Was it something I said?

To these blithering idiots….

The day after my post suggesting that the Annual report was a tad late they decided to publish it.  Perhaps in haste but then again probably not.  They just can’t help making complete asses of themselves.

When you read these reports you have to read the previous year’s report in conjunction in order to determine what is new and what has been omitted.   One of the most revealing new entrants is a section in the Financial Risks Section::

Financial regulatory breach The Post Office operates under an extensive regulatory environment, covering areas such as financial and postal services, telecoms, procurement, competition law and data security. This environment continues to evolve, particularly in the financial services arena, and we need to ensure that the changing requirements continue to be identified and met.

The consequences of such risk they state are:

This could result in loss of revenue, increased costs, financial misstatement and damage to reputation with stakeholders.

I couldn’t agree more… increased costs certainly and particularly when fighting legal action.  Have you any idea of how much they have spent on prosecuting innocent subpostmasters?  That will pale into insignificance when they are forced to pay compensation to the hundreds of SPMRs claiming damages against them.

Financial misstatement indeed … I’ll come back to that point.

Damage to reputation with stakeholders?   A successful High Court action by JFSA against POL will permanently remove any remaining reputation that POL retains not to mention the outcome of the ongoing criminal investigation into illegal actions by their Prosecution Team.

So having stated the risks and the consequences you think POL would take a little bit more notice of the JFSA group.   But no they don’t although they now feel obliged to mention the upcoming court case further on in their report.

They state …

Contingent liabilities: As a large, nationwide retailer operating in dynamic and competitive markets, we may be subject to regulatory investigations and may face damage to our reputation and legal claims. From time to time, we may be named as a defendant in legal claims or be required to respond to regulatory actions in connection with our activities. This may include claims for substantial or indeterminate amounts of damages from customers, employees, consultants and contractors, or may result in penalties, fines, or other results adverse to us. Like any large company, we may also be subject to the risk of potential employee or agent misconduct, including non-compliance with policies and improper use or disclosure of our assets or confidential information. A High Court claim has been issued on behalf of a number of postmasters against Post Office in relation to various legal, technical and operational matters. Full particulars of the claim (including as to quantum) have not yet been received by Post Office. The Directors do not consider the outcome of any current claim or action will have a material adverse impact on the consolidated position of the Group

The last sentence is notable..

The Directors do not consider the outcome of any current claim or action will have a material adverse impact on the consolidated position of the Group

Really?  I have force fed Paula and her cronies with details that are listed on this blog of serious errors in the Horizon system that have led to substantial paper losses for Subpostmasters.   I know they have read my posts.  They cannot be in denial because now they know the worst.   When it comes to court they will be blown out of the water.  So the directors still believe that such a court case with all its surrounding media attention will have no adverse effect on the Group?   What planet are they living on.  Don’t they read the rubbish that they write themselves?

This could result in loss of revenue, increased costs, financial misstatement and damage to reputation with stakeholders.

Don’t they have the gumption to include a financial provision into their accounts against the likelihood that they are going to lose the cases and face multi million pound damage awards?  Remember POL don’t insure against these matters!

Perhaps they should have a look at what they say about such provisions in their own annual report?

Provisions are recognised when the Group has a present obligation (legal or constructive) as a result of a past event, it is probable that an outflow of resources will be required to settle the obligation, and a reliable estimate can be made of the amount of the obligation. If the effect of the time value of money is material, provisions are determined by discounting the expected future cash flows at an appropriate pre-tax rate.

I can point the POL directors towards two companies who recently went bust because they failed to provide for the possibility that an existing legal award could be, and was, overturned in the appeal court.

They remain unaccountable idiots.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s