🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Sam.Wilson-5731D3.15581020042009@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>, 
Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk says...
> In article <753d5sF16dqncU1@mid.individual.net>,
>  "Simon Finnigan" <simonfinnigan@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > <s_pickle2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
> > news:d996574a-8bb1-44b7-8bc7-a9281c8892f6@e21g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> > The banks have automated systems and ready-made form letters, he
> > hasn't. He has to sit down, think about what he wants to write and
> > write it rather than just select a form letter and maybe add a
> > paragraph. An hour is quite a reasonable length of time for this in my
> > opinion. 
> 
> > An hour may be reasonable yes, but three hours would be far more than could 
> > be justified.
> 
> I would find it hard to complete a satisfactorily worded letter to suit 
> that kind of circumstance in less than an hour - three hours seems 
> entirely reasonable to me.

Banks regularly send out letters that they don't even mean to send out, 
these days.  I regularly get one regarding the details of my mortgage 
that are no longer even vaguely relevant, but when I phone up to query 
it, I'm told `oh, just ignore it, the computer sends out one of those 
automatically, it wasn't meant for you'.

But, as Mr Wilson says, it you're writing about anything non-trivial to 
a bank, you're spending quite some time on it or getting something 
wrong.  Whether or not the bank subsequently takes any notice of it is 
another matter.  The time I spent most of a day writing a complicated 
letter to RBS, receiving an answer that said `yes, that's OK' and 
subsequently having someone ignore that answer, do the opposite thing, 
and deny that the person who wrote that reply had the authority to do 
so.  So I left.
-- 
SAm.