Sunday, 19 May 2019

Post Office applies to High Court to appeal Common Issues trial judgment


It was a long time coming but it's finally happened. The Post Office has lodged its application at the High Court for permission to appeal what I'm told is large parts of the Common Issues trial judgment.

This is wholly unsurprising, given that on 15 March, when the Common Issues trial judgment was handed down, the Post Office indicated it was considering an appeal.

Also last Monday the Post Office chief executive told Subpostmasters there would be an appeal.

Waiting to the last possible moment before applying gives the Post Office the maximum time to prepare, whilst dragging things out as long and as expensively as possible.

So what happens next?

The Post Office has filed its grounds for appeal and skeleton arguments. The claimants are currently poring over them and will, on Tuesday, file their skeleton arguments against.

On Thursday at the High Court, there will be a hearing, which was actually scheduled to decide Common Issues trial costs. Once costs has been dealt with J Fraser will then hear the arguments as to why he should or shouldn't let this appeal go to the Appeal Court.

He has three options:

a) yes it can go to appeal
b) yes some of it can be appealed
c) no you shall not go to the Court of Appeal.

If he decides option c), the Post Office can (as it did with the refusal to recuse), approach the Court of Appeal directly asking for permission to appeal.

An appeal of the Common Issues judgment, were it to go ahead, would most likely be scheduled before trial 3, which is currently scheduled for November 2019, and is likely to examine potential breaches of contract. Having a settled ruling on what that contract means would obviously help all parties.

UPDATE: The process did not go well for the Post Office. Fraser J did not allow the application, so the Post Office applied direct to the Court of Appeal. This gave rise to Lord Justice Coulson dismissing the application with his now famous quote describing the Post Office's attitude as similar to that of "a mid-Victorian factory-owner". Ouch.

*********************

If you can, please help keep this crowdfunded public-interest journalism project going by chucking a few quid in the tip jar below. Contributors who give £20 or more will start receiving regular "secret" emails which have all the info and gossip about this litigation as it makes its way through the courts.

If you want to find out a little bit more about the underlying story, click here. 

Choose an amount
at

Thursday, 16 May 2019

"What kind of games are you playing with human beings' lives?"

This is Part 2 of Pete Murray's story.
Hope Farm Road Post Office
When we left him in mid-December last year, Pete had been suspended as Postmaster of both the Grove Road Post Office in Wallasey and Hope Farm Road Post Office in Great Sutton.

Pete was suspended after a series of increasing and inexplicable discrepancies at his Hope Farm Road branch which ran into the tens of thousands of pounds. He had been running the Grove Road Post Office for six years perfectly happily.

Between 2016 and 2018 Pete claims he repeatedly tried to get the Post Office to help him with his Horizon problems at his Hope Farm Road branch, to no avail.

Pete wrote up part 1 of his story for this blog in mid-December 2018.

On 20 Dec 2018, Pete suffered a stress-related stroke. At that stage his contracts manager Paul Williams still hadn't found the time to come and see him.

On 4 Jan 2019 Pete finally met with Paul Williams. The meeting was also attended by the "redoubtable"* Mark Baker from the Communications Workers Union.

After the meeting Mr Williams resumed radio silence and refused to communicate with Mr Murray.

On 29 January 2019, in frustration at the inaction and horrendous effect his suspension was having on his life and livelihood, Mr Murray wrote to Mr Williams once more:

"Dear Mr. Williams,

I am emailing you today, in desperation for a response, because, up to now, all the times that I have emailed you, or phoned the helpline to try to contact you, you have not once responded to my communications.

You suspended me on the 1st November, 2018, and said that the investigation would take 'up to 8 weeks'. After over 9 weeks, I finally got to have a meeting with you, after you cancelled at least twice. It is now almost another 4 weeks later, and still I have heard nothing. I emailed you last Thursday, and you have not even sent a one-line acknowledgement - well, not just last Thursday, you have never sent even an acknowledgment to my emails.

What kind of games are you playing with human beings' lives? You are withholding over £8000 in unpaid pay for October, and your suspending me has prevented me from working probably to the value of a further £25000 now, between 1st November and today - all money that could potentially have been used to pay off the alleged shortfalls in my branch. As I told you in the meeting at the start of January, I suffered a stroke in December, which is pretty much very highly likely a direct result of the stress caused by this situation which my family has been forced into.

Why are you punishing me, when I have been nothing but completely co-operative throughout this whole issue? I have had to start looking for a job, as I have landlords of two business premises chasing me for rent,

As I have said several times, as did Mark Baker, surely this issue could have been solved with an investigation without suspension, with my co-operation - basically as I asked from the start - could someone please come and help me look for these discrepancies?

The very fact that you have never replied to a single email on this subject, including from when I asked for help in my branch (just one of them!) and the email I sent you last Thursday, is nothing short of mind-numbingly soul-destroying - I cannot understand why this is dragging out so long and you continue to ignore my messages. This is grossly unfair, and if I am not back into my shops and earning again within a very short period now, I am going to have to declare myself bankrupt - probably also causing the refusal of my wife's current visa application, and if that happens, I really don't know what will happen to my family.

How long can you drag this on for, and what on earth is taking so long - it is completely unfair, and I please need answers from you this time.

Regards,

Peter Murray"

Did Pete get a response from the elusive Mr Williams? Did he ever get reinstated? Does the Post Office still think he owes them £35,000? Read part three below.

Part 3: "Post Office Ltd see fit and well to treat me like this, pending an 'investigation' which appears not to be taking place."

You can read part 1 of Pete's story here: "The Post Office claim I owe them £35,000, despite never showing or telling me what I have done wrong."
You can read part 2 of Pete's story here: "What kind of games are you playing with human beings' lives?"

The Post Office have said they will not comment on individual cases.

* an epithet used in a ruling by a High Court judge to describe Mr Baker's ultimately successful efforts to expose a secret agreement between the Post Office and the NFSP.

*******************
If you can, please help keep this crowdfunded public-interest journalism project going by chucking a few quid in the tip jar below. Contributors who give £20 or more will start receiving regular "secret" emails which have all the info and gossip about this litigation as it makes its way through the courts.

If you want to find out a little bit more about the underlying story, click here.        
Choose an amount
at

Tuesday, 14 May 2019

Post Office vs Mental Health

A couple of tweets posted yesterday by the Post Office comms team and the Post Office communications director have raised the hackles of campaigning former and existing Subpostmasters.

The tweets in question are as follows. First this one from the comms team:
and then this one from the Post Office Director of Communications, Mark Davies:
Now, as readers may be aware, the Post Office stands accused of mentally destroying several Subpostmasters through its business practices.

I am aware of two cases where surviving relatives (some in part, some wholly) blame the Post Office for their loved ones' suicides. You can read one of those stories here. I know of one woman who had a complete breakdown and was subsequently institutionalised for her own safety after being pursued by the Post Office for discrepancies her branch.

Former Postmaster Bal Gill has also written about his Post Office-induced breakdown on this blog as has Wendy Martin. I suspect this is the tip of the iceberg.

So as you might expect, the rather self-satisfied tone of yesterday's tweets from the Post Office has caused something of a reaction. Here are few examples:





I have asked the Post Office for comment on this, both via email and directly on twitter, but the strength of reaction has got me thinking. I have never really collated the stories of the mental breakdowns described by Subpostmasters before. It's always been the legal or financial implications of what happened to them. But describing what happened to individual Subpostmasters' mental health whilst their livelihoods were under attack is just as important, and it's about time I started to do this properly.

If you believe your mental health has been directly affected by the Post Office as a result of discrepancies in your branch or changes to your working practices, please do get in touch. I would like to put together a body of testimony on this specific subject.

If you wish to discuss this sensitive area, use the contact form on the desktop version of this website (in the right hand nav bar). Or if you're already a secret emailer, just hit reply to any of the secret emails you've been receiving. Both methods are secure, confidential and go straight to my inbox.

UPDATE: I am delighted to tell you that a number of very brave people came forward to tell the story of their anguish at the hands of the Post Office. These are harrowing reads:

Deirdre Connolly - "It's been a living hell."
Tracy Felstead - "They didn't care that I was just this scared girl."
Nicki Arch - "I hate everything about it. I will not go into a Post Office."

For more stories like Deirdre, Tracy, Nicki, Wendy and Bal's, please visit the victim testimony page of this website.

*******************

If you can, please help keep this crowdfunded public-interest journalism project going by chucking a few quid in the tip jar below. Contributors who give £20 or more will start receiving regular "secret" emails which have all the info and gossip about this litigation as it makes its way through the courts.

If you want to find out a little bit more about the underlying story, click here.                                                             

Choose an amount
at

Post Office reaction to Court of Appeal decision

Pic: EriKolaborator
The Post Office has kept very quiet about the Court of Appeal's thorough trashing of its request to appeal the recusal application judgment, not releasing a peep to the media.

But it did send a short note to its Postmasters via email earlier today. It comes from "Al" Cameron, the Post Office's new (interim) Chief Executive. He says:
"As promised, I want to keep you up to date on the Group Litigation... Over the weekend we were told that the Court of Appeal has refused Post Office permission to appeal on recusal. Our Managing Judge will therefore continue to oversee all trials and the second trial on Horizon issues will resume on 4 June. Permission to appeal the Managing Judge’s interpretation of our contracts will be sought at a hearing on 23 May 2019...
"Our primary focus is on ensuring that we continue to improve how we work with Postmasters, making it easier for them to earn more money for less effort. This covers a number of workstreams from the new field teams, to better training, to new processes and we will update you on our plans and progress in the next few weeks."
Three things on the above:

1) This is the strongest acknowledgment yet that the Post Office will ask for leave to appeal the Common Issues judgment. They've always said they are considering seeking permission to appeal and they have yet to lodge a formal request (they have until Thursday this week to do so), but if the CEO of the PO is telling Subpostmasters it's happening, you can be pretty sure it's happening.

2) I am not quite sure why Mr Cameron decided to use the possessive when describing a judge who has just had to halt a trial to demonstrate that he is nobody's man, but hey.

3) It's interesting he notes the Post Office's "primary focus" is "to improve how we work with Postmasters."

This echoes Post Office Chairman Tim Parker's statement on the day the Common Issues judgment was handed down. He said:
"Our postmasters are the backbone of our business and our first priority will be to consider the points raised about the management of our contractual relationships and how we could improve them. 
"We will make sure that problems brought to our attention by postmasters are investigated even more quickly and transparently. 
"In addition, we will further improve communications with postmasters, as well as the training and support they receive."
Quite what the Post Office are actually doing about this is anyone's guess. I have had one email from an irate Subpostmaster who received a change to his contract ("rubber stamped by the NFSP") on 25 April backdated to 1 April. No warning, no negotiation, no debate. As far as he's concerned the Post Office's attitude to its Subpostmasters hasn't changed a bit.

I was also told by a Post Office insider that even acknowledging things are going to have to change as a result of the Common Issues trial judgment is off limits for anyone within the Post Office as it would lend validity to a judgment which the Post Office intends to appeal.

That, I suppose, is a sensible perspective - after all, if the Post Office appeal is successful, then some of the decisions J Fraser made would be reversed. Or changed. But if the Post Office keeps trying to hump its Subpostmasters for cash whenever there are branch discrepancies, and Postmasters refuse to cough up on the grounds of a disputed High Court ruling which requires the Post Office to prove its Subpostmasters are at fault, it's going to get interesting.

*******************

If you can, please help keep this crowdfunded public-interest journalism project going by chucking a few quid in the tip jar below. Contributors who give £20 or more will start receiving regular "secret" emails which have all the info and gossip about this litigation as it makes its way through the courts.

If you want to find out a little bit more about the underlying story, click here.            
Choose an amount
at

Saturday, 11 May 2019

Court of Appeal recusal decision

This decision, handed down on 10 May 2019 by Lord Justice Coulson, refuses the Post Office's application to appeal their application to recuse Sir Peter Fraser from the Bates and others v Post Office litigation on grounds of apparent bias.

Sir Peter had already refused to recuse himself and refused permission for the Post Office to appeal on 3 April 2019.

You can read more on the recusal process and the document below in my blog post about it here. Or you can go straight to the source document on scrib'd here, or read it embedded below - it's only 19 pages:

*******************
If you can, please help keep this crowdfunded public-interest journalism project going by chucking a few quid in the tip jar below. Contributors who give £20 or more will start receiving regular "secret" emails which have all the info and gossip about this litigation as it makes its way through the courts.

If you want to find out a little bit more about the underlying story, click here.  
Choose an amount
at

Fraser J is going nowhere

The Hon. Sir Peter Fraser. Winning.
I thought the Court of Appeal was taking its time with the Post Office's application to appeal Sir Peter Fraser's decision not to recuse (sack) himself from the Bates and others v Post Office group litigation. I was wrong. It made its decision without a hearing yesterday. I am consoling myself with the knowledge I am the first journalist to get a hold of it. You can read it here.

The ruling was made by the Right Honourable Lord Justice Coulson. Over 19 pages he indicates that Sir Peter was bang on about everything in his recusal application judgment and the Post Office's application to have his judgment overturned was "without substance", "misconceived", "fatally flawed", "untenable" and "absurd".

Lord Justice Coulson notes the claimants contended the purpose of the recusal application and application to appeal was to sink the Horizon trial.

He muses: "the mere making of these applications could have led to the collapse of that [Horizon] trial altogether. Although I can reach no concluded view on the matter, I can at least understand why the SPMs [Subpostmaster claimants] originally submitted on 21 March that that was its purpose."

There follows some choice quotes from the ruling broken down into sections. They are all critical of the Post Office.




In summary:

"Permission to appeal against Judgment 4 [the recusal judgment] is refused. I set out the reasons for that conclusion in greater detail than usual only because of the volume and nature of the criticisms which have been made and the importance of the group litigation to both parties. I do not do so because of the merits of the application itself, which in my view is without substance.”

"What matters for the purposes of any recusal application is whether, when looking at Judgment 3 [the Common Issues trial judgment] as a whole, a fair-minded observer would conclude that there was a real possibility that, to the extent that he made such findings, the judge was biased in so doing.... as explained in greater detail below, the PO has not come close to demonstrating it in this case."

The Post Office's obssession with trying to get rid of evidence it doesn't like:

"There is force in the submissions...  that the PO’s strike-out application [made in October last year and rejected in Judgment 2] arose because the PO wished to adduce extensive factual evidence in their favour, but objected to any evidence to the contrary from the SPMs [Subpostmasters]. As they put it, “the Post Office wanted the case decided all one way”. There remains a distinct flavour of that approach within the recusal application."

The Post Office's approach to cherry-picking a 180,000 word judgment:

"As the judge [Fraser J] explained... the PO is now having to argue that the outcome of the sub-trial was irrelevant to the recusal application, and that what mattered were individual sentences, scattered through Judgment 3 which they say amount to a demonstration of apparent bias. The judge thought that was a misconceived approach. So do I."

"The judge said in a number of different places in Judgment 4 that many of the phrases or sentences upon which the recusal application is based are taken wholly out of context by the PO. I agree with that conclusion."

"This is particularly egregious where, as happens repeatedly, the sentence before or the sentence after the phrase/sentence relied on makes clear that, for example, it is not a finding of fact, or it is an observation based on the PO’s own evidence."

"The fair-minded observer would only consider whether the passages relied on gave rise to a real possibility that the judge was biased by considering those passages in full and in context. That is what being “fair-minded'’ requires. I consider that the recusal application and the appeal ignore this basic principle and are fatally flawed in consequence."

The Post Office's behaviour before and during the Common Issues trial:

"The PO’s application is based on a total disregard of what it actually said and did before and during the Common Issues sub-trial... the PO’s skeleton argument, in keeping with the oral
arguments made to the judge, endeavour to present the sub-trial as a clearly-defined, simple set of issues concerned with the construction of contract terms, where factual disputes were few and far between. On any view of the papers, that is a significant misrepresentation, not only of the issues themselves, but also of the way in which the PO itself ran its case before the judge. It raised factual disputes at every turn."

"For the PO now to say - as they do - that actually all of this was irrelevant, and that the judge demonstrated apparent bias by dealing with and making findings upon those matters which the PO itself had put in issue, is an untenable position to adopt."

"For the PO now to complain about the making of findings on these issues, which arose out of the way which they themselves put their case, is absurd."

The Common Issues judgment's alleged mission creep:

"The mere fact that in a lengthy judgment, the judge may have strayed beyond the strict scope of a particular issue, out of thousands in dispute, is, in one sense, neither here nor there. It is quite capable of correction at any subsequent sub-trial."

In his recusal judgment Sir Peter made it quite clear that even if the Post Office's submission for his recusal had any substance he would refuse them anyway due to the way they were made. Lord Coulson agrees:

"It is unnecessary to decide the waiver point, given that, for the reasons I have given, the substantive appeal has no prospect of success. However, it would be wrong to leave this application for permission to appeal without dealing with the timing and manner in which the recusal application was made."

"The judge learned of the recusal application by accident just before the afternoon session of the last day of the factual evidence on the Horizon Issues trial This was at best discourteous; at worst, it betrayed a singular lack of openness on the part of the PO and their advisors."

In conclusion:

“… the scattergun way in [sic] the original application was made, now mirrored in the way that this appeal has been pursued, can be seen in the continually changing nature of the PO’s arguments."

“It is a great pity that the recusal application and this application for permission to appeal have had the effect of delaying the conclusion of the critical Horizon sub-trial. Indeed, the mere making of these applications could have led to the collapse of that sub-trial altogether. Although I can reach no concluded view on the matter, I can at least understand why the SPMs originally submitted on 21 March that that was its purpose."

So there we go. Sir Peter Fraser remains and will remain the managing judge in Bates and others v Post Office until it concludes. The Post Office's attempt to blow him out of the water has failed, miserably.

I have, of course, emailed the Post Office asking for a comment on the ruling, and as soon as I get it, I'll post it up.

Further reading:
Common Issues trial judgment (cheat sheet)
The drama of the day the recusal application was given to the judge
Being in court for the initial recusal application judgment
And because it's now in danger of being overshadowed by the Court of Appeal ruling, a piece I put up yesterday afternoon about a Subpostmaster currently being hounded by the Post Office for £35,000. It's always good to remind yourself why this story exists.

The Horizon trial now definitely re-starts 4 June. I'll be there. Join the secret email gang by donating below and enjoy the build up.

*******************
If you can, please help keep this crowdfunded public-interest journalism project going by chucking a few quid in the tip jar below. Contributors who give £20 or more will start receiving regular "secret" emails which have all the info and gossip about this litigation as it makes its way through the courts.

If you want to find out a little bit more about the underlying story, click here.                                                           

Choose an amount
at

Friday, 10 May 2019

"The Post Office claim I owe them £35,000, despite never showing or telling me what I have done wrong."

Pete Murray
Many of the cases currently part of the Bates and others v Post Office litigation date back to the first decade of this century, but a large chunk relate to problems with Horizon online, which came on stream in 2010 and a version of which is still in use today.

Subpostmasters were having problems with Horizon online and joining the claimant cohort right up to the July 2017 deadline (cf Liz Stockdale*), and more Subpostmasters who aren't claimants continue to have serious problems with Horizon.

Hope Farm Road Post Office in Great Sutton used to be run by Martin Griffiths, who is sadly no longer with us. Whilst he was Subpostmaster, Mr Griffiths experienced huge, inexplicable discrepancies appearing on his Horizon terminal which the Post Office demanded he repay. He became depressed and eventually took his own life.

The current incumbent at Hope Farm Road, Pete Murray, was not told any of this before he took on the branch. He found, within weeks of taking over, his Horizon terminal was throwing up large inexplicable losses. He was suspended over the Christmas period last year and is facing legal demands from the Post Office to give them £35,000 of his own money.

What follows was written by Pete back in December whilst he was still suspended.

Here is Part 1 of Pete's story, in his own words:

"My problems started on 8 October 2014, when we took over Hope Farm Road. I already had one post office at Grove Road in Wallasey, which I took over in 2013. Apart from being temporarily suspended for problems with accounting for ATM cash (later identified as a gap in my training and wholly resolved in my favour), I did not have any problems at Grove Road.

The contracts manager for both my post offices is now Paul Williams, who also interviewed me for the Hope Farm Road office.

Since I took over at Hope Farm there have been a number of random, sudden and large deficits at close of business on a number of days. We are talking thousands.

Besides the staff member I inherited on buying the business, I also employ two other people on a relief basis from time to time.

All three are vastly experienced with the Horizon computer system. Much more so than me. That said, I am capable with computers and all things numeric. I definitely have more of a maths brain.

The first time there was a sudden shortage, we had no idea where it came from and were unable to find it, so we declared and rolled over a loss. We had no choice. I felt very guilty for apparently losing the money, and of course, I had to repay it.

Then it happened again. And again. And despite going through every transaction each time, nothing could be found.

"Don't trust your staff."

I was away in October for three weeks last year, and I asked a friend to cover two days for me, as the agency I had contracted to provide me with cover could not fill these two one-day gaps.

My friend had just a couple of days counter training in his own post office, but as I was going to be on the other side of the world and he owed me a favour, I crossed my fingers and hoped we would be okay.

During the three week period I was away, a shortage of £17,000 arose. I can't point the finger at anyone. I wasn't there, and I don't know what happened.

On another occasion, the lady who worked at our branch full-time turned to me and said “Look." Her end of day cash declaration was showing a shortage of £8,000. I was 100% convinced it wasn't her.

We went through the system together, and found nothing. The other weird thing is that her stock unit basically almost never had that amount of cash in it - for it to be that short, there had to be a random high value transaction put through by mistake. We searched, and found nothing.

I called the helpline, followed their instructions and got nowhere. I called the helpline again, asking them to put me in touch with Mr Williams.

He never contacted me. I would get letters from the "Agents' Accounting Team" asking me to call them to set up repayments. I called them, on one occasion in tears, saying "PLEASE, can you get someone to come out?"

Eventually the Agents' Accounting Team agreed to "an intervention", and an auditor came out. He spent 20 minutes in the fortress [the secure area behind the counter] with me, chatting about my problems, but he didn't even bother to log into or Horizon, take a look at it or read any of my paperwork. He left me to it.

I called the Post Office head of security, who was on leave at the time. His voice message offered two other mobile numbers. I called one of them, got no answer and left a voicemail.

The man who called back was the Post Office's number two in the security department. He just told me repeatedly “Don't trust your staff.”

He said it over and over again. I was three years or so into being a Postmaster at this time. The staff at my branch had all been doing it for decades, completely professionally and honestly. Or so I thought.

How can I start not trusting these people? I was asking for help from the Post Office, from 5 different departments, all of whom were my gateway to the contracts manager, and NO HELP whatsoever was coming through. All I had was demands for payment. But I still stand on the fact that those losses were not down to me.

It was not until after I bought the Hope Farm Road post office branch that I learned that the previous Postmaster, Martin Griffiths, had taken his own life. He had thrown himself under a bus.

This was after a few years back and forth arguing the case with the Post Office about the shortages.

"They left litter lying around my office."

So far the Post Office have taken a total of £23,000 out of my monthly income. I have debts of £5,000 to my father and a friend and the Post Office still claim I owe them a further £35,000, despite never showing or telling me what I have done wrong.

On the 1 November 2018 I had a surprise audit. There were two people from head office at my Grove Road branch and at three at Hope Farm Road. It was like they already knew they were going to suspend me before the audit even started.  I felt really under pressure and vulnerable. They found another £2,000 discrepancy. I was suspended.

Something that really ground on me was the way these auditors behaved. They left litter lying around my office, coffee cups and wrappers from the bakery next door. They spent the entire time in my office bitching about colleagues.

Also, all three of them were talking about upcoming or just taken foreign holidays and the new company cars all three had recently ordered. Whilst they were going on about which model they'd chosen and the spec they'd gone for my blood was boiling. I can't afford any time off from my branch. I work really hard all day long, every day. I can't take my family away for a weekend, as I can't afford cover in my Post Office. Every day I strive to survive, making money for Post Office, only to listen to three head office staff members chatting away merrily about their lovely cars and holidays, whilst the input of 11,500 postmasters generates their income for them.

Several times during the audit, they called Mr Williams. This is the same Paul Williams who appeared in court during the recent trial [NB the Post Office have got in touch to say it's not]. I did not know the trial was happening until I saw it on twitter.

So when I read the transcript from the court during which the Postmasters' QC asked Mr Williams: “So, you are saying, your team has never had any complaints?” and Mr Williams responded: “No.” I was absolutely gobsmacked. [NB again this appears to be a case of mistaken identity - the Post Office says there are two different Paul Williams here]

To summarize, as a result of the recurring losses in Hope Farm Road Post Office, I have reached out to:

• Paul Williams – I called the helpline on at least three occasions, asking to speak to him, each time being told they will contact him to get in touch – he never has;
• the Agents' Accounting Team – during discussions about how to repay the missing monies, I asked them to please send help. I got a random visit from one auditor who hung around for 20 minutes chatting, basically said 'you're on your own', and left;
• the Post Office Security Team – I called them, they said 'don't trust your staff' repeatedly – and nothing else;
• the Helpline – not just asking for help to contact Mr Williams, but also, on the times I have had losses and gone directly to the helpline for guidance, generally they were clueless and/or unable to help.

"It was humbling, embarrassing, and downright wrong."

Since my suspension, Mr Williams has postponed a 'discussion' meeting twice so far. I've now been suspended three months, when he initially told me it 'could be up to 8 weeks'. The reason, he says, for the delay is that the team who specialise in deeper searches in the Horizon system have not found anything yet as regards the faults in Hope Farm Road.

I was extremely disappointed – then it struck me like a thunderbolt – if such a department exists, to do deeper, more intense searches into Horizon, then why on earth are they not available to do these searches when a postmaster reaches out to them for help?

Whilst I have been on suspension, I received a letter from the “Former Agents' Accounting Team” - FORMER! - demanding a response as to how I was to pay them £35,000. I haven't even had the meeting yet to discuss what happens next, but Post Office have handed my case over to the people who deal with "Former Agents". It seems to me that in their minds, they have already fired me – or at least that they have a system in place that is so automated, that there's a routine to it, and they do this often.

It did strike me that every time I spoke on the phone with the Agents' Accounting Team (Current, not Former), their behaviour on the phone seemed all so matter of fact. It seemed like they are perfectly used to taking card payments over the phone from postmasters, with a brusque efficiency that gives you a feeling that they see you as an unprofessional criminal paying what is owed. It was humbling, embarrassing, and downright wrong. The Post Office have also withheld money which I should have been paid on 1 December 2018, for work completed in October, before the suspension.

I also received a letter from a firm of solicitors, acting for the Post Office (it's very, very nerve-wracking to receive a letter with the heading “Post Office Ltd vs Peter J. Murray” I can tell you), which was basically a demand for me to give them evidence of how I was to repay the money they say I owe them.

I wrote back to the solicitors and said that as I have not yet had a review meeting with the contracts manager who suspended me, how could they be threatening me with legal action? As far as I was concerned, I am not yet an ex-Postmaster. They wrote back retracting their demand, saying as I am still waiting for a meeting with my contracts manager they will not take any steps until after that.

This, whether intentionally or by mistake, is extreme harassment, and strikes me as guilty until proven innocent.

"I have been contacting the Post Office for help, and absolutely NONE has been forthcoming."

Other than the ATM issue at the Grove Road branch, I had no problems before buying Hope Farm Road Post Office – which I later learned has a history of discrepancies going on for years. The first couple of times it happened, I didn't have a clue what caused it, and repaid it, but since it has happened more often and to more than one person, I have been contacting the Post Office for help, and absolutely NONE has been forthcoming.

Based on their refusal to answer my calls for help, along with their brick wall obstacles to prevent postmasters from contacting their contracts manager, how on earth can the Post Office hold me responsible for losses when I have asked repeatedly for their help?

When I read in the court transcript the other week that Mr Williams told the court that his team had received no complaints [See above] I was livid. The reason he's received no complaints was purely because the system is so set up that he could disappear from his desk for a year and none of the postmasters he is responsible for would have any idea.

I am still waiting for my meeting with Mr Williams. As a result, the people in Great Sutton and the people in Wallasey Village have had no Post Office for three months, and it is not fair. My family life is suffering, the stress is causing arguments, and I think it is just not fair that someone who clearly doesn't even watch his patch rules it like a bully – the guy round the corner who has been suspended had not had an audit in OVER 20 YEARS – surely the Post Office should be investigating Paul Williams, and not me?

I just want to walk away from Hope Farm Road and never return, but I have to pay £14,000 a year rent to the landlord. Not only that, now this is all coming out – who is going to want to buy a post office?

I wanted to write this a few weeks ago, and remain anonymous, as my meeting had not yet come up.

Now it has been postponed a second time, and given what they have done to me and to my branches, I think my relationship with Post Office may well be beyond repair, though I can hold my head up high in the knowledge that I have done nothing wrong. So now I just have to get all of the above out there, as I fear the Post Office are trying to silence stories like this, based on what I have seen of the recent court case.

I want to get the debt quashed and walk away from Hope Farm, and for Grove Road, where my wife usually works, to be returned to us and reopened. I believe the Post Office have a moral obligation to acknowledge that their rebuffs and refusals to help over the last two years should make these discrepancies THEIR responsibility, and not mine.”

Shortly after writing this, two things happened. Pete suffered a stress-related stroke on 20 Dec 2018, temporarily losing the use of his arm. Also after having his Subpostmaster pay stopped and losing two months worth of trade at the busiest time of the year (due to his suspension), the Post Office suggested a meeting in early January 2019.

Did Pete get reinstated? Is the Post Office still chasing him for £35,000?

You can read part 2 of Pete's story here: "What kind of games are you playing with human beings' lives?"
You can read part 3 of Pete's story here: "Post Office Ltd see fit and well to treat me like this, pending an 'investigation' which appears not to be taking place."

After my request for comment the Post Office told me its not appropriate to comment on individual cases.

Read more Subpostmaster stories of being pursued and sometimes sacked and prosecuted by the Post Office here: Victim Testimony.

----------------------------

* Read Liz Stockdale's Witness Statement and the transcript of her evidence via the Common Issues Trial Menu. The judge found Mrs Stockdale to be "a careful and accurate witness, and I consider she was telling me the truth."

*******************
If you can, please help keep this crowdfunded public-interest journalism project going by chucking a few quid in the tip jar below. Contributors who give £20 or more will start receiving regular "secret" emails which have all the info and gossip about this litigation as it makes its way through the courts.

If you want to find out a little bit more about the underlying story, click here.
Choose an amount

at

Monday, 6 May 2019

Post Office: the ONLY interview

One very odd characteristic of the Horizon scandal has been the persistent refusal of the Post Office to be interviewed on the subject.* You'd think they'd be proud of their record in uncovering so much criminality amongst their Subpostmasters, but no.

As far as I am aware only one person has ever been been wheeled out to defend the Post Office's position - Mark Davies, still serving as the Post Office's Director of Communications.

Mr Davies' interview took place on BBC Radio 4's Today programme on 9 Dec 2014. It was prompted by an indication that the MPs who had pressured the Post Office to properly look into possible failings with Horizon had lost faith in the Post Office's handling of both the investigation and subsequent mediation scheme. I'm publishing the transcript for the record.

The first interviewee is Jo Hamilton, a former Subpostmaster who was convicted of false accounting after experiencing inexplicable discrepancies on her Horizon terminal. Jo featured in the Panorama investigation into Horizon and is a claimant in Bates v Post Office. ** Her spot in the segment on the Today programme is on the phone and pre-recorded.

Next up, live in the studio, is James (now Lord) Arbuthnot. Lord Arbuthnot was Jo's MP and a prime mover in drawing together the 140-odd MPs who had constituent Subpostmasters experiencing problems with Horizon.

Then, finally, we hear from Mr Davies, also live in the studio. The presenter is John Humphrys:

"John Humphrys: The time is 27 minutes to 8. It's 10 years since the world of many subpostmasters was turned upside down. They found themselves being accused by the Post Office of all sorts of dubious and even criminal practices involving false accounting and fraud - at least 150 of them. Some went to jail. Most denied ever having done anything wrong. They blamed the Post Office. They said they were being made scapegoats for a faulty IT system called Horizon accounting that created thousands of pounds of shortfalls in cash where none existed.

Jo Hamilton was a subpostmaster in the South Warnborough village shop in Hook in Hampshire, within a few weeks of getting the new system, she noticed something wrong...

Jo Hamilton: It all started off in December 2003 and I had a discrepancy of minus £2000. So I rang the help desk, because that's what they're for, and they told me to do various things, and I did that and the amount that I was down doubled. And I asked to speak to a supervisor so they came on the phone, and whatever we did, it wouldn't go back to minus £2000. The upshot of it was that they asked me to pay the money into the Post Office, which I didn't have. And then they decided to take my wages for the next 10 months to pay it back because under the terms of my contract, that's what has to happen if you're down. You have to make it good.

I had to remortgage the house, repay the money, and originally I was charged with stealing. They said, if I repaid and pleaded guilty to 14 counts of false accounting, they would drop the theft. So the decision was made that I was less likely to go to prison for false accounting than I was for theft, and that's what I did. If I didn't plead guilty, they would have charged me with theft, and I couldn't prove I didn't take anything. They couldn't prove I did, and at the time, they told me I was the only person that I'd ever had problems with Horizon, nobody else had. I actually did think I was the only person in the world I'd ever had problems with it. And I hadn't taken any money, but I didn't know what the hell was going on, and they never made any attempt to investigate the money or where it had gone.

I would love to see all our names cleared. And I'd love to see some of us have some of our money back.

John Humphrys: Well, a group of MPs took up the cause of the subpostmasters, but now they say they have lost faith in the Post Office. The leader of that campaign is the Conservative MP, James Arbuthnot. And he is with me, so is Mark Davies, who's the communications director for the Post Office.

Mr. Arbuthnot, what's the problem? Because the Post Office did set up a mediation system...

James Arbuthnot: Yes, at considerable public expense, the Post Office set up this mediation scheme. But sadly, they are now trying to sabotage that very mediation scheme that they set up, and they're doing this in secret. It's an extraordinary story. They're trying to bar from mediation 90% of the subpostmasters for whom it was set up. They're arguing, for example, that those who, like Jo Hamilton, pleaded guilty to false accounting, shouldn't have the mediation scheme available to them, despite having agreed expressly with MPs, that those who had pleaded guilty to false accounting should have it available to them.

So they're doing it in secret. They're doing it at a stage when there is no legal representation available to these subpostmasters, because they're trying to bar these people from the mediation scheme in the working group for the mediation get up. It's an extraordinary story, and I'm afraid I have no confidence that the Post Office is trying to clear it up.

JH: Well, what they say is that they paid for people to get independent advice, they've advertised for people to come forward with their stories, they've investigated the cases. They've done everything that could be reasonably requested of them.

JA: They talk about this legal advice, but then they try to prevent the subpostmasters going into the mediation scheme at a stage of the process when the subpostmaster is not represented by that legal advice. You won't get any of those legal advisors coming on to this programme because the Post Office has bound them to secrecy. You won't get Second Sight, the independent investigators, coming on to this programme because the Post Office has bound them to secrecy.

JH: So couldn't you argue that they have a relationship with their clients, and therefore they're inevitably bound to secrecy?

JA: Yes, and there was a concern at the beginning of this, that Second Sight, the independent forensic accountants who the Post Office chose and are paying for, do have a relationship with the Post Office, and that worried MPs about whether they would have the independence that was required. But they have had, and now that they've shown that independence, the Post Office is doing its utmost to poo-poo the recommendations that Second Sight is putting forward and they're trying to override those recommendations, possibly because of that very independence.

JH: But at the end of that the investigation isn't over yet, a lot of things might yet change.

JA: Well, that is my hope. But for myself, since this is an investigation, and a mediation scheme, which is in the hands largely of the Post Office, it's paid for by the Post Office, for myself, I have lost faith in the Post Office's determination to see it through to a proper end.

JH: Mark Davies, it is a very serious charge that you sabotaged this scheme.

Mark Davies: It's an extremely serious charge John and, clearly, we reject it outright and it's very regrettable some of the things that Mr. Arbuthnot has said this morning.

JH: What did he say that was wrong?

MD: Well, I think, to go back to the original setting up of this inquiry, we as the Post Office, take our responsibilities to our people extremely seriously and to their welfare as well.

JH: What did he say that was wrong?

MD: If I could just finish the point, I think it's really, really important to set this out. The Horizon system that Mr. Arbuthnot refers to is used every single day of about 80,000 people. In the course of the last decade, half a million people have used that system without any problems, face-to-face with customers across the 11,500 branches in the Post Office network. That said, a very small number of people came to us through their MPs with some questions, some issues which they said they had problems with the system. That amounts to 0.03% of those people who have dealt with the Horizon system in the last…

JH: It's still 150 people…

MD: It absolutely is.

JH: …and each individuals with their own lives being ruined. Now, what was it that Mr. Arbuthnot said about your handling of this scheme that is wrong?

MD: Well what is wrong is, first and foremost, that the scheme hasn't finished yet, John. So two and a half years ago, we set up a review into the Horizon system, that review has found no evidence at all have any systemic problems with the Horizon system.

JH: But it's your own review, isn't it?

MD: Well, it with independent forensic accountants, John. And then we set up the complaint and mediation scheme for those 150 people who came forward. Look, we advertised for people to come forward, we went to our people across the Post Office network and said, "If you feel that you've been treated unfairly, please come and talk to us about that." I don't think, if we weren't taking this seriously, I don't think we would have done that.

JH: But you've heard the story of Jo Hamilton there. I mean, she's tried to do everything that she could, at least if we are to believe her, and we have no reason not to believe her. Everything she could have done, she's tried to do and she's got nowhere.

MD: You'll forgive me John, for not getting into an individual case....

JH: All right. I understand you can't do that. But nonetheless, she is representative of many people like her, and they are in desperate trouble now, and they have a case, don't they?

MD: I am really sorry if people have had... have faced lifetime difficulties, lifestyle problems as a result of their having been working in Post Office branches. It doesn't necessarily follow, though, that the Post Office is responsible for the issues that people have had. And I think our commitment to seeking to look at every single case is on the line...

JH: But you barred 90% of them?

MD: No, that's not true. And I don't accept that figure at all. I mean…

JH: Well, what is the figure?

MD: Well, I haven't got... The working group, which is chaired independently by a former High Court judge is bound by confidentiality, the Post Office is bound by confidentiality.

JH: So you can't tell me how many have been barred? It might be 90%. It might be...

MD: I'm afraid I can't, John, because the working group was set up with confidentiality in mind. And we as The Post Office is bound to that.

JH: Well, you're not giving anything away, you know, I'm not asking you for the names of the people. I'm asking you for the number of people who have been barred.

MD: And I can't go into the details of that at all, we…

JH: So in that case we're entitled to accept what Mr. Arbuthnot said, which is that it is 90%.

MD: I don't accept that at all. It's not my... It's not, well...

JH: But without being able to give me a figure, with the best word in the world, it's impossible for us to have anything other than accept the figure that Mr Arbuthnot has given us.

MD: Well we have been placed in an intolerable position as the Post Office, because we're bound by a confidentiality agreement, which was agreed with all parties...

JH: But you entered into that...

MD: ...including the…

JH: …agreement yourselves.

MD: We did. Including with the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance. So we're in an extremely difficult position. It's not the case that 90% have been rejected. We're actually looking at every single case on a case-by-case basis.

JH: So you're saying no ruling has been rejected?

MD: We're absolutely committed to doing that. I'm not saying that at all, we look at every single case on a case-by-case basis. And in some cases, there is evidence whereby we've looked at what's happened, and we've held our hands up and said, "In some cases, we could have done things differently." And we've reached agreement with some people. In other cases, we don't...

JH: And if they have pleaded guilty, they've been banned as well.

MD: If I can just finish the point. In other cases, we haven't reached that conclusion because we have to take it extremely seriously. We're a large retail organization. We conduct audits in our branches across the 11,500 branches every single day. Where there are cases where there have been losses in those branches, then clearly, we have a duty to look at those, and you'd expect us to do that on behalf of our customers, on behalf of taxpayers.

JH: Final very quick word, Mr. Arbuthnot.

JA: Mark Davies says that it's a tiny proportion of the transactions in the Post Office, and of course, that's right. And yet one single miscarriage of justice ought to galvanize the nation and I've got more than 140 MPs, some of them with more than one case. This is not a small problem.

MD: And if evidence emerges where there is evidence that the case should be re-looked at through the legal processes, absolutely the Post Office has a legal duty to take that forward and we will do so.

JH: Mark Davies, James Arbuthnot. Thank you both very much indeed."

I've written about the democratic deficit in the Post Office's repeated failure to be held to account here. It's just as damaging as the lack of governmental oversight and failure of the NFSP.

One of the problems of not being interviewed, not being properly audited and not being challenged by the only "union" it recognises, is that the Post Office has been allowed to exist in a bubble. It is only being forced to rub up against reality with the ongoing litigation.

If Mr Davies, the current Chairman/CEO or indeed anyone else from the Post Office wishes to make it two in two decades and give another interview about Horizon and the Subpostmasters they've sacked and prosecuted, please do get in touch. There is lots to talk about.

-----------------------

* When she was chief executive, Paula Vennells and her then "Head of Partnerships", Angela van den Bogerd, accepted an invitation to give evidence to a parliamentary select committee inquiry on 3 Feb 2015.

Before giving evidence Ms Vennells instructed her staff to find a way for her to tell MPs that remote access to branch Horizon terminals wasn't possible when, in fact, it was. She also refused to answer MPs' questions on whether she had received legal coaching before speaking to the inquiry. Ms van den Bogerd has since been found to have attempted to mislead a High Court judge on oath.

** See more of Jo's story here.

*******************

If you feel so inclined, please help keep this crowdfunded public-interest journalism project going by chucking a few quid in the tip jar below. Contributors who give £20 or more will start receiving regular "secret" emails which have all the info and gossip about this litigation as it makes its way through the courts.

If you want to find out a little bit more about the underlying story, click here.


Choose an amount
at

Wednesday, 1 May 2019

And with that... she was gone

The Reverend Paula Anne Vennells CBE
Paula Vennells has, as of yesterday, been terminated as a director of the Post Office. I am grateful to blogger and campaigner Tim McCormack for bringing this to my attention.

Ms Vennells leaves her post having failed to give a single interview about the Bates and others v Post Office court action which, by the Post Office's own admission, poses an existential threat* to the business she joined in 2007 and ran for seven years from 2012 - 2019.

The taxpayer-owned Post Office has been caught trying to use government grants to fight the court action, and if it loses this litigation, it will have to go cap-in-hand to the government for a massive bailout or face disintegration.

I have written before (see "The Ballad of Paula Vennells") about the failure of anyone to effectively hold Ms Vennells to account over a scandal brewing before she joined the Post Office, but which effectively exploded on her watch.

Now she moves on to Chair the Imperial Health Trust and take up a non-executive role overseeing the Cabinet Office with a CBE and a nice clean pair of heels.

I hope that whoever chooses to ratify the above appointments asks some pertinent questions, and whoever might get to interview Ms Vennells (once she makes herself available) has a look at the findings made about the attitude and business practices of the organisation she ran.

Her christian supporters may also want to ask the reverend how she could morally preside over and defend an organisation which appears to have destroyed so many lives and livelihoods.

------------------------

* worth repeating in full. From clause three of the common issues trial written opening statement by Mr David Cavender QC: "If Cs [the claimants] were right in the broad thrust of their case, this would represent an existential threat to Post Office’s ability to continue to carry on its business throughout the UK in the way it presently does."

***************************

Please feel free to forward the link to this blog post. The more people who read it, the more people find out about what is the biggest trial going through the UK courts right now.

Please also consider a donation to keep the postofficetrial.com website going by choosing an amount and clicking the button at the bottom of this post. Contributors who donate £20 or more will be added to this secret email list. Thanks!


Choose an amount

at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)