Thursday, 23 May 2019

Costs go to claimants, appeal permission refused and bonus expert witness drama


I was not in court today. This is a write up of the transcript of the first (common issues) trial costs hearing, which also decided recusal application costs and the Post Office's application to appeal the common issues trial judgment.

In short, the Post Office were refused permission to appeal the common issues judgment and they were ordered to pay 90% of the claimants costs for the common issues trial, to the tune of £5.5m. That's just the claimants' costs, don't forget. More later, but first...

Word to the Worden

Before the discussion about costs and permission to appeal even began the judge revealed that the Post Office's expert witness in the Horizon trial, Dr Worden, had served a third expert report directly to the court yesterday, without cc-ing it to the claimants' solicitors.

Dr Worden had also failed to give the judge a covering note explaining why this document had landed, out of the blue, in his Lordship's inbox.

It's hard to tell from the transcript just how perplexed J Fraser was by this behaviour, both yesterday and today, but it resulted in a short notice summons to Mr Anthony de Garr-Robinson QC, the Post Office's Horizon trial barrister, to appear in court this morning and explain wtf was going on.

After assuring the judge that the claimants had had sight of this report for a number of days, Mr de Garr-Robinson explained that Dr Worden:
"as an independent expert, considers it to be his duty to assist the court, irrespective of his instructions... he conceives it to be his duty, in my submission on proper grounds, to inform your Lordship that he has had material changes of view. It is also his view that those views, the views that are set out in the report, are helpful to your Lordship in resolving the Horizon issues, and in my submission there is more than an arguable basis for justifying that view. But those are his views... None of this has been instigated or requested by my client; it is what Dr Worden conceives it to be his duty to do."
This is curious. The Post Office's independent expert is acting unilaterally on something which is clearly exercising him, irrespective of the Post Office's wishes. I wonder why?

Dr Worden's third report was first referred to in court on 11 April, the last day of factual evidence in the Horizon trial. Mr de Garr Robinson raised it thus:
"it has occurred to Dr Worden there is a new way of looking at the Peaks and the OCPs, OCRs and MSCs* in this case which, in his view shed considerable light on certain of the Horizon issues.  He feels it is his duty to inform your Lordship of that.  He has already informed Mr Coyne of that fact and it is only right that I should bring it to your Lordship's attention."
At the time, the claimants were suspicious of this play from Dr Worden and weren't sure how to formally respond. The judge hoped that the claimants' IT expert Jason Coyne would get a chance to sit down and chat with Dr Worden before today's hearing and come to agreement, or lack thereof, about Dr Worden's Big New Idea. For whatever reason, it didn't happen. The two men did share data and speak on the phone several times, although the outcome of those interactions remains oblique.

Today the judge asked the claimants' barrister Patrick Green QC if he had any observations. Mr Green said yes he did, and it was that:
"Mr Coyne made a request for information in July 2018 for the OCPs, the OCRs and the MSCs*, and the Post Office... responded, I think it was 6th August from memory, saying that those were irrelevant, and the new report arising after what should have been the conclusion of the Horizon Issues trial is based on an analysis, which we're trying to understand, of those documents said to be irrelevant in the summer of last year."
All this adds more than a little intrigue as to what exactly is going to come out of the cross-examination of the expert witnesses when the Horizon trial resumes on 4 June. But you can bet Dr Worden's Whole New Way of Looking at Things will be subject to some considerable scrutiny.

Back to the appeal

The Post Office's grounds for appeal were manifold. 37 on law, 3 on procedural unfairness and 8 on fact. The judge considered them, read the skeleton argument submitted by the Post Office's Common Issues QC, Mr David Cavender, listened to Mr Cavender make his case in the hearing and then rejected them outright. His reasons are contained in a judgment which has yet to be formally handed down and was therefore excised from the transcript I received. As soon as we get the judgment we'll know why he rejected the appeal.

The Post Office now has the option of applying to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal the common issues judgment. If that application is refused, the common issues judgment stands.

Costs

The Post Office appear to have accepted that as far as the High Court is concerned, they have lost the common issues trial. Nevertheless, they spent a large chunk of today trying to get out of having to pay any of the claimants' costs at this stage.

The arguments for this were intriguing, and Mr Cavender used the analogy of a game (whilst being at pains to point out that this was a serious business and very far from a game). His analogy was that whilst the claimants had won the battle over the rules of the "game", the "game" has yet to be played. Nobody has won anything and nobody, including the Post Office, has lost anything.

This is a reference to the fact that the common issues trial was largely to get a finding on what the relationship between the Post Office and Subpostmasters was in law. Now it has been decided (subject to appeal) the remainder of the litigation (after the "is Horizon fit for purpose" trial) is a trial of how far (if at all) the Post Office departed from the terms of the contract in its treatment of the claimants.

Mr Cavender's argument was that as the Post Office could well win this litigation, why should it pay interim costs to the claimants, when they might need to be returned, plus interest, at the end of the litigation?

There was a rather chilling moment when the judge, in acknowledging this point, noted that the claimants might well end up paying damages to the Post Office. You see, the Post Office have served a counterclaim and if the litigation fails:
"so far as success by an individual claimant is concerned, Mr X or Ms Y may well... recover nothing... On the basis that there is a counterclaim by the Post Office against some, if not all, of the claimants, they may well fail and in fact be ordered to pay damages in fraud to the Post Office."
We're now several million quid down the line, and the "game" hasn't even started. And this "game", no matter how well it might be going for the claimants, could suddenly taken on a very frightening perspective for them if the Post Office end up winning and then start to try exacting their pound of flesh.

Nonetheless the judge refused the Post Office's delaying attempt and refused their attempt to go 70/30 on the claimants' costs. He ruled 90/10 in the claimants' favour and ordered a £5.5m payment on account. He also noted that the Post Office's own costs to date for the whole litigation had reached at least £12.8m, which does not include the recusal costs. So we can say with some confidence that the Post Office has spent at least £18.3m fighting this litigation.

At the end of the hearing the Post Office asked if it could have 28 days to hand over the £5.5m cash rather than the usual fourteen. Mr Cavender explained: "It is a question of arranging the funds I suppose and talking to our shareholder about it."

The judge gave them 21 days. The shareholder is HMG. I wonder if the Postal Services Minister will require a written explanation from the Post Office...

Finally the Post Office asked the judge for permission to appeal his costs order. Not the amount or the split, but the timing of it. The judge refused. So it looks like the Post Office will be traipsing to the Appeal Court for permission to appeal that along with its application to appeal the common issues trial judgment.

And the dance goes on and on and on and on...

* I intially wrote after those initials "I have no idea what these are", but thanks to the power of the secret email community, a former Fujitsu engineer who worked on Horizon for a large chunk of his career has got in touch. He explains:

OCP - operational change proposal
OCR - operational change request
MSC - managed service change

My thanks to him.

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

Tuesday, 21 May 2019

Post Office Network Inquiry: "Network Transformation has been an unmitigated disaster"

The BEIS select committee Post Office inquiry took place today. I posted a piece earlier today with links to, and selections from the written evidence submitted to the inquiry ("Horizon is not fit for purpose").

The video of the oral evidence session is below. The "unmitigated disaster"quote comes from the CWU's Andy Furey.  Full witness list below.



The first session at 9.30am featured submissions from:

Andy Furey, National Officer, Communication Workers Union
Anne Pardoe, Principal Policy Manager, Postial Services and Telecoms, Citizens Advice
Callum Greenhow, Chief Executive Officer, National Federation of Sub-Postmasters

The second session, at 10.15am features:

Carl Cowling, Managing Director of High Street Business, WH Smith PLC
Edward Woodall, Head of Policy and Public Affairs, Association of Convenience Stores
Alisdair Cameron, Interim Chief Executive, Post Office Ltd

Transcript to follow.

Post Office Network Inquiry: "Horizon system is not fit for purpose"

A one-off evidence hearing into the Post Office network gets underway today in the Grimold Room at Portcullis House. Nearly 50 people and organisations have already submitted written evidence to the inquiry, including the Justice for Subpostmasters' Alliance, the NFSP, WH Smith, the CWU, Which?, Citizens Advice and the Post Office itself. You can read it all here.

There are a few quotes which caught my eye from some of the submissions, in no particular order.

"I am a sub-postmistress and have been since June 2000. I am appalled at the way we are treated by Post Office Ltd, not just the ridiculously low pay rates we get but the terms and conditions of our contracts to which we have no right of reply. The NFSP [National Federation of Subpostmasters] claim to represent us, but how can they when they are being funded by Post Office Ltd? This fact has been highlighted in the recent court trial and the judge’s comments regarding the NFSP were quite damning. 
"The NFSP have repeatedly agreed to pay cut after pay cut resulting in many postmasters giving up their business by just closing, even though they have, like myself, paid out considerable amounts to own their Post Office which was sold to them as an investment.... Please do the right thing and get Post Office Ltd.’s house in order. First step is to allow CWU Postmasters Branch to talk and negotiate on our behalf."
"I am a current sub postmaster with 8 years of experience under my belt. All I have seen is decline of the Post Office in all these years. I did not have a single wage increase while I have increased the wages of my employees 8 times as per national minimum wage rise law.
"I would like to summarise the main concerns below:
- Horizon system is not fit for purpose and postmasters have to make good all losses which arise from the blue, this matter is already being dealt with in courts so I would not comment on it any further.
- POL does not pay us anything for so many daily transactions which is just modern day Slavery.
- The banking transactions are so much time consuming and are a threat to the safety as well, while we are only paid a pittance for all that work which is totally unacceptable.
- There is no recognition of our hard work or good work and never had any incentive or bonus.
- We do not have a proper representation as a CWU union. POL only recognises NFSP which is a company funded by themselves to protect their interests.
- As a result we have lost all our investment and the good will of the business and nobody in the proper state of mind is willing to buy our business if it has a post office inside it."
"Our customer base is being steadily whittled away and for most branches the remuneration is falling per transaction as well.
"The remuneration in real terms for most PO [Post Office] products have failed to keep up with inflation even at the current low rate, means that if we employ staff, we are paying more in minimum wage than we receive from POL [Post Office Ltd] for the work. Postmasters may be prepared to work below minimum wage, but to have to pay over the remuneration rate for staff is another matter and the high rate of branches simply handing in the keys reflects this."
Edward Rigg, Subpostmaster:
"I really love my job and the role my Post offices play in our local communities. However, I believe that the Post Office network is in the worst position that it has ever been... I have huge concerns about the long term resilience of the PO network. Pay rates have been reduced by approximately 15.5% as a result of 2 remuneration decreases since Sept 2017. At the same time all costs have gone up massively including 2 new national minimum wage increases which have hugely impacted on Post Masters staff wage output. However, there has been no new work to counterbalance this and Government work such as Premium Bonds seems to be disappearing. Alongside this, in October 2017, I calculated my own hourly rate of pay based upon hours worked versus take home pay; my hourly rate was £2.12. I have been too frightened to re-calculate."
HM Government:
"The investment that Government has made in the Post Office network, and the progress the business has made toward commercial sustainability mean that the Post Office network is in much better shape today than in 2010, doing more for its customers and more sustainably for taxpayers. However, Government is not complacent and recognises the challenges in POL’s operating environment. BEIS is committed to continuing to work closely with the company to ensure the long-term sustainability of the network." 
"The problems in culture and governance are underlined by the Horizon scandal. The Select Committee will not consider issues that are currently before the courts, but without getting into the substantive matters we do not believe it is possible to ignore the seriousness of what has emerged so far with accusations of the Post Office improperly using its powers to prosecute individuals; directors being accused of misleading the court by the judge and of being unable to accept the Post Office is wrong; and the judge stating the Post Office’s approach to the litigation could be construed as “threatening” and “oppressive”."
The Justice for Subpostmasters' Alliance:
"Following our recent success in our litigation case against Post Office and the Judgement handed down, it effectively has nullified the Post Office contract with not just those in the group action but also for all current serving Sub postmasters.
"Post Office at the moment seems determined to destroy itself and ruin any vestige of its historically good name. It has been desperately trying to maintain a hopelessly flawed Business Model that pockets the financial benefits of continuously transferring risks onto Sub postmasters. Fortunately the court's findings has overturned this."

"The viability of sub post offices and the morale of subpostmasters has been eroded to the extent that the network’s resilience is extremely limited. We believe a tipping point has been passed and the consequences of this are now being realised.
"To reference every factor that led to this situation would generate a prohibitively long response. Instead we will consider a key finding from the NFSP’s Member Survey – that subpostmasters feel disenfranchised from and marginalised by the main industry stakeholders: PO and its owner the UK Government, and Royal Mail."


- 61% of subpostmasters are taking home less now than in the past.
- 76% earn less than the National Minimum Wage per hour for working in their post office.
- 19% of subpostmasters (or their spouse or partner) have taken on work elsewhere in the last year just to make ends meet.
- Many struggle to take time off (one third did not take a single day off in 2018) because they cannot
afford to employ other staff and are forced to work longer hours themselves.

"Running a Post Office continues to be an attractive proposition for many retailers. However, while the model is now more sustainable, Postmaster incomes have not kept pace with increasing costs. Furthermore, we know that while the Post Office franchise is valued because of the footfall it brings, operating a Post Office is complex because of separate technology, the need to meet certain regulatory requirements and the knowledge required to support a multi- product operation. We must make it more attractive for Postmasters and our strategy is to make it easier for them to make more money with less effort.
"To that end, we are currently trialling increased incentives for Postmasters selling telecoms and insurance products. We have recently announced that we are increasing the fees paid to Postmasters for transactions under the Banking Framework. We have also announced a strategic review of Postmasters remuneration, to report back towards the end of the year."
"The biggest threats to the PO network is firstly POL Senior Management, secondly Royal Mail and finally HMGov. The current senior management team of POL does not share its vision for the future of the network with me as a SPMR [Subpostmaster], so how am I expected to carry it out? I’m not involved in the formation of policy, as I’m not consulted nor am I truly represented. 
"I’m sure you’re aware of the unrepresentative relationship that the NFSP has with SPMRs as outlined by Mr Justice Fraser following the first trial this year. Funded by POL directly, the NFSP is used by POL to ensure that they rubber stamp any new initiative or cut to SPMR remuneration. POL is only making a profit currently by cutting transaction fees to SPMRs by £37m over the last two years when our costs continue to rise e.g. the NMW [National Minimum Wage]. POL would greatly benefit from having a proper critical friend. The morale of SPMRs that operate agency branches (98% of POs) would be greatly enhanced by proper representation, such as the CWU which other individuals have working in the Crown Network."
Helen Walker, former Subpostmaster:

"I... gave up my Post Office counter after less than 12 months, due to unexplained losses, repeated system crashes and insufficient support. I decided to collect the experiences of other subpostmasters in the form of an unbiased online questionnaire, and managed to reach 311 contributions."

It's worth reading all of Helen's survey - self-selecting, but very interesting. Killer stat highlighted in bold below. That should worry everyone.

Helen's survey:

On average during your time at this office, have you ever experienced unexplained losses that were not resolved and resulted in having to make good the Post Office cash / have sums deducted from your monthly payments?

Never                                                  11.90%  
Around one a year                              20.26%
1 to 3 times in a year                          23.25%
More than 3 times in a year               18.33%
More than 6 times in a year            18.33%
Between 9 and 12 times in a year      8.04%

More survey responses:

From your own experience, how confident are you in Horizon’s reliability in relation to balancing / losses/ gains?

Somewhat lacking in confidence: 35.37%
Very lacking in confidence:          20.26%
Extremely lacking in confidence: 15.11%

From your own experience, do you consider that the training you received from Post Office Ltd on using the Horizon IT system was:

Poor:                 34.73%
Very poor:         30.87%

From your own experience, would you consider that the training you received to enable you to identify the cause of shortfalls was

Very good:         4.5%
Very poor:          55.95%"

"The network is not resilient because POL and the NFSP are an unnecessary financial burden upon the network. Neither organisation contributes to growth or income. Both organisations collude to reduce Subpostmaster incomes. POL is failing to reduce overhead cost yet aggressively attacking the sub-postmasters who have invested hard cash into the system."
Tim McCormack, former Subpostmaster and campaigner:
"A brief review of parliamentary questions to the various ministers in charge of Postal Affairs over the last 10 years will show that the stock answer is a hands off approach to the way the Post Office is run by the Government....  In fact if it were not for one of my interventions POL would still be misusing the working capital loan received from BEIS and a recent FOI request has revealed that POL were again misusing government funds to finance the current trial and they had to repay several millions to the government as a result."
Jaiprakash Patel, Subpostmaster:
"The post masters renumeration has been decreased as the amount we get per unit has been reduced and another reason it has gone down is we are forced to open longer hours and this incurs higher staff costs. So not only has the staff costs gone up, but the amount we are getting per unit of sale has reduced."Even [though] the cost per unit of sale with regards to banking renumeration is due to go up, it is not enough to cover the increase wage costs so ultimately, we lose out. In addition to this, what the post office pays us for banking business, is much less than what we pay our own banks for the equivalent services."Since the first closure of the network, the sub postmasters were always told we would receive a lot of governments services, but this has not happened and not a single government business was given to us and in fact, services have been removed, mainly the post office card account and in turn, this has affected the retail business. If [an] office is open from 8am to 8pm, 7 days a week, the renumeration paid to [the] Subpostmaster does not justify business we are taking in these hours.
"If offices have to close and hand over keys, it will affects a lot of local communities. If husband and wife are running a business where they cannot meet expenses, one will have to go out to work to keep business going...
"I was close to handing over keys 4 weeks ago. By closing a crown office near by, I was told by Post Office that they would invest money into the office to provide all services mentioned before. After putting in 2 closure notices in for 2 weeks each, the post office decided that it would cost them too much money and they pulled the plug. On one side, post office want customer service, and on the other side, they can’t provide equipment to give to customer. IN THIS matter, we had done everything they wanted, but they still let us down."
Anonymous contributor (likely a serving or ex-PO employee):

"There’s the ongoing GLO [Bates v Post Office], the impending investigation by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the failed IBM migration, the acquisition of Payzone, cuts to Agents pay, cuts to staffing levels within multiple partner sites, mooted large scale Sub Post Office branch closures and competition from within – accordingly there must be concerns?
Report no.75500 [a PO report], is silent on the Post Office acquisition of Payzone and the failed attempt by Post Office Ltd to migrate its Branch IT operating infrastructure from Fujitsu Services Ltd to IBM. The latter may be an indicator of the likely success of the former and should not be silent."

The cast list for the oral evidence should make things interesting:

Andy Furey, National Officer, Communication Workers Union
Anne Pardoe, Principal Policy Manager, Postal Services and Telecoms, Citizens Advice
Callum Greenhow, Chief Executive Officer, National Federation of Sub-Postmasters
Carl Cowling, Managing Director of High Street Business, WH Smith PLC
Edward Woodall, Head of Policy and Public Affairs, Association of Convenience Stores
Alisdair Cameron, Interim Chief Executive, Post Office Ltd

I'll have a look at the transcript when it's all over.

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

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

Monday, 20 May 2019

Post Office vs Mental Health: Wendy's story

A week ago today, the Post Office made a self-satisfied pfffft about its commitment to helping people with mental health in the workplace. This was met with hostility by those who blame the Post Office for destroying their mental health, along with their lives and livelihoods. I wrote a piece about the reaction to the Post Office tweets and I wrote to and tweeted the Post Office asking what they were doing or had done to support Subpostmasters' mental health. Not a word of reply.

I also realised I had never really interviewed Subpostmasters about the breakdowns they suffered whilst dealing with the Post Office. To mark Mental Health Week, I put out an appeal to see if anyone would be interested in speaking to me about this difficult subject. Several people volunteered.

This blog post is the result of a chat with one of those volunteers, Wendy Buffrey (pictured below).

I met Wendy on day eight of the Common Issues trial in November last year. This was the day Angela van den Bogerd, a Post Office director was giving evidence. Wendy was in the company of fellow claimants Jo Hamilton and Sue Knight and she seemed like a jolly sort. She told me she was a claimant and had a criminal conviction for false accounting. We swapped numbers.

Wendy Buffrey
I spoke briefly to Wendy after the hearing to ask if I could pass her number to a couple of interested journalists. She kindly agreed. Wendy took part in this Daily Mail interview and was subsequently interviewed by the Gloucestershire Echo.

Wendy was a Subpostmaster in Up Hatherley, Cheltenham from 1998 to 2008. She and her husband Doug bought the business and adjoining property. They put £20,000 into upgrading the post office counter and facilities.

Before Horizon arrived Wendy had one run-in with the Post Office. In 1999 she was audited. A thousand pounds was missing from her counter. A couple of days earlier a staff member had apparently disappeared "on holiday" to Greece. Wendy hadn't done her weekly cashing up by this stage and did not know she was £1000 down. She was suspended on the spot.

"It shook me to my foundations."

It was only when her staff member failed to return to work and remained uncontactable that the Post Office allowed Wendy back in her branch. Wendy and, it seems, the Post Office came to the conclusion that the missing money was probably in the pocket of that staff member. Wendy was reinstated.

But because the Post Office's interpretation of the Subpostmaster contract made Wendy liable, she paid the missing £1000 out of her own pocket. She said told me her treatment at the hands of the Post Office on that occasion had a bearing on her actions nine years later.

"When you've ploughed everything you've got into that business and that building and to see how easy it was for them to take it away.... it shook me to my foundations."

Forward to 2008. Wendy was given one day of training on Horizon when it arrived in 2000, and then sent to work. She operated it without a problem for eight years. One May afternoon Wendy did a cash and stock balance and was horrified to see her Horizon terminal showing she had an extra £18,000 worth of stamps in stock. She didn't. Wendy reversed the stock out of the balance but found that in doing so she had doubled her discrepancy to £36,000.

At this time Doug was seriously ill. He was eventually diagnosed with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Wendy didn't want to trouble him, so she kept it secret. She spent hours going through her transaction receipts to try to uncover the cause behind this high value error. She couldn't find anything. So she looked again. And again. And again. She was looking every waking moment she wasn't actually serving customers - printing off and ploughing through receipts, stock and cash with a rising sense of panic and disorientation.

"I was tired. So tired. And faced with that amount of a loss you stop thinking in a joined-up way."

When it got to weekly balancing Wendy made what she now describes as "the single biggest mistake of my life."

"I felt ashamed. I felt stupid"

Rather than flag up the problem with the helpline, Wendy pressed "Roll over" on the screen - agreeing Horizon's figure as accurate. She did this in the hope a transaction correction would appear days or weeks later, cancelling out this large and inexplicable discrepancy.

"I felt ashamed. I felt stupid for not finding where the loss was. I'd spent hours and hours and hours during that time - night after night after night going through the paperwork that I had to try and find it. And once you've rolled over that one time... if it doesn't come back... you're stuck."

Wendy believed that if she flagged the problem to the Post Office she would be held liable for it. But the only way to roll over the Horizon terminal into the next business day was to either flag it or make it good immediately. Wendy's compromise was to not sign the account balance receipt which was generated when she pressed the "Roll over" button.

Wendy continued looking  for the source of her discrepancy. She was "terrified" of being held liable for a sum she couldn't afford. "I was so scared. I was so scared I would be labelled a thief."

The weeks went on with Wendy feeling "sick, right in the pit of my stomach" every single day: "I took out a loan and money on a credit card and try to right the loss. Every spare penny I had went towards trying to clear the debt, all the time thinking it will be all right and the error will show."

Wendy developed kidney stones and stress-induced optic neuritis, causing a partial loss of vision.

Over a period of seven months, Wendy pumped £10,000 of her own and borrowed money into the system. There was no transaction correction, and she didn't find the error.

In October 2008, three Post Office auditors knocked at the door. Wendy told them they would find a £26,000 discrepancy. They actually found a £36,000 discrepancy. Wendy was suspended on the spot.

Wendy refused to agree the auditors' figures and demanded they go back into her counter and safe and check everything again. After a couple of hours the auditors realised they had miscounted some cash bundles to the tune of £10K, but there was still a £26,000 discrepancy. Lucky Wendy held out or she would have been held liable for the auditors' error too.

Under duress

Wendy was presented with her unsigned weekly balancing records. She says she was "intimidated" by the auditors into signing them. But in doing so she had just physically signed an inaccurate record of her accounts. Although it happened, in Wendy's words "under duress", this evidence would be used against her as part of the Post Office's false accounting charge.

Four weeks into her suspension, Wendy attended an interview at a sorting office in Swindon. As she considered herself innocent of any crime, she did not take a solicitor. Instead she asked comedy trade union (see previous articles) the National Federation of SubPostmasters, for representation. According to Wendy they refused, telling her that because she was suspended, in their eyes she was no longer a Subpostmaster!

Over three hours the Post Office investigators repeatedly asked where the money was. Wendy replied there was no missing money. It looked to her like some kind of computer error.

Wendy did admit "changing the account" but "not to steal". She was told the investigation would continue and she would be likely be called for another interview.

Despite repeated attempts to find out what was going on with her suspension, Wendy received no communication at all from the Post Office until she was summoned for another meeting just before Christmas 2008. She was told she was being terminated.

"I went to that meeting wanting to find out what was going on with the investigation - where had they got to? Why did the reversal double? Why did those stamps appear like they did? And they still wouldn't admit that the computer system had messed up or anybody else had messed up, or they couldn't even tell me how I'd messed up."

Wendy went back to her old job as a driver with the ambulance service, helping ferry elderly and sick patients around Birmingham. She made plans with her husband to sell their home in order to raise the money the Post Office said she owed. Although they still lived in the property attached to the Post Office and owned the retail premises, Wendy didn't go there any more. The less she thought about it, the better she felt.

The criminal charges

In early 2010, after more than a year of complete radio silence from the Post Office, a hammer blow. Wendy received a summons to court. She was being prosecuted for theft and false accounting. Doug was still off sick with his COPD. Now Wendy's mental health began to fall apart.

At first it was tears, stress, anxiety and panic attacks, but then real depression set in.

"I was like a zombie." she said "But I had to work as we had no other income. During the day, I would be happy Wendy, helping people get about, and then I would go home, shut the curtains and lie on my bed, completely empty, looking at the ceiling for hours until I'd get up, go to work and be happy, jolly Wendy again. Day after day after day after day."

In May 2010, Wendy pleaded not guilty to the charges against her and the case was referred to the crown court.

"It was horrendous." says Wendy "I just wanted to screw myself up into a ball and not go out, not do anything. I didn't even want to go to work at that point. But we were still in a situation that I was still trying to the pay the loan off. We'd got no other money coming in and Doug wasn't well enough to work."

Although just about making ends meet, Wendy had a demand for £26,000 hanging her. Perhaps hoping the Post Office might drop the charges if they were given the money they were demanding, Doug put the Buffreys' property on the market.

Almost immediately they received a letter from the Post Office's solicitors informing them that they had successfully applied for an order under the Proceeds of Crime Act, freezing both Doug and Wendy's assets.

The Buffrey's solicitor got an agreement from the Post Office which would allow their assets to be unfrozen so they could sell their property, providing all the money from the sale went into his account, out of which the Post Office could help themselves to £26,000.

Doug found a buyer for their house at a knock down price and secured a smaller property they could move into. On completion day, the sale went ahead and the Post Office took their money. But then something went wrong. Instead of freeing up the remainder of the sale money to allow the Buffreys to buy their new property, the POCA order remained in place. The property purchase fell through.

Andrew, Wendy's son
By this stage Wendy was in a very fragile state: "You're just in a bubble. You can't let anything else in to hurt you so you just do what has to be done and you don't let any feelings come into it. You just can't. You just lock it all away."

The Buffreys were homeless. They moved in with their son, Andrew.

The guilty plea

Although the Post Office had now got their hands on Doug and Wendy's cash, they continued to maintain both the theft and false accounting charges against Wendy.

Wendy had pleaded not guilty all the way up to the start of the trial in October 2010. She says she knew she hadn't stolen anything and was not a criminal, but on the day the trial began she was advised by her solicitor that if she pleaded guilty to false accounting, the theft charge would be dropped and she would likely avoid going to jail.

Broken, and traumatised at the prospect of a prison sentence, Wendy agreed.

The guilty plea was entered.

Unbeknownst to Wendy, her friends, family and customers in Up Hatherley had quietly started a letter-writing campaign. Before sentencing at Gloucester Crown Court the judge was presented with more than 50 character references explaining what an outstanding Postmaster, friend and colleague Wendy was.

In court, the Post Office accepted she was "not responsible for the actual taking of the money".

Criminal conviction and total breakdown

Wendy says the judge told the court this was not an issue of "larceny" but an extraordinary situation created by Wendy's "onerous" contract.

According to a BBC report of the time, he said: "This was a case of false accounting to put off the day that you had to pay a large discrepancy in the Post Office's balance. As your defence barrister put it, you were putting off the 'evil day'. The offences were committed at a time you were struggling to cope. Pre-sentence reports showed you were a pillar of the community, but because of your [health issues], your problems grew and grew."

The judge added that because of Wendy's reputation, he suspected she would be "an asset to the organisers of community payback".

Wendy was lumped with £1,500 costs and 150 hours community service. The judge, on hearing the Post Office had already been given the £26,000 from the sale of the Buffrey's home, removed the POCA order which had caused so much anguish.

"When I came out of the court it was as much as I could do to walk back to the car." Wendy told me, "It was hard just to put one foot in front of the other. My son was holding me up on one side and my cousin was holding me up on the other, and when we finally got home I just sat and cried for hours."

The day after sentencing, Wendy received a letter by recorded post. She had been sacked from her job with the Ambulance service. She was also told by St John ambulance (where she volunteered) she was persona non grata. "That hit me worse than losing my job", she says.

Some days later, Wendy received a message from Alan Bates and Jo Hamilton from the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance. Someone had had seen the news reports of Wendy's sentencing and alerted them. She knew then that she was not alone, but it failed to forestall what happened next.

Eight weeks after receiving her sentence, Wendy had a complete breakdown. Her personality had changed completely.  "I didn't want to get up. I didn't want to do anything. I didn't wash. Nothing piqued any interest."

She made it to her GP's. "I remember the doctor saying to me have you ever had serious thoughts of suicide and I can remember saying to him "if you're saying people don't think about it all the time, then you don't know what you're talking about!" That's... that's how off the edge I was. I was obviously thinking about it all the time and... I thought that was normal."

Wendy was prescribed amitriptyline, which, after three or four months, helped her turn the corner. She found a job as a cleaner, but she still wasn't right. "It's akin to grief. You've lost something from you. It's gone and you know you're not going to get it back."

The turning point

Wendy's first mosaic
Wendy was contacted by a friend who was diagnosed with depression after losing her mum. She'd been given the opportunity to do art classes, and found it therapeutic. Wendy went along and took a mosaic class.

"It changed everything, to be able to sit there and create, to make something. You can lose yourself in it totally without any pressure, without any stress."

Wendy's art classses allowed her to come off the amitriptyline. "Once I'd started with the artwork, I felt less and less need of actually taking medication. And it also left you feeling quite numb. At some point you've got to start letting feelings come back or else you'll never survive."

Wendy is still at the same cleaning company she started working for in 2011, but has progressed to become a health and safety advisor and trainer.

Wendy found 2013's mediation scheme a difficult experience. It took her six weeks to read and organise the documentation she'd kept around the time of her suspension and prosecution. She'd burned a lot after the court case. At one stage the anxiety and panic got too much and Wendy didn't feel like she could cope with dredging everything up again. She asked her doctor if she could be prescribed the amitriptyline again. She got hold of the 'scrip, and still has the happy pills, but didn't take any.

In 2014 Wendy's son Andrew died, cycling home from work. He hit a pothole and suffered a fatal head injury. "I haven't been able to grieve him properly" she says. "I don't have that inside me any more."

I asked her what the last few years have been like. "Well," she says. "Without the support of my friends and my two families - my JFSA family and my own family, I wouldn't be here today."

And how does she feel about the Post Office now? "I wouldn't give them the time of day. They're not wholly honest. They don't have any respect for anyone around them. They're arrogant. It's the arrogance of the way they think they can treat people and get away with it."

Our conversation for this blog post made it clear to me that the jolly Wendy I met in London last year was the jolly Wendy persona she puts on to get through her day.

She told me it took every ounce of will she had to get herself to court last November for the Common Issues trial. Wendy remains traumatised by the justice system. The fear of being in court again, even as an observer, nearly stopped her from attending. In fact, on the courtroom threshold, she panicked. "I was stressed. And in that moment I decided to leave and go home, but Jo and Sue took me by the arms and physically pushed me in!"

I saw Wendy briefly in the autumn gloom outside the Rolls Building once the hearing was done. She walked up to me with tears in her eyes, extremely angry about Angela van den Bogerd's evidence. "She lied." she said, simply.

During our conversation for this blog post I asked whether there is anything about the litigation process which is helping or might improve the state of Wendy's mental health.

"It's already helping in that the Post Office are damaging themselves more than anything else by the way they're doing things and a wider range of people are actually seeing that now. It's not just us. We're not just on our own now. More and more people are starting to see how the Post Office are treating people."

Is that helping you, though? Wendy sighs. "I just want my name cleared," she says quietly, "that's all."

Wendy also hopes her ordeal might help other people talk about the mental health problems they suffered after being sacked and prosecuted by the Post Office. I am aware of two suicides connected to their actions and several more breakdowns and attempted suicides. Wendy also wants her story to act as a warning to people who have Post Offices or who are thinking of taking one on, saying: "They have no compassion for anybody who works for them. The only thing they're interested in is their bottom line. That's all they're interested in."

I am still waiting for a comment from the Post Office on what they did and what they are doing to promote and help the mental health of its Subpostmasters. At the time of Wendy's conviction they said they had:

"a zero-tolerance approach to any dishonesty... Our policy is that we will always seek to prosecute the tiny minority of people who abuse their position of trust."

Wendy's unfinished mosaic of her son Andrew.
Wendy's story is not a one-off. Here are just a few I have collated for this blog. There are many more.

The Post Office have told me it wouldn’t be right or appropriate to comment on individual cases.

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

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'd rather make a donation to a mental health charity, please do.

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

Choose an amount

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

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

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

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