The sub-postmasters scandal

[honeybee13]

The i paper has dug this up about ICL/Fujitsu's system for benefit payments and fraud detection.

Post Office was warned about Fujitsu IT software 13 years before Horizon scandal

INEWS.CO.UK

---

The regulator of Fujitsu's benefits system claims the £1.5bn IT project suffered data errors like those that later hit the Horizon software

 

[tobyjugg2]

I watched the interview with the lady who was pregnant when convicted - heart breaking

Worthy of note that she was competent with accountancy and noted during her training that even the test setup failed to balance - and when she raised it was told the systems - 'weren't to a pound

WT heck - thats exactly what digital accountancy systems should be

[cjcregg]

1 hour ago, tobyjugg2 said:

Why?

and why is that any form of reasonable answer to a significant issue?

What I do have is auto correct on - probably a mistake

Because the answer to your question has been answered many times in this thread.  For example read post #135 (again, because you liked it).

[cjcregg]

The Business & Trade Committee are hearing from a host of different witnesses on Tuesday including the current Post Office CEO and a Fujitsu exec.

16 January 2024 - Post Office and Horizon - Compensation: follow-up - Oral evidence - Committees - UK Parliament

 

 

[tobyjugg2]

just speed read through again thanks for the link (sic) - but here it is.

 

.. which i had read as informative (for which the thanks) and  which specifically calls into question the evidence supplied by Jenkins, as an employee of Fujitsu, but refers in many items to PO and little of fujitsu - despite him being defined as employed by them.

The vast majority of the references certainly do seem to imply that Jenkins was either clueless or lying.

Many do imply he used information regarding individual issues claimed defined as resolved by PO staff.

So yes, there appears to be ONE 'employed by Fujitsu person who (IMO) appeared to be lying - although it does seem at this stage to be largely at the behest of the PO although I haven't dug into detail of any supporting reports - he should be required to clarify that.

Its also worth taking into account on this (if you missed it) that at each of the assessments of the various systems and its precursors, that once actual Fujitsu senior staff got involved as well as from the 'ICL sub division - honesty seemed to come far more to the fore - although that could easily have been them happy to let others lie, but they wouldn't to select committee/half-way capable political type meeting

There is nowt regarding detail of testing packs and user acceptance sign off I referred as being interested in to see if the issues were detailed there - a core requirement IMO and as I asked.

So no, I'm not dyslexic, and  NO the question I asked isn't answered by the statements of a single person who was either lying or beyond incompetent, or operating unlawfully based on instructions - particularly given the com-plexities of the interaction between gov/Fujitsu/fujitsu sub division/PO/PO sub divisions.

Also consider that Jenkins was called on and instructed by POL and their legal team.

"Notwithstanding that the failure is that of Dr. Jennings and, arguably, of Fujitsu Services Ltd., being his employer, this failure has a profound effect upon POL. and POL prosecutions, not least because by reason of Dr. Jenkins' failure, material which should have been disclosed to defendants was not disclosed, thereby placing POL in breach of their duty as a prosecutor."

We have seen multiple reports that these deceptions were at the behest of the customer - PO.

Have you read the two links I gave which do seem to answer it better? albeit not answering re the sign offs and testing reports

I wont ask if you're thick or just missed it though, however justified it might seem at the moment

Were Fujitsu directly involved in the coverups/lies? - unclear

Were the 'ICL sub division directly involved in the coverups/lies? - undoubtedly - with Fujitsu also responsible as they own them.

Were the various PO arms senior staff involved in the coverups/lies? - undoubtedly.

 Q: Who was the direct source and path of the instruction to the call center to tell all the postmasters they were the only ones and there were no issues? I dont recall.

That instruction path needs tracing through to source, as does the user acceptance sign-offs

 

 

[honeybee13]

POL has suspended its PR man Peter Taylor. He was recorded [twice] saying he thought the SPMs had indeed stolen the money.

Post Office suspends top spin doctor and ex-Labour adviser Richard Taylor after leaked recording emerges of him saying sub-postmaster victims of the Horizon IT scandal 'downright stole' the money | Daily Mail Online

WWW.DAILYMAIL.CO.UK

---

The Post Office last night suspended its chief spin doctor after he was caught saying victims of the Horizon IT scandal 'downright stole' the money.

 

[tobyjugg2]

Ok, spent another hour going through the reports

Now seems quite clear both Fujitsu and ICL (inc call center) regularly reported these issues (BEDs) to PO

Items 7.x for example in the prior linked closing submissions for fujitsu

Very little of anything other than avoidance in the PO submissions

 

PO simply seemed to rely on 'any issues are postmasters issues interpretation of the contract - even if it was out of the postmasters power and known to be issues with the PO horizon system

(Note: I say PO horizon system as at the PO end it interfaced with a number of PO systems)

 

Even training - all new it was inadequate but PO made decision not to increase/improve

Edited January 14 by tobyjugg2

[determindator]

Did the money amount shown as shortfalls end up anywhere to enrich any of the companies involved or not?

[honeybee13]

Second Sight, the forensic accountants, strongly suspected [or had proof, I can't remember] that money ended up in a POL suspense account. After a couple of years they think it was transferred onto the balance sheet and was taken into account for management bonuses.

[determindator]

Thank you HB for your info. The lost cash trails need to be scrutinised now and the truth told.

[honeybee13]

From memory the trail went cold because POL didn't like what Second Sight was digging up and I think they stopped providing information or even stopped them working.

[determindator]

Shocking to know.
 

Is there a map of the UK during this investigation showing the demographics of where in the country the shortfalls were?

[honeybee13]

I don't think I've seen a map, Determinator.

[tobyjugg2]

Neither have i - but I haven't seen any reports of particular areas and they spread from the South of England up through Scotland.

 

it would seem that the PO kept the money they falsely reported as shortfalls PLUS the money they extorted from the postmasters to 'balance the books

.. and gave the PO 'investigators' bonuses based on convictions despite knowing about the problems.

Edited January 14 by tobyjugg2

[tobyjugg2]

https://www.taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/01/12/934m/

 

 

[cjcregg]

I've seen a map somewhere of the locations of the affected post offices and there wasn't any geographical significance as far as I remember. They were spread evenly over the UK.

As the 'shortfalls' didn't actually exist, the money that sub postmasters 'paid back' would in effect been additional revenue and have just gone into the PO's account and onto their bottom line.

 

[honeybee13]

Article in The Times today about the Jo Hamilton case and others.

An investigator with access to prosecution files claims he told Angela Van den Bogerd, a senior manager overseeing matters relating to the Horizon accounting system, that Jo Hamilton had been charged with theft even though no evidence had been found.

https://archive.is/WExoC

[tobyjugg2]

Absolutely obnoxious that these issues were known, and known to be ignored/covered up for 10 years yet the people involved in that criminality are still walking around not just free but wealthy and still in 'positions of resposibility with large incomes.

Case in point the two whos investigation by the Met (phuut) started in 2020 was it - and still not in jail - for perjury at the very least while they sort out other charges for consecutive sentences unless they admit them up front

 

[honeybee13]

Do you mean the two people from Fujitsu, TJ? I've seen mention of an investigation that started about three years ago.

[tobyjugg2]

Yes but although 'fujitsu people, I'm unable to clearly define who they actually 'answered too in these respects

The call center stetup is sometimes referred to as POL and sometimes fujitsu - even in the court documents

[cjcregg]

POL = Post Office Ltd. There were 2 call helplines available to sub postmasters, a general one run by POL and another technical one run by Fujitsu.

The Fujitsu employees were originally referred to the DPP by Justice Fraser (the judge in the GLO) following his concerns about the evidence they gave in prosecutions.

[tobyjugg2]

The staff referred are stated as 3rd level support

Common layout

First level - first line phone support running largely on scripts (- so in this case standard scripts defined or modified by POL)

second level - either phone line team supervisors/better trained or a more technical  team 'closer to the supplier/product

Third level  - Actual technical trained support staff or managers dealing with escalations

 

From the descriptions I've seen, these 'third level support' didnt really fit in the standard model

[tobyjugg2]

oops got distracted on separate issue and didnt press enter on edit...

The descriptions i was reading through didn't seem to cleanly or clearly differentiate - probably as they were summaries with mixed references to fujitsu (ICL?) and POL helpdesk

Edited January 15 by tobyjugg2

[tobyjugg2]

Assistance

1.           The inadequate training that our client SPMs received was compounded by the lack of assistance when things started to go wrong.

2.           Stephen Muchow, a former Business Director at ICL Pathway told the Inquiry in his evidence on 12 January 2023 that he did not consider that the Helpdesk filled the gaps left by the poor training (Transcript, page 9).

3.           Our clients' experiences of Fujitsu's Helpline were set out before the Inquiry in their evidence in Phase 1 from February to May 2022. Eighty-eight of our clients say that Helpline staff were incompetent.

4.           This is perhaps explained by the evidence of Stephen Muchow, who told the Inquiry in his evidence on 12 January 2023 that Helpdesk was unable to get the right quality of staff (transcript - page 13).

5.      Some of our clients have said that the only advice they ever received from the Helpline was that any shortfall must be the result of human error.

6.           Eighteen of our clients say that the Helpline advisors were simply reading from scripts and did not seem to understand the advice that they were giving.

7.           Forty-two of our clients say that Helpline advisors told them that they should pay the sum demanded by POCL in relation to alleged shortfalls.

8.           Thirty-six of our clients say that they were advised that they were liable under their contracts for the shortfalls.

9.           Perhaps the most troubling evidence concerning the Helpline is that, on very many occasions, the Helpline Staff told our clients that they were the only ones who were experiencing problems with Horizon.

10.        Thirty-nine of our clients say that they were given this advice. This theme was also repeated within the criminal investigations and prosecutions.

11.        A typical example of how SPMs were treated when they sought help and assistance is provided by the evidence of Kevin Palmer, to which the Chair was referred by Mr Beer KC in his opening submissions in October 2022.

12.        As the Inquiry will recall, Kevin Palmer, gave evidence back on 23 February 2022. He had a career in investment banking before coming to take over his mother's, Suzanne Palmer's, Post Office branch after she had been suspended for alleged shortfalls^[1], and was facing prosecution for fraud, of which she was acquitted following a trial.

13.        Mr Palmer said in his evidence that he did not receive training on how to balance accounts. He also told the Inquiry that he was often faced with discrepancies which he would spend time checking against these records. He explained that at one stage, he faced a discrepancy for over £60,000, and that he rang the helpdesk operator who said:

"It was not possible for this to be as a result of system error, and simply advised me to check my figures again."

---

^[1] She was later acquitted by a jury, but never reinstated by POL.

 

 

- Part of Phase 3 closing submissions

Edited January 15 by tobyjugg2

[honeybee13]

Someone on Twitter/X called FollowTheScience has turned up some interesting stuff.