Dear Post Office Limited,

On a previous request I submmited to you ( Ref: CALS-8Y5D25) you answered,

Quote.
"As such I can advise that Post Office Ltd make a facilities payment to the NFSP on a quarterly basis to the value of £175k per annum, which would be reported within the NFSP annual accounts".

Having read this years NFSP annual accounts they say Union Facilities Grant year 2013 = £193,914. year 2012 = £218,977.

Could you explain the discrepancy?

Yours faithfully,

Pat Aspinall

Dear Post Office Limited,

Sorry the £193,000 was the money left over from the £375,000 that you paid the NFSP for Network transformation and support activities. The payments covered items such as the expenses and costs of the NFSP attending road shows held for subpostmaster’s, the cost of NFSP meetings, workshops and extraordinary NFSP member communication costs related to the Network Transformation Programme.

Why is this £193,000 Balance retained for NFSP central funding. Did you obtain invoices for the work you paid for.

Yours faithfully,

Pat Aspinall

Dear FOIA,

Please answer full request.

Did you obtain invoices for the work you paid for?

Yours sincerely,

Pat Aspinall

Dear FOIA,

You have used tax payers money to make payments of £850K to NFSP for Network Transformation and support activities . These payments you say cover items such as the expenses and costs of the NFSP attending
road shows held for subpostmaster’s, the cost of NFSP meetings, workshops and extraordinary NFSP
member communication costs related to the Network Transformation Programme.

Invoices for these payments.

Yours sincerely,

Pat Aspinall

Dear FOIA,

I have clarified my request, could you please respond.

Yours sincerely,

Pat Aspinall

Dear FOIA,

Sight of invoices please.

Yours sincerely,

Pat Aspinall

Dear FOIA,

Thank you for your reply.

Could you please give me more detail on Invoice No 905, invoice/tax date 15/08/2012.
Purchase order No 4500514661.
Consultants visits to seven offices.

What was the nature of the consultation?
Who selected the seven offices?
Names of the Consultants?

Could you also supply me with more information on Invoice No 3745, Invoice date 15//12/2013. Purchase order No 4500577904. Contribution towards NFSP activities in support of network transformation, £500,000,00.

A previous request of mine I asked,

What payments have you made or have agreed to make to the Trade Union the national federation of
Subpostmasters from 1/2/2013 to 9/1/2014?

You answered.
"Post Office Ltd has made payment of £500K for Network Transformation and support activities to the NFSP for the period"

What proportion of the £500k was for retrospective costs incurred by the NFSP?

Has the advance payment gone beyond the 9/1/2014?

Yours sincerely,

Pat Aspinall

Dear Post Office Limited,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Post Office Limited's handling of my FOI request 'NFSP raised facilities payment.'.

Could you please give me more detail on Invoice No 905, invoice/tax date 15/08/2012. Purchase
order No 4500514661. Consultants visits to seven offices.

What was the nature of the consultation?
Who selected the seven offices?
Names of the Consultants?

You have confirmed that Post Office Limited does hold the information requested, and referred me to your
reply dated 15 November 2013 under Ref: OOLO-9BXD6F, which was in response to my request for
the information held on the pilot Training Seminar on Planning a Profitable Future.

Having read reply dated 15 November 2013 under Ref: OOLO-9BXD6F there is no mention of consultations to individual offices. Please do not confuse the issue you have already stated the seminar was a one off event.
Could you also answer. You advised N.F.S.P. TRADING LIMITED, Company No. 03154458, with regard to the pilot Training Seminar on Planning a Profitable Future, The NFSP should be able to provide the detail,content and costing whilst the POL team will be able to guide this through the POLIC (sic) process as a Network Transformation Programme Spend.

Could I remind you Post Office Procurement Policy is to ensure all procurement and sourcing activities carried out by POL provide the best possible value, are executed in a fair, objective and transparent way. The spend level below which a formal Procurement contract is not normally required is £50,000, and this is outlined in the delegated authority policy. Why did your Procurement Policy not apply to N.F.S.P. TRADING LIMITED to who you paid over £70,000 of Public funding.

Could I ask has purchase order number 4500514661, consultants visits to seven post offices at a total cost of £8400 paid to,N.F.S.P. TRADING LIMITED, been guided through by the POL team as a Network Transformation Programme Spend.

Please also answer request fully.

A previous request of mine I asked,

What payments have you made or have agreed to make to the Trade
Union the national federation of
Subpostmasters from 1/2/2013 to 9/1/2014?

You answered.
"Post Office Ltd has made payment of £500K for Network
Transformation and support activities to the NFSP for the period"
PERIOD?

What proportion of the £500k was for retrospective costs incurred
by the NFSP?

Has the advance payment gone beyond the 9/1/2014?

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/n...

Yours faithfully,

Pat Aspinall

Dear FOIA,

Could you please explain why more time is needed. The Commissioner considers that a reasonable time for completing an internal review is 20 working days from the date of the request for review. As a matter of good practice you should notify the requester and explain why more time is needed.

Yours sincerely,

Pat Aspinall

Dear FOIA,

Could you please answer.

Yours sincerely,

Pat Aspinall

Dear FOIA,

Thank you for your reply, apologies for the extra questions, I am sure you would agree that if your Procurement Policy is not being rigidly adhered to questions need to be asked.

Yours sincerely,

Pat Aspinall

Dear FOIA,
I shall wait for your reply on 15 Oct before I make a complaint to the Information Commissioner on the handling of my request, you have had more than enough time to inform me you would be treating
it as new request. You also did not answer other parts of my request fully.

Yours sincerely,

Pat Aspinall

Dear FOIA,

Thank you for your reply,

Could I ask for a copy of terms of reference for Post Office Limited Investment Committee (POLIC), if no terms of reference details of the workings of POLIC please.

You have stated in your reply,
"In respect of this activity, we have already provided you with the correspondence relating to the pilot
‘Planning a Profitable Future Seminar’ under Ref: OOLO-9BXD6F on 15 November 2013 and the invoices
from the National Federation of Subpostmasters (NFSP) "

May I remind you the invoices you quote were not from NFSP, they were from N.F.S.P. TRADING LIMITED,
Company No. 03154458. Could you advice that I am correct in assuming that N.F.S.P. TRADING LIMITED,
Company No. 03154458 are a third party?

Did any personnel from The Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) play any part in the deal you struck with N.F.S.P. TRADING LIMITED,Company No. 03154458?

Yours sincerely,

Pat Aspinall

Dear FOIA,

You replied (below). Is there words or figures missing from first sentence Polic Approval.

If NFSP Trading Ltd's plan was not guided through POLIC, what department was it guided through and by who. Details please.

"POL IC Approval

POL IC approval is required for any items of planned activity between
and
any unplanned activity between"

Yours sincerely,

Pat Aspinall

Dear FOIA,
Should you not have informed me that the information in your original reply was being redacted. Would it be fair to say under the FOIA it is not my position to chase after you to ask has information been redacted.
Please explain why you did not mention the information was being redacted when you replied on 13.11.2014.

Yours sincerely,

Pat Aspinall

Dear FOIA,

For future reference, please note guidelines for good practice.

Give an indication of how much text you have redacted and where from. If possible, indicate which sections you removed using which exemption.

Yours sincerely,

Pat Aspinall