WBONO0000847
WBON0000847
From: David Oliver
To: "Parsons, Andrew"!
{ GRO } Rodric Williams .
janie GRO I Belinda Crowe! GRO dl
Angela Van-! Den —— GRO i
Ce “I"Parmenter, Claire"
Subject: RE: SS Challenges for WG meeting - legally privileged
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 15:01:18 +0000
Importance: Normal
Inline-Images: image001.jpg; image002.jpg; image003.jpg
Andy,
Thanks for this — do you have more detail on any examples/more examples — think we will need to be able to
evidence some of this quite exhaustively.
Thanks
david
David Oliver
Programme Manager
Initial Complaint and Mediation Scheme
From: Parsons, Andrew I GRO )
Sent: 28 April 2014 12:51
To: Chris Aujard; Rodric Williams; Belinda Crowe; David Oliver; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Cc: Matthews, Gavin; Parmenter, Claire -
Subject: SS Challenges for WG meeting - legally privileged
All
I've set out below a list of challenges that have arisen over the last few weeks with SS so that we can consider
whether to raise any of these with SS at the upcoming WG meeting. These are in a rough order of importance as I
see it. 1 and 2 could perhaps be raised with Tony before this week's WG meeting. I also think that 3 and 4 are
important issues that could be raised if we have the capital to push these points. The other points will be partly
mitigated if we can solve the first 4.
1. WG Confidentiality
Concern: it appears that SS (and AB) are communicating WG discussions to Applicants / Third
Parties.
b. Example: In the letters from Aver and Howe — they both reference that POL was receiving repeated
extensions — this could only have come from inside the WG.
c. Objective: Reiterate the need for WG discussions to be confidential.
2. Objective of investigation process:
a. Is the objective to "build a foundation for resolution at mediation" or "find the truth".
b. The former is quicker and more practical.
c. The latter requires SS to become a decision maker — much more onerous in terms of resourcing / time
/etc.
d. Also the latter is impossible — SS has no power to test credibility of evidence (ie. no cross examination
of witness testimony; no criminal sanctions for lying; etc.) and therefore will never find the truth.
e. Objective: Agreement to limit investigations to practical conclusions that help mediation process
WBD_000717.000001
WBONO0000847
WBON0000847
3. Scope creep
a. SS are no looking at safety of convictions and the fairness of the contractual structure between POL
and SPMRs.
Example: this issue has been raised in drafts of both the thematic report and individual reports.
Both items are outside SS' expertise and so they should not be commenting.
These are also not “Horizon related" and are therefore arguably outside the scheme.
Objective: Direction from the Chair to narrow scope of investigation.
gaos
4. SS investigation process
a. Should this be based only on the information provided by POL and in the CQR, or
b. Should SS be free to ask questions of applicants?
c. If option what impact will this have on the timetable.
d. Objective: push for option "A"
5. SS communication with PAs / Applicants
a. No transparency of SS' interactions with PAs or Applicants
b. Impacts on managing workflow if mixed messages are being relayed.
c. Objective: greater transparency of communications from SS.
6. SS "hardening of CQRs"
What does this entail?
. Are SS maintaining impartiality or are they now helping Applicant's to construct cases?
How is this impacting on the timings of the process?
. Could the questioning process at 3(b) be integrated here?
Objective: Get greater clarity on what SS are doing to warrant this work.
eaecD
7. Lack of SS interaction with POL.
a. SS are not directing any questions to POL.
b. If not getting info from POL then there is a one-sided flow of info from applicants.
c. Example: no engagement on factfile despite offers of meetings.
d. Objective: Encourage SS to pro-actively consult POL on issues rather than raising matters in front of
the WG.
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Senior Associate
for and on behalf of Bond Dickinson LLP
Follow Bond Dickinson:
6H
www.bonddickinson.com
Please consider the environment! Do you need to print this email?
nail and any attachments is confident only is authorised to
achments. If you are not david.oliverI
issemination, distribution, publication oF Copying
The information in this,
“= is Soot as possible and delete any
his Communication or attachments 1s prohibited and may be unlawl
access this e-mail an
copies. Unauthorised us
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
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, NEI 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,
WBD_000717.000002
WBONO0000847
WBON0000847
lated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority
Bond Dickinson LLP is authorised and
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_000717.000003