Post Office and Fujitsu had deal 19 years ago to fix Horizon errors, paper shows | Post Office Horizon scandal
The Post Office struck a secret deal with Fujitsu 19 years ago to fix errors in post office operators’ accounts, a document has revealed.
The document casts doubt on the postal service’s claims that they were unaware of errors that could have led to accounting gaps.
The 26-page agreement, made in 2006, shows that both parties have the authority to change post office operators’ branch accounts despite claims that it is not possible to change them remotely.
In the long-running Post Office Horizon scandal, branch operators were hounded for money, imprisoned and even driven to suicide due to the Post Office’s actions.
This statement contradicts the Post Office’s claims during criminal proceedings that there were no errors that could have led to accounting gaps. The contract between the Post Office and Horizon, marked “Confidential Commercial”, stated that Fujitsu was liable for penalties of £100-150 per erroneous transaction through the Horizon IT system.
There have been more than 900 convictions linked to the scandal in which operators were wrongly prosecuted for a faulty Horizon computer system. The system showed erroneous omissions in the accounts and the Post Office subsequently demanded that the operators meet the penalty of suspension and prosecution.
The agreement, available on the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry’s website, states: “If the reconciliation service determines that any transaction data held in the ‘central database’ located in the data center is inconsistent when compared with the records of the transaction completed at the branch… the reconciliation service will obtain authorization from the Post Office before altering the centrally held transaction data.”
Paul Marshall, senior lawyer for post office operators, told the BBC: “The Post Office pursued both the criminal proceedings against postmasters and the 2019 class action on the basis that it knew there were no significant problems with the Horizon system.
“However, this demonstrates a very large and known problem maintaining data integrity between Horizon’s Post Office branches and Fujitsu in 2006.
“The Post Office had been saying for 20 years that the only explanation for deficiencies in branch accounts was incompetence or dishonesty on the part of the postmaster.”
Post office operator Lee Castleton, who was wrongly accused of false accounting and went to trial in 2006, told Channel 4 News the revelation made him “physically ill”.
He said: “You actually have a group of people across two companies writing contracts for something that they have repeatedly said was never necessary. And it’s sickening in terms of the distress and victimization that the group, our entire group, went through. They had this document that they never disclosed.”
Asked whether it would have made a difference in his case if it had been disclosed at the opening of the case against him, he said: “Of course, absolutely, because that makes it a completely different question. We’re now talking about accounts that can be set up remotely, but we’re also talking about a contract in place for how that should be done.”
He added: “You know, 13 people have potentially taken their lives because of their treatment at the hands of these companies. It’s disgusting to think that even now, twenty years later, we’re finding new documents, new documents about what’s going on. You know, it’s absolutely disgusting. It’s disgusting.”
A Post Office spokesman said: “We publicly apologize for the pain and suffering the Post Office has caused so many people during the Horizon IT scandal.
“Today, our organization is focused on working transparently with the ongoing public inquiry, providing full and fair financial compensation to those affected, and establishing a meaningful restorative justice program – all important elements of the Post Office’s ongoing transformation.”
A Fujitsu spokesman said: “These matters are the subject of a forensic investigation of the Post Office Horizon IT investigation and it is inappropriate for us to comment while this process is ongoing.”
