WITN06200100
WITN06200100
Name: (Elizabeth) Anne Allaker
Statement No. WITN06200100
Dated: 30/01/2023
POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF (ELIZABETH) ANNE ALLAKER
I, (Elizabeth) Anne Allaker will say as follows:
1. This statement responds to a request for a written statement made to myself
under the Inquiry Rules 2006-Request number 1 regarding matters falling
within Phase 3 of the inquiry (Operation: training, assistance, resolution of
disputes, knowledge and rectification of errors in the system) of the Inquiry.
2. This statement relates to events which occurred prior to my retirement from
Post Office Ltd. in 2017 and is therefore drafted by myself, in my own words,
from memory and with the help of the documents provided by the Inquiry.
3. Other than the documents provided to me by the Inquiry, I have no other
documents available to me to submit.
Genera!
4. I worked as a post woman between 1979 and 1981 before passing an
entrance test to train to work as a counter clerk for Post Office Counters Ltd in
1981. On successful completion of the training I then worked within the Crown
network as a counter clerk until approximately 1985. I then worked in an
administration role for Royal Mail Sales until 1988. I then resigned following
the birth of my second child and spent approximately 2-3 years bringing up
my children and looking after elderlyfamily members. I retumed to work as a
casual counter clerk, in the Crown network, in the summer of 1991 but was
offered a part-time permanent contract within weeks. I continued in this role
until approximately 1998 when I took on a temporary role of auditor to cover
matemity leave. This role lasted approximately a year and I retumed to the
counter clerk role until I again took on a temporary administration support role,
in approximately 2001, within Darlington Area Office. This administration role
supported the Urban and Rural Sub-postmaster network. I briefly retumed to a
counter clerk role 6 months later until the administration support role became
permanent role. I continued working in various administration roles within
the Area Office until there was a re-organisation in 2006. Following this re-
organisation, which saw administration roles being centralised in a smaller
number of locations nationally, I continued working in a Network role which
involved, amongst other things, managing the Branch Support Team, which
was based in Maidstone, administration for the National Multiples Team,
working with colleagues in the Network Business Support Center (NBSC) and
the Service Management Team both then based primarily in Deame Valley. In
2012 I successfully applied for a role as Contract Advisor, which involved
dealing with appointments of Sub-postmasters and any contractual issues that
arose. After approximately a year in this role I was asked to work on the
Branch Support Programme which I did until taking early retirement in April
WITN06200100
WITN06200100
2017.
os 5. During my time in the Branch Support Programme my main involvement with
te the Horizon IT System was in working with colleagues, including sub
postmasters, to review what we currently had and gather requirements for any
future system. I also worked on building an inquiry system known then as
HORice, which was to build new reports to try and improve the way
information could be obtained from the system to handle inquiries.
6. had no formal qualifications for any of the above roles, I would describe any
qualifications and training as more of an apprenticeship of experience built up
over years working for Post Office Ltd.
Branch Support Programme
7. Ihave been asked to consider POLO0039215 and POLO0043614. My
understanding of this programme was for it to outline the current (2014) ways
of working, specifically all interactions to and from the whole Network of Post
Office branches, then to look at what it should look like in future with the
‘emphasis on getting things done quicker and better for colleagues, customers
suppliers etc.
8. In practice the programme worked with colleagues across the business,
including sub postmasters, to gather and collate information. Sub-postmasters
could input to the programme via the Branch User Forum, this was a small
group of Sub-postmasters who met approximately 6 times a year, with
individuals from the programme and input their ideas or ideas gathered from
their peers. Post Office Ltd communication team also a facility for sub
postmasters and colleagues to input ideas via their Branch Focus
‘communication. All Sub-postmasters were able to access support by ringing
the NBSC
9. An intervention visit could be for many things, it may be just for general
support or additional training, whether that was in general or on one particular
area or piece of equipment. It could be as a result of a
robbery/burglaryffire/fiood etc. It could be to assist with completion of
Regulatory Compliance tests or to help manage the overnight cash holdings
ina branch. These are a few examples that spring to mind but I cannot
remember every reason. In effect if it was appropriate to visit a visit would be
arranged, however its fair to say that a great deal of intervention was also
effectively managed by phone call.
10. in my view the Branch Support Programme was effective at raising
awareness of the impact that contact from internal and external sources had
on colleagues and customers and gathering requirements for what the future
of IT would be, although a new system had not been agreed at the time I left.
It created a platform for sub postmasters through the Branch User Forum. I
would say that it had begun to be effective but more work would always be
needed
11. I have been asked to consider POL00090223. I can't recall the context in
which the feedback from NBSC employees was gathered in this case and
whilst I had nothing to do with McKinsey I knew of their report. From memory
only I think this document would have been gathered together with input from
NBSC managers and my own and teams knowledge of feedback gathered
within the programme.
12. 1 don't know what if any changes were made by NBSC managers as a direct
result of this feedback.
My role in relation to Training
13. I have been asked to consider POLO0040066 and POL00034508. In relation
to the role of Business Improvement Programme and training of
Subpostmasters as far as I can remember the involvement of the programme
would have had would have been to review and provide any relevant
feedback to their documentation
14. can only recall the training offers generally not in specific detail as I wasn't
part of the training team.
15. The training offer to sub postmasters wasn't part of any role I had although I
knew of it and I am aware that the team themselves monitored the
effectiveness via feedback forms from sub post masters and ongoing review.
16. I did not carry out any training on a training programme for the Post Office in
any role I had.
17. 1 can't recall any specific feedback positive or negative provided to me with
regard to the Horizon system or training provided. In general I'm sure I
listened to individuals commenting on both training and the Horizon system
but nothing sticks out in my memory.
18. 'm unable to make comment on whether feedback was collected on the
above as this was not in my remit.
19. As I didn't work within the training team I can't comment on any changes as
a result of feedback they received.
20. As above I am unable to comment as the evolution of training was not in my
remit.
21. I have been asked to consider POL00035473.1 can recall that Citizens
Advice were interested in the Network Change Programme and had
requested information but I did not produce the report.
22. My only role in responding to their request would have been to provide
details to the author of the report, from the Intervention Log managed by the
Branch Support Team and the NBSC call logs.
23. The further reports would have been, as mentioned above, the calls from
the Intervention Log maintained by the Branch Support Team. From reading
this document it appears that once I received the report from the team I would
check to see that the information in it was meaningful as it was, or whether
the report needed additional information added. Specifically I think I was
suggesting that the specific model information may need to be added to be
meaningful to the Citizens Advice team. I would then have passed this
information onto the report author to include in their report. I cannot recall any
further information or detail specifically.
24. As stated above any further information I received would have been passed
to the report author.
25. \ have been asked to consider POL00033606. From reading the
document provided to me, the only slide that I can identify being involved in is.
‘slide 41 where I am referenced as agreeing to a new and improved Follow Up
Balance (FUB) process. I can only think that I would have been asked to
review this process by the training team and to provide a view on whether it
was fit for purpose. I appear to have been satisfied with any improvements
that they had suggested.
Daimellington Outreach Branch Transaction Discrepancy
26. Ihave been asked questions about Dalmellington Outreach Branch
and FUJ00085864, FUJ00085842, FUJ00086073- Had it not been for the
document provided to me I would not have been able to recall any details as
reported by the Sub postmaster at Dalmellington outreach branch.
WITN06200100
WITN06200100
WITN06200100
WITN06200100
27. \ was not aware of any other issues of this type at Outreach branches or
other branch types until this issue was raised. This was the only example
raised to me but, as this document states, there were other branches which
had been impacted.
28. Once the issue had been raised to Kendra Dickinson it appears the correct
steps were taken as the issue was then passed to Finance Service Center
(FSC) to manage. They would have been able to check the branch accounts
for this branch and other branches mentioned to see what the previous
resolutions had been and to check to make sure that the resolution at this
branch was the correct one, i.e. to check where in the Branch Trading Period
the branch was and establish whether a reversal of transaction, a rem out of
an amount or a Transaction Correction (TC) was needed. FSC would have
been the team responsible for raising the TC if that was the correct solution,
this appears to have been the case with at least 2 of the branches mentioned.
My concems with the way this was handled were that ATOS had sent this
‘onto NBSC with little or no detail to enable NBSC to either escalate to FSC or
help the branch. NBSC were unable to check into a branch account or
understand whether the action they were being asked to take was
appropriate. It states that NBSC did not have a process for this type of
instance which seems a fair comment from reading the content and if IT
‘suppliers were aware that a fix was needed for this issue they should also
have been aware that NBSC was not in a position to follow a process. I also
felt that the early emails did not provide any context relating to what was
happening with this known issue to allow anyone to provide reassurance or
timescales for a fix should another case arise before that fix was
implemented.
29. I cannot comment in detail or specifically about the relationship between
NBSC and Fujitsu as I wasn't party to their relationship management. I would
say that from my own experience getting information in a format that was
understandable to those of us in a non IT environment was one of the things I
found difficult.
30. My understanding of the role of ATOS was that they took on the supplier
management relationship once the Service Management team had been
disbanded. ATOS also took on the Horizon System Helpdesk calls.
Horizon Weekly Call
31. I have been asked questions about the Horizon Weekly Call and consider
POL00021130, POL00043614, POL00076327, POL00043619.The Horizon
weekly call was set up to better understand any issues that were being raised
as a result of the Horizon IT system. It was to try to understand if and where
any improvements could be made to the way Horizon IT related issues were
managed and to check whether there was any duplication of issues being
raised across business areas.
32. initially my role was as a note taker but I also chaired the call in the absence
of other managers. I took responsibility for trying to resolve some action points
that were raised and to chase up answers from individuals to their own.
actions.
33. Without the prompt of the documents provided I wouldn't have been able to
recall any significant issues raised whether Horizon IT related or otherwise.
34, As I cannot remember the specifics of all the issues raised, I am struggling
to give a view. I feel the call was effective in that it made sure issues raised
were being managed or escalated as well as they could be, however from
looking at the examples in the documents provided it's clear that many of the
issues related to other branch equipment i.e. Self-Serve Kiosks (SSK), AE! (I
can't remember what this stands for Application, Enrollment & Identity?),
ATMs etc, Whilst all transactions would need to go through the Horizon IT kit
in branch the issues raised were not necessarily as a result of the Horizon kit.
WITN06200100
WITN06200100
35. it's clear from the documents sent to me that individual Sub postmaster
branch issues were identified on the weekly call. Of the documents sent to me
1 know nothing of POL00021130 and I think it predates the Horizon weekly
call. Of the other documents supplied I can confirm they would all have been
raised on the weekly call.
36. I cannot say how aware the rest of the Branch Support Programme were of
commonality of issues reported by Sub-postmasters or colleagues but
information on commonality of issues raised was available from calls logged
to NBSC, the Intervention log and probably from other sources. We all used
the management information available to us to help in our improvement
‘suggestions.
Dispute Resolution
I
37. have been asked questions about the resolution of disputes and to
consider POL00002396. Firstly with regard to POLO0002396, from reading
through the document provided it appears that NBSC had received a call from
the branch following a report on television. From my response to the NBSC
team I can see that I would have checked the branch file on our Electronic
Filing Cabinet (EFC) and as I had copied in the Contract Advisor asking him
to pick this up it would have been because I could see that the Contract
Advisor was already in contact with this sub-postmaster. In this case it
wouldn't have been necessary for NBSC to get involved as the Contract
Advisor would have been able to request any necessary reports and/or make
the necessary contact with the sub-postmaster. I was also both involved with
and witnessed disputes between Post Office and spmrs either as a note taker
at spmr interviews, held by Contract Advisors prior to 2006, and/or in my role
as Contract Advisor between 2012 and 2014.
38. To the best of my knowledge and memory the disputes I was involved with
or witnessed were as a result of a shortfall found at audit. These cases would
be escalated to the relevant Contract Advisor by the auditor to be managed
through to resolution. Resolution could have been a meeting with the Contract
Advisor resulting in the termination of a contract, written warming, repayment
of loss, conditions attached to continuation of that contract as examples. I
cannot remember the names of any individual cases that I was involved in.
39. 1am aware that reports could be requested from Fujitsu in some cases to
help resolve issues but from memory this was a documented process via a
central email box rather than involving individuals.
40. I don't feel able to give a view on improvements to the process as I don't
have a full picture of all the cases managed. My involvement was with very
few cases.
Knowledge of bugs, error and defects
41. Ihave been asked about my knowledge of bugs, error and defects in the
Horizon IT system, I was aware that the Horizon system could freeze if there
was a communication interruption however there were processes to recover
any transactions which were in process at the point of freeze. With regard to
bugs, errors and defects I will say that when I first heard these labels I was
concerned about their meaning. I heard them used in IT communications, and
still do in media reports relating to IT platforms, Social Media platforms or
when a banking system is interrupted as examples. In my time with Post
Office Ltd it was most commonly used in examples like "any bugs or defects
will be ironed out during testing", this was often prior to a new product or
product change going live. Also if something was wrong in the live
environment e.g. as with the Dalmellington Outreach site, that may also be
labeled as an error or defect, not that I'm saying it was in the case of
Dalmellington. In my experience these labels meant that something needed to
be corrected in the product flow in the IT process.
42. As stated above mention of bugs, errors, defects usually came as a result of
[gh Ste Soe Sear Eon MEP TERE fy ronan Earn 9:0e CARON rarer,
WITN06200100
WITN06200100
testing prior to product go live or product changing so would be resolved in
testing processes. I can also remember seeing emails relating to Known
Errors but this usually meant that everyone was aware that something needed
to be corrected in the IT transaction flow for example. In these cases,
communications were usually sent out to make sure branches were aware of
any workaround needed until a fix was in place. In most cases that I was
aware of the issue would have been well documented and/or communicated
to our Network colleagues.
43. How I dealt with sub postmasters or Post Office Managers/Assistants would
not have been any different for having this knowledge. If anyone in Network
raised any issue with me, I like to think that ! would have listened to their
concerns regardless of the issue. I would therefore have done all I could and
gathered as much information as possible to alleviate their concerns whether
itrelated to Horizon or to another issue.
44. I can't recall any specific cases where any steps weren't taken in response
to any issues I raised.
45. I can't recall ever feeling that people could have done more to assist or
make things better. I do feel thatthe people I workedwith did everything they
could to help sub postmasters with the information and tools available to them
at that time.
46. I have been asked about the rectification of bugs. can't comment on this
topic as I didn't have sight of these processes. My understanding would be
that this was done by Fujitsu possibly with input from relevant Post Office
colleagues.
47. I can't recall being involved in the rectification of errors in the Horizon IT
system, I don't have any IT skills that would have allowed me to be involved.
48.1 have been asked whether I have any reflections on the issue being
investigated by the Inquiry. With the benefit of hindsight I personally don't
know what I could have done differently. I feel that I always gave everything I
had to my roles within Post Office Ltd and always tried my best.
49. I don't think I can answer this question as I don't have a full picture of the
whole case.
50. s stated above I always felt that individuals did their best and were proud to
say they worked for Post Office Ltd. With hindsight if things could have been
done differently my own suggestions would be that better IT systems should
have been introduced much earlier for both the branch network and for back
office employees. Specifically IT systems which allowed different platforms to
communicate with each other and with which sub postmasters and employees
could access better reporting, with a live training function.
Statement of Truth
I believe the content of this statement to be true.
Signed: E A Allaker
(Elizabeth) Anne Allaker
Dated: 30/01/2023
1 IPOL00039215}
Branch Support programme: IT
requirements workshop
IPOL-0035697
Nn
Email dated 25/07/2014 from
IPOL00043614IAnne Allaker to Shirley
lHailstones re Wembley
IPOL-0040117
oo
lEmail dated 06/05/2015 from
lAnne Allaker to Angela Van-
IPOL00090223IDen-Bogard cc: Peter Prior-
IMilis Re: NBSC Employee
Feedback
IPOL-0087192
ES
IPOL00040066}
IDRAFT overview of Horizon
land branch trading practices
lprepared by POL for the
IComplaint Review and
[Mediation Scheme
IPOL-0036548
5 IPOL00034508)
[Online Compliance Training,
IColleagues, Agents, Operators
jand their Assistants
IPOL-0031443.
o
IPOL00035473}
[Citizens Advice Information
Irequest: Post Office Lid
jarrangements for the
Imonitoring, training and service
jcompliance of Post Office Local
branches
IPOL-0032408
x
IPOL00033606}
[Training Presentation on
[Training Review Cascade
IPOL-0030541
8 IFUJ00085864
Outreach rems - further
linstances
IPOINQ0092035F
©
IFUJ00085842
Problem Report- Dalmellington
lOutreach Service PC0246997,
PC0246949.
IPOINQ0092013F
3
IPEAK Incident Management
IFUJ00086073 ISystem (Call Reference
IPC0247207)
IPOINQ0092244F
I 11 IPOL00021130
[Email dated 02/07/2009from
Ikaren Amold to Gary Blackbur
jre Hogsthorpe Branch losses
IPOL-0014322
Email dated 25/07/2014 from
12IPO1L00043614IAnne Allaker to Shirley
Pa eee
IPOL-0040117
WITN06200100
WITN06200100
[Hailstones re Wembley
13
Email dated 03/12/2014 from
IPOL00076327IAnne Allaker to Dave Posnett
ire: Horizon weekly call
IPOL-0072890
Email dated 19/10/2015 from
IPOL00043619)Helen Dickinson to Anne
lAllaker re: SSKs
IPOL-0040122
[Email from Anne Allaker to
librahim Kizildag & others re:
JPOL00002396)...-tem corruption’ glitch claim
lated 12/9/2014.
\ViS00003410
WITN06200100
WITN06200100