![HT-2020-000448 - [2024] EWHC 1185 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_yJUntHA.png){kind=logo}
Section 75
However, it is also clear that the fix was not difficult and, as Dr Hunt said, could and should have been done (Day 20/151):
Q. But that doesn't strike one as being a particularly
difficult thing to fix to make the link more prominent
or make it more self-explanatory, if it needs to be?
A. Yeah, certainly it's something that could and should
have been done.
…
Q. If what we're talking about here is taking a link which
is currently not very clear and maybe making it bigger,
maybe changing what the text says, maybe doing both,
that's not exactly a huge change, is it?
A. That's not. It needs a bit more than that. It needs
to -- what it should have done is detect whether this
particular account was linked to anything or not and
then say, if you're trying to link -- if you've just got
a certificate, this is where you need to click to link
it to this portal account. So it needs a bit more than
just putting the link somewhere.
Q. Well, I mean, you could put it in clear text, couldn't
you, with an "if" in front of it: "If you're trying to
do X ..." --
Yes, of course.
The second key issue was the users’ ability to find the correct link within the navigation bar for view a certificate, which was one of the two main reasons for applicants accessing the portal. Again, subject to Dr Hunt’s view that every change required a cycle of work and could not necessarily be described as trivial, Dr Hunt agreed that this was not a difficult thing to fix (Day 20/152).
The third key issue was twofold, first the ability of the user to find the correct link within the navigation bar to be able to share the certificate, and then confusion about the need to use the dropdown menus to proceed to granting consent, which was not in fact required. In terms of the ease of fixing both issues, again Dr Hunt was clear (Day 20/155):
…The one on
page 12 {F/3321/12} is another one where the answer
is: make the link clearer; do you agree?
A. Can we go back to page 12 again --
Q. We may.
A. -- please?
Yes.
…
Q. Yes, so if you wanted to take a simple approach, put
grant consent at the top -- I appreciate there are
a number of ways of designing things, but to take your
example, take "Grant Consent", put it at the top, then
you could have a rule and have the consent history
below?
A. You could do that, yes.
Q. And that would be a very easy way of solving this
problem?
A. It would certainly make it better.
Q. And it would be a very cheap and quick way of making it
better?
A. Cheap and quick as any software changes.
Q. Yes. But a bit like the links, my point is this is not
sophisticated development needed --
A. No.
Q. -- to move a button from the bottom of the screen to
the top and put a line underneath it?
A. No.
Dr Hunt then accepted in terms, and I find, that in respect of each of the key issues, it was perfectly possible to fix them from a technical point of view without too much difficulty.
The second DBS analysis took pace in October 2020. In relation to aspects of the ‘user journey’ with which the portal users expressed unhappiness were set out in Slide 36:
- Heading
- CONTENTS
- IntroductiON
- The Factual Witnesses
- Expert Evidence
- Programming Experts
- Forensic Accounts
- The Parties Submissions
- Principles Applicable to Issues of Construction
- The Defendant’s Obligations and Responsibilities
- Clause 15
- Clause 9.5 which states
- Clause 14.5 of Schedule 2-6 which states
- The Delay and Notice Provisions
- Clause 7
- Conditions Precedent: Clauses 5 and 6
- Conditions Precedent: the authorities
- Clause 5.6
- Clause 6
- Clause 8
- Limitations of Liability
- A single or multiple caps?
- The Delay Damages cap under Clause 52.2.5
- Is TCS’s claim for loss of anticipated costs savings excluded by Clause 52?
- Compliance with Clause 5.3, Agreement and Estoppel Introduction
- Express Agreement
- Estoppel
- Introduction
- R1 B&B Delays
- Mr Britton’s First Analysis
- Mr Britton’s Second Analysis
- Conclusion on Mr Britton’s Analyses
- TCS’s submission based upon Mr Jardine’s analysis
- Responsibilities for Delay on the ‘Infrastructure’ Critical Path
- R1-D
- Compliance with Notice Provisions
- Analysis of Delays
- Up to August 2017
- From August 2017 to 19 September 2018
- Analysis
- Failed to confirm its desired functional scope of R1 Disclosure in relation to the Customer-to-Business portal and Accountable Officer’s Update Service functionality. Such confirmation was a prerequis
- Failed to make available an end-to-end test environment for the Interactive Voice Response system
- Failed to agree upon a data migration approach, without which the Claimant could not complete the build of a data migration environment so that anonymised data could be made available for testing
- Failed to ensure that relevant external stakeholders were available to participate in Final Systems Integration Testing
- Partial Termination
- TCS’s Claims
- Non-Manpower Costs
- Anticipated Cost Savings
- Summary of TCS’s Delay Claim Recovery
- DBS’s Claims
- Delay Payments
- R1-B&B Delay
- Disclosure Scotland Extension Costs – Item 1 of the Updated Schedule of Loss
- Loss of Anticipated Savings – Item 3 of the Updated Schedule of Loss
- R1-D Delay
- R0 Licence Costs – Item 4 of the Updated Schedule of Loss
- R0 Hosting and Infrastructure Costs - Item 5 of the Updated Schedule of Loss
- R0 Technology Refresh – Item 6 of the Updated Schedule of Loss
- R0 N-1 Sustainment Costs – Item 7 of the Updated Schedule of Loss
- R0 Maintenance Costs – Item 8 of the Updated Schedule of Loss
- Savings
- Introduction
- Quality-related Obligations
- Good Industry Practice and Defects
- Digital by Default Standards
- Section 71
- The Basics Portal
- Section 73
- The Barring Portal
- Section 75
- Section 76
- Barring Portal: Loss of productivity - Item 11 of the Updated Schedule of Loss
- LPF Portal
- Siebel Useability Issues
- Redaction
- Document naming, bundle creation and performance
- Adobe Licence (Item 20)
- Document Storage (Item 21)
- Other B1 Barring Quality Issues
- Scan on Demand
- Special Characters
- Letters
- Item 24 : Loss of Efficiency Claims arising out of R1 Barring Quality/Useability Issues
- N-1 Sustainment Costs
- Causation and Loss
- Exit/Service Transfer
- Identification of all services (3.2.2)
- Knowledge Transfer (3.2.6 and 3.2.7)
- Section 95
- Providing all documentation to a replacement contractor (3.2.1 and 3.2.10)
- The identification of all leases, maintenance agreement and support agreements in connection with the provision of the services (3.2.3)
- Providing any other information or assistance reasonably required by a replacement contractor (3.2.14)
- Causation and Loss
- The Security Incidents
- The Charges Variation Dispute Introduction
- Issue 1: How the amount of an ‘over-recovery of the Forecast Revenue’ (Clause 2.8.4) or ‘under-recovery of the Forecast Revenue’ (Clause 2.8.5) is to be measured
- Section 104
- Issue 4: How Clause 2.8.5 of Schedule 2-3 applied to Volume Based Service Charges in Service Year 5
- Issue 2: Whether the Predicted Volumes for Basics in Service Year 4 were 1,000,000 (TCS’s case) or 320,374 (DBS’s case)
- Conclusion on Volume Based Service Charge
- Conclusions