🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <753i18F15i77aU1@mid.individual.net>,
 "Simon Finnigan" <simonfinnigan@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Sam Wilson" <Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message 
> news:Sam.Wilson-5731D3.15581020042009@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
> > In article <753d5sF16dqncU1@mid.individual.net>,
> > "Simon Finnigan" <simonfinnigan@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> 
> In which case try justifying it in court.  Bearing in mind that the OP 
> claims this is the third time he has had to contact them - would you be keen 
> to suggest in court that it took 3 x 3 = 9 hours to send three fairly 
> identical replies?  If you disagree with my opinion that is fine, but I 
> really don`t fancy your chances. 

If I were writing three identically worded letters then the second and 
third would take less time.  Collecting information, sifting it to 
decide which was relevant to include, getting the wording right, 
suppressing the desire to write what I really thought, checking the 
information again - all that takes time and if it came to it I'd be 
happy[1] to justify that in court or anywhere else.

Sam

[1] Inasmuch as I'd be happy to be in court at all.