27th June 2006, 09:43 AM
Ok, there have been some useful comments with regard to Troll's points and my own. Sorry for the delay in replying
Yes, at least the IFA have actually made a statement and apparently they have done as much as they can with the unit in question sseing as this unit is not an RAO and therefore not directly connected to the IFA.
Well then, what about the IFA dealing the MIFA who is supposed to be in charge of the unit in question, as surely that individual must have known what was going on with the paperwork ? What would be the procedure?
I thank Sparky for defending the point that I had made and also, like hime and Troll too, still remain concerned that the value of being an RAO has possibly been devalued by this unit using the IFA RAO Logo when it was not entitled to do so.
This issue, for me anyway, still requires further investiagtion, as I find it hard to believe that it would be a one off incident.
But hey ....as Mr Hosty says ...Another day etc etc :face-approve:
Yes, at least the IFA have actually made a statement and apparently they have done as much as they can with the unit in question sseing as this unit is not an RAO and therefore not directly connected to the IFA.
Well then, what about the IFA dealing the MIFA who is supposed to be in charge of the unit in question, as surely that individual must have known what was going on with the paperwork ? What would be the procedure?
I thank Sparky for defending the point that I had made and also, like hime and Troll too, still remain concerned that the value of being an RAO has possibly been devalued by this unit using the IFA RAO Logo when it was not entitled to do so.
This issue, for me anyway, still requires further investiagtion, as I find it hard to believe that it would be a one off incident.
But hey ....as Mr Hosty says ...Another day etc etc :face-approve: