Problems with Direct Debit

nlgbbbblth

Richard Dower wrote: »

also, if you have a sub and main account and your sub hasent got enough money to cover the DD....can they dip into your main account?

Not without your permission.

RangeR

Richard Dower wrote: »

lemme ask you this, if you have a main acc. with all your money...but then setup a separate/sub account and use that for all your DD transactions....would that not be the solution?

only fund the sub account with enough to cover the anticipated amount of your dd's.....?

That's an admin hassle [for the average consumer] that shouldn't be needed. As well as the extra banking charges for having another account.

It also doesn't take away the duty of care that YOUR bank should have with YOUR account that contains YOUR money.

The fact of the matter is that there are NO banking checks and balances to protect the consumer side of Direct Debits. The banks inherently trust the ORIGINATORS [businesses] when they send in Direct Debit payment requests WITHOUT QUESTION.

Richard Dower wrote: »

also, if you have a sub and main account and your sub hasent got enough money to cover the DD....can they dip into your main account?

And that defeats your entire reason for the sub account.

zynaps

RangeR wrote: »

The fact of the matter is that there are NO banking checks and balances to protect the consumer side of Direct Debits. The banks inherently trust the ORIGINATORS [businesses] when they send in Direct Debit payment requests WITHOUT QUESTION.

And yet when you tell the bank to reverse a fraudulent or incorrect direct debit - after your money has been given away without your permission - they ask you questions and force you to wait, as if they automatically trust some random company more than their own fee paying customers.

Amazing!

Richard Dower

DD's have always favoured the originators/business....the very nature of DD is to*ensure* the copany gets paid, and gets paid ontime. Its not about convience for the customer.

I've never trusted DD and for years paid UPC 2 quid extra to avoid DD, a DD manadte means a company can take ANY AMOUNT they want from your account.

I also think they make things dificult so as the customer gives up or they earn interest off your money and hold it as long as they can.

RangeR

eMail to Financial Services Ombudsman wrote:

Greetings,

I sent an email to your enquiries address a few days ago. I forgot I also had an email from xxxx xxxx to which I could have replied. I also had discussions with The Central Bank in relation to this and they suggested that I continue talking with yourselves. They also gave me your enquiries email address.

Today, I received an envelope containing a blank FSO complaint form and an information leaflet. There was no cover letter explaining why I received this. I'm unsure if this was sent by the lady in the Central Bank or by yourselves.

If it was yourselves, I already filled one of these out [Ref 69845], At that time, it was requested that I request a Final Response letter from BOI. I've done this with little movement on their part.

Do I really need to fill out another complaint form to progress my original complaint?

:mad:

RangeR

Richard Dower wrote: »

DD's have always favoured the originators/business....the very nature of DD is to*ensure* the copany gets paid, and gets paid ontime. Its not about convience for the customer.

This is something that few of us are aware of. The Direct Debit Scheme is actively advertised to the consumer as

• A simple means of paying regular bills without the risk of late or missed payment
• Some originators may allow you to pick a payment date that suits you
• Originators must give advance notice of the date and the amount of each direct debit. The advance notice period is generally fourteen days, or in some cases seven days or less if agreed by all parties, before the direct debit is applied
• Once advance notice is received the originator will collect the funds directly from your bank account on the due date
• Direct debits are easily identifiable on bank statements
• Some billers offer incentives to pay by direct debit
  • If you authorise payment by direct debit, then
  • Your direct debit originator will notify you in advance of the amounts to be debited to your account
  • Your bank will accept and pay such debits, provided that your account has sufficient available funds
• If it is established that an unauthorised direct debit was charged to your account, you are guaranteed an immediate refund by your bank of the amount so charged where you notify your bank without undue delay on becoming aware of the unauthorised direct debit, and in any event no later than 13 months after the date of debiting of such direct debit to your account
• You are entitled to request a refund of any variable direct debit which exceeded the amount which you could reasonably have expected, subject to you so requesting your bank within a period of 8 weeks from the date of debiting such direct debit to your account; your bank is entitled to ask you to provide factual elements relating to your request for a refund
• You can request your bank to refuse a direct debit payment on your account up to close of business the day before the direct debit is due to be paid from your account
• You can cancel the Direct Debit Instruction by writing in good time to your bank

Some of us know, with great experience, is that a lot of this is just blowing smoke up our collective asses.

dub45

Richard Dower wrote: »

DD's have always favoured the originators/business....the very nature of DD is to*ensure* the copany gets paid, and gets paid ontime. Its not about convience for the customer.

I've never trusted DD and for years paid UPC 2 quid extra to avoid DD, a DD manadte means a company can take ANY AMOUNT they want from your account.

I also think they make things dificult so as the customer gives up or they earn interest off your money and hold it as long as they can.

The banks have an obligation to protect our accounts. This has been lost sight of totally by the banks. (Their failure to ensure proper training for staff in relation to what must be one of the most frequent transactions on customer accounts is nothing short of a scandal)

For example as I have pointed out many times on here there is an obligation on the banks to have systems in place to intercept (the word is used in the dd scheme rules) cancelled direct debits. Now when a customer cancels a dd they explicitly withdraw permission from that company to access their account. They also implicitly withdraw permission to use the data necessary to access the account.

Now you would expect that the banks in protecting our accounts would regard any attempt to access our accounts very seriously no?

Well not at all! I consider that any company that submits a cancelled dd should be expelled from the scheme - no excuses. It is attempted theft.

IPSO ignore this behavior even though it is common enough for bank staff to be able to list "Usual suspects". There isn't even a requirement on a paying bank to report this behavior to the sponsoring bank. Not that they are likely to do anything anyways but such a requirement would at least indicate that someone somewhere took this outrageous behavior seriously.
The reality is that companies can do what they like under the scheme - inflict any misery on a customer without fear of any consequences whatsoever.

And finally have a laugh:

The Irish Retail Electronic Payments Clearing Company (IRECC) Ltd. manages a sound and trust worthy Direct Debit Scheme, in association with its members, who are the sponsoring banks in the Scheme. We strive to offer the best possible service in order to deliver a high level of trust and confidence to you, the payer...............................

http://www.ipso.ie/section/DirectDebitComplaintsProcedure

The same banks most of whose staff haven't the faintest notion about how the scheme is supposed to work and who haven't bothered to put in basic protections required in the schemes rules?

"Sound"?
"Trustworthy"?

dub45

Richard Dower wrote: »

lemme ask you this, if you have a main acc. with all your money...but then setup a separate/sub account and use that for all your DD transactions....would that not be the solution?

only fund the sub account with enough to cover the anticipated amount of your dd's.....?

also, if you have a sub and main account and your sub hasent got enough money to cover the DD....can they dip into your main account?

So you set up a second account to protect yourself from a system that is woefully inadequate in the first place?

RangeR

BOI issued their Final Response in the form of a four page written letter. To say it was disingenuous would be putting it mildly. They address each of my eight questions but didn't actually answer them.

Lightly Redacted.
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4

This is their Final Response. There will be no more interaction. I now have 15 days to put together a formal response to the FSO.... AGAIN.....

dub45

That reply is actually offensive not just to yourself but to all users of the dd system - it is completely lacking in substance pure PR blather.:mad:

Incidentally how can any auditor stand over the debacle in relation to the dd + system that is exposed here?

We also see yet another example of an originator failing to comply with dd scheme rules without any fear of any consequences.

'A sound and trustworthy dd scheme' ?

cookie1977

What a load of drivel. Surely there has to be some onus on the bank to validate any DD's. Quoting from IPSO's own page here:
http://www.ipso.ie/section/DirectDebitScheme

Sponsoring Banks Must:

Ensure that Originators are aware of and comply with the Scheme Rules
Ensure that direct debit files are processed in accordance with agreed procedures and time frames
Ensure that Indemnity claims are promptly resolved
Take appropriate action with Originators who are not complying with the Rules

What appropriate action? Sit on their hands and keep their fingers crossed it wont happen again???

Paying Banks Must:

Only pay direct debits in accordance with customers’ Instructions
Ensure that unauthorised and/or cancelled direct debits are intercepted and returned immediately on presentation
Promptly refund customers for indemnity claims and present the Indemnity to the Originator
Assist customers in resolving disputes with Originators
Inform the Sponsoring Bank if an Originator is not adhering to the Scheme Rules

If I've cancelled a DD how can they pay it if I've not given any new instruction?
BOI dont mention in their report back to you that the offending institutions will be reported?

Best Practices for Direct Debits

Write to your Bank if you want to cancel the Instruction

What's the point doing that if any instruction you give can be over-ruled in a second by an offending company?

PS I seem to need permission to read page 4 (perhaps the best bit )

dub45

cookie1977 wrote: »

What a load of drivel. Surely there has to be some onus on the bank to validate any DD's. Quoting from IPSO's own page here:
http://www.ipso.ie/section/DirectDebitScheme



What appropriate action? Sit on their hands and keep their fingers crossed it wont happen again???


If I've cancelled a DD how can they pay it if I've not given any new instruction?
BOI dont mention in their report back to you that the offending institutions will be reported?



What's the point doing that if any instruction you give can be over-ruled in a second by an offending company?

PS I seem to need permission to read page 4 (perhaps the best bit )

The simple fact is that there is no enforcement of dd scheme rules . Who is going to do the enforcing? The sponsoring banks? These banks have a commercial relationship with the businesses concerned - are they going to jeopardise that? Are the banks going to publicly name and shame? Of course not. Is any offending business ever going to be thrown out of the scheme? Of course not. It's a sham.

Many bank employees do not know the rules of the dd scheme.

The much quoted dd guarantee is designed to fool the public. It is unworkable and deceptive.

The central bank are seriously at fault in allowing the dd scheme to be operated in the manner it is.

IPSO are a disgrace.

RangeR

cookie1977 wrote: »

PS I seem to need permission to read page 4 (perhaps the best bit )

Ah, I was wondering who that eMail was from
My bad. I shared Page 4 incorrectly. It should work for you now.

cookie1977 wrote: »

BOI dont mention in their report back to you that the offending institutions will be reported?

You'll note, in page 4 [dammit, my bad again ], that BOI specifically refuse to answer that question.

dub45

RangeR wrote: »

Ah, I was wondering who that eMail was from
My bad. I shared Page 4 incorrectly. It should work for you now.



You'll note, in page 4 [dammit, my bad again ], that BOI specifically refuse to answer that question.

Which of your questions did they actually answer?

Remember they are required to 'respond' nothing requires them to actually answer a customer's question!!

RangeR

Easing my concern in FSO

Hi RangeR,

Thanks for the email.

Case xxxxxx continues as normal and I understand the Bank is finalising its Final Response letter.

Not entirely sure why a new complaint form was issued. I think for now, just focus on the above case and ignore the new complaint form received.

Best wishes,

FSO Rep.

RangeR

And my response. Attached were the 4 pages of non redacted Final Response.

FSO Rep,

Thank you, very much, for your reply. I've never been through this process before so I'm a little off center in what I should be doing and when.

I received a Final Response from the bank yesterday [attached]. To be honest, I'm not happy with their response. I would go so far as to say I'm outraged by it. They give thinly veiled apologies and "address" my issues/questions without actually answering them. Some of their "answers" are downright offensive.

There were serious breaches in the entire process of the Direct Debit Scheme on both occasions. Serious systemic breakdowns within the bank on, what I consider, simple resolvable issues.

The bank has a duty of care to their customers accounts and monies. In their Final Response, BOI almost seem ambivalent to the transgressions on my account, one of which was a fraudulent transaction of nearly €1000 with absolutely NO checks and balances to verify the identity of the criminal. [By the way, it has been agreed by all parties that this was, in fact a criminal act and An Garda are investigating.] I find this reprehensible and disgusting, showing a total lack of responsibility on their part.

Above ALL else, the banks MUST keep the sanctity of the customer account paramount.

In fact, in the Direct Debit Scheme Rules v4.9, page 34, it clearly states that PAYER BANKS have absolute and catagoric responsibilities. Namely

Performs appropriate checks on Direct Debit Plus transactions bearing the Transaction Code 01 and the Direct Debit Plus identifier “OP/”. Such checks should include, inter alia, validation of National Sorting Code, account number and customer name. [Transaction Code 01 means the first payment on a given Direct Debit Mandate].


These checks were not performed. Furthermore, the bank refused this liability in the Final Response letter stating that this was up to the ORIGINATOR. I quote "A[sic] part of the 'Direct Debit Plus' scheme, physical mandates are not required to be completed. There are are obligations on the Originator to carry out customer and account verification exercises, but any such communications are with their customer, and would not involve the Bank....The Bank will subsequently ...on the assumption .. that the necessary verification checks have been properly completed, will make the payment".

ON THE ASSUMPTION?????????

Other than the misleading information, my question to this is, how would the ORIGINATOR be capable of properly verifying the account information without consulting the bank?

There are others obligations that were infracted but they are already listed [explicitly and implicitly] on my original complaint documentation listed on that page and I don't really feel the need to repeat them again.


As you are no doubt aware, there are various aspects to this case. I have informed IPSO and they are investigating under their remit. I have also [mistakenly] informed the Central Bank Consumer Protection Department [thinking they were you / Financial Regulator]. Although they pointed myself in your direction, they also agreed that there was a serious systemic breakdown and they are also investigating BOI.

Now, I understand WHY these things are happening. It's very time and cost consuming to implement the Direct Debit Scheme as it's outlined in great detail in it's rule book, on all sides. Corners are cut, blind eyes are turned.

Just because it's time consuming etc , doesn't make corner cutting right. That's not my problem. That's a problem for IPSO to fix by make the system workable and fit for purpose. I believe they are doing that by implementing SEPA. However, we are still stuck with a broken, not fit for purpose, defective Scheme that works only for non consumers with little or no consumer protection.

Where is the duty of care on behalf of the Bank?
Where are the banking checks and balances that the Scheme mandates MUST be there?
Where is the accountability of the problems that have been encountered?
Where are the infractions for abuse of the system?


I won't take up more of your time. Thank you for investigating this issue and I look forward to hearing from you.

RangeR

Prompt acknowledgement back from FSO Rep. I like prompt.
Also sent a copy of the Formal Response to IPSO for their digestion.

darklighter

Did you think about going public with your issue, maybe the Ray D'Arcy or Joe Duffy shows? While I personally cant stand either man, issues with the banks are generally good for ratings and therefore have a good chance getting aired.

Its all well and good raising it here but to be honest, not going to have any impact. As you have seen, complaints to banks, companies, so-called "regulators" are basically useless. They all exist in the "system" where everybody scratches everyone elses backs. And the guards arent exactly going to fall over themselves to deal with your complaint; in the grand scheme of law enforcement issues, you rank just above jaywalking.

RangeR

darklighter wrote: »

Did you think about going public with your issue, maybe the Ray D'Arcy or Joe Duffy shows? While I personally cant stand either man, issues with the banks are generally good for ratings and therefore have a good chance getting aired.

I thought about, it for approx 10.25 milliseconds. It's not my style. I'm not ruling it out, though.

darklighter wrote: »

Its all well and good raising it here but to be honest, not going to have any impact. As you have seen, complaints to banks, companies, so-called "regulators" are basically useless. They all exist in the "system" where everybody scratches everyone elses backs. And the guards arent exactly going to fall over themselves to deal with your complaint; in the grand scheme of law enforcement issues, you rank just above jaywalking.

Of course it will have impact here. The main reason I'm documenting it here is four fold, mainly.

1. As a way of documenting as accurately as possible [without libelous implications - selectively redacting etc] the journey from infraction to resolution, to complaint, to resolution, to escalation, to resolution etc.

2. To show other readers of boards what to do and how to do it, if they find themselves in a similar situation. You may or may not have noticed, that sometimes when I post, I tend to over describe. I'm doing my best to get as many searchable keywords into the discussion, to assist future victims. Believe me, this Direct Debit Scheme abuse happens on a daily basis as a simple search on boards will show. Very few people will just take their bank's first response without question, leading to [sometimes huge] delays in rectifying the initial problem [returning the source account to the pre debit status]. I hope I've shown, that this first response is ALWAYS wrong and misleading, in my experience and opinion.

3. To see how far I can go, by sticking rigidly to the system, until I get an actual satisfactory resolution, not just bull **** responses OR until I hit an insurmountable wall. I don't believe I'm too close to that wall but it gets closer each time I climb the ladder. That Formal Response was a bull**** response of the highest order. You, Ms J, should be ashamed of yourself.

4. Because I'm a stubborn ****. As I said a month or so ago, I'm now like a dog with a mother ****ing bone, due to the way I've been treated. Companies, Banks, Institutions act with impunity, knowing that there are no repercussions for their actions. That's not the way society is meant to work.


*** The below is not to be taken as fact. It is purely my interpretation, which may be flawed. I'm still in learning phase and may never leave that phase.


We, the people; the citizens of Ireland; are legally and constitutionally protected. We have rights. We have entitlements. I've only recently started studying our Constitution.

Article 45.3.1 wrote:

The State shall endeavour to secure that private enterprise shall be so conducted as to ensure reasonable efficiency in the production and distribution of goods and as to protect the public against unjust exploitation.

Article 45.4.1 wrote:

The State pledges itself to safeguard with especial care the economic interests of the weaker sections of the community, and, where necessary, to contribute to the support of the infirm, the widow, the orphan, and the aged.

RangeR

Originally Posted by RangeR wrote:

Originally Posted by darklighter wrote:

Did you think about going public with your issue, maybe the Ray D'Arcy or Joe Duffy shows? While I personally cant stand either man, issues with the banks are generally good for ratings and therefore have a good chance getting aired.

I thought about, it for approx 10.25 milliseconds. It's not my style. I'm not ruling it out, though.

To clarify, on this one point. About half way through my troubles I decided to follow through as I was going until completion. It was then my intention to compile my results and make them public. Documenting my travels, my ups, my downs, who I talked to and more importantly who didn't talk to me.

Once this is compiled, my intention is to snail mail this to as many journalists and politicians as I can.

I'm also not ruling out the legal system. Depending on how the FSO process goes, I'm not sure what my next steps in the system are. Who's higher than the FSO? Is it the Central Bank proper? Is it the Irish Courts? Is it the European Courts?

Of course, I have not much money. If I was to approach the courts, I'd have to do my best to try people in the legal profession who had the same mindset as myself and would work pro bono. There is no way on this earth that I could afford to take on the banks through the Legal System.

Anyway, I digress. On with the process.

dub45

It really is amazing that none of the so called 'consumer' journalists have interested themselves in the dd issue. Complaints must reach them regularly.

Additionally the dd topic should be of interests to journalists who cover the financial world as it raises a number of questions about the behavour of banks and the central bank in particular their obligation to respect the integrity of customers accounts.

In entering the DD scheme (which remember is run and supposedly guaranteed by the banks) the bill payer opens his or her account up to the company concerned. Now you would think that the operation of such a scheme which has huge potential consequences for the payer would be run with the utmost integrity and safeguards by the banks. What fools we are to ever have had such expectations.

The IPSO website states that representatives of the Central Bank attend their board meetings so how can the Central Bank not be aware of the woeful inadequacies of the DD system?

Basic requirements of paying banks listed in the dd rules are not in place. These are fundamental to the protection of customer accounts. How can the dd system be allowed to function without safeguards being in place which its own rules require?

The DD guarantee which probably lulls lots of people into thinking they have a protection is a deliberate lie - it is unworkable. Who approves this guarantee and allows this to be published to deliberately deceive the public.

The dd guarantee states that a dd instruction can be cancelled at any time - this may be literally true but it doesn't mean that the dd will be cancelled with any degree of certainty. It is in fact impossible to cancel a dd as companes can (and do) submit cancelled dd's. This raises serious questions about the integrity of customers accounts but also the attitude of the banks towards companies they allow into the scheme. Any such submission of a cancelled dd is attempted theft. The banks do nothing about companies who behave this way.

As we have seen in RangeR's documentation banks pay out under the dd+ system in spite of the fact that they hold no authority to do so and assume that the originator or sponsoring bank have carried out appropriate checks to do so. It is very difficult to understand how any auditor can sign off on such a procedure.

Surely there should be some person in each originator (billing company) who has to sign off that all the dd's being submitted meet the requirements of the scheme and that appropriate notice has been given to the customers concerned so that there is individual responsibility documented?

As we know the lack of training amongst bank staff in such an important area is a scandal. This has been going on for years and nothing is done about it. IPSO are aware of this. Why is it allowed to continue? Customers are regularly given wrong informaton by staff in respect of the dd scheme. Why is there no written guide in place for customers? When when a customers takes out a dd are they not given a leaflet detailing their rights under the dd scheme etc etc.

There is no monitoring of the behavour of companies as they operate the scheme. How can there be? Any bank can be a sponsoring bank and presumably there is no limit to the amounts of companies a bank can sponsor. Who in a small branch can be responsible for the behaviour of the companies particularly when the bank employees dont even know the rules anyway.

Again no accountability anywhere in the scheme.

The dd scheme offers many benefits and savings for companies the least they can do is comply with the rules. But that is not enough for companies they then lob fees onto customers apparently without any restraint.

IPSO disgracefully do not require companies to advise customers upfront of any fees which might result from missing a dd. This means that the customer is the only one who is ever "punished" under the dd scheme. For example missing a dd payment to a company like UPC can cost you around 25 euros yet companies who flagrantly abuse the rules (for example upwards of 800 euros goes out of RangeR's account and apparently no one is called to account for it).

RangeR

Received two FSO replies yesterday.

Reply 1 : Requesting non obligatory and non binding mediation. Non binding unless it's successfully completed but can be abandoned at any time.
Page 1 - Redacted
Page 2
Page 3

Reply 2.
Page 1 - Redacted
Page 2 - Redacted


This thread is now 11+ months in existence without resolution.

cookie1977

RangeR wrote: »

Received two FSO replies yesterday.

Reply 1 : Requesting non obligatory and non binding mediation. Non binding unless it's successfully completed but can be abandoned at any time.
Page 1 - Redacted
Page 2
Page 3

Reply 2.
Page 1 - Redacted
Page 2 - Redacted


This thread is now 11+ months in existence without resolution.

So did you/can you reply such that you can partake in the mediation?

RangeR

cookie1977 wrote: »

So did you/can you reply such that you can partake in the mediation?

You're keen, aren't ye?
I don't mind saying, I don't hold much hope in the mediation. I don't think it will give me the result I want from the bank or from the Scheme.

eMail to the FSO wrote:

On 10 January 2013 13:58, RangeR <ranger@ranger.ranger> wrote:
FSO Rep,

I understand your workload is under pressure. I don't mind delays. I hope you had a good rest over the Christmas Holidays

I received two replies from yourself in the post yesterday.


1. Mediation
I have no problem discussing the commencement of Mediation. I will approach it with an open mind but have my doubts that this will be reciprocated by the Bank. I have a concern that it will impact on my employer in terms of lost hours.

I have no further factual information or documentation to submit other than I have requested, under the Data Protection Acts 1988 and 2003, call recordings of all calls made in relation to these complaints. I was told that I could have transcripts but not the actual recordings. I have received neither. This request was made in the very early days of the complaint process. I would guess sometime between February through May. All calls I made were from my mobile 086 1234567.



2. Business part of the complaint
I understand this request and will submit a new complaint, including business details. The bank account is under the company name to which I am a director and one of the two signatories. The company is ***** ***** [CRO 000000]. I will get this complaint into you, with the documentation you require, sometime next week.




Best regards


RangeR
--

cookie1977

RangeR wrote: »

You're keen, aren't ye?
I don't mind saying, I don't hold much hope in the mediation. I don't think it will give me the result I want from the bank or from the Scheme.

God they dont make it easy for the little guy do they? Maybe after all this someone in some organisation will have a long hard think about DD's

RangeR

cookie1977 wrote: »

some organisation will have a long hard think about DD's

I guarantee you. That won't happen. It's what I want too, but there is no will to do the Scheme right.

eMail ack from FSO Rep received.

Nermal

There's no will to do the scheme 'right' because SEPA replaces it from 1st February 2014.

RangeR

Nermal wrote: »

There's no will to do the scheme 'right' because SEPA replaces it from 1st February 2014.

Not at all. Although SEPA is coming in, the current Scheme has been running for over 40 [I believe I picked up somewhere? dub45 have you the year of inception?] years almost unchanged [for the consumer].

There REALLY has NEVER been a will to change it to protect the consumer other than soundbites...

RangeR

cookie1977 wrote: »

God they dont make it easy for the little guy do they? Maybe after all this someone in some organisation will have a long hard think about DD's

Actually, maybe my new role in the Constitutional Convention may open some [back] doors for me. I'm not good at networking but who knows what hob nobbing I'll be doing over the next year. Twist a few political ears etc.

RangeR

It's been three months. I really have a pain in my meat and two veg on this. Financial Regulator sent me a snail mail last week saying that if they don't hear from me within 14 days, they will assume the case to be closed. Fair enough, I dragged my heels in getting my business details back to them.

Filled out the paperwork last night. Got Sorcha to co-sign and posted it off this morning. Sent them an email telling them that they could expect the envelope tomorrow or Thursday. FSO Rep confirmed email.


I'm very tired. But my PM buddy kept me going