POQC what Mr A seems to be saying here is the SPMR DID receive disconnected session receipts. What would that have told him?
POQC let’s go to Simon Baker email with Gareth Jenkins. Please read pars 1 to 9
POQC having gone through all those docs in your WS 154 you talk about the Rose Report
AB that reversal was part of that recovery - so it wasn’t a failed reversal - it happened as it should have happened, but I accepted it wasn’t obvious to the SPM...
POQC moves on
POQC A statement from someone we haven’t me coming up. PG put to you that Credence shows a log of every keystroke pressed by the SPM on the basis. Is that true?
AB that’s not my understanding...
POQC PG put to you the introduction of Horizon online was primarily about reducing operating costs reads document that mentions costs first, but making it fit for purpose in the 21st century… HOL should be a simpler system easier to change...
[it does mention lots of things except making it easier for SPMs to use!]
PQOC explain benefits of HOL
AB it was about creating a better system going forward, get product changes done more quickly
J has questions. A couple of times this morning you were asked about corrections to your WS. One of your answers was you didn’t have a lot of time. Was there a time limit on you?
AB only in terms of getting the information together
J what do you mean
J is there anything else you want to tell me about that?
AB well there was a lot of data and we were under pressure to dig right down into it to get it ready for court
POQC you could ask AB about deadlines?
AB explains again the need to get all the info about all the cases together for the trial.
J asks why her team were not named in her WS
AB no reason
AB says this chart is a bit confusing and she’s not sure why it is laid out like this. She hasn’t seen it.
J quizzes her further
AB says the doc...
POQC asks how much time she had to prepare her WS in response to the claimants WS
AB 3 weeks?
POQC did you have to get info first?
AB yes we had to get NBSC logs and ARQ files
AB about 2 weeks
POQC and you had 3 weeks to get that together after that?
AB it might have been less than that
POQC did you feel pressured?
End of a marathon 1.5 days cross- and re-examination.
She is being cross-examined by Kathleen Donnelly, barrister for the claiamants.
Your team used to be Debt team.
KD is the substance of what you do essentially the same
KD and same with Former Agent Accounting - it used to be former Former Agent Debt
KD so the wording of this letter is as if a dispute has been settled. what’s missing from that letter is any mention of a dispute
KD tell us about the attachment you would...
DP it would be the list of settled centrally entries
KD looks back to letter (which was sent to claimant Mr Tank) and displays attachment. This statement doesn’t have any indication it is possible to dispute this amount.
KD brings up second letter sent to Mr Tank - it is an overdue payment letter. All the same language - it IS a debt. Then a threat here about escalation. What’s that about?
KD No mention of dispute
DP it says you can call in to discuss
KD bit different to say you can call in about the contents of this letter rather than you can dispute this amount. yes?
There is some incredulity at this from gallery, judge and barrister.
We go through it again. DP says it’s not always £5K it depends on the volume of calls.
KD asks if this process is audited at all.
DP yes we are checked by a external company
KD so that area isn’t audited
PD not if it’s a simple misskey
KD you don’t always investigate and you don’t always sent a branch dispute form
[branch dispute forms were introduced in 2018]
KD you suggest this was a sea change improvement...
KD how many dispute forms are you sending out
DP don’t know
DP wouldn’t like to guess
J Thousands or 2
DP no no about 5 a month.
KD so you are describing this as a great new process
DP explains the dispute form is a useful information gathering exercise as an SPM might be running a branch in absence so the PO need to know who they are dealing with.
KD its’ possible an SPM might not know the product or date the discrepancy arose
DP we can’t deal with them - we send them straight to NBSC
KD you can’t deal with them. and if the SPM can’t find out he date of the error you don’t investigate...
[DP is talking in terms of the SPM “making an error” “if the error happens” etc seems to confirm claimants view that PO sees all discrepancies as user errors]
KD do you recognise this flow-chart?
DP not the title
KD have a look at p2
DP okay… [looks at p2]
DP that’s a very old one
DP yep stopped using that a long time ago
J when does it go back to?
DP around 2015...
KD is there currently an appeal process if the dispute goes against the SPM
DP they can come back to us and we can see if there’s [something to the effect of - having another look]
[we go to DP’s role as head of Santander liaison at PO and a Mr Smith’s witness statement for this trial]
DP corrects something stated in Mr Smith’s WS.
KD did you give those figures to Mr Smith?
KD to give a sense of proportion of the number of TCs issued
[KD raising some confusion about both IT experts on this. oh crivens we’re getting into re-reviews of WS from witnesses I don’t know and haven’t seen]
DP we don’t record that figure
KD if Santander issue 19.5K TCs and Post Office only pass on 3978 what happens to the rest.
DP I would say 50% can be resolved by writing to the branch and asking...
KD so you do some kind of an internal audit process?
KD so it’s alot more complicated than perhaps Mr Smith makes out
We are about to have a break.
POQC asks re par 12 in her WS if when she says cCredence records all key strokes, what she means.
™ says it records transactional data.
™ she is a team leader working on various teams
PG how many people work at FSC
PG do you get much training do you move from team to team?
™ no you just pick it up
PG do you get much training when you join
PG raises the credence issue. Credence is useful to understand what happened in a branch because it records all key strokes. You’ve now said it’s sales
™ transactional data yeah
™ explains it gives transactional data
PG you don’t get ARQ logs
J you don’t
TM no not through credence
PG can you tell the court what you do see
™ we don’t use credence for money gram
PG what do you use credence for?
PG Credence holds info for 3 months
™ aware of discussions about holding it longer?
PG we’ve also got a system called Horace which hold info for longer, One member of our team has access to Horace so we can look on there.
PG how long is data available on Horizon to you for
™ if it’s an open item - as long as it needs to be
PG on there it says transactional data and adjustments for credence
PG and that’s why on your statement it says it helps to see...
[PG notes a document where it says credence data could be available for 24 months]
PG would that be helpful?
™ we’ve got it in some places already
PG when was that brought in?
™ starts trying to answer
PG says don’t worry if you dont know the...
PG asks if she knows what POCA is
™ doesn’t know
PG starts talking about fraud and recovery but they agree they don’t get involved too much in that.
PG does anyone on your team?
PG reads from doc about TESQA - what’s TESQA
™ never worked on it myself, but it gives more information about things at the branch
PG more than Credence?
™ seems to agree
PG this dispute here is raised in Aug 2013 and relates to a visit in Dec 2012 - more than 90 days. see that?
PG do you know how long TESQA would keep the data?
PG there is a note asking to retrieve the data to disprove any future claim made by counter. Are you aware of any defensiveness about Horizon?
PG takes her to her statement
™ I think what I was trying to get across is that if an SPM called us we would try to help whatever his query was.
PG is it fair to say therefore you’re not in a position to comment?
PG did you see any changes in credence
™ I wasn’t working in this area
PG were you using credence at all at that time?
PG before reading IT expert’s report did you know there was a difference in time...
PG asking about the Helen Rose report. ™ says in her statement: "Looking at the Helen Rose report referred to in paragraph 5.49 of Mr Coyne's …"
PG were you aware of the Helen Rose report?
PG outlines how she has changed it slightly but it looks like she is blaming the SPMR
[™ is being a good witness, but she is a wee bit out of her depth as there are things in her witness statement which seem beyond her expertise or experience]
™ I was aware they had a certain amount and thereafter they would be charged
PG so you were aware of that
™ yes but we could get what we wanted it if we needed
J and what is your understanding of keystroke activity on Credence?
™ transactional data
J so if you look at par 12 of your WS...
™ goes into quite a long explanation
J going back to my question what should I put into that sentence
™ records all transactional data performed in that branch
[J writes that down]
™ tells him what she would see on the screen when checking Credence data.
She leaves the witness box.
PG for the claimants on his feet.
PG now talking about rollout of new system from Sep 2018 about making things easier.
PS says it hasn’t been fully rolled out
PG when will it be completed
PS don’t know.
PG two teams are high volume users of the new system
PS automated payments team and the debit card/ATM
[this is a new case management system which records disputes and produces reports]
PG did you think it was worth looking at these reports for this trial?
PS no cos they’re very recent
PG so is your WS...
PS yeah but [he tries to explain why it wasn’t worth doing so]
PG you said you didn’t include anything about the TC correction system or any analysis because it was recent - but you could have put something in. Was there a reason...
PS no. there is no reason.
PG and you didn’t exhibit any documents to support your WS was there?
PG your figures show 680 disputes - 40 upheld. relating disputes with pouches received by branches
PS an email - I can’t remember who sent it.
PG reads “TCs issued by the Personal Banking Team are rarely disputed. This is because they run a report in Horice to determine whether a surplus is evident”
PS don’t know
PG notes table in par 20 where there are 24K Lottery TCs issued and an estimated 1500 disputed and 500 compensated. next line down there is 3110 debit card TCs issued. estimated 1500 disputed and 500 disputed.
PG is that accurate? at all?
PG there’s no underlying data here
PG goes through the on the face of it back of a fag packet way PS got to these figures.
J that’s more a matter for me Mr Green
PG yes my lord
PG takes him to Dr Worden’s report (he’s the PO IT expert - Jason Coyne is the claimants’ expert).
takes him to p h58
PG okay let’s have an analysis or TCs by branch type you can see there - if we just take DVLA as an example where your evidence is that the present number of TCs is a handful...
PS yes because we now have a corporate relationship with the DVLA [explains how that works]
PG looking at the figures for the DVLA in...
PG I don’t know
PS so you have no way of knowing how reliable the information you are getting from other people is?
No further questions
J i have two questions
PS Dynamix or Dynamics
J what are the reports called where you can analyse the data you are getting?
PS I don’t know I don’t think it has one it’s inside Dynamix like a dashboard
J and how can you get the data - weekly? monthly?
J how many disputes are you getting re MoneyGram
PS one or two a month
J disputes regarding what
PS my assumption would be disputes over TCs received in branch
The judge rises.
Today was interesting. I'll get a post up on postofficetrial.com tonight and will post the transcript as soon as I get it.
Same for the witness statements.
Thanks for reading, thanks for the retweets and comment and please do chuck a few quid in the tip jar at postofficetrial.com if you can.
This is a crowdfunded project. I am here...