UKGI00002944
UKGI00002944
POST OFFICE RESPONSE TO WESTMINSTER HALL DEBATE
17 DECEMBER 2014
COMPLAINT AND MEDIATION SCHEME
January 2015
UKGI00002944
UKGI00002944
PURPOSE AND STRUCTURE OF THIS PAPER
1. During the WH debate on 17" December 2014 a number of statements and
allegations were made by MPs about Post Office Limited (Post Office), many of which were
serious in nature, incorrect or did not provide the full context. This note sets out the Post
Office response.
2. This paper is structured into two parts. Part A provides some background to the
Complaint and Mediation Scheme (the Scheme), details of its working arrangements and
some statistics which reflect its current state of play. Part B provides Post Office’s response
to the various statements and allegations made during the course of the debate.
3. In reading Part B, it should be noted that Post Office cannot and will not comment
publicly on individual cases within the Scheme. So that they could feel comfortable in raising
their issues with Post Office, Applicants are assured of confidentiality under the terms of the
Scheme. In any event, Post Office cannot and would not make public statements which
disclose personal information about individuals without their consent.
4. Post Office has remained completely committed to its responsibilities to the Scheme
and the Applicants by adhering, rigorously, to the obligations of confidentiality agreed to by
all. These are continuing obligations and it will not depart from them now.
UKGI00002944
UKGI00002944
PART A: BACKGROUND TO THE COMPLAINT REVIEW AND MEDIATION SCHEME
What were the circumstances giving rise to the Scheme’s establishment ?
5. The Scheme was established to help understand and ideally to resolve the concerns
of Subpostmasters regarding the Horizon system and other associated issues.
6. Post Office has been determined to ensure that Horizon, together with its associated
processes, operates effectively, reliably and fairly so that Subpostmasters can have
confidence in the system. It is in Post Office’s interests to do so, with 78,000 people using
the system to process six million transactions for customers every working day.
7. However, a number of Subpostmasters have alleged that Horizon has failed to
operate in this way, and/or supporting processes were flawed, causing them detriment.
8. In June 2012, in order to address these concerns and in collaboration with the Justice
for Subpostmasters Alliance (JFSA) and a group of MPs led by the Rt Hon James Arbuthnot
MP, Post Office appointed independent forensic accountants, Second Sight Support Services
Limited (Second Sight), to investigate. Following a year’s work with a number of
Subpostmasters, Second Sight published an Interim Report on 13 July 2013, a copy of which
may be found at: http://www.postoffice.co.uk/post-office-statement-horizon. Their
headline preliminary conclusion was that they had found no evidence of system wide
problems with the Horizon software.
9. To address all issues in the report, however, Post Office established the Scheme in
order to provide an avenue for any Subpostmasters with concerns to raise them directly
with Post Office. The Scheme, developed jointly by Post Office, Second Sight and the JFSA as
the way of continuing investigations that Second Sight had already begun into individual
cases, provided any other Subpostmasters with a relevant complaint to make an application
to the Scheme with a view to resolution. The Scheme was open to both serving and former
Subpostmasters as well as to counter clerks employed by Post Office.
10. The Scheme is supervised by a Working Group comprising representatives from Post
Office, Second Sight and the JFSA. The Working Group's role is to ensure the Scheme is run in
a fair and efficient manner and to make decisions on how particular cases should be
managed. To ensure its impartiality, the Working Group has an independent Chair, Sir
Anthony Hooper.
UKGI00002944
UKGI00002944
How the Scheme works
11, In an initial application process, Subpostmasters with a complaint were invited to
submit details of their case to Second Sight. The Working Group’s role at this juncture was to
make a recommendation as to whether or not the case should be investigated.
12. On acceptance into the Scheme proper, Applicants were given the opportunity to
apply for a funding contribution of £1,500 +VAT, payable by Post Office, so that they could
appoint a professional advisor to assist with setting out the detail of their complaint. Having
done so, that complaint was passed to Post Office for comprehensive investigation. It is
important to bear in mind that, except in a small number of cases where the issue had not
previously been raised with Post Office, this represents a further detailed examination of all
the available facts including a review of the investigation which took place at the time of the
original incident.
13, When Post Office has completed this fresh investigation, its results, together with all
supporting documents, are passed to Second Sight. It is then for Second Sight to complete
their own review and analysis of all the material before completing a draft report which
includes a preliminary recommendation to the Working Group on that individual case’s
suitability for mediation.
14, The applicant is provided with the Post Office and Second Sight reports to comment
on before Second Sight complete a final report which is considered by the Working Group to
decide whether it should be recommended for mediation.
15. In cases where the Working Group recommends mediation, the case details are then
passed to the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR), the independent organisation
administering the mediations. Mediation is a voluntary process, so it is then a matter for the
parties to decide whether they wish to mediate. This is consistent with the process set out
in the original documentation which explained the Scheme and was agreed to by the
Working Group.
Scheme Statistics
UKGI00002944
UKGI00002944
16. During the debate, the Minister referred to a letter from the Working Group Chair,
Sir Anthony Hooper, setting out the progress of cases within the Scheme to date. This letter
has subsequently been placed in the Library of the House and contains the following
statistics in relation to the progress of cases as at 12 December 2014:
Applications to the Scheme 150
Applications rejected (ineligible) 4
Cases resolved prior to entry into the Scheme 10
Case resolved during investigation 2
Cases awaiting Working Group recommendation pending further information/review I 23
by either Post Office or Second Sight
Cases recommended for mediation by the Working Group 24
Cases passed to CEDR to arrange mediation 20
Cases not recommended for mediation by the Working Group 2
Cases mediated 7
Cases where Post Office declined to mediate 2
Cases resolved prior to the mediation meeting 2
Cases with CEDR awaiting mediation (of which 3 were scheduled to take place 9
before Christmas)
Cases remaining in the Scheme 110
UKGI00002944
UKGI00002944
PART B: QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE DEBATE
17. As noted in paragraphs 3 and 4 above, Post Office will not breach the obligations of
confidentiality it has to Applicants in the Scheme. It is not, therefore, possible for this
document to address the specific cases raised by certain Members during the debate.
18. Post Office is writing to each of the MPs who raised specific cases during the course
of the Debate, offering to meet with them to discuss those cases, subject to the individual
concerned giving their consent that it may do so.
19. However, a number of statements, allegations and questions of a more general
nature were also raised and these are addressed below.
Post Office’s Approach to the Scheme
20. During the debate, the Scheme’s scope and Post Office’s approach to it were called
into question. The Scheme was described as a “sham” and Post Office was accused of bad
faith in its dealings with Members of Parliament and Applicants and of undermining its own
Scheme. Post Office rejects this entirely.
21. The Scheme is entirely voluntary, and its overall objective is to try to achieve the
mutual and final resolution of individual Applicants’ specific concerns about Horizon and
related issues. The Scheme considered issues wider than just the software involved. This
encompasses, as recorded in Second Sight’s interim report, the following:
“Horizon relates to the entire application. This encompasses the software, both
bespoke and software packages, the computer hardware and communications
equipment installed in Branch and the central data centres. It includes the software
used to control and monitor the systems. In addition, ....... testing and training systems
are also referred to as Horizon”
22. In a manner consistent with its determination to establish the nature and degree of
any such problems, and resolve those that emerged fairly, Post Office:
e instigated an independent review of the Horizon System by Second Sight;
¢ subsequently established the Scheme in collaboration with JFSA and Second Sight;
e set up and funded a Working Group to oversee the Scheme, with an independent Chair —
Sir Anthony Hooper — and JFSA as members;
UKGI00002944
UKGI00002944
e provided funding for Scheme Applicants to obtain professional advice in articulating their
complaints against Post Office;
e established a 20 strong team dedicated to re-investigate every case in full;
produced over 130 investigation reports on individual cases in the Scheme (each typically
running to over 20 pages in length, together with up to 80 separate pieces of supporting
evidence); and
e provided Second Sight with hundreds, if not thousands of pages of information to inform
their investigation over the past two and a half years.
23. To date, and after two and half years of investigation and independent review, the
facts are that Post Office has found no evidence, nor has any been advanced by either an
Applicant or Second Sight, which suggests that Horizon does not accurately record and store
branch transaction data or that it is not working as it should. This offers welcome
reassurance to everyone who works in the Post Office network, all of our customers and our
partners and the millions of people who support and depend on the Post Office. Post Office
has now completed its investigation of nearly all cases within the Scheme.
24, Post Office continues to act in good faith in responding to the sustained questioning
of the reliability of the system upon which millions of people rely every day, including
through the independent review it itself initiated. Put simply, if there were a problem, Post
Office would want to identify it and correct it as quickly, fairly and effectively as it possibly
could.
25. However, just as it would be wholly wrong for it to fail to respond to any evidence of
flaws in Horizon, Post Office cannot be expected to ignore the clear evidence that shows the
opposite.
Transparency and the Scheme
26. During the debate, the suggestion was made that Post Office’s approach to the
Working Group, and to the mediations itself, is secretive in nature and that Post Office is
seeking to undermine the Scheme it created. These criticisms are unfounded.
27. From the outset the Scheme and the work of the Working Group was intended to be
confidential. The original Scheme documentation made clear to Applicants that they and
Post Office must endeavour to keep details of their case confidential and that all matters
discussed in any actual mediation will be strictly confidential. This is because the cases
involve sensitive personal information which should not be made public as well as to permit
UKGI00002944
UKGI00002944
a full and frank assessment and discussion of the issues to take place. This is in the interests
of Applicants themselves. That requirement for confidentiality is, however, balanced by the
fact that the Scheme and its Working Group was designed to be, and is, overseen by an
independent Chair.
28. In addition, confidentiality is an integral part of a// mediations, not just those in this
specific Scheme. The mediations for the Scheme are being conducted by CEDR, and the
confidentiality arrangements which CEDR has put in place (and which were agreed by the
Working Group) are in line with CEDR's own Code of Conduct and the European Code of
Conduct for Mediators which the Civil Mediation Council requires all UK providers to observe
in order to maintain accreditation.
29. The reason independent, well established and reputable mediation experts were
appointed to conduct the mediations was specifically to ensure that the mediations are
undertaken in line with best practice. As part of the mediation process offered by CEDR and
accepted by the Working Group, all the parties — Post Office being only one — are required to
sign a mediation agreement which binds them to confidentiality so that the parties are free
to explore fully the issues raised. A letter from CEDR setting this out was also placed before
the House by the Minister and is attached to this report.
30. Accordingly, it is wrong to suggest that Post Office is in some way being secretive in
respect of mediations. Instead, it is simply respecting the obligations it has in handling
individuals’ sensitive personal data, the agreement signed on entering mediation as required
by CEDR in particular, and a fundamental principle of mediation generally.
Exclusion of Cases from Mediation
31. During the debate, Post Office was also accused of using the Scheme and the
Working Group to exclude some 90% of cases from mediation in circumstances where this
had been understood would be the exception. Post Office also rejects these claims.
32. For the reasons already made clear, Post Office is limited in the details that it can
share on the Working Group’s discussions. However, the statistics at paragraph 16 of this
document demonstrate that suggestions that Post Office is seeking to exclude 90% of cases
from mediation are inaccurate. In fact, of the 24 cases in which the Working Group had by
then recommended mediation, Post Office declined to mediate just 2, representing a
percentage figure of just 8%.
33. Despite the arguments that have been advanced by some, it was never envisaged
that all cases would automatically proceed to mediation between Post Office and Applicants.
Mediation is one of the possibilities that may occur at a later stage of the process. However,
this would follow the re-investigation and independent external review of each and every
UKG1I00002944
UKGI00002944
case, consideration by the Working Group and its recommendation about whether a case
might be suitable for mediation.
34, Mediation is, by its very nature, a voluntary process designed to help reach a
consensual resolution. Post Office considers every case on its merits, but mediation will not
be successful where no evidence has emerged through the process to suggest that Post
Office is responsible for the issues complained of has or acted improperly. However, where
a case does reveal genuine and substantiated areas of dispute potentially capable of being
resolved, Post Office will mediate and has already done so in a number of cases.
35. In doing, Post Office takes a positive approach to seeking a mutually agreeable
resolution. However, what it cannot do is to ignore the facts and evidence to emerge from
the various investigations.
36. Lastly, Post Office completely rejects all accusations that it tries to ‘bully’ Applicants
at mediation: every mediation is conducted by an experienced and entirely independent
mediator appointed by CEDR, and Applicants typically attend mediation with their own
professional advisor.
Exclusion of Cases involving Criminal Convictions
37. The accusation has also been made that Post Office is seeking to exclude all cases
involving criminal convictions. As noted earlier, Post Office is considering every case on its
merits. All information which Post Office has as a result of these fresh investigations is
shared with Applicants. Moreover, it is under a positive duty immediately to disclose any
information that would assist a convicted Subpostmaster or undermine a previous
prosecution.
38. However, and as was made absolutely clear at outset of the Scheme, mediation is
not a process capable of overturning a conviction. Convictions can only be overturned
through established Court processes. This was made clear in the original Scheme
documentation:
“Post Office does not have the power to reverse or overturn any criminal conviction — only
the Criminal Courts have this power.
“lf at any stage during the Scheme, new information comes to light that might reasonably
be considered capable of undermining the case for a prosecution or of assisting the case for
the defence, Post Office has a duty to notify you and your defence lawyers. You may then
choose whether to use that new information to appeal your conviction or sentence.”
UKGI00002944
UKGI00002944
39, This position was also recognised and accepted by JFSA who advised, on their
website:
“Did you have a court finding against you? — If yes, and although this Scheme will consider
that to some degree (READ THE PACK) [sic], we, JFSA also recommend that you should enter
a parallel scheme with a firm of criminal lawyers who will look into your case with a view to
consider using the appeals court to overturn the findings against you. ”
40. To date no evidence has been identified by Post Office as part of its reinvestigation of
each and every case, nor advanced by Second Sight or an individual Applicant, to suggest
that the conviction of any Applicant to the Scheme is unsafe.
41, As noted above, had any such evidence come to light, Post Office would be under a
duty to disclose it immediately. Post Office takes these responsibilities very seriously. Post
Office has written to everyone who has suggested that they have or have seen evidence that
a conviction is unsafe and asked them to disclose that evidence so that it can be acted on.
To date no-one has provided that evidence. It is unhelpful for critics of Post Office or of the
Scheme to make statements of this nature without providing Post Office with any evidence
to support those serious allegations.
42. Post Office wishes to correct media reports suggesting that all Applicants to the
Scheme have a criminal conviction: this is not the case and these inaccuracies in reporting do
the majority of Applicants, who do not have a conviction, a considerable disservice.
Extension of the Scheme beyond Horizon
43. Suggestions have been made that the Scheme ought now to encompass issues
beyond those for which it was established. Post Office cannot allow its scope to be extended
retrospectively in an attempt to find alternative issues simply because no evidence of flaws
with the Horizon system has been found.
UKGI00002944
UKGI00002944
44, In this regard, a degree of focus was placed on the contractual arrangements
between Post Office and its network of thousands Subpostmasters, with one Member
suggesting during the course of the debate that Second Sight had told him that:
“...in [his] view, a person would have to be an economic and legal illiterate to be willing to
sign [the contract]”.
45, This suggestion does a huge disservice to the thousands of hardworking and diligent
people working as Subpostmasters who operate successfully within the terms of the
contract offering vital services within the Communities they serve.
46. The core principles of the Subpostmasters’ contract are broadly similar to those used
in franchising arrangements by other organisations across the UK and reflect well
established legal principles. This is the basis on which Post Office and thousands of
Subpostmasters have successfully conducted business for decades.
47. Subpostmasters are independent business people, with a similar position to
franchisees in other sectors. They may therefore obtain legal advice as they see fit on any
aspect of running their business, including in respect of the decision to enter into a
contractual relationship with Post Office itself, and the specific terms of that relationship.
Remote and Malicious Access to Branch Accounts
48. During the debate it was suggested that Subpostmasters’ accounts can be amended
remotely, in Horizon, without their or their staff’s knowledge. There is no functionality in
Horizon for either a branch, Post Office or Fujitsu (suppliers of the Horizon system) to edit,
manipulate or remove transaction data once it has been recorded in a branch’s accounts. It
is possible for Fujitsu to view branch data in order to provide support and conduct
maintenance but this does not allow access to any functionality that could be used to edit
recorded transaction data.
49, Post Office can send transaction acknowledgements (TA) or transaction corrections
(TC) to branches. TAs are used to record transactions that have been processed in branch
through other systems (e.g. the sale of Lottery products on the Camelot terminal) and TCs to
correct errors made by branches. Both TAs and TCs need to be accepted by a user logged
into the branch Horizon terminal before they are recorded in the branch accounts. They are
therefore fully visible to each branch,
50. There also is no evidence of malicious remote tampering and the suggestion made
during the Debate that a secretive team at a Post Office location is engaged in this sort of
activity is flatly denied.
UKGI00002944
UKGI00002944
Post Office’s Approach to Prosecutions
51. When confronted by potentially criminal conduct within its network, Post Office can
exercise the statutory right to bring a private prosecution open to all persons in England and
Wales under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, or by supplying evidence to the national
prosecutors in Scotland and Northern Ireland (where a private prosecution cannot be
brought). This is the same as for any other individual or organisation and Post Office is not
unique in bringing its own prosecutions. We take these responsibilities very seriously.
52. Interviews under caution, with investigators, are always carried out in accordance
with the Code of Practice of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE), which means that
interviews are recorded on tape and people can seek legal advice and have their legal
representatives present. These interviews are in connection with suspected criminal
conduct. Before these interviews, a person is always reminded of their right to have legal
representation present and signs a form to confirm their understanding of the position.
53. These are not the same as meetings about a postmaster’s contract, which are to
explore, for example, failure to follow proper processes and procedures, for example where
this might create a security risk. This will usually be part of a process to decide whether or
not there has been a serious enough breach for the contract to be terminated. Another
person can attend with the postmaster. This can be a friend, or another postmaster or
assistant or a representative of the National Federation of Subpostmasters. They can make a
statement in support and working practice is that they can speak on behalf of the
postmaster, if the postmaster agrees to this. Any evidence that is obtained which is not
compliant with PACE can be excluded — this would apply to evidence from meetings about
contracts that are not held under caution.
54, All cases of potentially criminal conduct are thoroughly investigated and decisions
about appropriate courses of action are taken on the basis of the available facts and
evidence. The serious decision to prosecute a Subpostmaster or employee, in the small
number of instances where this in fact occurs, is always taken following numerous checks
and balances and Post Office is confident that its approach is proportionate and fully
compliant with legal requirements. When Post Office decides to prosecute a case, its
conduct of the prosecution is scrutinised by defence lawyers and ultimately by the Courts
themselves.
UKGI00002944
UKGI00002944
55, In deciding whether a case is suitable for prosecution, Post Office considers (among
other factors) whether it meets the tests set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors. That
Code is issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions and followed by Crown Prosecutors.
Post Office does not have to inform the CPS that a private prosecution has commenced, but
the CPS can take over a private prosecution if circumstances warrant. Like the CPS, Post
Office keeps cases under continuous review all the way up to and during any trial, and can
effectively stop a prosecution by “offering no evidence” where appropriate.
56, Once a decision has been made to prosecute, the Post Office has a duty to disclose
the evidence against the suspect, along with all evidence that would assist the defence or
undermine the prosecution. Post Office refutes the allegation that it has put pressure on
Defendants to plead guilty, sometimes to lesser offences. This is completely untrue. Any
decision by a defendant to plead guilty is made after he has had the opportunity to take
legal advice and consider all the evidence against him.
Statute of Limitation
57. Limitation periods for bringing legal actions are a long and firmly established part of
the law. The periods, currently established by the Limitation Act 1980, balance the interests
of the claimant (who may need time to bring a claim) and the defendant (who must be
protected from stale claims, e.g. because relevant materials are no longer available).
58. The limitation defence is available to all defendants, no matter how strong the claim
they are asked to answer. Post Office, uniquely among defendants, should not be prevented
from exercising this legal right.
59, The Scheme does not affect postmasters’ legal rights, including the right to start
Court proceedings if they believe their case has merit. Many of the complaints in the
Scheme are very old, with the typical 6 year limitation period expiring well before the
Scheme was established.
UKGI00002944
UKGI00002944
Training and Support for Subpostmasters
60. Post Office disagrees with the contention made during the debate that the training,
help and support provided to Subpostmasters was inadequate. Thousands of
Subpostmasters, in receipt of the same training and support as Applicants to the Scheme,
have been operating the Horizon system successfully for years. Post Office provides
comprehensive training, both in the classroom and onsite, and follow-up support and visits
are also offered to those who may benefit from them or who request them. In addition, our
helpline is available to support Subpostmasters in addressing any queries, alongside
providing a service for technical enquiries. If these are not resolved quickly, further
expertise is available, including visits to Post Offices as necessary.
61, Like any other responsible organisation, Post Office always strives to improve its
training and support and has undertaken further initiatives since the publication of Second
Sight’s report in 2013. Post Office created a new Branch User Forum as a way for
subpostmasters and others to raise issues and insights around business processes, training
and support, to feed directly into the organisation’s thinking at the highest level. One of the
tasks for this forum is to review support processes and training to ensure they meet the
standards expected of, and by, Post Office.
62. In addition, making better use of technology will enable Post Office to enhance the
effectiveness of the support it offers in a value for money way. The training of new
Subpostmasters is an area that Post Office has recently reviewed and identified that by using
modern technology a proportion of the existing classroom training could be delivered on-
line.
63. As a result new Subpostmasters and their staff will be able to access on-line training
at a time and from a location that is convenient for them. The duration of the on-site
training remains unchanged. An added benefit is that this on-line training will be accessible
to the whole network and not just to new Subpostmasters. Technology has also been used
to reduce ‘paperwork’ and administration time within the support team. The overall impact
of these changes means that fewer people are needed to deliver an enhanced level of
support to the network.
64, Where, in what is a small number of individual cases, Post Office has found that the
support provided in that case has fallen short of the appropriate standards, those issues are
addressed as part of the investigation and review process.
UKGI00002944
UKGI00002944
Options for Subpostmasters in the event of an accounting discrepancy
65. Post Office rejects entirely the suggestion that Subpostmasters have ever been
instructed to adopt behaviours and practices that would go against company policy and
could even potentially constitute criminal activity. Post Office wishes to make it clear that
there are no circumstances capable of justifying the criminal offence of rendering a false
account.
66. If Subpostmasters face accounting losses, they have a clear choice to accept these on
the basis that they are responsible for them or, instead, dispute them for further
investigation. This does not affect their ability to continue trading and thousands are
operating successfully on this basis. It is categorically untrue to suggest, as it was during the
debate, that any Subpostmaster must commit a crime in order to continue trading.
Treatment of Cases Outside the Scheme
67. During the debate the issue of late applications and the potential for new cases was
raised. The Scheme opened to applications on 27" August 2013 and closed on 18""
November 2013 in line with the process designed and agreed with JFSA. The Scheme was
advertised within the Post Office Network and on JFSA’s website.
68. While the Scheme is closed to new Applicants, Subpostmasters and/or their
Members of Parliament may, of course, raise any concerns direct with Post Office at any
time, and Post Office will investigate the issues raised as part of its normal business. There
have been a very small number of cases raised with Post Office since the Scheme closed. In
each case, Post Office has offered to investigate the individual’s concerns and this has been
generally welcomed.
January 2015