In message 485c393a@qaanaaq, at 00:11:54 on Sat, 21 Jun 2008, Andy
Hall remarked:
On 2008-06-20 22:56:21 +0100, Roland Perry said:
But we are dealing with a clueless organisation, or they wouldn't
have lost the money (misallocated it) in the first place.

Of course.

They have no incentive to try to work it pout unless you can bash
them over the head with something concrete like a cheque stub or bank
statement.

A cheque stub has zero value. I can write a cheque and it's stub (I
can just about remember how) and drop the cheque in the shredder. It
is not a proof of payment or of allocation of funds.

Although people do seem to believe that a cheque stub in an apparently
consistent sequence does shift the burden of proof back onto them

I am certainly not going to provide a copy of bank statements to local
authority bureaucrats. It isn't their business how I spend my money.

Wrong bee in your bonnet. You show them (not give them) an extract that
demonstrates when the cheque cleared. That means the burden of proof is
back in their court, and that the cheque did exist, and was not lost in
transit.

As far as I'm concerned, they can do what they like and can make
representations for the money. Should they wish to do that through
the courts they can do so.
That'll take a lot of your precious time.

Not really. I would simply pickup the phone, call my bank manager
and ask him to write a letter confirming payments made to the local
authority for the time in question.

You still have a bank manger. I'm truly impressed. A letter like that
might impress the court, or they might just dismiss it as hearsay.

The exposure of local government incompetence is a worthwhile
contribution to the community.

I can agree 100% with that.
--
Roland Perry