Post Office inquiry live today: Alan Bates says company spent 23 years lying ‘to silence me’ on Horizon scandal

A letter from Richard Barker, then general manager of the communications network at the Post Office, explained to Bates’ MP that his sacking was the “only sensible” option.

He wrote that nothing had been found to support his claims over the faulty Horizon claim and that he was “unsuitable” for the position of sub-postmaster, and had continued to “flaunt” instructions.

In his evidence, Bates countered this but stating he had previously received letters praising his performance and to say “well done” for all his hard work.

“It’s nonsense,” he said. “This was just them flexing their muscles and deciding they were right and I was wrong.”

An internal Post Office document, titled “Horizon Integrity”, described Alan Bates as having “become unmanageable”.

The apparent review of possible cases of Horizon faults claimed the former subpostmaster “clearly struggled with the accounting and despite copious support did not follow instructions”.

Detailing several other possible known cases, it then states: “Details of the cases do bear looking at.”

Mr Bates denied that he struggled with accounting, laughed when asked if he received copious support, and on the matter of instructions, said: “Basically try and bankrupt myself? No I didn’t, not to that extent.”

While Alan Bates said he “never” received a reason for the Post Office terminating his contract, he has been shown a letter by the company to an MP in 2003 claiming that it had “lost confidence in his willingness to conduct the job in the manner expected”.

The claim came in correspondence – seen by the inquiry – to MP Betty Williams, who had written to the Post Office to relay her constituent’s concern about the temporary closure of the branch run by Mr Bates.

Asked if that had ever been explained to him, Mr Bates told the inquiry: “No.”

Alan Bates has said he believed the Post Office were trying to “make a lesson” of his case when terminating his contract in 2003.

“I felt they were going to make a lesson of my case – because a number of other people knew what was going on at that time, and I think it was something the Post Office liked to try and give lessons of how they were in charge,” he told the inquiry.

Alan Bates has said he was “never” given an explanation for his dismissal by the Post Office.

Asked by the inquiry’s lead counsel how it felt to receive a letter from the Post Office in August 2003 telling him they were terminating his contract that November, he said: “I was annoyed with them, to put it mildly, but I think it was partly expected in a way.

“Because it was pretty obvious they were after me, one way or another, and the build-up of correspondence over the period was certainly pointing in that direction.

“But I always found it quite interesting that I pulled them up on the point about trying to terminate me and my contract under Clause 12 of the contract … but they didn’t do it that way. They decided to go just under this ‘any reason they wanted in three months’ notice without giving a reason’”.

The inquiry’s lead counsel clarified: “So it’s a ‘without fault, without reason’ termination, just on three month’s written notice”, adding: “You’d had the £1,100 written off, you’ve had the Post Office acknowledging it was because of a genuine dispute over whether Horizon was to blame for it, you’d been rolling over other surpluses since then with Post Office knowledge – and then this arrives.”

Mr Bates replied: “It was a bit strange in a way, because we were a very busy Post Office, in fact it was a time when a lot of Post Offices were losing trade but our sales figures were very high in the region, we developed a lot of new business in there. But it was their decision to do it [fire me] and so be it.”

He added: “I did offer at one point when … we were heading in this direction … if you’re unhappy with the way I’m providing your service then pay us back our initial investment and take the Post Office away, I would have been quite happy for them to do that, and I probably wouldn’t be here today on that basis.”

Alan Bates has been shown correspondence between himself and the Post Office in which he was suddenly ordered to pay for unexplained shortfalls – and refused.

Citing his contract, Mr Bates told the Post Office he was under no obligation to pay for sums which he could not be sure he in fact owed the company, the documents show.

Months later, he received a response informing him that his contract would be terminated.

Alan Bates has told the Post Office IT Inquiry he never got a response to a letter he sent to the Post Office in December 2000 in which he raised concerns about the Horizon IT system.

In another letter to the Post Office seen by the inquiry, dated January 7 2002, Mr Bates wrote: “When I signed my contract with Post Office Counters, I did not sign to accept the liabilities arising from the shortcomings of a less than adequate Horizon system.”

Alan Bates has been shown an internal Post Office document – not disclosed to him at the time – which shows a number of options available in responding to his request for a shortfall to be written off.

The document contains three options – either to grant the subpostmaster’s receipt in full, to make them pay for the sum, or two grant a partial receipt.

“Were you aware at that time that the Post Office seemingly used a standard form with ‘delete as appropriate’ boxes on it?” Mr Bates was asked by the inquiry’s lead counsel.

“No I didn’t, but now you mention it I do recall a conversation that the retail network manager at the time had with this department at my office, so I only heard one side of the conversation, and it was about arranging for this write-off voucher,” Mr Bates said.

“And I seem to recall, and it’s stuck in [my] memory, and he said, ‘oh, it’s another one of those Horizon losses’. It’s just one of those little things that sticks in the back of your mind that was said at the time.”

Alan Bates has been shown letters he sent to the Post Office about accounting shortfalls and faults with the Horizon system during his time as a subpostmaster, appealing to his employer for help and detailing the problems with the IT system.

The second letter, sent in January 2002, says he “has no doubt at all” that one erroneous sum of £1,041.86 was “due to errors in the Horizon system”.

Alan Bates said the partnership between subpostmasters and the Post Office was “very one-sided”.

He told the inquiry: “I had been led to believe that subpostmasters were working in partnership with the Post Office, and if the Post Office wanted me to measure up to the standards they required, I expected them to do the same for me.

“However, over time, it soon became evident that the ‘partnership’ was very one-sided, and it really was a question of ‘you will do as you are told and if you don’t like it, you can’t complain and there is no redress on this, and you just get on and keep your mouth closed’ – that’s how it works.”