Reply with the following:
Dear Sirs,
....
Dear Sir/Madam,
I acknowledge receipt of your template response which you advise that I send to DCB Legal. However, prior to printing and posting it, I did take the opportunity to read the contents most carefully. One detail did catch my eye, namely the reference to
Arkell v Pressdram, with which I had hitherto been unfamiliar. On researching further, I regret to inform you that the coffee which I had been consuming at that moment was caused to become projected across the computer keyboard at which I was sitting.
Consequently, I shall be pursuing remedy for the loss, not only of the coffee but also of the keyboard, which is no longer functional, and of my dignity, as part of the coffee was ejected through my nose, in full presence of my family, who were caused temporary consternation at my outburst, fearing for my health. My health, I can assure you, remains intact, unlike the other named items.
Yours etc,
Ray, Doh (Mr)
P.S. Slightly more seriously, where did the £70 come from? The uplift appears to be from an original £100 to a figure now of £160. Indeed, the additional £60 was added between I Park's letter of 17th May and their letter of 17th June. Also, I see no reference to VAT beyond their VAT registration number at the bottom of the page, so is that definitely still going to be an effective argument?
