WBONO0000440
WBON0000440
From: Mark R Davies!
To: Rodric Williams
arsons, Andrew
_} Patrick Bourke,
Rob Houghton .
3, Nick Sambridge
, Jane MacLeod { GRO.
RO f
Subject: Re: Remote Access wording - subject to litigation privilege [BD-4A.FID26859284]
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 17:36:12 +0000
Importance: Normal
Inline-Images: image001_.jpg; image002.jpg; image003.jpg; image004.png; image001(1).jpg;
image003(1).jpg; image001(2).jpg; image003(2).jpg; image001(3).jpg; image003(3).jpg;
image004(1).png; image001(4).jpg; image003(4).jpg
Would it help to include "whether this particular form of access" in final sentence which emphasises that
we've never actually been asked about super users but are going over and beyond to establish position?
So sorry to miss call.
Mark Davies
Communications and Corporate Affairs Director
On 21 Jul 2016, at 18:30, Rodric Williams < GRO > wrote:
All—this is the wording we have just discussed for para. 1.3.4:
Database and server access and edit permission can be provided, within strict controls, to a small, controlled
number of specialist Fujitsu personnel. Use of these permissions is logged but rare. Enquiries are continuing as
to whether this access could be used to affect a branch's accounts, and if so, whether this has happened.
From: Parsons, Andrew [mailto:{ GRO }
Sent: 21 July 2016 18:02
To: Mark R Davies; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Cc: Thomas P Moran; Rodric Williams; Patrick Bourke; Rob Houghton; Tom Wechsler; Nick Sambridge; Jane
MacLeod; Mark Underwood1
Subject: RE: Remote Access wording - subject to litigation privilege [BD-4A.FID26859284]
All
In case it helps, please find attached an amended version including Rob's comments earlier.
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Partner
WBD_000310.000001
WBONO0000440
WBON0000440
Follow Bond Dickinson:
simage002,j
www.bonddickinson.com
From: Parsons, Andrew
Sent: 21 July 2016 15:02
To: 'Mark R Davies'; ‘Angela Van-Den-Bogerd'
Cc: 'Thomas P Moran’; 'Rodric Williams’; 'Patrick Bourke’; 'Rob Houghton’; ‘Tom Wechsler’; 'Nick Sambridge'; ‘Jane
Mark Underwood1'
: Remote Access wording - subject to litigation privilege [BD-4A.FID26859284]
Mark
In response to your question in the other email thread about seeing everything we have said about "remote access",
we don't have a central log of everything POL has said on remote access. However, the language used in the email
referenced below (attached again) is reflective of the language used by POL towards the end of the Scheme.
We have also previously compiled POL's comments on this topic that were made in individual case reports (see
attached), which gives a flavour of the responses given. This should however be treated with caution as these
responses span a two year period and POL's understanding of the situation changed over time.
One of the tasks we could do (albeit this will need to be after the LOR has been sent) is to compile a complete
chronology of what POL was told and what POL has said on this topic. One to discuss on our call later.
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Direct: {
Mobile: }
Follow Bond Dickinson:
sinaoets2neeLlld
www.bonddickinson.com
From: Parsons, Andrew
Sent: 21 July 2016 14:49
To: 'Mark R Davies’; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Cc: Thomas P Moran; Rodric Williams; Patrick Bourke; Rob Houghton; Tom Wechsler; Nick Sambridge; Jane
MacLeod; Mark Underwood1
Subject: RE: Remote Access wording - subject to litigation privilege [BD-4A.FID26859284]
Quote from SS' Report:
"This ability to directly amend branch records is something that Post Office has consistently denied was possible.
This recently discovered evidence appears to confirm, that in 2010 at least, it was possible for Fujitsu / Post Office
to directly amend branch data without the knowledge of the relevant Subpostmaster.
14.16. In commenting on a draft of this report Post of Office told us that the references to “amend” and “correct”
in the documents mentioned above, are not strictly correct as neither Post Office nor Fujitsu have the ability to
WBD_000310.000002
WBONO0000440
WBON0000440
directly change or delete existing records. All that can be done is that additional records can be added by Post
Office / Fujitsu without the consent (and possibly the knowledge) of the relevant Subpostmaster. This will,
however, have the effect of altering balances at the branch, as both debit and credit entries can be made.
14.17. Post Office also told us:
“All of the above processes for correcting / updating a branch's accounts have similar features. All of them involve
inputting a new transaction into the branch's records (not editing or removing any previous transactions) and all
are shown transparently in the branch transaction records available to Subpostmasters (as well as in the master
ARQ data).
The language used in the documents produced by Post Office / Fujitsu and to which you refer is unfortunate
colloquial shorthand used by those working on the Horizon system. I can see how it could be read to suggest that
Post Office was "altering" branch data but the above explains why this is not the case.”
14.18. This is not something that we have been able to test or validate.
14.19. Clearly, the fact that such an ability exists, is not necessarily evidence that such ‘amendments’ were
actually made. This is not something that we have been able to investigate.
This section of the Report was based on the attached email sent to Second Sight.
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Bind Didkingow
GRO
Follow Bond Dickinson:
kin}
www.bonddickinson.com
Direct: {
Mobile: {
<image002,
From: Mark R Davies [mailt
Sent: 21 July 2016 14:36
To: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Cc: Parsons, Andrew; Thomas P Moran; Rodric Williams; Patrick Bourke; Rob Houghton; Tom Wechsler; Nick
Sambridge; Jane MacLeod; Mark Underwood1
Subject: Re: Remote Access wording - subject to litigation privilege [BD-4A.FID26859284]
Exactly - it's hard to assess this without seeing what we've previously said
Mark Davies
Communications and Corporate Affairs Director
On 21 Jul 2016, at 14:33, Angela Van-Den-Bogerd f
Thanks Andy
Would you please circulate the extract “The use of balancing transactions was explained to Second Sight and is
referenced in its Part Two Report at paragraph 14.16.” so that we can see what was referenced at the time.
Thanks
WBD_000310.000003
WBONO0000440
WBON0000440
Angela
Confidential Information:
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. Any unauthorised review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient please contact me by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
From: Parsons, Andrew [mailto:/ GRO j
Sent: 21 July 2016 14:05
To: Thomas P Moran; Rodric Williams; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Patrick Bourke; Mark R Davies; Rob Houghton;
Tom Wechsler; Nick Sambridge; Jane MacLeod; Mark Underwood1
Subject: Remote Access wording - subject to litigation privilege [BD-4A.FID26859284]
All
Please find attached the proposed wording on the remote access issue — for discussion on our call at 6pm today.
Three points to bear in mind when reviewing:
1. In light of comments yesterday, we've provided a slightly longer explanation so to hopefully present this
issue in a better light.
2. Tony agrees with the current wording but has reiterated the importance of dealing with this point candidly,
even if that does cause some short-term pain.
3. We do not yet have a 100% clear picture on some of the technical and operation issues on this topic. We
therefore need to be careful not to overstate our case. This draft wording will also need to be run past
Deloitte / FJ.
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Bord Dicingow
Meni: I GRO
Follow Bond Dickinson:
ee inI
www.bonddi
kinson.com
Please consider the environment! Do you need to print this email?
The information in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may be legally privil
authorised to acces and any attachments. If you are not angela,van-den-bos
as possible and delete any copies. Unauthorised use, dissemination, distribution, publication oF copying of this
unlawful
od by law. angela.van-den-boge
please notify andrew,parsons(~”
ymmunication or attachments is prohibited and may be
WBD_000310.000004
WBONO0000440
WBON0000440
Any files attached to this e-mail will have been checked by us with virus detection software before transmission, Bond Dickinson LLP accepts no liability for any loss or
and you should carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment.
damage which may be caused by software virus:
Content of this email which does not relate to the official business of Bond Dickinson LLP, is neither given nor endorsed by it.
nd and Wales under number 0C317661. Our registered office is 4
We use the term partner to refer to a member of the LLP, or an
ered in E
This email is sent by Bond Dickinson LLP which is a limited liability partnership regi
More London Riverside, London, SE1 2AU, where a list of members’ names is open to inspectio
employee or consultant who is of equivalent standing. Our VAT registration number is GB123393627.
Bond Dickinson LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
ASI SISISIEI OI ICISIGI I ICI ICC CIOR CAC ASIOR CAI ACI I EAA} AER ACI AK AAR CAR EA A AR a A Ao
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: Finsbury
Dials, 20 Finsbury Street, London EC2Y 9AQ.
Jagdeo ididciciddaidciieck daidcic iia icicicicick ddcicickiddok aaiccick kc iccicaei ik cack ak acai kok
Bind Diclingow
WBD_000310.000005