Royal Mail escapes fine after manipulating figures

[TrueBlueTerrier]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... gures.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Royal Mail has escaped a significant fine despite being found guilty of manipulating its performance targets.

A long-running investigation by Postcomm, the industry regulator, found that the company was guilty of failing to independently test its performance. This meant that Royal Mail's promise to deliver more than nine out of ten first class letters the following day could have been based on false information.

The investigation was started after it was discovered that Royal Mail staff had worked out how to identify "test" letters posted by an independent research company to monitor deliveries, and gave them priority treatment to ensure they arrived on time.

Senior bosses, including Adam Crozier, the former chief executive, had been paid tens of thousands of pounds in bonuses based on the company's "service quality" figures, which include data on delivery times.

Postcomm, publishing its final findings, found that Royal Mail workers in Scotland, Cumbria and possibly Belfast, had indeed been "interfering with test items", breaking part of Royal Mail's license. It was unclear how many years this manipulation of the independent testing had been going on for.

It also heavily criticised Royal Mail's management after it "identified significant corporate failings in the governance and management of internal controls for monitoring". It dismissed Royal Mail's claims that the abuse was a "one-off" undertaken "by a few misguided employees".

However, it concluded: "The investigation found that the actual quality of service figures had not been affected in any material way, that Royal Mail had not benefited financially from the conduct investigated and that there was no adverse impact on Royal Mail’s customers."

Royal Mail, which could have been fined a substantial amount, has escaped any penalty. The regulator said: "Postcomm does not consider it is appropriate to impose a financial penalty. Royal Mail has already incurred considerable costs both in investigating the complaint and in undertaking its remedial action programme."

Nigel Stapleton, Chairman of Postcomm, commented “this process has led to significant change within Royal Mail in terms of its risk management processes, which will ultimately benefit customers”.

Postcomm said the lack of fine was, in part, because Royal Mail had shown willingness to co-operate with the inquiry and already started to train its managers better to spot future potential abuses.

[Wessex]

Some people gained from false figures if their bonuses were based upon them surely.Its tempting to write a letter to Postconn
demanding these bonuses be repaid.Assuming of course none of my bonuses depended on them. :cfo

[POSTMAN]

Royal Mail performance monitoring investigation – final decision issued



1 September 2010



Postcomm today announced that an investigation into Royal Mail’s monitoring of quality of service performance has concluded that the company failed to comply with Licence Conditions 4.8 (a) (ii) and (iii) which relate to independent monitoring of performance. However, the investigation found that the actual quality of service figures had not been affected in any material way, that Royal Mail had not benefited financially from the conduct investigated and that there was no adverse impact on Royal Mail’s customers.



In light of the investigation’s findings Royal Mail has put in place a comprehensive remediation programme to address areas of concern and to strengthen its performance monitoring system. Postcomm considers that although Royal Mail is taking appropriate steps to secure compliance, it will not be fully compliant until the actions identified as necessary by Royal Mail are completed in March 2011.



Postcomm has decided not to make a final order under section 22 of the Postal Services Act 2000 because it is satisfied that Royal Mail has agreed to take and is taking all the steps appropriate to secure or facilitate compliance with Licence Conditions 4.8 (a) (ii) and (iii) in accordance with section 25 of the Postal Services Act 2000.



Postcomm does not consider it is appropriate to impose a financial penalty. Royal Mail has already incurred considerable costs both in investigating the complaint and in undertaking its remedial action programme.



Nigel Stapleton, Chairman of Postcomm, commented “this process has led to significant change within Royal Mail in terms of its risk management processes, which will ultimately benefit customers”.



ENDS



Notes to editors



Postcomm initiated its investigation in February 2009 following receipt of an allegation and evidence from a confidential informant that some Royal Mail staff in the west of Scotland were interfering with test items sent between panellists employed by Research International (a market research company) for the purpose of independently monitoring Royal Mail’s compliance with its quality of service standards under Licence Condition 4.
Postcomm subsequently notified Royal Mail of the allegation and provided the evidence. The company launched an internal investigation supported by Slaughter and May and PricewaterhouseCoopers. This investigation uncovered evidence to support the original allegation in relation to the west of Scotland plus Carlisle.
Condition 4.8 (a) (ii) of Royal Mail’s Licence: To monitor its performance of each of the scheduled services and standardised measures, in relation to the scheduled standards using a testing methodology that is applied independently of the Licensee
· Condition 4.8 (a) (iii) of Royal Mail’s Licence: To monitor its performance of each of the scheduled services and standardised measures, in relation to the scheduled standards using a testing methodology that is compliant with Article 16 of the Postal Services Directive (requiring anonymity of panellists).

· Section 22 of the Postal Services Act 2000: If the Postal Services Commission is satisfied that Royal Mail is contravening a licence condition or is likely to contravene a licence condition then it shall make a final order in accordance with that section.

· Section 25 of the Postal Services Act 2000: The obligation in Section 22 is subject to the obligation in Section 25 which provides that Postcomm shall not make a final order if it is satisfied that the licence holder (ie. Royal Mail) has agreed to take and is taking all the steps that the Postal Services Commission considers appropriate to secure or facilitate compliance with the condition concerned.



For further information and a link to the document please visit our website at http://www.psc.gov.uk/news-and-events/n ... ssued.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Night Tonic]

Some people gained from false figures if their bonuses were based upon them surely.Its tempting to write a letter to Postconn
demanding these bonuses be repaid.Assuming of course none of my bonuses depended on them. :cfo

That side is nothing to do with Postcomm, Royal Mail pays itself basically.

[fishtank]

Some people gained from false figures if their bonuses were based upon them surely.Its tempting to write a letter to Postconn
demanding these bonuses be repaid.Assuming of course none of my bonuses depended on them. :cfo

That side is nothing to do with Postcomm, Royal Mail pays itself basically.

And they pay Postcomm too. ...this is from their accounts.

Income
In 2009-10 operating income of £7.993m was received, primarily from the Royal Mail Group. Details of income received can be found in Note 9 to the Resource Accounts. An additional £3.671m was collected from the Royal Mail Group on behalf of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) in respect of the costs of Consumer Focus, including its Consumer Focus and Postwatch legacy net property costs. This was subsequently transferred to the Department.

Conflict of interest maybe?

[clashcityrocker]

Royal Mail has already incurred considerable costs both in investigating the complaint and in undertaking its remedial action programme.

And now they want mega cuts in our offices to pay for it.
They should all f**k off.

[Night Tonic]

Nice sentiment, but they're bigger than you, unless you fetch your Dad.

[BELIAL]

Bout sums it up, Excellent insight into 'where we are at'. Now who thinks this is a sensible way to run a "modern' society.

[guvenor]

swept under the carpet what do you think would have happened if it had been opg fixing test letters
one rule for one incidentley i think only 2 mgmt suffered golden handshakes pay off the rest were severely punished got their jobs back oh and the bloke who shopped them promotion what a fu**in wonderful world
sums this profit bonus ridden company up

[Wessex]

Some people gained from false figures if their bonuses were based upon them surely.Its tempting to write a letter to Postconn
demanding these bonuses be repaid.Assuming of course none of my bonuses depended on them. :cfo

That side is nothing to do with Postcomm, Royal Mail pays itself basically.

Yes you are right .I suppose the major shareholder should be told at least,not that they would give a monkey's toss.I would of course point out that I dont know whether these figures, manipulated or not ,were part of a trigger for bonuses,it is just an assumption on my part.

[BELIAL]

.I would of course point out that I dont know whether these figures, manipulated or not ,were part of a trigger for bonuses,it is just an assumption on my part.

If I remember the original reporting correctly , because of their "unconventional' working methods the managers concerned were able to post exceptional performance figures which triggered a bonus payment that DOUBLED their usual salary.

[youwot!!!!!]

Some people gained from false figures if their bonuses were based upon them surely.Its tempting to write a letter to Postconn
demanding these bonuses be repaid.Assuming of course none of my bonuses depended on them. :cfo

email them instead cos a letter may not get there.