WITN05350100
WITNO05350100
Witness Name: David Gordon Ogleby
Statement No.: WITN05350100
Dated: 15/2/23
POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF DAVID GORDON OGLEBY
I, David Ogleby, will say as follows:
1. I started employment with Post Office Ltd at Sunderland branch post office in
1994, on a “casual” employment basis initially, as a counter clerk. I was then
offered a part time contract to work at the branch after a few months. I also did
a staff supervisory role there from time to time, on a rotational basis, along with
some other colleagues of the same grade as me. For a few months from 2004
to January 2005 I worked as an acting assistant branch manager at Chester le
Street branch post office. I then moved onto a full-time contract with POL in
2005 when I joined the post office network field training team. This team was
then merged with the post office network audit team in 2008. During the latter
part of my time in the training team, and throughout the time when we had
merged with the audit team, I performed the role of Field Team Leader,
responsible for leading a team of trainer/auditors based over a particular
geographical area. I then moved on to the POL Network Transformation
Program at its inception in early 2012, carrying out two different roles at
WITN05350100
WITNO05350100
different times within the NT program, until leaving Post Office Ltd under
voluntary redundancy terms in September 2016. I am currently working as a
civil servant, employed by the Department for Work & Pensions.
. I first started using the Post Office Horizon IT system when it was rolled out
across the Crown post office network whilst I was a counter clerk at
Sunderland Crown office. I continued to use the Horizon system when in the
training field team, when training and supporting sub-postmasters (SPMs), as
well as Crown and franchise staff, and this continued once I was part of the
combined training and audit field team. Using the Horizon system myself, or
supporting PMRs to use the Horizon system, wasn't part of the job remit once I
joined the Network Transformation Team in 2012.
. When in the Sunderland crown office I used the Horizon system on a day-to-
day basis, serving customers, and also the weekly “stock balance”, to confirm
the correct cash and stock levels. As part of the supervisory role I also carried
out, I used the system when carrying out a weekly “office balance”. I also did
this while working at Chester le Street post office. Once I moved to the
Network Field Support team, I was involved in delivering classroom training
on the Horizon system, on actual Horizon kit, training various people (such as
new SPMs and new Crown office staff), but carrying out “dummy” transactions
to simulate real transactions, such as bill payments, issuing TV licences,
postal orders, etc. I would also carry out initial training onsite with newly
appointed sub-postmasters (after the branch had been “transferred” to them
from the outgoing postmaster), once they had taken over at a sub post office.
There were also other visits to support postmasters, such as a 3 month post-
WITN05350100
WITNO05350100
transfer visit (PTV) in order to offer further support them and assess their
progress. They were also some “ad-hoc” support visits, for example if a
postmaster had made a request to the support field team for any sort of extra
support visit they felt they needed. Once our team merged with the network
audit team, I also started to visit branches in order to carry out audits to verify
the cash and stock holdings within the branch, as well as compliance audits.
. I have been asked some questions about my experience as a trainer. Whilst a
trainer I carried out both classroom-based training and onsite training in PO
branches.
a. I was appointed as a trainer after, I believe, a phone interview with one of
the network training team area managers. I became aware of the field
trainer position after the job was advertised in the network. A colleague of
mine had seen the role advertised and suggested it would be something I
would be interested in, so I made contact with the team, was interviewed,
and then appointed.
b. I honestly can’t remember the job role criteria, but at the time I applied I
had about 10 years post office counter clerk and supervisory experience.
c. I had used the Horizon system since it was rolled out to the Crown branch
network, possibly about 1999?
d. As I was fully aware of how to use the Horizon system myself, my training
to be a trainer initially involved “shadowing” existing trainers, in both the
WITN05350100
WITNO05350100
classroom and on-site (in a post office branch), in order to learn the role. I
was also given a hard copy of the training manual, which detailed all parts
of the offer from the field team, and I also used this as part of my training
for the role. I then progressed to delivering the training myself, whilst being
supported by an existing trainer, before being judged capable to deliver
training on my own.
. I carried out training from early 2005 until leaving the training/audit team in
about March 2012 to join the Network Transformation Program team.
Towards the end of this period I didn’t carry out as much actual training, as
I was a Field Team Leader, but I still did this when required.
Regarding the number of training courses that I carried out, it is difficult to
say exactly, but possibly four or five classroom based courses a year at
the most? There would have been more onsite in-branch support required,
I can’t estimate how many of those I would have been involved with each
year. As mentioned above, I did less actual training once I became a
Team Leader.
. I believe we did receive training when new post office products were
launched, and we were also expected to keep up to date with post office
transactional changes via the weekly network updates publication that was
sent round out to all PO branches across the entire network. Sometimes
we would go as a team for any new training if required, such as when the
network started to sell financial products such as insurance products, and
WITN05350100
WITNO05350100
this was delivered to us so that we could then deliver onto the people we
would then be training. If a new PO product was launched that was going
to be incorporated into the classroom training, it would be added to the
training manual. We would also have access to the product knowledge
and processes, such as printed publications. An example would be when
the PO launched it's Homephone and broadband product. I believe we
would be expected to “upskill’ ourselves and confirm when completed, but
something like this could also be covered at our monthly team meetings.
. I can’t recall any specific feedback I was given regarding the Horizon IT
system or the training program.
In terms of the general gist of feedback on Horizon and the training
program from SPMs, trainees, etc, I would say it varied, some people learn
quicker than others and respond to training differently, so some people will
have expressed positivity about the training, some did say they felt they
could have had more training. I would say feedback was generally always
positive from what I can remember.
We had feedback sheets that we gave out at the end of classroom
training, onsite training and ad-hoc visits, and encouraged the trainees to
complete (not everyone completed, although we were always asked as
trainers to encourage trainees to complete, which I always did). These
were then sent into the training team main office to be recorded and
summarised, and used to evaluate both individual trainer performance and
training program performance.
WITN05350100
WITNO05350100
k. I honestly can’t remember any specific changes that were made to the
training program based on trainee feedback, given that it was several
years ago that I was involved, but I feel that will have definitely happened,
as I believe at team meetings the results of feedback in the network was
regularly looked at, and I believe that the higher level managers in the
training team were focused on delivering good quality training.
5. I have been asked whether I supervised or trained trainers.I did supervise and
train trainers.
a. This will have been from the time I became a team leader (I’m not sure
how long after joining the training team in 2005 I became a team leader,
but it was prior to the merge with the audit team in June 2008, so I think
about 2007), until I left the training/audit team in 2012. I was based in
North East England, and during the time I was a Field Team Leader, the
area I covered and managed team members in ranged from the East coast
of Scotland (one of my team was based in Aberdeen), central and Eastern
Scotland, down to Yorkshire and over to North West England.
b. I would find it difficult to say how many trainers that I supervised as their
team leader during this time. The teams sometimes changed whilst I was
in the field team as part of a review of the national team (eg, at one point
the number of field team leaders was reduced, and field trainers moved to
new teams). I think possibly there may have been about an average of
WITN05350100
WITNO05350100
eight trainers in a team generally. It was geographically based, I would say
that the maximum area of any of the teams I was in as a trainer or team
leader ranged from Aberdeen and parts of central and eastern Scotland
down to Yorkshire, and across to the North West of England.
. As the field teams were often reviewed and changed, including when the
training team merged with the audit team, there were quite a few trainers
in the different teams that I managed. With the exception of the auditors
who joined on the merger of the two different field teams, who needed to
be trained to be trainers, I think all the existing field trainers were
experienced and capable and didn’t need training or any real supervision
to do their jobs well. The names that I can remember from all the teams
that I managed are: Brian Marshall, John Wilson, Barry Crowther, Kath
Smith, Mark Buller, Mike Webb, Mark Sealey, Alex Mackenzie. There are
some others where I can only remember their first names.
. I don’t think I had to actually train any trainers, as I believe all the trainers I
managed as a field team leader were already trained prior to me even
joining the field team in 2005. When we merged with the audit team in
2008 and the auditors needed to be upskilled, to be able to deliver the
training program, they will have been shadowed/trained by experienced
trainers in their local area, both for onsite and classroom training (the
same as when I started as a trainer). I was a field team leader for a wide
geographical area and none of the new team members who came from the
audit team were based near to me. I would sit in on a day of a trainer
WITN05350100
WITNO05350100
delivering classroom training sometimes, and sometimes on them
delivering onsite training, to check that they were delivering training as per
the training manual guidelines. I’m not sure how often this happened, but it
wasn’t, for example, each course that was delivered, or each time a trainer
delivered onsite branch training that a team leader would sit in on them. As
a team leader I was responsible for arranging regular team meetings,
which would cover a variety of subjects, such as anything related to the
current field team delivery program. In terms of actually training trainers, I
can’t remember doing that other than one time when I delivered a
classroom training course in Scotland (Dunfermline), and one of the
participants on the course was a POL employer who had previously
worked in an area office, in a non-customer facing or transactional
capacity. He had just joined one of the Scottish teams in the field training
team, and needed to learn the post office transactions himself in order to
deliver training. I know that after the training course he was then going to
work in a Crown branch office for several weeks in order to familiarize
himself with all aspects of post office procedures and transactions before
then being supported by his colleagues to start delivering training himself. I
believe he has previously worked as a PO counter clerk, but that had been
several years previously. I’m unaware of how he progressed after he took
part in the training course, as he was in a different region to me and I'd
only delivered the training in that area due to the more local trainers being
allocated to other training work on that occasion.
e.
WITN05350100
WITNO05350100
I can’t recall any specific feedback on the training program that I received
from trainers. However, as part of this statement, one of the documents I
had access to (Internal Stakeholder Feedback Appendix A[POL00033610],
gives an example of where the field team have been asked to give
feedback on the training offer in 2011, in order to review and improve the
offer, so this was always something that was important.
I can’t recall the gist of any feedback that trainers may have passed to me
at any point, but as I state in 5.e., feedback was used to improve the
training offer.
As per my answer in 5.e., trainer feedback would be used in reviews, and
also any business as usual, ad-hoc updates to the training offer.
Regarding feedback from trainees on classroom courses and onsite PO
training, feedback sheets were given to postmasters, new branch staff,
etc, which were then sent into the central network training team. These
were then cascaded out to the team leaders and trainers in the form of
average “scores” for each of the particular questions of the feedback
sheets (multiple choice answer questions I think, along the lines of “I agree
strongly” to “I disagree strongly” format), and also any comments made on
the sheets, where people were able to write a summary of their thoughts
on the training they’d received. This was the sort of feedback that would
be covered in team meetings, and used to evaluate and improve the
training offer.
WITN05350100
WITNO05350100
6. I have been asked a series of questions on the content of the training
programme.
a. There was already a training program in place when I joined the team in
2005, I’m not sure who was responsible initially. I would say senior
management within the field team initiated full training offer reviews, which
would involve support from the field team leaders. Various people also
contributed to ah-hoc changes and updates, on an ongoing basis, such as
the field team leaders.
b. I can’t think of how the training delivered diverged from the training
program.
c. The training program was already running when I joined the team in
January 2005 and was still running when I left the team in 2012, and was
still running when I left POL in 2016.
d. In general, I remember that the training program was offered to new
SPMs, Crown office branch staff, PO franchise and multiple run branches
staff.
e. I believe a new trainee would usually take part in the training program on
starting their employment with POL, or on becoming a new SPM or
WITN05350100
WITNO05350100
starting employment with a franchised PO branch (eg, WHSmith post
office staff).
I delivered classroom and in branch training.
. I couldn’t estimate an average number of trainees on classroom course,
but I think that the main training rooms I delivered courses in, Durham and
South Shields, had capacity for eight people. I remember visiting a Crown
branch office in Glasgow for team meetings on occasion, and I think there
were two training rooms there, each with capacity for about eight trainees.
However, during the rollout of the support program when lots of Crown
branch post offices closed and WHSmith took on the branches, there was
an increased capacity for trainees in order to meet the training needs of
staff starting employment with WHSmith all at the same time. These were
often delivered in other locations such as hotels, and portable Horizon
training kit was used there. I delivered courses for Newcastle and
Blackpool where there may have been about 15-20 on each course, and in
that case more that one trainer would be involved in delivering the course.
. It’s difficult to estimate how much time was spent with trainees actually
using the Horizon system during classroom training, although I would say
the majority of the sessions used Horizon at some point. Individual
sessions would initially focus on discussing the product (eg Special
Delivery postage), but then move on to how to process the actual
transaction through Horizon (“dummy” letters and parcels would be used).
WITN05350100
WITNO05350100
Usually at the end of each day there would be a recap I think, with the
chance to practice the transactions on Horizon again, and usually again at
the end of the week. Some sessions might not involve Horizon at all,
mainly sales coaching sessions for the range of POL insurance and
financial products, although I don’t think we delivered those sessions when
I started in team, as they were just launching the products.
(a) I think that for training on the classroom training courses there was a
session on a full cash and stock account balance at the end of each week
of a two week training course, but a cash and stock count and check at the
end of each day, the same as in an actual live branch situation. (b) I
believe as in the case of the daily cash and stock checks the trainees
would often have some sort of discrepancy as they were new to the
process, so as trainers we would typically show them how to check again,
and what may have happened, such as recounting postage stamps, and
checking that all customer bill payments had been processed correctly. (c)
I’m struggling to remember about how the trainees could seek advice and
assistance on the operation of the Horizon system, I would think they were
made aware of the POL helpline. I believe for SPMs they will have been
made aware that they could request ad-hoc training visits from the training
team. (d) I believe the Horizon system contained various information on
transactional procedures, various things to do with postage procedures
(how to check customs requirements for sending items abroad, etc), and I
think in many of the sessions trainees would be shown how to access that
information.
WITN05350100
WITNO05350100
Trainees were encouraged throughout the training program, both
classroom and in-branch onsite training, to ask questions if they were
unsure of any aspect of what was being to delivered to them. I was always
happy as a trainer to go over something again if a trainee wasn’t sure
about anything for any particular product or Horizon transaction.
. The training program would typically be updated to cover a new POL
product, or to remove training for discontinued products.
In classroom situations there was usually a set of transactions completed
at the end of each week, as if trainees were serving a customer, which
involved covering the same products and services that has been covered
in the individual sessions. Also I think some product knowledge questions
as well, and the trainee would be made aware of how many that they had
completed correctly, and any wrong answers or errors fed back to them. I
think at the end of each day trainers would let the trainees do some more
practice transactions to reinforce what they’d learnt each day.
. I believe given the nature of the very wide range of products and services
that were involved in running a post office branch or working in a Crown or
franchise branch, the training program focused on the most important
parts and products across the classroom and onsite training. So in general
I think it was adequate, although in the case of SPMs, particularly those
who were in smaller branches and didn’t always have the support of as
WITN05350100
WITNO05350100
many experienced existing such as those in a Crown branch, the learning
curve is more steep. Although in smaller PO branches they wouldn’t
usually have the same range of products as those offered in a Crown
branch, and so the training offer covered a greater percentage of what
they would need to know when they operated their branch.
n. (a) In order to enable trainees to balance, given that the training team
were allocated a certain amount of time to show how to complete balance,
both in classroom and in-branch, I think this was adequate to learning the
process needed to do this, although all trainees would improve with time
and practice. I think the time allocate for this was generally long enough,
although SPMs could request further support on an ad-hoc basis if they
felt they needed it. (b) I think it would be very difficult or even impossible to
cover every single eventuality on shortfalls or discrepancies that may
occur in a post office branch, and I would say a lot of knowing what to
check and where to look comes with experience, so every eventuality
wouldn't have been able to be covered in the time allotted.
7. SPMs were able to request further ad-hoc training from the main training team
office, and then trainers would be allocated to visit the branch again to support
them. I believe sometimes phone call support could be allocated, depending
on the nature of the issue. I’m not sure if Crown staff would be able to get this
extra support as they would already have in-branch support from experienced
colleagues.
WITN05350100
WITNO05350100
8. I have been asked to consider the Training Review Cascade dated 12
January 2012 [POL00033647]
a. This was a training review for the training package, I’m assuming as part
of a regular check to make sure the team were offering the best training
possible, but it looks like the review of the changes to the training offer that
had been made the year before. (b) It seems to be that different managers
and team leaders were allocated to look at different parts of the training
offer, and then submit feedback on possible changes and improvements.
(c) I don’t know which individual would have decided to commence the
review. Or if it was recommended by the senior managers in the network
field team.
b. I have been asked to expand on the following wording in the document “
Onsite too short at times-Once the transfer audit is done, the balance is
shown on a Wednesday and a half day Saturday there is not always time
to cover topics”. The comment about “On site too short at times...... "Tm
not sure if this was obtained from feedback from trainees or from my team,
that I’ve then submitted to the review.
(i) I can’t remember specifically what sorts of topics would likely have
been “missed” during the onsite training period, but given the
extremely wide range of PO products and services offered in
branches, it would be very difficult to cover everything. During the
time that a trainer was onsite with the new SPM, the SPM would
WITN05350100
WITNO05350100
carry out transactions based on what customers required, but
trainers could show them various transactions even if no customers
had requested them. For example, at quiet periods between
customers, the trainer could demonstrate how to carry out a
particular transaction, discussing with the SPM, etc. This could be
done by demonstrating on the Horizon system how the transaction
would be done, without actually processing the transaction. Also
making reference to the online transactional information held on the
Horizon system (eg, showing the SPM how to look up information
on what products are prohibited from being sent to certain
countries).
(ii) SPMs could request ad-hoc visits from the training team
schedulers, but also, if at the end of the onsite training period the
trainer could also request to come back to cover anything they felt
was missed. I think in most cases the training offer for the onsite
part was fully covered, but if for any reason it wasn’t (eg. SPM was
ill and missed a day?), it could be requested.
c. I have been asked to expand on the following wording in the document:
“Standard training package. The training package would have to increase.
Forms part of the review’. In terms of my memory of this wording in the
document, I’m not able to answer any more than this, other than the
feedback given by me as shown on the Powerpoint slide 58 that was
included in the review, and that the onsite training package was ultimately
WITN05350100
WITNO05350100
viewed as the correct length of time as it was, by the review. So I don’t
think the length of time for onsite training was then increased, but there
was still then the option for SPMs to request some additional support after
the initial training had ended.
d. Although I can’t remember the specifics of the time, reading through the
presentation, I believe I will have been responsible for submitting and
presenting slides 85-87.
(i) I can’t remember who specifically will have asked for me to review
that part of the training offer. It’s likely that this process was
discussed at a previous team leader/manager meeting, and
different sections allocated to the various team leaders.
(ii) This will have been part of the overall review of the most recent
training offer.
(iii) I couldn’t say whether the response to the requests were effective
in addressing the relevant reason for the request, given how long
ago it is since it occurred, and that I left the training team for a role
in a different program two or three months after this presentation is
dated.
e. I now can’t remember changes made as a result of the work done creating
the slides, but going by the information on slide 86, the request to update
WITN05350100
WITNO05350100
the pre-training checklist for an incoming SPM was granted and
completed.
9. I have been asked to consider Internal Stakeholders Feedback Appendix A
dated December 2011 [POL00033610], Training Q3 Review, Appendix B
dated December 2011 [POL000336611] and Review of Post Office Ltd New
Entrant Training Pilot dated December 2011 [ POL00033612].
a. I can’t specifically remember the context of the review, but based on the
documents it was completed in 2011 as a review of the training offer for
new entrants, I honestly couldn’t say more than that.
b. I would say that each item of feedback was after consultation with my own
team that I was team leader for, and the main points we felt would help
improve the training offer were fed into the review.
c. I’m not able to remember what changes were made as a result of the
review.
d. If an ad-hoc request was made for a SPM to receive extra support
regarding accounting procedures, and this were allocated, it could be
scheduled for, say, two hours, a half day, a full day, or even possibly a
phone call invention, depending on the nature of the issue and the
request. I think the amount of time allocated and method of support would
have been decided at the field team main admin office in Salford, I’m not
WITN05350100
WITNO05350100
sure what the process was to decide that or which individual would have
done that. I think that some examples of extra support being given, by way
of a trainer being scheduled to attend a branch for an “ad-hoc” visit, would
be: A branch was allocated a new product, for example, the passport
check & send product, so a trainer could be allocated a full day to attend
the branch to cover this; or a SPM might ask for more support with the
weekly balance procedure, a trainer could be scheduled to attend on the
balance day. I couldn’t say how often ad-hoc visits were scheduled,
although I do seem to remember trainers and team leaders could view the
current training schedule, which showed nationally which trainers were
scheduled to deliver onsite and classroom training over the coming weeks,
and I think there was regularly ad-hoc training on the schedule. Possibly
there’s still a record of these schedules somewhere.
. I have been asked if additional support or training was provided to those
who needed it, (i) did I consider this to be adequate and (ii) how would
trainers have satisfied themselves that the trainees no longer required the
additional training or support
(i) I would like to think this was adequate, and that in most cases the
requested additional support then left the SPM able to perform the
particular transaction correctly, etc, (depending on the nature of the
visit request). However, any further requests could still be made by
the SPM, or even the trainer themselves, if they felt that a return
visit would further help support the SPM. I believe I may have done
WITN05350100
WITNO05350100
that myself on occasion, although I can’t remember the specific
example of the actual training need. Any requests for ad-hoc
training would be considered by the scheduling team based at
Salford.
(ii) Trainers would likely have been aware of the ability of those they
supported by observation of and discussion with the trainee
regarding the various training tasks. I believe there was a tick-list of
the transactions and processes to be covered during training which
the trainer completed as the training progressed, and whether or
not they were judged as capable to complete.
10. Post transfer contact was scheduled, at the one month and three month
stages, in order to add further support and confirmation of how the SPM was
doing. I believe the one month contact may have been a phone call while the
three month was a Post Transfer Visit (PTV). There was a list of items to
cover, essentially a check list to go through to ask the SPM, although the
SPM was able to ask any questions as well as part of a general discussion of
how they were doing.
11.1 will have provided SPMs with help as part of the initial training package, at
any ad-hoc training, and at PTVs.,
12.I have been asked how issues raised by subpostmasters would be escalated.
It's difficult to say about how any difficulties were escalated, as I would have
WITN05350100
WITNO05350100
hoped to solve any problems at the time, but I think on occasion I may have
requested another visit from a member of the training team if I felt there were
other issues that the SPM could do with support with. I would think also that I
would make the SPM aware of the POL helpline for future issues also, if
appropriate, as that was a source of support for the PO network. I also think
that I sometimes made use of the POL Helpline while onsite with a SPM, in
order to help answer a question or solve an issue at the time. For example,
there was once an issue when a SPM had incorrectly processed a customer
bill by not recording the customer account number on the Horizon system for
the company that the customer was paying the bill to, so I called the helpline
in order to try and confirm what details had been processed. I recall then
telling the customer how the error could be rectified.
13.1 can’t honestly remember any instances where there were difficulties with the
Horizon system, in terms of anyone suggesting there was something wrong
with the way it was operating. The only difficulties I remember with the
Horizon system were due to human error, as in the example I give in 12,
above.
14.I have been asked whether I think that there were steps that ought to have
been taken in relation to concerns I raised. My answer is no.
15.I have been asked whether there was anyone I felt could have done more to
assist subpostmasters. My answer is no, I can’t think of anyone.
WITN05350100
WITNO05350100
16.I have been asked whether I was aware of any bugs, errors, or defects in
Horizon at the time. I wasn’t aware of any bugs or defects in Horizon.
17.I have been asked to consider Post Office Ltd-Network Support — Field
Support Change and Best Practice Registration and Management System
[POL00084807]
a. I’ve no great memory of this register, so I don’t think I was involved in it’s
upkeep, but have used it, as shown. It looks like it was created for
members of the field team to raise improvement suggestions for all
aspects of the processes for delivering the training program and audit
process. It will have been an important tool for continual upkeep of the
training offer as and when needed, rather than wait for something like a
yearly review to look at necessary changes. I don’t know when it was
created, or whether it was in use when I joined the team in 2005 (I’m
guessing it was though) or if it was still in use when I left in 2012.
b. I have been asked to expand on the following: “ it’s only really the first part
of the document we need, as we should all know the rest anyway. I got this
from a Field Change Manager at a re-opening the other day. I know
generally the migrating of newly installed kit will be done by someone like
him, but Ged in my team was at one last year and, for one reason or the
WITN05350100
WITNO05350100
other, it hadn't been done. As she worked on the Horizon migration team
several years back, she was able to save the day as she knew what to do.
These instructions should be useful in an emergency”
(i) I can’t remember any other occasions where I came across this.
(ii) I would say the “emergency” that I’ve referred to in this context
would be Horizon migration not having been done at the correct
time, leading to delays in the branch opening and operating.
18.1 wasn’t involved in the Horizon Online rollout, as I was working in a Crown
branch when it was rolled out there, and also still working in the Crown branch
when Horizon was rolled out to the rest of the Network a few years later.
19. When the Horizon system was updated to become Horizon Online (HOL) in
2010, I, along with other field team members, were allocated to different PO
branches to help with the overnight installation of the IT update. I believe
there was a checklist of various things to cover on that needed to be done,
such as printing an office balance (or office snapshot?) from the system
before HOL installation, and then printing the same again after installation. I
WITN05350100
WITNO05350100
think we visited the branch at the end of the day before overnight HOL
installation, and returned the next morning to check that it had worked
correctly. We were able to confirm that it had worked correctly, I think, by
information shown on the Horizon system to verify correct installation, as well
as comparing the office balance/snapshot printouts from before and after. The
only time I remember any difficulties at any of the branches that I supported
for the roll out, was at a branch where, during the night when migration was
taking place, there had been a brief power cut at the branch, and as a
consequence the Horizon system hadn't updated to the new online system
over night. I believe that in this case the branch just opened as usual the next
morning when I attended, and continued to use the existing Horizon
system/software. A new date was then allocated for the overnight online
migration, and another field team member was scheduled to attend, so I
assume that it migrated successfully then, although I wasn’t involved in this
second visit.
.I have been asked a series of questions about my involvement in the
resolution of disputes. I was the auditor at a sub-post office branch in
Newcastle once (I can’t remember the name of the branch), where the SPM
disputed that the missing cash amount was down to them having taken the
money themselves. They said that the external PO ATM in the branch had
been giving faulty readings, leading to a shortfall of cash when the ATM
readings had been entered into the Horizon system as part of the daily cash
declaration and weekly cash balance. The SPM was subsequently dismissed
2
=
22.
23.
24.
WITN05350100
WITNO05350100
and the case went to court, where I was called to be a witness, although the
trial itself didn’t take place, as the SPM accepted responsibility for a
proportion of the missing cash, but not all of it. I’m fairly certain that during the
audit process in branch when the cash shortage was discovered, the SPM
only disputed the fact that in their opinion, the “faulty” ATM readings had
caused the cash shortfall, and didn’t suggest that the cause was the Horizon
accounting system.
.I’m not really aware of how disputes were resolved in the case of SPMs
having been suspended due to shortfalls in cash. From what I remember,
after an audit was completed and a SPM suspended, an area network
manager (I think Business Development Manager — BDM was one job role
title while I was there) would be involved (they were the person who would
actually suspend the SPM on the day of the audit if required). So I would think
that they would be the person who would handle the dispute. If this question
refers to a dispute of the findings during the actual audit itself, then there
would have been another check of the cash and stock to satisfy the SPM that
the findings were correct.
I don’t know of any involvement of Fujitsu in disputes.
I’ve no idea if the process to resolve disputes could be improved.
.I have been asked to describe the process for branch account audits whilst I
was at the Post Office.
WITN05350100
WITNO05350100
a. I first became involved with auditing in PO branches when the training
team merged with the existing audit team in 2008, so prior to this, people
who audited PO branches were classed as “auditors”. Upon merging,
audits were then carried out by the new multi-skilled field team, who also
had responsibility for delivering the training program (I can’t remember the
specific job role title of the trainer/auditor at the time). I don’t know if, prior
to the two different teams merging, people recruited into the audit team
had to have minimum qualifications or experience, but myself and the
other members of what was the field training team automatically took on
the role of auditing when the teams merged.
b. The former trainers were scheduled to accompany former members of the
audit team to some audits in order the “shadow” them, and learn how to
perform audits, but we also took an active part in the audits as well, such
as helping count cash and stock at each audit. We watched the auditor
complete the electronic audit document (an Excel spreadsheet called, I
think, a P32) during the audit, which, when cash and stock details were
entered, would show if any cash or stock was registering as missing or in
surplus in the branch. There was also a “compliance” part of the audit
carried out, but this didn’t relate to cash and stock, and was to do with
other PO procedures, such as checking the SPM carried out security
procedures correctly, and displayed the correct PO promotional literature,
etc. In terms of any “classroom” based audit training for former trainers, I
think we did have some, where we went through the audit process, and
shown the P32 form, also examples of audit reports, etc. I can’t remember
WITN05350100
WITNO05350100
exactly how many audits I initially shadowed at, I can remember two
specifically, but there may have been more. After shadowing initially, I then
progressed to “leading” an audit myself, where I was responsible for
completing the audit summary document at the audit, and the subsequent
audit reports. I was myself “shadowed” by one of the experienced auditors,
who supervised me leading the audit. I can’t remember how many audits I
was shadowed on, but I think that in the early days of my auditing
experience, if it was a minimum two person audit, there was often an
experienced auditor involved.
. There was a person/people responsible for scheduling branch audits, and I
believe they used something referred to as a “risk model”, I assume an
electronic document that would say what branches should be audited and
when, based on things like reported daily and weekly cash and stock
holdings by the staff in a branch. Although I was never involved in this part
of the audit procedure, I believe the “model” would also bring up some
branches to be audited randomly, although I think the majority were
scheduled to be audited due to specific factors, such as the cash and
stock holdings. I think that there were known average recommended
amounts of cash and stock holdings in each branch, and if any declared
cash and stock on the Horizon system in a branch deviated and showed
“unusual” amounts, then an audit may be scheduled. I think audits could
also be scheduled at the request of POL staff (such as the BDM
responsible for the branch), if they had any reason to believe that there
were concerns about cash and stock at a branch, although I don’t think I
WITN05350100
WITNO05350100
could add more to that. One example of an audit having to take place on
an ad-hoc basis would be when I once carried out a 3 month Post Transfer
Visit to support a recently appointment SPM. As well as working though
the list of questions with the SPM to ascertain their knowledge of PO
procedures since they’d taken over the branch, a “cash check” was to be
performed. This was essentially to print off a report from the Horizon
system to say how much cash should be held in the branch based on
recent customer transactions, and then me doing a count to see how
closely it matched (the same as when the SPM was expected to do a daily
end of day cash declaration). I discovered a cash shortage of several
thousand pounds, so on rechecking and finding the same result, closed
the branch, and requested an actual audit the next morning. At the time I
think we’d just merged with the former audit team and I’d not had any audit
training, or I would have been able to do the audit myself at the time, but
an experienced auditor was then scheduled to do that the next day. There
was no suggestion that in this case the missing cash figure was due to the
Horizon accounting system, and the SPM later admitted to having taken
the money himself, and I think was found guilty at a trial.
. There was an audit process guide which was followed. In terms of once
we were onsite, all cash and stock in the branch was checked, and the
figures entered onto an Excel spreadsheet (P32), to give the audit results,
showing any shortages or excesses. Once the cash and stock audit was
completed there was usually a compliance audit, as I mention in (b),
above. In the event that there was a cash/stock shortage or gain, I think of
WITN05350100
WITNO05350100
over £1000, the auditor would need to contact the area manager (BDM) for
the branch to report the findings, as potentially the SPM could be
suspended. Once an audit was completed, away from the branch, we
would prepare various audit reports, some to be stored with POL as
evidence of the completed audit, and an audit report was also sent out to
the SPM (for both cash/stock and compliance parts of the audit),
summarizing our findings on the day. I think sometimes audits may have
been scheduled that were only compliance audits, not cash and stock,
although I can’t remember how often these occurred or for what reason,
possibly they were a follow up to a previous audit where the branch hadn't
done very well on the compliance part of the audit.
Auditors could access the same information held on the Horizon system
as the SPM, such as cash and stock holdings; transaction logs (i.e. a list of
each daily transaction performed in the branch, including details of which
registered member of staff had entered each transaction into Horizon);
internal cash and stock transfers (where one member of staff could give or
receive cash or stock items to/from another member of staff, assuming
they had been assigned their own “stock unit”, a way to allocate
responsibility to individuals for the specific cash and stock they worked
with); and office remittances (REMS), which were details of cash and stock
that had been either delivered to the branch or sent out from the branch to
the PO cash centres or stock centres. If “keystroke data” is the act of
recording every time an individual strikes a key on the Horizon keyboard, I
think that’s not the sort of information we could access.
WITN05350100
WITNO05350100
f. I think the only “special privileges” an auditor had on the use of the
Horizon system was at the end of an audit, where we could post/record
losses and gains. An example would be when a SPM had been
suspended due to a cash loss, the loss would need to be recorded on
Horizon, so as auditors we could access the branch Horizon system to do
this. A SPM or member of their staff wouldn’t be able to access the part of
the system that did this. I think when we logged onto Horizon at the start of
the audit we used a “username” that both recorded that we were an
auditor accessing the system, and gave us access to record losses and
gains, as well as being able to print various reports needed for the audit.
g. Referring back to my answer in (b), above, trainers who were also required
to then do audits were supervised/shadowed by their colleagues in the
field team who had previously been auditors only. I’m not aware that the
former audit team members were given any training to do this (but may
have been). I believe all the auditors who joined the field team who I
worked with had many years of experience.
26 I couldn’t remember specifically from memory if the overall audit process
changed much during the time I was involved doing audits from 2018 to when
I left the field team in 2012. However, in order to complete question 27 for this
statement I’ve read the Review of Audit Processes and Tools October 2011
document (POL00085682), with the headline changes being listed and full
changes referred to being in Appendix C of the review document. Also I can
WITN05350100
WITNO05350100
see that In Jan 2009 a revision of the Audit Process Chapters was completed
after the training team and audit teams had merged the year before.
27 I have been asked to consider document Review of Post Office Ltd Audit
process and Tools dated October 2011 [POL00085682]
a. I can only really base my answer on the information in the review
document, that the review was completed during the first two quarters of
2011-12 financial year, in order to make sure that the Audit Process
Chapters were fit for purpose to deliver business requirements.
b. I would say that any review of any business processes that involve input
from business stakeholders, and in the case of this review, where the
actual field team who were responsible for delivering the audit program
were encouraged to give feedback and opinions on the audit process, is
valuable. I can’t remember specifically how I felt about it at the time,
although I would think that I would have thought the same then.
c. I can’t remember thinking there were any weakness in the review, or
looking at the review now, notice anything I would consider to be a
weakness.
28 .I have been asked questions about various iterations of Chapter 3 of the
Audit Process Manual.
WITN05350100
WITNO05350100
a. As an author of the particular chapter of the audit manual I was expected
to contribute, along with my field team leader colleagues who were also
assigned to that chapter (as well as colleagues responsible for the other
chapters), in order to update the chapter on a regular, ad-hoc basis, if a
process had changed, or an improvement to part of the process had been
spotted. Also, if any new or annual review were to take place, such as the
review that question 27, above, relates to, I would be involved in that.
When I was first delegated to maintain that particular audit chapter, it will
have already existed, with other colleagues already identified as authors. I
can’t say which parts within each chapter that I may have changed and
recorded, or which parts my fellow authors updated. I can’t remember if we
were allocated parts of the chapter each to review, or if we all met together
and then reviewed the whole chapter together. I think will have used the
existing version of the chapter, pre-review, and used feedback in order to
change and improve it.
b. In terms of how the ad-hoc, business as usual changes to the chapter
went, I would think this could have come from input from any field team
member raising the issue of a change to a PO accounting procedure, or
something that would warrant the chapter being updated, probably based
on their day-to-day use of the audit chapters whist carrying out onsite
audits. Also, updates could be requested from any internal stakeholder
who requested an addition or change to the current process. Regarding
the review in 2011, the Review of Audit Processes and Tools October
WITN05350100
WITNO05350100
2011 document (POL00058682) states that the review was done using full
stakeholder engagement, as well as field team inspection and feedback on
the current processes at the time.
. I remember that field team leaders were required, as part of our role, to
carry out regular quality assurance (QA) checks on a sample of field team
audits, in order to make sure that processes were being followed correctly.
This involved examining the audit paperwork and electronic audit summary
forms (P32 and CAT tool), then feeding back to individual field team
members on the quality of their audit documents, as well as regular field
team leader meetings, to compare and discuss QA standards across the
whole team. I think field team leaders were also asked to take part in
audits with the team members in order to check they were carrying out
audits correctly, although I can’t remember if there was any sort of
associated “checklist” that a team leader would use for that. As part of
day-to-day audits, team leaders would also often be scheduled to take part
in audits along with their team members, although not specifically to
monitor or supervise them, we were just part of the audit “team” visiting a
branch for the audit
I believe the main steps taken were the feedback given to the field team
individuals who had been QA assessed. This would have likely involved
making references to any errors spotted in paperwork, etc, with reference
to the correct procedures as defined in the overall audit process manual. I
WITNO05350100
WITNO05350100
believe that will have been effective in maintaining a good standard of
auditing.
29. As far as I remember, in general, I believe both the audit process, and
manual that the field teams used, were fit for purpose. Regular updates were
done if needed, as well as full reviews, such as those done in 2009 and 2011
to make sure it was fit for purpose. In my case I would say my opinion is
based on my experience using the manual and my time carrying out audits.
30. I don’t have any other matters to raise.
Statement of Truth
I believe the content of this statement to be true
Signed:
Dated: 15/2/23
Index to [FirstWitness Statement of David Gordon Ogleby
No
URN
Document Description
Control Number
POL00033610
Internal Stakeholder
Feedback Appendix dated
December 2011
POL-0030545
POL00033647
Training Review Cascade
dated 12 January 2012
POL-0030582
POL00033611
Training Q3 Review dated
December 2011
POL-0030546
POL00033612
Review of the Post Office
Ltd New Entrant Training
Pilot dated December 2011
POL-0030447
POL00084807
Post Office Ltd — Network
Support — Field Support
Change and Best Practice
Registration and
Management Systems
POL-0081865
POL00085682
Review of Post Office Ltd
Audit Processes and Tools
dated October 2011
POL-0082740
WITN05350100
WITNO05350100