🚀 go-pugleaf

Windmill wrote:
> This is the third time, and they send notices which scream in large
> capitals that 'DOING NOTHING COULD MAKE THINGS WORSE'.
>
> Writing to the Financial Services Ombudsman is a waste of time; I'd
> probably just be told that it was a 'commercial decision' as happened
> when Smile played games with my overdraft limit.
>
> If it is happening to me, it will be happening to thousands of others.
>
>
> Text of letter I'm about to send :-
>
>
> Dear Sirs,
>
> My debts have always been a small percentage of my assets.

So what?  Delete it.

> My indebtedness to the RBS was discharged in full in June of 2007, and
> you sent a letter confirming this.

Then say you enclose a copy.  And send your letter recorded delivery.

> Since then, you have on three separate occasions sent Arrears notices,
> despite being repeatedly told that I owe you nothing.

OK.

Stop there.  The rest of your letter is hopeless and should be deleted.

Add in what exactly you want, eg 'This unwarranted harrassment has to cease 
immediately.  Please confirm by return that it will.'


> That you are incompetent has been made only too obvious in the press.
>
> But this could be deliberate dishonesty; if some part of the RBS
> claims that I and many others owe money, the non-existent loans can
> be kept on the bank's books as assets; money the bank expects to
> eventually recoup.
>
> It could even be corruption; bank staff in a tight spot, people with
> access to customer records, could be targeting people over a certain
> age and attempting to get double payments to cover their own misdeeds.
>
> Or they could hope to so damage someone's credit rating (and we're
> told that banks exchange information about their customers) that he
> or she might be forced to sell property at a knock-down price,
> perhaps to an accomplice of those staff members.
>
> If this matter is not immediately cleared up, I intend to bring a
> claim in Small Claims Court.

"Windmill" <spam-no-spam@Onetel.net.uk.invalid> wrote in message 
news:KHvr5H.B5D@Millstream.onetel.net.uk...
>
> This is the third time, and they send notices which scream in large
> capitals that 'DOING NOTHING COULD MAKE THINGS WORSE'.
>
> Writing to the Financial Services Ombudsman is a waste of time; I'd
> probably just be told that it was a 'commercial decision' as happened
> when Smile played games with my overdraft limit.

Complain to the bank, and ask them to escalate the complaint as it has not 
been resolved correctly in the past.  Also explain that you require them to 
escalate the complaint to ensure your involvement of the ombudsman can be 
made in a timely manner.

> If it is happening to me, it will be happening to thousands of others.
>
>
> Text of letter I'm about to send :-
>
>
> Dear Sirs,
>
> My debts have always been a small percentage of my assets.

Not sure why you feel this is relevant (or indeed if this is true - have you 
never had a mortgage for example).

> My indebtedness to the RBS was discharged in full in June of 2007, and
> you sent a letter confirming this.

As someone else has said, include a copy of this letter.

> Since then, you have on three separate occasions sent Arrears notices,
> despite being repeatedly told that I owe you nothing.

Dates of theletters they`ve sent you, amounts they claim you owe them, why 
they claim you owe them money.  All very relevant details.

> That you are incompetent has been made only too obvious in the press.
>
> But this could be deliberate dishonesty; if some part of the RBS claims
> that I and many others owe money, the non-existent loans can be kept on
> the bank's books as assets; money the bank expects to eventually
> recoup.
>
> It could even be corruption; bank staff in a tight spot, people with
> access to customer records, could be targeting people over a certain
> age and attempting to get double payments to cover their own misdeeds.
>
> Or they could hope to so damage someone's credit rating (and we're told
> that banks exchange information about their customers) that he or she
> might be forced to sell property at a knock-down price, perhaps to an
> accomplice of those staff members.

None of this is at all relevant, apart from possibly making you feel a bit 
better about letting off steam to the company.  The person answering the 
letter won`t care about your claims, nor will the company as a whole.  You 
also run the risk of coming across as a paranoid nutter, which will make 
anything else you say a lot less interesting to the bank, and thu less 
likely to be acted on.  Lets be honest, the above does have a hint of 
tin-foil hat about it, and who can respect, or even care about the opinion 
of, someone of that kind?

> If this matter is not immediately cleared up, I intend to bring a claim
> in Small Claims Court.

What will you be claiming for exactly?  Perhaps if you now inform them that 
you will be charging them to deal with any and all future mistakes of this 
kind made by themselves and give a list of REASONABLE charges, you might 
have a chance of getting money from them in the future.  Reasonable is not 
�25 to read a letter, reasonable would be what you normally charge your 
employer for your time. 

Windmill wrote:
> This is the third time, and they send notices which scream in large
> capitals that 'DOING NOTHING COULD MAKE THINGS WORSE'.
> 
You may be interested in this recent case, where British Gas were sued
for harassment:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/4591212/Woman-sues-British-Gas-for-harassment-over-repeated-letters-and-bills.html

"Norman Wells" <no-one@myarl.co.uk> writes:

>> My debts have always been a small percentage of my assets.
>So what?  Delete it.

I grant you that saying so is probably a waste of time, but when the
general attitude seems to be that people with relatively minor debts
must be pursued even by *former* creditors (who themselves are virtually
bankrupt), I wanted to make the point that by reasonable standards I
was quite solvent.

>Stop there.  The rest of your letter is hopeless and should be deleted.
>Add in what exactly you want, eg 'This unwarranted harrassment has to cease 
>immediately.  Please confirm by return that it will.'

Past experience suggests that they may confirm that it will, but not do
so. More likely they'll delay another 3 months and then send another
phony Arrears notice.
Which was why I mentioned Small Claims Court.

-- 
Windmill,                                                Really t m i l l
TiltNot@Nonetel.com                                               @ O n e t e l
                                                                    . c o m

"Simon Finnigan" <simonfinnigan@hotmail.com> writes:

>Complain to the bank, and ask them to escalate the complaint as it has not 
>been resolved correctly in the past.  Also explain that you require them to 
>escalate the complaint to ensure your involvement of the ombudsman can be 
>made in a timely manner.

That is more or less what I plan to do. After I've cooled down a little
and removed from the letter the (at least moderately plausible)
suggestions as to why this is happening, which won't sit well with
people who are glad that their nice employers are still paying them
money.

But the bank's complaints department probably now consists of a spotty
kid with a large waste bin, and the ombudspersons will be (a) deluged and
(b) told that they must support the banks.

>Not sure why you feel this is relevant (or indeed if this is true - have you 
>never had a mortgage for example).

Never in this country until now, and it is small.

>None of this is at all relevant, apart from possibly making you feel a bit 
>better about letting off steam to the company.

I agree; I should remove that part, or at least save it for the
inevitable later.

>[..................................]  Lets be honest, the above does
have a hint of >tin-foil hat about it, and who can respect, or even
care about the opinion >of, someone of that kind?

I'd say that all of my suggested explanations are things which
actually happen, as one can tell by reading the papers.
Which one might be correct, in these 'troubled times' as they call
them, is impossible for me to know.
But I would repeat that if it's happening to me, it will be happening
to many others.

>> If this matter is not immediately cleared up, I intend to bring a claim
>> in Small Claims Court.
>What will you be claiming for exactly?  Perhaps if you now inform them that 
>you will be charging them to deal with any and all future mistakes of this 
>kind made by themselves and give a list of REASONABLE charges, you might 
>have a chance of getting money from them in the future.  Reasonable is not 
>�25 to read a letter, reasonable would be what you normally charge your 
>employer for your time. 

In the past various banks have tried to charge 25.00 and even 50.00 when a
sudden reduction in overdraft limit put me over limit.
And that was some sort of automatic computer response, not involving
bank staffs' time until I asked them to cancel it.
So I'd say that 25.00 would be quite reasonable if as before I had to
phone, find and copy old documentation, write, go to the Post Office to
pay for and send a Recorded Delivery letter, and so forth.
3 hours at minimum wage, perhaps?

But my real point would be to ask the court to order the bank to behave
as they should in such a situation.
Possibly I'm wrong, but I understood that a Small Claims COurt could
make such an order.


-- 
Windmill,                                                Really t m i l l
TiltNot@Nonetel.com                                               @ O n e t e l
                                                                    . c o m

Gareth <me@privacy.net> writes:

>Windmill wrote:
>> This is the third time, and they send notices which scream in large
>> capitals that 'DOING NOTHING COULD MAKE THINGS WORSE'.
>> 
>You may be interested in this recent case, where British Gas were sued
>for harassment:
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/4591212/Woman-sues-British-Gas-for-harassment-over-repeated-letters-and-bills.html

My God, they (British Gas) were trying to argue that because they were
computer-generated she should not have treated the letters as seriously
as if they had come from a person!
If they had called in the bailiffs, computer-generated letters would
have been what they sent.

I hope she doesn't lose (or has nothing to lose).

-- 
Windmill,                                                Really t m i l l
TiltNot@Nonetel.com                                               @ O n e t e l
                                                                    . c o m

"Windmill" <spam-no-spam@Onetel.net.uk.invalid> wrote in message 
news:KI5s4J.9p8@Millstream.onetel.net.uk...
> "Simon Finnigan" <simonfinnigan@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>>Complain to the bank, and ask them to escalate the complaint as it has not
>>been resolved correctly in the past.  Also explain that you require them 
>>to
>>escalate the complaint to ensure your involvement of the ombudsman can be
>>made in a timely manner.
>
> That is more or less what I plan to do. After I've cooled down a little
> and removed from the letter the (at least moderately plausible)
> suggestions as to why this is happening, which won't sit well with
> people who are glad that their nice employers are still paying them
> money.

It`s not just that the people will be grateful to still have  job, as myself 
and others have said a lot of your claims make you look less than entirely 
stable mentally - this then damages the impact of ANYTHING else you have to 
say.  Imagine walking down the street and you see a man wearing a sandwich 
board telling you the world is about to end, that it will be eaten by blue 
cheese monsters.  That person ma well then go on to tell you the truth about 
life, the universe and everything, but are you going to believe him?

> But the bank's complaints department probably now consists of a spotty
> kid with a large waste bin, and the ombudspersons will be (a) deluged and
> (b) told that they must support the banks.
>
>>Not sure why you feel this is relevant (or indeed if this is true - have 
>>you
>>never had a mortgage for example).
>
> Never in this country until now, and it is small.

Being in debt isn`t automatically a bad thing if you are sensible about it. 
Being in debt proves to the banking system that you are able to manage your 
affairs while you keep on paying your dues.  Being in debt to many times 
your income doesn`t automatically make you a bad credit risk, other things 
come into it.

>>None of this is at all relevant, apart from possibly making you feel a bit
>>better about letting off steam to the company.
>
> I agree; I should remove that part, or at least save it for the
> inevitable later.

I really wouldn`t bother with it - you`re wasting your time.  In my 
experience, the best way to get a result from a bank, or any other large 
company, is to escalate the complaint as quickly as possible as highly as 
possible.  Tell them what laws they`re breaking with their actions, tell 
them you intend to involve the ombudsman at the earliest opportunity if they 
don`t resolve the matter, and tell them what you want them to do to make you 
go away.  If you feel that a promise not to continue sending letters is 
enough, then ask for that.  If you feel that �500 would be fair compensation 
for the hastle they`ve caused you, then ask for that.

>>[..................................]  Lets be honest, the above does
> have a hint of >tin-foil hat about it, and who can respect, or even
> care about the opinion >of, someone of that kind?
>
> I'd say that all of my suggested explanations are things which
> actually happen, as one can tell by reading the papers.
> Which one might be correct, in these 'troubled times' as they call
> them, is impossible for me to know.
> But I would repeat that if it's happening to me, it will be happening
> to many others.

You may argue that all you want, but if I got a letter with those claims in, 
my first thought would be tin-foil hat nutter, which then means I care very 
little about anything else you have to say.

>>> If this matter is not immediately cleared up, I intend to bring a claim
>>> in Small Claims Court.
>>What will you be claiming for exactly?  Perhaps if you now inform them 
>>that
>>you will be charging them to deal with any and all future mistakes of this
>>kind made by themselves and give a list of REASONABLE charges, you might
>>have a chance of getting money from them in the future.  Reasonable is not
>>�25 to read a letter, reasonable would be what you normally charge your
>>employer for your time.
>
> In the past various banks have tried to charge 25.00 and even 50.00 when a
> sudden reduction in overdraft limit put me over limit.
> And that was some sort of automatic computer response, not involving
> bank staffs' time until I asked them to cancel it.
> So I'd say that 25.00 would be quite reasonable if as before I had to
> phone, find and copy old documentation, write, go to the Post Office to
> pay for and send a Recorded Delivery letter, and so forth.
> 3 hours at minimum wage, perhaps?

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?

> But my real point would be to ask the court to order the bank to behave
> as they should in such a situation.
> Possibly I'm wrong, but I understood that a Small Claims COurt could
> make such an order.

AIUI they can make them pay you money, but not much else. 

Windmill wrote:
> Gareth <me@privacy.net> writes:
> 
>> Windmill wrote:
>>> This is the third time, and they send notices which scream in large
>>> capitals that 'DOING NOTHING COULD MAKE THINGS WORSE'.
>>>
>> You may be interested in this recent case, where British Gas were sued
>> for harassment:
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/4591212/Woman-sues-British-Gas-for-harassment-over-repeated-letters-and-bills.html
> 
> My God, they (British Gas) were trying to argue that because they were
> computer-generated she should not have treated the letters as seriously
> as if they had come from a person!
> If they had called in the bailiffs, computer-generated letters would
> have been what they sent.
> 
> I hope she doesn't lose (or has nothing to lose).
> 

She did win.  Sorry I meant to post a link to a report containing the
result.  See:

http://www.out-law.com/page-9826

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/26/debt_collection/

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.

Sorry for top posting, the program hasn`t indented your post correctly when 
I clicked reply.

An hour may be reasonable yes, but three hours would be far more than could 
be justified.

<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. 

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.

Sam

"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. 

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.

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.

"Simon Finnigan" <simonfinnigan@hotmail.com> writes:


>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. 

To be more precise, phone bank to try to clear things up.
Wait on hold while bank collects money via the 845 or 870 number.
Get told to write.
Hunt for year-old correspondence.
Copy same.
Boot computer, start to write letter.
Take letter to post office for recorded delivery - 80 mins.
(walk to bus stop : 5 minutes
Wait for bus : 10 mins on average
Travel to main post office : 15 mins (all the small ones seem to be closed)
Walk from bus stop to PO : 5 mins.
Wait in long queue : 10 mins (most small POs are now closed)
Reverse these steps.)

Easily 3 hours for a private individual.

-- 
Windmill,                                                Really t m i l l
TiltNot@Nonetel.com                                               @ O n e t e l
                                                                    . c o m

"Windmill" <spam-no-spam@Onetel.net.uk.invalid> wrote in message 
news:KIGwsH.HJE@Millstream.onetel.net.uk...
> "Simon Finnigan" <simonfinnigan@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>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.
>
> To be more precise, phone bank to try to clear things up.
> Wait on hold while bank collects money via the 845 or 870 number.
> Get told to write.
> Hunt for year-old correspondence.
> Copy same.
> Boot computer, start to write letter.
> Take letter to post office for recorded delivery - 80 mins.
> (walk to bus stop : 5 minutes
> Wait for bus : 10 mins on average
> Travel to main post office : 15 mins (all the small ones seem to be 
> closed)
> Walk from bus stop to PO : 5 mins.
> Wait in long queue : 10 mins (most small POs are now closed)
> Reverse these steps.)

You can knock most of that time off for the vast majority of people in the 
UK, who have cars and would be expected to use them to visit a post office. 

In article <758c7hF16kikrU1@mid.individual.net>,
Simon Finnigan <simonfinnigan@hotmail.com> wrote:

>You can knock most of that time off for the vast majority of people in the 
>UK, who have cars and would be expected to use them to visit a post office. 

I don't see why you should be compensated for the inconvenience it
would cause someone else, rather than for the inconvenience it caused
you.

If the bank only wants to pay the amount of compensation appropriate
to people with cars, then it should only send false arrears claims to
people with cars.

-- Richard
-- 
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.

In article <gsngf5$1atu$2@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>,
   Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> In article <758c7hF16kikrU1@mid.individual.net>,
> Simon Finnigan <simonfinnigan@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >You can knock most of that time off for the vast majority of people in
> >the UK, who have cars and would be expected to use them to visit a post
> >office. 

> I don't see why you should be compensated for the inconvenience it
> would cause someone else, rather than for the inconvenience it caused
> you.


and in any case - getting to the post office by car involves time and
frequently car parking fees.

-- 
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11 

"charles" <charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:5050115395charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk...
> In article <gsngf5$1atu$2@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>,
>   Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> In article <758c7hF16kikrU1@mid.individual.net>,
>> Simon Finnigan <simonfinnigan@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >You can knock most of that time off for the vast majority of people in
>> >the UK, who have cars and would be expected to use them to visit a post
>> >office.
>
>> I don't see why you should be compensated for the inconvenience it
>> would cause someone else, rather than for the inconvenience it caused
>> you.

So why should I be compensated for the fact that it takes you 80 minutes to 
get to a post fofice, rather than the 10 minute round trip, including being 
served, it takes me?

> and in any case - getting to the post office by car involves time and
> frequently car parking fees.

Obviously that depends where you live.  Out of the 5 nearest post office I 
can think of, none of them are more than a 10 minute drive away, and all of 
them have plenty of free parking within a couple of minutes walk. 

Simon Finnigan wrote:

> "charles" <charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:5050115395charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <gsngf5$1atu$2@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>,
>>   Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> In article <758c7hF16kikrU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>> Simon Finnigan <simonfinnigan@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >You can knock most of that time off for the vast majority of people in
>>> >the UK, who have cars and would be expected to use them to visit a post
>>> >office.
>>> 
>>> I don't see why you should be compensated for the inconvenience it
>>> would cause someone else, rather than for the inconvenience it caused
>>> you.
> 
> So why should I be compensated for the fact that it takes you 80 minutes
> to get to a post fofice, rather than the 10 minute round trip, including
> being served, it takes me?

You shouldn't, and nobody has suggested that you should.  That is to say
the compensation should match the actual inconvenience and expenses.

Mind you, this is all a bit of an irrelevance, since most correspondence
of this kind need not involve recorded delivery.  Ordinary post will
suffice, and the receiving party won't know whether you've been to the
PO to get a certificate of posting or not, and so you can save yourself
the trip.  Just walk to your nearest posting box.

Ronald Raygun <no.spam@localhost.localdomain> writes:

>Mind you, this is all a bit of an irrelevance, since most correspondence
>of this kind need not involve recorded delivery.  Ordinary post will
>suffice, and the receiving party won't know whether you've been to the
>PO to get a certificate of posting or not, and so you can save yourself
>the trip.  Just walk to your nearest posting box.

The advice usually given is that one should use Recorded Delivery so
that the recipient can't claim never to have received the letter.
Presumably this advice is given for good reason.
-- 
Windmill,                                                Really t m i l l
TiltNot@Nonetel.com                                               @ O n e t e l
                                                                    . c o m

"Windmill" wrote
> The advice usually given is that one should use Recorded Delivery
> so that the recipient can't claim never to have received the letter...

Why can't they claim that?  It could even be true...

Recorded Delivery, assuming that a signature is obtained, can show
that an *envelope* was received.  It doesn't show that a particular
*letter* was received, or even that a letter was received at all.
The envelope could have contained a blank piece of paper, or even nothing.
:-(

"Tim" <me@home.uk> writes:

>Recorded Delivery, assuming that a signature is obtained, can show
>that an *envelope* was received.  It doesn't show that a particular
>*letter* was received, or even that a letter was received at all.
>The envelope could have contained a blank piece of paper, or even nothing.
>:-(


I suppose that, in civil law, the balance of probabilities would be
taken to be that it did contain a letter.
If it did not in fact do so, the recipient might be expected to complain
to the sender.
Of course the recipient might *claim* to have received a blank sheet of
paper even if he had not.
Which would then put the onus on the sender to get a witness to his
next letter's contents at the time of posting.
-- 
Windmill,                                                Really t m i l l
TiltNot@Nonetel.com                                               @ O n e t e l
                                                                    . c o m

> Recorded Delivery, assuming that a signature is obtained, can show
> that an *envelope* was received.  It doesn't show that a particular
> *letter* was received, or even that a letter was received at all.
> The envelope could have contained a blank piece of paper, or even
> nothing. :-(

I have used "we sent it recorded delivery" as Getting-Results Juju
with the Home Office immigration department.  If it works with them
it'll work with anybody.

==== j a c k  at  c a m p i n . m e . u k  ===  <http://www.campin.me.uk> ====
Jack Campin, 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland == mob 07800 739 557
CD-ROMs and free stuff:  Scottish music, food intolerance, and Mac logic fonts
****** I killfile Google posts - email me if you want to be whitelisted ******

> "Tim" wrote:
>>Recorded Delivery, assuming that a signature is obtained, can show
>>that an *envelope* was received.  It doesn't show that a particular
>>*letter* was received, or even that a letter was received at all.
>>The envelope could have contained a blank piece of paper, or even nothing.
>>:-(
>
"Windmill" wrote
> I suppose that, in civil law, the balance of probabilities
> would be taken to be that it did contain a letter.

Is that really true?
Suppose someone was required to send something to
someone else, but wanted to pretend that they had done
so when actually they hadn't.  All they'd need to do
is send an empty envelope or blank piece of paper...

"Windmill" wrote
> If it did not in fact do so, the recipient might
> be expected to complain to the sender.

If someone just receives an empty envelope in
the post, with no return address on the envelope
itself, then how are they expected to know who
the sender was - in order to complain to them?

"Windmill" wrote
> Of course the recipient might *claim* to have
> received a blank sheet of paper even if he had not.

Of course.  Just as the sender might *claim*
to have sent a letter even if s/he had not!

"Windmill" wrote
> Which would then put the onus on the sender to get a
> witness to his next letter's contents at the time of posting.

But that still wouldn't prove that it was received - eg the
envelope might get ripped while in transit, and some/all
of the contents might fall out and never reach the recipient...

In article <bogus-F37D57.10455818052009@news.albasani.net>, 
bogus@purr.demon.co.uk says...
> > Recorded Delivery, assuming that a signature is obtained, can show
> > that an *envelope* was received.  It doesn't show that a particular
> > *letter* was received, or even that a letter was received at all.
> > The envelope could have contained a blank piece of paper, or even
> > nothing. :-(
> 
> I have used "we sent it recorded delivery" as Getting-Results Juju
> with the Home Office immigration department.  If it works with them
> it'll work with anybody.

The Home Office's Immigration Dept is presumably just incompetent, as 
against actually vindictive.  If, in order to get something from someone 
that absolutely definitely doesn't want to give it to you and will happily 
deceive and dissemble in order to avoid giving it to you, you have to 
deliver to them a particular piece of paper, then you take it yourself and 
place it in their hands, ideally in front of at least one witness.  I've 
done this precisely once[0], myself.  Is there any other way?

0] It didn't work, but for other reasons.
-- 
SAm.