QUOTE (Incandescent @ Sat, 7 Feb 2015 - 11:55)
I don't see how those differences can be explained away as typos. Clearly their admin is a mess and they have committed a procedural impropriety. Does the NoR reference the same PCN number ?
That is the point I have been making. The only specific that could be regarded as vital, ie the PCN number is correct. But even the PCN number is not mandated.
The date and time errors tie up in a fashion with parts of process, like someone looking for the date copied the wrong one down.
While this does show sloppy work and can be used to challenge the accuracy of all, after all, a silly error should have been caught so how many more are there?
But given the correct PCN number and information in the body of the text, I simply do not know if an adjudicator would or indeed should put much weight on it.
While I'm repeating myself, any chance of a copy of what was sent?
I really do feel with the tone of the rejection that it can be shown that they failed to consider. And quite possibly the errors can be used as an example to lend weight.
IE, they obviously dashed of a template letter without answering points made and that fast and hurried that silly errors were allowed to be sent out. Where is the consideration that must be undertaken when they cannot even get the date of the PCN service right?