and explain what we find. Nothing is perfect and if
there is an issue we are best off acknowledging and addressing it.
Kind regards
Al
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Tim McCormack i GRO H
Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2019 10:31 am
POL00277535
POL00277535
To: Alisdair Cameron
Subject: Another computer error
Dear Mr Cameron
Ihave no idea if you know of me or not but as was mentioned in Court, your predecessor certainly was and I
believe she took me reasonably seriously. I can also be reasonably certain that she and I had a mutual dislike for
each other and I would expect that to be the case with yourself. However all three of us must surely share a
common purpose and that is to see a strong and profitable Post Office network run for the benefit of ALL its
members, be they customers, subpostmasters, employees or indeed the government as the owner.
We obviously differ entirely in how that could and should be achieved and I make no apology for insisting that
the first step would be to replace the entire management team that has led the network to this crisis point. Your
team in the court room has stated that in so many words — if the claimants win it will be an existential risk to the
company. I would interpret that risk as being more to do with the sustainability of the network given the bad
publicity that will result and more people will be reluctant to take on a Post Office branch.
Ihave thought long and hard about bothering to write to you about the information I have to hand given that it
will be of more use to the claimants than yourself but I think it is worthy of a last shot at convincing the CEO of
Post Office Ltd that the people you rely on to provide you with the information you need to make decisions are
at best ignorant of what is actually going on or perhaps more likely totally incompetent.
I don’t know what they have brought to your attention recently but the single most important piece of
information you should be dealing with right now is a new error in your computer systems that, as it stands,
cannot be introduced into the current trial but should be. This error places the boot on the other foot so to
speak and it is for POL to discover not SPMRs. It is not just the error that you should be concerned with it is
the fact that your company has learned nothing from the past and the revelations in court. Nothing has changed
and it won’t as long as these people remain in a complete state of denial that the events that are unfolding now
have occurred in the past and will occur again in the future. No amount of counter measures that Dr Worden has
helpfully suggested might be in place can change the problem of the culture and ability of the people you should
be able to trust.
The solution to all of this is perfectly simple. Second Sight was stopped from exploring further and finding the
true extent of the problems inherent in your organisation. They need to be re-appointed to finish what they
started and they need the support of someone who wants to discover the truth and who is willing to make the
changes to prevent any re-occurrence.
Finally, consider this, and I must assume you have done so in the past, but do it again now. How could POL
have prevented this trial? What steps should have been taken from the very start of the introduction of Horizon
and how should the relationship between subpostmasters and POL have been handled? You need to answer
these questions and implement the solutions to ensure that POL has no need to revisit these matters once again
in the not too distant future. The people that are responsible for the current state of affairs are not part of the
solution.
With the best of intentions
POL00277535
POL00277535
Yours sincerely
Tim McCormack
FESS OISI SI OIE IEICE OOS OBIE SORE OEE IGE IA I RoR Aa
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the named
recipient, you must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication. If you have
received this in error, please contact the sender by reply email and then delete this email from your system. Any views
or opinions expressed within this email are solely those of the sender, unless otherwise specifically stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: Finsbury Dials, 20 Finsbury
Street, London EC2Y 9AQ.
FEISS SISSIES SEIEI I OISIOISRIEISIOSIESIOROSISEI SESS SIGS Ia EA IIR aa aE
“Post Office Limited is committed to protecting your privacy. Information about how we do this can be found on our
website at www.postoffice.co.uk/privacy”