WITN10370189
WITN10370189
. Post Office Limited
148 Old Street
LONDON
EC1V 9HO
PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL
Ron Warmington & lan Henderson
Second Sight Support Services Limited
(By email)
14 August 2014
Dear Sirs,
Second Sight’s Draft Part Two Mediation Briefing Report (the “Draft Report”)
Following the discussion about the Draft Report on Monday 11 August 2014, you
asked Post Office to put its preliminary comments on the Draft Report in writing, so
that there is an audit trail of the comments made and how they are treated in the
Draft Report.
Post Office would stress again our disappointment that you were unwilling to sit
down and go through the Draft Report with us in detail. Although Post Office is
committed to progressing swiftly the completion of the Draft Report, the overriding
aim of the final report must be to assist Applicants, Post Office, and (where relevant)
a mediator, resolve the individual applications to the Scheme. We believe this is
best achieved through a detailed discussion of the Draft Report, and again extend
our invitation to meet with you for this purpose.
Post Office takes this very seriously. Only an objective, high quality and evidence
based report can fulfil its purpose of assisting the resolution of Applicants’ concerns,
and supporting the objectives of the Scheme in a manner that ensures value for
money to taxpayers. This was of course the basis on which Post Office agreed to
your suggestion for a more thematic Report which could be referred to in the shorter,
more focussed Case Reports.
To that end, the Report must be accurate, properly evidenced and as complete as it
can be at this time. In Post Office’s view the Draft Report does not achieve that
objective. Whilst we understand that the Report may be added to over time, given
the substantial money already invested in Second Sight’s investigation, and the
www.postoffice.co.uk
48 Old Street, London, EC1V 9HQ.
WITN10370189
WITN10370189
. Post Office Limited
148 Old Street
LONDON
EC1V 9HO
PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL
length of time it has been on-going (since 2012), Post Office reasonably and
legitimately expects your investigations and analysis of the issues and evidence to
have been further advanced, or at least more fully articulated and substantiated, than
the Draft Report suggests.
You have requested only minor “factual comments” on the Draft Report. As was
discussed, Post Office considers that the resolution of factual errors cannot be
addressed without tackling the more substantive issues raised. For example, where
Post Office has responded to specific questions asked of it by Second Sight, Post
Office reasonably expects its responses to be duly considered and evidently
reflected in the analysis and findings set out in the Draft Report. This is especially so
where Second Sight disagrees with Post Office’s response, as it will enable
Applicants and Post Office to consider the range and merits of the alternative views.
In order to provide the audit trail Second Sight has requested, Post Office's initial,
general comments on the Draft Report are set out below, with more detailed
comments provided in the Appendix to this letter. To be absolutely clear, the
comments that follow are in no way intended to fetter Second Sight’s independence.
The aim of these comments is to support the production of a high quality report
which will assist the resolution of an individual Applicant's concerns, and therefore
contribute to the success of the Scheme.
Many of these comments are similar to those Post Office has already made in
numerous discussions and exchanges about Second Sight’s work. This raises a
value-for-money issue, given the substantial time and cost incurred by Post Office in
responding to specific Second Sight enquiries (often more than once) without any
tangible acknowledgment that those responses have been considered.
“On-going” Enquiries
As it stands, the Draft Report references a number of themes where “enquiries are
on-going”. It is hard to see how this can assist an Applicant who has raised a
“thematic issue” and expects to find further information in the Draft Report which
would be of use in resolving their application. For example, it could be that an
Applicant may decline mediation, or resolution, until those “enquiries” have been
completed.
At the very least, it is reasonable to expect Second Sight to clearly articulate the
“thematic issue” discussed in the Draft Report; describe the method by which
Second Sight investigated that issue; cite the number of instances when it has been
referred to by Applicants and the number of cases where Second Sight has
www.postoffice.co.uk
WITN10370189
WITN10370189
. Post Office Limited
148 Old Street
LONDON
EC1V 9HO
PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL
performed a detailed investigation; and provide an analysis of the evidence Second
Sight has been provided with and considered.
That would give the Applicant, and Post Office, a clearer understanding of the “issue”
as it might apply to them, which is essential if the Draft Report is to assist in
resolving their application.
Evidence, analysis and context
The Draft Report appears to present and accept as “facts” allegations from
Applicants, but often lacks supporting evidence, examples or statistics to
substantiate the speculative conclusions it draws. The Draft Report does not even
describe the overarching methodology used by Second Sight to examine the issues
presented. Post Office considers that these are fundamental requirements for a
report purporting to provide sound investigative analysis and conclusions.
Scope
The scope of Second Sight's investigation, and the matters which are within the
scope of the Scheme, are matters “concerning Horizon and any associated issues”.
This is made clear on the Application Form and in Second Sight’s letter of
engagement.
Furthermore, Second Sight are specifically engaged as qualified and experienced
accountants. Matters such as the Subpostmaster contract and criminal, or indeed
any other legal, matters are not reasonably related (or related at all) to issues
concerning Horizon and any associated issues, and it is clearly inappropriate for
Second Sight to comment on matters outside their professional expertise.
In the context of the Scheme, and the scope of Second Sight’s investigation, the
Subpostmaster’s contract is relevant only to the extent that it is the benchmark
against which, and the legal framework within which, the actions of Post Office and
Applicants must be assessed. It is not a legitimate, or indeed useful, part of Second
Sight’s investigations for it to seek to test that benchmark, or alter that framework, so
as to retrospectively impose obligations on Post Office (or indeed an Applicant)
which it did not and does not have.
Any attempt by Second Sight to do so will inevitably result in them reaching
conclusions outside of their expertise. Importantly, this is likely to impede rather than
assist the resolution of Applicants’ concerns, given the reliance Applicants are likely
to place on Second Sight’s conclusions.
www.postoffice.co.uk
WITN10370189
WITN10370189
Post Office Limited
148 Old Street
LONDON
EC1V 9HO
PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL
Conclusion
The attached Appendix contains our more detailed comments on the Draft Report.
Please let us know how you propose to address those comments and the points
raised in this letter before you provide your next draft of the report.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
GRO
Rodric Williams
Solicitor, Post Office Limited
www. postoffice.co.uk
Office 148 Old Street; London, EC1V SHO.