#postofficetrial
AB never seen it in writing
QC goes to letter to Pam Stubbs - states "this letter" is to give authority to hold the hold the loss for 8 weeks. letter then says...
QC do you accept this is a standard letter?
AB yes.
QC goes to internal memo - Po staff telling each other they’ve told Pam Stubbs she needs to prove what the problem is - it’s not...
QC If PO knows or believes it has a problem with Horizon it must tell SPMR immediately
AB I agree yes
QC if an error notice is issued to an SPMR after this letter is issued she has to pay it immediately
AB she could request if she could delay...
QC Let’s go to Liz Stockdale letter in which she asks to repay money she says she owes. "I am assuming the investigation has been done", hence her letter [ie the letter which is demanding payment]
QC then goes to a PO internal email which says the...
AB well it isn’t clear whether it has or not
correction - not an internal email - it’s a reply to Liz Stockdale. The email also asks Liz which product she made the loss on.
email also makes clear that LS cannot settle any further...
AB says she still can settle centrally and that’s how I would read that letter.
AB says it’s not very clear in the letter,
Judge asks if there is word in there that would make it clear...
AB my understanding of what he means is different
[QC now pushing on AB’s understanding on what it means by referring to another internal document]
1. Losses are made good immediately
2. Repayment period can be made up to 12 months
3. No more than two repayments in 2 years or more than one going at once.
Now - that point is different to the one that is in the 3rd bullet point there. [he refers...
AB SPMs are able to settle centrally a loss. It doesn’t mean they are going to go into a deduction remuneration situation
Judge we’re rather gliding off the point. This is about a period when they are already having deductions.
QC says that part of the policy is still in place?
AB answers
[there is some confusion here about which part of the policy which does now allow the dispute of shortages during a repayment period]
AB agrees position hasn’t changed.
QC is there a doc which specifically contradicts the 1998 position
AB trying to recall.
AB there is a document which allows SPMs to question… ther are two things - a) I”m unable to pay and seek the hardship relief b) I don’t agree with this loss and want to dispute it
QC but this line of questioning is about SPMs already repaying...
AB I can’t recall the document but I know the situation is that under repayment SPMs can still dispute further shortages.
Judge says he is sure PO QC will find this document if it exists for re-examination. We move on.
#postofficetrial
QC that’s wrong isn’t it?
AB it does also say it’s reflective of s12:12
QC but expressed there, it’s wrong.
AB I wouldn’t use the word debt.
[AB talks about them being responsible for losses and that they would understand that]
QC says in reality they don’t
AB says they do...
QC when did you last have a conversation with an SPM about this
AB you want a date?
QC roughly.
AB a couple of years ago maybe
AB no it has changed
QC are there any SPMs still on the old style contract
AB there are some…
#postofficetrial
Here there are 33 errors not caused by branch wrt to Camelot and more than 2,000...
Do you know why?
AB depends what the error is - could be problems remming out scratchcards…
QC okay let’s look at cash remming out errors [qc explains the process for a branch receiving cash] On 1565...
AB they are required to check their cash on receipt.
AB I have never seen this before
QC it says SPMRs must report shortage to the helpline. A TC will usually be issued in 3 months. QC asks how much Horizon info is available to SPMRs
AB 60 days
QC lists other examples of larger TC which might come down within 2 years - again, he says - longer than 60 days.
QC makes point that criteria for communicating with SPMRs re large TCs..
QC points to another document about reviewing TCs “to correct accounting errors in Horizon"
QC goes back to Working Guidance, actual procedure is that when an SPM gets a TC the first thing they see is “accept now” button
QC goes back to document which states as policy not to issue a high value TC on a monday or tuesday before rollover day. Now talking about compensating transaction corrections issued to correct TCs made in error.
AB yes
QC goes to PO document which says that a dispute process should be in place to allow SPMRs to dispute TCs so that they are not forced to accept soemthing they are not liable for [i paraphrase]
[they agree it isn’t]
[QC is going through a bewildering number of documents to make a point that although it should be possible to dispute a TC, in practice it is quite difficult]
AB accepts
QC this must be quite stressful not to receive a compensating TC
AB yes that shouldn’t have happened
QC and theres room for human error in the production of TCs
and that’s one of the reasons why errors may occur in branch accounts..
AB Yes
QC moves on to talk about lottery TCs. They can be very large.
AB yes
QC gives real eg of a £28K +tive TC and a £34K -tive TC. Big sums, esp. compared to how much a branch might be turning over...
“The vast majority of calls to NBSC...
QC says that this was an issue that clearly was not addressed in training for SPMRs
AB I don’t know
QC “I’m grateful."
AB that’s Camelot
QC it appears to be Camelot yes.
QC then goes to something from Horizon data about information attached to TCs and says that if SPMs cannot get to the bottom of the reason for a TC, the SPM has to accept it.
Judge asks what a blocked TC is. AB explains
QC now on to another document in which concerns are raised about the use of cheques in and out of branch.
Judge do you accept this?
AB I’d have to see more info
Judge...
AB on the face of it, yes.
QC goes on to explain that later on Mr Abdulla is shown to have a loss for a similar amount [this is getting v complicated as they are basically reading lines on a tiny excel spread..
QC ends up reading an spology from PO to Mr Abdulla, but QC says more than one error has been made here?
AB on the face of it, yes.
QC lists errors, AB interrupts says I’m not sure there are that many.
QC let’s put it this way - if you’ve been billed...
AB I can’t really comment on this further
QC why can’t you sent SPMs this sort of info on an excel spreadsheet so they can see what’s going on
AB i have not considered...
QC moves on to a document about a service level agreement culture within the Post Office - so diff depts within PO have to provide each other with a high level of service. It is HEAVILY redacted.
AB both
QC if they’re in a branch, whose responsibility is it if they’re not working
AB depends who provided them
QC let’s say you did.
AB then we are responsible
AB what we would do is look at the trends and see why they have these swings
Judge asks what the “fix on lottery was”
AB can’t recall.
10 min break!
QC says on Friday she served a witness statement for...
AB says she would like to see what’s in her witness statement before commenting further.
AB yes.
QC shows letter from Womble Bond Dickinson...
QC says now - SPMs don’t become wildly more inaccurate or wildly more diligent from one month to the next - and points out data from 2005/6...
Then points out 2009 - 2011 data which again show wild movements in the values of the TCs from one year to the next.
AB is looking at the figures
QC goes to wild value swings (+ or - a few million) again and notes in 2015 there were +£42m in TCs done. Can she explain why?
AB has no recollection or knowledge of why this figure is as it is.
AB explains that they were having difficulties with Camelot data being manually entered into Horizon so they semi-automated the process.
Judge points out this might be why TCs went down in 2013 and 2014
AB agrees
AB not in content but they way it was used to make searches
QC says we’ll come back to this.
QC notes a new document in which AB says Horizon help has been substandard. So you’re being honest in this appraisal here?
AB yes
AB No not yet.
QC and that document was written in 2016.
AB yes it was my view
AB my problem was more of the speed of access to the content, not the content itself.
QC going back to particulars of defence which rejects crit of the Horizon...
QC why did you not put this in your witness statement. why did we have to go looking for it
[AB is mumbling, I can’t hear her answer]
Judge has just asked AB to keep her voice up
QC it was?!
AB not in its entirety, but step 2 was
QC asks about the bottom half of what sounds like a complex map
AB no
QC did you ever tell SPMs a Horizon Challenge Process has been introduced internally to investigated Horizon errors.
AB no
AB gives indistinct answer
AB goes into her longest answer yet about the processes
QC do SPMs get the raw data or just your conclusion
AB both
QC but you accept there will be some sums...
AB yes
QC what is a reasonable time frame within which an SPM should be able to identify a problem
AB gives answer about problems caused when people keep rolling losses over
AB but a TC comes with supporting evidence.
AB agrees says it was spotted by Fujitsu who alerted PO
QC says yes but you hadn’t told the SPMs
AB says yes but this is about agreeing next steps
Judge asks how SPMs...
QC now asking Ab about the payments mismatch memo in detail (which I published on postofficetrial.com) - asking why they were not telling SPMs about this.
QC is it fair to say PO likes to maintain a narrative that Horizon is robust
AB it will make mistakes and we will correct them but we won’t communicate things without facts - it would just generate more questions
AB yes - I was not involved in this decision
QC you are the most senior person from the PO...
[they continue]
QC explains how serious this fault could be to SPMs and the corrections being discussed.
QC no suggestion here that PO can’t change branch data here is there?
AB no
QC in fact is says the opposite
AB agrees
QC clearly it’s seen as a bad idea to let anyone know what has been happening.
QC notes group recommends solution 2 should be progressed.
[which so far journalists have assumed was what happened]
QC goes to PO response to remote access queries re balancing transactions in Horizon online. PO says this has only...
QC says so it must mean that it wasn’t Option 2 that was carried out in relation to one specific branch, in must have been Option 1
AB it wouldn’t have been done without their knowledge.
AB I don’t know specific details but if we did that we would have told the branch
[silence]
AB I’m not familiar with this specific incident.
QC Thank you. would this be a convenient moment for a break, my Lord?
QC suggested either she didn’t know about the contents of her own WS or she was not, indeed coming to it cold. AB will now read her new WS again over lunch and be asked about it afterwards.
AB it was a mistake
QC I suggest to you you are hesitant to accept things which are damaging to the Post Office.
AB that’s not the case
AB says she understood that tracking deletions has always been in place. She has not seen the document we are looking at b4.
AB agreeing these issues have been raised.
AB pushes back
QC but no training on investigating shortfalls - little or none at all
AB no there was training - SPMs taught how to search for a loss and narrow the field...
AB says she has a very good knowledge of the training given from her own experience of the classrom
QC since 2002?
AB yes
QC okay let’s go back to this document by Sue Richardson in May 2012
QC How are you able to form a view in your WS if she...
QC so it is quite hard to say with any confidence that training in how to deal with discrepancies and investigating was part of the training
QC goes to another document which spells out a particular SPM training session. It doesn’t make explicit any training on dispute/balancing?
AB not on that document
[he’s going through some training material and guides - notes one guide - balancing horizon - is 93 pages long]
QC that can’t be got through in half an hour, can it?
AB not in any great detail...
AB agreed, but points out this is 2002 when Horizon is quite new. The system in place was quite similar to the pre-Horizon paper system, it’s just
QC moves on to the Horizon helpline training bumf and Horizon training from 2002. In which it says it should never be switched off
QC pauses to say should it therefore be switched of….
[?]
QC that would be a *bad* idea wouldn’t it?
AB yes
[QC then lists a bit more of the training which describes what a screen is and a barcode reader
QC it’s pretty basic, isn’t it?]
AB yes
AB says these slides are prompts for the trainer who would
AB that’s where the helpline can help
System thinks you have 225 stamps, in fact you have 221, so you have to sell 4 stamps to balance the system.
AB yes
AB yes
QC moves onto wrong number of stamps being sent out. If PO sends out wrong number of stamps and SPM books them in and doesn’t notice it’s their liability.
AB says two things...
QC what about the other way round. If the SPM makes a mistake and PO doesn’t notice - whose responsibility is that?
AB both
QC who is liable for the loss?
AB says some people were saying it was an issue, but it was not thought generally.
QC goes to document showing training team leaders - “too much to cover in the 8 days - new delegates struggle...
AB don’t recall seeing this document. It was in 2011 as we were going into the NT programme - looking at whether training was sufficient.
AB agrees that these have been identified for that reason
#postofficetrial
Moan over, judge is back. Court is sitting.
AB she says there wasn’t really a thought that there was a problem with training at this time.
QC takes her to a document from 2013 in which a serious issue happened
AB admits she was aware of
QC doc concludes training should be harmonised and brought on-brand and made more user-friendly and a group established to over see this.
QC you remember lots of conversations about how it wasn’t very satisfactory
QC there isn’t much about your recognition of problems with training and what if anything you did about it.
QC goes to Second Sight report in which the most common complaints were about training and support (from the 150 complainants)
AB yes we knew that 130 of these respondents had a problem
QC lists problems complainants were having. Were you aware of that? Did you recognise that?
AB a small number of people said they had problems and we looked at them and made changes.
AB [and i paraphrase] we decided there was no need
AB no it’s a step by step
QC says - in that broad sweep I’ve tried to give you about issues with training can you see why some SPMs might have a point
AB yes
QC can we move onto the helpline?
[we do - now raising SPM complaints and concerns about helpline service, availability quality of help etc]
The QC describes the PO’s description of the helpline in which operators listen to the calls and select the appropriate answer from a list. Or they go to the knowledge base and read out articles. This is a script
AB waffles
AB if you have a script you stick to specific words - that isn’t quite the same as what happens on the helpline.
AB says the scripts are the information they are supposed to give, but they won’t necessarily stick to them
AB argues they are not compelled to stick to defined and specific words
AB which I had input into
QC but the matters in this litigations have arisen since those
Did you give any thought to updating your views?
AB If I thought they needed updating or things had changed I would have updated them.
Surely a robust system means checking for the root cause of any error?
AB Yes
QC The error appeared again - this time the SPMR reported direct
AB yes
QC is on to listing a number of real transaction examples affecting claimants which could not have been their responsibility
AB accepts them all
QC goes on to instructions to SPM for disputing a TC - saying it’s much like a grievance procedure.
PO decides whether a TC is correct or not when disputed
QC so this sharpens the trust
Judge interrupts to ask if we are going to finish on time
“I know how hard you find it to rein yourself in when you think you’re on a roll."