This is the unperfected transcript of the second day of the Horizon trial, held on 12 March 2019 in court 26 of the High Court's Rolls Building. Enjoy.
Tuesday, 12 March 2019
(10.30 am)
MR GREEN: May it please your Lordship. I have two things
for your Lordship before we begin with Mr Latif who is
sitting kindly waiting in Islamabad.
There is the physical bundle of claimants' witness
statements.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Thank you.
MR GREEN: My Lord, the other thing is an answer to
your Lordship's question about whether we have a list of
the Callendar Square bugs.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: We can deal with that after Mr Latif.
We will deal with all of those things after Mr Latif.
MR GREEN: I'm most grateful.
Mr Latif, if we look at your witness statement on
the Opus screen {E1/1}, which hopefully --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I don't think -- we haven't sworn this
witness yet.
MR GREEN: My Lord, no, I'm so sorry.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Good morning, Mr Latif. We are just
going to administer either the oath or the affirmation.
Affirmation.
MR ADREES LATIF (affirmed)
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Just pausing there, the witness
obviously doesn't have a form of words in front of him
of the affirmation. I am content that that is
a sufficiently close affirmation for the purposes of
the court, unless either party wishes me to readminister
it -- now is your opportunity? No.
MR DRAPER: No, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Thank you, Mr Draper.
Mr Green, over to you.
Examination-in-chief by MR GREEN
MR GREEN: Mr Latif, on the Opus screen in front of you you
should be able to see a document which says "Amended
witness statement of Adrees Latif", can you see that?
A. Correct.
Q. And if we look at page 3 of that witness statement
{E1/1/3}, there's a signature there.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that your signature?
A. Correct, that is my signature.
Q. And do you believe the contents of your witness
statement to be true?
A. I do.
Q. Would you wait there for a moment because counsel for
Post Office will have some questions to ask you.
A. That's correct, that's okay.
Cross-examination by MR DRAPER
MR DRAPER: Hello, Mr Latif. The witness statement you have
provided is a very short one so I want to first ask you
some questions by way of background about your branch.
A. Yes sir.
Q. Firstly, can you give some indication of the size of the
Caddington branch?
A. Caddington branch is situated in a village of about
12,000 people. It has two main counters and a third
combi-counter, so it is a three counter office.
Q. What do you mean, Mr Latif, by a combi-counter? Could
you explain that please?
A. A combi-counter is a counter that is open on the same
hours as the retail shop, so I have a post office at the
back of the premises where there is two main counters
and the third counter which is a combi-counter and it is
situated nearby the retail counter of the convenience
shop which I also operate. And that counter is open at
the same hours as the shop counter is open as well.
Q. Thank you.
A. So it is commonly known as out of hours counter.
Q. Yes. Thinking back to two dates specifically, July 2015
and January 2018, which are the dates of the two
problems you complain of in your statement, how many
Post Office staff members, your assistants, would
typically be working in the branch?
A. On those days there would be three members of staff:
two, including myself which is the third.
Q. If we could call up {F/1038.1/1} please. This is
a Post Office record, Mr Latif, of the assistants
registered in your branch. Can you look down those
please and confirm whether those indeed were the
assistants in your branch at the two dates that I have
just given to you?
A. I can. The first one is a Mrs Christine Helen Barnett,
the second one was a Mr Muhammad Rouman Tabassum.
Q. When you say first and second, what do you mean by that?
Are you talking about in order of importance as
assistants?
A. No, no, they are both manager's level. I'm talking
about on the list where you've got the names of my staff
on there, so Christine Helen Barnett and then
Rouman Tabassum.
Q. On the screen we have it here the first entry is
a Christine Fensome. Can you see that at the top of
your screen?
A. Yes.
Q. Counting down, just to confirm you are seeing exactly
the same document as I am, it is Christine Fensome, then
Christine Barnett, then Michael Brumwell, then
Muhammad Tabassum, then Robert Deacock and then
Tahir Shabir.
A. Correct, sir.
Q. And if you look down the far right-hand side of the
screen, are those to the best of your recollection the
Horizon user IDs for those assistants?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. It is not listed on here but am I right to say that your
user ID was MLA001?
A. That's not my user ID.
Q. Sorry, did you say that's not?
A. No.
Q. What then was your main user ID?
A. It's ALA001.
Q. Thank you.
A. So can I just repeat that, my Lord?
Q. I got it. I think you said ALA?
A. (Nods).
Q. 001?
A. Correct. Correct.
Q. And looking at the assistants that are still shown on
the screen, can you give any indication of how many
hours per week they would typically work, whether any of
them, for example, worked most of the week and others
were less frequent?
A. On an average week the (inaudible) work was 36 hours.
Each person.
Q. I think you may have told me this before, but just to
confirm, did any of these assistants have a higher
status than any of the others, any additional rights?
A. There's two of them and that is Mrs Christine Helen
Barnett and Muhammad Rouman Tabassum.
Q. In what respects were they more senior assistants?
A. Christine was a manager in the post office with me but
she used to work mainly in the post office and Muhammad
was also the shop manager as well. So he used to manage
the shop for me and the post office when I was not
there.
Q. Would it be right then that there were some tasks on
Horizon and in the post office more generally that
Christine Barnett could do because she was a manager but
your other assistants wouldn't have done?
A. I didn't quite understand that question. Can you please
repeat that.
Q. Of course. Were there any tasks in running the
Post Office branch that Ms Barnett could do or would do
for you that the other assistants wouldn't?
A. Mrs Barnett and Muhammad Rouman Tabassum were trying to
do the balancing procedures as well as myself. Some
staff would not know how to balance the office and when
I say "balance the office", as you may already be aware
that we have to reconcile at the office on a weekly
basis, so every Wednesday we would reconcile the office
and both Christine Helen Barnett and Muhammad
Rouman Tabassum were fully trained to do that if I was
not around.
Q. You say if you were not around. How common would it be
for you not to be in the branch on a given day?
A. It's very common. As you know, Post Office ran various
training sessions so you were expected to attend those
and there could be holidays, there could be various
other reasons.
So can I just repeat, Christine Helen Barnett, she
used to work for the police so she is very, very
trusted. I trust her completely. And Muhammad
Rouman Tabassum is a very close friend of mine who has
been with me for a long time so these two were
completely trustworthy, honest, hard working and very
reliable.
Q. So it is fair to say you entrusted the operation of the
branch to one or other of those two people, you said
"quite frequently". Could you give any more specific
indication? Do you mean once a week, twice a week?
A. I tend to be there most days. Five days to six days
a week, so -- but sometimes I did take time off, so it
was infrequent but it did happen occasionally.
Q. Looking then at hours, I think you said that the hours
were strange, presumably you mean long, so might there
be times of day even on days when you were working in
the branch when you weren't there, say early in the
morning on are late in the evening?
A. Correct.
Q. How common an occurrence was that, Mr Latif?
A. Uncommon, but it could have happened, it does happen, it
did happen. I mean I could have had a meeting where
a customer has come in for a financial services product,
so I will take them to the room where we hold private
conversations so that means I'm away from a counter, so
yes, that does happen.
Q. I'm going to ask you some questions now about a stock
unit transfer for £2,000 that you describe in your
witness statement. You say that it was carried out in
or around July 2015; that's right, isn't it?
A. Correct, sir.
Q. Now, just to explain to you what I'm going to do, I'm
going to come on a bit later to tell you what
Post Office says happened, but because there is not much
detail in your witness statement I'm first going to take
you through your account of what happened and ask you
questions about that. Do you follow?
A. Okay, I do.
Q. And when I'm doing that it doesn't mean that Post Office
accepts as true the things that I'm exploring with you,
I'm just asking you questions about what you say.
A. I understand, sir.
Q. So you say at paragraph 6 of your witness statement
{E1/1/2} that the transfer was from the AA stock unit in
your branch to the SJ1 stock unit, is that right?
A. Correct.
Q. I suggest that you have made a small mistake there,
Mr Latif -- no criticism, but Post Office's records
suggest that there was a stock unit called SP1 but not
a stock unit called SJ1. Do you think that might be
right?
A. Correct.
Q. So you think it -- forgive me, it is my fault, my
question was unclear.
A. (Inaudible) can check my statement.
Q. Yes. It is paragraph 6, the first mention of SJ1, which
is the second page {E1/1/2}.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you accept that that's a small mistake?
A. That is a typo, sir, that should read SP1.
Q. Thank you.
Can you tell me anything about these two stock
units, so, for example, what was the AA stock unit? Was
it a specific counter?
A. Okay, the AA stock unit, sir, is the main stock unit
that's in the two counters that's behind the back of the
post office, okay? That's where the most interaction
happened during normal hours of operation, which are
between 9 and 5.30.
SP1 is the combi-counter that I referred to earlier
on. Combi-counter is open on the retail side of the
premises, okay, and it is adjacent to the shop retail
counter.
Q. And where was the cash for stock unit AA kept?
A. Behind the closed, locked doors of the main office.
Q. And what about the cash for stock unit SP1, where was
that kept?
A. SP1 had its own dedicated safe. It's a rolling deck
safe and how that works is it has got a cassette,
an (inaudible) cassette which is supplied by the
Post Office as a mandatory requirement of handling
stock, so the cash is kept in the RollerCash and a small
amount is kept in a flip draw which the Post Office
supplied to us for normally about one hour's worth of
operation in the flip top, and the rest of the cash is
kept in the roller deck safe which is below the flip top
safe.
Q. Thank you. So this transfer of £2,000 in or
around July 2015, is it right that the purpose of that
was to replenish the cash stocks in SP1 because it was
running low of cash?
A. Correct, sir.
Q. It might be useful to take you now to the statement of
one of Post Office's witnesses, Ms van den Bogerd. Her
statement is at {E2/5} please. Mr Latif, is this
a witness statement that you have seen before?
A. No.
Q. Okay, going to page 22 of this document please
{E2/5/22}, you see paragraphs 87 to 88 there towards the
bottom of the screen. Can I ask you to read
paragraph 87 and paragraph 88 and please indicate when
you need the page to be turned.
A. Okay. So paragraph 87?
Q. Yes, please, read it to yourself. No need to read it
out loud.
A. Okay.
So:
"If subpostmasters wish to move cash or stock
between stock units, there is a process which must be
followed. Firstly, the item which is being transferred
(in this case cash) must be transferred by the user via
Horizon using the back office function (transfer out)
from the outgoing stock unit. The cash must then be
physically removed from that particular stock unit.
Providing these two actions are completed, the stock
unit from where the cash is transferred should not show
a discrepancy."
Q. Thank you. If you stop there.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Draper, you are going to have to be
a bit more clear in how you either put questions or
express yourself, because I know that you said, rather
sotto voce, "Don't read it out loud"; the witness
obviously thought you had asked him to read it out loud.
MR DRAPER: Understood.
Mr Latif, that paragraph you have just read, that's
an accurate description of the process, isn't it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Can I ask to you read to yourself, not out loud,
paragraph 88 and tell us when you need the page to be
turned please.
A. Okay.
(Pause).
Next page please. {E2/5/23}.
(Pause).
Okay.
Q. Thank you. That's accurate as well, isn't it, Mr Latif?
A. It is, sir.
Q. It is probably now helpful to go to your witness
statement at {E1/1/2} and paragraph 7 please. Do you
have that in front of you now?
A. I do.
Q. I'm going to take you through it in stages to look to
add some more detail to the account that you give. I'm
going to ask you to confirm that each of the stages that
I describe is correct.
A. Okay.
Q. So first stage, you logged into stock unit AA and you
used the transfer out function, identifying the stock
unit SP1 to which you wanted to transfer the £2,000, is
that right?
A. Correct, sir.
Q. And when you did that the system printed out a transfer
out slip, is that right?
A. That is mandatory, yes.
Q. You say it is mandatory, is it automatic that the system
prints the slip?
A. It's automatic, there's nothing -- it's automatic,
there's nothing you can do about it, it happens
automatically.
Q. It's right, isn't it, that you could also choose to
print one? You could press "print" as well; that's
right, isn't it?
A. You could print an additional one, sir, if you need to.
Q. Thank you. Could you explain what you then do with the
transfer slip once it is printed out?
A. We file that with the paperwork from the office.
Q. It's right, isn't it, that you should sign the transfer
out slip and take it with you when you go to
transfer in?
A. Correct. Well, you also at the same time get the
transfer in slip from the receiving stock unit as well,
sir.
Q. Yes.
A. And sign -- date stamp both of them.
Q. Thank you. Looking at this specific transfer that
you're describing at paragraph 6 of your statement,
so far, describing the transfer out from stock unit AA,
everything had worked as it should have worked, is that
right?
A. Correct.
Q. You say you then moved over to stock unit SP1 to process
the transfer in, is that right?
A. Yes, correct.
Q. So you walked from the counter position for stock
unit AA to the counter position for stock unit SP1 with
the physical cash, is that right?
A. Correct.
Q. You say then that you noticed immediately at stock
unit SP1 that the £2,000 had not transferred
successfully. That's what you say.
A. Correct.
Q. I'm going to talk you through that process to see how
you say you saw immediately that it had not transferred
successfully, so again I'm going to take it in stages.
A. Okay.
Q. First, Mr Latif, you logged into the counter SP1,
didn't you?
A. I'm sorry, I didn't quite hear that. Can you repeat the
question please?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Your voice is incredibly low, Mr Draper.
You will have to speak up.
MR DRAPER: Forgive me.
The first step was to log into the counter for stock
unit SP1?
A. Correct.
Q. You then went to the back office screen for that
terminal and went through the key sequence to view
transfers in available on that stock unit?
A. Correct.
Q. And you say that it is at that point that you realised
that the £2,000 had disappeared from Horizon; that's
right, isn't it?
A. Correct.
Q. So to check I understand correctly, what you are saying
is it had disappeared, in the sense that it was not
available on the screen as a transfer in?
A. Correct.
Q. You then say, Mr Latif, that you immediately performed
a cash declaration on the AA stock unit; is that right,
that was your next step?
A. Yes, and also on the SP1 as well.
Q. Dealing first with the cash declaration on stock
unit AA, you say you walked back to stock unit AA and
carried out a cash declaration which involved you
manually counting the cash, is that right?
A. Correct.
Q. And you say that the stock unit balanced. What you mean
by that I think is that two things were the case and I'm
going to put each of them to you separately. If we
assume that before the transfer there was £10,000 cash
physically in stock unit AA and that the Horizon cash
figure was 10,000 as well, after the transfer both of
those were 8,000 -- just hypothetical figures -- is that
what you say?
A. Correct.
Q. And as I understand your evidence what you are saying is
you knew from that that the transfer out had been
successful because the physical removal of the cash was
also reflected in the position on Horizon; Horizon was
2,000 lower as well, the Horizon figure?
A. Correct.
Q. It is right, isn't it, that when you went back to stock
unit AA you already had, didn't you, the transfer out
slip?
A. I did, correct.
Q. And that showed a transfer out of £2,000?
A. Yes.
Q. You could also have simply printed out the transaction
log from stock unit AA to show the transfer out,
couldn't you?
A. Yes you could and we did.
Q. Sorry, you say that you did?
A. Yes.
Q. Is there any reason why you don't mention those steps in
your witness statement?
A. I just kept my witness statement as simple and
straightforward as possible.
Q. Apart from this cash declaration, you don't mention any
other steps to identify the transfer out or the
transfer in, do you?
A. No, but I can go through those with you. I'm quite
happy to go through those with you, sir.
Q. I will come back to those shortly.
A. I'm experienced -- I have been running a post office for
17 years, sir. I have also worked for the Post Office
on training other offices how to run a post office.
I was also involved in running and introducing the new
Horizon software changes in 2006 onwards, where I went
to several offices on behalf of the Post Office to give
them training. So I'm an experienced, trained
subpostmaster and I ran my business successfully for
17 years. So I may have been a bit brief in the
statement but obviously I can run through those --
exactly those steps that we would take to make sure that
there is no operator error on our behalf.
Q. Maybe we can do it a bit more shortly by my asking you
this, Mr Latif. You as an experienced subpostmaster
would know that there were lots of reports you could run
on Horizon that would show you the transfer out and
that --
A. (Inaudible).
Q. Would show you the transfer in?
A. Correct.
Q. And would show you any failure to reconcile the two if
there was one missing. Do you follow that?
A. Correct. Correct.
Q. You also say at paragraph 7 of your witness statement
{E1/1/2} that you checked the CCTV to see whether you
had performed the process correctly.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. But, Mr Latif, you will have known that, wouldn't you,
from your transfer out slip, from the cash declaration
and from all of the other reports that you could run?
A. Yes, sir, but when we counted the cash £2,000 was
missing, so that's what alerted us to why we need to
check the CCTV and make sure (a) that there was no --
nothing was done incorrectly, make sure all procedures
were followed and, secondly, make sure there is no theft
from employees or (inaudible) or something like that
that happened. So we made sure that the £2,000 that
disappeared, we made sure that there wasn't anything
untoward in our -- and we were suspicious of Horizon
anyhow. Horizon had some glitches in it. I have seen
it in other branches and I have seen it in my own branch
as well. So we wanted to make sure that there was no
other explanation why the £2,000 is gone.
Q. So you now say, Mr Latif, that you checked the CCTV also
to make sure that no one had taken £2,000 from the
branch, is that right?
A. Correct, correct.
Q. When would that have happened --
A. As an experienced subpostmaster -- can I just say as an
experienced subpostmaster I would make all the checks to
make sure that nothing untoward happened. In any
business you would do that; whether it is Post Office,
whether it is retail, I would make sure that things were
done properly and nothing untoward had happened.
Q. The process that you have just described with me,
Mr Latif, in relation to the transfer involved you
personally taking every step in that process; that's
right, isn't it?
A. Correct.
Q. You carried out the transfer out on stock unit AA;
that's right?
A. Correct.
Q. You physically moved the cash to stock unit SP1, you
say?
A. I did.
Q. And you tried to process the transfer in on stock
unit SP1 but you say that failed because there was no
transfer in to accept. That's what we have just gone
through.
A. Correct, correct. At the same time, sir, can I just
stop you there, I just want to clarify a point that's
not in my statement which perhaps with hindsight should
be there. When the transfer was not there in stock
unit SP1, there's a reverse option on Horizon which you
can press to bring the cash back. Okay? So you reverse
the original transaction which says "transfer out".
It's next to the "transfer out" button, it's a button,
an icon on Horizon that you press that brings that money
back to AA.
Q. Again that's not in your witness statement, Mr Latif,
but do you now say that that's what you did? You say
you reversed the transfer out?
A. Correct, yes.
Q. Why don't you mention that important detail in your
witness statement, Mr Latif?
A. Well, I'm not sure. I mean looking at that carefully,
that's probably -- maybe perhaps I should have done.
But can I also say that obviously I had near the time
when I made the statement lost my father and I was going
through a period of distress and I lost ... so ...
Q. I'm sorry to hear that, Mr Latif --
A. That could be the reason.
Q. I'm sorry to hear that, Mr Latif, but it is fair to
point out that you reviewed this statement again this
month and you made a correction to it, didn't you, in
relation to the transaction --
A. Correct.
Q. You had then every opportunity --
A. Correct.
Q. -- to look again at your statement and correct it or add
any further important detail, didn't you?
A. Correct, but it is never too late, sir. You have to
understand we're very busy, running round, so it's
obviously, you know, an oversight. Yes, perhaps
I should have put more detail in, but you see I kept my
statement as simple as possible to keep things simple.
Q. I will take you back to the CCTV footage that you say
you looked at and I'm just going to give you the
context --
A. Yes.
Q. -- to my question, so it will be quite a long question,
if you just wait until I have finished please.
We have just discussed how every step in the process
of the transfer out on the stock unit and the physical
transfer of the cash, and the attempt to transfer in on
stock unit SP1, were all performed by you personally and
over a very short period of time; that's right,
isn't it?
A. Correct, correct.
Q. Why then would it help you to look at CCTV footage to
see whether the £2,000 had somehow been removed from the
branch?
A. Well, I wanted to make sure in my mind that everything
was done properly. I looked at the CCTV as a double
checkability just to make sure that everything was
followed correctly.
Q. But you knew, didn't you, that you hadn't --
A. That's why ...
Q. Forgive me. You hadn't taken the £2,000 out of the
branch, had you?
A. I want to prove to my colleagues that -- Ms Christine
Helen Barnett was there, that, you know, the procedure
was followed and the money was back at AA where it
should be.
Q. So you now say you looked at the CCTV because your
colleagues were concerned that you hadn't done the
transaction properly?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: No, that isn't what he said, Mr Draper.
You can't do that.
A. No, it was just to double check and make sure -- I'm not
saying that.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Latif, just bear with me just one
second.
You can put what you say the answer amounts to back
to him but you can't say that's what he said if you are
not putting it back to him in the same terms.
MR DRAPER: Forgive me, I'll find it as closely as I can
from the transcript.
The most important bit of it is inaudible so it is
hard to see.
But are you saying that when you looked at the CCTV
that was because you wanted to show to Mrs Barnett that
you had done the transaction properly?
A. Correct.
Q. So do you no longer say that you were checking the CCTV
to make sure no one had taken the £2,000 out of the
branch?
A. Correct, make sure not anything untoward happened. I'm
not just saying -- money taken out the branch but money
could have gone anywhere so I want to make sure the
money goes back in AA where it should be.
Q. I'm going to ask just one more question on this. You
were concerned that you personally might have somehow
lost the £2,000 during this process, is that what you
are saying?
A. No. All I'm saying is I want to make sure that the
procedure was followed, to make sure that all the --
Christine and my staff are absolutely confident that the
correct procedure was followed, the money was in the
right stock unit (inaudible), but make sure it is
a software issue not a misplaced cash or cash is lost
somewhere else. We wanted to make sure that we had done
everything by the book and make sure that nothing
untoward had happened.
Q. Thank you. Forgive me, I'm just going to check the
transcript a moment because I think some of your answer
was lost.
(Pause).
So there are then two elements, two reasons why you
say you looked at the CCTV footage: the first was to
make sure nothing untoward --
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The first was to make sure nothing untoward had happened
and the second was to make sure that you had pressed all
of the right buttons on the screen, is that right?
A. Correct.
Q. So --
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was the CCTV camera focused in on the counter so that
you could see everything that you had physically done at
the counter?
A. Yes, sir. I've got a 16 channel system and there is
a camera on every counter, which includes SP1, the
entrance to the main stock unit, stock position, which
is AA where the main two counters are. There is
internal and external cameras. So I've got a 16 channel
camera system that is designed to catch anything that
moves in the office.
Q. If what you say about looking at the CCTV footage were
right, that footage would help confirm at least
important parts of your evidence, wouldn't it?
A. Can you just repeat that question please, sir, my Lord.
Q. Yes. If what you say is right, the CCTV footage would
help to confirm important parts of your evidence,
wouldn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. And it might, for example, help you dispute
responsibility for any shortfall?
A. Correct.
Q. And it is right, isn't it, that you haven't provided
that CCTV footage to Post Office in these proceedings?
A. That's correct.
Q. Why not?
A. Well, that was obviously a long time ago and we were
convinced that everything was done properly. The CCTV
was just a backup. I'm still convinced that everything
was done properly. There is a software glitch that
stole our money, you know, that disappeared into magic
air where it is not possible and so I -- we were
convinced that we were right. So the footage was shown
to my colleague who is a trusted member of staff and we
were completely confident that we had done nothing
wrong. But the problem is with the Post Office, as you
may or may not be aware, you are always -- we are always
wrong. So if the money is missing, we have to put it in
and I just put the money in and said "Okay, you know,
I must be wrong" even though we knew everything was done
perfectly, the CCTV was checked, the process was
followed properly, we are both experienced personnel and
Mrs Barnett was with me for over 13 years and, as I say,
she worked for the police, so we were both trusted
personnel. However, the way the Post Office view it, if
you ring the helpline they will say to you "The money is
missing, you have to put it in" and that's how the
system -- the procedure works and we're always liable,
as per my contract with the Post Office, so I had to
physically put that money in from my own pocket and
balance the books. As you know, every Wednesday, we
must balance the books and that's how we were trained to
procedures within the Post Office.
So with the money, any monies -- and I mean this is
just one instance of £2,000 missing. There are several
other instances where money has disappeared, small
amounts, and we put it down to the fact that it has got
to be operator error, you know, that's what we have been
told by the Post Office, of "Our software is perfect, it
must be you guys, it must be a training problem, must be
a staffing problem", or must be somebody making
a mistake and that's how we reimburse, so we just put
the money in and carry the money (inaudible)
Post Office. As we are obviously trained professionals
to do so, that's what we did. I mean I'm in a fortunate
position, I can raise money from the shop, you know, and
put the money in, but I think others are not in that
position to do so and that's why I'm kind of
disappointed with Post Office's behaviour.
Q. Mr Latif, that's a very long answer and I'm not sure it
entirely responds to the question I put. I don't accept
much of what you just said but I'm going to carry on
with the questions and we can come back to those
specific points.
A. As the Post Office I don't expect you to, sir. I'm
happy for that to be the case.
Q. The next thing you say in your witness statement is that
limitations in accessing data and reporting functions
made it difficult to interrogate the system. Do you
remember that in your witness statement?
A. I do, sir.
Q. That's not consistent, is it, with what you told me
earlier, which was that you were able to produce lots of
different reports on Horizon that would show you exactly
what had happened?
A. Can I just hold you there for one second.
My Lord, we can perform stuff at our end, but there
is a -- Post Office had its own servers and I'm an IT
guy, you know, I have qualifications in City & Guilds
before I came over to the Post Office. So yes, while we
can make checks at our end at the stock unit level,
there are a lot of stuff that happens in the background.
Obviously you've got your own -- the Post Office has its
own servers and networks and we can not access those
server. We just got our user interface at the front end
and we have a back office where we can do the reports,
transfers in, transfers out, reports. Yes we can all do
that. However, there is other stuff that Post Office
does with our data that we cannot access.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Latif, what I'm going to ask you to
do now is just listen to Mr Draper's questions and try
and confine your answers just to his questions, if you
would. Is that clear?
A. Yes, sir, my Lord, I apologise for that.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: No, no, that's all right. It sometimes
happens, but Mr Draper's questions are going to be quite
tightly focused.
Over to you, Mr Draper.
MR DRAPER: Mr Latif, I suggest that's wrong and that
Horizon provided you with all the information you needed
on your case. I'm going to take you through that stage
by stage with short questions and you should be able to
give short answers. Do you follow?
A. Okay.
Q. Horizon provided you with the information you needed to
know that the transfer out had succeeded, didn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. And you say that you saw immediately on stock unit SP1
that the transfer in had not succeeded, so Horizon told
you what you needed to know there as well, didn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. And we have already discussed how you could have printed
off an unreconciled transfer report that would have
identified any transfer out for which there was not
a transfer in; that's right, isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. And you could also carry out reports, or checks on all
of the stock units to see any changes in their Horizon
cash figures, couldn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. You could also physically check the cash in any relevant
stock unit to see whether it was the same as what the
Horizon figure showed, couldn't you?
A. Yes, sir, you can.
Q. So if your evidence were right that the transfer out
succeeded but the transfer in failed, Horizon could tell
you everything you needed to know to confirm that
position, couldn't it?
A. I think the issue -- yes, sir, but the issue is what's
happened in-between and I can't see what's happened
in-between, sir. And that's -- I think you're not
labouring that comment, that you are saying -- you are
skirting round that, but that's the crux of the issue.
Q. Do you mean between the time you performed the
transfer out and you attempted to perform the
transfer in?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You could also, Mr Latif, during this process have
phoned the helpline to ask them whether there was any
report or any function on Horizon that would help you
investigate what had gone wrong; you could do that as
well, couldn't you?
A. You could do, but, as I have said previously, I'm
a trainer for the Post Office, I train other branches
how to do their procedures, reconciling accounting,
balancing, so yes I could do, but you've got two
experienced people at the counter that have years of
experience behind them and they knew what they're doing,
so ...
Q. So I'm going to try to summarise what you just said and
tell me if it is not a fair summary.
A. Okay.
Q. You are saying that you and your assistants were so
experienced that you did not need to call the helpline
to ask for any help in finding reports or other
functions?
A. We did log a complaint to the Post Office, so there will
be a call log to the Post Office, the log to say the
money has disappeared, so there will be a call log for
that, sir.
Q. That's a separate point. I'm asking why you didn't
phone the helpline to seek their assistance in
investigating what had gone wrong and I'm trying to
summarise your evidence as being that you didn't need to
because you were so experienced, you knew what to do?
A. No, we -- first of all, yes, we did ring them, okay?
I'm not saying we didn't ring them. I'm saying we are
experienced people, we know what we're doing. We did
ring them, there will be a call log. Secondly, the
helpline is not very good either. It is full of
inexperienced people there in a call centre somewhere
where we don't know where they are and I have made
a number of calls to the helpline and the word
"helpline" is not correct for it, it's not a helpline.
They go through very basic stuff, okay, and it's not
very good. That's my personal opinion; nobody else's,
that's my personal opinion.
Q. I'm going to take you to a couple of examples then of
the helpline assisting you and your staff, Mr Latif.
Can we call up the call log please at {F/1829.1}. If
the operator could move down to row 49 please. Do you
see in column D, Mr Latif, that this is a telephone call
from your branch in November 2014?
A. You said column D?
Q. Yes, that's right. Just looking for the date there.
Row 49.
A. Yes.
Q. Then if the operator could please move the screen
sideways so that we can see column M please. That is
a description of the call from your branch and I will
read it out:
"Is there a report they can do to check what has
been transferred through units."
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And if the operator can move us along to column U
please. This, Mr Latif, is the answer that was given on
that call and you see it says:
"Yes tran log using mode for transfers."
Do you see that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So what this shows, I suggest, is that in November 2014
one of your assistants phoned the helpline to ask how to
identify transfers between stock units and was told,
correctly, that they could identify them from the
transaction log; that's right, isn't it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. If we could go now down to row 70 please and across to
the left please as well so we can see column A and so
on. You see this is another call at row 70 from your
branch, Mr Latif, and the date for this one in column D
is 20 January 2015. Do you see that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And if we go to column M please we see again the
question -- and I suggest there is obviously a missing
word in it, tell me if you disagree, but it should read:
"Can [we] print off report that will show transfers
between stock units."
Do you see that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And going to column U again please, this is the advice
given:
"Advised how to do so - TL mode - transfers -
print."
I suggest that "TL mode" is "transaction log",
do you agree?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So this is the second occasion on which you or a member
of your staff had been told how to show transfers on
reports you could print in the branch; that's right,
isn't it?
A. Yes, sir, but can I just make a point here, if I may,
my Lord?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Yes, go on.
A. The branch is open from 6 o'clock in the morning to
9 pm, seven days a week, so at times I may not be there,
or Christine Barnett may not be there, or Muhammad may
not be there, so if the operator is not sure they will
ring up the helpline to get the help that they need,
okay? So the fact that there are calls does not really
specifically -- you know, I'm not surprised because
I can't be there from 6 o'clock in the morning until
9 o'clock seven days a week, sir.
MR DRAPER: Mr Latif, on the basis of what you say happened,
the failed transfer between stock units, the truth is
there were no limitations on the information that
Horizon could provide to you to help you investigate it;
that's the position, isn't it?
A. At the front end, yes, but we don't know what happens at
the back end and we don't have access to that, sir, and
that's my point, my Lord.
MR DRAPER: Maybe, my Lord, one question before a short
break for the transcribers?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: How long are you going to be, because it
might be we can put the break a little later, but don't
feel hurried. If you think you still have --
MR DRAPER: Quite a while, sir.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right.
MR DRAPER: What report or information do you say Horizon
did not provide you that would have helped you
understand what had happened with the transfer out and
the transfer in?
A. It's the stuff in-between the transfer in from one place
to the other place. It obviously goes through the
Post Office servers and we don't have access to that --
at the front end at the office, we don't have access to
that. All we have is the front end system and that's
it. Obviously I'm convinced that something has gone
wrong in-between the (inaudible) process, there is
a glitch and we cannot -- I'm not in a position to find
out what has happened.
MR DRAPER: That's probably a convenient moment, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: You want to stop now?
MR DRAPER: For the break and come back.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Latif, we are having these
proceedings transcribed which means every hour/hour and
20 minutes we have to have a break for the person who is
doing the typing, so we're going to have one of those
breaks now. They are usually between 5 and ten minutes.
This one is actually going to be eight minutes long. So
you get a break for eight minutes. Can I just ask you
two things please: one is please don't touch any of the
equipment because I've got previous experience of links
dropping over breaks.
A. Yes, sir.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: And the second one is because you are in
the middle of your cross-examination, during that break
please don't talk to anyone about the case. Is that
understood?
A. Yes, sir.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Thank you very much. We will have an
eight minute break and come back at quarter to.
A. Thank you.
(11.37 am)
(Short Break)
(11.45 am)
MR DRAPER: Mr Latif, just before the break you said that
you had carried out a reversal to reverse the
transfer out on stock unit AA, is that right?
A. Correct, sir.
Q. That's a reversal that you say you personally carried
out?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Using your user ID that you told me earlier was ALA001?
A. Correct.
Q. Can you explain then why Post Office's transaction
records show no reversal carried out by you
in July 2015?
A. I don't know what records Post Office holds, sir.
I cannot really accept (inaudible) holding.
Q. We will come back to the transaction data shortly, but
I just want to make clear that we suggest now there was
no transfer out reversal carried out by you
in July 2015. Would you like to comment on that?
A. So where has the money gone?
Q. That's a different point, Mr Latif. I'm suggesting you
did not carry out a reversal of a transfer out for
£2,000 in July 2015. Can you comment on that suggestion
please?
A. Well, if that was the case, or that's what you're
suggesting, then the money should be in somewhere
(inaudible). It's not there either. I'm saying to you,
sir, that there is a glitch with the software and,
you know, who knows what happens behind the software.
I cannot read -- I cannot see into it. I'm just telling
you what I know, sir.
Q. Sorry, Mr Latif, just to clarify something on the
transcript, you said "If that were right then the money
would be somewhere in ..." then the next word was
inaudible. What was the word you said there?
A. Well, the money will be somewhere in the office, either
whether it is SP1 or AA. If you are saying that
I didn't do a transfer in -- back into AA then the money
would be in SP1 and the money was not in SP1. So the
money has disappeared. Where has it gone?
Q. Those are different points, Mr Latif. You are talking
about the physical cash at this point. Where the
physical cash goes has got nothing to do with Horizon,
the physical cash goes where you physically put it;
that's right, isn't it?
A. But -- that's right.
Q. And you say you physically put the cash back in stock
unit AA.
A. Correct.
Q. So stock unit AA would then show a surplus, wouldn't it,
unless you carried out a reversal of the transfer out?
A. Correct.
Q. Earlier on when we were talking about the helpline,
Mr Latif, you said that you did call the helpline and
you made some remarks about not finding the helpline
very useful. I don't need to hear that again, I just
wanted to ask you a short question about that. When do
you say you called the helpline about this alleged
failed transfer?
A. I cannot be completely sure when that was, sir, if I'm
honest.
Q. Well, was it when the failure happened?
A. I believe it was July.
Q. If I show you the call log for the relevant period and
it shows that there are no calls from you or your
assistants in relation to a failed transfer, would you
accept that you are mistaken?
A. Well, sometimes we also ring the area sales manager, so
I may have rang him, so it doesn't necessarily mean that
there were no logs of the call.
Q. Which do you say you phoned, the area sales manager or
the helpline?
A. I believe it was the helpline, but it's a long time ago.
Q. If we could call up the call log please, which is at
{F/1829.1}. If the operator could please take us to row
89. Do you see, Mr Latif, row 89 and looking over to
column D, that gives a date of 29 June 2015 which is the
first entry on this log for June? I'm just confirming
that you see it, Mr Latif?
A. Yes, I can.
Q. And if the operator could take us down please to row 97,
and looking again in column D, that's a call on
11 August 2015 and is the last call shown in August. So
if we look between those two rows, Mr Latif, that will
be the calls logged from between June and August 2015.
Do you follow?
A. Yes.
Q. Please can the operator take us to column M and looking
then, Mr Latif, in column M at row 89 we see from
column L that this is a call from Chris and the call
says:
"[Lots] of customers are coming in saying the
website shows the branch has accepting [ukba] aie."
That looks to be a call about the website; that's
right, isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. And looking down these rows, row 90 at column M, that's
a call about a passport, do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Row 91, again a call from Chris is about travel
insurance, do you see that?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. Row 92 is about ordering euros?
A. Yes.
Q. Row 93 is about an error with transaction
acknowledgements, do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Row 94 is about euros again.
A. Yes.
Q. Row 95 is a miskey error, do you see that?
A. Can you repeat that please, sir.
Q. Row 95 is -- forgive me, it's what I would call a miskey
error. One of the assistants has pressed the wrong
buttons on Horizon and so has entered the wrong amount
for a rem out.
A. Okay, so are you saying the helpline makes a mistake?
Q. I'm saying that someone in your branch, you or one of
your assistants, appears from this call log to have made
a mistake in performing a rem out; specifically rather
than remming it out for £118.74, it was remmed out for
£11.74. Do you see that?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. That's a fairly easy mistake to make, isn't it,
Mr Latif, in your experience?
A. Well, everyone is human, sir, so yes, people do make
mistakes.
Q. And mistakes like that sometimes happened in your
branch, didn't they?
A. Sir, I would inform you that mistakes happen everywhere.
But they are easily rectifiable and can be resolved in
most cases.
Q. Tell me how they are resolved, those kind of mistakes,
Mr Latif?
A. Well, the steps you can take to resolve matters -- in
this case someone remmed the wrong amount out, so you
can rem the extra amount out, so there's various things
you can do to rem the correct -- make the correct
decision. When money goes remmed out it is checked the
other side and if it is wrong, they come back and tell
you it's wrong. So there are steps in place to make
sure that things are done properly. So yes, mistakes do
happen, but they are easily rectified.
Q. And those mistakes are usually rectified by your
informing Post Office and Post Office helping you by
issuing a transaction correction, for example?
A. Not always, sir. That's not my experience with them.
Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. It all depends
on what operator you get on what day and that's my
personal experience and that's the experience and the
mood I have in the office, that it's hit and miss. It
depends on which operator you get, how well they are
trained, it is whether the response you get back is good
or not so good.
Q. It also depends, doesn't it, Mr Latif, on how clearly
you identify the problem? You would accept that,
wouldn't you?
A. Yes, indeed. In terms of if they are remote they can't
see what we've got in front of ourselves. You know,
their knowledge can sometimes be very basic. Sometimes
very good -- sometimes very good, sir, I accept that.
But sometimes it's not.
Q. Moving on, Mr Latif, along this spreadsheet that we have
been looking at, we were looking down the rows. Row 96,
the one below the miskey concerns a car registration
document. Do you see that one?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Row 97 relates to travel insurance?
A. Yes.
Q. So those are all the call logs for June to August 2015
and they don't show the call that you say you made. How
do you explain that?
A. I'm not sure. Sometimes we ring up and they don't know
that we made the call. We've had in the past when we
rang up, we say we spoke to somebody and they haven't
logged the call properly. Mistakes do happen, sir.
Q. On the basis of these records, Mr Latif, Post Office
will contend that there was no call that you made of
that kind, but I think I have your answer to that.
Now, moving on --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Just before you move on, Mr Draper. Is
this in chronological order, this call log?
MR DRAPER: My Lord, it is largely in chronological order.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Because I'm looking at it on my private
screen and I thought it would be and it doesn't appear
to be.
MR DRAPER: It is within sections but I think, if I'm right,
towards the top --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Well, row 2, for example, has June 2016
and then later on it goes to 2014 and then back to 2015,
so is there any pattern to it?
MR DRAPER: I can't give you a detailed answer as to why,
my Lord --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right, let's not worry about it at
the moment, I just thought I would ask.
MR DRAPER: The point for present purposes is there are on
this call log no other calls between June and August.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I understand that's the point that you
are putting to the witness and it's not necessary to
pursue it now, but, for example, row 2 is a June 2016
entry.
MR DRAPER: Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: But we can deal with that separately.
You continue with Mr Latif.
MR DRAPER: Thank you.
Mr Latif, in your witness statement you say there
was a shortfall in the branch account for £2,000 that
you attribute to the failed transfer that you describe,
is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The first point on that, Mr Latif, is Post Office's
records from the data it has about your branch show no
shortfall of that amount between June and August 2015.
Would you like to comment on that?
A. Well, we would have put the money in, sir, so by the
following Wednesday, reconciliation, the money has to be
put in otherwise we cannot rollover with a shortfall,
it's not possible.
Q. But it's right, isn't it, that before rolling over you
would carry out balance snapshots, variance checks,
other kinds of reports that would identify
a discrepancy, wouldn't they, if there were one?
A. We would do that if there was discrepancy, sir, anyhow.
As soon as we find a discrepancy we print the balance
snapshot, transaction logs, so we would do that by
definition, we would do that by default. That's how we
were trained to do so.
Q. And those steps that I have described, variance checks,
balance snapshots, trial balances, all of those things
that you do would come up with a discrepancy on the
screen, wouldn't they? That's how you would identify
it?
A. Yes.
Q. The transaction and event data for June to August 2015
shows no such reports that disclosed a discrepancy of
£2,000. Would you like to comment on that?
A. I don't know how the Post Office's system works
internally. I know the user side of it, but I don't
know how the inside works. So I don't know what's going
on.
Q. Coming back then to the shortfall that you allege, when
do you say you became aware of the shortfall?
A. Immediately after the transfer did not go through we did
a cash calculation to make sure, that's when (inaudible)
£2,000 missing.
Q. A cash declaration on which stock unit, Mr Latif?
A. SP1 balanced but AA did not.
Q. If you go back to your witness statement, Mr Latif, at
{E1/1/2}, at paragraph 7 you describe having done a cash
declaration on stock unit AA to confirm that the £2,000
had been transferred out; that's right, isn't it?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. You then say that after the transfer in failed you took
the £2,000 physical cash back to stock unit AA and put
it into the cash drawer?
A. Yes.
Q. That's what you say.
A. Yes.
Q. And this isn't in your witness statement, Mr Latif, but
you now say that you performed another cash declaration
on stock unit AA and that this second one showed
a shortfall?
A. Well, once the transfer did not happen to SP1, we became
suspicious that something has gone wrong. So we would
will do another cash declaration. Balance snapshot was
printed, a transfer log was done, transaction log was
done, so a number of checks were made to make sure
what's happened to the money (inaudible).
Q. Was this cash declaration before or after you say you
reversed out the transfer out?
A. One was done before and then the other was done after
the transfer in and then we did another one just to make
sure that we hadn't counted the money wrong or
double-checked every single thing in the office to make
sure that everything was as it is.
Q. Mr Latif, why do you give no evidence in your witness
statement about this process of finding and failing to
understand a £2,000 shortfall in stock unit AA?
A. When you say "evidence" what are you referring to, sir?
Q. Your witness statement, Mr Latif.
(Pause).
A. Can you repeat that question?
Q. Why do you not in your witness statement say anything
about this detailed process that you have now explained
of finding a shortfall on stock unit AA and
investigating it?
A. Well, I'm an experienced subpostmaster and to me the
steps that we do are basic logic steps, but obviously to
other people it may not come across -- I now realise
that that's not how it comes across to other people that
have no experience within the Post Office, so perhaps in
hindsight I could have been a bit more clearer, but the
fact remains the money disappeared and there's
nothing -- you know, I'm confident -- I'm extremely
confident that it is the software that's caused the
problem.
Q. Let me ask you a question about the use of the word
"disappeared" there, Mr Latif. In your witness
statement you say that the transfer in disappeared. We
discussed that earlier, do you recall, that when you
went to stock unit SP1 --
A. Yes.
Q. -- the £2,000 transfer in was missing? Do you recall
that?
A. Yes.
Q. You don't say --
A. Yes, it disappeared.
Q. You don't say anywhere in your witness statement that
the £2,000 physical cash also somehow disappeared, but
that seems to be what you are now saying, is that right?
A. Well, the system gave a shortfall of £2,000 and that's
been my statement all the way through, sir, so I don't
know what you're trying to confuse me, but there's
a shortfall of £2,000 in stock unit AA and there should
not be a stock shortfall. The money is physically
there.
Q. If I have confused you, I'm sorry --
A. It was a counting error, sir.
Q. If I have confused you I apologise. I will take it
slowly.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I think, Mr Draper, the starting point
is paragraph 8, isn't it, and what he means by his last
sentence.
MR DRAPER: Yes, that's right.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Which is probably worth exploring just
so you can be clear what his evidence is about.
MR DRAPER: Yes.
I think it is right, Mr Latif, that you are now
explaining that you say that immediately after the
failed transfer that you describe there was a £2,000
shortfall in stock unit AA. That's what you say?
A. Yes, sir, correct.
Q. And you say that shortfall was after you had reversed
the transfer out, is that right?
A. Correct, correct.
Q. And after you had put the £2,000 back in stock unit AA?
A. Correct.
Q. So on your account the physical cash in stock unit AA
would be the same after all of these processes as it was
before, you had taken it out and put it back; that's
right, isn't it?
A. Correct.
Q. And you say there was nonetheless a shortfall in that
stock unit?
A. Yes, the cash declaration showed a shortfall of £2,000.
Q. Logically that must mean that the Horizon cash figure
had gone up £2,000 over the same period of time?
A. It should have balanced out, it should have been nil, it
should have been no discrepancy. So it looks like the
software for some reason is -- done something twice. It
has done something it's not supposed to do. There's
a glitch somewhere, sir.
Q. Mr Latif, on your account the only thing that can have
caused the shortfall that you're describing is the
Horizon derived cash figure for stock unit AA somehow
having increased; that's right, isn't it?
A. Correct, it's a software accounting issue, sir. That's
my statement.
Q. That also isn't described anywhere in your witness
statement, that you identified some problem with the --
A. Well, we cannot look -- I mean I do not have access to
the Post Office's internal software so I can only assume
the money is missing. It has disappeared into the
Post~Office's system. That's all I can say.
Q. Mr Latif, that's not right. Let me take it slowly with
you, Mr Latif.
If your account were right, the problem would be
that the Horizon cash figure in stock unit AA had
somehow gone up by 2,000 when it shouldn't have done so.
That's right, isn't it?
A. The money is there but the system doesn't resolve.
Something has gone wrong with the transfer, sir.
Q. Can you just answer the question. Am I right that the
derived Horizon cash figure would have had to go up by
£2,000 for there to be a £2,000 shortfall given that the
physical cash, on your case, was the same?
A. The Horizon derived figure and the physical figure
should have matched, but they did not, sir, and the
shortfall -- what I'm saying is there is a loss of
£2,000. So that does not make sense.
Q. If that were right, Mr Latif --
A. It shouldn't have happened.
Q. Mr Latif, it would have been very easy for you to have
shown that, wouldn't it, and to have described it in
your witness statement? What you would have said was:
before these processes the Horizon derived cash figure
for stock unit AA was X thousand and after all of these
processes the Horizon derived cash figure was X minus
2,000 and there was no reason for that. Do you follow?
A. That is what happened, that's what I'm trying to say.
Q. I think you said earlier, before the break, that you had
had to put £2,000 into the branch, is that right?
A. Correct, sir.
Q. When do you say you did that?
A. I would have done it on the Wednesday (inaudible), sir.
Q. Do you say you did that without disputing this
shortfall, Mr Latif?
A. We are liable. The Post Office's contract clearly says
that we are liable for any shortfalls.
Q. Is your understanding that you are liable for
a shortfall even if it is a computer glitch, is that
what you are saying?
A. Yes, sir, we're liable.
Q. Mr Latif, you will appreciate we don't accept that there
was any such shortfall, or that you paid it in, but can
you comment on this suggestion. If you genuinely
believed that the derived cash figure on stock unit AA
had been increased by a glitch and that therefore you
were in no way responsible for any of this, what do you
say to the suggestion that it's very surprising that you
wouldn't raise that with Post Office and complain about
it?
A. Well, I have complained to the area manager, sir, so
I don't know your saying I haven't complained. I have
complained to the area manager, Mr Navjot Jando,
a number of times, so I don't know why you're saying
I haven't complained about it or raised it.
Q. So do you now say you disputed a £2,000 shortfall
in July 2015 by contacting your area manager and
complaining that there was a glitch; is that what you
are now saying?
A. Well, yes, we would have obviously raised questions, but
there is a glitch or something and we don't know what's
happened. This is just one instance, sir, but there are
a number of other instances which I haven't given in my
statement. It happens all the time and generally we
think it's the operator that's causing the problem and
that's what the Post Office keep telling us, it's
operator error, not necessarily it's a software error,
and this is clearly a software error, sir. And also,
can I just say, when I have been training other offices
they have been telling me a similar story, sir.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Latif, just hold on a second, please.
You gave the name of your area manager and the
transcript didn't pick it up. Can you just tell me what
they were called please.
A. Sorry?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: The name of your area manager.
A. Mr N-A-V-J-O-T, J-A-N-D-O.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Thank you very much.
A. Correct, sir.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Now, all of the rest of your answer has
gone onto the transcript so you can take that that's in
the record. Can you now just concentrate on Mr Draper's
specific questions please.
Mr Draper.
MR DRAPER: Yes.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Just to confirm your previous answer, you said that you
would have complained, or words to that effect, about
the glitch. Do you say that you in fact did phone your
area manager and tell him that you had suffered a £2,000
loss as a result of a glitch as you have just described?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Why is none of that recorded in your witness statement?
A. I didn't think it was relevant. I talk to the area
manager about a lot of things, so, you know ...
Q. Do you accept that you did not, however, phone the
helpline to say that you had suffered a £2,000 loss as
a result of a glitch?
A. There would have been definitely a call to the helpline.
I'm not sure why it is not showing up there, but it
should have been logged all through helpline as well.
As you can see, we quite regularly make calls to the
helpline.
Q. I'm going to now take you quickly, I hope, through
Post Office's case. Can I ask you to turn to
Ms van den Bogerd's witness statement which is at
{E2/5/23} and paragraphs 90 to 91 of that statement.
Can you read please those two paragraphs just in your
head, no need to read it out loud please.
(Pause).
A. Okay.
Q. Ms van den Bogerd has taken the three months around the
date that you identify. So you say "in around July";
Post Office has looked at June, July and August. She
has taken the transaction and event data for your branch
and based on her review of that data she says there were
no transfers out of £2,000 in June and in July
and August there were transfers of £2,000 but for every
transfer out there was a corresponding transfer in.
That's Ms van den Bogerd's evidence. Do you accept that
that's what the transaction data shows?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Well, first you need to ask him if he
has seen the transaction --
A. But that does not mean they were done properly though,
does it?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Draper, first you have to ask him if
he has seen the transaction data.
MR DRAPER: Have you, Mr Latif, had an opportunity to see
any of the transaction data?
A. Sorry, can you repeat the question please.
Q. Have you looked at any of the transaction data to which
Ms van den Bogerd refers?
A. You mean this document in front of me now?
Q. No, forgive me. This is her witness statement. She
says here what the data shows. But Post Office has also
provided to your solicitors the underlying transaction
data documents that she has looked at. Have you seen
those Excel spreadsheets?
A. I haven't seen the spreadsheet but I did have a call
with my solicitors a few weeks ago.
Q. We don't need to know about that, Mr Latif. But you
haven't seen the spreadsheet is the key point there,
that's right?
A. No, no.
Q. Okay.
A. I have been out of the country since 19 February as
well, sir, so ... I think these transfers are coming in
a little bit late and I have poor internet access where
I am, I'm in the mountains in Kashmir and there is the
small matter of tensions between India and Pakistan
going on as well, so I have very limited access to the
outside world apart from -- predominantly voice calls.
Q. Mr Latif, since when is that that you have been in
Kashmir?
A. I arrived on 19 February, sir.
Q. I'm going to show you the underlying transaction data
for June 2015, Mr Latif, and the suggestion I'm going to
make is that shows no transfers of £2,000 within your
branch. If you are confident that this problem occurred
in July, there's no need to look at June. Would you
like to look at June?
A. Why not?
Q. I'm sorry, Mr Latif, I missed that. What did you say?
A. I said why not -- while we are here, why not?
Q. If the operator could call up please {F/1353.1}.
Mr Latif, I should explain, this is not a document of
a type you will have seen. It's not a report printed
out in your branch. It's an Excel spreadsheet showing
data from Post Office. Do you understand?
A. Okay, I do.
Q. This is the full transaction data and we won't scroll
down but it is an extremely long document so what
I propose to show you is a filtered version that only
shows transfers out and transfers in, okay?
A. Okay.
Q. If the operator could please call up that version. This
spreadsheet has now been filtered using codes that the
claimants are aware of that enable the spreadsheet to
show only transfers out and transfers in.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Is this an agreed document then this
one?
MR DRAPER: No, this was produced shortly before the
cross-examination rather than doing it manually. It
takes a couple of minutes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right, continue. We will need to
address this at the end I think.
MR DRAPER: Mr Latif, now that this has been filtered, if
you scan your eye down column L there are no transfers
shown for £2,000 on this spreadsheet.
(Pause).
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I'm not really sure where this is going
to get us, Mr Draper, to be honest. It's a bit much to
ask a witness to look at a document that has about --
how many is it, entries?
MR DRAPER: You won't be able to tell by counting, I don't
think.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Quite, that's rather my point. But if
your case is there are no entries on there for £2,000
in June, just put that point to the witness and he might
either agree or disagree.
MR DRAPER: Sure.
Mr Latif, Post Office says there are no entries here
for a transfer of £2,000 in June. Do you accept that?
A. I can understand what you're saying, but I'm confident
there's a glitch in the software, so it's possible it's
missing.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Maybe a different way, a quicker way of
getting to the same point, or a broadly quicker
way: Mr Latif, on this document for June it shows
various transfers for different amounts.
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Can you remember roughly how often you
would have to fill up or replenish the combi-counter
cash till with money from stock unit AA?
A. Quite regularly, sir.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I beg your pardon?
A. Quite regularly, sir.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Quite regularly.
A. At least every other day.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right. Back to you, Mr Draper.
MR DRAPER: The next point, Mr Latif, that Ms van den Bogerd
makes is that she has checked the transaction data
for July 2015 and there were two transfers of £2,000
between stock unit AA and stock unit SP1, but both of
those were successful.
A. How do you determine successful, sir?
Q. Maybe I can show you the spreadsheet. It is at
{F/1365.1}. This again is the raw data but if the
operator can filter it to just show transfers out and
transfers in. Mr Latif, can you see that? The first
transfer out Post Office says is at row 18352. Do you
see that? Maybe if the operator could highlight the
four entries starting at 18351 and going down to 18359.
What Post Office says this data shows, Mr Latif, is
a successful transfer of £2,000 from stock unit AA to
stock unit SP1 and Post Office says that transfer out
was performed by Christine Barnett. You see her
user ID. And the transfer in was performed by
Christine Fensome, we see her user ID. Do you see that,
Mr Latif?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The next transfer --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Hold on, before you -- are you moving
off this page?
MR DRAPER: To lower down on the page.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: But on these four can you just identify
for the transcript, because I think it will be useful,
what line shows what happening at what time, out of or
into of what unit? Because they are grouped together in
a way which seems to me to be a bit confusing.
MR DRAPER: Yes. Post Office contends that the transfer out
is shown at row 18352 as being performed by
Christine Barnett out of stock unit AA, the time is
given.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Can you tell me what it is please.
MR DRAPER: 13.52.22. And that is for £2,000.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: And the date?
MR DRAPER: 21/07/2015.
Then the transfer in is at row 18359. It is
performed by Christine Fensome. It is on stock
unit SP1, it has the same date, 21 July 2015, it is
timed at 13.55.01 and it is also for £2,000.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: And that's into SP1?
MR DRAPER: It is.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: And then the other one?
MR DRAPER: The next transfer starts at row 25988.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: No, no, sorry, there are four together
there, aren't there?
MR DRAPER: There are four entries. This is probably
a point I should explain to Mr Latif.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Just deal with this first and give me
the entries and then deal with it --
MR DRAPER: Yes. My Lord, the two I have given you --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: You have given me 18352 and 18359.
MR DRAPER: Yes. Those are the transfer out and the
transfer in. They are surrounded on this spreadsheet by
two other records. They are not transfers. They
correspond to the value of the transfer but they are not
actually transfers. They perform a back office
reconciliation function that wouldn't be visible to
a subpostmaster. If Mr Latif had called up records in
his branch he would have seen the two transactions to
which I have referred you, he wouldn't see the
effectively inverse transaction that are only visible in
the back office systems.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I see. All right and then go to the
next one.
MR DRAPER: The next one, Mr Latif, starts at row 25988. Do
you see that's a transaction performed by another one of
your assistants? Can you recall the name of that
assistant? I don't have the paper in front of me,
Mr Latif. Is that Mr Deacock?
A. Yes.
Q. So we see there --
A. Yes, he is an employee of mine.
Q. 25988, Mr Deacock on stock unit SP1, on 29 July 2015, at
11.49.19 performs a transfer out of the value of £2,000.
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And then if we go a couple of rows lower than that, at
25990 on here we see MLA001. Who is that, Mr Latif?
A. Pardon, LAA001?
Q. Yes, user IDMLA001.
A. That is Mohammad Latif, my brother.
Q. Am I right to say that he wasn't shown on the assistant
document that we saw?
A. He is a holiday relief and he was -- he should have been
on there. I can't remember ...
Q. Did you register him as an assistant with Post Office?
A. He has been registered with the Post Office, sir.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: If you can just finish your exercise.
MR DRAPER: Yes. So that's your brother then,
Mohammad Latif --
A. Yes.
Q. -- performing, Post Office says, a transfer in at 25990
on stock unit AA on the same date, 29 July 2015, at
11.50.30, about a minute after the transfer out, so
Post Office says this was a second successful transfer
between the two stock units in July but in the opposite
direction. Do you follow that?
A. Yes.
Q. On the basis of that, Mr Latif, Post Office says that
in July 2015 there were two transfers of £2,000 between
the stock units you identify, one in one direction and
one in the other, but that both of them succeeded
because there was both a transfer out and a transfer in?
A. Well, what's your definition of "succeeded"? What's the
cash figure? I mean I'm not sure I follow you, because
you're saying if you transfer in and transfer out, that
it works? That's not necessarily the case. The case it
works is where your cash declaration says that it has
worked. That's how you confirm that it worked.
Q. Mr Latif, I'm just dealing with your evidence. Your
evidence is that you performed a transfer out but then
the transfer in was not available on the second stock
unit to accept. I have just shown you documents that
Post Office will say that there was not such a transfer,
there was not a transfer for which there was
a transfer out but no transfer in. Do you follow that?
A. I follow that, but I'm still saying that there's
a glitch. We transfer stuff all the time and yes, most
of the time it works, but there are times when it didn't
work and that's what I'm saying.
Q. Ms van den Bogerd then says in her statement that she
has looked at the data for August 2015 and there were in
fact four transfers of £2,000 between the stock units
but those too were all successful, there was in every
case a corresponding transfer in for each transfer out.
Do you follow that?
A. I do.
Q. Do you accept that that is what the data would show, or
would you like me to take you through the data?
A. No, no, I accept.
Q. On the basis of that, Mr Latif, Post Office says there
was no failed transfer such as that described in your
witness statement and that you are simply wrong about
that, it never happened.
A. So you are calling me a liar?
Q. Mr Latif, you may be mistaken or you may be lying.
I put the question that it didn't happen.
A. Well, I state that they did.
Q. Notwithstanding, Mr Latif, that it is not shown on the
transaction records, do you say that those transaction
records are then wrong?
A. I believe so.
Q. Thank you.
I'm now going to move on, Mr Latif, to ask you about
the transaction correction issue in January 2018.
I have been asked to confirm with you that
the heading in your witness statement is a typographical
error and you meant to refer to transaction
acknowledgements, is that right?
A. Yes, TC, transaction acknowledgments.
Q. Sorry, I heard that as TC transaction acknowledgment.
Did you mean to say TA, transaction acknowledgment?
A. TA is transaction acknowledgment and TC is transaction
corrections, so it is two different things, sir.
Q. Yes. In paragraph 9 of your statement, if you could
look at that, that's {E1/1/2}, you say:
"... Camelot sent information to Horizon in relation
to scratchcards. Camelot sent this information to
Horizon twice."
A. Yes, sir.
Q. First question about that: by amendment to your
statement you now say that this was in
around January 2018 rather than March 2018.
A. Correct.
Q. What caused you to make that correction?
A. I had a look at the -- we hold the records for the
information in the office, so I had my assistants look
at the records, transaction logs and that's when
I confirmed that it was January rather than March.
(Inaudible) was logs in March as well. We made calls
effectively every month to Horizon help desk concerning
this issue.
Q. When do you say you asked your assistants to check about
the date?
A. Yes.
Q. Sorry, when do you say that happened?
A. It was after I made the initial statement, I was
checking.
Q. Roughly when, Mr Latif?
A. It would have been a few weeks ago, sir.
Q. So is it right that you didn't check those records from
the branch before making your witness statement?
A. No, I thought I was correct but I double checked and
made sure that actually in fact they were correct, those
(inaudible), so I was right but initial incident
happened in January when TA (inaudible) transaction
acknowledgement, the TC, the corrections, they came
in March.
Q. Okay. So you say, do you, that the TCs in relation to
these transaction acknowledgements came in March 2018?
A. Yes.
Q. And you say that's something you have checked from your
records?
A. Yes.
Q. Looking at paragraph 9, why is that put in such vague
terms, Mr Latif? What information are you talking about
in that paragraph?
A. Which paragraph, sir?
Q. Paragraph 9, starting "In or around January ..."?
A. Yes, the way the system works with Camelot and
Post Office is they have a contract with Camelot, is
that the Camelot machine predominantly is based on the
retail side of the business, so it's -- retail business
is the shop side. So, for example, a customer comes in,
does a transaction, buys the scratchcard or the lottery
ticket from us, that data is transmitted back to branch,
to the Post Office, the following morning. So say on
a Tuesday we perform transactions, on the Wednesday
morning a TA, which is a transaction acknowledgment,
will go to a branch, okay? So the money that was taken
in the retailer side is then accounted for in the
Post Office's system on our tills, so we have to put our
money in to the Post Office till and that's done
throughout the country at every Post Office that has
a Camelot machine installed at the branch.
Q. So in paragraph 9 what you are referring to is
a transaction acknowledgment sent to your branch by
Post Office --
A. Yes.
Q. -- relating to Camelot scratchcards, is that right?
A. Yes. I believe they made the mistake and sent out the
information twice to every branch up and down the
country and that's what we were told by the help desk.
Q. When do you say the help desk told you that, Mr Latif?
A. When we learned in January -- when we got two lots of
certain TAs.
Q. So you say you phoned immediately when you received two
sets of TAs, is that right?
A. Yes, sir. We automatically have to accept the TAs. You
can't not accept them. As soon as you log on in the
morning, the TAs are there.
Q. So do you say you phoned Post Office and said "You have
mistakenly sent me two transaction acknowledgements
rather than one"?
A. Yes.
Q. And they nonetheless told you to accept them, is that
your evidence?
A. No, sir, you have no choice but to accept them. If you
do not accept them you cannot continue to serve in your
branch during the day. You have to accept them.
There's no way round it.
Q. Mr Latif, why don't you mention this important telephone
call in your witness statement?
A. Well, we will make -- I can see we made lots of calls to
the helpline, so, I mean it was -- we also had a message
come through from Post Office saying that there was an
error, there was a glitch, the transaction was put
through twice, was sent twice to the branches and "We
are going to resolve it". The Post Office were aware of
it.
Q. What form do you say that notice took, Mr Latif?
A. I believe it was a memo view, which is an internal
communications system that the Post Office uses to
communicate to branches and it pops up on your screen on
the Horizon channel.
Q. And you say that this notice told you that Camelot had
made a mistake, is that right?
A. That's right, sir. No, it said there was a -- the
information was duplicated, so it was sent twice.
Q. And you were told that was Camelot's mistake, you say?
A. Well, they said it was a mistake. They are working with
Camelot to resolve the issue. Whose fault it is, I'm
not sure.
Q. Mr Latif, have you provided any notice that Post Office
sent you referring to a mistake involving Camelot that
you refer to in paragraph 10 of your witness statement?
A. I haven't, but that's quite easily accessible to
everybody. It's not a -- it's commonly available to the
Post Office.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Latif, is that different from the
item you have just referred to that pops up on the
screen, or is it just a different word to describe the
same thing?
A. Well, it's the same, it's called a memo view, sir,
my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: It's called a what, sorry?
A. It's called a memo view.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Memo view.
A. M-E-M-O, V-I-E-W.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: So is your paragraph 10 talking about
the memo view, or is it talking about something
different?
A. That's it, that's what I'm talking about.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: That's what you are talking about.
A. Paragraph 10, yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right, back to you, Mr Draper.
MR DRAPER: Mr Latif, do you accept you might be
misremembering the things you describe in paragraphs 9
and 10?
A. No, a notice is a memo view, sir, that's the
communication we have with the Post Office.
Q. Do you say --
A. It's a one-way system -- it's a one-way system, sir, how
I explained. So if the people at Post Office want to
communicate to us something very quickly, that's the
system they use. So it's messages about procedural
changes, or anything that's about to expire, the
memo view comes to our screen and that happens
automatically and that goes to every branch up and down
the country, all the time.
Q. Do you say that you personally processed the transaction
acknowledgements to which you refer in paragraph 9?
A. The transaction acknowledgements would have been done by
Christine Barnett. It's done when you first log -- when
the first person logs in on stock unit AA the
transaction screen pops up. The transaction
acknowledgment, the TA pops up. That happens almost
every day except for Sunday.
Q. But you say you personally received the notice that you
refer to in paragraph 10?
A. The branch received the notice, sir, so whoever logs in,
the first person to log in among the staff, or one of my
colleagues, the notice will come in.
Q. Was that you or one of your staff?
A. I believe it may have been Christine -- it was
Christine, Christine Barnett.
Q. So is it right to say that everything in paragraphs 9
and 10 are things that have been told to you by
Ms Barnett?
A. The memo view, sir, will come to us as well, it will
come to me as well, sir. As soon as I log on I will get
the memo view as well. So ...
Q. I don't think that quite answered the question. Were
you told these things by Ms Barnett, or do you say you
personally saw them?
A. Well, my statement says information sent to Horizon, it
does not say sent to me or Christine, sir.
Q. I understand that. I'm asking which it is?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Draper, I think you are
misunderstanding his evidence. His evidence is that it
pops up when each person logs in. Now, on the basis
that he's got a separate login -- if you want to suggest
an alternative method that the information is
communicated, you should pursue that.
MR DRAPER: Forgive me.
Mr Latif, is your evidence that even after
a transaction acknowledgment has been accepted, it still
pops up on someone else's screen when they log in?
A. No.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: No, you were asking him about the
notice, Mr Draper.
MR DRAPER: I was asking him about both, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Well, if you were, you were putting it
together in one question. Would you like to -- you
actually said "Were you told these things by Ms Barnett"
and by "these things" you were talking about
paragraph 10. Now, paragraph 10 includes the
notice/memo view. So if you would just like to pursue
it so that it is clear please so that you are not
talking about one thing and he is asking questions about
another.
MR DRAPER: Understood. I will put the question exactly as
I put it before, my Lord.
Is it right to say that everything in paragraphs 9
and 10 are things that Ms Barnett told you?
A. No.
Q. So which bits of that evidence do you say are from your
own personal knowledge?
A. Well, sir, every branch for the last 17 years I have
been working with the Post Office gets a TA from Camelot
if they are a Camelot authorised branch, so that's
standard procedure within the Post Office. I don't
understand your labouring this point. It happens every
day at every branch, to whoever logs in first gets the
transaction acknowledgment to account for yesterday's
takings that the Camelot machine has performed. Okay?
The notice that I'm referring to as a memo view, every
operator gets that memo view, irrespective. As soon as
they log in, that memo view comes up automatically. So
that's the notice that I'm referring to in section 10,
sir. Have I made myself clear?
Q. No, Mr Latif, you haven't answered the question. It is
a really small question. It is not about how TAs work
or how memo view works. Are you saying that you
personally processed the transaction acknowledgment and
that you personally received the memo view message, or
are you saying that these are things Ms Barnett told
you?
A. What I'm saying to you is that I performed the
transaction, but Mrs Barnett will discuss it with me as
well that it comes up twice. So that statement is true.
You know, as soon as you log on it comes up
automatically, the TA comes up automatically, whoever
the first person to log on is, so we would -- you know,
we communicate with each other in the branch all the
time.
Q. Mr Latif, paragraph 11 {E1/1/2} you say that
a transaction correction was later received and that you
accepted it, is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You said a few minutes ago that that was in March 2018,
is that right?
A. The transaction correction, again you have to accept,
sir. And yes, that's correct.
Q. You say in paragraph 11 that the TC didn't change the
stock figure of scratchcards but Horizon showed an extra
£1,000 of scratchcards in stock.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You then say that means the transaction correction did
not work. Can you explain what you mean by that phrase
"did not work"?
A. The transaction correction corrects -- was meant to
correct the stock that was wrongly assigned to us where
it was duplicated, so it should have reduced it down to
minus 50, so £500 worth of scratchcards rather than
£1,000 worth of scratchcards.
Q. Just to be clear, what you mean by "did not work" is
that it didn't resolve the problem in your branch. You
don't mean that there was something faulty at
a technical level with the transaction correction, you
mean that it worked technically but that it didn't
resolve the problem, is that right?
A. Well, it's the same thing, sir. If it didn't work, it
didn't -- it didn't do what's it's supposed to do, which
is to correct our stock figure. It didn't correct the
stock figure.
Q. I don't follow, Mr Latif. It did change the Horizon
stock level, didn't it?
A. What do you mean, sir?
Q. The figure on Horizon for what the stock level should be
changed when you put through the transaction correction,
didn't it?
A. No, as I say, my statement says that the correction was
£1,000, but it didn't work. The TC should have reduced
the stock, but it didn't. The TA added it twice, the TC
should have taken it away. The TC did not take it away.
Sometimes the TCs take them away, sometimes they add
them. You either get a credit, or you get an invoice.
So the TCs work in two separate ways.
Q. Okay, maybe it is unhelpful to focus on the word
"worked", but what you say is that the Horizon figure
for scratchcards went up by 1,000 but of course the
physical number didn't change. That's the point you're
making?
A. I think I may need to explain how that works. I think
you are getting confused. Can I just explain how
scratchcards work, your Honour?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Well, I think I understand how they
work. I'm pretty sure Mr Draper does, but maybe
Mr Draper will just in summary form put it to you so
that you can agree it or disagree it.
Mr Draper.
MR DRAPER: It may be the best thing to do, Mr Latif, is to
get a short statement on this from a Post Office
witness.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: No, I don't think so.
MR DRAPER: Sorry, I mean to go to the statement and we can
agree the text.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: By all means if you have got one, yes.
MR DRAPER: If you can turn please to Ms van den Bogerd's
witness statement at {E2/5/8} and at paragraph 25 -- do
you see that, Mr Latif? Can you read paragraph 25 to
yourself please just in your head.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: That's about the PING fix, isn't it?
A. Okay.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: We were on transaction corrections.
MR DRAPER: I believe he wanted me to take him through how
one gets a TC for scratchcards and to what it relates.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I don't believe he did, but we will let
him read that and then you can put your question.
Mr Draper, you're going to have to pay attention to
what his answers are. This is incredibly slow going.
How much longer are you going to be with the witness?
MR DRAPER: I would say about 15 to 20 minutes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right.
(Pause).
MR DRAPER: Then, Mr Latif, over the page {E2/5/9} --
A. Okay.
Q. -- Ms Van den Bogerd at 26.6 is referring to the process
you described earlier, that scratchcards are first
activated on the lottery terminal and then at 26.7, if
you could read that to yourself, she describes the
process for TAs and I'm just putting this to you because
I think we agree about that process, so if you could
read 26.7 to yourself please.
(Pause).
Are you there yet, Mr Latif, the end of
paragraph 26.7?
A. I am.
Q. What she says there is right, isn't it?
A. She does.
Q. Can I ask you to then go forward to paragraph 98, which
is at {E2/5/24}. What Ms van den Bogerd says there is
that the problem in your branch started -- I'm
summarising, but the problem in your branch started when
your branch received two TAs on 18 January 2018 and she
says that they were mistakenly negative in value when
they should have been positive. Do you follow that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you accept --
A. Positive has corrected a negative (inaudible) is what we
have to put the money into the Post Office till.
Q. Precisely. And she is explaining that was Post Office's
mistake when it made the TA. Someone put a minus when
they shouldn't have. Do you follow?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And she says that's what started this problem in your
branch. Do you accept that?
A. I do.
Q. The mistake in the transaction acknowledgment would have
been apparent and obvious from looking at the
transaction acknowledgment itself, wouldn't it?
A. I don't follow.
Q. Well, if the transaction acknowledgment was negative
rather than positive you would see that --
A. Yes.
Q. -- when you looked at it?
A. We would look into our stock figure and yes, our stock
figure would be negative, so in this case the £10
scratchcard, which is what that TA refers to, it would
have been negative.
Q. Yes. I think you're saying after the TA you had
a negative balance of scratchcards on Horizon, is that
right?
A. Correct.
Q. But that happened, Mr Latif, because the TA was negative
and I'm suggesting that that would be obvious from
looking at the TA. Do you follow?
A. Well, yes, because we -- it was done twice. It would
have been obvious, yes, it would be a negative figure,
but what you're saying about -- what Mrs Van den Bogerd
is saying is that the transaction was done twice, the TA
was done twice in error. So our stockholding would gone
negative.
Q. We agree that point, Mr Latif. Your stockholding for
scratchcards went negative. It did that because of the
negative TA. That's common ground.
A. Yes.
Q. Ms van den Bogerd is not saying that there was a mistake
made duplicating a transaction acknowledgment, she is
just saying it was negative when it should have been
positive and I think you have agreed that?
A. Yes, I do. When we (inaudible) like that to the shop,
it is activated on a lottery machine, that's a message
that goes back that means we have to pay for that
scratchcard to the Post Office. Okay? And that got
negative, so when we do the TA we then have to send that
scratchcard to the system to make it positive, manually.
We put the money in at the same time, so the TA was sent
in twice.
Q. Okay. We will disagree on that and I will come back to
the precise mechanism --
A. Well, you can check.
Q. -- in a moment. The point I wanted to make -- and it is
no big criticism, Mr Latif, but the point is you were at
your branch required to check the TAs and Post Office
made a mistake and you missed the mistake; is that fair?
A. How do you say we missed the mistake? Because memo view
said the Post Office will issue a TC, a transaction
correction, to correct their mistake. What I'm saying
is that that TC didn't work. Our stock figure stayed,
where it should have basically gone into the positive,
so rather than being negative it should have gone back
to zero and it did not (inaudible) and that's why the TC
failed.
Q. Can I ask you then to look at paragraph 99 of
Ms van den Bogerd --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Before you do that, Mr Draper, it is now
5 past 1. I don't know if you are paying any attention
to the time, but what's your attention, to plough on
until you have finished, or to take stock, or -- we have
to in some way address the fact this is a time limited
trial.
MR DRAPER: Of course, my Lord. My intention was to see
whether Mr Latif agrees with paragraph 99 because that
then will determine how much more I need to show him.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Well, in terms of timing for your
cross-examination?
MR DRAPER: Oh, forgive me. 15 to 20 minutes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Well, it was 15 to 20 minutes when
I asked you 15 to 20 minutes ago.
MR DRAPER: Well then --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Is your intention --
MR DRAPER: It will have to be, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Is your intention just that we sit here
until you have finished and then we have a break, or we
have a short break for the transcribers now for
ten minutes and then come back?
MR DRAPER: No, my Lord. My intention was to show Mr Latif
paragraph 99 which will then determine how much more
cross-examination is needed on this area and then break.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Right, we will do that then.
MR DRAPER: Mr Latif, can you read to yourself paragraph 99
of Ms van den Bogerd's statement please.
(Pause).
A. Yes, okay.
Q. Do you agree with what she says there about what
happened next?
A. I agree that you cannot roll over with a negative stock
figure, Horizon does not allow you to do that.
Q. Do you agree with the rest of it?
A. I do.
Q. Thank you.
That is an appropriate moment, I think, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Right and you think another 15 to
20 minutes.
MR DRAPER: I do.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Right, Mr Latif, I know you are in
a different time zone. Usually we would have a break
now in the middle of the day. Can you tell me what the
time is there please? What time of day is it?
A. It is just going on 10 past 6, your Honour.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: In the evening, yes?
A. In the evening, yes, your Honour.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Now, are you all right to have a short
break for about 40, 45 minutes and come back, or would
you prefer to keep going now until we finish your
evidence?
A. Your Honour, I would really appreciate your help if we
continue to finish so I can get back.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right. Well, what we're going to do
then is just have a five minute break for the shorthand
writers and then we're going to continue. On the basis
that this gentleman is on the videolink from Pakistan,
Mr Draper, I think that's the best thing to do. So if
I can say we have a break until let's say quarter past
and then we will come back and then Mr Draper is going
to complete your evidence, all right?
A. Thank you.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: So that's about six minutes.
(1.10 pm)
(Short Break)
(1.15 pm)
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Draper.
MR DRAPER: Mr Latif, before the break you agreed with
paragraphs 98 and 99 of Ms van den Bogerd's witness
statement {E2/5/24}.
A. Yes.
Q. I wonder whether you could read to yourself also
paragraph 100 and tell me whether you agree with that
please.
(Pause).
A. Okay, yes.
Q. You agree that, Mr Latif?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Can I ask you then to read paragraph 101, starting at
the bottom of the page and please do indicate when you
would like the page turned.
(Pause).
A. Okay, page please {E2/5/25}.
(Pause).
Q. Have you done with paragraph 101, Mr Latif?
A. I am.
Q. Do you agree with that paragraph as well?
A. I do.
Q. Do you then agree, Mr Latif, with the conclusion that
Ms van den Bogerd draws in paragraph 102? If you read
that to yourself please.
(Pause).
A. Okay.
Q. Do you agree that that's the position, Mr Latif: it was
a confusing situation, but once the data has all been
analysed, Ms van den Bogerd is right about what
happened?
A. Can I just confirm, there was an audit done in September
of this year, an audit by a Post Office trained auditor,
and my stockholding was still showing negative. And
a Jane Lawrence is the auditor and she has -- still
could not resolve this matter, so the problem hasn't
gone away, the problem is still there. And there have
been a number of calls to the helpline to resolve that
negative stock and it hasn't worked. They haven't come
back with a response.
Q. Mr Latif, the evidence of Ms van den Bogerd that you
have just agreed is correct, at least up to
paragraph 101, is that the initial mistake by
Post Office caused the branch to have a negative stock
level, you agree?
A. Yes, correct.
Q. Your branch then carried out a sales reversal that
addressed the stock level but created a cash surplus;
that's right?
A. Correct.
Q. The transaction correction from Post Office then
adjusted the stock level but because of your reversal it
didn't put the branch back how it should have been. Do
you follow that?
A. Yes, okay, go on.
Q. So in effect the transaction correction cancelled out
the mistaken transaction acknowledgment, do you agree
with that?
A. That's what it's supposed to do.
Q. But the problem was that because of the reversal in your
branch, you would need to undo that reversal before the
branch would be back as it should have been? That's
Ms van den Bogerd's evidence.
A. I still state that an independent audit was done by the
Post Office, a Mrs Jane Lawrence, in September 2018 the
stockholding was still negative and as the branch was
handed over to another subpostmaster that is going to be
investigated, it's going to be investigated. If you are
now coming back with this evidence, I still say that
there is a problem somewhere and I don't know what's
happened but we have still got a negative stock figure
within our branch.
Q. Mr Latif, that's inconsistent with the evidence that you
have just agreed is correct about what the transaction
correction did, isn't it?
A. Well, that's what it's supposed to do, but what it did
is a different thing. I mean that's what it is supposed
to do.
Q. Why do you not mention the audit in your witness
statement?
A. Well, I'm just saying that the stock figure is wrong and
the till is wrong, so it's a fact. I mean you should
know, the Post Office should know they did an audit of
this. I have complained, we made a number of calls to
the helpline. We rang Camelot as well to address the
issue and they just haven't got back to us. I told them
we had an audit coming, "You need to do it before the
audit" and if you check the call logs there will be
a number of call logs to the helpline about these
scratchcards. I'm sure you have those.
Q. Mr Latif, what Post Office will submit about this
problem with transaction acknowledgements and
transaction corrections in 2018 is that there were
a series of human errors that led to a problem in your
branch that was quite hard to get to the bottom of, but
that did not involve any computer bug or error in
Horizon. Do you agree?
A. I agree, but the fact remains that an independent audit
happened and the stock we were holding was still
negative, so how do you explain that, sir?
Q. Mr Latif, I'm sorry to go back. It's not entirely clear
from your answer whether you did agree with me or not.
Do you agree that the problem with transaction
acknowledgements and transaction corrections can be
explained by human errors and that there was not a bug
or error in Horizon involved in that problem?
A. The human error is when the Post Office, or Camelot,
PINGed the information to our terminal, duplicated the
information. That's the human error. We then, to
balance the office, had to do a number of transactions
to correct that cock-up, if I may use that word,
my Lord. So, yes, there was a mistake that was made,
but I still stress it was on Post Office's side, or
Camelot who are their partner.
So the fact remains there was an independent audit
happened by your Post Office -- by Post Office's
auditor, her recommendation was that they look into it
as is (inaudible) the strategy is still there. And
there were a number of calls to the helpline pleading
with them to resolve this issue before the audit and
there will be a complete trail of that, sir.
Q. I'm going to leave the transaction correction issue now
and turn to some final points.
At paragraphs 15 and 18 of your witness statement
{E1/1/3}, Mr Latif, you make a number of very general
allegations about Horizon. Do you see those?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I can't meaningfully challenge you on those because
there is no detail for me to engage with, but I just
formally make clear that Post Office does not accept
that what you say there is correct. Do you follow that?
A. Okay, I accept the Post Office explanation, but that's
not my experience. I think you have to accept that as
well please.
Q. Mr Latif, we saw earlier a mistake in your branch. Do
you remember the remming error with the cheque? Do you
recall seeing that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. If we could go back to the call log please at
{F/1829.1}, and if we could go please to row 172.
Mr Latif, this is a record of a call from your branch,
Caddington, on 26 March 2018 and we get that from
column D and the content of the call is shown at
column M and it says there at M:
"Thursday: customer wanted to withdraw £1,000 but
did as a deposit so now £2,000 down."
A. Yes.
Q. So what happened there, Mr Latif, was the assistant
processed on Horizon a deposit for £1,000, that's right?
A. Can I just stop you there. That incident, a customer
came in, distracted the counter clerk, okay, made
comments about her, made her feel uneasy. There were
two buttons next to each other on Horizon, one to the
left, one to the right, so she pressed the wrong button,
okay. We -- instead of withdrawing money we put money
into his account. So rather than taking £1,000 out of
his account, in fact the button hit was the deposit
button, so we put £1,000 into his account. So the
shortfall was £2,000. That same night when we did the
cash declaration, we realised the mistake, we checked
the CCTV and proved that the customer -- in fact the
wrong transaction occurred. I personally contacted the
customer, the customer refunded us the money and that is
the correct procedure followed to make sure that the
money was put back into the system.
Q. Mr Latif, prior to that resolution that you were able to
reach there will have been a £2,000 shortfall within the
branch, wouldn't there?
A. (Inaudible) yes, but before the next balancing period.
Q. If we go --
A. The customer put the money back, sir.
Q. If we can go to row 182 please. We see there a mistake
where someone -- you or one of your assistants -- has
accidently entered a council tax bill for £13 as £130,
so what I would call a miskey error.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So it's fair to say, isn't it, Mr Latif, that there were
errors and mistakes in this your branch of that kind
that could lead to shortfalls?
A. I would say that every branch has shortfalls, sir.
Everybody is human. We all make mistakes, but most
mistakes are corrected. However, with software glitches
you cannot correct those.
Q. One conclusion point, Mr Latif. Do you accept that
everything you complain of in your witness statement can
be explained by human errors, whether Post Office
errors, or errors in your branch, and might not have
involved any bug or error in Horizon?
A. No, no. I would say some errors are human error, but
there is also a bug in the Post Office system and that's
my evidence, sir.
Q. Just one short last point, Mr Latif, just to confirm.
Post Office's position is that you ceased to be the
subpostmaster of the Caddington branch in September of
last year. That's right, isn't it?
A. Correct.
Q. Was it --
A. That's -- the date it happened -- 27 September is when
the audit was.
Q. It doesn't matter, but Post Office records suggest it
was the 26th, but it doesn't matter, Mr Latif.
A. Yes.
Q. Is it therefore a mistake in your witness statement that
you failed to correct when you say in paragraph 1 that
you are currently the subpostmaster?
A. I did discuss that with the -- my solicitor and they
said because the incident happened while I was in charge
it didn't really matter.
Q. Thank you, Mr Latif.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Re-examination?
MR GREEN: My Lord, I'm just going to ask -- because he's
got a four hour drive home I'm going to ask two --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I'm not encouraging any.
MR GREEN: But I need to do some.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I'm not stopping you, but he has been in
the witness box for three hours.
MR GREEN: Precisely. So, my Lord, I was just going to
explain, I'm asking two indicative questions.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Yes.
Re-examination by MR GREEN
MR GREEN: Could you be shown the transcript please at
page 40, line 15. Sorry, Mr Latif, just bear with us
a second. We're just trying to find the transcript --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: You can just read out the question and
answer if you want.
MR GREEN: At page 40, line 15 {Day2/40:15} Mr Draper asked
you:
"Question: If we could call up the call log
please ..."
Which is at 1829.1, which we will look at
in a moment. And then it says:
"Question: ... row 89 and looking over to column D,
that gives a date of 29 June 2015 which is the first
entry on this log for June?"
And you will remember his Lordship spotted that
there were some dates which were out of order. Could
the operator please go to that document 1829.1
{F/1829.1}. And could you please enable editing and
filter by date please, sort by date, sort and filter,
custom sort, sort by created date. "Okay". And please
can you then look at row 95. Can you see that's
actually 22 June?
A. Correct.
Q. And if we go across to the right we can see in rows L
and M the caller is identified as Chris and it says:
"Customer rang as she is trying to complete
an existing reversal on a rem in. She is using the
session ID and it is not accepting and coming up with an
error message 'unable to reserve as remmed as product in
AD'."
Do you have any recollection as at today what that
was about?
A. To be perfectly honest, I don't.
Q. Okay, thank you.
Then could we just use the duplicate of that
spreadsheet please that you had, the unfiltered one.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Whereabouts are we going?
MR GREEN: We're going to be going to row 167, my Lord, in
the original version.
If we can go down to row 167 very kindly and look at
167, that's 25 January 2018.
A. Okay.
Q. Now, Mr Latif, you mentioned there were a number of
calls about the issue.
A. Yes. Yes, sir.
Q. Can we go across to row M first please. Let's pause,
"Description":
"TC received for launch of £10 x 100 scratchcard
games ... only received 50 ... if we accept the TC, will
cause a discrepancy?"
A. Yes.
Q. Can you remember what that was about?
A. That's it, that's the -- the thing we discussed earlier
on.
Q. Can you go to the right to column U please, "Resolution
details", we have only got a certain amount of text in
this box. It says:
"Sent below email to P&BA team:
"Good afternoon, I have received a call from
0561347 ..."
Is that your FAD code?
A. That is my branch, sir, yes, my FAD code.
Q. "... Caddington office, disputing the TC they received
this morning relating to the issue of the £10 game 1100
scratchcards."
I think that should say 100 scratchcards, should it?
A. It should say 100, sir.
Q. Okay, just a miskeying error.
"The TC received says that they should have had ..."
Can you remember what came back?
A. That is the problem: nothing came back from Camelot.
And again we kept chasing them, we kept chasing the
Post Office and nothing came back until September the
audit happened. Thank you, sir.
Q. Thank you very much, Mr Latif.
I don't know whether his Lordship has any questions?
Questions from MR JUSTICE FRASER
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I just have a couple of questions which
will be quite quick.
I think you said the audit was carried out -- was
the lady called Jane Lawrence?
A. She was, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Jane Lawrence. And when the audit
happened in September 2018 was Mr Jando still your line
manager, or was it somebody else?
A. No, Navjot still was just there.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right. Thank you very much for
giving up so much time and being cross-examined on the
videolink and that's now the end of your evidence.
A. Thank you, sir. Thank you, my Lord. Thank you for your
time.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Right. We're going to come back at
quarter past 2. There's going to have to be a somewhat
different approach in terms of timing. We are supposed
to have three possibly four witnesses today. I don't
think -- if the other witnesses take as long as that
witness we're just going to massively run out of time.
Also I would have thought things like a notice or
a memo view ought really to be, if they are contentious,
explored in advance. I imagine the Post Office will be
able to produce a list of the memo views that were sent
out in January 2018. I would like that to be done
please. I'm not going to make an order but we will
revisit that on Wednesday morning and if it is going to
be difficult then I can have an explanation then and
I might make an order, but there's no point having
disputes of fact where there are none, because there are
enough genuine disputes of fact in this case it seems to
me.
We will come back at quarter past 2. So who is your
next -- just remind me your next witness?
MR GREEN: It is Mr Tank, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Tank and then after that if we reach
them it is one of the --
MR GREEN: Anup Patny.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Which is Mr Patny senior.
All right, so quarter past 2.
(1.40 pm)
(The luncheon adjournment)
(2.15 pm)
MR GREEN: My Lord, I'm going to call Mr Tank, if I may.
MR JAYESH TANK (affirmed)
Examination-in-chief by MR GREEN
MR GREEN: Mr Tank, there should be a witness bundle there
in front of you.
A. Yes.
Q. If you turn to tab 6 please {E1/6/1} you should see
a witness statement there with your name on it.
A. That's right.
Q. And if you go to page 3 of that witness statement
there's a signature {E1/6/3}. Is that your signature?
A. It is.
Q. And do you believe the contents of that statement to be
true, subject to what you have dealt with in your
subsequent one?
A. Absolutely.
Q. Can we look please at your supplemental statement which
is tab 11 {E1/11/1}.
A. Yes.
Q. If we go over to page 2 {E1/11/2}, you deal there with
having read Ms van den Bogerd's second witness statement
and enquiries that you then followed up in the light of
that?
A. Yes.
Q. And you have then dealt with the £195.04 issue she
referred to in 2011?
A. Yes.
Q. And then you have dealt with the £600 issue and you have
said there it was in 2014.
A. Yes.
Q. You have originally said that was 2011.
A. Correct.
Q. Subject to those matters do you believe these statements
together to be true?
A. I do.
Q. I'm most grateful.
Cross-examination by MR HENDERSON
MR HENDERSON: Mr Tank, good afternoon.
A. Good afternoon.
Q. Hopefully you can see the screen to your right which has
the documents on it. Is that clear enough for you
there?
A. Yes.
Q. Great. Can you first of all just tell us a little bit
about the nature of the branch where you were the
subpostmaster.
A. Of course, we were a two-counter rural post office. We
offered almost the entire suite of Post Office products
and services, everything apart from the AEI, identity
checking machine. I considered it to be a busy branch.
It was a high turnover, lots of cash coming in, lots of
cash going out, a full range of transactions as well.
Q. And is it a retail premises as well?
A. It was -- we had a small retail premises attached to the
post office and that sold gifts, cards, stationary.
Q. And there are two counters, you said?
A. Yes.
Q. And so how many assistants did you have?
A. Over the course of ...
Q. Generally?
A. Generally it would just be myself, my wife and possibly
one other member of staff.
Q. Right. Now, you have given two witness statements, as
you have just been taken to, and you have dealt with
three events. There is a power cut which you say led to
a loss of £600?
A. Yes.
Q. A shortfall of £195.04?
A. Yes.
Q. And you have some observations about label transactions?
A. Yes.
Q. So I want to deal with each of those in turn.
A. Okay.
Q. First of all, in your second witness statement which you
provided a few weeks ago you tell us that when you saw
Ms van den Bogerd's evidence responding to your first
statement you thought you would have a look at the forum
group that you used to use?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you call that the list?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that something that's notorious amongst
subpostmasters?
A. I wouldn't call it notorious.
Q. Well-known?
A. Well-known, yes.
Q. Can you tell me, can you tell us, tell his Lordship,
a little bit about what that forum was used for?
A. The forum, it was just a space where subpostmasters
could share information, knowledge, advice.
Q. If the operator could go to {F/1257.1}. This I think is
the extracts of the forum that you attached to your
second witness statement?
A. Yes.
Q. And if we could just scroll through that -- I will come
back to some individual entries, but just scroll through
that. We can see -- actually just before we scroll
through, I assume your username is jaytank23, is that
right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And if we just page down -- I will come back to that
particular entry, but if we just page down just to get
a feel for the sort of thing that's being said, so
people come on and they say "I've got a bit of a problem
can you help" and other people chip in and say "The same
thing happened to me" and so forth?
A. Correct.
Q. How often did you personally post things on the forum do
you think?
A. Not very often.
Q. Would you generally post whenever you had a problem?
A. No.
Q. Some of the time when you had a problem?
A. Some of the time, yes.
Q. How often did you look at it?
A. Every day.
Q. Every day.
A. Yes.
Q. So you were well aware that this was something which was
relevant to the nature of issues being faced by
postmasters?
A. Yes.
Q. And when you prepared your first witness statement you
obviously knew this resource existed, didn't you?
A. I did.
Q. And it is plain that it is relevant to your evidence,
isn't it?
A. It is.
Q. Why didn't you think to look for this material when you
were preparing your first witness statement?
A. Because my first witness statement was I think short,
brief, and it was just my way of -- I didn't really
fully research the whole background regarding it, I just
put my statement in.
Q. Can I just press you a little bit on that. You
understand that what's being said in this case, by you
amongst many others, is that you carried out certain
very specific actions which you did correctly and that
the Post Office is at fault, or the Horizon system is at
fault?
A. Yes.
Q. So it is important, isn't it, to have been precise in
the evidence that you give?
A. Yes.
Q. And I'm just wondering why you didn't make some effort
to find what was plainly a relevant document in putting
forward what you agree to be the need for precise
evidence?
A. Because I didn't -- I didn't feel that my information in
my initial witness statement was going to be taken any
further, so I -- it wasn't as important as it now has
become.
Q. Were you asked to look for relevant documents?
A. Yes.
Q. And what effort did you make to find them?
A. I kept all my Post Office sort of related paperwork in
a box file and that's -- when I was asked to look for
evidence I went strictly to that box file and that's
where I sourced all my information from.
Q. Can we look at your second witness statement {E1/11/2}
in paragraph 6. Your evidence there is you hadn't
looked at this previously:
"... as I did not think I would be able to access
the forum group and it did not seem relevant."
Can you just explain how on earth you could conclude
that it wouldn't seem relevant?
A. Sorry, can you ask the question again.
Q. How did you reach the conclusion that the forum posts
would not be relevant?
A. I didn't reach that conclusion.
Q. Well, you say in paragraph 6, Mr Tank:
"... I did not think I would be able to access the
forum group and it did not seem relevant."
I'm just wondering how you reached that conclusion?
A. Because when I made my first initial witness statement
I wasn't aware of £195.04 loss, that information only
came to light after reading Ms van den Bogerd's
statement.
Q. But you were putting forward evidence, Mr Tank, about
various matters including a number of matters that you
now say you got the date wrong in relation to?
A. I wasn't aware that my first initial witness statement
was evidence. I thought it was just a witness
statement. I thought ... yes, that's what I thought.
I didn't think it was --
Q. Is your evidence that you didn't take care over the
preparation of your first witness statement?
A. I did.
Q. But not much?
A. It was very general. My original witness statement --
I was just trying to get the point across -- because
I was referring back to my memory as well, I couldn't
realise the importance of what was important as -- it is
only subsequently after finding the information and
having -- being able to go back into -- it was only
a few weeks ago that I managed to get back into the
forum. I left my post office in 2016, so I stopped
visiting the forum.
Q. Right. Ms van den Bogerd's statement is dated
16 November 2018. You can take that from me. We can
look at it, but take that from me. And your second
statement that you have just referred to is dated
27 February 2019, so just over three months later, after
Ms van den Bogerd's statement. When did you first think
to look at the forum?
A. It would have been a matter of weeks ago. I can get
more specific if I go into my email history.
Q. All right, well, let's turn now to the power cut.
I would like to ask you some questions about the power
cut.
A. Okay.
Q. And there's some confusion about this, at least on my
part which may be my fault, but let me go through it in
the way that I understand it.
Could we first of all have a look at your first
witness statement at {E1/6/3} and we can see there that
that was signed on 28 September 2018 and on the first
page, page 1 of that {E1/6/1}, you say the information
is true to the best of your knowledge and belief and in
paragraph 6, which is on the second page {E1/6/2}, you
give evidence that a power cut occurred and that while
you could not recall the specific date, it "definitely
occurred in or around 2010-2011". Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, why were you able to say that it definitely
occurred in those dates?
A. Because when I went to the box file that I mentioned
earlier there would have been a handwritten note
somewhere in amongst that that would refer to that
incident and that's what led me to believe that that was
the particular date.
Q. You now say -- and we're only talking about the £600
here, all right? The incident relating to the £600.
Do you agree?
A. I think so, yes.
Q. You now say that that event that you describe in your
first witness statement did not in fact take place in
2010 to 2011, but actually took place three or four
years later on 16 September 2014. That's your evidence
I think?
A. I -- yes.
Q. Can you just assist with how you came to make that
error? It's a big lump of time, isn't it? There's
a big, big difference, a four year difference -- three
or four year difference. How did you come to make that
error?
A. I just must have misjudged it. It was a failing in my
recollection.
Q. Anyway, your evidence, as I understand it -- I'm not
sure that this is right but I want to put it to you
fairly. Your evidence as I understand it is that you
say that that is the only mistake you made in relation
to the alleged loss of £600. In every other respect the
facts set out in your first witness statement you say
are accurate, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. So your evidence is there was a power cut
in September 2014, a complete electrical failure to the
entire building, yes?
A. Yes.
Q. There was a transaction for a withdrawal from
a customer's Post Office card account for exactly £600?
A. Yes.
Q. At the end of the day you had a shortfall of exactly
£600?
A. Yes.
Q. And you rang the help desk and told them about the power
cut but they said there were no problems?
A. Correct.
Q. And your evidence remains that you investigated this at
the time and even tried to contact the customer, but
that she had passed away.
A. Yes.
Q. Presumably within a few days of coming into the branch?
A. Yes.
Q. And, again, whereas before you thought that the customer
had passed away in 2010/2011 --
A. Yes.
Q. -- he or she passed away four years later. Okay, well,
I'm going to come to the detail of that in a moment, but
just one small point before I carry on. One of your
complaints is that you had to look at -- and in fact it
is still on the screen, it's in paragraph 9 {E1/6/2}.
You investigated this event and you complained that you
had to look at a very long report in order to see what
had happened. You say it was 15 to 18 feet long.
A. That's correct.
Q. A couple of points. First of all, you were as a matter
of fact you say able to work out what happened, weren't
you, from looking at this report?
A. No. Because then -- if I was able to look at what
happened then I might have an idea what happened to the
£600.
Q. We will come on to look at that. But you didn't have to
print that, did you, you could have looked at it on the
screen?
A. Yes, but the length of the report and the screen would
mean you would probably have to page down over 100
times.
Q. But you could have filtered it in various ways,
couldn't you?
A. I could have filtered it, yes.
Q. The point is that the impression that your evidence
gives is that you had to print out this comically long
document and go through it, but you didn't have to do
that, did you?
A. No.
Q. And you have now been reminded that you went onto the
forum to complain about this, so can we have a look at
the forum entries which prompted your memory. That's
{F/1257.6}. And just while that is being turned up,
I think you will agree -- I think perhaps you have
already agreed and apologies if I'm repeating myself,
but the point of going on to the forum is to try and get
assistance from other subpostmasters presumably?
A. Correct.
Q. And in order to do that I imagine you would generally
give them as much information as possible?
A. Yes.
MR GREEN: Do you mean point 1 at page 6?
MR HENDERSON: I do, yes. I'm very grateful to my learned
friend. It is 1257.1 at page 6 {F/1257.1/6}.
At the top quite helpfully in red we can see your
entries and this is what has prompted your memory about
the correct date, as I understand it?
A. I think so, yes.
Q. And you say:
"I too have had a recent unexplained loss of c.£600
on 16 September. Settled centrally on 17 September."
And so forth. You don't say anywhere on that that
there had been a power cut, do you?
A. No.
Q. And why is that?
A. I just omitted it.
Q. You just referred to an unexplained loss?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, again just to put this in context, if we go to --
we may have to flip backwards and forwards a little bit
so apologies, but the actual shortfall which the
Post Office write to you about is at 1262.1 {F/1262.1}
and that is actually in the amount of £660. Do you
recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. Not 600.
Now if I could ask the operator to go to {F/1257.4}
and if you could enable editing I think that makes it
easier to manipulate.
As far as the Post Office can tell there was no
power cut on that day, all right?
And if the operator could go -- if you go into the
top left-hand box that says A8, if you type in 11676 --
I think you may need to keep the "A" in to tell it that
it is the row. It is at the bottom of the page. Is it
possible to bring it up to the top and if you go to the
right, keeping the tab in that row, row 11676 -- can you
scroll right.
We can see in red there a transaction for £600, do
you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And there's another transaction after it for another
£600?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, Post Office say that if there had been a power cut
at or around this time they would expect it to either
see no activity for a period of time --
A. Yes.
Q. -- or certain repeat events such as two sequential
log ons performed by the same user in a short period of
time, but no log off in-between. In other words, there
are certain indications of where there has been a power
outage. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And when we come on to look at one, the £195.04, we will
see those indications.
A. Okay.
Q. But we don't see those indications here. Do you accept
that?
A. I do.
Q. We could, for your Lordship's note, also -- I don't
suggest we necessarily need to go to it, but we can also
look at a slightly different spreadsheet which is the
events data spreadsheet at {F/1257.5} rows 4171 to 4457
and again one would expect to see evidence of outage
around row 4253. I'm just putting that in the
transcript, my Lord, I don't think we necessarily need
to go to it, it's the same point.
So there's no evidence from Post Office's point of
view of any outage, power cut at this point.
Could we have a look at your amended schedule of
information which is --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Before you do that and you don't need to
take me there, but is there a document similar to that
that does show how a power outage would appear?
MR HENDERSON: Yes, my Lord, and we're coming to it.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right.
MR HENDERSON: Could you look at your amended schedule of
information, {F/1717.1}. Now, you will recall that this
is the document that each of the claimants, including
you, have had to fill in to give a summary of your
claim. Do you recall this?
A. Yes.
Q. And I think you have signed this, haven't you?
A. I think so.
Q. If we look at page 4 in section 2.4 {F/1717.1/4}, it is
the big paragraph in the middle, you say:
"When the branch incurred a shortfall, I didn't
always contact the Helpline as I did not trust the
advice which I received. Sometimes, after a few days,
the shortfall would resolve itself in any case but if it
didn't, I would try to resolve the issue myself by
contacting other post Office representatives. I recall
that on one occasion there was a shortfall of around
£600 which I knew could not be right. There had been
a power failure when we were processing the transaction
which, to my knowledge, did not complete."
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Just for completeness and to be clear, you don't refer,
for perfectly understandable reasons, in this schedule
of information to the £195.04 incident because you were
reminded of that by Ms van den Bogerd's evidence?
A. Yes.
Q. But if we look at page 5, the following page
{F/1717.1/5}, at section 3.1, at the very bottom you are
talking about apparent or alleged shortfalls and in the
bottom paragraph it says:
"I recall that there were also unexplained cash
shortfalls of ... [various numbers] in May 2008 and also
£660 in August 2014."
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, this is part of where I am confused, because your
evidence here is that there are two events. One is
a power cut on a date that you don't specify which led
to a loss of £600 which we saw on page 4, do you
remember?
A. Yes.
Q. And the other is a separate incident in August 2014 for
£660 but again no mention of a power cut. Can you
explain the anomaly?
A. The fact that I didn't mention the power cut?
Q. Well, you do mention a power cut -- I apologise -- if
I'm taking it too quickly, I apologise. Your evidence
now is that there was a power cut in September 2014
which led to a loss of £600.
A. Okay.
Q. Well, if you disagree say so?
A. No, I agree.
Q. Okay. And in this document you refer, as I understand
it, to two separate incidents. One is a power cut on
a date you don't specify, which led to a loss of £600,
and the other is the loss of £660 in August 2014 and I'm
just asking if you can explain what appears to be
a rather strange situation?
A. Just confusion, I would ... I was just confused.
Q. You are confused. So are we to take it that the £660
in August 2014 is caused by the power cut and there's
only one incident that you meant to refer to in this?
A. I couldn't say for sure. As I tried to explain earlier,
in drafting my original witness statement I went back to
my box file and it was filled with various bits of
paper, different sizes, different formats and with
handwritten scribbled notes on and that's where I tried
to piece together the information that I provided in
this.
Q. I'm not trying to trip you up here, Mr Tank, I'm just
trying to understand what your case is. Because you
appear to now be saying that there were two power cuts.
One was in December 2011 and it resulted in the loss you
say of £195.04 and you were reminded of it by
Ms van den Bogerd's statement. Yes? That was one power
cut?
A. Yes.
Q. And we will come on to that in a moment, but Post Office
agrees that that was a power cut.
A. I didn't -- no, it wasn't a power cut. The transaction
was unable to complete on the £195 because if you --
Q. Okay, well, we will come on to that --
A. I put the sequence of events, the fact that three
receipts printed out, so it was a lot more detailed, so
I'm not sure -- I don't think that was a power cut. I'm
not sure if it was a power cut.
Q. You're not sure one way or the other, okay.
A. I'm not sure if it was a power cut, but the transaction
was unable to complete.
Q. Right. What I'm trying to test with you is is it
possible that the evidence that you give in your first
witness statement about the power cut, power outage,
actually is evidence that is relevant to the £195.04
transaction rather than the £600 transaction?
A. It could well be, yes.
Q. Because my understanding -- well, never mind about my
understanding. Is it your suggestion that there have
been two incidents of outage, if I put it like that: one
for £195 and one for £600?
A. That I'm aware of, yes.
Q. Okay. Well, let's look at -- I'm still talking about
the £600 transaction at the moment.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Did you use "outage" there meaning
a power cut, or did you use "outage" as a discrepancy?
MR HENDERSON: I mean a failure -- I mean Horizon going
offline for a moment, as opposed to a power cut to the
whole shop.
So let's look at the transaction. Now, first of
all, it wasn't you -- this is the £600.
A. Yes.
Q. It wasn't you who carried out this transaction, was it?
A. No, it was a member of staff.
Q. Louise I think?
A. Louise Boneham, yes.
Q. So all the evidence you give is based on what Louise
told you?
A. It is, as also with what I viewed over the CCTV.
Q. Okay. You don't mention anything about the CCTV in your
witness statement I don't think.
A. No.
Q. Why was that?
A. Because this -- after viewing the CCTV it wasn't
conclusive. We have seen Louise performing the
transactions on the computer system, receipts going one
way, the banking slip coming the other way, everything
looked in order. When I phoned to investigate the
incident they said from what they could see everything
looked fine: there was a cash withdrawal, there was
a cash deposit.
Q. Well, let's have a look at what might have happened.
First of all, the relevant transaction for £600 was from
a Post Office card account, wasn't it?
A. Correct.
Q. And as I understand it that's quite a basic bank account
offered by the Post Office?
A. Sort of. The card account is a vehicle for people to
receive benefits payments from the Government. The
daily cash withdrawal limit on a Post Office card
account is £600.
Q. Right and it only offers basic withdrawal services,
doesn't it, from a post office counter or
a Bank of Ireland ATM?
A. Yes.
Q. So Post Office card account customers are not able for
example to deposit money into their account?
A. No.
Q. To use a debit card facility, or to transfer funds from
a Post Office card account to another bank institution?
A. Yes.
Q. You agree?
A. I do.
Q. Thank you. So if a Post Office card account customer
needs to transfer money from the POCA account to one of
the Post Office's partner banks, they will typically
within the same customer session undertake the following
transactions: they will complete a cash withdrawal from
POCA and they will deposit the withdrawn money directly
into the other account --
A. Yes.
Q. -- by means perhaps of a debit or deposit card issued by
that bank?
A. Yes.
Q. There wasn't any other way to do it?
A. Well, in this instance it was a little paper paying in
slip, so we take the paper paying in slip off the
customer, input the sort code and account number and
then deposit the cash.
Q. Fine. Let's go back to the ARQ data at 1257.4
{F/1257.4}.
Could we go -- again I'm afraid we will have to
enable editing I think, if we go back to the row
I looked at before. Could we go back to -- again if you
keep the "A" in and you just put 11676. And again if
I could trouble you to the bring it to the top of the
screen I just think it's a bit easier to see. Thank
you. And again if you could go right.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Can we just go left a couple of columns.
MR HENDERSON: Yes. Stop there, that's perfect.
So what we see here is the red figure is the
withdrawal of £600 from the Post Office card account,
yes?
A. Yes.
Q. And then below it, immediately, there is a cash deposit
into a Lloyds Bank?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, it's possible, isn't it, that what actually
happened is that the cash was accidently handed over to
the customer and also registered as being deposited with
Lloyds Bank?
A. It's possible, but, as I have mentioned, I checked the
CCTV and we could see what was going backwards and
forwards across the counter and it was receipts going to
the customer and a paying in slip coming from the
customer.
Q. Well, Mr Tank, you haven't referred to any CCTV in your
witness evidence.
A. I understand.
Q. Which I accept you thought was only provisional but we
take a bit more seriously.
A. Okay.
Q. And as far as I'm aware, you haven't given disclosure of
any CCTV, have you?
A. No.
Q. Okay.
(Pause).
Based on the evidence here, you can't say that what
I have suggested to you, which is that an error was
made, a simple user error was made, you can't say that
didn't occur, can you?
A. I can say that. I can say that there is no cash that
went over the till.
Q. Based on what you tell us you saw on the CCTV?
A. Correct, yes. Obviously I can't evidence that, but ...
Q. I'm just wondering how you can be so confident about
what happened, about this particular transaction when
you couldn't even get the year right to the tune of four
years?
A. I investigated the loss to the best of my ability.
I turned to the Post Office for help. What they told me
on the telephone was everything looked fine, they could
see the transaction, they could see the £600 going out,
they could see the £600 going in.
Q. Exactly.
A. So that's why it is an unexplained loss, because I can't
explain it.
Q. Well, I understand that it is a frustrating loss, but
there's a perfectly simple explanation for it which is
an understandable user error?
A. I agree.
Q. And you nevertheless come into court and say on oath
that you are so confident that you did nothing wrong,
that that didn't happen, because of evidence you have
seen and we haven't.
A. Okay. Fair point.
Q. In a situation where you couldn't, until reminded by
Post Office, recall the date of the transaction to the
tune of four years?
A. But you have to bear in mind I paid that £600 back.
I beared that loss. I never thought that I would
actually get it back. My relationship with Post Office
ended a couple of years ago, so that money was written
off. I wrote that money off myself. I paid that back.
Q. I understand that. But if it was, as I'm suggesting to
you, or if it's possible that it was a user error then
you would have to pay it back, wouldn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, let's turn then to the shortfall which you did
report on 13 December 2011 for £195.04 and just to
recap, this is not one you mentioned in your first
witness statement but you read Ms van den Bogerd's
statement and she, just to remind you, said "I can't see
anything that suggests there was a problem for £600 in
2010/2011, but it does make sense in a relation to
a transaction for £195.04".
A. Yes.
Q. And you tell us in your second witness statement -- and
we can go to it if necessary but I think you have
already agreed -- that before you saw
Ms van den Bogerd's evidence you had no real
recollection of this event at all?
A. No.
Q. So everything that you are basing it on now is really
based on the forum, is it?
A. It is, yes.
Q. Now, this is an example of you, quite understandably,
contacting the helpline about a shortfall of less than
£200?
A. Yes.
Q. And presumably you would routinely report any
discrepancy at that sort of level?
A. No.
Q. Not necessarily?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. I wouldn't say routinely, no.
Q. Okay, let me put the question more precisely, it is my
fault. If you felt that there was an unexplained
shortfall --
A. Yes.
Q. -- for something like £200, I'm suggesting it would be
perfectly understandable and that in the natural course
of things you would contact Post Office?
A. Okay, so if I can just explain about the £195.04.
Obviously I was reminded about that from --
Q. Yes.
A. -- looking at the forum posts, which is in red on the
screen --
Q. Yes, we will come to it.
A. £195 withdrawal and I state, you know, what happens, the
screen says "Cash to customer, balance due zero".
I subsequently then go on to report that I tried to find
that transaction the following day and there was no
record of it. On whatever I could access on my
terminal, I could not find the £195.04. After phoning
the helpline, they were able to find that transaction.
I think they use a system called Credence which we don't
have access to.
Q. I will come on to all that. I'm just exploring at the
moment what your practice was about reporting an
unexplained shortfall and I'm suggesting that when you
have got an unexplained shortfall of £200, quite
understandably you have contacted the helpline.
A. Mm-hm.
Q. And I'm asking you whether that would be your usual
practice, if you had an unexplained discrepancy? You
might have an explained discrepancy, you might know that
something went wrong, you remember "Oh, I messed
something up" or "I know what that's about", but if it
is an unexplained discrepancy I'm suggesting that at
that sort of level you would generally report it,
I imagine?
A. I think it's the other way round. If it was an
explained then I would report it. If it's unexplained
then I'm less likely to report it because it could be
down to human error.
Q. All right, let me put it in a different way then. If
you felt it called for some further explanation then you
would contact the helpline?
A. Yes.
Q. And certainly if it was more than a few pounds you would
do that?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. So let's have a look again at the forum comments
which are {F/1257.1}. This is 13 December 2011:
"Some advice/help required.
"Yesterday during HOL failure ..."
Horizon Online, HOL?
A. Yes.
Q. "... was in process of POCA card withdrawal.
Transaction seemed to go through okay apart from Horizon
printing 3 identical receipts.
"Receipts showed a disconnected session with
recovery code. Receipts also showed."
And you go through total due to customer, blah,
blah, blah:
"Because receipts showed cash due to customer. we
paid out.
"Come evening balancing till showed approx £200.00
loss. Thought at time must be mis-count and will try to
sort in morn.
"This morning produced transaction log for the
period of HOL FAILURE. No record of 195.04 transaction
at all!!!!
"Phoned help-line and was told by very irate member
of staff that loss is mine unless I can sort out with
customer directly ..."
And so forth. Then at the bottom of the page:
"What should be my next course of action???
"Speak to press (is there anything in contract
preventing me doing this?"
Then if we can go down the page:
"Speak to CWU (not member of POLFED anymore)?
"Speak to Shoesmiths?
"Try taking POL to small claims court?
"Any useful suggestions appreciated."
So you were pretty cross about this by the look of
things?
A. Yes. In the one hand I have receipts produced by
Horizon and then the following day when I go to look for
that transaction there was no record of it. It was
very, very frustrating.
Q. I understand.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Can we go back to the previous page
please {F/1257.1}.
MR HENDERSON: So what appears to have happened was
a transaction from Post Office card account was in the
middle of being processed and so it was in the stack
presumably.
A. Yes.
Q. But had not yet been posted to Horizon. So you hadn't
cashed out on that transaction, you hadn't completed
everything to do with that transaction?
A. On the stack --
Q. It's on the stack.
A. It's on the stack, but the stack has a balance of zero,
so to clear the stack you just press "enter" and it goes
straight --
Q. But you hadn't got to the point of clearing the stack?
A. I'm not sure.
Q. Okay. My suggestion is that there was probably an
outage at just the point where the money had been taken
from Post Office card account but had not been processed
onto Horizon. That's my suggestion to you.
A. Okay.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Well, is the witness going to be in
a position to agree or disagree?
MR HENDERSON: Well, he might be if he recalled.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Do you recall that happening when there
were outages?
A. No. I cannot recall.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Were you aware of when outages would
occur like that?
A. Not all the time.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Do you want to put the question again?
MR HENDERSON: Yes. What I'm suggesting is that the cause
of this problem was that an outage occurred at
a particular point in time.
A. Yes.
Q. You were in the process of effecting a transaction from
POCA?
A. Yes.
Q. It was in the stack and it had cleared from POCA?
A. Actually you mentioned the word "outage". I'm not --
was there a power outage?
Q. I'm not sure if it was a power outage, but I think it
may have been a problem with the system.
A. Ah, okay.
Q. The system went down in some way.
A. So -- yes, because you said that if there's a power
outage then there's evidence when you have to log back
in, so did that happen on this occasion?
Q. Okay, I want to come to all this and I'm doing this
clumsily. What I'm suggesting is that what may have
happened -- and if you don't recall, you don't recall,
but what may have happened is that the transaction was
in the stack, the money had been taken from the
Post Office card account and before you cleared the
stack there was an outage.
A. Possibly.
Q. Okay.
Let's look at the events data at {F/869.1}. And if
we enable editing.
That is not the document I was expecting. 871.1.
{F/871.1}. No, I don't want that.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: What are we looking for, the event data?
MR HENDERSON: We are looking at the event data.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Is it 1257.5? That's just a partly
educated guess based on ...
MR GREEN: I think it is F/869.1 but you have to click on
the sheet tab. You were in the summary tab.
MR HENDERSON: Right, I couldn't see that. Thank you very
much.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: It doesn't show up on the common screen,
the tabs at the bottom, you can't see them on the common
screen.
MR HENDERSON: I'm so sorry, back to {F/869.1}. And there
is I think --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I think you have to click on the tab
before you go full screen, so if you go into half screen
you will be able to see the tabs at the bottom. At the
bottom you will see "Sheet 1", click on "Sheet 1" and
now expand it.
MR HENDERSON: Thank you very much.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Is that what we are after?
MR HENDERSON: That is what we are after I believe.
If you go to the top and type A327, what we see here
is that you are logged on at 13.39. Do you see that at
the top there?
A. (Nods).
Q. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay and then there's a message at 13.40 to say
"Session ... could not recover".
A. Yes.
Q. And then there's a gap of 22 minutes and there's
a session receipt at 14.02. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
MR HENDERSON: Now, my Lord, in answer to your Lordship's
earlier question, that is what Post Office would expect
to see when there is an outage.
So then the Horizon system comes back online and at
that point there will be a recovery process, won't
there, various screens that you need to go through?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And if we could have a look at
Ms van den Bogerd's statement at {E2/5/16}, if you look
at paragraph 53 and just read that to yourself.
(Pause).
Have you read that?
A. I'm just getting to the bottom of it.
Q. Sorry.
(Pause).
A. Okay.
Q. Do you agree that that's a fair summary, an accurate
summary?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay, thank you.
When power is restored there is a procedure to be
followed, isn't there?
A. Yes.
Q. And that procedure will result either in a transaction
being cancelled, or recovered?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Let's have a look at the Horizon Online quick
reference guide at {F/1365}. You will see at the top
there:
"Disconnections and screen freezes on Horizon Online
are dealt with differently to Horizon. If either occurs
during a customer session Recovery actions may be
required.
"You need to make sure you do the right thing at the
time the counter becomes unavailable."
If you drop the next session section and it says
"Disconnected session receipt", do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. "The system will then settle the session automatically
and print 3 copies of a disconnected session receipt
before automatically logging you out.
"The copies of the receipt are, 1 for the customer,
1 to be kept with your stock unit, 1 to be kept at the
failed terminal."
Okay?
A. Okay.
Q. And then below it says, again missing out the next
section:
"The system treats transactions as
either: recoverable ... or cancelable ..."
This is a recoverable one, isn't it, because it is
a card transaction?
A. Okay.
Q. We see that from below. Do you see
"recoverable/cancelable products" including debit/credit
card payments, et cetera?
A. Yes.
Q. And then at the end of that:
"These will be recorded on the disconnected session
receipt as completed and must be settled with the
customer."
Okay?
A. Okay.
Q. Then if you look on to the next page {F/1365/2} there's
a flowchart which takes you through that process.
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I think that flowchart is what you do
higher up the page on the first page, isn't it?
MR HENDERSON: Yes, I think that probably is right.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Well, let's go back to the page before
{F/1365/1} just to make sure I follow what charts go
with which. Is that's what referred to as page 2 of the
document under "Disconnected session receipt"?
MR HENDERSON: Yes, I believe so.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: So:
"... a disconnected session receipt will not be
produced if the system freezes or there is a hardware
failure. Page 2 of this document describes what you
should do in this scenario."
And the flowchart is on page 2. Is that right?
MR HENDERSON: I think that must be right, my Lord, but what
Mr Tank says here is he was provided with three
receipts.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Yes.
MR HENDERSON: Then if we go to page 3 of this same document
{F/1365/3}, this is "When online connectivity is
restored". Do you have that, Mr Tank?
A. I do.
Q. "Page 4 of this document provides a simple diagram that
explains the actions you should take when Horizon Online
connectivity is restored the system will carry out
Recovery for customer sessions that were in progress at
the time of failure. When you next login to the
terminal where the failure occurred, the system will
recognise that the last session did not complete
properly and will automatically commence Recovery. You
will see the following message ..."
Then "Recovery receipt":
"You should follow all on-screen instructions. Once
the Recovery process has completed, a Recovery receipt
will be printed automatically."
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I think we are on a different page to
you.
MR HENDERSON: I'm so sorry. Page 3. I just hadn't noticed
the screen. Right, I have just read out the top section
and I'm looking now at the "Recovery receipt" section.
Do you see that, Mr Tank?
A. I do.
Q. "You should follow all on-screen instructions. Once the
Recovery process has completed, a Recovery receipt will
be printed automatically.
"The Recovery Receipt should be attached to the
Disconnected Session receipt stored at the failed
terminal."
Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. So what this procedure tells you is that if you follow
the Horizon procedures properly you get three receipts
for the disconnected session and a recovery receipt,
do you agree?
A. I agree, but I don't actually remember having this
document in my office.
Q. This is online I think.
A. Oh, this is online?
Q. I thought it was online but I might be wrong.
A. It is quick reference guide, it states it is version 5.
The only version I remember having was just a single
piece of A4 -- a double-sided A4 piece of paper. This
suggests that there were four -- two pages. Because you
are on page 3 at the moment. I never had -- I never
had ...
Q. All right. I don't know what you had, candidly, at the
moment.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: We did have some evidence on this in the
common issues trial and a document was produced that was
a single A4 sheet, but it did look different to this.
It had red on rather than blue.
MR HENDERSON: Right. The point is, however, that this
document that I have taken you to sets out the procedure
that needed to be followed. Do you accept that?
A. That document does, yes.
Q. Okay.
A. I never had that document, so I could never refer to it.
Q. But you would have been taken through the screens that
came up on Horizon?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Your evidence -- I think your evidence is that
you gave -- I should have asked this before and
I apologise. Was it you doing this transaction, was it
Louise or another assistant, or do you not recall?
A. I can't recall.
Q. Okay, that's fair.
Your evidence at {E1/6/2}, in paragraph 7, the
penultimate sentence, is:
"A series of receipts were printed which she then
gave to the customer."
Now, the reason I'm pointing to this, Mr Tank, is
this is the evidence you give in relation to the £600.
A. Yes.
Q. But I have suggested to you already, and I think you
have accepted, that it's possible that this evidence in
fact relates to events in 2010/2011 in relation to the
£195.04?
A. Yes.
Q. And it seems that what was done was all of the receipts
were given to the customer?
A. Yes.
Q. Which is not the proper procedure?
A. Which is not the proper procedure, no.
Q. So do you accept that the proper procedure wasn't
followed?
A. Yes.
Q. And then you call the help desk and we see that in
{F/1286.1}. If we enable editing and actually you can
scroll down to row 120 I hope. Can we go across, keep
going across ... I think this is the wrong ... no, I'm
sorry, I have given you the wrong reference. It is the
call log -- this is 1286.1, is it?
MR GREEN: You might be looking for the "Remedy" tab.
MR HENDERSON: I do want the "Remedy" tab and I hadn't
spotted that it hadn't -- I'm so sorry, at the bottom
there the "Remedy" tab, thank you.
If you then go to -- if you just go into the top
left hand and if you delete the 1 and put 120, or you
can scroll down, whichever is easier. Then if we go to
row 120 and if you just stop there.
This is the call made from your branch, Mr Tank,
yes?
A. Yes, the following day.
Q. And it is column I:
"Called this morning about a Horizon failure
yesterday, branch completed a withdrawal and the 195.04
failed recovery receipt ..."
And so forth and so on. And that resulted in a PEAK
being raised, which you wouldn't have known about at the
time, I accept.
A. No.
Q. But let's have a look at it {F/870}. And if you go to
page 2 of that document {F/870/2} in the first yellow
section there -- do you see that? It says date
14 December 2011, do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. "Summary", it says:
"The banking transaction had completed ... including
the receipt print ... and money should have changed
hands.
"The basket settlement failed from 13.35 with 'no
response received from data centre' and then two retries
also failed and the attempt cancelled ...
"The Disconnected Session receipts show 'Cash TO
CUSTOMER 195.04' so the customer's account should be
correct but the branch will have a shortage (for a
withdrawal) because the session hasn't been recorded."
And that's just explaining what had happened.
A. Yes.
Q. And then if we go to {F/871.1}, the transaction
correction is raised.
A. Yes.
Q. So you were refunded this amount of money?
A. I was.
Q. That's not something you mentioned in your witness
statement, is it?
A. No.
Q. Why is that?
A. Because I was referring to the incident in terms of
something that I had no control over that caused a loss
to my office.
Q. But it didn't --
A. The fact that -- it caused a loss. The fact that that
loss was resolved afterwards was not the issue. The
fact that it caused a loss and I had no explanation for
it, that's what I was reporting, that's what my witness
statement was for.
Q. Okay. But having now seen everything that's happened
and looked at the procedure that should have been
followed, do you still maintain that this event shows
that there's something wrong with Horizon?
A. Yes.
Q. It is Horizon working as it is supposed to, isn't it?
Something has gone wrong and a procedure has been
followed --
A. Mm-hm.
Q. -- from the user point of view not quite correctly
because you should have kept some of the receipts, but
nevertheless you have raised it, it has been
investigated and the money has been refunded?
A. Yes.
Q. How is that a fault with Horizon?
A. Because the error shouldn't have happened in the first
place. If -- it seems like -- with the relationship
between postmasters and the Post Office, it's very much
one-sided and we as subpostmasters bear all the risk.
Q. But that's not true for this transaction, is it? You
failed to follow the proper procedure --
A. Okay.
Q. -- maybe for understandable reasons, I don't know.
A. Okay.
Q. You raised a query and a few days later you were
refunded the money. I don't see what the complaint is?
A. If I didn't call in to report, would I still have got
the refund?
Q. I think you would have actually, yes.
A. I wasn't to know. I didn't know there was a PEAK --
Q. But I'm not sure, I don't have the -- okay --
A. I don't know either.
Q. -- we will explore that later this week.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Can you not overspeak one another.
MR HENDERSON: Apologies.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Henderson, do you just want to reput
what you --
MR HENDERSON: I think I completed what I --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Well I didn't get the answer because you
then started speaking.
You were asked, Mr Tank, "You raised a query, you
were refunded the money" and Mr Henderson said he didn't
see what the complaint is and what was your answer to
that please?
A. On the day of the transaction my office showed a loss of
nearly £200. I -- the following day I went to
investigate that loss, I couldn't find any record of it
on my terminal and then that's when I phoned through to
the helpline and reported.
MR HENDERSON: Okay, but the way --
A. What was going on in the background in terms of the PEAK
review or whatever, or -- I don't know if that was
automated, or if my call to the network business support
centre instigated the refund.
Q. The point is that the way Horizon works, it either
records the transaction as having been completed
properly --
A. Yes.
Q. -- or it generates the evidence to demonstrate that
there has been a problem?
A. Yes.
Q. Identifying that particular transaction.
A. Yes.
Q. I want to ask you a few questions about the third area
you deal with, very brief questions, on label
transaction issues.
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you say you experienced some problems with printing
labels --
A. Yes.
Q. -- where you say no label could be printed even though
you were charged for it.
A. Yes.
Q. And again we've got a timing issue here because in your
first witness statement you said that that happened in
2007.
A. Yes.
Q. And Ms van den Bogerd says she could find no evidence of
that at all.
A. Okay.
Q. And now you say in your second witness statement that
you think it was 2011.
A. Yes.
Q. And again can you help with how that error came to be
made?
A. Again, my initial witness statement I was just relying
on my memory and my supplemental witness statement is
when I was able to research it a bit more.
Q. And what was the evidence that you got for your second
witness statement that helped you on this date, because
I'm not sure that I'm aware of any?
A. Again, it was Horizon generated receipts, print-outs,
with hand-written dates and reference numbers on them.
Q. Sorry, where are these documents?
A. With my solicitors.
Q. Oh. I don't think they have made their way over, but
I might be wrong.
Now, there are again processes on Horizon which
cover this type of eventuality, aren't there?
A. No.
Q. Well, Horizon allows you to record a label as rejected,
doesn't it?
A. It does, yes. Usually, usually, but in this particular
scenario it didn't give you that option.
Q. But normally it would prompt you to specify whether or
not the label has been printed correctly, wouldn't it?
A. Yes, this is my point: during this particular issue,
Horizon doesn't perform as it should.
Q. And it is also possible, isn't it, to process
a completely separate transaction for spoiled postage
labels and printing a replacement? Have a look at
{F/1848.6}. This just summarises the procedure that's
in place.
A. "A label can only be spoiled, if the label is on hand."
Q. Ms van den Bogerd's evidence at paragraph 82 of her
witness statement at {E2/5/21} says this process is
available even if the printer had not produced a label
at all. Do you accept that?
A. No, because the previous page showed that you had to
have a label on hand.
Q. So she is wrong about that?
A. Yes. Well, it is contradictory, isn't it?
Q. Well, I accept that that's what that document says, but
the evidence from Post Office is that in fact you could
do that even if the printer had not produced a label at
all?
A. I could do that, but then it would be contrary to the
other instructions.
Q. If you could do it -- my point is a simple one, Mr Tank.
There were procedures built into Horizon to cater for
the situation that you explained -- I have to say in the
vaguest of terms, but as I understand what you are
saying, there were procedures in place which ensured you
could deal with the situation, weren't there?
A. No.
Q. We will have to differ.
Finally, you were investigated for various matters
in 2015, weren't you?
A. Not investigated.
Q. You were interviewed on 5 November 2015, do you recall?
A. I had a performance interview, yes.
Q. And this resulted in a letter from Post Office to you of
15 February 2016. We see that at {F/1431.1}.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Just let me read this quickly.
(Pause).
Actually I will do it on my screen, give me
a second.
MR HENDERSON: If you go to --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Just give me a second, Mr Henderson.
There is a reason. I will explain at the end. Let me
just quickly read it.
(Pause).
Is this a Civil Evidence Act situation? I will tell
you what, just pause there.
Mr Tank, I'm just going to ask you just to pop out
of court for literally two minutes. There is just
something I need to ask counsel.
A. Okay.
(In the absence of the witness)
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I just ask out of caution. In the
common issues trial there were two claimant witnesses
who had to be given the warning against
self-incrimination under the Act because of potential
criminal offences. It was obviously a situation that
was at the forefront of everyone's mind because of the
nature of that trial, so before those questions were put
I knew in advance whether I had to give that warning or
not.
MR HENDERSON: I understand, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Is this one of those situations?
MR HENDERSON: I think it probably would be sensible to do
so.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: It does seem to me based on the four
items listed that the witness is entitled to it.
MR HENDERSON: I think that's probably right.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Any observations, Mr Green?
MR GREEN: My Lord, no, I think it should be given.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Let's have Mr Tank back in. I did have
the form of words with me last time. I don't have it
now but I'm pretty confident that I can do it
effectively; if either of you think I haven't, correct
me.
(In the presence of the witness).
Thank you very much, Mr Tank. Just have a seat.
Just before Mr Henderson asks you some questions, there
is just a formal warning I have to give you in relation
to the right you have not to answer any questions if you
think answering them may incriminate you in respect of
future criminal proceedings.
It is a statutory warning. It was given in two
other cases that you don't have to be concerned with in
the previous trial and it is something standard but
I have to draw it to your attention. So depending on
what questions Mr Henderson is asking you, what the
subject matter of them is, you are entitled to say that
you don't wish to answer the question.
A. Sure.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Is that sufficient?
MR HENDERSON: I'm grateful.
If we go to the second page of that letter
{F/1431.1/2}, do you recall that at that meeting you had
a discussion which is referred to here in the second
paragraph:
"We also discussed the inappropriate official
postage claims conducted at the branch. During the
period 25 August 2015 and 15 September 2015 nine claims
of £100 official postage were undertaken totalling £900.
These claims were subsequently reversed on
23 September 2015. A further claim of £500 was made on
2 October 2015 and subsequently reversed on
27 October 2015.
"As discussed the use of official postage in this
manner is contrary to the instructions contained within
Horizon Online. The 'stamps for official use' icon on
Horizon Online must only be used for postage costs that
are incurred when undertaking official Post Office
Limited business and where no official pre-paid envelope
is available. For full instructions please see Horizon
help back office ..."
And so forth. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall this incident or this --
A. The meeting?
Q. The meeting and what was said?
A. Yes.
Q. And official postage is a function on Horizon that
should only, as we have just seen, be used for postage
costs incurred when undertaking official Post Office
business, that's right, isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. And you have always known that presumably?
A. Yes.
Q. And essentially, as I understand your position, you
considered that you were experiencing certain issues
which were causing you loss --
A. Yes.
Q. -- and you decided to take matters into your own things
and to take official postage, is that right?
A. No, it was just my way of formally recording my dispute.
Communication channels with the Post Office weren't
particularly good. Every time I tried to air any
grievances, I never really found I got anywhere, so this
was my way of complaining.
Q. To help yourself to some official postage?
A. I wasn't helping myself. I wasn't helping myself. No
money actually left the office. Official postage is --
it's a computer function and all it does is allocate
that money under that particular ... so there's no --
I'm not helping myself at all.
Q. Well, if there was another shortage in Horizon, for
example, that would make up for it, wouldn't it? I mean
one way or the other -- one way or another, by claiming
official postage you're doing something you shouldn't do
which improved your financial position?
A. No.
Q. How not, Mr Tank?
A. Improved my financial position?
Q. Yes?
A. How would it improve my financial position? We're
talking about -- it's just a ledger entry.
Q. Just a ledger entry?
A. Yes.
Q. Let's have a look at the transcript of your interview at
{F/1399.1}.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: We need to have a break for the
transcribers.
MR HENDERSON: My Lord, I'm very happy to but I only have
five minutes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right, we will keep going then.
MR HENDERSON: 1399.1, if we go to page 14 {F/1399.1/14}.
You are obviously "Jay"; KB is?
A. Keith Bridges.
Q. Keith Bridges. He says:
"Okay thank you. Let's move on to the postage
claims for the moment. So in my letter I gave details
of the claims and the reversals that you completed since
25 August. I think my first question would be that
I know that you reversed them but why undertake them in
the first place bearing in mind these are, in effect you
are stating the transactions which took, well say the
transactions have taken place which you have used
official postage for which in effect did not take
place."
And you said:
"... I understand the actions were wrong, but the
money never left the office. The receipts were always
kept and I did reverse them but again it was just a form
of protest ..."
A. Yes.
Q. When you were warned about this you did reverse them,
didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. But you hadn't told Post Office that you were doing that
at the time you were doing it?
A. I did.
Q. How did you do that?
A. Network business support.
Q. Okay. I have seen some references to this.
A. Yes.
Q. If we look at Post Office letter {F/1374.1}, this is
I think the letter that Mr Bridges was referring to and
in the third paragraph he says to you:
"I understand from our conversations on occasions
when this scenario has happened the branch has claimed
a compensating value in official postage and thereby
recovering the value of the postage label resulting in
no loss to the branch. Would you please in future
process by contacting the NBSC ..."
A. Yes.
Q. And if we look at the NBSC call log at {F/1286.1}, under
the "Remedy" tab, at row 216 and if you go right to
column I:
"PM wanted noting that due to a RM complaint cust
has over SD he is going to refund the customer SD as
official postage. Advised PM he cannot do that that and
I have advised him so."
And then in row 310 this is an event that is
discussed in your interview you have said:
"PM is putting in 4.34 X 10 ..."
So you felt there had been a discrepancy of £4.34
and you put in an official postage of ten times that, is
that right?
A. Yes, but if I can just explain the reason why
I multiplied it by ten: this was something I had noticed
before, the label transaction issue, and I reported it
using all official channels and nothing was ever done
and then the fact that it happened again and caused
a financial loss --
Q. You just put in official postage?
A. Yes.
Q. And just the final reference, {F/1252.1} is a letter
from an Andrew Morley, an internal Post Office letter
I think. If we go to the second page of that -- that
doesn't look right. It doesn't matter. It is a further
document where you mentioned that you were doing this.
When did you start taking official postage in this
sort of way?
A. I can't remember.
Q. And I have tried to take you to various entries that I'm
aware of where you notified Post Office, but it's right,
isn't it, that you didn't notify them on each and every
occasion that you were doing that, there was a whole
series of £100s that were referred to in your interview?
A. Yes, but I knew they were being recorded, so ...
I wasn't informing network business support centre but
because I was putting the entry onto the computer I knew
that there was a record of it.
Q. Well, it wouldn't be obvious to Post Office whether that
was official postage or not, would it, or whether you
had just helped yourself to it?
A. I think it would be obvious that it wasn't official
postage because of the amounts involved.
Q. All right.
Nothing further. If you just stay there, Mr Green
may have some questions.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I assume not for very long, Mr Green.
MR GREEN: Really very short, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Yes.
Re-examination by MR GREEN
MR GREEN: Could you look back at {F/1365} please. This is
the document you were shown and let's leave aside for
the moment this is a 2015 version.
A. Yes.
Q. Just park that, because I think you have already made an
observation about what you did or did not have.
A. Yes.
Q. But at least as at 2015, do you see sort of halfway down
on the right-hand side there's a print-out?
A. Yes.
Q. Post Office.
A. Yes.
Q. And you come down and it says "Total due to customer:
102.34".
A. Yes.
Q. And it is in red.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. It says:
"You must take care to only settle with the customer
for the amount specified on the receipt ..."
A. Yes.
Q. Is that what you did?
A. Yes.
Q. And when we go to {F/1257.1}, which is the Facebook
post -- sorry, the Yahoo! -- the list.
A. Okay.
Q. It was put to you that this whole episode is a good
example of Horizon working well.
A. Yes.
Q. And I just wanted to take you through your
contemporaneous account of what happened very quickly.
A. Okay.
Q. So you begin:
"Yesterday during HOL failure ..."
A. Yes.
Q. Did you regard that as Horizon working well, when it
failed?
A. No.
Q. Okay. And it says:
"Transaction seemed to go through okay apart from
Horizon printing 3 identical receipts."
A. Yes.
Q. Was that what should have happened, three identical
receipts, or not?
A. Normally, no, that wouldn't happen.
Q. And then:
"Receipts showed a disconnected session ..."
A. Yes.
Q. Is it meant to have a disconnected session or not?
A. No.
Q. Okay. And then you get total due to customer, 195.04.
A. Yes.
Q. And you hand that over.
A. Yes.
Q. And then it says -- you say that:
"Because receipts showed cash due to customer, we
paid out."
Then:
"Come evening balancing till showed approximately
£200 loss."
A. Yes.
Q. Was that Horizon working correctly?
A. No.
Q. "Thought at time must be miscount and will try to sort
in morning.
"This morning produced transaction log for the
period of HOL FAILURE. No record of 195.04 transaction
at all!!!!"
A. No.
Q. Was that Horizon working well?
A. No.
Q. "Phoned helpline and was told by very irate member of
staff that loss is mine unless I can sort out with
customer directly ..."
A. Yes.
Q. Did you feel that that was a satisfactory response?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. "... apparently there is a message on screen during HOL
failure to not pay any money to customer ..."
Is that what you saw, or did you see a message that
said "Pay the customer £195"?
A. I cannot remember.
Q. "Asked irate staff to pass call up as I was not a happy
bunny, was told she was not going to do this ..."
A. Correct.
Q. Was that what you felt you should reasonably expect?
A. No.
Q. "... only after I asked to speak to contracts manager or
somebody from POL press office with regards to speaking
to press about my loss was I given a number for
Chesterfield."
A. Correct.
Q. Did you think it was appropriate that you should have to
make those threats to get the relevant telephone number?
A. No.
Q. "So spoke to POCA lady at Chesterfield who after
pressing a few buttons was able to find transaction ..."
A. Yes.
Q. Did you think it was satisfactory that she could see
a transaction involving your branch that you couldn't
see?
A. No, it wasn't satisfactory.
Q. "She couldn't promise anything ..."
Did you find that satisfactory?
A. No.
Q. "... but will see if she can get a credit TC after she
has spoken to Fujitsu??? She took my number and
promised to call back after speaking to Fujitsu, being
very non-committal about possible loss."
Did you find that a satisfactory response?
A. No.
MR GREEN: My Lord, no further questions.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: No questions from me.
Thank you very much. I'm sorry you had to be asked
to leave court for a couple of minutes but sometimes
these things just happen and it is important that
sometimes there's a debate without a witness hearing
what it is.
Thank you very much, you are free to go.
We're going to have a short break for the
transcribers and then you are calling your next witness.
MR GREEN: Mr Patny.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Is there any prospect of finishing him
today?
MR HENDERSON: I don't think so.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right. Are you cross-examining,
Mr Henderson?
MR HENDERSON: Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: We will have five minutes until 10 to 4
and then we will run to about half past 4 but if you
find a convenient break at or around that time or
earlier it's up to you. Right, so until 10 to 4. Thank
you very much.
(3.44 pm)
(Short Break)
(3.52 pm)
MR GREEN: My Lord, I am going to call Mr Anup Patny.
MR ANUP PATNY (affirmed)
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Do have a seat.
A. Thank you.
Examination-in-chief by MR GREEN
MR GREEN: Mr Patny, in front of you is a folder and if you
kindly turn to tab 3 of that folder {E1/3} you see
a document that says "Witness statement of Anup Kumar
Patny".
A. Yes.
Q. And if you turn to the third page of that {E1/3/3}
there's a signature.
A. Yes.
Q. Is that your signature?
A. It is.
Q. And do you believe the contents of your statement to be
true?
A. Yes.
Q. Most grateful. Would you just wait there.
Cross-examination by MR HENDERSON
MR HENDERSON: Mr Patny, good afternoon.
A. Good afternoon, sir.
Q. You were subpostmaster in the Spencefield branch for
a relatively short time, between October 2014 and
August 2016, is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you ran a retail business from the same premises?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you still running that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And can you just describe what the set-up was when you
had the Post Office there?
A. Well, it's a single-counter Post Office. Well, it came
within my branch counter. We had two tills before for
the counter but we took one out for post office side and
retail side there's one counter for retail and one
counter for the post office.
Q. Okay. And it may sound like a silly question, but what
else do you sell in the newsagent? It is it just papers
and cigarettes and so forth?
A. Yes, newspapers -- mainly it is high in home news
deliveries and cigarettes and cards, stationary,
et cetera.
Q. How many other people work in the shop? We obviously
know about you and your son?
A. Yes, my wife, she ran -- she worked in the retail and
she worked in the post office as well, with one other
assistant.
Q. Okay, so four of you in total?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. So there was a separate post office counter in
the branch, is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And how does that work from a practical point of view?
If someone wants to buy something from the newsagent and
do something at the post office counter as well, how do
you sort that?
A. Well, most of the time there's one person allocated to
the post office. In the morning there's two people, in
the afternoon there's two people as well. I am there
floating to serve on the counter both sides. My wife,
she was there for the same reason as well. So whenever
somebody required, you know -- if my wife is like
serving on the post office side I would hop onto the
retail side and vice versa because there's two different
queues we had for post office queue and for retail
queue.
Q. And what if someone comes in and wants to buy
a newspaper and some cards and do something at the
post office counter as well, how does that work?
A. Well, they will have to go to the post office queue
afterwards or beforehand.
Q. Right. Now, you tell us in your witness statement that
you remmed in cash on 11 May 2016, I think.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. But your son undertook a balance on that same day, on
11 May. Do you remember that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And I want to ask you some questions about both of those
activities, but first of all, was that your usual
practice, was it you that would rem the cash in and your
son who would carry out what you call the balancing
exercise?
A. Most of the time, because me and my wife normally came
in in the morning. The cash normally came in just
before 12 o'clock. That would come in, I would check
the cash, rem in and then put it safe in the safe and
then my son would come in just in the afternoon and take
it from us.
Q. And he would do the balancing at the end of the day?
A. At the end of the day or every Wednesday, yes.
Q. And when you do the balancing, presumably it's not
uncommon that there's some sort of discrepancy between
the cash that Horizon expects you to have, for example,
and the cash you have actually got?
A. Well, it happens sometimes.
Q. Sure. And I'm just interested in how you reacted if you
found that there was a discrepancy. If it was just
a few pence or a few pounds would you just make up that
difference from your own pocket?
A. Well, under normal circumstances, yes, so if it is a few
pounds or few pence, yes.
Q. And if it was more than that, say £40, £50, £60 or
above, would you investigate it?
A. Yes.
Q. And raise it with Post Office?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
Now, I want to start off by asking you some
questions about an outage that took place on 9 May 2016.
Do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. This was a Horizon system outage, wasn't it, it wasn't
a power cut to your ...?
A. No, it was a Horizon outage.
Q. Can you recall how long it went on for?
A. To my memory I think it is just over an hour.
Q. Okay. And do you recall what you were doing at the time
of the outage?
A. Well, it was my wife -- she was serving on the
post office counter and the screen went black and we
couldn't do anything to the system. I think I have had
a customer come in saying that the post office down the
road -- it's a mile away from there -- they are having
problems. We thought nothing of it. I tried to ring
the helpline, couldn't go through, and found out later
on there was an outage.
Q. And you tell us you closed the branch at that time?
A. The branch was closed all that time, yes.
Q. We can see evidence of this outage if we go to
{F/1834.3}.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: You might need the other tab.
MR HENDERSON: Yes, I do need the other tab. If you go to
row 47. If you just highlight row 47.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Can you see that okay, Mr Patny?
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Because we can change the view. Can we
go to "View" in the top task bar please and just
increase the magnification. That might work a little
bit better, Mr Henderson. Can you work from that?
MR HENDERSON: Yes. It may mean going along a bit but
that's okay.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Row 47.
MR HENDERSON: So row 47, do you see that highlighted,
Mr Patny?
A. I can see that.
Q. So that's at 8.22 and if we scroll right so we see the
full column at H. So "No recovery required", so this is
what tells Post Office that there has been an outage --
A. Okay.
Q. -- and you are logging back in. Do you see that? And
it says that no recovery procedure was required. That
suggests that there were no particular problems caused
by the outage as far as your session was concerned. Do
you see that?
A. I don't know.
Q. Well, what was going on -- what Ms van den Bogerd's
evidence is is if you look at -- you don't need to move
the screen, but if you look at row 42 and row 45, what
was going on at the time of the outage was that there
were two postage labels to be printed and that they were
printed, but it is possible that the transaction was
interrupted before it could be completed. Do you see
those entries?
A. Mm-hm, yes sir.
Q. So as far as this data is concerned, the worst case
scenario that could have occurred as a result of this
outage is that the labels might have been handed over
and payment taken in cash -- because the PIN pad won't
work when the Horizon terminal isn't working -- without
following the correct recovery process and what that
would result in is a small surplus of cash, not
a shortage. Do you accept that?
A. It looks that way, yes.
Q. Okay. But what this doesn't in any way suggest is that
the outage could have given rise to a discrepancy of
£17,000 or so, which is what I think you believe
happened?
A. Well, at this stage we didn't have the rem ins.
Q. No, I'm so sorry. The rem ins -- this is the 9 May,
this is before the rems.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay? We're just looking at the outage on 9 May at the
moment.
A. Yes.
Q. There's nothing in this data to suggest that at this
point it could possibly have caused a discrepancy of
£17,000. Do you see that?
A. I can see that there, yes.
Q. Now, you say in your evidence that you rang the helpline
and I think you said a moment ago in answer to
a question that you didn't manage to get through to the
helpline, is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. I don't think that's explained in your witness
statement, but that's fine, we can agree on that.
But your position as I understand it is that this
outage was responsible in some way for a shortfall of
£17,000, is that right?
A. Might have been.
Q. Might have been or was?
A. Well, there's no other argument for that. I mean never
had a shortage before like, you know, all --
Q. Okay, well, let's have a look at it. I mean first of
all, do you agree that if it was the outage on 9 May
that caused a shortfall of £17,000, you would expect
that to show up on that day?
A. I think so, yes.
Q. Let's have a look at the event data spreadsheet at
1507.1 {F/1507.1}.
This is one where we will need to enable editing and
then remove the filter. Then if you could go to row --
if you go in the top left-hand corner if you just type
in D13904. If you can bring that row up to the top of
the screen.
This shows the cash declaration at the end of
9 May 2016. Do you see that, the cash declaration for
a total of £48,021?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And below that it says that there is a discrepancy of
£1,138.21.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So do you accept then that the outage that happened
earlier in that day could not have been responsible for
a £17,000 discrepancy arising?
A. I can't say that.
Q. Well, had it been responsible there would have been
a much higher discrepancy shown, wouldn't there, for
cash as a result of the declaration; isn't that right?
A. Could be.
Q. Well, it would be, wouldn't it?
A. I can't say that. I don't know.
Q. Well, let's look at the same document but the cash
declaration for 11 May, two days later. That's at
14515.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Row?
MR HENDERSON: Row -- yes, 14515.
So on 11 May, two days later -- this is I think when
your son did the balance --
A. Yes, sir.
Q. This is just the daily cash declaration and we see there
a cash total of £71,000-odd and a discrepancy there of
17,339.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And then when your son called the helpline on 11 May --
and we see that at {F/1522.1}, row 136. So if you again
enable editing and if you could bring that up to the
top.
So this is 11 May 2016, so the same date that we
have just been looking at for the cash discrepancy and
if you could go across to column N:
"Doing BP and got a shortage in cash £17,000. Had
a rem in of 46,500 cash, 16,000 coin."
That column is what's used by the help desk operator
to report what is said when someone rings up?
A. Yes.
Q. So it looks as though what your son had said was that
there had been a rem in of £16,000 worth of coins?
A. No, as I can remember Aakash came in home that night and
he said there was a shortage shown and he had phoned the
helpline and they said there has been a rem in of
£16,000 coins and they asked him to do some reversal or
something.
Q. Okay. Let's have a look -- if we just go over and look
at column V in that same row. So what he was told to do
according to this was ask the subpostmaster to make sure
only one cash declaration and make sure rem was scanned
in correctly. So it seems from this, doesn't it, that
the helpline thought that perhaps there had been
a problem -- either a problem with declaring the cash,
in other words counting it, or some sort of problem
remming it in?
A. No, remming in was fine.
Q. Well, let's look at how the discrepancy may actually
have arisen. So on 11 May -- let's have a look at
{F/1834.2}. This is the cash that was remmed in on
11 May, do you see that?
A. I can't see that clearly.
Q. No, okay. And the second row down shows that there was
£16,000 worth of £10 notes, do you see that? Do you see
the second entry?
A. Yes, I can see that.
Q. Okay, so I think there's £26,000 worth of £20 notes,
16,000 of £10, 4,500 of £5, 1,000 of £1 and then there
is coins. So I think the important one is £16,000 worth
of £10 notes.
Now, it's a bit fiddly this, but bear with me. If
we look at {F/1438.1}. This is filtered data, all
right, so we have put a filter on this just to show the
cash that was remmed in to your branch over this period
and you can see that there is highlighting on 11 May but
there was no cash remmed in on 12 May, the following
day. Are you able to recall whether that's right? You
have given evidence of the cash that you remmed in on
11 May, all I'm saying is that there was no cash remmed
in on 12 May.
A. Well, 11 May -- the cash comes in on a Wednesday, all
the time.
Q. Right, okay. So it wouldn't come in any other day?
A. Well, unless it came in by post, if he required some --
any time we would ask the ADC and they would send it,
like an emergency.
Q. All I'm suggesting to you is that there was cash remmed
in on the 11th and there was no cash remmed in on the
12th, as far as Post Office's records can tell.
A. Okay.
Q. Do you accept that?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, if we look at the cash management report for your
branch, which is at {F/1514.1}. Actually these relevant
rows are highlighted. Do you see the highlighting on
rows 383, 384 and 385?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
If you could just scroll right a couple of cells.
Thank you, that's fine.
So the declaration on 10 May -- if you just look at
the £10 note column in column M, do you see that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So that's 16,070.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. And then we know that you remmed in £16,000 worth
of £10 notes on 11 May.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. But the 11 May £10 notes are only 22,130. So what you
would have expected, on 11 May, would be something like
£32,000 of £10 notes, which is the 16,000 from the 10th,
plus the 16,000 from the 11th, less any notes that had
been paid out in the course of 11 May; do you agree?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And in fact, as we can see, there's only £22,130 worth
of £10 notes, but the cash declarations for the
following days in £10 notes are very much higher: 37,650
and 35,700. Do you see that?
A. I can see that, yes.
Q. And even though there had been no cash remmed in in that
period?
A. Well I think when my son rang the NBSC on that 11 May
they asked him to do some adjustments.
Q. Well, what I'm suggesting is that the most natural
explanation for this, whatever adjustments were made, is
that at some point on 11 May someone hadn't counted
a big pile of £10 notes. They had been put in a safe
and forgotten about, which is understandable, and that
they were found the next day, or located, and there was
an accurate cash declaration on 12 May.
A. I don't know about that, sir.
Q. It's perfectly plausible, isn't it?
A. I can't say anything to that.
Q. Well, the final piece of this little jigsaw is at
{F/1507.1} and I think you will need to --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: What document is this?
MR HENDERSON: This is going back to the events data showing
the cash declarations on 13 May. Now, we saw before
that on 11 May the cash discrepancy was minus £17,000.
Do you remember that? We looked at that a few moments
ago?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And two days later the discrepancy is plus 17,000, in
other words it looks as though it has gone, it has
cancelled out. Do you see that?
A. I can see that, sir.
Q. So it's a bit of detective work and it's a bit fiddly
and I apologise for that, but doesn't it look overall as
though what the problem here was is nothing to do with
an outage, it's been a mistake somewhere in the branch,
temporary mistake, counting cash and once the cash count
was done properly, the problem disappeared?
A. I don't know, sir. I don't think so.
Q. You didn't suffer any loss as a result of this incident,
did you?
A. I still think this is because of the adjustments NBSC
had asked my son to make. I don't know.
Q. What I'm trying to put to you, I hope fairly, Mr Patny,
is your evidence is -- I think your evidence is that
there were some sort of problems in Horizon that caused
all of these difficulties and all I'm trying to
demonstrate to you is that if you go through the various
records that are available it looks as though in fact
there has just been a difficulty with declarations of
cash. Do you accept that?
(Pause).
A. I wouldn't know how to answer that.
Q. Well, let's just look at one other document which is
{F/1834.3}. Again I think we need to minimise it and go
to the other tab, sheet 1, and if you go to row 2336.
If you look at row H -- well, these are two entries.
Row 2336 and 2337 are two entries only seven minutes
apart, do you see that? One is at 17.28 and one is at
17.35, do you see that?
A. Yes, I can see that.
Q. Okay, thank you. Seven minutes apart for the same
sign-on, APA001 -- is that you or is that your son?
A. That's me, but it would be my son because that looks
like it has been logged on since the afternoon.
Q. So he was using your log on?
A. He was, yes.
Q. Why would he do that?
A. Well, normally between three of us nobody else would go
on apart from the three of us, so we didn't really mind,
whosoever is logged on we just carried on and continued
with it.
Q. If you look there are two cash declarations seven
minutes apart, one for £68,000-odd and one for
£52,000-odd.
A. Yes, I can see that.
Q. Now, I can also show you -- and my apologies that this
is slightly painful in terms of how long it takes, but
if we go to {F/1482.1} --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Do you mean within this document or
a different document?
MR HENDERSON: No, sorry, a different document, F/1482.1.
And we will need to do the tab at the bottom. And if we
go to row 4323, this is the transaction data for the
branch. Thank you.
Between those two times that I told you about, those
two declarations, if you see 4323 is at 17.28, there is
a single transaction for a £300 cash withdrawal, do you
see that in row 4323?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
So the picture that emerges, I'm suggesting,
Mr Patny, is this, that you've got two cash declarations
minutes apart, substantial difference in value, which
isn't explained by any transactions. Do you see that?
A. Yes, I can see that.
Q. Okay. What I'm suggesting to you is that things were
pretty chaotic in your branch when it comes to these
sorts of things. The cash declarations look like they
are all over the place. Is that a fair observation?
A. Sometimes when you do the cash declaration, say if you
wanted to change something for that particular column,
you just have to delete that section to put in a new
figure. Sometimes what happened is if you carried on
adding the digits in, that would take it -- you are
thinking that you put the right amount in and just
crosses the declaration and that cancelled declaration
comes wrong.
Q. I don't understand that, I'm sorry.
A. Like when you declare the cash -- I mean I haven't done
that so many times, my son had done it. When you
declare the cash, all the coins and notes, you put in
the entry how much you got in there. If you see under
the declaration, if there's a difference, if you check
your balance and everything, if you -- say you counted
the cash again and if there's a difference in there and
you have to log on to change to that particular
denomination -- the amount of that denomination, if you
don't delete that amount and put a new entry in,
sometimes what happens is if you put some figure in it
just adds onto that figure and you are thinking that you
have changed that value and you process it again and
then it shows an amount, the difference amount.
Q. Mr Patny, your evidence, as I understand it, is that
your experience of Horizon leads you to conclude that
there are bugs in the Horizon system.
A. Well, how else -- I mean these shortages have occurred
and there's no explanation to that.
Q. Well, I'm suggesting to you that there's a perfectly
sensible explanation, which is that as far as we can
see, none of the events that you refer to are consistent
with there being a serious problem in Horizon and all of
them are consistent with things being pretty chaotic in
your branch.
A. But where the cash has gone then?
Q. Are you suggesting that you actually lost this cash?
A. No.
MR HENDERSON: My Lord, I don't have a great deal more, but
it is now 4.30.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I assume you are going to put the
detailed points to Mr Patny's son about what he in fact
did and was told, are you? On the basis that he was the
one who called the helpline and --
MR HENDERSON: Yes, but I mean the records are the records
but --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Well, Mr Henderson, that's not really
an answer to my question.
MR HENDERSON: I wasn't intending to repeat
cross-examination that I have already done.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I didn't interrupt you because obviously
this gentleman's log in was used and he is the
subpostmaster but I'm not going to have his son
cross-examined by proxy through him so you are going to
have to put some of these points to his son.
MR HENDERSON: Okay, that's fine.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Do you think you will be longer than
five minutes with this ...
MR HENDERSON: Possibly, yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right, I think we will stop until
tomorrow.
Right, Mr Patny, this just happens sometimes so
don't -- it's not ideal, but you are going to have to
come back tomorrow.
A. Okay.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Because you are in the middle of your
cross-examination that means you mustn't discuss things
connected with the case or your evidence with anyone
overnight.
A. Yes, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: In your situation that's going to be
probably harder because obviously you worked with your
wife and your son as well, but please don't discuss your
evidence with either of them and come back tomorrow at
10.30.
A. My Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Is that all right?
A. Yes, sir.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Anything else in terms of the evidence?
Don't think so.
MR GREEN: My Lord, there was just one thing that
your Lordship asked us for yesterday.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Hold on a second, I can let Mr Patny go.
MR GREEN: I'm sorry.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I can let Mr Patny go.
You can leave the witness box by all means, we have
a few bits and pieces to sort out.
Mr Green.
Housekeeping
MR GREEN: Your Lordship asked whether we had a list of all
the branches affected by Callendar Square.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: If you have give me the reference or
hand it up rather than read it out.
MR GREEN: What we have is a document which has
Callendar Square and some others on it.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: How many are there?
MR GREEN: There are 20 that it records as having been
affected and others that reported problems but probably
didn't have losses, it says.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Is it on Magnum?
MR GREEN: It is. It is {F/322.1} and we don't know whether
that's the same list that Mr Godeseth is referring to at
{E2/7/5}, paragraph 15.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Well, Mr Godeseth is not being
cross-examined until next week.
MR GREEN: Of course.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: So I'm sure Mr De Garr Robinson and
Mr Henderson and Mr Draper between them will let you
know if it is what he is talking about, if it is not I'm
sure they'll tell you which one he has. But I can now
go and have a look at it, all right.
You and Mr De Garr Robinson were going to tell me
about your proposals for closings insofar as you had
thought about it? Is that right?
MR GREEN: My Lord, yes, I have discussed it with my learned
friend --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Just give me some dates if you have
agreed them.
MR GREEN: It is the 8th and 9th.
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: My Lord, yes. My learned friend's
team has problems the previous week so he suggested
8 and 9 May.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Can you just remind me --
MR GREEN: It is Wednesday the 8th and Thursday the 9th.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Do those dates work for you,
Mr De Garr Robinson?
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: My Lord, yes. There is one member of
the team that won't be able to be here but we can close
orally on that basis.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right. A day each?
MR GREEN: My Lord, yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Given it is going to be some weeks later
than initially planned I'm going to ask for the closings
to be submitted somewhat earlier than normal and I will
just have to think about when that's going to be.
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: My Lord, I quite understand. I mean
I would ask for --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: You want as much time as possible of
course.
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: Your Lordship didn't need me to say
that.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: No, no, I know you want as much time as
possible and I will try and give you as much time as
possible, but if it is going to be then I will give
myself more than the usual 48 hours to read them.
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: My Lord of course.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I will of course take that into account.
Anything else tonight? No. So we will resume with
Mr Patny senior tomorrow and then after him it is
Mr Patny -- his son. Thank you all very much.
(4.35 pm)
(The court adjourned until 10.30 am on Wednesday,
13 March 2019)
(10.30 am)
MR GREEN: May it please your Lordship. I have two things
for your Lordship before we begin with Mr Latif who is
sitting kindly waiting in Islamabad.
There is the physical bundle of claimants' witness
statements.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Thank you.
MR GREEN: My Lord, the other thing is an answer to
your Lordship's question about whether we have a list of
the Callendar Square bugs.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: We can deal with that after Mr Latif.
We will deal with all of those things after Mr Latif.
MR GREEN: I'm most grateful.
Mr Latif, if we look at your witness statement on
the Opus screen {E1/1}, which hopefully --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I don't think -- we haven't sworn this
witness yet.
MR GREEN: My Lord, no, I'm so sorry.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Good morning, Mr Latif. We are just
going to administer either the oath or the affirmation.
Affirmation.
MR ADREES LATIF (affirmed)
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Just pausing there, the witness
obviously doesn't have a form of words in front of him
of the affirmation. I am content that that is
a sufficiently close affirmation for the purposes of
the court, unless either party wishes me to readminister
it -- now is your opportunity? No.
MR DRAPER: No, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Thank you, Mr Draper.
Mr Green, over to you.
Examination-in-chief by MR GREEN
MR GREEN: Mr Latif, on the Opus screen in front of you you
should be able to see a document which says "Amended
witness statement of Adrees Latif", can you see that?
A. Correct.
Q. And if we look at page 3 of that witness statement
{E1/1/3}, there's a signature there.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that your signature?
A. Correct, that is my signature.
Q. And do you believe the contents of your witness
statement to be true?
A. I do.
Q. Would you wait there for a moment because counsel for
Post Office will have some questions to ask you.
A. That's correct, that's okay.
Cross-examination by MR DRAPER
MR DRAPER: Hello, Mr Latif. The witness statement you have
provided is a very short one so I want to first ask you
some questions by way of background about your branch.
A. Yes sir.
Q. Firstly, can you give some indication of the size of the
Caddington branch?
A. Caddington branch is situated in a village of about
12,000 people. It has two main counters and a third
combi-counter, so it is a three counter office.
Q. What do you mean, Mr Latif, by a combi-counter? Could
you explain that please?
A. A combi-counter is a counter that is open on the same
hours as the retail shop, so I have a post office at the
back of the premises where there is two main counters
and the third counter which is a combi-counter and it is
situated nearby the retail counter of the convenience
shop which I also operate. And that counter is open at
the same hours as the shop counter is open as well.
Q. Thank you.
A. So it is commonly known as out of hours counter.
Q. Yes. Thinking back to two dates specifically, July 2015
and January 2018, which are the dates of the two
problems you complain of in your statement, how many
Post Office staff members, your assistants, would
typically be working in the branch?
A. On those days there would be three members of staff:
two, including myself which is the third.
Q. If we could call up {F/1038.1/1} please. This is
a Post Office record, Mr Latif, of the assistants
registered in your branch. Can you look down those
please and confirm whether those indeed were the
assistants in your branch at the two dates that I have
just given to you?
A. I can. The first one is a Mrs Christine Helen Barnett,
the second one was a Mr Muhammad Rouman Tabassum.
Q. When you say first and second, what do you mean by that?
Are you talking about in order of importance as
assistants?
A. No, no, they are both manager's level. I'm talking
about on the list where you've got the names of my staff
on there, so Christine Helen Barnett and then
Rouman Tabassum.
Q. On the screen we have it here the first entry is
a Christine Fensome. Can you see that at the top of
your screen?
A. Yes.
Q. Counting down, just to confirm you are seeing exactly
the same document as I am, it is Christine Fensome, then
Christine Barnett, then Michael Brumwell, then
Muhammad Tabassum, then Robert Deacock and then
Tahir Shabir.
A. Correct, sir.
Q. And if you look down the far right-hand side of the
screen, are those to the best of your recollection the
Horizon user IDs for those assistants?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. It is not listed on here but am I right to say that your
user ID was MLA001?
A. That's not my user ID.
Q. Sorry, did you say that's not?
A. No.
Q. What then was your main user ID?
A. It's ALA001.
Q. Thank you.
A. So can I just repeat that, my Lord?
Q. I got it. I think you said ALA?
A. (Nods).
Q. 001?
A. Correct. Correct.
Q. And looking at the assistants that are still shown on
the screen, can you give any indication of how many
hours per week they would typically work, whether any of
them, for example, worked most of the week and others
were less frequent?
A. On an average week the (inaudible) work was 36 hours.
Each person.
Q. I think you may have told me this before, but just to
confirm, did any of these assistants have a higher
status than any of the others, any additional rights?
A. There's two of them and that is Mrs Christine Helen
Barnett and Muhammad Rouman Tabassum.
Q. In what respects were they more senior assistants?
A. Christine was a manager in the post office with me but
she used to work mainly in the post office and Muhammad
was also the shop manager as well. So he used to manage
the shop for me and the post office when I was not
there.
Q. Would it be right then that there were some tasks on
Horizon and in the post office more generally that
Christine Barnett could do because she was a manager but
your other assistants wouldn't have done?
A. I didn't quite understand that question. Can you please
repeat that.
Q. Of course. Were there any tasks in running the
Post Office branch that Ms Barnett could do or would do
for you that the other assistants wouldn't?
A. Mrs Barnett and Muhammad Rouman Tabassum were trying to
do the balancing procedures as well as myself. Some
staff would not know how to balance the office and when
I say "balance the office", as you may already be aware
that we have to reconcile at the office on a weekly
basis, so every Wednesday we would reconcile the office
and both Christine Helen Barnett and Muhammad
Rouman Tabassum were fully trained to do that if I was
not around.
Q. You say if you were not around. How common would it be
for you not to be in the branch on a given day?
A. It's very common. As you know, Post Office ran various
training sessions so you were expected to attend those
and there could be holidays, there could be various
other reasons.
So can I just repeat, Christine Helen Barnett, she
used to work for the police so she is very, very
trusted. I trust her completely. And Muhammad
Rouman Tabassum is a very close friend of mine who has
been with me for a long time so these two were
completely trustworthy, honest, hard working and very
reliable.
Q. So it is fair to say you entrusted the operation of the
branch to one or other of those two people, you said
"quite frequently". Could you give any more specific
indication? Do you mean once a week, twice a week?
A. I tend to be there most days. Five days to six days
a week, so -- but sometimes I did take time off, so it
was infrequent but it did happen occasionally.
Q. Looking then at hours, I think you said that the hours
were strange, presumably you mean long, so might there
be times of day even on days when you were working in
the branch when you weren't there, say early in the
morning on are late in the evening?
A. Correct.
Q. How common an occurrence was that, Mr Latif?
A. Uncommon, but it could have happened, it does happen, it
did happen. I mean I could have had a meeting where
a customer has come in for a financial services product,
so I will take them to the room where we hold private
conversations so that means I'm away from a counter, so
yes, that does happen.
Q. I'm going to ask you some questions now about a stock
unit transfer for £2,000 that you describe in your
witness statement. You say that it was carried out in
or around July 2015; that's right, isn't it?
A. Correct, sir.
Q. Now, just to explain to you what I'm going to do, I'm
going to come on a bit later to tell you what
Post Office says happened, but because there is not much
detail in your witness statement I'm first going to take
you through your account of what happened and ask you
questions about that. Do you follow?
A. Okay, I do.
Q. And when I'm doing that it doesn't mean that Post Office
accepts as true the things that I'm exploring with you,
I'm just asking you questions about what you say.
A. I understand, sir.
Q. So you say at paragraph 6 of your witness statement
{E1/1/2} that the transfer was from the AA stock unit in
your branch to the SJ1 stock unit, is that right?
A. Correct.
Q. I suggest that you have made a small mistake there,
Mr Latif -- no criticism, but Post Office's records
suggest that there was a stock unit called SP1 but not
a stock unit called SJ1. Do you think that might be
right?
A. Correct.
Q. So you think it -- forgive me, it is my fault, my
question was unclear.
A. (Inaudible) can check my statement.
Q. Yes. It is paragraph 6, the first mention of SJ1, which
is the second page {E1/1/2}.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you accept that that's a small mistake?
A. That is a typo, sir, that should read SP1.
Q. Thank you.
Can you tell me anything about these two stock
units, so, for example, what was the AA stock unit? Was
it a specific counter?
A. Okay, the AA stock unit, sir, is the main stock unit
that's in the two counters that's behind the back of the
post office, okay? That's where the most interaction
happened during normal hours of operation, which are
between 9 and 5.30.
SP1 is the combi-counter that I referred to earlier
on. Combi-counter is open on the retail side of the
premises, okay, and it is adjacent to the shop retail
counter.
Q. And where was the cash for stock unit AA kept?
A. Behind the closed, locked doors of the main office.
Q. And what about the cash for stock unit SP1, where was
that kept?
A. SP1 had its own dedicated safe. It's a rolling deck
safe and how that works is it has got a cassette,
an (inaudible) cassette which is supplied by the
Post Office as a mandatory requirement of handling
stock, so the cash is kept in the RollerCash and a small
amount is kept in a flip draw which the Post Office
supplied to us for normally about one hour's worth of
operation in the flip top, and the rest of the cash is
kept in the roller deck safe which is below the flip top
safe.
Q. Thank you. So this transfer of £2,000 in or
around July 2015, is it right that the purpose of that
was to replenish the cash stocks in SP1 because it was
running low of cash?
A. Correct, sir.
Q. It might be useful to take you now to the statement of
one of Post Office's witnesses, Ms van den Bogerd. Her
statement is at {E2/5} please. Mr Latif, is this
a witness statement that you have seen before?
A. No.
Q. Okay, going to page 22 of this document please
{E2/5/22}, you see paragraphs 87 to 88 there towards the
bottom of the screen. Can I ask you to read
paragraph 87 and paragraph 88 and please indicate when
you need the page to be turned.
A. Okay. So paragraph 87?
Q. Yes, please, read it to yourself. No need to read it
out loud.
A. Okay.
So:
"If subpostmasters wish to move cash or stock
between stock units, there is a process which must be
followed. Firstly, the item which is being transferred
(in this case cash) must be transferred by the user via
Horizon using the back office function (transfer out)
from the outgoing stock unit. The cash must then be
physically removed from that particular stock unit.
Providing these two actions are completed, the stock
unit from where the cash is transferred should not show
a discrepancy."
Q. Thank you. If you stop there.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Draper, you are going to have to be
a bit more clear in how you either put questions or
express yourself, because I know that you said, rather
sotto voce, "Don't read it out loud"; the witness
obviously thought you had asked him to read it out loud.
MR DRAPER: Understood.
Mr Latif, that paragraph you have just read, that's
an accurate description of the process, isn't it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Can I ask to you read to yourself, not out loud,
paragraph 88 and tell us when you need the page to be
turned please.
A. Okay.
(Pause).
Next page please. {E2/5/23}.
(Pause).
Okay.
Q. Thank you. That's accurate as well, isn't it, Mr Latif?
A. It is, sir.
Q. It is probably now helpful to go to your witness
statement at {E1/1/2} and paragraph 7 please. Do you
have that in front of you now?
A. I do.
Q. I'm going to take you through it in stages to look to
add some more detail to the account that you give. I'm
going to ask you to confirm that each of the stages that
I describe is correct.
A. Okay.
Q. So first stage, you logged into stock unit AA and you
used the transfer out function, identifying the stock
unit SP1 to which you wanted to transfer the £2,000, is
that right?
A. Correct, sir.
Q. And when you did that the system printed out a transfer
out slip, is that right?
A. That is mandatory, yes.
Q. You say it is mandatory, is it automatic that the system
prints the slip?
A. It's automatic, there's nothing -- it's automatic,
there's nothing you can do about it, it happens
automatically.
Q. It's right, isn't it, that you could also choose to
print one? You could press "print" as well; that's
right, isn't it?
A. You could print an additional one, sir, if you need to.
Q. Thank you. Could you explain what you then do with the
transfer slip once it is printed out?
A. We file that with the paperwork from the office.
Q. It's right, isn't it, that you should sign the transfer
out slip and take it with you when you go to
transfer in?
A. Correct. Well, you also at the same time get the
transfer in slip from the receiving stock unit as well,
sir.
Q. Yes.
A. And sign -- date stamp both of them.
Q. Thank you. Looking at this specific transfer that
you're describing at paragraph 6 of your statement,
so far, describing the transfer out from stock unit AA,
everything had worked as it should have worked, is that
right?
A. Correct.
Q. You say you then moved over to stock unit SP1 to process
the transfer in, is that right?
A. Yes, correct.
Q. So you walked from the counter position for stock
unit AA to the counter position for stock unit SP1 with
the physical cash, is that right?
A. Correct.
Q. You say then that you noticed immediately at stock
unit SP1 that the £2,000 had not transferred
successfully. That's what you say.
A. Correct.
Q. I'm going to talk you through that process to see how
you say you saw immediately that it had not transferred
successfully, so again I'm going to take it in stages.
A. Okay.
Q. First, Mr Latif, you logged into the counter SP1,
didn't you?
A. I'm sorry, I didn't quite hear that. Can you repeat the
question please?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Your voice is incredibly low, Mr Draper.
You will have to speak up.
MR DRAPER: Forgive me.
The first step was to log into the counter for stock
unit SP1?
A. Correct.
Q. You then went to the back office screen for that
terminal and went through the key sequence to view
transfers in available on that stock unit?
A. Correct.
Q. And you say that it is at that point that you realised
that the £2,000 had disappeared from Horizon; that's
right, isn't it?
A. Correct.
Q. So to check I understand correctly, what you are saying
is it had disappeared, in the sense that it was not
available on the screen as a transfer in?
A. Correct.
Q. You then say, Mr Latif, that you immediately performed
a cash declaration on the AA stock unit; is that right,
that was your next step?
A. Yes, and also on the SP1 as well.
Q. Dealing first with the cash declaration on stock
unit AA, you say you walked back to stock unit AA and
carried out a cash declaration which involved you
manually counting the cash, is that right?
A. Correct.
Q. And you say that the stock unit balanced. What you mean
by that I think is that two things were the case and I'm
going to put each of them to you separately. If we
assume that before the transfer there was £10,000 cash
physically in stock unit AA and that the Horizon cash
figure was 10,000 as well, after the transfer both of
those were 8,000 -- just hypothetical figures -- is that
what you say?
A. Correct.
Q. And as I understand your evidence what you are saying is
you knew from that that the transfer out had been
successful because the physical removal of the cash was
also reflected in the position on Horizon; Horizon was
2,000 lower as well, the Horizon figure?
A. Correct.
Q. It is right, isn't it, that when you went back to stock
unit AA you already had, didn't you, the transfer out
slip?
A. I did, correct.
Q. And that showed a transfer out of £2,000?
A. Yes.
Q. You could also have simply printed out the transaction
log from stock unit AA to show the transfer out,
couldn't you?
A. Yes you could and we did.
Q. Sorry, you say that you did?
A. Yes.
Q. Is there any reason why you don't mention those steps in
your witness statement?
A. I just kept my witness statement as simple and
straightforward as possible.
Q. Apart from this cash declaration, you don't mention any
other steps to identify the transfer out or the
transfer in, do you?
A. No, but I can go through those with you. I'm quite
happy to go through those with you, sir.
Q. I will come back to those shortly.
A. I'm experienced -- I have been running a post office for
17 years, sir. I have also worked for the Post Office
on training other offices how to run a post office.
I was also involved in running and introducing the new
Horizon software changes in 2006 onwards, where I went
to several offices on behalf of the Post Office to give
them training. So I'm an experienced, trained
subpostmaster and I ran my business successfully for
17 years. So I may have been a bit brief in the
statement but obviously I can run through those --
exactly those steps that we would take to make sure that
there is no operator error on our behalf.
Q. Maybe we can do it a bit more shortly by my asking you
this, Mr Latif. You as an experienced subpostmaster
would know that there were lots of reports you could run
on Horizon that would show you the transfer out and
that --
A. (Inaudible).
Q. Would show you the transfer in?
A. Correct.
Q. And would show you any failure to reconcile the two if
there was one missing. Do you follow that?
A. Correct. Correct.
Q. You also say at paragraph 7 of your witness statement
{E1/1/2} that you checked the CCTV to see whether you
had performed the process correctly.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. But, Mr Latif, you will have known that, wouldn't you,
from your transfer out slip, from the cash declaration
and from all of the other reports that you could run?
A. Yes, sir, but when we counted the cash £2,000 was
missing, so that's what alerted us to why we need to
check the CCTV and make sure (a) that there was no --
nothing was done incorrectly, make sure all procedures
were followed and, secondly, make sure there is no theft
from employees or (inaudible) or something like that
that happened. So we made sure that the £2,000 that
disappeared, we made sure that there wasn't anything
untoward in our -- and we were suspicious of Horizon
anyhow. Horizon had some glitches in it. I have seen
it in other branches and I have seen it in my own branch
as well. So we wanted to make sure that there was no
other explanation why the £2,000 is gone.
Q. So you now say, Mr Latif, that you checked the CCTV also
to make sure that no one had taken £2,000 from the
branch, is that right?
A. Correct, correct.
Q. When would that have happened --
A. As an experienced subpostmaster -- can I just say as an
experienced subpostmaster I would make all the checks to
make sure that nothing untoward happened. In any
business you would do that; whether it is Post Office,
whether it is retail, I would make sure that things were
done properly and nothing untoward had happened.
Q. The process that you have just described with me,
Mr Latif, in relation to the transfer involved you
personally taking every step in that process; that's
right, isn't it?
A. Correct.
Q. You carried out the transfer out on stock unit AA;
that's right?
A. Correct.
Q. You physically moved the cash to stock unit SP1, you
say?
A. I did.
Q. And you tried to process the transfer in on stock
unit SP1 but you say that failed because there was no
transfer in to accept. That's what we have just gone
through.
A. Correct, correct. At the same time, sir, can I just
stop you there, I just want to clarify a point that's
not in my statement which perhaps with hindsight should
be there. When the transfer was not there in stock
unit SP1, there's a reverse option on Horizon which you
can press to bring the cash back. Okay? So you reverse
the original transaction which says "transfer out".
It's next to the "transfer out" button, it's a button,
an icon on Horizon that you press that brings that money
back to AA.
Q. Again that's not in your witness statement, Mr Latif,
but do you now say that that's what you did? You say
you reversed the transfer out?
A. Correct, yes.
Q. Why don't you mention that important detail in your
witness statement, Mr Latif?
A. Well, I'm not sure. I mean looking at that carefully,
that's probably -- maybe perhaps I should have done.
But can I also say that obviously I had near the time
when I made the statement lost my father and I was going
through a period of distress and I lost ... so ...
Q. I'm sorry to hear that, Mr Latif --
A. That could be the reason.
Q. I'm sorry to hear that, Mr Latif, but it is fair to
point out that you reviewed this statement again this
month and you made a correction to it, didn't you, in
relation to the transaction --
A. Correct.
Q. You had then every opportunity --
A. Correct.
Q. -- to look again at your statement and correct it or add
any further important detail, didn't you?
A. Correct, but it is never too late, sir. You have to
understand we're very busy, running round, so it's
obviously, you know, an oversight. Yes, perhaps
I should have put more detail in, but you see I kept my
statement as simple as possible to keep things simple.
Q. I will take you back to the CCTV footage that you say
you looked at and I'm just going to give you the
context --
A. Yes.
Q. -- to my question, so it will be quite a long question,
if you just wait until I have finished please.
We have just discussed how every step in the process
of the transfer out on the stock unit and the physical
transfer of the cash, and the attempt to transfer in on
stock unit SP1, were all performed by you personally and
over a very short period of time; that's right,
isn't it?
A. Correct, correct.
Q. Why then would it help you to look at CCTV footage to
see whether the £2,000 had somehow been removed from the
branch?
A. Well, I wanted to make sure in my mind that everything
was done properly. I looked at the CCTV as a double
checkability just to make sure that everything was
followed correctly.
Q. But you knew, didn't you, that you hadn't --
A. That's why ...
Q. Forgive me. You hadn't taken the £2,000 out of the
branch, had you?
A. I want to prove to my colleagues that -- Ms Christine
Helen Barnett was there, that, you know, the procedure
was followed and the money was back at AA where it
should be.
Q. So you now say you looked at the CCTV because your
colleagues were concerned that you hadn't done the
transaction properly?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: No, that isn't what he said, Mr Draper.
You can't do that.
A. No, it was just to double check and make sure -- I'm not
saying that.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Latif, just bear with me just one
second.
You can put what you say the answer amounts to back
to him but you can't say that's what he said if you are
not putting it back to him in the same terms.
MR DRAPER: Forgive me, I'll find it as closely as I can
from the transcript.
The most important bit of it is inaudible so it is
hard to see.
But are you saying that when you looked at the CCTV
that was because you wanted to show to Mrs Barnett that
you had done the transaction properly?
A. Correct.
Q. So do you no longer say that you were checking the CCTV
to make sure no one had taken the £2,000 out of the
branch?
A. Correct, make sure not anything untoward happened. I'm
not just saying -- money taken out the branch but money
could have gone anywhere so I want to make sure the
money goes back in AA where it should be.
Q. I'm going to ask just one more question on this. You
were concerned that you personally might have somehow
lost the £2,000 during this process, is that what you
are saying?
A. No. All I'm saying is I want to make sure that the
procedure was followed, to make sure that all the --
Christine and my staff are absolutely confident that the
correct procedure was followed, the money was in the
right stock unit (inaudible), but make sure it is
a software issue not a misplaced cash or cash is lost
somewhere else. We wanted to make sure that we had done
everything by the book and make sure that nothing
untoward had happened.
Q. Thank you. Forgive me, I'm just going to check the
transcript a moment because I think some of your answer
was lost.
(Pause).
So there are then two elements, two reasons why you
say you looked at the CCTV footage: the first was to
make sure nothing untoward --
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The first was to make sure nothing untoward had happened
and the second was to make sure that you had pressed all
of the right buttons on the screen, is that right?
A. Correct.
Q. So --
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was the CCTV camera focused in on the counter so that
you could see everything that you had physically done at
the counter?
A. Yes, sir. I've got a 16 channel system and there is
a camera on every counter, which includes SP1, the
entrance to the main stock unit, stock position, which
is AA where the main two counters are. There is
internal and external cameras. So I've got a 16 channel
camera system that is designed to catch anything that
moves in the office.
Q. If what you say about looking at the CCTV footage were
right, that footage would help confirm at least
important parts of your evidence, wouldn't it?
A. Can you just repeat that question please, sir, my Lord.
Q. Yes. If what you say is right, the CCTV footage would
help to confirm important parts of your evidence,
wouldn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. And it might, for example, help you dispute
responsibility for any shortfall?
A. Correct.
Q. And it is right, isn't it, that you haven't provided
that CCTV footage to Post Office in these proceedings?
A. That's correct.
Q. Why not?
A. Well, that was obviously a long time ago and we were
convinced that everything was done properly. The CCTV
was just a backup. I'm still convinced that everything
was done properly. There is a software glitch that
stole our money, you know, that disappeared into magic
air where it is not possible and so I -- we were
convinced that we were right. So the footage was shown
to my colleague who is a trusted member of staff and we
were completely confident that we had done nothing
wrong. But the problem is with the Post Office, as you
may or may not be aware, you are always -- we are always
wrong. So if the money is missing, we have to put it in
and I just put the money in and said "Okay, you know,
I must be wrong" even though we knew everything was done
perfectly, the CCTV was checked, the process was
followed properly, we are both experienced personnel and
Mrs Barnett was with me for over 13 years and, as I say,
she worked for the police, so we were both trusted
personnel. However, the way the Post Office view it, if
you ring the helpline they will say to you "The money is
missing, you have to put it in" and that's how the
system -- the procedure works and we're always liable,
as per my contract with the Post Office, so I had to
physically put that money in from my own pocket and
balance the books. As you know, every Wednesday, we
must balance the books and that's how we were trained to
procedures within the Post Office.
So with the money, any monies -- and I mean this is
just one instance of £2,000 missing. There are several
other instances where money has disappeared, small
amounts, and we put it down to the fact that it has got
to be operator error, you know, that's what we have been
told by the Post Office, of "Our software is perfect, it
must be you guys, it must be a training problem, must be
a staffing problem", or must be somebody making
a mistake and that's how we reimburse, so we just put
the money in and carry the money (inaudible)
Post Office. As we are obviously trained professionals
to do so, that's what we did. I mean I'm in a fortunate
position, I can raise money from the shop, you know, and
put the money in, but I think others are not in that
position to do so and that's why I'm kind of
disappointed with Post Office's behaviour.
Q. Mr Latif, that's a very long answer and I'm not sure it
entirely responds to the question I put. I don't accept
much of what you just said but I'm going to carry on
with the questions and we can come back to those
specific points.
A. As the Post Office I don't expect you to, sir. I'm
happy for that to be the case.
Q. The next thing you say in your witness statement is that
limitations in accessing data and reporting functions
made it difficult to interrogate the system. Do you
remember that in your witness statement?
A. I do, sir.
Q. That's not consistent, is it, with what you told me
earlier, which was that you were able to produce lots of
different reports on Horizon that would show you exactly
what had happened?
A. Can I just hold you there for one second.
My Lord, we can perform stuff at our end, but there
is a -- Post Office had its own servers and I'm an IT
guy, you know, I have qualifications in City & Guilds
before I came over to the Post Office. So yes, while we
can make checks at our end at the stock unit level,
there are a lot of stuff that happens in the background.
Obviously you've got your own -- the Post Office has its
own servers and networks and we can not access those
server. We just got our user interface at the front end
and we have a back office where we can do the reports,
transfers in, transfers out, reports. Yes we can all do
that. However, there is other stuff that Post Office
does with our data that we cannot access.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Latif, what I'm going to ask you to
do now is just listen to Mr Draper's questions and try
and confine your answers just to his questions, if you
would. Is that clear?
A. Yes, sir, my Lord, I apologise for that.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: No, no, that's all right. It sometimes
happens, but Mr Draper's questions are going to be quite
tightly focused.
Over to you, Mr Draper.
MR DRAPER: Mr Latif, I suggest that's wrong and that
Horizon provided you with all the information you needed
on your case. I'm going to take you through that stage
by stage with short questions and you should be able to
give short answers. Do you follow?
A. Okay.
Q. Horizon provided you with the information you needed to
know that the transfer out had succeeded, didn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. And you say that you saw immediately on stock unit SP1
that the transfer in had not succeeded, so Horizon told
you what you needed to know there as well, didn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. And we have already discussed how you could have printed
off an unreconciled transfer report that would have
identified any transfer out for which there was not
a transfer in; that's right, isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. And you could also carry out reports, or checks on all
of the stock units to see any changes in their Horizon
cash figures, couldn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. You could also physically check the cash in any relevant
stock unit to see whether it was the same as what the
Horizon figure showed, couldn't you?
A. Yes, sir, you can.
Q. So if your evidence were right that the transfer out
succeeded but the transfer in failed, Horizon could tell
you everything you needed to know to confirm that
position, couldn't it?
A. I think the issue -- yes, sir, but the issue is what's
happened in-between and I can't see what's happened
in-between, sir. And that's -- I think you're not
labouring that comment, that you are saying -- you are
skirting round that, but that's the crux of the issue.
Q. Do you mean between the time you performed the
transfer out and you attempted to perform the
transfer in?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You could also, Mr Latif, during this process have
phoned the helpline to ask them whether there was any
report or any function on Horizon that would help you
investigate what had gone wrong; you could do that as
well, couldn't you?
A. You could do, but, as I have said previously, I'm
a trainer for the Post Office, I train other branches
how to do their procedures, reconciling accounting,
balancing, so yes I could do, but you've got two
experienced people at the counter that have years of
experience behind them and they knew what they're doing,
so ...
Q. So I'm going to try to summarise what you just said and
tell me if it is not a fair summary.
A. Okay.
Q. You are saying that you and your assistants were so
experienced that you did not need to call the helpline
to ask for any help in finding reports or other
functions?
A. We did log a complaint to the Post Office, so there will
be a call log to the Post Office, the log to say the
money has disappeared, so there will be a call log for
that, sir.
Q. That's a separate point. I'm asking why you didn't
phone the helpline to seek their assistance in
investigating what had gone wrong and I'm trying to
summarise your evidence as being that you didn't need to
because you were so experienced, you knew what to do?
A. No, we -- first of all, yes, we did ring them, okay?
I'm not saying we didn't ring them. I'm saying we are
experienced people, we know what we're doing. We did
ring them, there will be a call log. Secondly, the
helpline is not very good either. It is full of
inexperienced people there in a call centre somewhere
where we don't know where they are and I have made
a number of calls to the helpline and the word
"helpline" is not correct for it, it's not a helpline.
They go through very basic stuff, okay, and it's not
very good. That's my personal opinion; nobody else's,
that's my personal opinion.
Q. I'm going to take you to a couple of examples then of
the helpline assisting you and your staff, Mr Latif.
Can we call up the call log please at {F/1829.1}. If
the operator could move down to row 49 please. Do you
see in column D, Mr Latif, that this is a telephone call
from your branch in November 2014?
A. You said column D?
Q. Yes, that's right. Just looking for the date there.
Row 49.
A. Yes.
Q. Then if the operator could please move the screen
sideways so that we can see column M please. That is
a description of the call from your branch and I will
read it out:
"Is there a report they can do to check what has
been transferred through units."
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And if the operator can move us along to column U
please. This, Mr Latif, is the answer that was given on
that call and you see it says:
"Yes tran log using mode for transfers."
Do you see that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So what this shows, I suggest, is that in November 2014
one of your assistants phoned the helpline to ask how to
identify transfers between stock units and was told,
correctly, that they could identify them from the
transaction log; that's right, isn't it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. If we could go now down to row 70 please and across to
the left please as well so we can see column A and so
on. You see this is another call at row 70 from your
branch, Mr Latif, and the date for this one in column D
is 20 January 2015. Do you see that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And if we go to column M please we see again the
question -- and I suggest there is obviously a missing
word in it, tell me if you disagree, but it should read:
"Can [we] print off report that will show transfers
between stock units."
Do you see that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And going to column U again please, this is the advice
given:
"Advised how to do so - TL mode - transfers -
print."
I suggest that "TL mode" is "transaction log",
do you agree?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So this is the second occasion on which you or a member
of your staff had been told how to show transfers on
reports you could print in the branch; that's right,
isn't it?
A. Yes, sir, but can I just make a point here, if I may,
my Lord?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Yes, go on.
A. The branch is open from 6 o'clock in the morning to
9 pm, seven days a week, so at times I may not be there,
or Christine Barnett may not be there, or Muhammad may
not be there, so if the operator is not sure they will
ring up the helpline to get the help that they need,
okay? So the fact that there are calls does not really
specifically -- you know, I'm not surprised because
I can't be there from 6 o'clock in the morning until
9 o'clock seven days a week, sir.
MR DRAPER: Mr Latif, on the basis of what you say happened,
the failed transfer between stock units, the truth is
there were no limitations on the information that
Horizon could provide to you to help you investigate it;
that's the position, isn't it?
A. At the front end, yes, but we don't know what happens at
the back end and we don't have access to that, sir, and
that's my point, my Lord.
MR DRAPER: Maybe, my Lord, one question before a short
break for the transcribers?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: How long are you going to be, because it
might be we can put the break a little later, but don't
feel hurried. If you think you still have --
MR DRAPER: Quite a while, sir.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right.
MR DRAPER: What report or information do you say Horizon
did not provide you that would have helped you
understand what had happened with the transfer out and
the transfer in?
A. It's the stuff in-between the transfer in from one place
to the other place. It obviously goes through the
Post Office servers and we don't have access to that --
at the front end at the office, we don't have access to
that. All we have is the front end system and that's
it. Obviously I'm convinced that something has gone
wrong in-between the (inaudible) process, there is
a glitch and we cannot -- I'm not in a position to find
out what has happened.
MR DRAPER: That's probably a convenient moment, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: You want to stop now?
MR DRAPER: For the break and come back.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Latif, we are having these
proceedings transcribed which means every hour/hour and
20 minutes we have to have a break for the person who is
doing the typing, so we're going to have one of those
breaks now. They are usually between 5 and ten minutes.
This one is actually going to be eight minutes long. So
you get a break for eight minutes. Can I just ask you
two things please: one is please don't touch any of the
equipment because I've got previous experience of links
dropping over breaks.
A. Yes, sir.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: And the second one is because you are in
the middle of your cross-examination, during that break
please don't talk to anyone about the case. Is that
understood?
A. Yes, sir.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Thank you very much. We will have an
eight minute break and come back at quarter to.
A. Thank you.
(11.37 am)
(Short Break)
(11.45 am)
MR DRAPER: Mr Latif, just before the break you said that
you had carried out a reversal to reverse the
transfer out on stock unit AA, is that right?
A. Correct, sir.
Q. That's a reversal that you say you personally carried
out?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Using your user ID that you told me earlier was ALA001?
A. Correct.
Q. Can you explain then why Post Office's transaction
records show no reversal carried out by you
in July 2015?
A. I don't know what records Post Office holds, sir.
I cannot really accept (inaudible) holding.
Q. We will come back to the transaction data shortly, but
I just want to make clear that we suggest now there was
no transfer out reversal carried out by you
in July 2015. Would you like to comment on that?
A. So where has the money gone?
Q. That's a different point, Mr Latif. I'm suggesting you
did not carry out a reversal of a transfer out for
£2,000 in July 2015. Can you comment on that suggestion
please?
A. Well, if that was the case, or that's what you're
suggesting, then the money should be in somewhere
(inaudible). It's not there either. I'm saying to you,
sir, that there is a glitch with the software and,
you know, who knows what happens behind the software.
I cannot read -- I cannot see into it. I'm just telling
you what I know, sir.
Q. Sorry, Mr Latif, just to clarify something on the
transcript, you said "If that were right then the money
would be somewhere in ..." then the next word was
inaudible. What was the word you said there?
A. Well, the money will be somewhere in the office, either
whether it is SP1 or AA. If you are saying that
I didn't do a transfer in -- back into AA then the money
would be in SP1 and the money was not in SP1. So the
money has disappeared. Where has it gone?
Q. Those are different points, Mr Latif. You are talking
about the physical cash at this point. Where the
physical cash goes has got nothing to do with Horizon,
the physical cash goes where you physically put it;
that's right, isn't it?
A. But -- that's right.
Q. And you say you physically put the cash back in stock
unit AA.
A. Correct.
Q. So stock unit AA would then show a surplus, wouldn't it,
unless you carried out a reversal of the transfer out?
A. Correct.
Q. Earlier on when we were talking about the helpline,
Mr Latif, you said that you did call the helpline and
you made some remarks about not finding the helpline
very useful. I don't need to hear that again, I just
wanted to ask you a short question about that. When do
you say you called the helpline about this alleged
failed transfer?
A. I cannot be completely sure when that was, sir, if I'm
honest.
Q. Well, was it when the failure happened?
A. I believe it was July.
Q. If I show you the call log for the relevant period and
it shows that there are no calls from you or your
assistants in relation to a failed transfer, would you
accept that you are mistaken?
A. Well, sometimes we also ring the area sales manager, so
I may have rang him, so it doesn't necessarily mean that
there were no logs of the call.
Q. Which do you say you phoned, the area sales manager or
the helpline?
A. I believe it was the helpline, but it's a long time ago.
Q. If we could call up the call log please, which is at
{F/1829.1}. If the operator could please take us to row
89. Do you see, Mr Latif, row 89 and looking over to
column D, that gives a date of 29 June 2015 which is the
first entry on this log for June? I'm just confirming
that you see it, Mr Latif?
A. Yes, I can.
Q. And if the operator could take us down please to row 97,
and looking again in column D, that's a call on
11 August 2015 and is the last call shown in August. So
if we look between those two rows, Mr Latif, that will
be the calls logged from between June and August 2015.
Do you follow?
A. Yes.
Q. Please can the operator take us to column M and looking
then, Mr Latif, in column M at row 89 we see from
column L that this is a call from Chris and the call
says:
"[Lots] of customers are coming in saying the
website shows the branch has accepting [ukba] aie."
That looks to be a call about the website; that's
right, isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. And looking down these rows, row 90 at column M, that's
a call about a passport, do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Row 91, again a call from Chris is about travel
insurance, do you see that?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. Row 92 is about ordering euros?
A. Yes.
Q. Row 93 is about an error with transaction
acknowledgements, do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Row 94 is about euros again.
A. Yes.
Q. Row 95 is a miskey error, do you see that?
A. Can you repeat that please, sir.
Q. Row 95 is -- forgive me, it's what I would call a miskey
error. One of the assistants has pressed the wrong
buttons on Horizon and so has entered the wrong amount
for a rem out.
A. Okay, so are you saying the helpline makes a mistake?
Q. I'm saying that someone in your branch, you or one of
your assistants, appears from this call log to have made
a mistake in performing a rem out; specifically rather
than remming it out for £118.74, it was remmed out for
£11.74. Do you see that?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. That's a fairly easy mistake to make, isn't it,
Mr Latif, in your experience?
A. Well, everyone is human, sir, so yes, people do make
mistakes.
Q. And mistakes like that sometimes happened in your
branch, didn't they?
A. Sir, I would inform you that mistakes happen everywhere.
But they are easily rectifiable and can be resolved in
most cases.
Q. Tell me how they are resolved, those kind of mistakes,
Mr Latif?
A. Well, the steps you can take to resolve matters -- in
this case someone remmed the wrong amount out, so you
can rem the extra amount out, so there's various things
you can do to rem the correct -- make the correct
decision. When money goes remmed out it is checked the
other side and if it is wrong, they come back and tell
you it's wrong. So there are steps in place to make
sure that things are done properly. So yes, mistakes do
happen, but they are easily rectified.
Q. And those mistakes are usually rectified by your
informing Post Office and Post Office helping you by
issuing a transaction correction, for example?
A. Not always, sir. That's not my experience with them.
Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. It all depends
on what operator you get on what day and that's my
personal experience and that's the experience and the
mood I have in the office, that it's hit and miss. It
depends on which operator you get, how well they are
trained, it is whether the response you get back is good
or not so good.
Q. It also depends, doesn't it, Mr Latif, on how clearly
you identify the problem? You would accept that,
wouldn't you?
A. Yes, indeed. In terms of if they are remote they can't
see what we've got in front of ourselves. You know,
their knowledge can sometimes be very basic. Sometimes
very good -- sometimes very good, sir, I accept that.
But sometimes it's not.
Q. Moving on, Mr Latif, along this spreadsheet that we have
been looking at, we were looking down the rows. Row 96,
the one below the miskey concerns a car registration
document. Do you see that one?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Row 97 relates to travel insurance?
A. Yes.
Q. So those are all the call logs for June to August 2015
and they don't show the call that you say you made. How
do you explain that?
A. I'm not sure. Sometimes we ring up and they don't know
that we made the call. We've had in the past when we
rang up, we say we spoke to somebody and they haven't
logged the call properly. Mistakes do happen, sir.
Q. On the basis of these records, Mr Latif, Post Office
will contend that there was no call that you made of
that kind, but I think I have your answer to that.
Now, moving on --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Just before you move on, Mr Draper. Is
this in chronological order, this call log?
MR DRAPER: My Lord, it is largely in chronological order.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Because I'm looking at it on my private
screen and I thought it would be and it doesn't appear
to be.
MR DRAPER: It is within sections but I think, if I'm right,
towards the top --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Well, row 2, for example, has June 2016
and then later on it goes to 2014 and then back to 2015,
so is there any pattern to it?
MR DRAPER: I can't give you a detailed answer as to why,
my Lord --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right, let's not worry about it at
the moment, I just thought I would ask.
MR DRAPER: The point for present purposes is there are on
this call log no other calls between June and August.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I understand that's the point that you
are putting to the witness and it's not necessary to
pursue it now, but, for example, row 2 is a June 2016
entry.
MR DRAPER: Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: But we can deal with that separately.
You continue with Mr Latif.
MR DRAPER: Thank you.
Mr Latif, in your witness statement you say there
was a shortfall in the branch account for £2,000 that
you attribute to the failed transfer that you describe,
is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The first point on that, Mr Latif, is Post Office's
records from the data it has about your branch show no
shortfall of that amount between June and August 2015.
Would you like to comment on that?
A. Well, we would have put the money in, sir, so by the
following Wednesday, reconciliation, the money has to be
put in otherwise we cannot rollover with a shortfall,
it's not possible.
Q. But it's right, isn't it, that before rolling over you
would carry out balance snapshots, variance checks,
other kinds of reports that would identify
a discrepancy, wouldn't they, if there were one?
A. We would do that if there was discrepancy, sir, anyhow.
As soon as we find a discrepancy we print the balance
snapshot, transaction logs, so we would do that by
definition, we would do that by default. That's how we
were trained to do so.
Q. And those steps that I have described, variance checks,
balance snapshots, trial balances, all of those things
that you do would come up with a discrepancy on the
screen, wouldn't they? That's how you would identify
it?
A. Yes.
Q. The transaction and event data for June to August 2015
shows no such reports that disclosed a discrepancy of
£2,000. Would you like to comment on that?
A. I don't know how the Post Office's system works
internally. I know the user side of it, but I don't
know how the inside works. So I don't know what's going
on.
Q. Coming back then to the shortfall that you allege, when
do you say you became aware of the shortfall?
A. Immediately after the transfer did not go through we did
a cash calculation to make sure, that's when (inaudible)
£2,000 missing.
Q. A cash declaration on which stock unit, Mr Latif?
A. SP1 balanced but AA did not.
Q. If you go back to your witness statement, Mr Latif, at
{E1/1/2}, at paragraph 7 you describe having done a cash
declaration on stock unit AA to confirm that the £2,000
had been transferred out; that's right, isn't it?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. You then say that after the transfer in failed you took
the £2,000 physical cash back to stock unit AA and put
it into the cash drawer?
A. Yes.
Q. That's what you say.
A. Yes.
Q. And this isn't in your witness statement, Mr Latif, but
you now say that you performed another cash declaration
on stock unit AA and that this second one showed
a shortfall?
A. Well, once the transfer did not happen to SP1, we became
suspicious that something has gone wrong. So we would
will do another cash declaration. Balance snapshot was
printed, a transfer log was done, transaction log was
done, so a number of checks were made to make sure
what's happened to the money (inaudible).
Q. Was this cash declaration before or after you say you
reversed out the transfer out?
A. One was done before and then the other was done after
the transfer in and then we did another one just to make
sure that we hadn't counted the money wrong or
double-checked every single thing in the office to make
sure that everything was as it is.
Q. Mr Latif, why do you give no evidence in your witness
statement about this process of finding and failing to
understand a £2,000 shortfall in stock unit AA?
A. When you say "evidence" what are you referring to, sir?
Q. Your witness statement, Mr Latif.
(Pause).
A. Can you repeat that question?
Q. Why do you not in your witness statement say anything
about this detailed process that you have now explained
of finding a shortfall on stock unit AA and
investigating it?
A. Well, I'm an experienced subpostmaster and to me the
steps that we do are basic logic steps, but obviously to
other people it may not come across -- I now realise
that that's not how it comes across to other people that
have no experience within the Post Office, so perhaps in
hindsight I could have been a bit more clearer, but the
fact remains the money disappeared and there's
nothing -- you know, I'm confident -- I'm extremely
confident that it is the software that's caused the
problem.
Q. Let me ask you a question about the use of the word
"disappeared" there, Mr Latif. In your witness
statement you say that the transfer in disappeared. We
discussed that earlier, do you recall, that when you
went to stock unit SP1 --
A. Yes.
Q. -- the £2,000 transfer in was missing? Do you recall
that?
A. Yes.
Q. You don't say --
A. Yes, it disappeared.
Q. You don't say anywhere in your witness statement that
the £2,000 physical cash also somehow disappeared, but
that seems to be what you are now saying, is that right?
A. Well, the system gave a shortfall of £2,000 and that's
been my statement all the way through, sir, so I don't
know what you're trying to confuse me, but there's
a shortfall of £2,000 in stock unit AA and there should
not be a stock shortfall. The money is physically
there.
Q. If I have confused you, I'm sorry --
A. It was a counting error, sir.
Q. If I have confused you I apologise. I will take it
slowly.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I think, Mr Draper, the starting point
is paragraph 8, isn't it, and what he means by his last
sentence.
MR DRAPER: Yes, that's right.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Which is probably worth exploring just
so you can be clear what his evidence is about.
MR DRAPER: Yes.
I think it is right, Mr Latif, that you are now
explaining that you say that immediately after the
failed transfer that you describe there was a £2,000
shortfall in stock unit AA. That's what you say?
A. Yes, sir, correct.
Q. And you say that shortfall was after you had reversed
the transfer out, is that right?
A. Correct, correct.
Q. And after you had put the £2,000 back in stock unit AA?
A. Correct.
Q. So on your account the physical cash in stock unit AA
would be the same after all of these processes as it was
before, you had taken it out and put it back; that's
right, isn't it?
A. Correct.
Q. And you say there was nonetheless a shortfall in that
stock unit?
A. Yes, the cash declaration showed a shortfall of £2,000.
Q. Logically that must mean that the Horizon cash figure
had gone up £2,000 over the same period of time?
A. It should have balanced out, it should have been nil, it
should have been no discrepancy. So it looks like the
software for some reason is -- done something twice. It
has done something it's not supposed to do. There's
a glitch somewhere, sir.
Q. Mr Latif, on your account the only thing that can have
caused the shortfall that you're describing is the
Horizon derived cash figure for stock unit AA somehow
having increased; that's right, isn't it?
A. Correct, it's a software accounting issue, sir. That's
my statement.
Q. That also isn't described anywhere in your witness
statement, that you identified some problem with the --
A. Well, we cannot look -- I mean I do not have access to
the Post Office's internal software so I can only assume
the money is missing. It has disappeared into the
Post~Office's system. That's all I can say.
Q. Mr Latif, that's not right. Let me take it slowly with
you, Mr Latif.
If your account were right, the problem would be
that the Horizon cash figure in stock unit AA had
somehow gone up by 2,000 when it shouldn't have done so.
That's right, isn't it?
A. The money is there but the system doesn't resolve.
Something has gone wrong with the transfer, sir.
Q. Can you just answer the question. Am I right that the
derived Horizon cash figure would have had to go up by
£2,000 for there to be a £2,000 shortfall given that the
physical cash, on your case, was the same?
A. The Horizon derived figure and the physical figure
should have matched, but they did not, sir, and the
shortfall -- what I'm saying is there is a loss of
£2,000. So that does not make sense.
Q. If that were right, Mr Latif --
A. It shouldn't have happened.
Q. Mr Latif, it would have been very easy for you to have
shown that, wouldn't it, and to have described it in
your witness statement? What you would have said was:
before these processes the Horizon derived cash figure
for stock unit AA was X thousand and after all of these
processes the Horizon derived cash figure was X minus
2,000 and there was no reason for that. Do you follow?
A. That is what happened, that's what I'm trying to say.
Q. I think you said earlier, before the break, that you had
had to put £2,000 into the branch, is that right?
A. Correct, sir.
Q. When do you say you did that?
A. I would have done it on the Wednesday (inaudible), sir.
Q. Do you say you did that without disputing this
shortfall, Mr Latif?
A. We are liable. The Post Office's contract clearly says
that we are liable for any shortfalls.
Q. Is your understanding that you are liable for
a shortfall even if it is a computer glitch, is that
what you are saying?
A. Yes, sir, we're liable.
Q. Mr Latif, you will appreciate we don't accept that there
was any such shortfall, or that you paid it in, but can
you comment on this suggestion. If you genuinely
believed that the derived cash figure on stock unit AA
had been increased by a glitch and that therefore you
were in no way responsible for any of this, what do you
say to the suggestion that it's very surprising that you
wouldn't raise that with Post Office and complain about
it?
A. Well, I have complained to the area manager, sir, so
I don't know your saying I haven't complained. I have
complained to the area manager, Mr Navjot Jando,
a number of times, so I don't know why you're saying
I haven't complained about it or raised it.
Q. So do you now say you disputed a £2,000 shortfall
in July 2015 by contacting your area manager and
complaining that there was a glitch; is that what you
are now saying?
A. Well, yes, we would have obviously raised questions, but
there is a glitch or something and we don't know what's
happened. This is just one instance, sir, but there are
a number of other instances which I haven't given in my
statement. It happens all the time and generally we
think it's the operator that's causing the problem and
that's what the Post Office keep telling us, it's
operator error, not necessarily it's a software error,
and this is clearly a software error, sir. And also,
can I just say, when I have been training other offices
they have been telling me a similar story, sir.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Latif, just hold on a second, please.
You gave the name of your area manager and the
transcript didn't pick it up. Can you just tell me what
they were called please.
A. Sorry?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: The name of your area manager.
A. Mr N-A-V-J-O-T, J-A-N-D-O.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Thank you very much.
A. Correct, sir.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Now, all of the rest of your answer has
gone onto the transcript so you can take that that's in
the record. Can you now just concentrate on Mr Draper's
specific questions please.
Mr Draper.
MR DRAPER: Yes.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Just to confirm your previous answer, you said that you
would have complained, or words to that effect, about
the glitch. Do you say that you in fact did phone your
area manager and tell him that you had suffered a £2,000
loss as a result of a glitch as you have just described?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Why is none of that recorded in your witness statement?
A. I didn't think it was relevant. I talk to the area
manager about a lot of things, so, you know ...
Q. Do you accept that you did not, however, phone the
helpline to say that you had suffered a £2,000 loss as
a result of a glitch?
A. There would have been definitely a call to the helpline.
I'm not sure why it is not showing up there, but it
should have been logged all through helpline as well.
As you can see, we quite regularly make calls to the
helpline.
Q. I'm going to now take you quickly, I hope, through
Post Office's case. Can I ask you to turn to
Ms van den Bogerd's witness statement which is at
{E2/5/23} and paragraphs 90 to 91 of that statement.
Can you read please those two paragraphs just in your
head, no need to read it out loud please.
(Pause).
A. Okay.
Q. Ms van den Bogerd has taken the three months around the
date that you identify. So you say "in around July";
Post Office has looked at June, July and August. She
has taken the transaction and event data for your branch
and based on her review of that data she says there were
no transfers out of £2,000 in June and in July
and August there were transfers of £2,000 but for every
transfer out there was a corresponding transfer in.
That's Ms van den Bogerd's evidence. Do you accept that
that's what the transaction data shows?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Well, first you need to ask him if he
has seen the transaction --
A. But that does not mean they were done properly though,
does it?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Draper, first you have to ask him if
he has seen the transaction data.
MR DRAPER: Have you, Mr Latif, had an opportunity to see
any of the transaction data?
A. Sorry, can you repeat the question please.
Q. Have you looked at any of the transaction data to which
Ms van den Bogerd refers?
A. You mean this document in front of me now?
Q. No, forgive me. This is her witness statement. She
says here what the data shows. But Post Office has also
provided to your solicitors the underlying transaction
data documents that she has looked at. Have you seen
those Excel spreadsheets?
A. I haven't seen the spreadsheet but I did have a call
with my solicitors a few weeks ago.
Q. We don't need to know about that, Mr Latif. But you
haven't seen the spreadsheet is the key point there,
that's right?
A. No, no.
Q. Okay.
A. I have been out of the country since 19 February as
well, sir, so ... I think these transfers are coming in
a little bit late and I have poor internet access where
I am, I'm in the mountains in Kashmir and there is the
small matter of tensions between India and Pakistan
going on as well, so I have very limited access to the
outside world apart from -- predominantly voice calls.
Q. Mr Latif, since when is that that you have been in
Kashmir?
A. I arrived on 19 February, sir.
Q. I'm going to show you the underlying transaction data
for June 2015, Mr Latif, and the suggestion I'm going to
make is that shows no transfers of £2,000 within your
branch. If you are confident that this problem occurred
in July, there's no need to look at June. Would you
like to look at June?
A. Why not?
Q. I'm sorry, Mr Latif, I missed that. What did you say?
A. I said why not -- while we are here, why not?
Q. If the operator could call up please {F/1353.1}.
Mr Latif, I should explain, this is not a document of
a type you will have seen. It's not a report printed
out in your branch. It's an Excel spreadsheet showing
data from Post Office. Do you understand?
A. Okay, I do.
Q. This is the full transaction data and we won't scroll
down but it is an extremely long document so what
I propose to show you is a filtered version that only
shows transfers out and transfers in, okay?
A. Okay.
Q. If the operator could please call up that version. This
spreadsheet has now been filtered using codes that the
claimants are aware of that enable the spreadsheet to
show only transfers out and transfers in.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Is this an agreed document then this
one?
MR DRAPER: No, this was produced shortly before the
cross-examination rather than doing it manually. It
takes a couple of minutes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right, continue. We will need to
address this at the end I think.
MR DRAPER: Mr Latif, now that this has been filtered, if
you scan your eye down column L there are no transfers
shown for £2,000 on this spreadsheet.
(Pause).
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I'm not really sure where this is going
to get us, Mr Draper, to be honest. It's a bit much to
ask a witness to look at a document that has about --
how many is it, entries?
MR DRAPER: You won't be able to tell by counting, I don't
think.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Quite, that's rather my point. But if
your case is there are no entries on there for £2,000
in June, just put that point to the witness and he might
either agree or disagree.
MR DRAPER: Sure.
Mr Latif, Post Office says there are no entries here
for a transfer of £2,000 in June. Do you accept that?
A. I can understand what you're saying, but I'm confident
there's a glitch in the software, so it's possible it's
missing.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Maybe a different way, a quicker way of
getting to the same point, or a broadly quicker
way: Mr Latif, on this document for June it shows
various transfers for different amounts.
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Can you remember roughly how often you
would have to fill up or replenish the combi-counter
cash till with money from stock unit AA?
A. Quite regularly, sir.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I beg your pardon?
A. Quite regularly, sir.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Quite regularly.
A. At least every other day.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right. Back to you, Mr Draper.
MR DRAPER: The next point, Mr Latif, that Ms van den Bogerd
makes is that she has checked the transaction data
for July 2015 and there were two transfers of £2,000
between stock unit AA and stock unit SP1, but both of
those were successful.
A. How do you determine successful, sir?
Q. Maybe I can show you the spreadsheet. It is at
{F/1365.1}. This again is the raw data but if the
operator can filter it to just show transfers out and
transfers in. Mr Latif, can you see that? The first
transfer out Post Office says is at row 18352. Do you
see that? Maybe if the operator could highlight the
four entries starting at 18351 and going down to 18359.
What Post Office says this data shows, Mr Latif, is
a successful transfer of £2,000 from stock unit AA to
stock unit SP1 and Post Office says that transfer out
was performed by Christine Barnett. You see her
user ID. And the transfer in was performed by
Christine Fensome, we see her user ID. Do you see that,
Mr Latif?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The next transfer --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Hold on, before you -- are you moving
off this page?
MR DRAPER: To lower down on the page.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: But on these four can you just identify
for the transcript, because I think it will be useful,
what line shows what happening at what time, out of or
into of what unit? Because they are grouped together in
a way which seems to me to be a bit confusing.
MR DRAPER: Yes. Post Office contends that the transfer out
is shown at row 18352 as being performed by
Christine Barnett out of stock unit AA, the time is
given.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Can you tell me what it is please.
MR DRAPER: 13.52.22. And that is for £2,000.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: And the date?
MR DRAPER: 21/07/2015.
Then the transfer in is at row 18359. It is
performed by Christine Fensome. It is on stock
unit SP1, it has the same date, 21 July 2015, it is
timed at 13.55.01 and it is also for £2,000.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: And that's into SP1?
MR DRAPER: It is.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: And then the other one?
MR DRAPER: The next transfer starts at row 25988.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: No, no, sorry, there are four together
there, aren't there?
MR DRAPER: There are four entries. This is probably
a point I should explain to Mr Latif.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Just deal with this first and give me
the entries and then deal with it --
MR DRAPER: Yes. My Lord, the two I have given you --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: You have given me 18352 and 18359.
MR DRAPER: Yes. Those are the transfer out and the
transfer in. They are surrounded on this spreadsheet by
two other records. They are not transfers. They
correspond to the value of the transfer but they are not
actually transfers. They perform a back office
reconciliation function that wouldn't be visible to
a subpostmaster. If Mr Latif had called up records in
his branch he would have seen the two transactions to
which I have referred you, he wouldn't see the
effectively inverse transaction that are only visible in
the back office systems.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I see. All right and then go to the
next one.
MR DRAPER: The next one, Mr Latif, starts at row 25988. Do
you see that's a transaction performed by another one of
your assistants? Can you recall the name of that
assistant? I don't have the paper in front of me,
Mr Latif. Is that Mr Deacock?
A. Yes.
Q. So we see there --
A. Yes, he is an employee of mine.
Q. 25988, Mr Deacock on stock unit SP1, on 29 July 2015, at
11.49.19 performs a transfer out of the value of £2,000.
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And then if we go a couple of rows lower than that, at
25990 on here we see MLA001. Who is that, Mr Latif?
A. Pardon, LAA001?
Q. Yes, user IDMLA001.
A. That is Mohammad Latif, my brother.
Q. Am I right to say that he wasn't shown on the assistant
document that we saw?
A. He is a holiday relief and he was -- he should have been
on there. I can't remember ...
Q. Did you register him as an assistant with Post Office?
A. He has been registered with the Post Office, sir.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: If you can just finish your exercise.
MR DRAPER: Yes. So that's your brother then,
Mohammad Latif --
A. Yes.
Q. -- performing, Post Office says, a transfer in at 25990
on stock unit AA on the same date, 29 July 2015, at
11.50.30, about a minute after the transfer out, so
Post Office says this was a second successful transfer
between the two stock units in July but in the opposite
direction. Do you follow that?
A. Yes.
Q. On the basis of that, Mr Latif, Post Office says that
in July 2015 there were two transfers of £2,000 between
the stock units you identify, one in one direction and
one in the other, but that both of them succeeded
because there was both a transfer out and a transfer in?
A. Well, what's your definition of "succeeded"? What's the
cash figure? I mean I'm not sure I follow you, because
you're saying if you transfer in and transfer out, that
it works? That's not necessarily the case. The case it
works is where your cash declaration says that it has
worked. That's how you confirm that it worked.
Q. Mr Latif, I'm just dealing with your evidence. Your
evidence is that you performed a transfer out but then
the transfer in was not available on the second stock
unit to accept. I have just shown you documents that
Post Office will say that there was not such a transfer,
there was not a transfer for which there was
a transfer out but no transfer in. Do you follow that?
A. I follow that, but I'm still saying that there's
a glitch. We transfer stuff all the time and yes, most
of the time it works, but there are times when it didn't
work and that's what I'm saying.
Q. Ms van den Bogerd then says in her statement that she
has looked at the data for August 2015 and there were in
fact four transfers of £2,000 between the stock units
but those too were all successful, there was in every
case a corresponding transfer in for each transfer out.
Do you follow that?
A. I do.
Q. Do you accept that that is what the data would show, or
would you like me to take you through the data?
A. No, no, I accept.
Q. On the basis of that, Mr Latif, Post Office says there
was no failed transfer such as that described in your
witness statement and that you are simply wrong about
that, it never happened.
A. So you are calling me a liar?
Q. Mr Latif, you may be mistaken or you may be lying.
I put the question that it didn't happen.
A. Well, I state that they did.
Q. Notwithstanding, Mr Latif, that it is not shown on the
transaction records, do you say that those transaction
records are then wrong?
A. I believe so.
Q. Thank you.
I'm now going to move on, Mr Latif, to ask you about
the transaction correction issue in January 2018.
I have been asked to confirm with you that
the heading in your witness statement is a typographical
error and you meant to refer to transaction
acknowledgements, is that right?
A. Yes, TC, transaction acknowledgments.
Q. Sorry, I heard that as TC transaction acknowledgment.
Did you mean to say TA, transaction acknowledgment?
A. TA is transaction acknowledgment and TC is transaction
corrections, so it is two different things, sir.
Q. Yes. In paragraph 9 of your statement, if you could
look at that, that's {E1/1/2}, you say:
"... Camelot sent information to Horizon in relation
to scratchcards. Camelot sent this information to
Horizon twice."
A. Yes, sir.
Q. First question about that: by amendment to your
statement you now say that this was in
around January 2018 rather than March 2018.
A. Correct.
Q. What caused you to make that correction?
A. I had a look at the -- we hold the records for the
information in the office, so I had my assistants look
at the records, transaction logs and that's when
I confirmed that it was January rather than March.
(Inaudible) was logs in March as well. We made calls
effectively every month to Horizon help desk concerning
this issue.
Q. When do you say you asked your assistants to check about
the date?
A. Yes.
Q. Sorry, when do you say that happened?
A. It was after I made the initial statement, I was
checking.
Q. Roughly when, Mr Latif?
A. It would have been a few weeks ago, sir.
Q. So is it right that you didn't check those records from
the branch before making your witness statement?
A. No, I thought I was correct but I double checked and
made sure that actually in fact they were correct, those
(inaudible), so I was right but initial incident
happened in January when TA (inaudible) transaction
acknowledgement, the TC, the corrections, they came
in March.
Q. Okay. So you say, do you, that the TCs in relation to
these transaction acknowledgements came in March 2018?
A. Yes.
Q. And you say that's something you have checked from your
records?
A. Yes.
Q. Looking at paragraph 9, why is that put in such vague
terms, Mr Latif? What information are you talking about
in that paragraph?
A. Which paragraph, sir?
Q. Paragraph 9, starting "In or around January ..."?
A. Yes, the way the system works with Camelot and
Post Office is they have a contract with Camelot, is
that the Camelot machine predominantly is based on the
retail side of the business, so it's -- retail business
is the shop side. So, for example, a customer comes in,
does a transaction, buys the scratchcard or the lottery
ticket from us, that data is transmitted back to branch,
to the Post Office, the following morning. So say on
a Tuesday we perform transactions, on the Wednesday
morning a TA, which is a transaction acknowledgment,
will go to a branch, okay? So the money that was taken
in the retailer side is then accounted for in the
Post Office's system on our tills, so we have to put our
money in to the Post Office till and that's done
throughout the country at every Post Office that has
a Camelot machine installed at the branch.
Q. So in paragraph 9 what you are referring to is
a transaction acknowledgment sent to your branch by
Post Office --
A. Yes.
Q. -- relating to Camelot scratchcards, is that right?
A. Yes. I believe they made the mistake and sent out the
information twice to every branch up and down the
country and that's what we were told by the help desk.
Q. When do you say the help desk told you that, Mr Latif?
A. When we learned in January -- when we got two lots of
certain TAs.
Q. So you say you phoned immediately when you received two
sets of TAs, is that right?
A. Yes, sir. We automatically have to accept the TAs. You
can't not accept them. As soon as you log on in the
morning, the TAs are there.
Q. So do you say you phoned Post Office and said "You have
mistakenly sent me two transaction acknowledgements
rather than one"?
A. Yes.
Q. And they nonetheless told you to accept them, is that
your evidence?
A. No, sir, you have no choice but to accept them. If you
do not accept them you cannot continue to serve in your
branch during the day. You have to accept them.
There's no way round it.
Q. Mr Latif, why don't you mention this important telephone
call in your witness statement?
A. Well, we will make -- I can see we made lots of calls to
the helpline, so, I mean it was -- we also had a message
come through from Post Office saying that there was an
error, there was a glitch, the transaction was put
through twice, was sent twice to the branches and "We
are going to resolve it". The Post Office were aware of
it.
Q. What form do you say that notice took, Mr Latif?
A. I believe it was a memo view, which is an internal
communications system that the Post Office uses to
communicate to branches and it pops up on your screen on
the Horizon channel.
Q. And you say that this notice told you that Camelot had
made a mistake, is that right?
A. That's right, sir. No, it said there was a -- the
information was duplicated, so it was sent twice.
Q. And you were told that was Camelot's mistake, you say?
A. Well, they said it was a mistake. They are working with
Camelot to resolve the issue. Whose fault it is, I'm
not sure.
Q. Mr Latif, have you provided any notice that Post Office
sent you referring to a mistake involving Camelot that
you refer to in paragraph 10 of your witness statement?
A. I haven't, but that's quite easily accessible to
everybody. It's not a -- it's commonly available to the
Post Office.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Latif, is that different from the
item you have just referred to that pops up on the
screen, or is it just a different word to describe the
same thing?
A. Well, it's the same, it's called a memo view, sir,
my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: It's called a what, sorry?
A. It's called a memo view.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Memo view.
A. M-E-M-O, V-I-E-W.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: So is your paragraph 10 talking about
the memo view, or is it talking about something
different?
A. That's it, that's what I'm talking about.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: That's what you are talking about.
A. Paragraph 10, yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right, back to you, Mr Draper.
MR DRAPER: Mr Latif, do you accept you might be
misremembering the things you describe in paragraphs 9
and 10?
A. No, a notice is a memo view, sir, that's the
communication we have with the Post Office.
Q. Do you say --
A. It's a one-way system -- it's a one-way system, sir, how
I explained. So if the people at Post Office want to
communicate to us something very quickly, that's the
system they use. So it's messages about procedural
changes, or anything that's about to expire, the
memo view comes to our screen and that happens
automatically and that goes to every branch up and down
the country, all the time.
Q. Do you say that you personally processed the transaction
acknowledgements to which you refer in paragraph 9?
A. The transaction acknowledgements would have been done by
Christine Barnett. It's done when you first log -- when
the first person logs in on stock unit AA the
transaction screen pops up. The transaction
acknowledgment, the TA pops up. That happens almost
every day except for Sunday.
Q. But you say you personally received the notice that you
refer to in paragraph 10?
A. The branch received the notice, sir, so whoever logs in,
the first person to log in among the staff, or one of my
colleagues, the notice will come in.
Q. Was that you or one of your staff?
A. I believe it may have been Christine -- it was
Christine, Christine Barnett.
Q. So is it right to say that everything in paragraphs 9
and 10 are things that have been told to you by
Ms Barnett?
A. The memo view, sir, will come to us as well, it will
come to me as well, sir. As soon as I log on I will get
the memo view as well. So ...
Q. I don't think that quite answered the question. Were
you told these things by Ms Barnett, or do you say you
personally saw them?
A. Well, my statement says information sent to Horizon, it
does not say sent to me or Christine, sir.
Q. I understand that. I'm asking which it is?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Draper, I think you are
misunderstanding his evidence. His evidence is that it
pops up when each person logs in. Now, on the basis
that he's got a separate login -- if you want to suggest
an alternative method that the information is
communicated, you should pursue that.
MR DRAPER: Forgive me.
Mr Latif, is your evidence that even after
a transaction acknowledgment has been accepted, it still
pops up on someone else's screen when they log in?
A. No.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: No, you were asking him about the
notice, Mr Draper.
MR DRAPER: I was asking him about both, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Well, if you were, you were putting it
together in one question. Would you like to -- you
actually said "Were you told these things by Ms Barnett"
and by "these things" you were talking about
paragraph 10. Now, paragraph 10 includes the
notice/memo view. So if you would just like to pursue
it so that it is clear please so that you are not
talking about one thing and he is asking questions about
another.
MR DRAPER: Understood. I will put the question exactly as
I put it before, my Lord.
Is it right to say that everything in paragraphs 9
and 10 are things that Ms Barnett told you?
A. No.
Q. So which bits of that evidence do you say are from your
own personal knowledge?
A. Well, sir, every branch for the last 17 years I have
been working with the Post Office gets a TA from Camelot
if they are a Camelot authorised branch, so that's
standard procedure within the Post Office. I don't
understand your labouring this point. It happens every
day at every branch, to whoever logs in first gets the
transaction acknowledgment to account for yesterday's
takings that the Camelot machine has performed. Okay?
The notice that I'm referring to as a memo view, every
operator gets that memo view, irrespective. As soon as
they log in, that memo view comes up automatically. So
that's the notice that I'm referring to in section 10,
sir. Have I made myself clear?
Q. No, Mr Latif, you haven't answered the question. It is
a really small question. It is not about how TAs work
or how memo view works. Are you saying that you
personally processed the transaction acknowledgment and
that you personally received the memo view message, or
are you saying that these are things Ms Barnett told
you?
A. What I'm saying to you is that I performed the
transaction, but Mrs Barnett will discuss it with me as
well that it comes up twice. So that statement is true.
You know, as soon as you log on it comes up
automatically, the TA comes up automatically, whoever
the first person to log on is, so we would -- you know,
we communicate with each other in the branch all the
time.
Q. Mr Latif, paragraph 11 {E1/1/2} you say that
a transaction correction was later received and that you
accepted it, is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You said a few minutes ago that that was in March 2018,
is that right?
A. The transaction correction, again you have to accept,
sir. And yes, that's correct.
Q. You say in paragraph 11 that the TC didn't change the
stock figure of scratchcards but Horizon showed an extra
£1,000 of scratchcards in stock.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You then say that means the transaction correction did
not work. Can you explain what you mean by that phrase
"did not work"?
A. The transaction correction corrects -- was meant to
correct the stock that was wrongly assigned to us where
it was duplicated, so it should have reduced it down to
minus 50, so £500 worth of scratchcards rather than
£1,000 worth of scratchcards.
Q. Just to be clear, what you mean by "did not work" is
that it didn't resolve the problem in your branch. You
don't mean that there was something faulty at
a technical level with the transaction correction, you
mean that it worked technically but that it didn't
resolve the problem, is that right?
A. Well, it's the same thing, sir. If it didn't work, it
didn't -- it didn't do what's it's supposed to do, which
is to correct our stock figure. It didn't correct the
stock figure.
Q. I don't follow, Mr Latif. It did change the Horizon
stock level, didn't it?
A. What do you mean, sir?
Q. The figure on Horizon for what the stock level should be
changed when you put through the transaction correction,
didn't it?
A. No, as I say, my statement says that the correction was
£1,000, but it didn't work. The TC should have reduced
the stock, but it didn't. The TA added it twice, the TC
should have taken it away. The TC did not take it away.
Sometimes the TCs take them away, sometimes they add
them. You either get a credit, or you get an invoice.
So the TCs work in two separate ways.
Q. Okay, maybe it is unhelpful to focus on the word
"worked", but what you say is that the Horizon figure
for scratchcards went up by 1,000 but of course the
physical number didn't change. That's the point you're
making?
A. I think I may need to explain how that works. I think
you are getting confused. Can I just explain how
scratchcards work, your Honour?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Well, I think I understand how they
work. I'm pretty sure Mr Draper does, but maybe
Mr Draper will just in summary form put it to you so
that you can agree it or disagree it.
Mr Draper.
MR DRAPER: It may be the best thing to do, Mr Latif, is to
get a short statement on this from a Post Office
witness.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: No, I don't think so.
MR DRAPER: Sorry, I mean to go to the statement and we can
agree the text.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: By all means if you have got one, yes.
MR DRAPER: If you can turn please to Ms van den Bogerd's
witness statement at {E2/5/8} and at paragraph 25 -- do
you see that, Mr Latif? Can you read paragraph 25 to
yourself please just in your head.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: That's about the PING fix, isn't it?
A. Okay.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: We were on transaction corrections.
MR DRAPER: I believe he wanted me to take him through how
one gets a TC for scratchcards and to what it relates.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I don't believe he did, but we will let
him read that and then you can put your question.
Mr Draper, you're going to have to pay attention to
what his answers are. This is incredibly slow going.
How much longer are you going to be with the witness?
MR DRAPER: I would say about 15 to 20 minutes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right.
(Pause).
MR DRAPER: Then, Mr Latif, over the page {E2/5/9} --
A. Okay.
Q. -- Ms Van den Bogerd at 26.6 is referring to the process
you described earlier, that scratchcards are first
activated on the lottery terminal and then at 26.7, if
you could read that to yourself, she describes the
process for TAs and I'm just putting this to you because
I think we agree about that process, so if you could
read 26.7 to yourself please.
(Pause).
Are you there yet, Mr Latif, the end of
paragraph 26.7?
A. I am.
Q. What she says there is right, isn't it?
A. She does.
Q. Can I ask you to then go forward to paragraph 98, which
is at {E2/5/24}. What Ms van den Bogerd says there is
that the problem in your branch started -- I'm
summarising, but the problem in your branch started when
your branch received two TAs on 18 January 2018 and she
says that they were mistakenly negative in value when
they should have been positive. Do you follow that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you accept --
A. Positive has corrected a negative (inaudible) is what we
have to put the money into the Post Office till.
Q. Precisely. And she is explaining that was Post Office's
mistake when it made the TA. Someone put a minus when
they shouldn't have. Do you follow?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And she says that's what started this problem in your
branch. Do you accept that?
A. I do.
Q. The mistake in the transaction acknowledgment would have
been apparent and obvious from looking at the
transaction acknowledgment itself, wouldn't it?
A. I don't follow.
Q. Well, if the transaction acknowledgment was negative
rather than positive you would see that --
A. Yes.
Q. -- when you looked at it?
A. We would look into our stock figure and yes, our stock
figure would be negative, so in this case the £10
scratchcard, which is what that TA refers to, it would
have been negative.
Q. Yes. I think you're saying after the TA you had
a negative balance of scratchcards on Horizon, is that
right?
A. Correct.
Q. But that happened, Mr Latif, because the TA was negative
and I'm suggesting that that would be obvious from
looking at the TA. Do you follow?
A. Well, yes, because we -- it was done twice. It would
have been obvious, yes, it would be a negative figure,
but what you're saying about -- what Mrs Van den Bogerd
is saying is that the transaction was done twice, the TA
was done twice in error. So our stockholding would gone
negative.
Q. We agree that point, Mr Latif. Your stockholding for
scratchcards went negative. It did that because of the
negative TA. That's common ground.
A. Yes.
Q. Ms van den Bogerd is not saying that there was a mistake
made duplicating a transaction acknowledgment, she is
just saying it was negative when it should have been
positive and I think you have agreed that?
A. Yes, I do. When we (inaudible) like that to the shop,
it is activated on a lottery machine, that's a message
that goes back that means we have to pay for that
scratchcard to the Post Office. Okay? And that got
negative, so when we do the TA we then have to send that
scratchcard to the system to make it positive, manually.
We put the money in at the same time, so the TA was sent
in twice.
Q. Okay. We will disagree on that and I will come back to
the precise mechanism --
A. Well, you can check.
Q. -- in a moment. The point I wanted to make -- and it is
no big criticism, Mr Latif, but the point is you were at
your branch required to check the TAs and Post Office
made a mistake and you missed the mistake; is that fair?
A. How do you say we missed the mistake? Because memo view
said the Post Office will issue a TC, a transaction
correction, to correct their mistake. What I'm saying
is that that TC didn't work. Our stock figure stayed,
where it should have basically gone into the positive,
so rather than being negative it should have gone back
to zero and it did not (inaudible) and that's why the TC
failed.
Q. Can I ask you then to look at paragraph 99 of
Ms van den Bogerd --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Before you do that, Mr Draper, it is now
5 past 1. I don't know if you are paying any attention
to the time, but what's your attention, to plough on
until you have finished, or to take stock, or -- we have
to in some way address the fact this is a time limited
trial.
MR DRAPER: Of course, my Lord. My intention was to see
whether Mr Latif agrees with paragraph 99 because that
then will determine how much more I need to show him.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Well, in terms of timing for your
cross-examination?
MR DRAPER: Oh, forgive me. 15 to 20 minutes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Well, it was 15 to 20 minutes when
I asked you 15 to 20 minutes ago.
MR DRAPER: Well then --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Is your intention --
MR DRAPER: It will have to be, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Is your intention just that we sit here
until you have finished and then we have a break, or we
have a short break for the transcribers now for
ten minutes and then come back?
MR DRAPER: No, my Lord. My intention was to show Mr Latif
paragraph 99 which will then determine how much more
cross-examination is needed on this area and then break.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Right, we will do that then.
MR DRAPER: Mr Latif, can you read to yourself paragraph 99
of Ms van den Bogerd's statement please.
(Pause).
A. Yes, okay.
Q. Do you agree with what she says there about what
happened next?
A. I agree that you cannot roll over with a negative stock
figure, Horizon does not allow you to do that.
Q. Do you agree with the rest of it?
A. I do.
Q. Thank you.
That is an appropriate moment, I think, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Right and you think another 15 to
20 minutes.
MR DRAPER: I do.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Right, Mr Latif, I know you are in
a different time zone. Usually we would have a break
now in the middle of the day. Can you tell me what the
time is there please? What time of day is it?
A. It is just going on 10 past 6, your Honour.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: In the evening, yes?
A. In the evening, yes, your Honour.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Now, are you all right to have a short
break for about 40, 45 minutes and come back, or would
you prefer to keep going now until we finish your
evidence?
A. Your Honour, I would really appreciate your help if we
continue to finish so I can get back.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right. Well, what we're going to do
then is just have a five minute break for the shorthand
writers and then we're going to continue. On the basis
that this gentleman is on the videolink from Pakistan,
Mr Draper, I think that's the best thing to do. So if
I can say we have a break until let's say quarter past
and then we will come back and then Mr Draper is going
to complete your evidence, all right?
A. Thank you.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: So that's about six minutes.
(1.10 pm)
(Short Break)
(1.15 pm)
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Draper.
MR DRAPER: Mr Latif, before the break you agreed with
paragraphs 98 and 99 of Ms van den Bogerd's witness
statement {E2/5/24}.
A. Yes.
Q. I wonder whether you could read to yourself also
paragraph 100 and tell me whether you agree with that
please.
(Pause).
A. Okay, yes.
Q. You agree that, Mr Latif?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Can I ask you then to read paragraph 101, starting at
the bottom of the page and please do indicate when you
would like the page turned.
(Pause).
A. Okay, page please {E2/5/25}.
(Pause).
Q. Have you done with paragraph 101, Mr Latif?
A. I am.
Q. Do you agree with that paragraph as well?
A. I do.
Q. Do you then agree, Mr Latif, with the conclusion that
Ms van den Bogerd draws in paragraph 102? If you read
that to yourself please.
(Pause).
A. Okay.
Q. Do you agree that that's the position, Mr Latif: it was
a confusing situation, but once the data has all been
analysed, Ms van den Bogerd is right about what
happened?
A. Can I just confirm, there was an audit done in September
of this year, an audit by a Post Office trained auditor,
and my stockholding was still showing negative. And
a Jane Lawrence is the auditor and she has -- still
could not resolve this matter, so the problem hasn't
gone away, the problem is still there. And there have
been a number of calls to the helpline to resolve that
negative stock and it hasn't worked. They haven't come
back with a response.
Q. Mr Latif, the evidence of Ms van den Bogerd that you
have just agreed is correct, at least up to
paragraph 101, is that the initial mistake by
Post Office caused the branch to have a negative stock
level, you agree?
A. Yes, correct.
Q. Your branch then carried out a sales reversal that
addressed the stock level but created a cash surplus;
that's right?
A. Correct.
Q. The transaction correction from Post Office then
adjusted the stock level but because of your reversal it
didn't put the branch back how it should have been. Do
you follow that?
A. Yes, okay, go on.
Q. So in effect the transaction correction cancelled out
the mistaken transaction acknowledgment, do you agree
with that?
A. That's what it's supposed to do.
Q. But the problem was that because of the reversal in your
branch, you would need to undo that reversal before the
branch would be back as it should have been? That's
Ms van den Bogerd's evidence.
A. I still state that an independent audit was done by the
Post Office, a Mrs Jane Lawrence, in September 2018 the
stockholding was still negative and as the branch was
handed over to another subpostmaster that is going to be
investigated, it's going to be investigated. If you are
now coming back with this evidence, I still say that
there is a problem somewhere and I don't know what's
happened but we have still got a negative stock figure
within our branch.
Q. Mr Latif, that's inconsistent with the evidence that you
have just agreed is correct about what the transaction
correction did, isn't it?
A. Well, that's what it's supposed to do, but what it did
is a different thing. I mean that's what it is supposed
to do.
Q. Why do you not mention the audit in your witness
statement?
A. Well, I'm just saying that the stock figure is wrong and
the till is wrong, so it's a fact. I mean you should
know, the Post Office should know they did an audit of
this. I have complained, we made a number of calls to
the helpline. We rang Camelot as well to address the
issue and they just haven't got back to us. I told them
we had an audit coming, "You need to do it before the
audit" and if you check the call logs there will be
a number of call logs to the helpline about these
scratchcards. I'm sure you have those.
Q. Mr Latif, what Post Office will submit about this
problem with transaction acknowledgements and
transaction corrections in 2018 is that there were
a series of human errors that led to a problem in your
branch that was quite hard to get to the bottom of, but
that did not involve any computer bug or error in
Horizon. Do you agree?
A. I agree, but the fact remains that an independent audit
happened and the stock we were holding was still
negative, so how do you explain that, sir?
Q. Mr Latif, I'm sorry to go back. It's not entirely clear
from your answer whether you did agree with me or not.
Do you agree that the problem with transaction
acknowledgements and transaction corrections can be
explained by human errors and that there was not a bug
or error in Horizon involved in that problem?
A. The human error is when the Post Office, or Camelot,
PINGed the information to our terminal, duplicated the
information. That's the human error. We then, to
balance the office, had to do a number of transactions
to correct that cock-up, if I may use that word,
my Lord. So, yes, there was a mistake that was made,
but I still stress it was on Post Office's side, or
Camelot who are their partner.
So the fact remains there was an independent audit
happened by your Post Office -- by Post Office's
auditor, her recommendation was that they look into it
as is (inaudible) the strategy is still there. And
there were a number of calls to the helpline pleading
with them to resolve this issue before the audit and
there will be a complete trail of that, sir.
Q. I'm going to leave the transaction correction issue now
and turn to some final points.
At paragraphs 15 and 18 of your witness statement
{E1/1/3}, Mr Latif, you make a number of very general
allegations about Horizon. Do you see those?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I can't meaningfully challenge you on those because
there is no detail for me to engage with, but I just
formally make clear that Post Office does not accept
that what you say there is correct. Do you follow that?
A. Okay, I accept the Post Office explanation, but that's
not my experience. I think you have to accept that as
well please.
Q. Mr Latif, we saw earlier a mistake in your branch. Do
you remember the remming error with the cheque? Do you
recall seeing that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. If we could go back to the call log please at
{F/1829.1}, and if we could go please to row 172.
Mr Latif, this is a record of a call from your branch,
Caddington, on 26 March 2018 and we get that from
column D and the content of the call is shown at
column M and it says there at M:
"Thursday: customer wanted to withdraw £1,000 but
did as a deposit so now £2,000 down."
A. Yes.
Q. So what happened there, Mr Latif, was the assistant
processed on Horizon a deposit for £1,000, that's right?
A. Can I just stop you there. That incident, a customer
came in, distracted the counter clerk, okay, made
comments about her, made her feel uneasy. There were
two buttons next to each other on Horizon, one to the
left, one to the right, so she pressed the wrong button,
okay. We -- instead of withdrawing money we put money
into his account. So rather than taking £1,000 out of
his account, in fact the button hit was the deposit
button, so we put £1,000 into his account. So the
shortfall was £2,000. That same night when we did the
cash declaration, we realised the mistake, we checked
the CCTV and proved that the customer -- in fact the
wrong transaction occurred. I personally contacted the
customer, the customer refunded us the money and that is
the correct procedure followed to make sure that the
money was put back into the system.
Q. Mr Latif, prior to that resolution that you were able to
reach there will have been a £2,000 shortfall within the
branch, wouldn't there?
A. (Inaudible) yes, but before the next balancing period.
Q. If we go --
A. The customer put the money back, sir.
Q. If we can go to row 182 please. We see there a mistake
where someone -- you or one of your assistants -- has
accidently entered a council tax bill for £13 as £130,
so what I would call a miskey error.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So it's fair to say, isn't it, Mr Latif, that there were
errors and mistakes in this your branch of that kind
that could lead to shortfalls?
A. I would say that every branch has shortfalls, sir.
Everybody is human. We all make mistakes, but most
mistakes are corrected. However, with software glitches
you cannot correct those.
Q. One conclusion point, Mr Latif. Do you accept that
everything you complain of in your witness statement can
be explained by human errors, whether Post Office
errors, or errors in your branch, and might not have
involved any bug or error in Horizon?
A. No, no. I would say some errors are human error, but
there is also a bug in the Post Office system and that's
my evidence, sir.
Q. Just one short last point, Mr Latif, just to confirm.
Post Office's position is that you ceased to be the
subpostmaster of the Caddington branch in September of
last year. That's right, isn't it?
A. Correct.
Q. Was it --
A. That's -- the date it happened -- 27 September is when
the audit was.
Q. It doesn't matter, but Post Office records suggest it
was the 26th, but it doesn't matter, Mr Latif.
A. Yes.
Q. Is it therefore a mistake in your witness statement that
you failed to correct when you say in paragraph 1 that
you are currently the subpostmaster?
A. I did discuss that with the -- my solicitor and they
said because the incident happened while I was in charge
it didn't really matter.
Q. Thank you, Mr Latif.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Re-examination?
MR GREEN: My Lord, I'm just going to ask -- because he's
got a four hour drive home I'm going to ask two --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I'm not encouraging any.
MR GREEN: But I need to do some.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I'm not stopping you, but he has been in
the witness box for three hours.
MR GREEN: Precisely. So, my Lord, I was just going to
explain, I'm asking two indicative questions.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Yes.
Re-examination by MR GREEN
MR GREEN: Could you be shown the transcript please at
page 40, line 15. Sorry, Mr Latif, just bear with us
a second. We're just trying to find the transcript --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: You can just read out the question and
answer if you want.
MR GREEN: At page 40, line 15 {Day2/40:15} Mr Draper asked
you:
"Question: If we could call up the call log
please ..."
Which is at 1829.1, which we will look at
in a moment. And then it says:
"Question: ... row 89 and looking over to column D,
that gives a date of 29 June 2015 which is the first
entry on this log for June?"
And you will remember his Lordship spotted that
there were some dates which were out of order. Could
the operator please go to that document 1829.1
{F/1829.1}. And could you please enable editing and
filter by date please, sort by date, sort and filter,
custom sort, sort by created date. "Okay". And please
can you then look at row 95. Can you see that's
actually 22 June?
A. Correct.
Q. And if we go across to the right we can see in rows L
and M the caller is identified as Chris and it says:
"Customer rang as she is trying to complete
an existing reversal on a rem in. She is using the
session ID and it is not accepting and coming up with an
error message 'unable to reserve as remmed as product in
AD'."
Do you have any recollection as at today what that
was about?
A. To be perfectly honest, I don't.
Q. Okay, thank you.
Then could we just use the duplicate of that
spreadsheet please that you had, the unfiltered one.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Whereabouts are we going?
MR GREEN: We're going to be going to row 167, my Lord, in
the original version.
If we can go down to row 167 very kindly and look at
167, that's 25 January 2018.
A. Okay.
Q. Now, Mr Latif, you mentioned there were a number of
calls about the issue.
A. Yes. Yes, sir.
Q. Can we go across to row M first please. Let's pause,
"Description":
"TC received for launch of £10 x 100 scratchcard
games ... only received 50 ... if we accept the TC, will
cause a discrepancy?"
A. Yes.
Q. Can you remember what that was about?
A. That's it, that's the -- the thing we discussed earlier
on.
Q. Can you go to the right to column U please, "Resolution
details", we have only got a certain amount of text in
this box. It says:
"Sent below email to P&BA team:
"Good afternoon, I have received a call from
0561347 ..."
Is that your FAD code?
A. That is my branch, sir, yes, my FAD code.
Q. "... Caddington office, disputing the TC they received
this morning relating to the issue of the £10 game 1100
scratchcards."
I think that should say 100 scratchcards, should it?
A. It should say 100, sir.
Q. Okay, just a miskeying error.
"The TC received says that they should have had ..."
Can you remember what came back?
A. That is the problem: nothing came back from Camelot.
And again we kept chasing them, we kept chasing the
Post Office and nothing came back until September the
audit happened. Thank you, sir.
Q. Thank you very much, Mr Latif.
I don't know whether his Lordship has any questions?
Questions from MR JUSTICE FRASER
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I just have a couple of questions which
will be quite quick.
I think you said the audit was carried out -- was
the lady called Jane Lawrence?
A. She was, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Jane Lawrence. And when the audit
happened in September 2018 was Mr Jando still your line
manager, or was it somebody else?
A. No, Navjot still was just there.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right. Thank you very much for
giving up so much time and being cross-examined on the
videolink and that's now the end of your evidence.
A. Thank you, sir. Thank you, my Lord. Thank you for your
time.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Right. We're going to come back at
quarter past 2. There's going to have to be a somewhat
different approach in terms of timing. We are supposed
to have three possibly four witnesses today. I don't
think -- if the other witnesses take as long as that
witness we're just going to massively run out of time.
Also I would have thought things like a notice or
a memo view ought really to be, if they are contentious,
explored in advance. I imagine the Post Office will be
able to produce a list of the memo views that were sent
out in January 2018. I would like that to be done
please. I'm not going to make an order but we will
revisit that on Wednesday morning and if it is going to
be difficult then I can have an explanation then and
I might make an order, but there's no point having
disputes of fact where there are none, because there are
enough genuine disputes of fact in this case it seems to
me.
We will come back at quarter past 2. So who is your
next -- just remind me your next witness?
MR GREEN: It is Mr Tank, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Tank and then after that if we reach
them it is one of the --
MR GREEN: Anup Patny.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Which is Mr Patny senior.
All right, so quarter past 2.
(1.40 pm)
(The luncheon adjournment)
(2.15 pm)
MR GREEN: My Lord, I'm going to call Mr Tank, if I may.
MR JAYESH TANK (affirmed)
Examination-in-chief by MR GREEN
MR GREEN: Mr Tank, there should be a witness bundle there
in front of you.
A. Yes.
Q. If you turn to tab 6 please {E1/6/1} you should see
a witness statement there with your name on it.
A. That's right.
Q. And if you go to page 3 of that witness statement
there's a signature {E1/6/3}. Is that your signature?
A. It is.
Q. And do you believe the contents of that statement to be
true, subject to what you have dealt with in your
subsequent one?
A. Absolutely.
Q. Can we look please at your supplemental statement which
is tab 11 {E1/11/1}.
A. Yes.
Q. If we go over to page 2 {E1/11/2}, you deal there with
having read Ms van den Bogerd's second witness statement
and enquiries that you then followed up in the light of
that?
A. Yes.
Q. And you have then dealt with the £195.04 issue she
referred to in 2011?
A. Yes.
Q. And then you have dealt with the £600 issue and you have
said there it was in 2014.
A. Yes.
Q. You have originally said that was 2011.
A. Correct.
Q. Subject to those matters do you believe these statements
together to be true?
A. I do.
Q. I'm most grateful.
Cross-examination by MR HENDERSON
MR HENDERSON: Mr Tank, good afternoon.
A. Good afternoon.
Q. Hopefully you can see the screen to your right which has
the documents on it. Is that clear enough for you
there?
A. Yes.
Q. Great. Can you first of all just tell us a little bit
about the nature of the branch where you were the
subpostmaster.
A. Of course, we were a two-counter rural post office. We
offered almost the entire suite of Post Office products
and services, everything apart from the AEI, identity
checking machine. I considered it to be a busy branch.
It was a high turnover, lots of cash coming in, lots of
cash going out, a full range of transactions as well.
Q. And is it a retail premises as well?
A. It was -- we had a small retail premises attached to the
post office and that sold gifts, cards, stationary.
Q. And there are two counters, you said?
A. Yes.
Q. And so how many assistants did you have?
A. Over the course of ...
Q. Generally?
A. Generally it would just be myself, my wife and possibly
one other member of staff.
Q. Right. Now, you have given two witness statements, as
you have just been taken to, and you have dealt with
three events. There is a power cut which you say led to
a loss of £600?
A. Yes.
Q. A shortfall of £195.04?
A. Yes.
Q. And you have some observations about label transactions?
A. Yes.
Q. So I want to deal with each of those in turn.
A. Okay.
Q. First of all, in your second witness statement which you
provided a few weeks ago you tell us that when you saw
Ms van den Bogerd's evidence responding to your first
statement you thought you would have a look at the forum
group that you used to use?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you call that the list?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that something that's notorious amongst
subpostmasters?
A. I wouldn't call it notorious.
Q. Well-known?
A. Well-known, yes.
Q. Can you tell me, can you tell us, tell his Lordship,
a little bit about what that forum was used for?
A. The forum, it was just a space where subpostmasters
could share information, knowledge, advice.
Q. If the operator could go to {F/1257.1}. This I think is
the extracts of the forum that you attached to your
second witness statement?
A. Yes.
Q. And if we could just scroll through that -- I will come
back to some individual entries, but just scroll through
that. We can see -- actually just before we scroll
through, I assume your username is jaytank23, is that
right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And if we just page down -- I will come back to that
particular entry, but if we just page down just to get
a feel for the sort of thing that's being said, so
people come on and they say "I've got a bit of a problem
can you help" and other people chip in and say "The same
thing happened to me" and so forth?
A. Correct.
Q. How often did you personally post things on the forum do
you think?
A. Not very often.
Q. Would you generally post whenever you had a problem?
A. No.
Q. Some of the time when you had a problem?
A. Some of the time, yes.
Q. How often did you look at it?
A. Every day.
Q. Every day.
A. Yes.
Q. So you were well aware that this was something which was
relevant to the nature of issues being faced by
postmasters?
A. Yes.
Q. And when you prepared your first witness statement you
obviously knew this resource existed, didn't you?
A. I did.
Q. And it is plain that it is relevant to your evidence,
isn't it?
A. It is.
Q. Why didn't you think to look for this material when you
were preparing your first witness statement?
A. Because my first witness statement was I think short,
brief, and it was just my way of -- I didn't really
fully research the whole background regarding it, I just
put my statement in.
Q. Can I just press you a little bit on that. You
understand that what's being said in this case, by you
amongst many others, is that you carried out certain
very specific actions which you did correctly and that
the Post Office is at fault, or the Horizon system is at
fault?
A. Yes.
Q. So it is important, isn't it, to have been precise in
the evidence that you give?
A. Yes.
Q. And I'm just wondering why you didn't make some effort
to find what was plainly a relevant document in putting
forward what you agree to be the need for precise
evidence?
A. Because I didn't -- I didn't feel that my information in
my initial witness statement was going to be taken any
further, so I -- it wasn't as important as it now has
become.
Q. Were you asked to look for relevant documents?
A. Yes.
Q. And what effort did you make to find them?
A. I kept all my Post Office sort of related paperwork in
a box file and that's -- when I was asked to look for
evidence I went strictly to that box file and that's
where I sourced all my information from.
Q. Can we look at your second witness statement {E1/11/2}
in paragraph 6. Your evidence there is you hadn't
looked at this previously:
"... as I did not think I would be able to access
the forum group and it did not seem relevant."
Can you just explain how on earth you could conclude
that it wouldn't seem relevant?
A. Sorry, can you ask the question again.
Q. How did you reach the conclusion that the forum posts
would not be relevant?
A. I didn't reach that conclusion.
Q. Well, you say in paragraph 6, Mr Tank:
"... I did not think I would be able to access the
forum group and it did not seem relevant."
I'm just wondering how you reached that conclusion?
A. Because when I made my first initial witness statement
I wasn't aware of £195.04 loss, that information only
came to light after reading Ms van den Bogerd's
statement.
Q. But you were putting forward evidence, Mr Tank, about
various matters including a number of matters that you
now say you got the date wrong in relation to?
A. I wasn't aware that my first initial witness statement
was evidence. I thought it was just a witness
statement. I thought ... yes, that's what I thought.
I didn't think it was --
Q. Is your evidence that you didn't take care over the
preparation of your first witness statement?
A. I did.
Q. But not much?
A. It was very general. My original witness statement --
I was just trying to get the point across -- because
I was referring back to my memory as well, I couldn't
realise the importance of what was important as -- it is
only subsequently after finding the information and
having -- being able to go back into -- it was only
a few weeks ago that I managed to get back into the
forum. I left my post office in 2016, so I stopped
visiting the forum.
Q. Right. Ms van den Bogerd's statement is dated
16 November 2018. You can take that from me. We can
look at it, but take that from me. And your second
statement that you have just referred to is dated
27 February 2019, so just over three months later, after
Ms van den Bogerd's statement. When did you first think
to look at the forum?
A. It would have been a matter of weeks ago. I can get
more specific if I go into my email history.
Q. All right, well, let's turn now to the power cut.
I would like to ask you some questions about the power
cut.
A. Okay.
Q. And there's some confusion about this, at least on my
part which may be my fault, but let me go through it in
the way that I understand it.
Could we first of all have a look at your first
witness statement at {E1/6/3} and we can see there that
that was signed on 28 September 2018 and on the first
page, page 1 of that {E1/6/1}, you say the information
is true to the best of your knowledge and belief and in
paragraph 6, which is on the second page {E1/6/2}, you
give evidence that a power cut occurred and that while
you could not recall the specific date, it "definitely
occurred in or around 2010-2011". Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, why were you able to say that it definitely
occurred in those dates?
A. Because when I went to the box file that I mentioned
earlier there would have been a handwritten note
somewhere in amongst that that would refer to that
incident and that's what led me to believe that that was
the particular date.
Q. You now say -- and we're only talking about the £600
here, all right? The incident relating to the £600.
Do you agree?
A. I think so, yes.
Q. You now say that that event that you describe in your
first witness statement did not in fact take place in
2010 to 2011, but actually took place three or four
years later on 16 September 2014. That's your evidence
I think?
A. I -- yes.
Q. Can you just assist with how you came to make that
error? It's a big lump of time, isn't it? There's
a big, big difference, a four year difference -- three
or four year difference. How did you come to make that
error?
A. I just must have misjudged it. It was a failing in my
recollection.
Q. Anyway, your evidence, as I understand it -- I'm not
sure that this is right but I want to put it to you
fairly. Your evidence as I understand it is that you
say that that is the only mistake you made in relation
to the alleged loss of £600. In every other respect the
facts set out in your first witness statement you say
are accurate, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. So your evidence is there was a power cut
in September 2014, a complete electrical failure to the
entire building, yes?
A. Yes.
Q. There was a transaction for a withdrawal from
a customer's Post Office card account for exactly £600?
A. Yes.
Q. At the end of the day you had a shortfall of exactly
£600?
A. Yes.
Q. And you rang the help desk and told them about the power
cut but they said there were no problems?
A. Correct.
Q. And your evidence remains that you investigated this at
the time and even tried to contact the customer, but
that she had passed away.
A. Yes.
Q. Presumably within a few days of coming into the branch?
A. Yes.
Q. And, again, whereas before you thought that the customer
had passed away in 2010/2011 --
A. Yes.
Q. -- he or she passed away four years later. Okay, well,
I'm going to come to the detail of that in a moment, but
just one small point before I carry on. One of your
complaints is that you had to look at -- and in fact it
is still on the screen, it's in paragraph 9 {E1/6/2}.
You investigated this event and you complained that you
had to look at a very long report in order to see what
had happened. You say it was 15 to 18 feet long.
A. That's correct.
Q. A couple of points. First of all, you were as a matter
of fact you say able to work out what happened, weren't
you, from looking at this report?
A. No. Because then -- if I was able to look at what
happened then I might have an idea what happened to the
£600.
Q. We will come on to look at that. But you didn't have to
print that, did you, you could have looked at it on the
screen?
A. Yes, but the length of the report and the screen would
mean you would probably have to page down over 100
times.
Q. But you could have filtered it in various ways,
couldn't you?
A. I could have filtered it, yes.
Q. The point is that the impression that your evidence
gives is that you had to print out this comically long
document and go through it, but you didn't have to do
that, did you?
A. No.
Q. And you have now been reminded that you went onto the
forum to complain about this, so can we have a look at
the forum entries which prompted your memory. That's
{F/1257.6}. And just while that is being turned up,
I think you will agree -- I think perhaps you have
already agreed and apologies if I'm repeating myself,
but the point of going on to the forum is to try and get
assistance from other subpostmasters presumably?
A. Correct.
Q. And in order to do that I imagine you would generally
give them as much information as possible?
A. Yes.
MR GREEN: Do you mean point 1 at page 6?
MR HENDERSON: I do, yes. I'm very grateful to my learned
friend. It is 1257.1 at page 6 {F/1257.1/6}.
At the top quite helpfully in red we can see your
entries and this is what has prompted your memory about
the correct date, as I understand it?
A. I think so, yes.
Q. And you say:
"I too have had a recent unexplained loss of c.£600
on 16 September. Settled centrally on 17 September."
And so forth. You don't say anywhere on that that
there had been a power cut, do you?
A. No.
Q. And why is that?
A. I just omitted it.
Q. You just referred to an unexplained loss?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, again just to put this in context, if we go to --
we may have to flip backwards and forwards a little bit
so apologies, but the actual shortfall which the
Post Office write to you about is at 1262.1 {F/1262.1}
and that is actually in the amount of £660. Do you
recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. Not 600.
Now if I could ask the operator to go to {F/1257.4}
and if you could enable editing I think that makes it
easier to manipulate.
As far as the Post Office can tell there was no
power cut on that day, all right?
And if the operator could go -- if you go into the
top left-hand box that says A8, if you type in 11676 --
I think you may need to keep the "A" in to tell it that
it is the row. It is at the bottom of the page. Is it
possible to bring it up to the top and if you go to the
right, keeping the tab in that row, row 11676 -- can you
scroll right.
We can see in red there a transaction for £600, do
you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And there's another transaction after it for another
£600?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, Post Office say that if there had been a power cut
at or around this time they would expect it to either
see no activity for a period of time --
A. Yes.
Q. -- or certain repeat events such as two sequential
log ons performed by the same user in a short period of
time, but no log off in-between. In other words, there
are certain indications of where there has been a power
outage. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And when we come on to look at one, the £195.04, we will
see those indications.
A. Okay.
Q. But we don't see those indications here. Do you accept
that?
A. I do.
Q. We could, for your Lordship's note, also -- I don't
suggest we necessarily need to go to it, but we can also
look at a slightly different spreadsheet which is the
events data spreadsheet at {F/1257.5} rows 4171 to 4457
and again one would expect to see evidence of outage
around row 4253. I'm just putting that in the
transcript, my Lord, I don't think we necessarily need
to go to it, it's the same point.
So there's no evidence from Post Office's point of
view of any outage, power cut at this point.
Could we have a look at your amended schedule of
information which is --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Before you do that and you don't need to
take me there, but is there a document similar to that
that does show how a power outage would appear?
MR HENDERSON: Yes, my Lord, and we're coming to it.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right.
MR HENDERSON: Could you look at your amended schedule of
information, {F/1717.1}. Now, you will recall that this
is the document that each of the claimants, including
you, have had to fill in to give a summary of your
claim. Do you recall this?
A. Yes.
Q. And I think you have signed this, haven't you?
A. I think so.
Q. If we look at page 4 in section 2.4 {F/1717.1/4}, it is
the big paragraph in the middle, you say:
"When the branch incurred a shortfall, I didn't
always contact the Helpline as I did not trust the
advice which I received. Sometimes, after a few days,
the shortfall would resolve itself in any case but if it
didn't, I would try to resolve the issue myself by
contacting other post Office representatives. I recall
that on one occasion there was a shortfall of around
£600 which I knew could not be right. There had been
a power failure when we were processing the transaction
which, to my knowledge, did not complete."
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Just for completeness and to be clear, you don't refer,
for perfectly understandable reasons, in this schedule
of information to the £195.04 incident because you were
reminded of that by Ms van den Bogerd's evidence?
A. Yes.
Q. But if we look at page 5, the following page
{F/1717.1/5}, at section 3.1, at the very bottom you are
talking about apparent or alleged shortfalls and in the
bottom paragraph it says:
"I recall that there were also unexplained cash
shortfalls of ... [various numbers] in May 2008 and also
£660 in August 2014."
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, this is part of where I am confused, because your
evidence here is that there are two events. One is
a power cut on a date that you don't specify which led
to a loss of £600 which we saw on page 4, do you
remember?
A. Yes.
Q. And the other is a separate incident in August 2014 for
£660 but again no mention of a power cut. Can you
explain the anomaly?
A. The fact that I didn't mention the power cut?
Q. Well, you do mention a power cut -- I apologise -- if
I'm taking it too quickly, I apologise. Your evidence
now is that there was a power cut in September 2014
which led to a loss of £600.
A. Okay.
Q. Well, if you disagree say so?
A. No, I agree.
Q. Okay. And in this document you refer, as I understand
it, to two separate incidents. One is a power cut on
a date you don't specify, which led to a loss of £600,
and the other is the loss of £660 in August 2014 and I'm
just asking if you can explain what appears to be
a rather strange situation?
A. Just confusion, I would ... I was just confused.
Q. You are confused. So are we to take it that the £660
in August 2014 is caused by the power cut and there's
only one incident that you meant to refer to in this?
A. I couldn't say for sure. As I tried to explain earlier,
in drafting my original witness statement I went back to
my box file and it was filled with various bits of
paper, different sizes, different formats and with
handwritten scribbled notes on and that's where I tried
to piece together the information that I provided in
this.
Q. I'm not trying to trip you up here, Mr Tank, I'm just
trying to understand what your case is. Because you
appear to now be saying that there were two power cuts.
One was in December 2011 and it resulted in the loss you
say of £195.04 and you were reminded of it by
Ms van den Bogerd's statement. Yes? That was one power
cut?
A. Yes.
Q. And we will come on to that in a moment, but Post Office
agrees that that was a power cut.
A. I didn't -- no, it wasn't a power cut. The transaction
was unable to complete on the £195 because if you --
Q. Okay, well, we will come on to that --
A. I put the sequence of events, the fact that three
receipts printed out, so it was a lot more detailed, so
I'm not sure -- I don't think that was a power cut. I'm
not sure if it was a power cut.
Q. You're not sure one way or the other, okay.
A. I'm not sure if it was a power cut, but the transaction
was unable to complete.
Q. Right. What I'm trying to test with you is is it
possible that the evidence that you give in your first
witness statement about the power cut, power outage,
actually is evidence that is relevant to the £195.04
transaction rather than the £600 transaction?
A. It could well be, yes.
Q. Because my understanding -- well, never mind about my
understanding. Is it your suggestion that there have
been two incidents of outage, if I put it like that: one
for £195 and one for £600?
A. That I'm aware of, yes.
Q. Okay. Well, let's look at -- I'm still talking about
the £600 transaction at the moment.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Did you use "outage" there meaning
a power cut, or did you use "outage" as a discrepancy?
MR HENDERSON: I mean a failure -- I mean Horizon going
offline for a moment, as opposed to a power cut to the
whole shop.
So let's look at the transaction. Now, first of
all, it wasn't you -- this is the £600.
A. Yes.
Q. It wasn't you who carried out this transaction, was it?
A. No, it was a member of staff.
Q. Louise I think?
A. Louise Boneham, yes.
Q. So all the evidence you give is based on what Louise
told you?
A. It is, as also with what I viewed over the CCTV.
Q. Okay. You don't mention anything about the CCTV in your
witness statement I don't think.
A. No.
Q. Why was that?
A. Because this -- after viewing the CCTV it wasn't
conclusive. We have seen Louise performing the
transactions on the computer system, receipts going one
way, the banking slip coming the other way, everything
looked in order. When I phoned to investigate the
incident they said from what they could see everything
looked fine: there was a cash withdrawal, there was
a cash deposit.
Q. Well, let's have a look at what might have happened.
First of all, the relevant transaction for £600 was from
a Post Office card account, wasn't it?
A. Correct.
Q. And as I understand it that's quite a basic bank account
offered by the Post Office?
A. Sort of. The card account is a vehicle for people to
receive benefits payments from the Government. The
daily cash withdrawal limit on a Post Office card
account is £600.
Q. Right and it only offers basic withdrawal services,
doesn't it, from a post office counter or
a Bank of Ireland ATM?
A. Yes.
Q. So Post Office card account customers are not able for
example to deposit money into their account?
A. No.
Q. To use a debit card facility, or to transfer funds from
a Post Office card account to another bank institution?
A. Yes.
Q. You agree?
A. I do.
Q. Thank you. So if a Post Office card account customer
needs to transfer money from the POCA account to one of
the Post Office's partner banks, they will typically
within the same customer session undertake the following
transactions: they will complete a cash withdrawal from
POCA and they will deposit the withdrawn money directly
into the other account --
A. Yes.
Q. -- by means perhaps of a debit or deposit card issued by
that bank?
A. Yes.
Q. There wasn't any other way to do it?
A. Well, in this instance it was a little paper paying in
slip, so we take the paper paying in slip off the
customer, input the sort code and account number and
then deposit the cash.
Q. Fine. Let's go back to the ARQ data at 1257.4
{F/1257.4}.
Could we go -- again I'm afraid we will have to
enable editing I think, if we go back to the row
I looked at before. Could we go back to -- again if you
keep the "A" in and you just put 11676. And again if
I could trouble you to the bring it to the top of the
screen I just think it's a bit easier to see. Thank
you. And again if you could go right.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Can we just go left a couple of columns.
MR HENDERSON: Yes. Stop there, that's perfect.
So what we see here is the red figure is the
withdrawal of £600 from the Post Office card account,
yes?
A. Yes.
Q. And then below it, immediately, there is a cash deposit
into a Lloyds Bank?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, it's possible, isn't it, that what actually
happened is that the cash was accidently handed over to
the customer and also registered as being deposited with
Lloyds Bank?
A. It's possible, but, as I have mentioned, I checked the
CCTV and we could see what was going backwards and
forwards across the counter and it was receipts going to
the customer and a paying in slip coming from the
customer.
Q. Well, Mr Tank, you haven't referred to any CCTV in your
witness evidence.
A. I understand.
Q. Which I accept you thought was only provisional but we
take a bit more seriously.
A. Okay.
Q. And as far as I'm aware, you haven't given disclosure of
any CCTV, have you?
A. No.
Q. Okay.
(Pause).
Based on the evidence here, you can't say that what
I have suggested to you, which is that an error was
made, a simple user error was made, you can't say that
didn't occur, can you?
A. I can say that. I can say that there is no cash that
went over the till.
Q. Based on what you tell us you saw on the CCTV?
A. Correct, yes. Obviously I can't evidence that, but ...
Q. I'm just wondering how you can be so confident about
what happened, about this particular transaction when
you couldn't even get the year right to the tune of four
years?
A. I investigated the loss to the best of my ability.
I turned to the Post Office for help. What they told me
on the telephone was everything looked fine, they could
see the transaction, they could see the £600 going out,
they could see the £600 going in.
Q. Exactly.
A. So that's why it is an unexplained loss, because I can't
explain it.
Q. Well, I understand that it is a frustrating loss, but
there's a perfectly simple explanation for it which is
an understandable user error?
A. I agree.
Q. And you nevertheless come into court and say on oath
that you are so confident that you did nothing wrong,
that that didn't happen, because of evidence you have
seen and we haven't.
A. Okay. Fair point.
Q. In a situation where you couldn't, until reminded by
Post Office, recall the date of the transaction to the
tune of four years?
A. But you have to bear in mind I paid that £600 back.
I beared that loss. I never thought that I would
actually get it back. My relationship with Post Office
ended a couple of years ago, so that money was written
off. I wrote that money off myself. I paid that back.
Q. I understand that. But if it was, as I'm suggesting to
you, or if it's possible that it was a user error then
you would have to pay it back, wouldn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, let's turn then to the shortfall which you did
report on 13 December 2011 for £195.04 and just to
recap, this is not one you mentioned in your first
witness statement but you read Ms van den Bogerd's
statement and she, just to remind you, said "I can't see
anything that suggests there was a problem for £600 in
2010/2011, but it does make sense in a relation to
a transaction for £195.04".
A. Yes.
Q. And you tell us in your second witness statement -- and
we can go to it if necessary but I think you have
already agreed -- that before you saw
Ms van den Bogerd's evidence you had no real
recollection of this event at all?
A. No.
Q. So everything that you are basing it on now is really
based on the forum, is it?
A. It is, yes.
Q. Now, this is an example of you, quite understandably,
contacting the helpline about a shortfall of less than
£200?
A. Yes.
Q. And presumably you would routinely report any
discrepancy at that sort of level?
A. No.
Q. Not necessarily?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. I wouldn't say routinely, no.
Q. Okay, let me put the question more precisely, it is my
fault. If you felt that there was an unexplained
shortfall --
A. Yes.
Q. -- for something like £200, I'm suggesting it would be
perfectly understandable and that in the natural course
of things you would contact Post Office?
A. Okay, so if I can just explain about the £195.04.
Obviously I was reminded about that from --
Q. Yes.
A. -- looking at the forum posts, which is in red on the
screen --
Q. Yes, we will come to it.
A. £195 withdrawal and I state, you know, what happens, the
screen says "Cash to customer, balance due zero".
I subsequently then go on to report that I tried to find
that transaction the following day and there was no
record of it. On whatever I could access on my
terminal, I could not find the £195.04. After phoning
the helpline, they were able to find that transaction.
I think they use a system called Credence which we don't
have access to.
Q. I will come on to all that. I'm just exploring at the
moment what your practice was about reporting an
unexplained shortfall and I'm suggesting that when you
have got an unexplained shortfall of £200, quite
understandably you have contacted the helpline.
A. Mm-hm.
Q. And I'm asking you whether that would be your usual
practice, if you had an unexplained discrepancy? You
might have an explained discrepancy, you might know that
something went wrong, you remember "Oh, I messed
something up" or "I know what that's about", but if it
is an unexplained discrepancy I'm suggesting that at
that sort of level you would generally report it,
I imagine?
A. I think it's the other way round. If it was an
explained then I would report it. If it's unexplained
then I'm less likely to report it because it could be
down to human error.
Q. All right, let me put it in a different way then. If
you felt it called for some further explanation then you
would contact the helpline?
A. Yes.
Q. And certainly if it was more than a few pounds you would
do that?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. So let's have a look again at the forum comments
which are {F/1257.1}. This is 13 December 2011:
"Some advice/help required.
"Yesterday during HOL failure ..."
Horizon Online, HOL?
A. Yes.
Q. "... was in process of POCA card withdrawal.
Transaction seemed to go through okay apart from Horizon
printing 3 identical receipts.
"Receipts showed a disconnected session with
recovery code. Receipts also showed."
And you go through total due to customer, blah,
blah, blah:
"Because receipts showed cash due to customer. we
paid out.
"Come evening balancing till showed approx £200.00
loss. Thought at time must be mis-count and will try to
sort in morn.
"This morning produced transaction log for the
period of HOL FAILURE. No record of 195.04 transaction
at all!!!!
"Phoned help-line and was told by very irate member
of staff that loss is mine unless I can sort out with
customer directly ..."
And so forth. Then at the bottom of the page:
"What should be my next course of action???
"Speak to press (is there anything in contract
preventing me doing this?"
Then if we can go down the page:
"Speak to CWU (not member of POLFED anymore)?
"Speak to Shoesmiths?
"Try taking POL to small claims court?
"Any useful suggestions appreciated."
So you were pretty cross about this by the look of
things?
A. Yes. In the one hand I have receipts produced by
Horizon and then the following day when I go to look for
that transaction there was no record of it. It was
very, very frustrating.
Q. I understand.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Can we go back to the previous page
please {F/1257.1}.
MR HENDERSON: So what appears to have happened was
a transaction from Post Office card account was in the
middle of being processed and so it was in the stack
presumably.
A. Yes.
Q. But had not yet been posted to Horizon. So you hadn't
cashed out on that transaction, you hadn't completed
everything to do with that transaction?
A. On the stack --
Q. It's on the stack.
A. It's on the stack, but the stack has a balance of zero,
so to clear the stack you just press "enter" and it goes
straight --
Q. But you hadn't got to the point of clearing the stack?
A. I'm not sure.
Q. Okay. My suggestion is that there was probably an
outage at just the point where the money had been taken
from Post Office card account but had not been processed
onto Horizon. That's my suggestion to you.
A. Okay.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Well, is the witness going to be in
a position to agree or disagree?
MR HENDERSON: Well, he might be if he recalled.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Do you recall that happening when there
were outages?
A. No. I cannot recall.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Were you aware of when outages would
occur like that?
A. Not all the time.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Do you want to put the question again?
MR HENDERSON: Yes. What I'm suggesting is that the cause
of this problem was that an outage occurred at
a particular point in time.
A. Yes.
Q. You were in the process of effecting a transaction from
POCA?
A. Yes.
Q. It was in the stack and it had cleared from POCA?
A. Actually you mentioned the word "outage". I'm not --
was there a power outage?
Q. I'm not sure if it was a power outage, but I think it
may have been a problem with the system.
A. Ah, okay.
Q. The system went down in some way.
A. So -- yes, because you said that if there's a power
outage then there's evidence when you have to log back
in, so did that happen on this occasion?
Q. Okay, I want to come to all this and I'm doing this
clumsily. What I'm suggesting is that what may have
happened -- and if you don't recall, you don't recall,
but what may have happened is that the transaction was
in the stack, the money had been taken from the
Post Office card account and before you cleared the
stack there was an outage.
A. Possibly.
Q. Okay.
Let's look at the events data at {F/869.1}. And if
we enable editing.
That is not the document I was expecting. 871.1.
{F/871.1}. No, I don't want that.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: What are we looking for, the event data?
MR HENDERSON: We are looking at the event data.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Is it 1257.5? That's just a partly
educated guess based on ...
MR GREEN: I think it is F/869.1 but you have to click on
the sheet tab. You were in the summary tab.
MR HENDERSON: Right, I couldn't see that. Thank you very
much.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: It doesn't show up on the common screen,
the tabs at the bottom, you can't see them on the common
screen.
MR HENDERSON: I'm so sorry, back to {F/869.1}. And there
is I think --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I think you have to click on the tab
before you go full screen, so if you go into half screen
you will be able to see the tabs at the bottom. At the
bottom you will see "Sheet 1", click on "Sheet 1" and
now expand it.
MR HENDERSON: Thank you very much.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Is that what we are after?
MR HENDERSON: That is what we are after I believe.
If you go to the top and type A327, what we see here
is that you are logged on at 13.39. Do you see that at
the top there?
A. (Nods).
Q. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay and then there's a message at 13.40 to say
"Session ... could not recover".
A. Yes.
Q. And then there's a gap of 22 minutes and there's
a session receipt at 14.02. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
MR HENDERSON: Now, my Lord, in answer to your Lordship's
earlier question, that is what Post Office would expect
to see when there is an outage.
So then the Horizon system comes back online and at
that point there will be a recovery process, won't
there, various screens that you need to go through?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And if we could have a look at
Ms van den Bogerd's statement at {E2/5/16}, if you look
at paragraph 53 and just read that to yourself.
(Pause).
Have you read that?
A. I'm just getting to the bottom of it.
Q. Sorry.
(Pause).
A. Okay.
Q. Do you agree that that's a fair summary, an accurate
summary?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay, thank you.
When power is restored there is a procedure to be
followed, isn't there?
A. Yes.
Q. And that procedure will result either in a transaction
being cancelled, or recovered?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Let's have a look at the Horizon Online quick
reference guide at {F/1365}. You will see at the top
there:
"Disconnections and screen freezes on Horizon Online
are dealt with differently to Horizon. If either occurs
during a customer session Recovery actions may be
required.
"You need to make sure you do the right thing at the
time the counter becomes unavailable."
If you drop the next session section and it says
"Disconnected session receipt", do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. "The system will then settle the session automatically
and print 3 copies of a disconnected session receipt
before automatically logging you out.
"The copies of the receipt are, 1 for the customer,
1 to be kept with your stock unit, 1 to be kept at the
failed terminal."
Okay?
A. Okay.
Q. And then below it says, again missing out the next
section:
"The system treats transactions as
either: recoverable ... or cancelable ..."
This is a recoverable one, isn't it, because it is
a card transaction?
A. Okay.
Q. We see that from below. Do you see
"recoverable/cancelable products" including debit/credit
card payments, et cetera?
A. Yes.
Q. And then at the end of that:
"These will be recorded on the disconnected session
receipt as completed and must be settled with the
customer."
Okay?
A. Okay.
Q. Then if you look on to the next page {F/1365/2} there's
a flowchart which takes you through that process.
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I think that flowchart is what you do
higher up the page on the first page, isn't it?
MR HENDERSON: Yes, I think that probably is right.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Well, let's go back to the page before
{F/1365/1} just to make sure I follow what charts go
with which. Is that's what referred to as page 2 of the
document under "Disconnected session receipt"?
MR HENDERSON: Yes, I believe so.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: So:
"... a disconnected session receipt will not be
produced if the system freezes or there is a hardware
failure. Page 2 of this document describes what you
should do in this scenario."
And the flowchart is on page 2. Is that right?
MR HENDERSON: I think that must be right, my Lord, but what
Mr Tank says here is he was provided with three
receipts.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Yes.
MR HENDERSON: Then if we go to page 3 of this same document
{F/1365/3}, this is "When online connectivity is
restored". Do you have that, Mr Tank?
A. I do.
Q. "Page 4 of this document provides a simple diagram that
explains the actions you should take when Horizon Online
connectivity is restored the system will carry out
Recovery for customer sessions that were in progress at
the time of failure. When you next login to the
terminal where the failure occurred, the system will
recognise that the last session did not complete
properly and will automatically commence Recovery. You
will see the following message ..."
Then "Recovery receipt":
"You should follow all on-screen instructions. Once
the Recovery process has completed, a Recovery receipt
will be printed automatically."
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I think we are on a different page to
you.
MR HENDERSON: I'm so sorry. Page 3. I just hadn't noticed
the screen. Right, I have just read out the top section
and I'm looking now at the "Recovery receipt" section.
Do you see that, Mr Tank?
A. I do.
Q. "You should follow all on-screen instructions. Once the
Recovery process has completed, a Recovery receipt will
be printed automatically.
"The Recovery Receipt should be attached to the
Disconnected Session receipt stored at the failed
terminal."
Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. So what this procedure tells you is that if you follow
the Horizon procedures properly you get three receipts
for the disconnected session and a recovery receipt,
do you agree?
A. I agree, but I don't actually remember having this
document in my office.
Q. This is online I think.
A. Oh, this is online?
Q. I thought it was online but I might be wrong.
A. It is quick reference guide, it states it is version 5.
The only version I remember having was just a single
piece of A4 -- a double-sided A4 piece of paper. This
suggests that there were four -- two pages. Because you
are on page 3 at the moment. I never had -- I never
had ...
Q. All right. I don't know what you had, candidly, at the
moment.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: We did have some evidence on this in the
common issues trial and a document was produced that was
a single A4 sheet, but it did look different to this.
It had red on rather than blue.
MR HENDERSON: Right. The point is, however, that this
document that I have taken you to sets out the procedure
that needed to be followed. Do you accept that?
A. That document does, yes.
Q. Okay.
A. I never had that document, so I could never refer to it.
Q. But you would have been taken through the screens that
came up on Horizon?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Your evidence -- I think your evidence is that
you gave -- I should have asked this before and
I apologise. Was it you doing this transaction, was it
Louise or another assistant, or do you not recall?
A. I can't recall.
Q. Okay, that's fair.
Your evidence at {E1/6/2}, in paragraph 7, the
penultimate sentence, is:
"A series of receipts were printed which she then
gave to the customer."
Now, the reason I'm pointing to this, Mr Tank, is
this is the evidence you give in relation to the £600.
A. Yes.
Q. But I have suggested to you already, and I think you
have accepted, that it's possible that this evidence in
fact relates to events in 2010/2011 in relation to the
£195.04?
A. Yes.
Q. And it seems that what was done was all of the receipts
were given to the customer?
A. Yes.
Q. Which is not the proper procedure?
A. Which is not the proper procedure, no.
Q. So do you accept that the proper procedure wasn't
followed?
A. Yes.
Q. And then you call the help desk and we see that in
{F/1286.1}. If we enable editing and actually you can
scroll down to row 120 I hope. Can we go across, keep
going across ... I think this is the wrong ... no, I'm
sorry, I have given you the wrong reference. It is the
call log -- this is 1286.1, is it?
MR GREEN: You might be looking for the "Remedy" tab.
MR HENDERSON: I do want the "Remedy" tab and I hadn't
spotted that it hadn't -- I'm so sorry, at the bottom
there the "Remedy" tab, thank you.
If you then go to -- if you just go into the top
left hand and if you delete the 1 and put 120, or you
can scroll down, whichever is easier. Then if we go to
row 120 and if you just stop there.
This is the call made from your branch, Mr Tank,
yes?
A. Yes, the following day.
Q. And it is column I:
"Called this morning about a Horizon failure
yesterday, branch completed a withdrawal and the 195.04
failed recovery receipt ..."
And so forth and so on. And that resulted in a PEAK
being raised, which you wouldn't have known about at the
time, I accept.
A. No.
Q. But let's have a look at it {F/870}. And if you go to
page 2 of that document {F/870/2} in the first yellow
section there -- do you see that? It says date
14 December 2011, do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. "Summary", it says:
"The banking transaction had completed ... including
the receipt print ... and money should have changed
hands.
"The basket settlement failed from 13.35 with 'no
response received from data centre' and then two retries
also failed and the attempt cancelled ...
"The Disconnected Session receipts show 'Cash TO
CUSTOMER 195.04' so the customer's account should be
correct but the branch will have a shortage (for a
withdrawal) because the session hasn't been recorded."
And that's just explaining what had happened.
A. Yes.
Q. And then if we go to {F/871.1}, the transaction
correction is raised.
A. Yes.
Q. So you were refunded this amount of money?
A. I was.
Q. That's not something you mentioned in your witness
statement, is it?
A. No.
Q. Why is that?
A. Because I was referring to the incident in terms of
something that I had no control over that caused a loss
to my office.
Q. But it didn't --
A. The fact that -- it caused a loss. The fact that that
loss was resolved afterwards was not the issue. The
fact that it caused a loss and I had no explanation for
it, that's what I was reporting, that's what my witness
statement was for.
Q. Okay. But having now seen everything that's happened
and looked at the procedure that should have been
followed, do you still maintain that this event shows
that there's something wrong with Horizon?
A. Yes.
Q. It is Horizon working as it is supposed to, isn't it?
Something has gone wrong and a procedure has been
followed --
A. Mm-hm.
Q. -- from the user point of view not quite correctly
because you should have kept some of the receipts, but
nevertheless you have raised it, it has been
investigated and the money has been refunded?
A. Yes.
Q. How is that a fault with Horizon?
A. Because the error shouldn't have happened in the first
place. If -- it seems like -- with the relationship
between postmasters and the Post Office, it's very much
one-sided and we as subpostmasters bear all the risk.
Q. But that's not true for this transaction, is it? You
failed to follow the proper procedure --
A. Okay.
Q. -- maybe for understandable reasons, I don't know.
A. Okay.
Q. You raised a query and a few days later you were
refunded the money. I don't see what the complaint is?
A. If I didn't call in to report, would I still have got
the refund?
Q. I think you would have actually, yes.
A. I wasn't to know. I didn't know there was a PEAK --
Q. But I'm not sure, I don't have the -- okay --
A. I don't know either.
Q. -- we will explore that later this week.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Can you not overspeak one another.
MR HENDERSON: Apologies.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Henderson, do you just want to reput
what you --
MR HENDERSON: I think I completed what I --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Well I didn't get the answer because you
then started speaking.
You were asked, Mr Tank, "You raised a query, you
were refunded the money" and Mr Henderson said he didn't
see what the complaint is and what was your answer to
that please?
A. On the day of the transaction my office showed a loss of
nearly £200. I -- the following day I went to
investigate that loss, I couldn't find any record of it
on my terminal and then that's when I phoned through to
the helpline and reported.
MR HENDERSON: Okay, but the way --
A. What was going on in the background in terms of the PEAK
review or whatever, or -- I don't know if that was
automated, or if my call to the network business support
centre instigated the refund.
Q. The point is that the way Horizon works, it either
records the transaction as having been completed
properly --
A. Yes.
Q. -- or it generates the evidence to demonstrate that
there has been a problem?
A. Yes.
Q. Identifying that particular transaction.
A. Yes.
Q. I want to ask you a few questions about the third area
you deal with, very brief questions, on label
transaction issues.
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you say you experienced some problems with printing
labels --
A. Yes.
Q. -- where you say no label could be printed even though
you were charged for it.
A. Yes.
Q. And again we've got a timing issue here because in your
first witness statement you said that that happened in
2007.
A. Yes.
Q. And Ms van den Bogerd says she could find no evidence of
that at all.
A. Okay.
Q. And now you say in your second witness statement that
you think it was 2011.
A. Yes.
Q. And again can you help with how that error came to be
made?
A. Again, my initial witness statement I was just relying
on my memory and my supplemental witness statement is
when I was able to research it a bit more.
Q. And what was the evidence that you got for your second
witness statement that helped you on this date, because
I'm not sure that I'm aware of any?
A. Again, it was Horizon generated receipts, print-outs,
with hand-written dates and reference numbers on them.
Q. Sorry, where are these documents?
A. With my solicitors.
Q. Oh. I don't think they have made their way over, but
I might be wrong.
Now, there are again processes on Horizon which
cover this type of eventuality, aren't there?
A. No.
Q. Well, Horizon allows you to record a label as rejected,
doesn't it?
A. It does, yes. Usually, usually, but in this particular
scenario it didn't give you that option.
Q. But normally it would prompt you to specify whether or
not the label has been printed correctly, wouldn't it?
A. Yes, this is my point: during this particular issue,
Horizon doesn't perform as it should.
Q. And it is also possible, isn't it, to process
a completely separate transaction for spoiled postage
labels and printing a replacement? Have a look at
{F/1848.6}. This just summarises the procedure that's
in place.
A. "A label can only be spoiled, if the label is on hand."
Q. Ms van den Bogerd's evidence at paragraph 82 of her
witness statement at {E2/5/21} says this process is
available even if the printer had not produced a label
at all. Do you accept that?
A. No, because the previous page showed that you had to
have a label on hand.
Q. So she is wrong about that?
A. Yes. Well, it is contradictory, isn't it?
Q. Well, I accept that that's what that document says, but
the evidence from Post Office is that in fact you could
do that even if the printer had not produced a label at
all?
A. I could do that, but then it would be contrary to the
other instructions.
Q. If you could do it -- my point is a simple one, Mr Tank.
There were procedures built into Horizon to cater for
the situation that you explained -- I have to say in the
vaguest of terms, but as I understand what you are
saying, there were procedures in place which ensured you
could deal with the situation, weren't there?
A. No.
Q. We will have to differ.
Finally, you were investigated for various matters
in 2015, weren't you?
A. Not investigated.
Q. You were interviewed on 5 November 2015, do you recall?
A. I had a performance interview, yes.
Q. And this resulted in a letter from Post Office to you of
15 February 2016. We see that at {F/1431.1}.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Just let me read this quickly.
(Pause).
Actually I will do it on my screen, give me
a second.
MR HENDERSON: If you go to --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Just give me a second, Mr Henderson.
There is a reason. I will explain at the end. Let me
just quickly read it.
(Pause).
Is this a Civil Evidence Act situation? I will tell
you what, just pause there.
Mr Tank, I'm just going to ask you just to pop out
of court for literally two minutes. There is just
something I need to ask counsel.
A. Okay.
(In the absence of the witness)
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I just ask out of caution. In the
common issues trial there were two claimant witnesses
who had to be given the warning against
self-incrimination under the Act because of potential
criminal offences. It was obviously a situation that
was at the forefront of everyone's mind because of the
nature of that trial, so before those questions were put
I knew in advance whether I had to give that warning or
not.
MR HENDERSON: I understand, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Is this one of those situations?
MR HENDERSON: I think it probably would be sensible to do
so.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: It does seem to me based on the four
items listed that the witness is entitled to it.
MR HENDERSON: I think that's probably right.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Any observations, Mr Green?
MR GREEN: My Lord, no, I think it should be given.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Let's have Mr Tank back in. I did have
the form of words with me last time. I don't have it
now but I'm pretty confident that I can do it
effectively; if either of you think I haven't, correct
me.
(In the presence of the witness).
Thank you very much, Mr Tank. Just have a seat.
Just before Mr Henderson asks you some questions, there
is just a formal warning I have to give you in relation
to the right you have not to answer any questions if you
think answering them may incriminate you in respect of
future criminal proceedings.
It is a statutory warning. It was given in two
other cases that you don't have to be concerned with in
the previous trial and it is something standard but
I have to draw it to your attention. So depending on
what questions Mr Henderson is asking you, what the
subject matter of them is, you are entitled to say that
you don't wish to answer the question.
A. Sure.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Is that sufficient?
MR HENDERSON: I'm grateful.
If we go to the second page of that letter
{F/1431.1/2}, do you recall that at that meeting you had
a discussion which is referred to here in the second
paragraph:
"We also discussed the inappropriate official
postage claims conducted at the branch. During the
period 25 August 2015 and 15 September 2015 nine claims
of £100 official postage were undertaken totalling £900.
These claims were subsequently reversed on
23 September 2015. A further claim of £500 was made on
2 October 2015 and subsequently reversed on
27 October 2015.
"As discussed the use of official postage in this
manner is contrary to the instructions contained within
Horizon Online. The 'stamps for official use' icon on
Horizon Online must only be used for postage costs that
are incurred when undertaking official Post Office
Limited business and where no official pre-paid envelope
is available. For full instructions please see Horizon
help back office ..."
And so forth. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall this incident or this --
A. The meeting?
Q. The meeting and what was said?
A. Yes.
Q. And official postage is a function on Horizon that
should only, as we have just seen, be used for postage
costs incurred when undertaking official Post Office
business, that's right, isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. And you have always known that presumably?
A. Yes.
Q. And essentially, as I understand your position, you
considered that you were experiencing certain issues
which were causing you loss --
A. Yes.
Q. -- and you decided to take matters into your own things
and to take official postage, is that right?
A. No, it was just my way of formally recording my dispute.
Communication channels with the Post Office weren't
particularly good. Every time I tried to air any
grievances, I never really found I got anywhere, so this
was my way of complaining.
Q. To help yourself to some official postage?
A. I wasn't helping myself. I wasn't helping myself. No
money actually left the office. Official postage is --
it's a computer function and all it does is allocate
that money under that particular ... so there's no --
I'm not helping myself at all.
Q. Well, if there was another shortage in Horizon, for
example, that would make up for it, wouldn't it? I mean
one way or the other -- one way or another, by claiming
official postage you're doing something you shouldn't do
which improved your financial position?
A. No.
Q. How not, Mr Tank?
A. Improved my financial position?
Q. Yes?
A. How would it improve my financial position? We're
talking about -- it's just a ledger entry.
Q. Just a ledger entry?
A. Yes.
Q. Let's have a look at the transcript of your interview at
{F/1399.1}.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: We need to have a break for the
transcribers.
MR HENDERSON: My Lord, I'm very happy to but I only have
five minutes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right, we will keep going then.
MR HENDERSON: 1399.1, if we go to page 14 {F/1399.1/14}.
You are obviously "Jay"; KB is?
A. Keith Bridges.
Q. Keith Bridges. He says:
"Okay thank you. Let's move on to the postage
claims for the moment. So in my letter I gave details
of the claims and the reversals that you completed since
25 August. I think my first question would be that
I know that you reversed them but why undertake them in
the first place bearing in mind these are, in effect you
are stating the transactions which took, well say the
transactions have taken place which you have used
official postage for which in effect did not take
place."
And you said:
"... I understand the actions were wrong, but the
money never left the office. The receipts were always
kept and I did reverse them but again it was just a form
of protest ..."
A. Yes.
Q. When you were warned about this you did reverse them,
didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. But you hadn't told Post Office that you were doing that
at the time you were doing it?
A. I did.
Q. How did you do that?
A. Network business support.
Q. Okay. I have seen some references to this.
A. Yes.
Q. If we look at Post Office letter {F/1374.1}, this is
I think the letter that Mr Bridges was referring to and
in the third paragraph he says to you:
"I understand from our conversations on occasions
when this scenario has happened the branch has claimed
a compensating value in official postage and thereby
recovering the value of the postage label resulting in
no loss to the branch. Would you please in future
process by contacting the NBSC ..."
A. Yes.
Q. And if we look at the NBSC call log at {F/1286.1}, under
the "Remedy" tab, at row 216 and if you go right to
column I:
"PM wanted noting that due to a RM complaint cust
has over SD he is going to refund the customer SD as
official postage. Advised PM he cannot do that that and
I have advised him so."
And then in row 310 this is an event that is
discussed in your interview you have said:
"PM is putting in 4.34 X 10 ..."
So you felt there had been a discrepancy of £4.34
and you put in an official postage of ten times that, is
that right?
A. Yes, but if I can just explain the reason why
I multiplied it by ten: this was something I had noticed
before, the label transaction issue, and I reported it
using all official channels and nothing was ever done
and then the fact that it happened again and caused
a financial loss --
Q. You just put in official postage?
A. Yes.
Q. And just the final reference, {F/1252.1} is a letter
from an Andrew Morley, an internal Post Office letter
I think. If we go to the second page of that -- that
doesn't look right. It doesn't matter. It is a further
document where you mentioned that you were doing this.
When did you start taking official postage in this
sort of way?
A. I can't remember.
Q. And I have tried to take you to various entries that I'm
aware of where you notified Post Office, but it's right,
isn't it, that you didn't notify them on each and every
occasion that you were doing that, there was a whole
series of £100s that were referred to in your interview?
A. Yes, but I knew they were being recorded, so ...
I wasn't informing network business support centre but
because I was putting the entry onto the computer I knew
that there was a record of it.
Q. Well, it wouldn't be obvious to Post Office whether that
was official postage or not, would it, or whether you
had just helped yourself to it?
A. I think it would be obvious that it wasn't official
postage because of the amounts involved.
Q. All right.
Nothing further. If you just stay there, Mr Green
may have some questions.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I assume not for very long, Mr Green.
MR GREEN: Really very short, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Yes.
Re-examination by MR GREEN
MR GREEN: Could you look back at {F/1365} please. This is
the document you were shown and let's leave aside for
the moment this is a 2015 version.
A. Yes.
Q. Just park that, because I think you have already made an
observation about what you did or did not have.
A. Yes.
Q. But at least as at 2015, do you see sort of halfway down
on the right-hand side there's a print-out?
A. Yes.
Q. Post Office.
A. Yes.
Q. And you come down and it says "Total due to customer:
102.34".
A. Yes.
Q. And it is in red.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. It says:
"You must take care to only settle with the customer
for the amount specified on the receipt ..."
A. Yes.
Q. Is that what you did?
A. Yes.
Q. And when we go to {F/1257.1}, which is the Facebook
post -- sorry, the Yahoo! -- the list.
A. Okay.
Q. It was put to you that this whole episode is a good
example of Horizon working well.
A. Yes.
Q. And I just wanted to take you through your
contemporaneous account of what happened very quickly.
A. Okay.
Q. So you begin:
"Yesterday during HOL failure ..."
A. Yes.
Q. Did you regard that as Horizon working well, when it
failed?
A. No.
Q. Okay. And it says:
"Transaction seemed to go through okay apart from
Horizon printing 3 identical receipts."
A. Yes.
Q. Was that what should have happened, three identical
receipts, or not?
A. Normally, no, that wouldn't happen.
Q. And then:
"Receipts showed a disconnected session ..."
A. Yes.
Q. Is it meant to have a disconnected session or not?
A. No.
Q. Okay. And then you get total due to customer, 195.04.
A. Yes.
Q. And you hand that over.
A. Yes.
Q. And then it says -- you say that:
"Because receipts showed cash due to customer, we
paid out."
Then:
"Come evening balancing till showed approximately
£200 loss."
A. Yes.
Q. Was that Horizon working correctly?
A. No.
Q. "Thought at time must be miscount and will try to sort
in morning.
"This morning produced transaction log for the
period of HOL FAILURE. No record of 195.04 transaction
at all!!!!"
A. No.
Q. Was that Horizon working well?
A. No.
Q. "Phoned helpline and was told by very irate member of
staff that loss is mine unless I can sort out with
customer directly ..."
A. Yes.
Q. Did you feel that that was a satisfactory response?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. "... apparently there is a message on screen during HOL
failure to not pay any money to customer ..."
Is that what you saw, or did you see a message that
said "Pay the customer £195"?
A. I cannot remember.
Q. "Asked irate staff to pass call up as I was not a happy
bunny, was told she was not going to do this ..."
A. Correct.
Q. Was that what you felt you should reasonably expect?
A. No.
Q. "... only after I asked to speak to contracts manager or
somebody from POL press office with regards to speaking
to press about my loss was I given a number for
Chesterfield."
A. Correct.
Q. Did you think it was appropriate that you should have to
make those threats to get the relevant telephone number?
A. No.
Q. "So spoke to POCA lady at Chesterfield who after
pressing a few buttons was able to find transaction ..."
A. Yes.
Q. Did you think it was satisfactory that she could see
a transaction involving your branch that you couldn't
see?
A. No, it wasn't satisfactory.
Q. "She couldn't promise anything ..."
Did you find that satisfactory?
A. No.
Q. "... but will see if she can get a credit TC after she
has spoken to Fujitsu??? She took my number and
promised to call back after speaking to Fujitsu, being
very non-committal about possible loss."
Did you find that a satisfactory response?
A. No.
MR GREEN: My Lord, no further questions.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: No questions from me.
Thank you very much. I'm sorry you had to be asked
to leave court for a couple of minutes but sometimes
these things just happen and it is important that
sometimes there's a debate without a witness hearing
what it is.
Thank you very much, you are free to go.
We're going to have a short break for the
transcribers and then you are calling your next witness.
MR GREEN: Mr Patny.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Is there any prospect of finishing him
today?
MR HENDERSON: I don't think so.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right. Are you cross-examining,
Mr Henderson?
MR HENDERSON: Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: We will have five minutes until 10 to 4
and then we will run to about half past 4 but if you
find a convenient break at or around that time or
earlier it's up to you. Right, so until 10 to 4. Thank
you very much.
(3.44 pm)
(Short Break)
(3.52 pm)
MR GREEN: My Lord, I am going to call Mr Anup Patny.
MR ANUP PATNY (affirmed)
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Do have a seat.
A. Thank you.
Examination-in-chief by MR GREEN
MR GREEN: Mr Patny, in front of you is a folder and if you
kindly turn to tab 3 of that folder {E1/3} you see
a document that says "Witness statement of Anup Kumar
Patny".
A. Yes.
Q. And if you turn to the third page of that {E1/3/3}
there's a signature.
A. Yes.
Q. Is that your signature?
A. It is.
Q. And do you believe the contents of your statement to be
true?
A. Yes.
Q. Most grateful. Would you just wait there.
Cross-examination by MR HENDERSON
MR HENDERSON: Mr Patny, good afternoon.
A. Good afternoon, sir.
Q. You were subpostmaster in the Spencefield branch for
a relatively short time, between October 2014 and
August 2016, is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you ran a retail business from the same premises?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you still running that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And can you just describe what the set-up was when you
had the Post Office there?
A. Well, it's a single-counter Post Office. Well, it came
within my branch counter. We had two tills before for
the counter but we took one out for post office side and
retail side there's one counter for retail and one
counter for the post office.
Q. Okay. And it may sound like a silly question, but what
else do you sell in the newsagent? It is it just papers
and cigarettes and so forth?
A. Yes, newspapers -- mainly it is high in home news
deliveries and cigarettes and cards, stationary,
et cetera.
Q. How many other people work in the shop? We obviously
know about you and your son?
A. Yes, my wife, she ran -- she worked in the retail and
she worked in the post office as well, with one other
assistant.
Q. Okay, so four of you in total?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. So there was a separate post office counter in
the branch, is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And how does that work from a practical point of view?
If someone wants to buy something from the newsagent and
do something at the post office counter as well, how do
you sort that?
A. Well, most of the time there's one person allocated to
the post office. In the morning there's two people, in
the afternoon there's two people as well. I am there
floating to serve on the counter both sides. My wife,
she was there for the same reason as well. So whenever
somebody required, you know -- if my wife is like
serving on the post office side I would hop onto the
retail side and vice versa because there's two different
queues we had for post office queue and for retail
queue.
Q. And what if someone comes in and wants to buy
a newspaper and some cards and do something at the
post office counter as well, how does that work?
A. Well, they will have to go to the post office queue
afterwards or beforehand.
Q. Right. Now, you tell us in your witness statement that
you remmed in cash on 11 May 2016, I think.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. But your son undertook a balance on that same day, on
11 May. Do you remember that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And I want to ask you some questions about both of those
activities, but first of all, was that your usual
practice, was it you that would rem the cash in and your
son who would carry out what you call the balancing
exercise?
A. Most of the time, because me and my wife normally came
in in the morning. The cash normally came in just
before 12 o'clock. That would come in, I would check
the cash, rem in and then put it safe in the safe and
then my son would come in just in the afternoon and take
it from us.
Q. And he would do the balancing at the end of the day?
A. At the end of the day or every Wednesday, yes.
Q. And when you do the balancing, presumably it's not
uncommon that there's some sort of discrepancy between
the cash that Horizon expects you to have, for example,
and the cash you have actually got?
A. Well, it happens sometimes.
Q. Sure. And I'm just interested in how you reacted if you
found that there was a discrepancy. If it was just
a few pence or a few pounds would you just make up that
difference from your own pocket?
A. Well, under normal circumstances, yes, so if it is a few
pounds or few pence, yes.
Q. And if it was more than that, say £40, £50, £60 or
above, would you investigate it?
A. Yes.
Q. And raise it with Post Office?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
Now, I want to start off by asking you some
questions about an outage that took place on 9 May 2016.
Do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. This was a Horizon system outage, wasn't it, it wasn't
a power cut to your ...?
A. No, it was a Horizon outage.
Q. Can you recall how long it went on for?
A. To my memory I think it is just over an hour.
Q. Okay. And do you recall what you were doing at the time
of the outage?
A. Well, it was my wife -- she was serving on the
post office counter and the screen went black and we
couldn't do anything to the system. I think I have had
a customer come in saying that the post office down the
road -- it's a mile away from there -- they are having
problems. We thought nothing of it. I tried to ring
the helpline, couldn't go through, and found out later
on there was an outage.
Q. And you tell us you closed the branch at that time?
A. The branch was closed all that time, yes.
Q. We can see evidence of this outage if we go to
{F/1834.3}.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: You might need the other tab.
MR HENDERSON: Yes, I do need the other tab. If you go to
row 47. If you just highlight row 47.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Can you see that okay, Mr Patny?
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Because we can change the view. Can we
go to "View" in the top task bar please and just
increase the magnification. That might work a little
bit better, Mr Henderson. Can you work from that?
MR HENDERSON: Yes. It may mean going along a bit but
that's okay.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Row 47.
MR HENDERSON: So row 47, do you see that highlighted,
Mr Patny?
A. I can see that.
Q. So that's at 8.22 and if we scroll right so we see the
full column at H. So "No recovery required", so this is
what tells Post Office that there has been an outage --
A. Okay.
Q. -- and you are logging back in. Do you see that? And
it says that no recovery procedure was required. That
suggests that there were no particular problems caused
by the outage as far as your session was concerned. Do
you see that?
A. I don't know.
Q. Well, what was going on -- what Ms van den Bogerd's
evidence is is if you look at -- you don't need to move
the screen, but if you look at row 42 and row 45, what
was going on at the time of the outage was that there
were two postage labels to be printed and that they were
printed, but it is possible that the transaction was
interrupted before it could be completed. Do you see
those entries?
A. Mm-hm, yes sir.
Q. So as far as this data is concerned, the worst case
scenario that could have occurred as a result of this
outage is that the labels might have been handed over
and payment taken in cash -- because the PIN pad won't
work when the Horizon terminal isn't working -- without
following the correct recovery process and what that
would result in is a small surplus of cash, not
a shortage. Do you accept that?
A. It looks that way, yes.
Q. Okay. But what this doesn't in any way suggest is that
the outage could have given rise to a discrepancy of
£17,000 or so, which is what I think you believe
happened?
A. Well, at this stage we didn't have the rem ins.
Q. No, I'm so sorry. The rem ins -- this is the 9 May,
this is before the rems.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay? We're just looking at the outage on 9 May at the
moment.
A. Yes.
Q. There's nothing in this data to suggest that at this
point it could possibly have caused a discrepancy of
£17,000. Do you see that?
A. I can see that there, yes.
Q. Now, you say in your evidence that you rang the helpline
and I think you said a moment ago in answer to
a question that you didn't manage to get through to the
helpline, is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. I don't think that's explained in your witness
statement, but that's fine, we can agree on that.
But your position as I understand it is that this
outage was responsible in some way for a shortfall of
£17,000, is that right?
A. Might have been.
Q. Might have been or was?
A. Well, there's no other argument for that. I mean never
had a shortage before like, you know, all --
Q. Okay, well, let's have a look at it. I mean first of
all, do you agree that if it was the outage on 9 May
that caused a shortfall of £17,000, you would expect
that to show up on that day?
A. I think so, yes.
Q. Let's have a look at the event data spreadsheet at
1507.1 {F/1507.1}.
This is one where we will need to enable editing and
then remove the filter. Then if you could go to row --
if you go in the top left-hand corner if you just type
in D13904. If you can bring that row up to the top of
the screen.
This shows the cash declaration at the end of
9 May 2016. Do you see that, the cash declaration for
a total of £48,021?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And below that it says that there is a discrepancy of
£1,138.21.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So do you accept then that the outage that happened
earlier in that day could not have been responsible for
a £17,000 discrepancy arising?
A. I can't say that.
Q. Well, had it been responsible there would have been
a much higher discrepancy shown, wouldn't there, for
cash as a result of the declaration; isn't that right?
A. Could be.
Q. Well, it would be, wouldn't it?
A. I can't say that. I don't know.
Q. Well, let's look at the same document but the cash
declaration for 11 May, two days later. That's at
14515.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Row?
MR HENDERSON: Row -- yes, 14515.
So on 11 May, two days later -- this is I think when
your son did the balance --
A. Yes, sir.
Q. This is just the daily cash declaration and we see there
a cash total of £71,000-odd and a discrepancy there of
17,339.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And then when your son called the helpline on 11 May --
and we see that at {F/1522.1}, row 136. So if you again
enable editing and if you could bring that up to the
top.
So this is 11 May 2016, so the same date that we
have just been looking at for the cash discrepancy and
if you could go across to column N:
"Doing BP and got a shortage in cash £17,000. Had
a rem in of 46,500 cash, 16,000 coin."
That column is what's used by the help desk operator
to report what is said when someone rings up?
A. Yes.
Q. So it looks as though what your son had said was that
there had been a rem in of £16,000 worth of coins?
A. No, as I can remember Aakash came in home that night and
he said there was a shortage shown and he had phoned the
helpline and they said there has been a rem in of
£16,000 coins and they asked him to do some reversal or
something.
Q. Okay. Let's have a look -- if we just go over and look
at column V in that same row. So what he was told to do
according to this was ask the subpostmaster to make sure
only one cash declaration and make sure rem was scanned
in correctly. So it seems from this, doesn't it, that
the helpline thought that perhaps there had been
a problem -- either a problem with declaring the cash,
in other words counting it, or some sort of problem
remming it in?
A. No, remming in was fine.
Q. Well, let's look at how the discrepancy may actually
have arisen. So on 11 May -- let's have a look at
{F/1834.2}. This is the cash that was remmed in on
11 May, do you see that?
A. I can't see that clearly.
Q. No, okay. And the second row down shows that there was
£16,000 worth of £10 notes, do you see that? Do you see
the second entry?
A. Yes, I can see that.
Q. Okay, so I think there's £26,000 worth of £20 notes,
16,000 of £10, 4,500 of £5, 1,000 of £1 and then there
is coins. So I think the important one is £16,000 worth
of £10 notes.
Now, it's a bit fiddly this, but bear with me. If
we look at {F/1438.1}. This is filtered data, all
right, so we have put a filter on this just to show the
cash that was remmed in to your branch over this period
and you can see that there is highlighting on 11 May but
there was no cash remmed in on 12 May, the following
day. Are you able to recall whether that's right? You
have given evidence of the cash that you remmed in on
11 May, all I'm saying is that there was no cash remmed
in on 12 May.
A. Well, 11 May -- the cash comes in on a Wednesday, all
the time.
Q. Right, okay. So it wouldn't come in any other day?
A. Well, unless it came in by post, if he required some --
any time we would ask the ADC and they would send it,
like an emergency.
Q. All I'm suggesting to you is that there was cash remmed
in on the 11th and there was no cash remmed in on the
12th, as far as Post Office's records can tell.
A. Okay.
Q. Do you accept that?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, if we look at the cash management report for your
branch, which is at {F/1514.1}. Actually these relevant
rows are highlighted. Do you see the highlighting on
rows 383, 384 and 385?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
If you could just scroll right a couple of cells.
Thank you, that's fine.
So the declaration on 10 May -- if you just look at
the £10 note column in column M, do you see that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So that's 16,070.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. And then we know that you remmed in £16,000 worth
of £10 notes on 11 May.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. But the 11 May £10 notes are only 22,130. So what you
would have expected, on 11 May, would be something like
£32,000 of £10 notes, which is the 16,000 from the 10th,
plus the 16,000 from the 11th, less any notes that had
been paid out in the course of 11 May; do you agree?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And in fact, as we can see, there's only £22,130 worth
of £10 notes, but the cash declarations for the
following days in £10 notes are very much higher: 37,650
and 35,700. Do you see that?
A. I can see that, yes.
Q. And even though there had been no cash remmed in in that
period?
A. Well I think when my son rang the NBSC on that 11 May
they asked him to do some adjustments.
Q. Well, what I'm suggesting is that the most natural
explanation for this, whatever adjustments were made, is
that at some point on 11 May someone hadn't counted
a big pile of £10 notes. They had been put in a safe
and forgotten about, which is understandable, and that
they were found the next day, or located, and there was
an accurate cash declaration on 12 May.
A. I don't know about that, sir.
Q. It's perfectly plausible, isn't it?
A. I can't say anything to that.
Q. Well, the final piece of this little jigsaw is at
{F/1507.1} and I think you will need to --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: What document is this?
MR HENDERSON: This is going back to the events data showing
the cash declarations on 13 May. Now, we saw before
that on 11 May the cash discrepancy was minus £17,000.
Do you remember that? We looked at that a few moments
ago?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And two days later the discrepancy is plus 17,000, in
other words it looks as though it has gone, it has
cancelled out. Do you see that?
A. I can see that, sir.
Q. So it's a bit of detective work and it's a bit fiddly
and I apologise for that, but doesn't it look overall as
though what the problem here was is nothing to do with
an outage, it's been a mistake somewhere in the branch,
temporary mistake, counting cash and once the cash count
was done properly, the problem disappeared?
A. I don't know, sir. I don't think so.
Q. You didn't suffer any loss as a result of this incident,
did you?
A. I still think this is because of the adjustments NBSC
had asked my son to make. I don't know.
Q. What I'm trying to put to you, I hope fairly, Mr Patny,
is your evidence is -- I think your evidence is that
there were some sort of problems in Horizon that caused
all of these difficulties and all I'm trying to
demonstrate to you is that if you go through the various
records that are available it looks as though in fact
there has just been a difficulty with declarations of
cash. Do you accept that?
(Pause).
A. I wouldn't know how to answer that.
Q. Well, let's just look at one other document which is
{F/1834.3}. Again I think we need to minimise it and go
to the other tab, sheet 1, and if you go to row 2336.
If you look at row H -- well, these are two entries.
Row 2336 and 2337 are two entries only seven minutes
apart, do you see that? One is at 17.28 and one is at
17.35, do you see that?
A. Yes, I can see that.
Q. Okay, thank you. Seven minutes apart for the same
sign-on, APA001 -- is that you or is that your son?
A. That's me, but it would be my son because that looks
like it has been logged on since the afternoon.
Q. So he was using your log on?
A. He was, yes.
Q. Why would he do that?
A. Well, normally between three of us nobody else would go
on apart from the three of us, so we didn't really mind,
whosoever is logged on we just carried on and continued
with it.
Q. If you look there are two cash declarations seven
minutes apart, one for £68,000-odd and one for
£52,000-odd.
A. Yes, I can see that.
Q. Now, I can also show you -- and my apologies that this
is slightly painful in terms of how long it takes, but
if we go to {F/1482.1} --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Do you mean within this document or
a different document?
MR HENDERSON: No, sorry, a different document, F/1482.1.
And we will need to do the tab at the bottom. And if we
go to row 4323, this is the transaction data for the
branch. Thank you.
Between those two times that I told you about, those
two declarations, if you see 4323 is at 17.28, there is
a single transaction for a £300 cash withdrawal, do you
see that in row 4323?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
So the picture that emerges, I'm suggesting,
Mr Patny, is this, that you've got two cash declarations
minutes apart, substantial difference in value, which
isn't explained by any transactions. Do you see that?
A. Yes, I can see that.
Q. Okay. What I'm suggesting to you is that things were
pretty chaotic in your branch when it comes to these
sorts of things. The cash declarations look like they
are all over the place. Is that a fair observation?
A. Sometimes when you do the cash declaration, say if you
wanted to change something for that particular column,
you just have to delete that section to put in a new
figure. Sometimes what happened is if you carried on
adding the digits in, that would take it -- you are
thinking that you put the right amount in and just
crosses the declaration and that cancelled declaration
comes wrong.
Q. I don't understand that, I'm sorry.
A. Like when you declare the cash -- I mean I haven't done
that so many times, my son had done it. When you
declare the cash, all the coins and notes, you put in
the entry how much you got in there. If you see under
the declaration, if there's a difference, if you check
your balance and everything, if you -- say you counted
the cash again and if there's a difference in there and
you have to log on to change to that particular
denomination -- the amount of that denomination, if you
don't delete that amount and put a new entry in,
sometimes what happens is if you put some figure in it
just adds onto that figure and you are thinking that you
have changed that value and you process it again and
then it shows an amount, the difference amount.
Q. Mr Patny, your evidence, as I understand it, is that
your experience of Horizon leads you to conclude that
there are bugs in the Horizon system.
A. Well, how else -- I mean these shortages have occurred
and there's no explanation to that.
Q. Well, I'm suggesting to you that there's a perfectly
sensible explanation, which is that as far as we can
see, none of the events that you refer to are consistent
with there being a serious problem in Horizon and all of
them are consistent with things being pretty chaotic in
your branch.
A. But where the cash has gone then?
Q. Are you suggesting that you actually lost this cash?
A. No.
MR HENDERSON: My Lord, I don't have a great deal more, but
it is now 4.30.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I assume you are going to put the
detailed points to Mr Patny's son about what he in fact
did and was told, are you? On the basis that he was the
one who called the helpline and --
MR HENDERSON: Yes, but I mean the records are the records
but --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Well, Mr Henderson, that's not really
an answer to my question.
MR HENDERSON: I wasn't intending to repeat
cross-examination that I have already done.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I didn't interrupt you because obviously
this gentleman's log in was used and he is the
subpostmaster but I'm not going to have his son
cross-examined by proxy through him so you are going to
have to put some of these points to his son.
MR HENDERSON: Okay, that's fine.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Do you think you will be longer than
five minutes with this ...
MR HENDERSON: Possibly, yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right, I think we will stop until
tomorrow.
Right, Mr Patny, this just happens sometimes so
don't -- it's not ideal, but you are going to have to
come back tomorrow.
A. Okay.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Because you are in the middle of your
cross-examination that means you mustn't discuss things
connected with the case or your evidence with anyone
overnight.
A. Yes, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: In your situation that's going to be
probably harder because obviously you worked with your
wife and your son as well, but please don't discuss your
evidence with either of them and come back tomorrow at
10.30.
A. My Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Is that all right?
A. Yes, sir.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Anything else in terms of the evidence?
Don't think so.
MR GREEN: My Lord, there was just one thing that
your Lordship asked us for yesterday.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Hold on a second, I can let Mr Patny go.
MR GREEN: I'm sorry.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I can let Mr Patny go.
You can leave the witness box by all means, we have
a few bits and pieces to sort out.
Mr Green.
Housekeeping
MR GREEN: Your Lordship asked whether we had a list of all
the branches affected by Callendar Square.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: If you have give me the reference or
hand it up rather than read it out.
MR GREEN: What we have is a document which has
Callendar Square and some others on it.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: How many are there?
MR GREEN: There are 20 that it records as having been
affected and others that reported problems but probably
didn't have losses, it says.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Is it on Magnum?
MR GREEN: It is. It is {F/322.1} and we don't know whether
that's the same list that Mr Godeseth is referring to at
{E2/7/5}, paragraph 15.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Well, Mr Godeseth is not being
cross-examined until next week.
MR GREEN: Of course.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: So I'm sure Mr De Garr Robinson and
Mr Henderson and Mr Draper between them will let you
know if it is what he is talking about, if it is not I'm
sure they'll tell you which one he has. But I can now
go and have a look at it, all right.
You and Mr De Garr Robinson were going to tell me
about your proposals for closings insofar as you had
thought about it? Is that right?
MR GREEN: My Lord, yes, I have discussed it with my learned
friend --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Just give me some dates if you have
agreed them.
MR GREEN: It is the 8th and 9th.
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: My Lord, yes. My learned friend's
team has problems the previous week so he suggested
8 and 9 May.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Can you just remind me --
MR GREEN: It is Wednesday the 8th and Thursday the 9th.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Do those dates work for you,
Mr De Garr Robinson?
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: My Lord, yes. There is one member of
the team that won't be able to be here but we can close
orally on that basis.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right. A day each?
MR GREEN: My Lord, yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Given it is going to be some weeks later
than initially planned I'm going to ask for the closings
to be submitted somewhat earlier than normal and I will
just have to think about when that's going to be.
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: My Lord, I quite understand. I mean
I would ask for --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: You want as much time as possible of
course.
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: Your Lordship didn't need me to say
that.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: No, no, I know you want as much time as
possible and I will try and give you as much time as
possible, but if it is going to be then I will give
myself more than the usual 48 hours to read them.
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: My Lord of course.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I will of course take that into account.
Anything else tonight? No. So we will resume with
Mr Patny senior tomorrow and then after him it is
Mr Patny -- his son. Thank you all very much.
(4.35 pm)
(The court adjourned until 10.30 am on Wednesday,
13 March 2019)