Who is to blame for the UK Post Office Scandal?

Have you watched the recent ITV dramatisation series 'Mr Bates Vs. Post Office' is released. It is based on the Nick Wallis book (11), although first highlighted by the magazine Computer Weekly. The TV series follows Alan Bates, his wife Suzanne and the initial 50 Sub-Postmasters (and postmistresses) as part of the Justice for Sub-postmasters Alliance (JFSA) to clear their names after being wrongly prosecuted for false accounting and theft by the Post Office. In addition, the BBC Panorama investigations in 2022 (7) highlighted raw issues. Please note I refer to sub-postmasters, postmistresses and postmasters as a singular title.

The UK Post Office Limited service was set up in 1660 during Henry VIII's reign. It is a Public Body owned by the British government as a Public Body protected by legislation and is now separate from Royal Mail. With the advent of emails and mobile phones, letters and messages became less profitable so it widened its services to compete, although the governments and CEOs sold off many of these profitable and valuable services. In the TV series (9), BBC Panorama investigation (7) and the interview you will feel the mounting pressure on each Sub-postmaster as the Post Office sought prosecutions and repayments.

Today, there is a new light of shame that shines on all parties who ignored the suffering endured by these families and rightfully so, when you consider the impact and numbers affecting those at the centre of the controversy.

Why do the numbers not add up?

• 700 fought wrongful convictions.
• 236 of those convicted served time in prison, which the government slighted as a loss of liberty.
• While 32 convictions had been overturned by 2021, and 93 to date, the promise to address the remainder shows the pitiful slow progress made.
• 50 sub-postmasters agreed to fight the initial case, rising to 555 after others who also suffered ill health, loss of livelihood (businesses, homes and families) and victimisation by their communities then joined.
• 18 died before the court case judgement. 4 were suicides and all were driven by despair of wrong accusations and bankruptcy.
• 1 forensic investigation firm (Second Sight), and 1 judge had to endure the embarrassment of the Post Office (and those in cahoots) attempts to remove them once the evidence showed the Post Office was guilty.
• ￡58 million was initially awarded (2019) in court to the 555 claimants although ￡46 million was taken by their legal representatives (FREETHS). While this appears excessive, the Post Office employed a larger second team (after replacing the first team midway through trials); you can listen to the excellent Spotify podcast with Freeths Head of Dispute Resolution (10) below.
• 2'417 Sub-postmasters (referred to as Postmasters) were advised on 13th September 2023 that they would receive restitution from a central fund that would pay some legal costs; this cannot replace those who died knowing they were incorrectly convicted, or those suffering long-term term ill health.

So when did the story begin?

In 1999, the Client (the UK Post Office) employed a subcontractor (Fujitsu UK) to install their 'Horizon' IT software system in all UK post offices to automate finances away from manual bookkeeping; immediately sub-postmasters started seeing accounting errors and losses when reconciling the day's takings. Despite multiple attempts to correct these errors, debts continued to accumulate which was caused by software bugs, errors and defects. When Sub-postmasters (formerly referred to as Post-masters) reached out to the Fujitsu UK helpline for assistance they were told 'no one else had reported that issue'.

The Post Office stated that only Sub-postmasters could enter data into the system and therefore they were responsible. However, the Post Office knew since 2010 that Fujitsu was rectifying errors and uploading software updates, and withheld this evidence when the majority of the 700 Sub-Postmasters were convicted who were unable to repay losses; little is said about those who paid their losses to avoid prosecution or where all these monies went. At this stage, it is worth mentioning timelines of which several are documented with differences, the Post Office version (ignores details about prosecutions), several on newspaper websites and by Yahoo.

While several members of the Post Office leadership are accused of covering up details there is a focus on its two Chief Executive Officers (CEOs). The CEO who was in charge of Royal Mail Group (the owner of the Post Office) ran it between 2003 and 2010 and left with bonuses. The next CEO ran the Post office business between 2012 and 2019 (although joined in 2007), and was awarded a Commander of the British Empire (CBE) honour and bonuses left 2019. Both should be protected from vile personal attacks, as should the Sub-postmasters throughout this period but were not. It is important that where evidence proves perjury has occurred, to the Judiciary (under oath in court) and to Parliament, then the natural rule of law should be followed in the public's interest. ITV who made the program was asked for comment as to why their former CEO was not named in the dramatisation; their response is noted by DigitalSpy (2) below.

It is also worthwhile noting that other parties and government insiders knew about the debacle and did little - see the Guardian article by M. Sweney (7) and the LinkedIn post by Antonia Nicol (6) as examples of this.

What did the court case teach us?

• Without knowing what evidence was declared by Fujitsu UK in the court case, they and the Post Office knew Fujitsu had access to the Horizon system and did not declare this when asked. If Fujitsu (as a Supplier) had a Non-Disclosure-Agreement (NDA) with the Post Office, they could say they were unable to release data without the client or employer's approval however, confidentiality clauses cannot override specific circumstances: a) request by legal authorities (it was), b) negligence or through whistleblowing requirements (it was), c) or where already released in the Public domain. Thus was Fujitsu to blame for the Scandal?
• Did Fujitsu log each issue on a Quality management non-conformance system (e.g., error log)? This would have identified to Fujitsu the regularity and seriousness of issues, although it could be used as evidence that issues were ignored. Fujitsu employees did eventually confirm they could access systems using the Sub-Postmaster's credentials. This puts a question mark on both Fujitsu and other software systems used by the UK government and we would recommend these are forensically examined (even by Second Sight) to identify any similar issues to vital UK services, such as HMRC. Was Fujitsu advised not to provide details by its client, or its hierarchy?
• The above raises concern about Secure access to vital systems; is there the possibility of confidential information being viewed or cyber-security hacking in future across connected wider networks?
• The UK Government does not want ownership of The Royal Mail or its sibling the Post Office as it requires an extraordinary amount of finance to keep it operational as a vital service and going concern. Its CEOs have been persistent in removing its duties and selling off its core assets (helped by changes in legislation). The following are small examples of so-called modernisation efforts: removing vehicle excise discs (road tax) by the Post Office, removing vital government document services administered by the Post Office (e.g., Passports, DVLA etc.), selling off savings and utility services sold by Post Office, removing UK postal and parcel deliveries from Royal Mail (Royal Mail, Parcel Force, Consignor, GLS/IDS), changing the Post Office to a public company (creating Sub-Postmasters as franchise holders, which sound similar to Avon, or Burger King sellers etc.), and reducing their services to the elderly and extended communities - See the Wikipedia entry (11) and Huffington Post (5) link for comment and reference to the online 'Green Paper on Post Office Reforms. However, the UK Government requested the CEOs to advise if they were at fault, several single members of Parliament (MPs) debated the court case, they should have sent in their forensic investigators including the Audit Office to verify this, as they say in Politics, Talk is cheap and Action even less. Was the UK Government to blame?
• The Post Office knew in 2010 that Fujitsu had access to their Horizon IT systems (7). If uncovered in court proceedings they would be proven as miscarriages of Justice and were advised to protect the Post Office's Image and the Horizon data system. This evidence in emails should have stopped further prosecutions but these continued and they were even accused of applying pressure on claimants to accept Post Office terms before full facts were disclosed by the forensic auditors (7). In addition, the Post Office severed ties with their first solicitors, and then the forensic auditors whom they ordered to destroy evidence (7); could this be criminal direction by Post Office leadership and therefore was the Post Office to blame?
• Should the Post Office (and any other corporate body) retain the right to prosecute? The Post office was shown to have abused teh criminal justice system (7), an affront to justice (3, and 9) who ignore factual evidence to follow leadership's agendas while ignoring English law where offenders are innocent until proven guilty. Perhaps it is the right time to remove these powers and transfer them to the Crown Prosecution Service in England and Wales while accepting the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal in Scotland.
• Based on computer data tampering, can we trust computer data? What will the advent of Artificial Intelligence bring us on this issue?
• How should businesses handle and record issues and complaints, logically, professionally and sympathetically or ignore facts before making decisions?
• How should staff and business owners entangled in such ordeals be treated, especially when their health is affected by circumstances; who plans for that eventuality and who looks after those who look after their families if they no longer can do this duty?

Once all evidence is summarised in an easy-to-read journal and case judgment notes, it will be easier to see what lessons need learning and will purchase the book once the price is reduced. Just now I suggest you watch the TV series first and then watch the BBC Panorama episodes to understand the full facts and behaviours of leadership. The remaining question is whether restitution is sufficient or should adequate compensation be awarded for the suffering endured, which unfortunately is borne by the taxpayers as a government public body, that should have acted better.

Looking at the summarised evidence, who would you consider to blame for this 20-year-plus fiasco? Fujitsu UK, the Post Office leadership, the Post Office lawyers, or UK government ministers? Questions need to be answered, blame allocated and lessons learned (or ignored as can happen in Politics)! In addition, as a business person, what could your organisation do in planning for such an eventuality and how it treats those affected - something to consider?

These observations are individual and not attributed to any organisation or person. The focus remains on sharing learning, and knowledge that drives best practices to enhance everything we do.

References:

1. Main Picture courtesy of ITV: https://www.itv.com/watch/mr-bates-vs-the-post-office/10a0469/10a0469a0001. Screenshot taken: 08th January 2024.
2. Digital Spy. (2024). ITV boss and the Post Office scandal. [online] Available at: https://forums.digitalspy.com/discussion/2458110/itv-boss-and-the-post-office-scandal [Accessed 8 Jan. 2024].
3. Freeths Solicitors | Leading National Law Firm | Freethinking Legal Advice (no date) Freeths. Available at: https://freeths.co.uk/2024/01/05/mr-bates-v-the-post-office/#:~:text=James%20Hartley%2C%20Partner%20and%20National (Accessed: 8 January 2024).
4. GOV.UK. (n.d.). Government announces ￡600,000 of new compensation for every wrongfully convicted Postmaster. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-announces-600000-of-new-compensation-for-every-wrongfully-convicted-postmaster [Accessed 9 Jan. 2024].
5. HuffPost UK. (2016). The Great Royal Mail and Post Office Swindle. [online] Available at: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/terry-pullinger/royal-mail-post-office_b_9166652.html [Accessed 8 Jan. 2024].
6. www.dhirubhai.net. (n.d.). Nicol, A. [online] Available at: https://www.dhirubhai.net/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7149527174562148352/ [Accessed 8 Jan. 2024].
7. BBC Panorama (n.d.). 'Panorama The Post Office Scandal'. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0016t20/panorama-the-post-office-scandal. BBC iPLAYER [online]. 25th April 2022.
8. Sweney, M. (2024). Paula Vennells to Ed Davey: the people with questions to answer on the Post Office scandal. The Guardian. [online] 8 Jan. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/08/paula-vennells-to-ed-davey-the-people-with-questions-to-answer-on-the-post-office-scandal#:~:text=Paula%20Vennells%20was%20chief%20executive [Accessed 8 Jan. 2024].
9. ITVX. (2024). Mr Bates vs The Post Office - Series 1 - Episode 1 - ITVX. [online] Available at: https://www.itv.com/watch/mr-bates-vs-the-post-office/10a0469/10a0469a0001 [Accessed 8 Jan. 2024].
10. open.spotify.com. (2022). The Legal 500 Podcast: Legal Business and Freeths LLP. [online] Available at: https://open.spotify.com/episode/5yA2SC1UnaKmha9lhq8SGG [Accessed 8 Jan. 2024].
11. www.amazon.co.uk. (n.d.). The Great Post Office Scandal: The fight to expose a multimillion pound IT disaster which put innocent people in jail: Amazon.co.uk: Wallis, Nick: 9781739099206: Books. [online] Available at: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Great-Post-Office-Scandal-multimillion/dp/1739099206/ref=sr_1_1?crid=241XJL2LRJYP8&keywords=post+office+scandal+book&qid=1704758126&sprefix=post+office%2Caps%2C103&sr=8-1 [Accessed 8 Jan. 2024].
12. Wikipedia. (2024). Post Office Limited. [online] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_Office_Limited#:~:text=Post%20Office%20Counters%20Limited%20was [Accessed 8 Jan. 2024].