Reporting the class action against the Post Office at the High Court

Here’s what I tweeted as it happened in court between 10.30am and 1pm today tidied up for legibility. Please do follow me on twitter if you can @nickwallis:

#postofficetrial – Patrick Green QC opens for the claimants. Judge interrupts to note there has been an application from PA to get hold of the opening arguments. Judge suggests it should not be a problem for the media to see them. Nods in agreement from claimants and defence.

If this is all new to you, please have a look at www.postofficetrial.com – backgrounder to a case in which 560-odd SPMRs are suing the @PostOffice for a lot of money.

Green talking around the procedures for raising and dealing with an accounting discrepancy on the Horizon system and the changes that were brought in in the 00s.

“POs internal document about TCs notes the SPMR has no choice but to accept a TC at the end of a branch trading period.” TC = Transaction Correction

“The TC shows up on the screen at the end of a trading period and they can either defer dealing with it, pay it in in cash, or settle centrally… there is NO option to dispute a discrepancy on the Horizon system as the defendant admits in its defence.”

Green says the SPMR might then find themselves signing off an account with which they disagree.

Green says this appears to be a unique system – that SPMRs effectively sign off a disputed account in order to keep trading which then creates a debt they are liable for. #postofficetrial

This is all a little arcane, but it goes to the heart of the problems many SPMRs had with POL. To keep trading they felt they had to settle or accept a debt (sometimes tens of thousands of pounds) in order to keep trading. #postofficetrial

From what I have read so far, the Post Office will likely disagree with this characterisation of the way the system should work.

The basic point that Green seems making is that the Post Office is control of the Horizon IT accounting system, including the terminals in the branch. Not the SPMR. And that the limited information the SPMR gets about accounting and cashflow is narrower to the PO’s.

Green has started referring in court to the story of Pam Stubbs, a Berkshire SPMR who I filmed for BBC Inside Out South in 2014 (?). Pam had huge sudden accounting discrepancies when she moved her PO (and Horizon) in to a temp cabin whilst her branch was being renovated.

Pam had a discrepancy of more than £5000. She called the helpline who told her to check again. Pam wanted to put it into dispute. Pam tried to find the source of her discrepancy through her own paperwork and terminal. She couldn’t. The PO told her to pay it.

Green is pointing out that mechanically – even whilst raising a dispute about a sum with the helpline – mechanically the SPMR has to agree a TC on their Horizon terminal, which then creates a debt.

Pam stubbs then receives a letter from the PO demanding the repayment of the “outstanding debt”, despite the fact she is disputing it.

Letter also told Pam “since you are contractually obliged to make good any losses” (omitting contractual reference to error in the first few circs), she must pay up…

Pam requested direct access to Fujitsu (who run Horizon). PO said they would contact them themselves. PO came back saying Fujitsu told them there was no problem with Horizon.

PS’s witness statement refers to another apparent shortfall of £26K which happened when the PO’s cash centre failed to record a large cash remittance from PS’s branch….

he draws the parallel between that and the mysterious earlier problem. If the PO could easily miss £26K, why wasn’t it likely the £5K discrepancy was their problem. Not hers, especially when they couldn’t tell her how it was her debt.

Green is explaining the devil’s bind so many SPMRs have explained in the past.

Judge: “That’s what this case is about.”

Green “It is my lord”

Judge: “I had grasped this point some months ago.”

Green: “I’m grateful.”

Green: “The manner in which many SPMRs was informed about such “losses” was not consistent or particularly clear… some received no notice of the liability clause. PS says she only thought she would be liable if it was her fault. She ws not provided with a copy of the standard…

Subpostmasters’ Contract (SPMC), after her husband died.” #postofficetrial

Now discussing clause 12:12 in the SPMC “The Subpostmaster is responsible for all losses caused through his own negligence,

carelessness or error, and also for losses of all kinds caused by his Assistants.

Deficiencies due to such losses must be made good without delay.”

Green pointing out this clause was written before the rollout of Horizon which “completely changed everyone’s way of working” yet the contractual relationship remained the same.

Just had a 10 minute break to help the stenographers’ hands recover.

We are back to Pam Stubbs case. Green reveals an internal email only uncovered through disclosure in this trial in which a PO manager states baldly, having visited the branch that the problem she is having is definitely a Horizon problem. Green says PO denies Horizon has caused..

… a problem for any SPMR claimant. He now points out this document shows a) how hard it is for SPMRs to prove any problem with Horizon and b) that a PO manager is stating quite clearly Horizon caused the problems in her branch.

Green now talking about another Horizon system-wide error referred to a PO internal memo dated 17 Oct 2012 in which branches could be put out of pocket by the error. Worried this error could cause loss of confidence in branch.

——————–

And there ended the morning session.