WITNO1820101
WITNESS: SAMI SABET
WITNESS STATEMENT: WITNO182_01
EXHIBIT: WITN0182_01/1
POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
EXHIBIT PAGE
The following documentation comprises the exhibit referenced as_ exhibit
WITN0182_01/1 in the witness statement of Mr Sami Sabet referenced
WITNO182_01.
Page 13 of 13
Mr. Paul Whitworth
ETS5/Cheque Team
Post Office Limited
1 Future Walk
Chesterfield S49 1PF
26" January,2007
RE: CHX to EDS —- FAD 09707
Dear Mr. Whitworth,
Following the error notice sent to me, and the subsequent telephone conversation with
your office, please find enclosed evidence we have.
As you will see from the cheque listing report there were indeed two cheques for £154
each. These cheques will have been ticked off and sent with the relevant BCV. The
total adds up to £1309.00. This amount, as you will, also, see was remitted to Data
Central.
It would be very difficult to say, today, six months from the event, what the cheque
was for. It could have been part payment for a bill payment, payment for other items,
etc. All we can say is that the cheque, as per procedure, would have been identified
from the cheque listing, and sent off. Had the cheque not been found, it would have
been removed using the “adjust stock” icon. Perhaps the cheque was misplaced your
end.
Iam becoming disturbed and anxious about these sums that arise, sometimes, months
after the event, and cannot be confirmed. Also, as I said to you, I keep writing to the
appropriate department, but no replies are made except to confirm that the error is
Regards,
Sami Sabet
Sub-postmaster — East Beach Post Office — 0970907
WITNO1820101
WITNO1820101
Current Agents’ Debt Team Leader
Post Office Limited
1 Future Walk
Chesterfield S49 1PF
19" November, 2006
RE: Account no. 1014188 — FAD 067 908 9
Dear Sir/Madam,
Over the last few months we have been inundated with requests for payments for
“shortages”. A couple of these, we could understand and accept, but a good many of
them we have contested and cannot find reason for them. Letters and telephone calls
to your offices and the help line were not satisfactory, usually without a reply, just
another demand.
I received a request for payment dated 13/11/2006. I do not understand what the
£293.90 (18.10.2006) is due to. The second figure of £447.92 occurred when we were
carrying out our weekly balance.
On the 20" October we bought back some Euros (equivalent to £440+). These were
remitted out on the 20" October and pouch collected on the 23" October. It then
disappeared from our balance snapshot.
When we were undergoing the balance later on, we were surprised that the Horizon
system asked us to “declare currency”. As we had none, we declared zero. When the
trial balance was reached, we discovered that an amount equal to £440+ was shown as
a shortage. This amount and other shortages were transferred to the suspense account.
We tried to discuss this when we were doing
the last trading period balance, but met with a definite this is not the problem. We had
to settle centrally in order that we may continue work the following day.
. Richard, informed the assistant that
they are having the problems with the system and were working on it. He said that he
would call him as soon as the glitch is solved.
Ihave three Post Offices. The two most recent ones appear to be suffering an unusual
amount of losses for their size. And, it is not that people are dishonest, as there has
been more than one assistant at each one, and there is invariably an unexplained
shortage. These have amounted to £2000+ in the last eight months.
WITNO1820101
We cannot pay the requested amounts as we feel these were not actually lost. It is
unfair of Post Office limited to collect money that they really have not lost.
Particularly when to the sub-postmaster the amounts are huge. As mentioned above,
we accept any losses which are realistic and can be properly justified. This one is
definitely not one of them.
Kind regards,
Sami Sabet
Sub-postmaster — East Beach Post Office — 067 908 9
Mr. Martyn Mitchell
Agents Debt Team
2™ Floor West Block
No 1 Future Walk
Chesterfield S49 1PF
20" August, 2008
Dear Mr. Mitchell,
RE: Request For payment of £13,195.46 — Mill Lane SBPO
097 907
I received Your letter dated 23 of July yesterday. It seems it was misdirected,
hidden, or mislaid somewhere, and I only just found it.
It was my understanding that both Mrs, Carol Ballan and your colleague knew that I
was in the process of selling East Beach and Mill Lane. I had agreed with them that
as soon as they are sold, I would settle the discrepancy.
Unfortunately, until today no sale has been concluded. The person applying for East
Beach has not reached the interview stage with the Post Office. I am not sure where
lication stands.
Should you have any queri
hesitate to contact me or,
0 discuss this further, please do not
Kind regards,
Sami Sabet
WITNO1820101
WITNO1820101
ini
OSL
OFFICE
Mr S Sabet
GRO
www.postoffice.co.uk
03 September 2008
Dear Mr Sabet
Re: Summons re East Beach & Mill Lane Post Offices - 067 908, 097 907
Summons reference POLTD/0708/0301
Thank you for your letter of 23 August.
I am fully aware of your previous correspondence around disputed
accounting errors and of the efforts made by the local area teams to provide
assistance and support to you in order to help you resolve ongoing problems.
Regrettably, further to this, audits undertaken at Mill Lane and East Beach
Post Office branches in March 2008 identified shortages totaling £50,619.17.
This was in addition to those debts already being held by the Agent Debt
Team.
My understanding is that there remains an outstanding amount of
£13,195.46. Neither Ms Ballan nor our Debt Recovery Team are aware of any
agreement with you whereby this will be paid on the sale of your Post
Office® business. Had this been the case you would have been asked to
provide a letter of undertaking from your solicitor. You will now, therefore,
need to make arrangements with the Debt Recovery team to repay the
outstanding amount.
In terms of the decision to issue court proceedings, the investigations
undertaken by the Post Office Security Team are to decide whether there is a
criminal case to answer. This is independent from any action that may be
Post Office Ltd, Registered in England and Wales no: 2154540, Registered office: 80 - 86 Old Street, London, ECIV SN.
Post Office and the Post Office symbol are registered trade marks of Post Office Ltd.
Post Office Lid is an appointed representative of The Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland, which is authorised by the Irish Financial Regulator and the Financial Services Authority,
regulated by the Financial Services Authority for the conduct of UK business. Bank of Ireland, incorporated in the Republic of Ireland with limited liability. Registered in England and Wales with
branch number BRO00459.
Card Account offered by 2, Morgan Europe Ltd through Post Office Ltd. 2. Morgan Europe Ltd is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Registered in England & Wales
No. 938937. Registered Office: 125 London Wall, London EC2Y SAY.
WITNO1820101
Page 2 of 2
—
POST
OFFICE
taken by the Contracts Team, whose role is to focus on contractual related
issues only. I believe that Carol Ballan, Contracts Manager, has made this
differentiation quite clear during one of several conversations she has had
with you over the past few months.
It gives me no pleasure to write a letter such as this and I am truly sorry for
any impact this situation may have on your family. At the same time I am
mindful that the cash and stock we are accountable for are public funds. The
decision to issue legal proceedings is never taken lightly. The alleged
offences of fraud against you are, however, of a sufficiently serious nature to
support that this the correct course of action to take. That decision,
therefore, remains unchanged.
Yours sincerely __
GRO
“Klan Cook
Managing Director
Post Office Ltd
10 DOWNING STREET
LONDON SW1A 2AA
www.number!:).gov.uk
From the Direct Communications Unit 13 July 2009
Mr Sami Sabet
Dear Mr Sabet
The Prime Minister has asked me to thank you for your recent letter and
enclosures.
As you can imagine, Mr Brown receives thousands of letters each week
and regrets that he is unable to reply personally to them all.
Mr Brown hopes you will understand that, as the matters you raise are
the responsibility of both the Department for Innovation, Universities and
Skills and the Ministry of Justice, he has asked that your letter be
forwarded to those Departments so that they may reply to you direct on
his behalf.
Yours sincerely
MR S CAINE
Building Britain's Future is the start of a process to engage with people on the big issues
. facing our country today.
Building =) To find out about events in your area, contribut nd isi
Britain’s Future ye i, fe your views and comments, visit the
Building Britain's Future website at: http://www.hma.qov.uk/buildingbritainsfuture aspx
WITNO1820101
WITNO1820101
Andy Winn
Branch Analyst
Post Office Limited
No. 1 Future Walk
Chesterfield S49 1PF
15" March, 2007
Dear Mr. Winn,
Profit Centre 097/907/4 - reference CHX TO EDS
In your letter you merely stated the procedures, which are in place for dealing with transaction
corrections. Are you sure that this is what really happens? What did you mean by “...the
branch may hold evidence to disprove/compensate the error, the “Seek Evidence” option will
be available...”? Does it mean that, on some occasions, the branches will not have the option
to dispute the correction?
On the issue to do with the incorrect remittance of the ”, you were quick to point
out that the quantity . The
point here was not the quantity, but the fact that this would have generated a loss for us when
we would have had to adjust the volume. It had been there for several weeks and was not
pointed out to us as an ERROR. The correction has been issued to resolve as you said, only
after we had called the appropriate department and highlighted it to them.
Regarding the large stock adjustments, you will find these are mostly adjustment due to
selling stamps as “normal” instead of “special”. Some, unfortunately, are counting errors, or
omissions. But, you are correct; these would have to be closely investigated.
ee Unfortunately this has proved to be very, very difficult for many reasons.
e Inthe majority of cases, transaction correction notices can arrive several weeks, or
even months after the alleged error had occurred.
e The Horizon system does not allow the branch access to historical data this far back.
This means someone has to gather the appropriate reports from the archives. This is
followed by several hours of sifting through and analysing the figures (on Balance
snapshots where results are cumulative, several days’ reports must be gathered and
arithmetical work carried out). Some reports may have become mislaid, or misfiled
e Where, as is the case with me, more than one office is held, the Sub postmaster relies
on staff. They may have left, or may not remember what had happened.
I would be the first person to praise the Horizon system, and admire, immensely, Post Office
Limited’s IT department.
WITNO1820101
Horizon System does accurately reflect what is input to it. However, As a Graduate
Electronics Engineer, having headed a large IT department at some time and a user of IT
products, I know and have experienced errors with systems, including crashes causing loss of
data, corruption of data, and many other bugs, perhaps due to a new software. This actually
happened recently with one of our EPOS systems in one of the retail outlets. There was a
power cut which resulted in the corruption of the data. The system is monitored and
maintained by a company using broadband. It was very difficult to correct the problem, and,
until now, the data is not correct and there is a discrepancy.
During October 2006, at East Beach Post Office, a demand for some £400 was displayed as
an error correction on the screen. Previously, as we were carrying out a balancing of the
office, the system, surprisingly, asked for a “currency declaration”. We had returned the
currency we had and could not understand why this happened. When we investigated we
discovered that currency which was remitted and sent back had reappeared on the balance
snapshot. It was only after reporting our findings again, that we were informed that there had
been a “glitch” in the system which is being repaired.
A few months earlier, at Mill Lane, we had another discrepancy which we could not
understand. As a result, we decided to print a balance snapshot at 9:30’sh in the morning, and
the normal one in the evening. We discovered that the morning snapshot showed a HIGHER
giro deposit value than the evening one. All day there were Giro deposits, so one would
expect the figure in the evening to be higher (as snapshot figures are cumulative). Although
this was reported no comments were received, and, as usual, the correction demand was never
revoked.
The point I am trying to make is that with the ability of central having direct contact with our
systems using broadband, there is a possibility that some errors could occur. The fact that the
realisation that there is an error occurs so long after the error was made means that the
member of staff who supposedly had made the error may not be available, or indeed may not
remember exactly what had happened. Now, we are unable to carry out a “BP” balance
without first accepting a transaction correction. We have to do this even if we dispute it.
Later, it is forgotten with workload, and a demand for payment arrives.
A few weeks ago, a Postman collected a cheque and giro pouches from Mill Lane. These
pouches were later discovered by the staff in the shop. He had obviously put them down and
forgot to take them. This would have caused an error as the cheques would not have been
received by the processing centre. Had they not been found by the staff, who handed them
over to the Postman the following day, they could have been lost. The branch would have
been accused of not returning a cheque resulting in a cash charge. This can happen at any
point in the chain and items would not be found leaving the branch having to carry the loss.
The processing department would insist that they did not get the cheques and, as is happening
now, demanding we settle the cash value. HOW DO WE CONTROL THAT? Several
mistakes could happen by coincidence making it appear as if the branch is at fault, when a
loss of the item in transit could be the real problem.
Finally, you suggested that I make queries by telephone armed with evidence. I would agree
with that wholeheartedly. In fact, having to write takes a great deal of time and effort. Not
only do I have to look after the Post Offices, but also the retail outlets and other businesses
within the group. I resorted to these letters only after several months of fruitless and
exhaustive telephone calls and short and to the point letters to the appropriate departments. It
WITNO1820101
You may like to note that the “Evidence for Transaction Correction” do not encourage
telephone disputes. They state that should we not agree with the correction we should write
submitting documentary evidence.
Also, to get hold of the right person is very
difficult. We have to contact the BSM Helpline who will, in turn, get the appropriate person
to contact us. This could take several hours, or days. And, as I have more than one office,
they may not find me at the office in question.
Regarding the visit to us which you mention; there was one made, but it was not prearranged
nor was it as detailed as sounds in your letter. We discussed the general problems briefly
without looking at any particular item, or paperwork. It was carried out only at East Beach
Post Office and Mill Lane was not visited. I was grateful for the visit, and as a result I was
sent balancing and end of day reporting instruction sheets to circulate to the staff. Also, there
will be visits by a trainer for a day/part of a day at each of the three Post Offices. I understand
the first will be on the 19" March in the afternoon.
I fear this may not solve the issues at hand. However, I am grateful for the action and the
support it shows, and feel it will be helpful. The audit mentioned in your letter would be
greatly appreciated, though I have not heard anything about it yet.
. This was made worst by the IR
Giro cheques which you mentioned in your letter. They alone add over £2,000. Having
looked at them carefully I am sure that, should they be presented again, they could still be
cashed as they are almost faultless to the clerk behind the counter. It is not made any easier
by the fact that this would probably occur when there is a queue in the Post Office.
That is another example of a disregard for disputed letters. When I first received these Giro
cheques (only two), I asked an experienced clerk working at East Beach (20 years PO
experience) about them. He could not see what was wrong with them and said that he would
probably cash them again if they were presented to him.
A demand for payment arrived for the two cheques. Weeks/months later I received six more
cheques which, apparently scrutinised by a committee and found to be “obviously”
fraudulent. I have sent all eight cheques to the NFSP, as I do not feel, in this case, we should
be made to pay back the cash.
I reiterate, I do not believe that we can loose so much cash. Such losses can only be made by
a person who knows the system well and can manipulate it to his/her advantage to “steal”.
They would know that it will be a long time before the errors are spotted and messages are
sent to the branch.
The whole system may have to be reconsidered to cater for a multiple sub post office holder
who has staff working within these offices. It should take into consideration the possibility of
staff leaving, thereby declaring errors within the shortest period possible, within two to three
WITNO1820101
weeks of occurrence. Perhaps historical data can be stored on a branch computer for future
reference and analysis (via a storage device).
including
lottery income (approximate figures before you write back to correct me). This is made
stronger by the fact that I am sure that most of this may not be an actual cash loss for POL. I
can believe that some of these losses are actually caused by us, and would, as I have done,
gladly pay for those. However, I am sure that a great deal of the cash demanded is not an
actual loss to POL, and is beyond our control and not our fault.
oe ae The IR Giro cheques alone are from just one office
and represent approximately 8% of that office’s income. They, most certainly should not be
held against the individual branches. If you saw the ones which were charged to us, and you
really understood the practicalities of a clerk sitting behind a counter, having to deal with a
long queue, you will understand.
. Tam sure POL’s
percentage share relating to its overall income will not be as high as the 8% which is
demanded from us.
I am very happy to discuss these issues in order that we may improve the system, cater for the
changing demands on the Post Office and Sub-post Offices and reduce the losses. I continue
to believe in the Post Office and would like to be able to continue to feel this way. I do not
believe that anyone can run a service, which will yield only losses to him.
Kind regards,
Sami Sabet
Sub-Postmaster — 067 908, 097 907, 108 908
Managing Director - Shorelife Limited
Copy to
Marilyn Stoddart, NFSP
Richard Smith, POL
Andrew Thompson, POL (for info)