WITNO06130100
WITN06130100
Witness Name: Michelle Stevens
Statement No.: WITN06130100
Dated: 15! June 2023
POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF MICHELLE STEVENS
I, Michelle Stevens, will say as follows...
1.
I am providing this statement in response to a written request under Rule 9 of
the Inquiry Rules 2006, made on behalf of the Chair of the Post Office Horizon
IT Inquiry, which I received on 11 April 2023. This request contained 36
questions relating to Phase 4 of the Inquiry (action against Sub-postmasters
and others). I can confirm that I have looked at all documents shared with me
and wherever possible, referenced within my statement.
I am a Post Office Ltd employee and have worked for the business for 27
years (see POL00088420). During this time, I have held different positions,
all within the back-office functionality based at Future Walk, Chesterfield. I
started as a casual employee working 2 days a week before securing a full-
time temporary contract. I worked on a temporary contract for a period of time
prior to achieving a permanent contract in February 1995 as a postal
assistant. After several years I applied for a promotion to postal officer and
was successful. Although this function remained in back office, I was away
Page 1 of 10
WITNO06130100
WITN06130100
from the operation working as an admin support which was similar to a
personal assistant for two heads of areas.
. It wasn’t until much later I was appointed as the Client Settlement and
Automated Payments Enquiry Manager and stayed in post for 5 years. My
primary accountability was to ensure settlement was made to clients on a
daily basis, by their contracted payment method and payment terms. The role
also covered customer and client enquiries relating to automated payment
transactions completed at the counter.
. Following an internal structure re-organisation, I was asked to cover the Post
Office Ltd SAP (POLSAP) Systems Masterdata Manager and spent
approximately 1 year in post. This role had the accountability of ensuring the
delivery of transactional files were received into the finance system and that
POLSAP had updated as expected. All exceptions were owned and managed
until resolved. I also managed the Chart of Accounts to provide assurance
that the general ledger account management was maintained and that
requests to create new ledgers or make changes were understood and if
necessary, appropriately challenged.
. As Iwas due to return from a period of leave, I applied for another role as the
Former Agent Debt team leader and was successful in my application. I was
only in post for 6 — 7 months and left in May 2013 for a further period of leave.
I returned and remained in post for several years.
. I did not cover the Crown Office Network, however, my accountabilities were
to manage transactional and non transactional discrepancies on account after
a postmaster had left the business or had given up the branch. They may
have been a current postmaster at one or more branches. Non transactional
Page 2 of 10
WITNO06130100
WITN06130100
discrepancies were added to the postmaster account if they had not paid
under the terms of the invoice. Transactional discrepancies settled following
branch trading were visible on account within the financial accounting system.
. Transaction corrections (TC’s) requiring action after the postmasters tenure
was manually added to the account with information to support the TC. The
purpose of a TC was to correct a transaction in branch and to balance the
account. These were generated by product, within back-office teams of the
Financial Service Centre (FSC). It is my understanding that for any queries,
all TC’s issued by FSC had a contact telephone number or they were
requested to contact the NBSC and the number supplied. If the branch had
no information to suggest the TC had been issued incorrectly, they would be
requested to settle the amount centrally pending further investigation or await
third party evidence.
. TC’s superseded error notices on the introduction of branch trading. A hard
copy letter / email would be sent to the former postmaster providing details
and evidence of the transaction. (see POL00000127). Although the
postmaster was not ‘in service’ they were able to dispute discrepancies and
supporting information would be posted. It was my understanding that
postmasters were required to make good all losses under the terms of their
contract, caused through carelessness, negligence or error. (see
POL00088904 Section 3.1).
. Anything under £150 would be absorbed by the branch and settled centrally.
This in my words would be the branch accepting liability, however, anything
over £150 would be settled to the postmaster account. At the time I
considered this satisfactory, as if one month the account was in debit, it was
Page 3 of 10
WITNO06130100
WITN06130100
anticipated that the account would have the compensating credit the following
month at their trading period. (The settled centrally process changed in April
2021 and postmasters could settle any amount). A ‘block’ could be placed on
the postmaster account within the finance system if an amount had been
disputed.
10. In an attempt to recover outstanding debt, hard copy letters were issued to
the postmaster detailing outstanding discrepancies and a statement of
account. (See POL00000109). These were known as the Dunning letters.
This process was only actioned if the case wasn’t being managed by Security
or the outstanding balance was low value and written off.
11. There was a write off policy to adhere to with amounts structured to manager
grade and value, for control purposes. (See POL00090357 section 12.0). I
don't recall when, however, I do know that credits were posted separately,
and the general ledger accounts were reconciled at period end detailing all
postings made within the period.
12. Dunning letters would be issued to the former postmaster at twenty-one days,
fourteen and then seven should there be no contact. A decision would then
be made on next steps depending on the value outstanding and if any known
transaction corrections would be associated to the account.
13.Were we aware of any assets, was there a guarantor and what notes had
been captured by any respective departments during this period of time.
Depending on findings, discussions were held between Post Office Ltd and
DAC Beachcroft LLP for their considered opinion.
14. Following discussions, options would be considered and POL to provide
instruction on next steps. This would be to either issue a Letter Before Action,
Page 4 of 10
WITNO06130100
WITN06130100
advising that if no contact was made, we may wish to progress with legal
proceedings. If after the letter was issued and potentially, there may still be
no contact, we would agree on the next course of action. This could be to
either write off the amount, or to continue with proceedings. This was never a
decision made independently and would be agreed based on the
documentation gathered within the file.
15.1 would ask questions asked such as, what was the value outstanding, did the
postmaster have assets, did they manage another Post Office, did they have
a good or bad credit rating? Was there another Charge or several Charges
registered against the property? If the case had previously been with security,
were there any admissions and what were their findings etc? When this
information had been collated, further discussions would be held regarding
next steps and potentially, the senior manager looped in.
16.1 don’t recall the time period, but a review of the three letters were conducted
by Alison Bolsover and Angela Van-Den-Bogerd and the third letter was
removed. A further review, managed by Jo Milton, was conducted in 2020 to
enhance the letters to be more of a sign posting letter. Amendments were
made following feedback from Postmasters later in the year and over the next
twelve months where positive feedback was received into my team.
17. If the former postmaster did contact my team, we would work with them to
understand their current circumstance and discuss options. This would also
depend on the value of the discrepancy. If a postmaster requested to repay
but asked for this to be by instalments, it would generally be agreed, and the
postmaster would set up a monthly standing order. On occasion, the former
postmaster would request to repay earlier than first agreed or may also ask
Page 5 of 10
WITNO06130100
WITN06130100
for a further extension. Following a review of account, would most likely be
accommodated. Details of the plan would be documented and sent to the
postmaster.
18.If a decision was made to progress to court, a bundle would be sent to DAC
Beachcroft (see POL00113467) and they would review the case. It may have
been that further information had come to light and they would provide advice,
managing all aspects of the case.
19.If a case had gone to court it would progress in stages, starting with a County
Court Judgment (CCJ) against the postmaster. If however, we were aware
that the postmaster had assets, a house for example, and there weren't
several Charges on the property already, this would be considered to secure
the outstanding debt.
20. If the Judge awarded the decision in favour of POL the monthly repayments
would come via the courts into POL’s bank account or the postmaster would
create a standing order, send a cheque or make a card payment. This wasn’t
always actioned so my team would make a courtesy call to postmaster to
discuss. If the postmaster advised they were planning on making a double
payment the following month, this would be accepted, however, a reminder
would be made to advise that neither party could deviate from the original
order as we were regularly requested to accept lower amounts.
21.Payments would be accepted until the account was settled and if a Charge on
property had been made, we would agree to remove at the end of the term.
22. It's fair to say that the debt associated with former postmasters continued to
increase over the years. Continuous process reviews were exercised to
determine if there were better, more effective ways of reducing the balance
Page 6 of 10
WITNO06130100
WITN06130100
and what, if anything, could we do to fix it. My team also engaged with
contracts team and security team and would work together. We would also
advise if the postmaster had accountability for any other branches and notified
them of any outstanding discrepancies on account.
23.As the former postmaster manger, I followed a Death in Service process.
Each case was managed with sensitivity. A letter would be issued to the next
of kin to notify them of any outstanding discrepancies on account. If on
receipt they contacted the team, the account would be discussed. If no
contact made, a second letter would be issued requesting contact be made
within fourteen days and again, if no contact, a third letter was issued
requesting contact within the next seven days. If no contact received, a
decision would be made regarding the value of the debt and next steps. This
would be discussed with the senior debt recovery manager and, or POL’s
legal team.
24.My recollection of the civil actions (and am referred to the relevant
documents) against Aslam Ramtoola; ‘evin Palmer (Il am
referred to POL00113467, POL00079413, POL00079423, POL00080021),
Rachel Williams, Frank Holt (POL00113448, POL00080889, POL00081027,
POL00081033) Susan McKnight Tracey Etheridge (POL00081189), Katherine
McAlerney (POL00075270, POL00078858), Keith Macaldowie, Lee Castleton
and Julie Wolstenholme. Some names I recognise but I don't retain any detail
and would need the case files to refer to in order to provide any recollection of
their account”.
Page 7 of 10
WITNO06130100
WITN06130100
25.In February 2017 I was asked to cover the role of Senior Debt Recovery
Manager on a temporary basis due to absence. This was part of my
managers role and was an extension of the work I was already completing.
Additional responsibilities were to manage strategic change, understand and
complete the monthly provision process and review debt processes for a
losses project sponsored by the Chief Finance Officer. After approximately 9
months, I returned to my substantive role when in 2018 I was asked to take
accountability of the current agents accounting team.
26.1 continued to manage the accounts of both current and former postmasters
until leaving the team at the end of February 2023 to start a new role. During
my time as the Former Postmaster manager, I had no detailed knowledge of
bugs, errors or defects within the Horizon system. Any discrepancies were
managed within the SAP financial accounting system and would have an
equal and opposite entry. I followed the processes governed at any particular
time and had no reason to doubt the system. When this was more commonly
talked about, I could not understand why the discrepancies were only relating
to debits and not credits.
Statement of Truth
I believe the content of this statement to be true.
Dated: 15% June 2023
Page 8 of 10
Index to First Witness Statement of Michelle Stevens
WITNO06130100
WITN06130100
No.
URN
Document Description
Control
Number
=
POL00088420
Michelle Stevens CV
POL-0085478
POL00000127
This was a letter issued to the former
postmaster notifying them of a transaction
correction added to their account
VIS00001101
POL00088904
Policy document relating to losses and gains
within the network. I refer to section 3.1
POL-0085962
POL00000109
First letter issued to postmasters to notify them
of discrepancies on account. This particular
letter is sent to a current postmaster
VIS00001083
POL00090357
Policy document for Postmasters’ In Service
Debt. I refer to section 12.0 titled Write offs
POL-0087326
POL00113467
Example of a Committal Bundle sent to external
Solicitors
POL-0112618
POL00113467
Documents concerning debt claim against Mr
Kevin Palmer including receipts and audit
material from the Grange Branch
POL-0112618
POL00079413
Email from Brenda Howcutt to Austin C Amadi,
Carol Ballan, Post Office Security, Michelle
Sevens and others including Branch Audit of the
Grange
POL-0075976
POL00079423
Email from Carol Ballan to various members of
the Post Office in relation to suspension of Kevin
Palmer including Suspension Notification
POL-0075986
10
POL00080021
Email from Branda Howcutt to Carol Ballan re
Extra Audit Report of the Grange
POL-0076584
11
POL00113448
Emails re suspension of Mr Frank Holt including
precautionary suspension notification
POL-0112599
12
POL00080889
Email from Elisa Lukas to Lin Norbury and
associated email chain re case closure -
POLTD/1415/0064 - Glenmoriston
POL-0077452
13
POL00081027
Email from Rodric William to Elisa Lukas and
David A Duff regarding request from Frank
Holt's lawyers and associated chain re
case/termination of SPM Mr Frank Holt at the
Glenmoriston Branch
POL-0077590
14
POL00081033
Email chain re case/termination of SPM Mr
Frank Holt at the Glenmoriston Branch
POL-0077596
15
POL00081189
Email from Luke Holmes to Ben Beabey, Tim
Perkins, Neil Davey and Michelle Stevens re
POL-0077752
Page 9 of 10
WITNO06130100
WITN06130100
debt recovery and associated chain re case of
Tracey Etheridge FAD 458/611
16
POL00075270
Email chain from Zoe Topham to Shirley
Halistones, Andrew Winn with previous emails
between Ann Bailey and Zoe Topham CC'ing P
Smith, Michelle Stevens re civil claim against
SPM Katherine McAlerney
POL-0071833
17
POL00078858
Email from Michelle Stevens to Andrew Winn re
email from A Winn forwarding email from Shirley
Halistones relating to Mediation re Katherine
McAlerney
POL-0075421
18
POL00088420
Michelle Stevens CV
POL-0085478
19
POL00000127
This was a letter issued to the former
postmaster notifying them of a transaction
correction added to their account
VIS00001101
20
POL00088904
Policy document relating to losses and gains
within the network. I refer to section 3.1
POL-0085962
21
POL00000109
First letter issued to postmasters to notify them
of discrepancies on account. This particular
letter is sent to a current postmaster
VIS00001083
22
POL00090357
Policy document for Postmasters’ In Service
Debt. I refer to section 12.0 titled Write offs
POL-0087326
23
POL00113467
Example of a Committal Bundle sent to external
Solicitors
POL-0112618
Page 10 of 10