Is high quality English required when responding?

[Fawkes Cat]

Even more ridiculous is the charade of having to write to TIL twice saying the same insincere drivel to get offered a settlement.

Although we're not offering (solicited) advice to TIL.

I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader as to how we might advise them...

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader as to how we might advise them...

Ideally in the manner of the case of Arkell vs. Pressdram

In April of 1971, in an article that lasted a single paragraph, Private Eye magazine alleged that one James Arkell, in his role as Retail Credit Manager of Granada TV Rental Ltd, had for some time been receiving monthly backhanders from a debt collection agency used by his employer. Arkell was less than pleased, and before long a letter arrived at Private Eye’s offices in which his solicitors demanded a retraction and damages for their client. That letter can be read below, as can an uncompromising reply which has since become famous in legal and publishing circles for reasons that will become clear.

[...]

29th April 1971
Dear Sir,
We act for Mr Arkell who is Retail Credit Manager of Granada TV Rental Ltd. His attention has been drawn to an article appearing in the issue of Private Eye dated 9th April 1971 on page 4. The statements made about Mr Arkell are entirely untrue and clearly highly defamatory. We are therefore instructed to require from you immediately your proposals for dealing with the matter.
Mr Arkell’s first concern is that there should be a full retraction at the earliest possible date in Private Eye and he will also want his costs paid. His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply.
Yours,
Goodman Derrick & Co.

---

Dear Sirs,
We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr. J. Arkell.
We note that Mr Arkell’s attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: f*** off.
Yours,
Private Eye

 

[fandroid]

I always think there's a danger of rewriting an OP's draft to the extent that it begins to look like a letter drafted entirely by the experts in this subforum and loses all individual quirkiness, ie looks as if written to a formula. Having said that, I haven't detected any apparent disadvantage in the results after a letter has had the full Rail UK treatment.

I think it's valid to correct spellings such as "fair" to "fare" as these errors are as likely to be generated by "autocarrot" as they are by drafter error. I doubt that any revenue protection staff will be annoyed by good spelling, but some individuals may react negatively to poor spelling.

Correct grammar and decent punctuation help in creating unambiguous meaning in a letter. So it's better to try to achieve that.

To answer the OP's original question. Yes, I think a lesser standard of use of English could result in discrimination in these cases.

 

[pdq]

I do like how the OP has 'illicit' where 'elicit' is meant

Oops. And there was me carefully crafting that post.