Some advice please

[kaybe]

I've just received a response from one of my banks which has several errors in it.
I will be continuing with the process but I would appreciate any comments.
I do not wish to name the bank yet as I am sure they monitor this board but I will post my correspondence when I have completed the process.

The letter is a standard response I have seen posted here previously but with some differences.
1. The letter is addressed to me personally, not to Mrs/Mr etc
2. The address is spelled wrong but it still reached me
3. It says I am a resident of England and Wales, which I am not
4. It says I entered into an agreement in 2003 and it became a properly executed agreement in 2009 - what happened between 2003 and 2009? If it only became an executed agreement after 6 years, should I ask for a refund of payments for these 6 years as I appear to have been paying on an agreement which had not been executed?

Any advice would be welcome, and thanks in advance.

[ceylon]

if they did not reply Bill-Bob: Brown its not the real you
post office must be really good
2003 was not a correctly issued agreement so they are trying to trick you into thinking it is by saying 2009 most agreements before 2007 were not legal

[kaybe]

Thanks Ceylon.
I think most people now know about the prescribed terms, etc pre 2007.
It just seems like a really stupid thing to write as I know I didn't sign anything with them in 2009.
Do they honestly think anyone will just agree and say "ok, that's all right then?"
It also came from their complaints department which, I guess is chargeable as my letter clearly states that it is not to be treated as such.
Anyway, on with the process, and thanks again.