Post Office Computer system errors
Discussion
BMWBen said:
I have a big problem with this story. If the system is routinely making errors like this it would be trivial to prove. Also, why are the errors only made in some branches, and not all? I can't believe that if this was a system issue that a half decent lawyer wouldn't have won in court.
It doesn't add up (no pun intended).
You are obviously very familiar with the system.It doesn't add up (no pun intended).
IroningMan said:
There is no provision for record-keeping outside the system, so errors are, to all intents and purposes, invisible.
But if it kept telling you that you were short, you could prove it was wrong by keeping paper records for a day. Not rocket science. Why wait until you're tens of thousands of pounds down? You could even do it after the event. And like I said, why did this only affect a few post offices? They were all using the same system, and the same people were always down.Eric Mc said:
BMWBen said:
I have a big problem with this story. If the system is routinely making errors like this it would be trivial to prove. Also, why are the errors only made in some branches, and not all? I can't believe that if this was a system issue that a half decent lawyer wouldn't have won in court.
It doesn't add up (no pun intended).
You are obviously very familiar with the system.It doesn't add up (no pun intended).
Not in the slightest. But I'm not an idiot so if I thought the system was ripping me off I'd do something about it. Also, you don't need to. Know anything about the system to ask the logical questions:
Why was it always the same people.
If it was consistently producing errors, why couldn't they prove it?
IroningMan said:
There is no provision for record-keeping outside the system, so errors are, to all intents and purposes, invisible.
That's the basis of PPI (nee PFI?), or am I getting 
regards the 'titles' of the latest 'schemes'? Regardless, Private Eye wrote a 'special report' on it in 2004; I showed their report to a Local Authority Internal Auditor (in terms of the 'free' buildings she was consenting to on behalf of her Local Authority) and she s
t [past tense] bricks 
..."Off the balance sheet" is the ("Bulls
t Bingo 
) phrase that still pays 
.And good to see Private Eye was ahead of the game, as ever
.BMWBen said:
Not in the slightest. But I'm not an idiot so if I thought the system was ripping me off I'd do something about it. Also, you don't need to. Know anything about the system to ask the logical questions:
Why was it always the same people.
If it was consistently producing errors, why couldn't they prove it?
BMWBen said:
But if it kept telling you that you were short, you could prove it was wrong by keeping paper records for a day. Not rocket science. Why wait until you're tens of thousands of pounds down? You could even do it after the event. And like I said, why did this only affect a few post offices? They were all using the same system, and the same people were always down.
What if you did keep paper records and the powers that be disbelieved your paper records because they couldn't believe that their computer system had serious flaws? That is what happened in some cases.
Eric Mc said:
BMWBen said:
But if it kept telling you that you were short, you could prove it was wrong by keeping paper records for a day. Not rocket science. Why wait until you're tens of thousands of pounds down? You could even do it after the event. And like I said, why did this only affect a few post offices? They were all using the same system, and the same people were always down.
What if you did keep paper records and the powers that be disbelieved your paper records because they couldn't believe that their computer system had serious flaws? That is what happened in some cases.
BMWBen said:
Eric Mc said:
BMWBen said:
But if it kept telling you that you were short, you could prove it was wrong by keeping paper records for a day. Not rocket science. Why wait until you're tens of thousands of pounds down? You could even do it after the event. And like I said, why did this only affect a few post offices? They were all using the same system, and the same people were always down.
What if you did keep paper records and the powers that be disbelieved your paper records because they couldn't believe that their computer system had serious flaws? That is what happened in some cases.
Just because a computer says something does not mean that the computer is right. And despite what some are saying here, computers can perform actions which are unexpected and difficult to understand. This places the computer user in an invidious position, especially when the onus to prove the problem is placed on the person who is being accused of doing something wrong.
Don't forget that sub postmasters are not computer experts. They were merely trying to use the system - often with little or no formal training in how to use it properly - which is pretty much the norm when lay people have to start using new and complex software.
They were made use this system and had no choice in the matter.
Edited by Eric Mc on Thursday 11th July 08:24
BMWBen said:
As it happens I am one, but that actually has no bearing on my arguments if you read them correctly
What I'm saying is that if the system IS making mistakes it would be EASY to prove.
Only if you know what the right answer is. In this case, that would require trust in the staff - which clearly doesn't exist.What I'm saying is that if the system IS making mistakes it would be EASY to prove.
marshalla said:
BMWBen said:
As it happens I am one, but that actually has no bearing on my arguments if you read them correctly
What I'm saying is that if the system IS making mistakes it would be EASY to prove.
Only if you know what the right answer is. In this case, that would require trust in the staff - which clearly doesn't exist.What I'm saying is that if the system IS making mistakes it would be EASY to prove.
Taken from jfsa.org.uk (Justice For SubPostmasters Alliance)...
site said:
We took over our post office and shop in 1998 and Horizon arrived in October 2000. Having been involved with EPOS (Electronic Point of Sale) systems for many years before running a post office, it seemed to be a good step forward. How wrong I was, it turned out to a ‘pig in a poke’, an utter travesty, it was something out of the ark. It’s key flaw was that it did not allow me or my staff to fully access the data which we had input into the system. You could run a few basic reports but it was totally inadequate to keep track of all the transactions and all the hundreds of thousands of pounds which flowed through the business each month.
Then there were the bugs in the software. Just a few weeks after the system had been installed an overnight software upgrade resulted in over £5000 of system generated duplications having to be reversed out of just one weeks’ balance ( and those were ones I found ! ). Having documented in detail what had happened for the PO and them ignoring my comments, I had little option but to point out to them that I was unable to accept financial liability for the figures generated by the Horizon system without full access to check the data either my staff or I had entered into the system. They refused to answer that letter and the many others I sent them asking them to sort out the problems. Taken to an extreme, if the Horizon system said I owed £1,000,000 the Post Office could under their interpretation require me to make good the loss without delay, without question and without full access to the data.
Not once over a three years period did Post Office Ltd ever respond to the points of liability and system access that I had raised either in correspondence or in person. Though in a letter from them in May 2003 they stated I would be failing to meet my obligation under a section of the contract which states “The Subpostmaster is responsible for all losses caused through his own negligence, carelessness or error, and also for losses of all kinds caused by his Assistants. Deficiencies due to such losses must be made good without delay” and which “failure to comply with these obligations can be construed as a Breach of Contract, which could ultimately put your Contract for Service ‘at risk”. My response informed them that I would gladly make good any losses caused in these manners though I also reiterated I was unable to accept liability of system generated figures without access to the data to check it. In fact the contract was so old it didn’t even cover new technologies. Post Office Ltd then terminated my contract under a clause not requiring them to state a reason, and they walked off with my livelihood and the £65,000 I had paid for the post office.
Then there were the bugs in the software. Just a few weeks after the system had been installed an overnight software upgrade resulted in over £5000 of system generated duplications having to be reversed out of just one weeks’ balance ( and those were ones I found ! ). Having documented in detail what had happened for the PO and them ignoring my comments, I had little option but to point out to them that I was unable to accept financial liability for the figures generated by the Horizon system without full access to check the data either my staff or I had entered into the system. They refused to answer that letter and the many others I sent them asking them to sort out the problems. Taken to an extreme, if the Horizon system said I owed £1,000,000 the Post Office could under their interpretation require me to make good the loss without delay, without question and without full access to the data.
Not once over a three years period did Post Office Ltd ever respond to the points of liability and system access that I had raised either in correspondence or in person. Though in a letter from them in May 2003 they stated I would be failing to meet my obligation under a section of the contract which states “The Subpostmaster is responsible for all losses caused through his own negligence, carelessness or error, and also for losses of all kinds caused by his Assistants. Deficiencies due to such losses must be made good without delay” and which “failure to comply with these obligations can be construed as a Breach of Contract, which could ultimately put your Contract for Service ‘at risk”. My response informed them that I would gladly make good any losses caused in these manners though I also reiterated I was unable to accept liability of system generated figures without access to the data to check it. In fact the contract was so old it didn’t even cover new technologies. Post Office Ltd then terminated my contract under a clause not requiring them to state a reason, and they walked off with my livelihood and the £65,000 I had paid for the post office.
BMWBen said:
Calculate the right answer. How hard would it be to track a till? Given the amounts we're talking about you'd have evidence of discrepancies after a couple of hours. Really really easy. But it hasn't happened and people have gone through the courts on this. What does that say to you?
That the people who run the system have blind faith in it and don't trust anyone else.
It also shows that many people faced with Jail if pleading "Not Guilty" would rather plead Guilty to offences they did not commit because the prosecution "cut a deal" making sure they would avoid doing time. The number of systems I have worked with that do not operate as they should when released into the wild is ridiculous. Usually due to the designers and coders just not taking to the actual users. Too many projects wheel in Managers who don''t know hoe the current system works let alone how the new one should.
BMWBen said:
marshalla said:
BMWBen said:
As it happens I am one, but that actually has no bearing on my arguments if you read them correctly
What I'm saying is that if the system IS making mistakes it would be EASY to prove.
Only if you know what the right answer is. In this case, that would require trust in the staff - which clearly doesn't exist.What I'm saying is that if the system IS making mistakes it would be EASY to prove.
I guess the usual happened. Post office spent a lot of money on the system probably in some outsourced deal, system was delivered with defects that were never fixed, no one knew the system so they towed the line that everyone else must be wrong. Simple buck passing, probably from senior management who will have left or retired by now.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff