Balance week 1 with trainer on site

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Post Office Limited should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

Dear Post Office Limited,Can you say what % of Branches had losses or gains when balancing in first week of appointment?What was the greates loss and greatest gain?Which trainer had the greatest errors when assisting in balancing?What % of branches showed no discrepancies?Were any "trainers" taken off assisting with Horizon balances and if so how many?

Yours faithfully,

john o'sullivan

information.rights@postoffice.co.uk, Post Office Limited

Our ref: FOI2023/00209

Dear John O'Sullivan,

Thank you for your request for information which was received on 13th
April. Your request is being considered under the terms of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.

The Act requires that a response must be given promptly, and in any event
within 20 working days. We will therefore reply at the latest by 15th May.

Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future
communications.

Regards,

Information Rights Team

Finsbury Dials
20 Finsbury Street
London
EC2Y 9AQ

information.rights@postoffice.co.uk, Post Office Limited

1 Attachment

Dear John O'Sullivan,

Please find the attached response relating to your Freedom of Information
request.

Regards,

Information Rights Team

Finsbury Dials
20 Finsbury Street
London
EC2Y 9AQ

john o'sullivan

Dear [email address],Thank you for a reply.I would have expected this information to be at hand after all if there were no problems balancing when POL Trainers were in charge it would support the belief that SPM's were stealing.Can we take two years then please 2006 and 2009?What evidence do you have for balances in these years?Rod Ismay(and others)have said they worked in Branches during Industrial action by counter clerks,jan 2013 possibly.What data do you hold for Branch Losses when manned by POL Execs and senior management?You can treat this as a new request

Yours sincerely,

john o'sullivan

information.rights@postoffice.co.uk, Post Office Limited

1 Attachment

Dear John O'Sullivan,

Please find the response attached relating to your Freedom of Information
request.

Regards,

Data Protection and Information Rights Team

100 Wood Street,

London,

EC2V 7ER

john o'sullivan

Dear [email address],Thank you for a reply.With regard to requests that are turned down on cost grounds does this mean that POL does not hold the information and it would cost too much to uncover it?Or put another way no-one in POL has sought or asked the question so that the information has already been discovered?If the Board and NEDs'remain incurious how is the publicly funded Post Office held to account?Did no-one in POL ask how many SPM did we tell you are the only one having problems with Horizon?Did no-one ask for data on losses in branch when trainers/auditors are on site?Did no-one in POL question a 484% increase in SPM prosecutions?If not just what is the role of a Post Office NED?

Yours sincerely,

john o'sullivan

information.rights@postoffice.co.uk, Post Office Limited

Our ref: FOI2023/00334

Dear John O'Sullivan,

Thank you for your request for information which was received on 13th
June. Your request is being considered.

Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future
communications.

Regards,

Data Protection and Information Rights Team

100 Wood Street,

London,

EC2V 7ER

information.rights, Post Office Limited

Dear John O'Sullivan,

 

Thank you for your email.

 

We have looked into this further and as you have not made a request for
recorded information, as outlined in section 8 of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000, we have passed your email on to the relevant team,
who will be in touch with you shortly.

 

With kind regards,

 

Information Rights Team

100 Wood Street

London

EC2V 7ER

 

 

From: [Post Office request email]
<[Post Office request email]>
Sent: 14 June 2023 10:37
To: [FOI #971348 email]
Subject: Request for information - Ref: FOI2023/00334

 

Our ref: FOI2023/00334

Dear John O'Sullivan,

Thank you for your request for information which was received on 13th
June. Your request is being considered.

Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future
communications.

Regards,

Data Protection and Information Rights Team

100 Wood Street,

London,

EC2V 7ER

 

show quoted sections

externalaffairs, Post Office Limited

1 Attachment

Dear Mr O’Sullivan,

 

Thank you for email, which has been passed to me for reply as it is not an
FOI request.

 

Regarding your question about the cost limits under section 12 of the FOI
Act, a public authority is not obliged to comply with an information
request if they estimate the cost of complying with the request would
exceed the appropriate fees limit, which currently stands at £450 for Post
Office. If you would like further information about this, please consult
the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) website at the following link:
[1]https://ico.org.uk/.”

 

In relation to your other questions. These are related to matters that the
ongoing Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry is examining. It’s the role of the
Inquiry to establish what happened in the past, what went wrong and why
and to determine accountability. Post Office is supporting the Inquiry in
its important work. Covering complex issues over a period of more than two
decades, it is best placed to independently reach conclusions, following
consideration of the evidence.

 

Information about Post Office Governance is available on our website,
which I hope might prove useful. I must reassure you that Post Office is
committed to addressing the past and to transforming so that it is fit for
the future.  Post Office has continued to make significant changes,
details of which can also be found on our website.

 

Kind regards

 

 

Mel Corfield

Post Office

 

[2]Logo, company name Description automatically generated

 

 

Post Office Limited is committed to protecting your privacy, information
about how we do this can be found on our website at
[3]www.postoffice.co.uk/privacy

 

 

From: john o'sullivan <[4][FOI #971348 email]>

Sent: 13 June 2023 12:24

To: information.rights <[5][Post Office request email]>

Subject: Re: FOI2023/00266

 

 

 

Dear [6][Post Office request email],Thank you for a reply.With
regard to requests that are turned down on cost grounds does this mean
that POL does not hold the information and it would cost too much to
uncover it?Or put another way no-one in POL has sought or asked the
question so that the information has already been discovered?If the Board
and NEDs'remain incurious how is the publicly funded Post Office held to
account?Did no-one in POL ask how many SPM did we tell you are the only
one having problems with Horizon?Did no-one ask for data on losses in
branch when trainers/auditors are on site?Did no-one in POL question a
484% increase in SPM prosecutions?If not just what is the role of a Post
Office NED?

 

Yours sincerely,

 

john o'sullivan

 

 

show quoted sections

Post Office Limited is committed to protecting your privacy. Information
about how we do this can be found on our website at
www.postoffice.co.uk/privacy

References

Visible links
1. https://ico.org.uk/
3. http://www.postoffice.co.uk/privacy
4. mailto:[FOI #971348 email]
5. mailto:[Post Office request email]
6. mailto:[Post Office request email],thank

john o'sullivan

Dear externalaffairs,Thank you for a reply.By turning the request down on Cost Grounds are you saying that no-one in POL has considered these points and already found the answers to them which would mean the Information is already held and would not be a cost to find and reveal?

Yours sincerely,

john o'sullivan