Fujitsu does not trust Post Office in use of Horizon data in future third-party prosecutions
- Reference: 1731412397
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2024/11/12/fujitsu_does_not_trust_post/
- Source link:
Speaking at the inquiry this week, Paul Patterson, director of Fujitsu Services Ltd, described his unease about the Post Office continuing to pursue local branch shortfalls based solely on data from Horizon — the aging system at the centre of the scandal.
In a letter to Post Office boss Nick Read, dated May this year, Patterson wrote of his "serious concerns" over the continuing pursuit of enforcement actions against postmasters, referring to a City of London police investigation into a Post Office branch and a resulting call on Fujitsu to provide evidence.
[1]
Horizon is an EPOS and back-end finance system for thousands of Post Office branches around the UK, first implemented by ICL, a UK technology company later bought by Fujitsu. From 1999 until 2015, around 736 sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses were wrongfully convicted of fraud when errors in the system were to blame. It destroyed the lives of many involved, leaving some bankrupt and others feeling suicidal, with several succeeding in [2]ending their lives . While a number of convictions have been [3]quashed in the courts, 60 people died before just seeing any sort of justice served. A statutory inquiry into the mass miscarriage of justice launched in 2021 is ongoing.
[4]
[5]
In the letter from May, Patterson said Fujitsu "would have expected that the Post Office has changed its behavior in light of the criticisms and is appropriately circumspect with respect to any enforcement actions. It should not be relying on Horizon data as the basis for such shortfall enforcement."
Speaking before the Inquiry yesterday, Patterson said the Post Office should not rely "solely" on Horizon data to support a prosecution.
[6]
He said it is "the complete supply chain that provides information to Horizon and actually to sub-postmasters themselves. You cannot rely solely… on one data source.
"I would like to be satisfied that they are using more than just one data source, and I've not seen anything which tells me that they're using more than one data source," he said.
"On this particular topic, I absolutely don't trust the Post Office," he added.
[7]
In its response to Patterson’s May letter, the Post Office said it had "invested significant time and resource effecting cultural and procedural change across the business," the inquiry heard in October.
"I can reassure you that the Post Office is not now – and will not be in the future – undertaking any prosecutions against postmasters or any third parties as the prosecuting body," Read said.
However, it said it would use Horizon data when requested to support criminal investigations or prosecutions pursued by independent third parties, such as the police or Crown Prosecution Service.
[8]Fancy building a replacement for Post Office's disastrous Horizon system?
[9]Post Office seeks more Horizon support as it continues hunt for replacement
[10]Fujitsu, AMD lay groundwork to pair Monaka CPUs with Instinct GPUs
[11]Post Office CTO had 'nagging doubts' about Horizon system despite reliability assurances
Older equipment still running
In his evidence this week, Patterson also said Fujitsu had not turned off some Horizon equipment because it was too old.
"In my experience of 35 years in this industry, if you do not do disaster recovery, if you do not turn things off, if you don't keep them upgraded, I cannot determine what will or will not happen, which is part of our nervousness about any extension [to Horizons lifespan]."
The Horizons system has been at "end of life" for a number of years, and the Post Office is [12]procuring a replacement , according to a notice published in May. In October, the Post Office began to look for further [13]Horizon datacenter support in a set of contracts which could total £100 million ($129 million). ®
Get our [14]Tech Resources
[1] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2ZzOJtQrroCZoV3csRxf8YgAAAIY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2020/03/04/post_office_fujitsu_horizon_parliament_grilling/
[3] https://www.theregister.com/2020/12/11/post_office_horizon_scandal_first_subpostmasters_cleared/
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZzOJtQrroCZoV3csRxf8YgAAAIY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZzOJtQrroCZoV3csRxf8YgAAAIY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZzOJtQrroCZoV3csRxf8YgAAAIY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZzOJtQrroCZoV3csRxf8YgAAAIY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/11/uk_post_office_epos_procurement/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/15/post_office_horizon_dc_support/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2024/11/01/amd_fujitsu_monaka_instinct/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/17/post_office_cto_inquiry/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/11/uk_post_office_epos_procurement/
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/15/post_office_horizon_dc_support/
[14] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
@Tubz
More like the spec for the new system was written so precisely that only one provider could possibly build it, but after all the fallout from Horizon (which they have to have seen coming for many years behind the scenes) that provider has failed to meet the spec (i.e. don't want the job), delaying the new system to such a extent that the old system with all it's flaws has to kept creaking along (at great expense) well beyond it's intended lifespan and is now at the point where they don't dare switch it off in case it doesn't come back on.
Don't forget that at some point Horizon was a MATURE system - a decade of development, stable, in support from the original company, and used across the entire Post Office.
And *that* is when they had a lot of problems with it still.
Fujitsu are just trying to pass the buck here... the Post Office shouldn't be expected to ditch an entire nationwide accounting system every 5-10 years "just because" and migrate thousands of individual customers to entirely new hardware and systems. Fujitsu should have been supporting their existing system and fixing the bugs that they knew full well existed in it.
And Fujitsu should have came out TEN YEARS AGO minimum to say that it shouldn't have been used for prosecutions because it wasn't reliable, but they never did (and in fact never admitted as much to their own customer either).
Both entities are liable, both are to blame, and you can't just say "Oh, it's an old system and needed replacing" - it literally NEVER WORKED PROPERLY and still doesn't.
True. Problem is always management. Take us for example. Had a great IT manager who was then tasked with getting a new management system in place, ran by the new head of that project. The new head of that project (the cock) had fuck all experience with IT and started to listen to said cocks "consultant". Said cock listened to the consultant more than his own staff and said consultant recommended a company that we all knew was shit and their proposed system wasn't good.
Said cock continued to ignore this advice and went with the consultant's recommendation, funny how this suppose to be impartial consult had recommended said package to others over the years.
Anyway, its gone live, the really good manager left due to all the politics bullshit and because the head of that project was/is truely shit and a grifter much like Trump.
System is in place, system is shit, head of that project is still about and still attempts to defend it.
And worse they are still using it and still using it to prosecute. Our local Post Office still uses it as see it on the receipts.
Thank you Steviebuk.....
Right on point... how the hell are they still trying to get away with this system as the basis of any prosecution....
There should be a moratorium on any prosecutions, historical or current.
Makes me very very upset!
Anyone else impressed by the biblical level of chutzpah in the statement "On this particular topic, I absolutely don't trust the Post Office,"?
Meanwhile we (the people) absolutely don't trust either of them.
Paul Patterson as witness for the defence?
Can we see a case arising where the defence is that the PO *did* just rely on Horizon and Patterson takes the stand to formally declare (whether as a witness for the defence or as one for the prosecution that gets neatly cross-examined) that Horizon is an untrustworthy witness?
Which would basically translate to a boss admitting under oath that his product is rubbish.
Would we enter a Golden Age of Product Honesty[1]?
[1] No, we'd just see even more get outs in licence agreements and weasel clauses in contracts to the effect that they won't even back their product's ability to hold a stationery cupboard's door if you print the invoice, fold it up tight and stuff it in by the jamb.
Re: Paul Patterson as witness for the defence?
You mean like a disclaimer on a statement of financial condition, being provided to a bank as evidence that the applicant isn't a bad credit risk, that says the valuation being presented may be dramatically off? (Translation of disclaimer - "don't trust anything you get from us".)
I’m curious as to errors that were in the postmasters/mistresses’ favour. Were there any? How were they handled?
The Post Office could go in and edit them. That was the whole problem, somebody in a support call center could edit the live data in an accounting system
Supposedly FJ rather than PO had the hands-on access but could certainly have been at PO's request.
Sorry, yes but the important point was that the data in the system couldn't be trusted and not because of any technical errors
When the majority of transactions were duplicate, it should have been very easy to sort this out. It should be very rare to see repeated transactions for the same amount, over and over again.
As I understand, significant amount of the complaints revolve around closing time calculations. The transactions would add up more than the take-in, and the difference would be requested from the postmaster. People lost everything they had trying to satisfy the 'system'. When they complained, the system was always perfect, the fault was always with the postmasters.
A correction for you
"Fujitsu says that Post Office should not trust Horizon data in future third-party prosecutions."
I think that would be a bit more honest.
So in truth, Post Office would have been happy using EOL systems and prosecuting staff until the cows come home and now the truth is out, it's a mad scramble to replace everything, nobody wants to support or trust the old system and the new system will be brought online full of bugs, staff will be blamed, seniors will get bumper pay rewards and the cycle turns.