Tim Parker’s further investigations into Horizon Issues in line with recommendations of the 2016 Swift Review
Dear David Sinclair,
Documents recently disclosed by the Department for BEIS reveal that from March 2016 Post Office Chair, Tim Parker, undertook follow-up investigations pursuant to initial findings of the Swift Review of February 2016.
These investigations were expected to be completed by the end of May 2016. Their scope included: allegations of plea bargaining to secure convictions of false accounting; Post Office’s suspense accounts; the issue of Horizon’s remote access; a review of Balancing Transactions and the question of whether detailed analysis of transaction logs could identify if shortfalls in branch accounts were related to the existence of bugs in Horizon. It would appear that these subsequent investigations were undertaken by Deloitte.
i) Please can you disclose the findings of these further investigations along with the update summary which the Postal Minister, Baroness Neville-Rolphe, asked Tim Parker to provide on completing this further work.
ii) Please can you disclose all advice given to Tim Parker by Post Office General Counsel, Jane Macleod, which recommended that the Swift Review, and consequentially the follow-up reports, be withheld from the Post Office Board.
I am aware that some of the information within scope of this request may engage Section 42/43 exemptions. Given that LPP has been waived in the disclosure of the Swift Review itself, however, I hope you will likewise determine that the public interest in disclosing the above information outweighs that of maintaining exemption.
Yours sincerely
Eleanor Shaikh
Our ref: FOI2022/00599
Dear Eleanor Shaikh,
Thank you for your request for information which was received on 30th
August. 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 27th
September.
Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future
communications.
Yours sincerely,
Information Rights
Dear Eleanor Shaikh
I am writing in respect of your information request, FOI2022/00599. At
present our view is that your request falls within the scope of the
qualified exemption at section 42 of the FOIA, relating to legal
professional privilege.
As permitted by section 10 of the FOIA, Post Office requires further time
to consider the public interest test in relation to this exemption. An
extension is permitted until such time as is reasonable in the
circumstances. Having considered the FOIA Code of Practice and in light of
the volume and complexity of the material requested, Post Office considers
that an extension of 20 working days is appropriate in this instance and
will therefore aim to respond to you by 26th October.
Kind Regards,
Data Protection and Information Rights Team
[1][email address]
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. mailto:[email address]
Dear Ms Shaikh,
With apologies in the delay in sending this to you.
As per our previous email of 28 September, Post Office requires further
time to consider the public interest test in relation to the section 42
FOIA exemption relating to legal professional privilege. Post Office has
therefore extended the deadline for another 20 working days and will
therefore aim to respond to you by 23 November 2022.
We thank you for your patience whilst we handle this FOI request.
Kind regards
Information Rights Team
From: [Post Office request email]
<[Post Office request email]>
Sent: 28 September 2022 15:34
To: [FOI #891962 email]
Subject: Change to the Response Due Date for FOI2022/00599
Dear Eleanor Shaikh
I am writing in respect of your information request, FOI2022/00599. At
present our view is that your request falls within the scope of the
qualified exemption at section 42 of the FOIA, relating to legal
professional privilege.
As permitted by section 10 of the FOIA, Post Office requires further time
to consider the public interest test in relation to this exemption. An
extension is permitted until such time as is reasonable in the
circumstances. Having considered the FOIA Code of Practice and in light of
the volume and complexity of the material requested, Post Office considers
that an extension of 20 working days is appropriate in this instance and
will therefore aim to respond to you by 26th October.
Kind Regards,
Data Protection and Information Rights Team
[1][email address]
Post Office Limited is committed to protecting your privacy, information
about how we do this can be found on our website at
[2]www.postoffice.co.uk/privacy
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. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.postoffice.co.uk/privacy
Dear Ms Shaikh
I am writing in respect of your information request, FOI2022/00599. As you
are aware, your request falls within the scope of the qualified exemption
at section 42 of the FOIA, relating to legal professional privilege.
As permitted by section 10 of the FOIA, Post Office once again requires
further time to consider the public interest test in relation to this
exemption. We therefore hope to respond to you by no later than 22nd
December, and hopefully much sooner.
We thank you for your patience whilst we are handling your information
request.
Kind Regards
Data Protection and Information Rights Team
Dear [email address],
Please can you advise me on the status of FOI request 2022/00599 which was submitted on 28 August 2022. After three extensions I was led to believe I would be given a decision on disclosure no later than 22 December.
Many Thanks,
Yours sincerely,
Eleanor Shaikh
Dear Ms Shaikh,
Thank you for your patience whilst we have been handling your request for information. Unfortunately we are not in a position to respond to your request today, but will continue to process it and aim to send it to you as soon as we can.
Kind regards,
Data Protection and Information Rights Team
Dear Information Rights Team,
FOI 2022/0059 was submitted on 28 August 2022 and, despite a number of prompts, I have been informed that the request is still being processed.
In the light of the unusual delay I am now also requesting disclosure of all internal emails which relate to the decision over disclosure of FOI 2022/0059, as well as any correspondence between the Post Office and BEIS and/or UKGI regarding the decision on disclosure of the requested information.
Yours sincerely
Eleanor Shaikh
Our ref: FOI2023/00035
Dear Ms Shaikh,
Thank you for your request for information which was received on 23rd
January. 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 20th
February.
Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future
communications.
Regards,
Information Rights Team
Finsbury Dials
20 Finsbury Street
London
EC2Y 9AQ
Dear Ms Shaikh,
Thank you for your patience whilst we have been handling your information
request. We apologies for the delay in providing our response, but please
find this now attached.
Regards,
Information Rights Team
Finsbury Dials
20 Finsbury Street
London
EC2Y 9AQ
Dear Ms Shaikh,
Please find the attached response relating to your Freedom of Information
request.
Regards,
Information Rights Team
Finsbury Dials
20 Finsbury Street
London
EC2Y 9AQ
Dear Post Office Limited,
I would like to request an internal review into POL’s decision not to disclose 4 documents under FOI2022/00599.
In late 2015, Tim Parker undertook a review (known as the Swift Review) of POL’s Horizon system and its handling of postmaster issues at the behest of BIS Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Baroness Neville-Rolfe.
The review concluded in early February 2016. In a letter of March 2016, Parker updated Neville-Rolfe on its preliminary findings, along with his expectation that a number of further investigations, recommended by the Swift Review, would be concluded by May 2016.
POL’s refusal to disclose the 4 documents pertaining to these follow-up investigations has been made on the basis that they were ‘created on the instruction of Post Office Legal’ and are therefore subject to LPP.
But both the Swift Review and the follow-up investigations were undertaken at the behest of Tim Parker. Follow-up investigations were expressly intended ‘to ensure that a definitive and final conclusion can be drawn on this matter with no need for any further enquiries’; they were an extension of the investigations Parker had already begun.
The draft letter from Parker of June 2016 released under FOI2022/00599 referred to the ‘strong advice from Leading Counsel that the work being undertaken under the aegis of my review should come to an immediate end…’.
The Swift Review and the subsequent follow-up investigations were initiated by the POL Chair acting on the behest of its shareholder, BIS; POL Legal’s role was in fact to end these investigations, which it did in reaction to the commencement of GLO proceedings in April 2016.
POL’s decision not to disclose the findings of Parker’s follow-up investigations is inconsistent with POL’s agreement to disclose the Swift Review itself.
It is also inconsistent with POL’s pledge to ‘demonstrate POL's commitment to transparency’ which it has made to the Public Inquiry, along with its intention to waive LLP over materials pre-February 2020 which are relevant to matters within the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference.
Yours sincerely
Eleanor Shaikh
Dear Eleanor Shaikh,
Thank you for contacting us with your request for an internal review.
This has been assigned to a caseworker (our ref: IR2023/00101).
If you have any questions, then please do not hesitate to contact us.
Regards,
Information Rights Team
Finsbury Dials
20 Finsbury Street
London
EC2Y 9AQ
Dear Eleanor Shaikh
We are writing with regards to your email received by Post Office Limited
(" Post Office") on 24th February, which is being dealt with as an
Internal Review under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 ("
FOIA"). In your email, you requested the following:
I would like to request an internal review into POL’s decision not to
disclose 4 documents under FOI2022/00599.
In late 2015, Tim Parker undertook a review (known as the Swift Review) of
POL’s Horizon system and its handling of postmaster issues at the behest
of BIS Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Baroness Neville-Rolfe.
The review concluded in early February 2016. In a letter of March 2016,
Parker updated Neville-Rolfe on its preliminary findings, along with his
expectation that a number of further investigations, recommended by the
Swift Review, would be concluded by May 2016.
POL’s refusal to disclose the 4 documents pertaining to these follow-up
investigations has been made on the basis that they were ‘created on the
instruction of Post Office Legal’ and are therefore subject to LPP.
But both the Swift Review and the follow-up investigations were undertaken
at the behest of Tim Parker. Follow-up investigations were expressly
intended ‘to ensure that a definitive and final conclusion can be drawn on
this matter with no need for any further enquiries’; they were an
extension of the investigations Parker had already begun.
The draft letter from Parker of June 2016 released under FOI2022/00599
referred to the ‘strong advice from Leading Counsel that the work being
undertaken under the aegis of my review should come to an immediate end…’.
The Swift Review and the subsequent follow-up investigations were
initiated by the POL Chair acting on the behest of its shareholder, BIS;
POL Legal’s role was in fact to end these investigations, which it did in
reaction to the commencement of GLO proceedings in April 2016.
POL’s decision not to disclose the findings of Parker’s follow-up
investigations is inconsistent with POL’s agreement to disclose the Swift
Review itself.
It is also inconsistent with POL’s pledge to ‘demonstrate POL's commitment
to transparency’ which it has made to the Public Inquiry, along with its
intention to waive LLP over materials pre-February 2020 which are relevant
to matters within the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference.
At present our view is that your request falls within the scope of the
section 42 FOIA qualified exemption and Post Office requires further time
to consider the public interest test in relation to this exemption. Having
considered the FOIA Code of Practice, and in light of the complexity of
the material requested, Post Office considers that an extension of 40
working days is appropriate in this instance and will therefore aim to
respond to you by 26th May.
Kind Regards
Information Rights Team
Finsbury Dials
20 Finsbury Street
London
EC2Y 9AQ
[1][email address]
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. mailto:[email address]
Dear Eleanor Shaikh,
Please find attached the outcome of your Internal Review request.
Regards,
Information Rights Team
Ground Floor
Finsbury Dials
20 Finsbury Street
London
EC2Y 9AQ
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now