Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

Filed on behalf of the: Defendant

Witness: B. A. TROTTER
Statement No-: First
Exhibits: BAT1
Date Made: 21 August2018

THE POST OFFICE GROUP LITIGATION


Claim Nos: HQI6X01238, HQ17X02637 AND HQ17X04248

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE


QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

ALAN BATES & OTHERS


Claimants

AND

POST OFFICE LIMITED


Defendant

WITNESS STATEMENT OF BRIAN ALEXANDER TROTTER

l, BRIAN ALEXANDER TROTTER of Future Walk, West Bars, Chesterfield, S49 1PF
WILL SAY as follows:

1. I am a Network Contract Advisor for Post Office Limited (Post Office). I am


authorised to make this statement on behalf of Post Office.

2. The facts set out in this statement are within my own knowledge, or if they are
outside my knowledge, I have explained the source of my information or belief.

ln this statement the term Subpostmaster is used to generally refer to agents of


Post Office who operate branches on its behalf, including subpostmasters,
subpostmistresses, postmasters and operators ground.

4. I refer to documents in my statement which are exhibited hereto and labelled as


Exhibit BAT1.

BACKGROUND

5. I have been a Contract Advisor since 2006. As a Contract Advisor, I am


responsible for interviewing applicants for the position of Subpostmaster. This
statement focuses on the interview I conducted of one of the Lead Claimants, Ms
Louise Dar on 9 December 2013. Around the time of Ms Dar's interview, I was
carrying out approximately 60 interviews per year and so it is difficult to recall the
exact details of each interview.

AC 1509S8002 6
6. After refreshing my memory from disclosed documents, I can recall pa(s of the
interview with Ms Dar. This was in relation to Ms Dar's application to become the
Subpostmaster of a branch located at 94 Kirkintilloch Road, Lenzie, Glasgow.

7. Before the interview, Ms Dar's business plan was assessed by the finance team
for its long term viability. The business plan was not approved by the Post Office
finance team and that was a key part of the interview. I recall that Ms Dar was
really keen to have a Post Office and that she performed well at the interview,
however I informed her that her application would fail because her business was
not financialty viable.

8. I always followed a structured format for interviews. I ran through an lnterview


Checklist {POL-0031456} {POL-0031457} and Exhibit BATI (pages 1 - 6). The
lnterview Checklist forms part of an electronic document used to score applicants
lt.*, I

and record detaits of the interview undertaken. The lnterview Checklist contained
the following elements:

8.1 That the Subpostmaster's contract is a contract for services and not a
contract of employment and that Subpostmasters were not employees. I

would have explained that personal service is not required. I can see I

ticked the lnterview Checklist to record that I covered this topic with Ms
Dar.

8.2 That Subpostmasters are responsible as agents, whether there or not, for
the performance and operation of the branch and for the staff they
employed at their branches;

8.3 That Subpostmasters are responsible for:

8.3.1 staffing the branch and for the training of their staff and all
aspects of assistants' employment and work in their branches;

8.3.2 for preparing regular accounts for their branches; and

8.3.3 for both losses and gains appearing on their branch accounts,
and that discrepancies would have to be made good immediately
for any losses identified in the branch accounts, whether incurred
by themselves or others. I can see from the lnterview Checklist
that I informed Ms Dar that she would have liability for losses.

8.4 That Post Office retained the right to review its network and to adjust the
products and services it offered at and the rates it paid in relation to
particular branches from time to time.

AC 150998002 6
ln paragraph I of her Amdnded lndividual Particulars of Claim (lpOC), Ms Dar
alleges that she expressed concerns about taking over responsibility of the
branch and that I provided her with assurances as to the training and support that
would be provided by Post office. I do not recall this part of the interview and do
not believe that Ms Dar expressed the concerns alleged. I would have explained,
as I did in all interviews with new applicants applying for Post Office branches,
that Post Office offers training and support to Subpostmasters. However, if Ms
Dar had expressed concerns about being responsible for the branch, I would
have brought the interview to an end as she would not have been suitable for the
position of subpostmaster. That is not my recollection of the interview, which was
that the principal issue was her business case, not her capacity to be personally
responsible for the branch.

10 Also in paragraph 9 of her IPOC, it is alleged that I represented that post Office
would be working in partnership with Ms Dar. I cannot recall discussing this with
Ms Dar. I may have used the colloquial term of "partnership" in relation to the fact
that Ms Dar and Post Office would be working together to make the most of the
Local branch. I would not have represented that Post Office and Ms Dar would
be working in a legal partnership as I knew this was not the case.
Subpostmasters are agents of Post Office and not partners.

11. ln paragraph 25 of her IPOC, it is alleged that I told Ms Dar that she did not need
to obtain legal advice. I do not recall saying this nor do I believe that I said it to
Ms Dar. I may have suggested that Ms Dar should consider taking professional
advice if she was unsure about anything. I certainly would not have advised her
against seeking advice - that would have been inappropriate and I have never
done this in the hundreds of interviews I have conducted.

12. Paragraph 25 of her IPOC also alleges that I told Ms Dar that she could "frusf my
word'. I do not recall saying this nor do I believe that I said it to Ms Dar. I would
never say this to an applicant.

13. ln paragraph 10 of her IPOC it is alleged that, after informing her that her
application would fail due to it not being financially viable, I encouraged her to re-
apply for the position based from her existing premises at 1 18 Kirkintilloch Road
on the basis that Post Office wanted the branch to be inside a previously
established business to inoease footfall. I did not encourage her to re-apply,
although I can recall suggesting that as she was so eager to open a branch, if she
still wished to be a Subpostmaster, she would need to look at other options and
re-submit her application with a new business plan as her first business plan was
not financially viable due to high fixed costs. I can vaguely recall that Ms Dar told
me at the interview that she ran a business with her husband on the same road

AC 150998002 6
as the branch on which her application was based, I would not have seen her
business accounts for her current business at 1 18 Kirkintilloch Road at this time
so would not have been in a position to make the alleged encouragement.

14 ln paragraph 12 of her IPOC it is said that, following her interview in December


2013, Ms Dar sent me a draft revised business plan in Februaty 2014 which I

amended. t did adjust Ms Dar's staff costs in her second business plan to reflect
the fact that Ms Dar's husband and a full time staff member would be running the
branch and retail business. These were suggestions by me as I was trying to be
helpful,

15. Ido not recall conducting the second interview on 4 June 2014 with Ms Dar, but I

can see from a document which I have been shown by Post Office's solicitors and

EE
another document that the second interview was carried out on this date
according to the paperwork {POL-0001 148} and Exhibit BAT1 (pages 7 - 1 1).

Statement ol truth

I believe that the facts stated in this witness siatement are true.

Signed

Date

AC_150998002 6

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi