Jennifer,
As requested a copy a the email I sent to Lynn
Vicky
Head of Product and Branch Accounting
Post Office Ltd
Finance
1st Floor East Block, 1 Future Walk, West Bars, CHESTERFIELD, S49 1PF
Victoria Noble
04/07/2005 17:42
To: Lynn Hobbs/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE, Kevin
Gilliland/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE
ce:
Subject: URGENT Impact Transaction Correction and Branch Trading Issue
Lynn/Kevin,
Please see the attached document which details the positioning/viewpoints
of the key stakeholders on the issue of what is called the " 42 day issue"
upon which we need a business decision on how to move forward. I think
that to put this into context would assist us in understanding the current
concerns, and then I will outline the process as we in P&BA see it
working for the future. I will then to give you a call to discuss your
views in order to come to an agreed business approach before the next
meeting with the NSFP on 11th July 2005
Background
As you may be aware, over the last couple of years we have been trying to
strengthen the error/exception investigation and debt recovery processes,
with a focus on getting Postmasters to bring to account errors and to make
them good. Significant progress has been made in this area between P&BA as
the debt recovery unit, with key assistance from NSS and the retail line,
and many changes have been implemented which have been successful in
reducing the over all level of debt in the business and the time taken to
collect it. This has not been without resistance from many of the NFSP-
members and has been a difficult road to travel (as we know).
Over time the business has reorganised and the focus and accountability
for this process now resides with P&BA with the retail line acting as a
point of escalation in dealing with Postmasters who fail to conform on
issues relating to suspense, discrepancies and other finance impacting
issues etc. Following the recent reorganisation into Sales and Service I
do not think that this "relationship" between P&BA and Service (on behalf
of Sales) needs to change significantly and that the Service teams should
only be used for escalation purposes to free them up to support the Sales
teams. ( we can discuss this Lynn but I think we agree on this)
POL00363086
POL00363086
The issue we now have is that with the implementation of IMPACT we are
changing both the error notice process and the cash account process and
replacing them with the transaction correction (TC) process and the Branch
Trading (BT) process.
The TC process means that instead of an error notice a branch will receive
an electronic TC at his branch which he will be expected to "action"
before he is able to roll over his (now monthly) BT. He will be given a
number of options (depending on the type of branch) which will include:
making good
requesting evidence
settle centrally
The issue appears to be that if the Postmaster does not action any of
these and is not willing to do so, then the new process for BT means he
cannot roll into the next period. Additionally if he does not roll his BT,
then potentially as the system has been "sized" to hold data for roughly
42 days they may find themselves becoming "unstable" and therefore run a
risk of not being able to maintain service (hence the 42 day issue)
Observations/Clarification
After speaking with Sue Harding, there is only a slight possibility that
the 42 days issue would in actual fact cause system instability and
therefore could be a bit of a red herring. However it is still a slight
risk.
We believe that the issue of Postmasters "abusing" the potential of the
changes should be no more than they currently do with the cash account
process as the current production of the cash account each week does not
force them to bring errors to account. We have tried to strengthen the
control in bringing TCs to account by making the system not allow them to
roll the BT account until all TCs have been actioned. Let us not forget
that the BT process is now also monthly in support of reducing back office
activities at branches to free time for selling. This means that, unless a
TC is received very close to the BT date the Postmaster should have enough
time to action appropriately and that as a business we expect them to do
so immediately on receipt.
The process therefore as I believe it should work is as follows,
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)
If the branch still refuses to action this will then be a point for
escalation into the service line for action but I think we have to clearly
define what this escalation means as if we do this is must either be a
conformance, audit or hardship type of issue and NOT seen as part of the
normal process which should be operated by P&BA and the principles being
supported by the business.
At a point when the BT is due to roll and there are still TCs outstanding
POL00363086
POL00363086
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. A point
to note - from the business perspective once we have it in debt recovery
we can deduct from remuneration.
If there is still an issue that means the BT refuses to roll then it has
to become a point of escalation but there should be within the system
constraints enough time to do so.
I must strongly advise against a process that means we send reversal TCs
so the roll the BT to re-issue later. We just will not have enough
resource to do so and it sends the wrong messages. we need to get it right
first time and ensure we get conformance to the process from branches. I
also believe this process will work and is more efficient but we must have
a will to properly address Postmasters who will not conform. To support
this The P&BA team will as far as possible only issue TCs when there is
clear indication from our investigations that the TC is right and proper
to be issued.
I trust this helps with some clarity on how we in P&BA see the process
working and will speak with you about is when we next meet or by phone.
Thanks and regards
Vicky
Head of Product and Branch Accounting
Post Office Ltd
Finance
1st Floor East Block, 1 Future Walk, West Bars, CHESTERFIELD, S49 1PF
----- Forwarded by Victoria Noble/e/POSTOFFICE on 30/06/2005 14:31 ———-
Sue M Harding
15/06/2005 10:37
To: Victoria Noble/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE
cc:
Subject: Urgent - the TC issue
Sorry Vicky I think I missed the attachment off!
There is a meeting with the fed on the 29th so I think we need a joined up
business view before then.
sue
----- Forwarded by Sue M Harding/e/POSTOFFICE on 15/06/2005 10:35 -----
Alan Orpe
08/06/2005 11:04
POL00363086
POL00363086
To: Steve Grayston/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE, sue.m.harding@postoffice.co.uk
ce:
POL00363086
POL00363086
Subject: Urgent - the TC issue
Steve, Sue
attached is a paper for your consideration. I'd appreciate any comments
but also views on who this is issued to for a decision.
Thanks
Alan