🚀 go-pugleaf

"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:
>
>> <s_pickle2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:d996574a-8bb1-44b7-8bc7-a9281c8892f6@e21g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>> On Apr 16, 9:55 am, "Simon Finnigan" <simonfinni...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I doubt you`d be able to really justify 3 hours to reply to a single
>> > letter - you could try, but failing to prove this as an actual cost
>> > wouldn`t
>> > make anyting else you say look good. Don`t forget that those charges 
>> > from
>> > the banks you`re complaining about are now being challenged, and many
>> > banks
>> > have brought them down to a more sensible level themselves - how do you
>> > fancy your chances at proving your letters cost much more than the 
>> > banks
>> > do,
>> > when they have teams of highly paid people to make their point?
>>
>> 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.