UKG100043711
UKG100043711
From: Paula Vennells
Sent: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 22:57:37 +0000
To: Alasdair Marnoch
Ce: Alice Perkins;Larissa Wilson;nei! Tim Franklin;Chris M
Day;Alwen Lyons;Chris Aujard; Virginia Holmes - PO;Susai Hooper
Subject: Re: 2014 02 11 ARC teleconference
Hi Alasdair, I have already asked Chris to pick up these questions and Neil's; we will come well
briefed, including detail on how the BIP has engendered the change. (Chris/Alwen, if we haven't
already done so, it might be worth having Angela VdB on stand-by.)
I thought it would be worth sharing my thoughts on why we are different; in my mind it relates
to the operational nature of PO rather than product or services, where there is more commonality:
The difference and perhaps not immediately obvious to our leading Counsel, is scale. None of
the businesses Brian Altman compared us to has a network the size of ours (most will be much
less than 10% of our size) and although some (few) may operate agencies, none will have the
unique relationship that we do with Spmrs, nor the cash handling through individuals who are
not employees, nor the spread of very different and in some cases not very successful adjacent
businesses, which itself causes problems. We are more complex and operate without the ability
to monitor our agents easily, (though the BIP is improving this); and most of the comparator
businesses he referred to will have line management structures, which make conformance easier.
This is an important area for the business and so I am particularly grateful to our NEDs for your
attention. We will do what we can to facilitate a good debate.
Paula
Sent from my iPad
On 9 Feb 2014, at 22:30, "Alasdair Marnoch’
Thanks Alice.
T agree this is a tricky issue and we will explore all the options in our call. As you
say it's difficult to understand why we should be different to others although the
timing of a shift from our current policy will be key.
I'd also like to understand more about the BIP and what is driving the reduction in
cases recently (more relaxed approach on prosecutions and/or BIP impact).
I hope you manage to join the debate but if not we will make sure your comments
are taken into account.
Best
UKGI00043711
UKG100043711
Alasdair
From: aliceperkinsé
To: larissa.wil
timfranklin
paula.vennell:
Alwen.lyons¢ ) .
CC: christopher.aujardi GRO b virginia.holmes.t21
susannah.storey! }susannah_ hooper GRO i
Subject: Re: 2014 02 11 ARC teleconference
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 12:03:40 +0000
Alasdair,
It is not yet clear whether it will be possible for me to participate in this teleconference. I
will if I can.
My reaction to this paper which is helpful and clear in many respects (and the BIP and its
impact to date is very good indeed), is that it does not spell out clearly enough for me, why
we think it is right in principle for us to maintain a different policy from other organisations
(the Brian Altman point) ie option C is dismissed too summarily.
I do of course, understand that we couldn't just throw our cases at the CPS and walk away at
a moment's notice. And I appreciate that we might find the CPS route less satisfactory in
cases where we were convinced we should be prosecuting. But if it is the case that the banks
and other financial institutions are content to live with this, why are we different? And what
would our public justification for being different be? In considering this, I would like to
understand better how much money would potentially be at risk if we were to go for option
C? And what are the relative costs of giving the work to external lawyers rather than doing
it in-house under option B?
I accept that option C could not be adopted immediately even if we did think it right. And I
absolutely agree we should have a financial cut off of between £20k and £30k and take
other factors into consideration before proceeding whoever is conducting the prosecutions.
If you'd like a word, do let me know.
All the best
Alice
From: Larissa Wilson [mailt
Sent: Friday, February 07, 201.
To: Neil McCausland }
Ce: Chris Aujard
“t Susannah Storey
Susannah hooper?
Subject: 2014 02
UKG100043711
UKG100043711
All
Please find attached the agenda and paper for the ARC teleconference Spm — 6pm
11 February. The teleconference will focus specifically on Post Office as a
prosecuting authority. An update on Project Sparrow will come to the February
Board.
In line with the decision at the last Board meeting, these papers have been circulated
to the whole Board. Papers are also available on BoardPad.
Room 501 has been booked for the meeting if you wish to attend in person and
teleconference details are:
Dial in from mobil
UK Freephone:!.
Kind regards
Larissa
Larissa Wilson I Company Secretarial Assistant
<image001.png>
1 Floor, Banner Street Wing, 148 Old Street, London, EC1V 9HQ
<image002.png>
UKG100043711
UKG100043711
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee 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 in error, please contact the sender
by reply email and then delete this email from your system. Any views or opinions
expressed within this email are solely those of the sender, unless otherwise specifically
stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office:
148 OLD STREET, LONDON EC1V 9HQ.
Click here to report this email as spam.
This message has been scanned for malware by Websense. www.websense.com
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee 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 in error, please contact the sender by reply email and then
delete this email from your system. Any views or opinions expressed within this email are solely those of
the sender, unless otherwise specifically stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: 148 OLD
STREET, LONDON EC1V 9HQ.