WBONO0000768
WBON0000768
From: Susan Crichton;
To: "'andrew.parsonsi I Rodric
Williams}
Ce: Hugh Flemington 4 Jarnail A Singh
Subject: Re: Thoughts from the meeting this morning
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 14:16:20 +0000
Importance: Normal
Inline-Images: image014.gif; image015.png; image016.png; image017.png; image018.png;
image019.gif; image020.png; image004.jpg; image005.jpg; image006.jpg
These ideas come from the JFSA - I don't think SS have had a hand in this -
From: Parsons, Andrew {- ‘GRO. }
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 02:06 PM
To: Susan Crichton; Rodric Williams
Cc: Hugh Flemington; Jarnail A Singh; Matthews, Gavin { GRO. i
Subject: RE: Thoughts from the meeting this morning
Susan
Alan's approach seems similar to what we discussed yesterday, however there are some critical differences:
« SS seem to be being used as a weapon by JFSA to force POL into settlement - that is not their job.
« The approach assumes POL is liable and will offer settlements (and seems to hint at cash settlements). I'm
not sure where SS have got this idea from? Any hint that POL may be considering cash settlements would
encourage the toxic cases, encourage Shoosmiths and play badly in the media. I think we need to put a stop
to this quickly.
e Item 2 - SS should not be reporting on the "level of damage" suffered by an SPMR - this is way outside SS'
scope of work or expertise.
e Item 4 - I would remove SS from the adjudicator / mediator position. SS cannot act as mediator between POL
and SPMRs - it is not independent, it will be looking for defend its own conclusions in its report.
e Item 5 (a) - agree that there should be a way to "arbitrate" if no resolution is reach between POL and the
SPMRs. This however is through the courts and will not involve SS.
* — Item 5(b) - SS have no role in criminal issues. That is a matter solely from the criminal courts.
e Overall, SS are still approaching their work on a "case by case" basis rather than focussing on general
themes.
I wonder if rather than Paula discussing this further with SS, she should tell them that we will pick this up at our
meeting on Tuesday? We (or me as the pushy external lawyer) can then be slightly more firm with them
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Senior Associate
for and on behalf of Bond Dickinson LLP
Bord Dickingor
nse: I GRO
WBD_000638.000001
WBONO0000768
WBON0000768
Fax:
Follow Bond Dickinson:
Blin)
www.bonddickinson.com
From: Susan Crichton }
Sent: 12 July 2013 14:24
To: Rodric Williams; Parsons, Andrew
Cc: Hugh Flemington; Jarnail A Singh
Subject: FW: Thoughts from the meeting this morning
Rod and Andy - this is an email chain which starts with Alan Bates - could you take a look at his
From: Alwen Lyons
Sent: 12 July 2013 13:41
To: Susan Crichton
Subject: FW: Thoughts from the meeting this morning
Don't know if Paula has sent you this already
Thanks
Alwen
From: Paula Vennells
Alwen Lyons I Company Secretary Sent: 12 July 2013
12:50
148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ To: Alwen Lyons
Subject: Fwd:
Thoughts from the
meeting this morning
Postline:
Sent from my iPad
S)
1)
©
©
@postofficenews
Begin forwarded
message:
Alan Bates
Date: ii july 2013 I
21:22:52 BST
Thoughts from the m
Reply-To: Alan Bates
Any time after 10 am and please keep trying my mobile as I will be in the valleys and reception can be
intermittent.
WBD_000638.000002
WBONO0000768
WBON0000768
-- Original messag
From: Paula Vennellsi_
Alan, thank you very much indeed.
I will look at this properly, it is helpful to have a ‘starter for ten’.
A question for clarification: I think 4a suggests POL may agree to some sort of apology or settlement or redress -
is that right? And presumably, as you refer to convictions under 5, 4a implies an out of court agreement? If that is
correct, can we talk about what that could be?
This is simply for discussion with no commitment either way - but it will help shape my understanding.
I am happy to call you tomorrow? Is that possible?
Paula
Sent from my iPhone
On 11 Jul 2013, at 20:06, "Alan Bates"
Hello Paula,
Following on from the discussion this morning I drafted the following note on one possible way forward to deal
with the historic cases using a number of stages. I sent it to Janet for James to see, but I understand that he will
be in his constituency all tomorrow and knowing time is pressing thought I should send it to you. It is only the
barebones of a scheme and much work is required if it is not unacceptable. Hence the email to find out if sucha
direction might work for POL.
The approach would be to assess each of the cases, in the first instance on the thematic/systemic
failures/issues and secondly, the software/hardware problems. Weight would be given to each document of
supporting evidence provided by the exSPMR as well as other factors surrounding their issue. By the same
token, weight would be given to any supporting documentation provided by POL in reply to the assertions
made by the exSPMR.
Process
1. With the aid of JFSA, and Sight would batch the cases by location and arrange to interview each person
in that batch at a small number of locations around the country (time assessment required + interviews
to arrange; other assessor to be involved specializing in these types of issues, able to explain realities to
victim).
2. 2nd Sight + specialist assessor would prepare a summary of each case measured against the systemic
issues and other factors, producing a summary report to the extent of damage claimed by the
treatment by POL.
3. Each case report is sent to POL for comment and assessment/agreement, then POL prepares a
response and declares what they believe might be suitable (POL may wait for all reports to be
pnd
completed to assess liability). Sight and JFSA would assist if required.
WBD_000638.000003
WBONO0000768
WBON0000768
4. exSPMR, possibly through and Sight, discusses (on telephone) response from POL, and
a. Accepts POL's response and implications
b. Refutes POL's comments, adds their own and updated report then returned to POL, starts point
3 again.
5. If victim chooses 4a, POL meets agreed settlement.
To be considered
a. If 4b continually fails there has to be a way to arbitrate the issue.
b. The matter of any conviction has to be addressed at some point.
c. Timescales required for:-
I Dealing with historic cases
I Responses from each of the parties
Ml. Accepting new cases
Personally I think such a scheme could run quite quickly once the finer details and processes have been
established.
Your initial thoughts would be welcomed, but it is one way to clear out the historic cases.
Regards
Alan
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.
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.
Please consider the environment! Do you need to print this email?
The information in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential
ly is authorised to
access this e-mail an achments. If you are not susan.crichto
is possible and delete any
copies. Unauthorised use, dissemination, distribution, publication or copying of this Communication or attachments is prohibited and may be unlawful,
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
damage which may be caused by software viruses and you should carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment.
WBD_000638.000004
WBONO0000768
WBON0000768
Content of this email which does not relate to the official business of Bond Dickinson LLP, is neither given nor endorsed by it.
This email is sent for and on behalf of Bond Dickinson LLP which is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under number 0C317661. Our registered
office is St Ann's Wharf, 112 Quayside, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE1 3DX, where a list of members’ names is open to inspection. We use the term partner to refer to a member
of the LLP, or an 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.
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.
WBD_000638.000005