POLO00326693
POL00326693
Jennifer
If you can let us have a copy we can see if it is appropriate for the
manual.
Regards
Lesley
National Franchise Manager
Post Office Ltd
Sales and Service
Sth Floor, Post Office Ltd, 80 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9NN
Postline:
STD Phone: GRO, Fax: {I GRO I, Mobex:
“I, Mobile: I GRO }
GRO.
External Email: lesley.cartwright!
Jennifer Robson
25/07/2005 15:16
Lesley Cartwright/e/POSTO
ICE@POSTOFFICE
cc: John Legg/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE, Kevin
Gilliland/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE, Paul F
Williams/e/POSTOF
ICE@POSTOFFICE, Stewart Barclay/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE,
Victoria Noble/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE
Subject: Re: TC and BT and the 42 week issue
Sorry I cannot really comment not having seen the franchise manual.
I am preparing a comms(for the IMPACT team) which Colin Baker asked for at
a recent meeting to share the new DR processes.
This will show the debt recovery process at a lower more detailed level (
including disputes and discrepancies where a TC is due) than the training
manual/ videos etc.
Not sure if this would help you to assess any potential changes required
for your manual.
Let me know if you need a copy.
Regards
Jenn
Debt Recovery Section manager
Post Office Ltd
Finance
lst Floor West , No 1 Future Walk, West Bars, CHESTERFIELD, S49 1PF
GRO 1, STD Phone: } GRO 1, Mobex: { GRO » Mobile:
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the
POLO00326693
POL00326693
addressee (s) 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 is error please contact the sender and then
delete this email from your system.
External Email: jennifer.robson!
Lesley Cartwright
25/07/2005 11:57
: Paul F Williams/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE
cc: Jennifer Robson/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE, John
Legg/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE, Kevin Gilliland/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE,
Stewart Barclay/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE, Victoria
Noble/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE
Subject: Re: TC and BT and the 42 week issue
Paul/Stewart
I would have thought we need to look at the accounting section to ensure
that references are to Branch Trading and not Cash Account.
Regards
Lesley
National Franchise Manager
Post Office Ltd
Sales and Service
Sth Floor, Post Office Ltd, 80 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9NN
Postline: STD Phone: { GRO.
GRO I Mobex:
Mobile:
_--GRO__
External Email: lesley.cartwrigh’
Paul F Williams
22/07/2005 12:56
Lesley Cartwright/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE
cc: Jennifer Robson/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE, John
Legg/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE, Kevin Gilliland/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE,
Victoria Noble/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE, Stewart
Barclay/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE
Subject: Re: TC and BT and the 42 week issue
Lesley / Jennifer
Is there anything we need to put into the
anchise Manual [Franchise
Operations Manual update] Stewart and I have been working on?
POLO00326693
POL00326693
Paul Williams
Agency Contracts Analyst
Post Office Ltd
Operations
Room 5037, Copperas Hill, LIVERPOOL, L3 1AA
Postline » Fax: to be advised, Mobex:
External Email: paul.f.william:
Lesley Cartwright
11/07/2005 15:38
: Jennifer Robson/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE
cc: John Legg/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE, Kevin
Gilliland/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE, Paul F
Williams/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE, Victoria Noble/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE
Subject: Re: TC and BT and the 42 week issue
Jennifer
The franchise agreement can only be changed at renewal stage but would not
need a change anyway as the agreement is very general and indicates that
they have to maintain and operate the accounting system provided by the
Franchisor
However, I would suggest that it is a communications issue; prior to and
at the time of introducing Branch Trading, partners need to be advises
that this is a mandatory change to the branch accounting system provided
by the Franchisor and all instructions should be clear and not open to
interpretation.
Regards
Lesley
National Franchise Manager
Post Office Ltd
Sales and Service
5th Floor, Post Office Ltd, 80 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9NN
x0", STD Phone:
Mobile: { GRO I
Mobex:
Postline:
External Email: lesley.cartwrigh’
Jennifer Robson
11/07/2005 10:20
Kevin Gilliland/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE
cc: John Legg/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE, Lesley
Cartwright/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE, Paul F
Williams/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE, Victoria Noble/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE
Subject: Re: TC and BT and the 42 week issue
The issue is around the branches responsibility to roll branch trading at
the appropriate time. I think we need to be clear that failure to do so
will lead to the corrective action process in the service teams ( where
warnings are given and ultimately suspension).
Is it necessary for a contractual reference or is it sufficient to use
existing processes for managing this non conformance?
Regards
Jennifer
Debt Recovery Section manager
Post Office Ltd
Finance
lst Floor West , No 1 Future Walk, West Bars, CHESTERFIELD, S49 1PF
j, STD Phone: } GRO I, Mobex: GRO} Mobile:
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the
addressee (s) 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 is error please contact the sender and then
delete this email from your system.
External Email: jennifer.robsoni
Kevin Gilliland
11/07/2005 09:25
ICE
Victoria Noble/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOF
cc: Jennifer Robson/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE, Paul F
Williams/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE, John Legg/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE,
Lesley Cartwright/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE
Subject: Re: TC and BT and the 42 week issue
Vicky,
Is the contractual issue, what action we take if a sbpmr refuses to make
good a loss? I£ so, under the contract the sbpmr is obliged to make good
losses without delay. However, we may want to make this clearer ie.
demonstrating that we will act responsibly by eg. providing evidence where
applicable; and spelling out that the loss must be made good within x time
period.
Paul will be the main contact from my team for this - with Lesley feeding
in on the franchise contract.
POLO00326693
POL00326693
POLO00326693
POL00326693
Regards,
Kevin
Head of Network Strategy
Post Office Ltd
Sales and Service
5th Floor, Post Office Ltd, 80 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9NN
Postline STD Phon:
) Mobex:
5364 3539, Mobil
External Email: kevin.gilliland{
Victoria Noble
07/07/2005 16:59
To: Kevin Gilliland/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE
cc: Jennifer Robson/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE
Subject: TC and BT and the 42 week issue
Kevin,
Please see the email below which I have sent to Lynn following a meeting
we had last Wednesday. I think we could do with looking at the contract
situation with Postmasters again once IMPACT has been implemented
especially in relation to my final bullet point which I have highlighted
below. Could you let Jen and I know what you think and we wiull be more
than happy to assist in reframing the contract to reflect the changes in
processes.
Thanks and regards
Vicky
Head of Product and Branch Accounting
Post Office Ltd
Finance
lst Floor East Block, 1 Future Walk, West Bars, CHESTERFIELD, S849 1PF
Postline: [GRO STD Phon GRO “lL, Fax: I GRO I, Mobex:
victoria.noblef
Hee Forwarded by Victoria Noble/e/POSTOFF
Victoria Noble
07/07/2005 16:44
To: Lynn Hobbs/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTO
CE
cc: Jennifer Robson/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE, Alison
Bolsover/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE, Dave Hulbert/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE,
POLO00326693
POL00326693
Carole Cross/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE, Carol King/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE,
Steve Grayston/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE
Subject: TC and BT and the 42 week issue
Lynn,
Firstly, thanks for the talk through yesterday. I think it helped to
clarify things in both our minds as well as raise a number of questions
which we need to progress.
The following is an attempt at a "brief" summary of what we agreed in
order to allow us to move forward on the process for when a postmaster
does not roll his BT due to having outstanding TCs which he has an issue
with.
The summary of what we agreed is as follows: (as discussed there will be
some nuances around this)
investigation in P&BA identifies a difference that requires a TC to be
sent to a branch (this has to be done to a standard that allows the branch
to understand the basis for the TC and how to action it appropriately).
Branch receives TC and actions appropriately via the following options
"accept and make good", "request more evidence"(if this option is
available) or "accept and settle centrally".
If the branch does nothing - it may be followed up by P&BA if it is high
value (though this process has yet to be discussed and defined)
Branch has TCs outstanding - (for whatever reason) at the time it is due
to do the BT and therefore does not roll his BT
NBSC identify branches that have not rolled their BT and contacts them ask
why
NBSC contacts P&BA if the reason branch has not rolled is due to
outstanding TC
if it is identified that the branch is querying a TC then it will be
referred to P&BA to resolve and the service line to put them on stand by
if a visit or other action is required
P&BA will investigate and at this point (or at the point when the BT is
due to roll) if there are still TCs outstanding then as a matter of
EXCEPTION only we can agree that the TC is actioned by the "settle
centrally" option with an agreement on how to resolve, and by when, and
the investigations required to agree the final action.
if P&BA cannot resolve and there is still an issue that means the branch
refuses to roll the BT then it has to become a point of escalation to the
service line to action.
I think we need to be clear about a number of points here to provide
direction to our teams on roles/responsibilities and accountabilities so
we don' trip over each other or have gaps:
we do not at this stage know what the Postmaster behaviours are going to
be so it will be difficult to estimate resource required for this
the Service team are responsible for acting as an escalation point only
and NOT to chase up outstanding TCs which are outside of this process -
(this is to free you up to support the Sales teams, and we see this as our
role in support of the Sales teams)
these processes will need to be reviewed in the light of experience post
implementation of IMPACT
that we should set up a joint working party with all key parties from
Service line, NSBC and P&BA to work through the issues arising and make
recommendations for future changes etc., as well as day to day working
that the processes for informing and resolving Service team and P&BA of
issues where branches have not rolled their BT has to be slick (a few days
only) especially during a 5 week period when the BT will be run on day 35
leaving only 7 days till day 42
That we consider in the P&BA processes not to issue TCs in the week in
which a branch is doing its BT (i.e. Mon/Tue/Weds/Thurs)
that we still need to agree what we intend to do if a branch (after
intervention of the Service line) still refuses to accept a TC.
I think this covers everything Lynn, and that we can move forward with
this and get it implemented, understanding that it will most probably need
some refining once we get to using it and have more experience.
Can you confirm to Steve Grayston your acceptance of this so we can close
it as an issue and talk to the NFSP on the lith July.
Thanks and regards
vicky
Head of Product and Branch Accounting
Post Office Ltd
Finance
ist Floor East Block, 1 Future Walk, West Bars, CHESTERFIELD, S49 1PF
GRO 1, Fax: I GRO I, Mobex:
External Email
victoria.noblef’
POLO00326693
POL00326693