UKGI00012562
UKG100012562
. 1 Post Office Limited
148 Old Street
LONDON
EC1V 9HO
Confidential
POST OFFICE RESPONSE TO CRR ON M071
Second Sight
By email only
09" December 2014
Ref: M071
Dear Sirs
Post Office’s Response to Second Sight’s draft Case Review Report on case M071
This letter sets out Post Office’s response to Second Sight's draft Case Review Report dated 30
October 2014 for application MO71 (the CRR).
The appendix to this letter has Post Office's line-by-line comments on the CRR.
In summary, given the Applicant's admission of guilt and conviction for theft, together with the fact that
the available evidence is completely at odds with the Applicant's claims, Post Office agrees with the
CRR's conclusion that this case should not be mediated.
If you have any questions about this response, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours faithfully
Angela Van Den Bogerd
Head of Partnerships
Post Office Limited
www.postoffice.co.uk
Confidential
UKGI00012562
UKG100012562
2 Post Office Limited
148 Old Street
LONDON
EC1V 9HO
Appendix
Line by line comments
Paragraph
in Draft
CRR
Post Office comment
1.5(f)
Paragraph 1.5(f) of the CRR notes that the Applicant has claimed consequential losses
"which may be raised if the case progresses to mediation". As stated in the CRR, it is
outside the scope of the Scheme and Second Sight's role for it to assess or comment on
any consequential losses claimed by an Applicant. However, in the interests of
transparency, Post Office notes that it does not consider the losses claimed by the
Applicant to be recoverable under any circumstances.
The relationship between Subpostmasters and Post Office is governed by a contract. Post
Office has considered the circumstances of this case very carefully and on the basis of the
information provided by the Applicant, in its own investigation and in the CRR, does not
consider that it has in acted in breach of contract or caused the Applicant the harm now
claimed as consequential loss, not least given the unequivocal admission of theft by the
Applicant.
1.9-1.10
The Applicant admitted to theft and false accounting during his intervew under caution.
When faced with the charge of theft in criminal proceedings, the Applicant pleaded guilty.
A plea of guilty to a charge entails a complete admission to the offence. Nothing in the
Post Office investigation or the draft CRR presents a challenge to this position.
The plea was voluntarily entered after the Applicant had the opportunity to take legal
advice. Post Office is not responsible for any advice that the Applicant may or may not
have received. If the Applicant considers that he was wrongly advised, then that is a
matter to be addressed with his lawyer.
Post Office does not agree that the sum of £41,000 was accepted in full and final
settlement as stated at paragraph 1.11 of the CRR.
Other than the Applicant's unsubstantiated claims, there is no evidence that the sum of
£41,000 was ever repaid by the Applicant. There is no evidence that Post Office accepted
any sum in full and final settlement of the losses suffered. There is insufficient evidence
available to establish what the result of the civil recovery proceedings were or to what
extent sums remain outstanding to Post Office.
3.3
At no stage during any of the audits carried out at the branch, or in any recorded calls to
NBSC, or in the criminal proceedings did the Applicant claim that Horizon was to blame.
In addition, Horizon was introduced on 11 July 2000, but there is evidence that the
Applicant admitted to the shortfall building up since 1998 which undermines his claim that
the differences started to occur a few weeks after Horizon was introduced.
www.postoffice.co.uk
iffice Ltd is re
Office and the
in England and Wales, Reg 5 eet, London, ECV 9HO.
UKGI00012562
UKG100012562
q 3 Post Office Limited
148 Old Street
LONDON
EC1V 9HO
Confidential
5.2 The Applicant's false accounting meant that the branch's cash declarations were incorrect
5.10 as more cash was stated to be in the branch than there actually was.
As a result, it was impossible for Post Office, and will have been very difficult if not
impossible for staff in the branch, to have identified the days on which there was a cash
shortfall and / or the amount of the shortfall.
A consequence of not accurately recording a cash shortfall on any given day was to
deprive the Applicant of the ability to immediately review that day's transactions for errors
by branch staff that could have been the cause of the shortfall. Had a review been
undertaken on each day where there was a shortage of cash, it is possibe that some
errors could have been identified and remedied at the time as the day's trading would have
been fresh in the Applicant's mind.
www.postoffice.co.uk
Po:
Office Ltd is registered in England anc
Office and the Post Office logo are reg
54540. Registered Office 148 Old Street, London, EC1V 9HQ.
Office Lid.