Government officials considered sacking Paula Vennells as the Post Office’s chief executive in 2014 some five years before she resigned, an inquiry has heard.

According to government documents revealed at the long-running inquiry into the Horizon scandal, they had concerns about whether she was the right person to lead the group.

One issue was the perception that she was “unable to work with personalities that provide robust challenge to her”.

Alice Perkins, who chaired the Post Office at the time and faced a second day of questioning by lawyers on Thursday, denied that Ms Vennells had surrounded herself with “yes-men and yes-women”.

But she admitted that she herself started to have doubts about Ms Vennells’ ability to lead the Post Office in 2014.

Ms Vennells continued to lead the company until 2019, receiving bonuses and was subsequently awarded a CBE “for services to the Post Office and to charity”.

She handed the CBE back earlier this year before being formally stripped of the honour.

The government documents reveal that officials had a number of concerns about Ms Vennells, including that she had not managed to grow Post Office revenue in line with a 2010 plan.

In addition, a plan to change how post offices ran had needed “awkward” political revisions to stay on track, they wrote.

“Paula has not shown an understanding of political considerations or of the detail of the plan, and she has been unable to work with personalities that provide robust challenge to her,” the officials added.

Ms Perkins said it was not her view that Ms Vennells was averse to being challenged, but added that there had been “some tension” between Ms Vennells and Susan Barton, who was the Post Office’s strategy director at the time.

Lead counsel for the inquiry, Jason Beer KC, asked whether Ms Vennells “preferred to have yes-men and yes-women around her, surrounding herself with a coterie of trusted lieutenants: [such as executives] Mark Davies, Angela van den Bogerd, [and] Lesley Sewell?”

Ms Perkins replied: “I don’t think that would be a fair characterisation.”