POL00423920
POL00423920
Message
From: Alisdair Cameron {
Sent:
To: a
cc: Brian Gaunticr Lorna.Gratton: Benjamin Tidswell
Subject: RE: Question
Apologies, I have obviously come across as accusatory and critical but that isn’t my point at all. I am not trying to litigate
the past, I completely understand how and why we have made decisions, together, and yes of course I understand our
position on wrongful trading and how it is evolving.
My point is solely about what we do next.
My contention is that if we do not now speed up how we manage detriment going forward, the brand damage may be
existential.
In that context, our position on wrongful trading has changed in the BAU business. We are delivering NBIT without
sufficient funding and without thinking we are wrongful trading because of HMG policy, statement of intent, support
letters etc. Personally I cannot distinguish this position from our position on remediation schemes.
lam not saying therefore that we can rush off and do whatever we like, simply that the position is less clear cut than we
thought.
But my main point is that the day after getting funding or deciding we cannot wait, we should be ready to progress all 14
workstreams as appropriate with the Postmaster community AND be asking for “any others” at the same time, so it is
clear to everyone that we are pursuing justice with all the speed at our disposal. If that’s the plan, great. But I don’t get
the sense that it is and honestly I think we will come a cropper.
That is the point I will make at the Board if I am there or you would be kind to make on my behalf: no criticism and no
need to defend. Just speed for the future. And if HMG doesn’t like it, we need to have an argument.
Al
Al Cameron
Group Chief Finance Officer
Finsbury Dials, 20 Finsbury Street
London, EC2Y 9AQ
postoffice.co.uk
From: Simon Recaldin < GRO ,
Sent: 14 May 2023 21:
To: Alisdair Cameron <
POL-BSFF-0238735
POL00423920
POL00423920
Ce: Brian Gaunt I enjamin Tidswell
Really just to circle this off and not repeat any of the below but Ben’s summary is exactly where we are on this and we
do indeed have an update on the paused payments and legal advice coming to HRC, GE and Board.
I get the urgency that we really do need to get on with this as the clock is ticking, the judgement is pushing 4 years and
victims of detriment are not getting younger. If it helps we are paying away in Detriment A with some momentum.
Absolutely not defensively at all re Detriment B, we have spelt the plan out repeatedly at GE and Board and part of that
has been that we can’t seek cases to investigate yet — and therefore pay detriment where identified - as we have been
heavily counselled that this, along with the generic comment already in the ARA, will crystallise a potential liability that
the balance sheet will not be able to bear.
As a result the instruction has been clear — get funding in place with DBT and then seek cases to investigate via a wide
communication plan — as presented to Board — and pay.
The funding request went into DBT many months ago, has been through DBT is with HMT, is due an additional
governance layer and expected to emerge now July earliest — more likely September earliest due to the usual nonsense
of Summer breaks etc.
If you believe we should start communicating and settling prior to funding being formalised, better people than I can
advise, but my understanding is that is a call for POL Board (clearly with government representation) who are obliged to
look after the interests of Post Office to consider associated risks including potentially wrongful trading as the Board
would have to be comfortable that any liability would be covered by funding/support — but you know this, apologies.
If I’m missing something fundamental (which would not be unusual) please advise. I don’t want you to feel obliged to
respond given you need to recover so I will re-circle with Ben T and others to ensure we have complete understanding of
responses to you concerns.
Regards
Simon
Simon Recaldin
Historical Matters Director
Post Office Ltd I Finsbury Dials I 20 Finsbury Street I London I EC2Y 9AQ.
simon.recaldin¢
The information classification of this email is confidential unless otherwise stated
From: Benjamin Tidswel i GRO
Sent: 14 May 2023 14:19
To: Alisdair Cameron : GRO
Cc: Simon Recaldii
Lorna.Gratton? "GRO
Subject: Re: Question
POL-BSFF-0238735_0001
Thanks Al.
POL00423920
POL00423920
If you aren’t able to make the June board, I can make sure any points you want to make are fed in. I can also discuss with
Simon J beforehand, if that would be helpful.
All the best in the meantime.
Ben
Sent from my iPad
Thanks Ben! I will have a
better sense
8
is
The reality as you know is that we are spending money we do not have, and which is not specifically
funded, in our BAU business as per the recent letter to DBT and the debate on wrongful trading. We are
spending that money on the basis of policy expectations and intentions — I am not sure how different
this is.
Nonetheless I am not suggesting we ignore the shareholder, simply that it has to become clear to them
now that we cannot keep delaying and doing things slowly and in chunks. Postmasters who are not
getting justice after 4 years are getting older and we have to change the dynamic on detriment.
Much appreciated Al
Al Cameron
Group Chief Finance Officer
Finsbury Dials, 20 Finsbury Street
London, EC2Y 9AQ
postoffice.co.uk
<image001.png>
From: Benjamin Tidswell +.
Sent: 13 May 2023 13:51
To: Alisdair Cameron{ GRO
Lorna.Grattoi
Subject: Re: Question bom
Thanks Al.
I have no knowledge of what happened between 2019 and mid 2021, when I joined the board. It may be
that the reason for the delay is simply that the focus was on other, more pressing items. I don’t know.
I do share your frustration about aspects of the funding process, but I am not sure I fully understand
your position. Are you (wearing your CFO hat) saying we could expose ourselves to potentially significant
POL-BSFF-0238735_0002
POL00423920
POL00423920
liabilities without confirmation of funding for those? I had understood throughout this whole story that
we couldn’t do that, which is the very reason why we have to go through the process to get funding
confirmed before inviting claims which might have any materiality.
If that is your view, then it seems to me to be very much a board discussion and not an HRC one, given
the potential solvency implications. I don’t think there is any hesitation at HRC about getting on with
things (and it seems from your email you broadly agree with the process, if not necessarily the timing
and sequencing), but we clearly don’t have the authority to expose POL to material unfunded liabilities.
It might be helpful to involve Simon Jeffreys in the discussion prior to the board meeting, if that is a
point you think we should be debating.
Best wishes
Ben
Sent from my iPad
On 13 May 2023, at 13:12, Alisdair Cameron 00 GRGQ 1
woe iii——_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—
Thanks Ben.
I guess I have a few concerns.
The current approach to funding takes too long. We pre-triage, asking for what HMT
expects rather than what provides the right outcome. We are four years from the CU.
We should now be telling DBT what we should do, then confirming their general support
rather than waiting for specific funding requests when we have excess funding already
granted. POL is already relying on statements of support rather than funding.
So, the phased process for detriment doesn’t really work: how long has it already taken
and why is further delay acceptable?
I find the argument that HSS plus the specific detriment categories will cover any
injustice in previous payments difficult and slightly tendentious. It assumes that
Postmasters had and have a sophisticated understanding of their finances and we know
that is not always true. I think your argument that we should ask for any other
detriment is exactly right but I see no reason to wait. We should outline all the
detriments for people, set up the processes and ask for anything else. If people come
forward within known causes, we can get on with it, if not we have another category.
We should get on with it.
I do distinguish between the more recent cases where Postmasters have been paying
and earlier ones. I appreciate that legally there may be no difference but from a
brand/public opinion point of view, we are absolutely hoist by the fact that it took us so
long to stop taking the payments. I cannot find an argument that I would be prepared to
make in public or private that says we can hold on to the monies paid since 2019, unless
we have done the same checks as we did for the small population still paying. And of
course HSS does not apply for this period.
Al
Al Cameron
Group Chief Finance Officer
POL-BSFF-0238735_0003
POL00423920
POL00423920
(He/Hi
Finsbury Dials, 20 Finsbury Street
London, EC2Y 9AQ
postoffi 0.uk
<image001.png>
From: Benjamin Tidswell }
Sent: 13 May 2023 11:
To: Alisdair Cameron
Cc: Simon Recaldin <
<
Subject: Re:
Thanks Al.
POL-BSFF-0238735_0004
POL00423920
POL00423920
Best wishes
Ben
Sent from my iPad
On 12 May 2023, at 15:04, Alisdair Cameron
~ iwrote:
Ben, I am not currently at work but as so often this has left time for me
to reflect on things.
POL-BSFF-0238735_0005
POL00423920
POL00423920
Thanks Al
Al Cameron
Group Chief Finance Officer
(He/Him Al Kame
un)
Finsbury Dials, 20 Finsbury Street
London, EC2Y 9AQ
postoffice.co.uk
<image001.png>
POL-BSFF-0238735_0006