WITN08960100
WITN08960100
Witness Name: Marie Cockett
Statement No.: WITN 08960100
Dated: 15 May 2023
POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF MARIE COCKETT
I, Marie Cockett, will say as follows:
Introduction
This Witness statement is made to assist the Post Office Horizon Inquiry
with the matters set out in the Rule 9 Request dated 12" April 2023. This
witness statement sets out the facts either within my own personal
knowledge or from information contained in the documents provided by the
Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry. However, as I left Product & Branch
Accounting in 2009 and Post Office Ltd in 2011, there are several areas
that I do not recall. Where that is the case, I have said so.
Relevant Background
1. I was employed by Post Office Ltd (POL) for almost 25 years from March
1986 to February 2011. I started as a Postal Assistant and ended my career
Page 1 of 15
WITNO08960100
WITNO08960100
as a Senior Manager. I worked in various departments during my time with
POL, including:
i. March 1986 — 1992/3, I was in several admin roles which involved
checking the supporting documents against the summary document
submitted by Post Office Branches
ii. 1992/93, I was promoted to Team Leader covering several roles in
the same area.
iii. I was trained as a Project Manager within Post Office Ltd and
managed the first outsourcing project (Cheque Processing) in
2002/2003. I then undertook some smaller internal process reviews
on behalf of the Finance Director and Management Team.
iv. In 2006, I was appointed to the role of Branch Accounting Manager,
in Product & Branch Accounting (P&BA).
v. In May 2009, I moved away from Product & Branch Accounting and
became Senior Finance Business Partner for the remainder of my
employment with Post Office Ltd. which ended in February 2011.
I was the Branch Accounting Manager in P&BA from 2006 and was trained
by and took over from Jennifer Robson, until May 2009 when I handed over
to Alison Bolsover. I managed a team of 5 managers, who managed around
50 administration staff. In this role, my team and I were responsible for:
addressing non-conformance; recovering monies owed; documenting
processes; developing Service Level Agreements; building and managing
relationships with partners (e.g., WH Smith) and the National Federation of
Subpostmasters. My main focus was building relationships and
Page 2 of 15
WITN08960100
WITN08960100
documenting processes and agreements. My teams managed the day to
day debt recovery and non-conformance.
Contractual Liability of Subpostmasters for Shortfalls
3. I have been asked to consider the documents provided with regards to
contractual liability of Subpostmasters for shortfalls.
4. When I worked in the P&BA team, my understanding of the contractual
position was that Subpostmasters were responsible for all shortfalls or
losses within their branch, caused by negligence, carelessness or error.
This is my recollection from my training in 2006 and is also documented in
“Losses at SPSO's: Guidelines on responsibilities and recovery
arrangements” (understood to be issued in 1988) (POL00083939),
paragraph 2 (Contractual Position)
5. In a Crown Office, as the staff were Post Office Ltd employees the process
was different than the process for Subpostmasters. I have never worked in
a Crown Office, my limited understanding was that there was an
investigation and escalation process in place. This is documented in
“Mandatory Losses & Gains Policy Crown Office Network” (September
2008) (POL00084075);
The Role of the P&BA Team in relation to the developments of policies applicable
to losses and gains within the Crown Network.
6. My role and the role of the P&BA team in relation to the formulation and
implementation of policies / guidance to losses and gains within the Crown
Page 3 of 15
WITN08960100
WITN08960100
Office Network was to ensure that the processes within P&BA could
support the policies.
i. My contribution in the formulation and implementation of the
“Mandatory Losses & Gains Policy Crown Office Network”
(September 2008) (POL00084075) was to work with Team Leaders
in the wider P&BA Team to develop any processes required to
support this policy. The agreed processes are included in the said
document, on pages 7 and 8, Section 5 — Branch Trading, under the
heading Transaction Corrections. Once the process had been
agreed, I then communicated this within P&BA and monitored its
implementation.
ii. The reason for the introduction of this policy was to standardise
processes for dealing with losses and gains in the Crown Office
Network.
iii. I am unfamiliar and don’t recall being involved with the previous
documents that governed losses and gains in the Crown Office
Network, therefore I am unable to comment on the differences.
Un I cannot remember the specific role of the Losses and Gains Action Group.
I would think it was to develop, implement and monitor the documented
processes.
The Role of the P&BA Team and the policies / practices in place in relation to error
notices, transaction corrections, transaction acknowledgements, _branch
discrepancies and recovery of debt.
Page 4 of 15
WITNO08960100
WITN08960100
8. During my time as Branch Accounting Manager, the role the P&BA team
played in the policies / practices relating to error notices, transaction
corrections, transaction acknowledgements, branch discrepancies and
recovery of debt was to ensure that the processes within P&BA could
support the policies. This role did not change during my time in it.
Error notices, transaction corrections, transaction acknowledgements and branch
discrepancies
9. I have been asked to consider the documents provided with regards to
error notices, transaction corrections, transaction acknowledgements and
branch discrepancies.
10. With reference to the documents provided and my recollections, my
understanding is as follows:
i. An Open Item managed account, was an account that matched two
streams of data.
ii. I worked with error notices for about 5 years (1987-1992), from what
I recall, an error notice was created when two streams of data did
not match, one of these was the cash account, the other could be
from a client source or from supporting documents sent by the
branch. The teams would investigate these and if they concluded it
was a branch error, they would issue an error notice to the branch.
The teams involved had a number of names over the years, but
eventually would become P&BA (approximately 2006).
Page 5 of 15
WITNO08960100
WITNO08960100
iii. I never worked with Transaction Corrections, but had a basic
understanding of the process, which I believe was similar to the error
notice process. It is my understanding that when items hadn't
matched in an Open Item managed account, then an Open Item was
identified, and the P&BA teams investigated the difference. If this
was found to be a branch error, then the team would create a
Transaction Correction and send to the branch via Horizon to correct
the error. I do not remember the term Transaction Acknowledgement.
iv. As described in the two previous points an error notice or
Transaction Correction was issued when investigations concluded in
a branch error.
v. Error notices and Transaction Corrections were issued by the teams
within P&BA.
vi. When an error notice was issued to a Crown Office or
Subpostmaster, there would be instructions included on how they
were expected to account for it. I cannot remember the exact options
available to them
vii. When a Crown Office or Subpostmaster received a Transaction
Correction, there would be instructions included on how they were
expected to account for it. I cannot remember the exact options
available to them.
viii. Having never worked in a branch I am unfamiliar with the process for
deficiencies / surpluses in cash held when balancing. My
understanding is that the Crown Office employees or
Page 6 of 15
11.
12.
13.
WITN08960100
WITN08960100
subpostmasters would need to: investigate, escalate and account for
them.
ix. When I worked as Branch Accounting Manager if a subpostmaster
had a deficiency or surplus, the minimum amount where they were
able to Settle Centrally was £150. My understanding of Settle
Centrally was that it allowed the subpostmaster to either settle the
debt with a cheque or credit / debit card or agree to deductions from
their remuneration. For amounts under £150 they had to accept and
make good either by putting the cash / cheque in or taking the cash
out.
From what I remember, prior to the introduction of the end-to-end
accounting process via Horizon, all branches had the use of a suspense
account. If they had identified a deficiency or surplus on balancing and they
were able to show that an error notice was likely be issued, they would
request authority to use the suspense account. However, it was known by
the teams involved with error notices and their managers that the suspense
account was used in some instances, without following the process. The
process was reiterated on several occasions within the branch network
When I took over as Branch Accounting Manager in 2006, the ‘Debt
Recovery Process under Branch Trading’ (October 2005) (POL00085794)
document was still in use. The Subpostmaster would contact the issuer
within the P&BA Team, if they did not understand it or wanted to challenge
it, as this document explains.
If, at the time of the call, the Subpostmaster could not provide information
to show that the Transaction Correction was issued incorrectly, they would
Page 7 of 15
14.
15.
16.
Tk
18.
WITN08960100
WITN08960100
be asked to “Accept and Settle Centrally” and further investigation would
take place by the relevant P&BA team. The team would check to see if
there was any more evidence of the error that could be provided or if a
compensating error had been found on another team and then respond to
the Subpostmaster.
I cannot remember a specific process for a discrepancy where the
Subpostmaster considered it to be a caused by a system error, but would
expect it to be the same as the previous point but with the call being made
to Network Business Support Centre Helpline.
According to the heading “Legal” in the document ‘TC / Debt Recovery
Review’ undated (POL00026854) “Settle Centrally” signifies acceptance of
debt liability. This was also my understanding, except in circumstances
where further investigation was being undertaken and that a block had
been put on debt recovery.
The only thing I can remember to distinguish a disputed debt from an
undisputed debt was the application of a block on steps being taken to
recover the debt.
I have no opinion regarding Subpostmasters being required to settle
centrally transaction corrections / discrepancies, even if they were disputed.
This was the documented process.
I would agree that the process for challenging transaction corrections /
discrepancies meant that a deficiency or “loss” / Gain was assumed to have
been caused by an error or wrongdoing on the part of the Subpostmaster,
unless they proved otherwise.
Page 8 of 15
WITNO08960100
WITNO08960100
19. As I recall, if a Subpostmaster challenged a transaction correction or
discrepancy through the NBSC Helpline, the role played by the P&BA Team
would be to investigate, either by rechecking the original error or looking for
a compensating error and respond to the Network Business Support Centre
(NBSC) or subpostmaster, and where applicable, suspend the debt
recovery process. The document quoted ‘Working agreement — Finance
Service Centre and Network’ (version 2.12, undated) at POL00088897 was
post my time in POL. (Version 2.10 dated 12/1 2/2012)
20. I have never worked in a Crown Office, so my understanding was that the
process in section 6 of the ‘Mandatory Losses & Gains Policy in the Crown
Office Network’ (September 2008) (POL00084075) was the process
followed in a Crown Office.
21. The Branch Conformance Team within P&BA monitored the Crown Office
Losses and Gains posted at Branch Trading. They provided various reports
to the Finance Analysts, Crown Regional and Area managers and members
of the Security Team. This would enable them to address any issues within
the Crown Office Network. I have no recollection of an S&E Team.
Recovery of Current and Former Agents’ Debt
22. I have been asked to consider the documents provided with regards to
recovery of current and former agents’ debt.
23. During my time as Branch Accounting Manager, in Product & Branch
Accounting (2006 - May 2009), my teams included the Current Agents Debt
Team and the Former Agents’ Debt Team. Most of the documents provided
Page 9 of 15
WITN08960100
WITN08960100
are dated after May 2009 or undated, so therefore this section is based on
what I remember.
If a current Subpostmaster chose to “Settle Centrally”, the process
followed by the P&BA team was: An initial request for payment would
be sent, then a reminder sent or a phone call, also contact would be
made with their Contract Manager. I am unfamiliar with the term
“dunning” process.
If no response was received to letters sent, and_ following
discussions with the Subpostmasters Contract Manager, deductions
would be taken from their remuneration.
If a Subpostmaster would / could not pay then an agreement could
be made with the Contract Manager, for monthly deductions from
remuneration.
The Current Agents Team would provide a report of the branches
with high debt, who were paying through deduction from
renumeration, to the Branch Conformance Team. They would add
this into their branch analysis to provide information to the Fraud
Team.
If a former Subpostmaster had debt owing, I recall the process to be:
An Initial letter and statement of debt would be sent, followed by a
second reminder and a third and final letter if necessary. If no
settlement was made, then a case bundle was prepared and passed
to the solicitors to follow the Civil Recovery Process on behalf of
POL.
Page 10 of 15
WITN08960100
WITN08960100
vi. The Product & Branch Accounting Team had no role in recovering
debt from current or former Crown Office Employees, to my
knowledge.
24. Other teams within the Post Office would have been involved to some
degree in debt recovery and branch conformance. These teams would
have included; Network, Security, Cash Inventory and Legal. I do not recall
the actual team names and the details of their roles in the process. Part of
the role of the Branch Conformance Team (within P&BA), was to undertake
detailed Branch Investigation. This team developed fraudulent indicators
along with those teams. These indicators were then monitored and reported
to those teams on a regular basis. I understand this information was then
fed into their own risk models.
Relief from Accounting Losses / Write Off Process
25. There are three exceptional circumstances when relief could be granted
from a Subpostmasters accounting losses and/or debts and when write off
by POL could be considered. In all circumstances the Retail Line Manager /
Area Performance Manager would have carried out checks and authorised
the write off. My recollections are that the P&BA Team would carry out any
write offs as advised by the Retail Line Manager / Area Performance
Manager. These exceptions were:
e A new Subpostmaster (without previous experience) within the first
six weeks of appointment.
Page 11 of 15
WITN08960100
WITN08960100
e Where there was clear evidence of financial hardship (where the
cost of making good the loss is higher than the value of the working
capital of the business).
e There were distressing personal circumstances incurred at the
branch that impacted the Subpostmasters ability to function on the
day in question.
Civil Claims and Other Debt Recovery Proceedings
26. If a former Subpostmaster had debt owing, and the three letters sent to
recover the debt had failed, then the case would be passed to the solicitors
to follow the Civil Recovery Process on behalf of Post Office Ltd. I cannot
recall any circumstances where proceedings were brought to recover debt
from current Subpostmasters.
27. I am not aware of any circumstances where civil claims / debt recovery
proceedings were brought on behalf of Post Office Ltd to recover debt from
current or former Crown Office employees.
28. No one person made the decision to bring proceedings; it was a business
wide agreed process that was followed. The process was already defined
when I took over the Branch Accounting role in 2006, I cannot remember
any detail of the process or the persons involved.
29. My only role in the decision making process was to ensure that my teams
provided the information requested to support any claims.
30. ‘If current or former subpostmasters raised issues or were going through
mediation, then the debt recovery process was stopped pending the
outcome. The outcome of the investigation / mediation would inform the
Page 12 of 15
WITN08960100
WITN08960100
decision making in respect of debt recovery. Debt recovery proceedings
would be either reinstated or the debt would be cleared. I am unable to
remember the exact process.
31. As part of the “Back Office Efficiency Programme: Debt Review Workshop
Output” (version 1.0), (13 October 2009), (POL00084995). I was not
involved in any analysis or review of the debt recovery process.
Cases against Subpostmasters
32. I have no recollection of any of the criminal cases mentioned in the witness
request.
33. I did not have a role in any prosecutions relevant to the matters being
investigated by the public inquiry.
34. I was not involved in any criminal cases. My role would only have been to
ensure that debt recovery was stopped by my team, whilst these took
place.
35. 1 do not have any recollection of the civil actions mentioned in the witness
request.
36. I was not involved in any civil actions. My role would only have been to
ensure that debt recovery was stopped by my team, whilst these went
ahead.
37. As the previous point, I was not involved in any civil actions therefore had
no concerns.
Knowledge of bugs, errors and defects on the Horizon system
Page 13 of 15
WITN08960100
WITN08960100
38. During my time working for Post Office Ltd, I was not aware and did not
have any concerns regarding the “robustness” of the Horizon IT system and
saw no evidence of bugs, errors or defects.
39. I had no concerns to report.
Other Matters
40. There are no other matters that I wish to bring to the attention of the Chair
of the Inquiry.
I believe the content of this statement to be true.
Signed
Date IS May 2083
Index to First Witness Statement of Marie Cockett
No. URN Document Description Control Number
1. POL00083939 I Post Office Ltd Guidance on Losses I POL0080997
at SPSO's: Guidelines on
Responsibilities and Recovery
Arrangements dated 01/05/1988
2. POL00084075 I Post Office Ltd Mandatory Losses & I POL0081133
Page 14 of 15
WITN08960100
WITN08960100
Gains Policy in the Crown Office
Network dated Sep 2008
POL00085794
Debt Recovery Process under Branch
Trading dated Oct 2005
POL0082852
POL00026854
TC/Debt Recovery review - key
feedback issues (undated)
POL0023495
POL00088897
Working Agreement - "Final" -
Finance Service Centre and Network
v2.12 dated 20/12/2012
POL0085955
POL00084075
Post Office Ltd Mandatory Losses &
Gains Policy in the Crown Office
Network dated Sep 2008
POL0081133
POL00084995
Back Office Efficiency Programme:
Debt Review Workshop Output dated
13/10/2009
POL0082053
Page 15 of 15