Pointless really when you can buy refillable cartridges and good quality ink
at a fraction of the cost.
That Epson would still need to be used regularly or the print head would
clog and worse the ink tubes leading to it.
I think ink jet and cheap are two words not often in the same sentence these
days and of course use any make you like but not Epsom. the local tip is
piled high with cheap epson printers and broken lexmark ones.
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
Remember, if you don't like where I post
Not true but admittedly it takes a lot more time and effort then most people are prepared for
I won a bet a few years ago from a friend who had an Epson SX600 left in a loft for 4years unused
its still in use now in our pub and working fine
Our Epson suffered badly from that problem, and I set a weekly reminder on
my phone to print a Windows test page every week to stop the ink drying up.
That was with genuine Epson cartridges. Since I don't need accurate colour
rendition because I don't print photos, I decided to change to cheap clone
ink from one of the online cartridge companies. This ink has been much
better as regards clogging. However on the occasions when I have printed
photos (eg print of a web page or a PDF), the colours have been rather
garish - so the choice is accuracy with a tendency to clog up, or lower
quality but much less clogging.
For B&W (eg letters) a laser is probably a better buy than an inkjet - no
streaky print if it's not been used for a while.
For companies that need an "official", signed document. For companies that
do not provide an electronic means of correspondence or which only provide a
"Contact Us" web form: I find that an email or a written letter is harder to
ignore and more likely to elicit a response than a web form which I suspect
often gets redirected to /dev/null or else to a junior support sprog who
tries to palm you off with platitudes and who utterly fails to address the
points you raise.
This will change over time, though the signed letter for financial
authorisation may take a long time to be dragged into the 21st century. I
have savings with one company who will accept a fax of a signed letter in
lieu of it being sent by post, but will not accept an emailed scan of the
same letter. Work that one out! They are both images of the same written
document, just sent via different technology.
On Tuesday, 19 June 2018 10:58:36 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
Most solicitors requre such things to be physically signed on paper.
For some things such as house deeds signing over ownership they DO NOT acce
pt emails or even fax.
Selfies of you signing it aren't accdepted either you still need a witness
Yes plenty of places can print for you now.
Depending on the contents the written letter might be as it was with the wi
ndrush files and should have been scanned or photographed in some way and s
doesn't mean they do now.
The agent charges for such things or it's included in the costs.
faxes are more difficult to fake, I wouldn't dump them, I'd rather they are
careful than just accepting anyhting as proof.
It's not like emails are dufficult to forge.
Faxes are dead easy to forge if you have the will and the intent. When I had
to fax a letter of authority to cash in some of my savings, I didn't use a
dedicated fax machine because I don't have one and I wasn't going to make a
special journey into town to pay to use the one in library. Instead I used
the fax modem in my laptop and "printed" a scan of the signed letter - I
faxed exactly the same scan that I would have emailed to them if they'd have
accepted emails: identical data sent by a different means.
If I'd had criminal intent I could have pasted a scan of someone else's
signature copied from a scan of another unrelated document - easier and less
obvious if you do it digitally rather than with scissors and glue :-)
I think companies only accept faxed authorisation on the incorrect
assumption that all faxes come from dedicated scan-and-fax devices, without
any intermediate computer process that could manipulate the scan.
The situation is even more absurd nowadays. As long as I email my signed
document to a financial advisor (whom I've never met, only corresponded with
by email) for him to forward to the share-dealing desk, it is accepted. If I
send the same scan directly to the dealing desk, it is not. Given that the
advisor has never met me or witnessed me sign anything, it's placing a
spurious level of trust on the route by which the document has been sent.
Not that I'm complaining. They have my postal address, email address and
bank details on file, and would almost certainly refuse to send money to a
different account unless I sent them a voided cheque as proof of owning the
Having recently moved house, I've had to do a lot of changing of my address
on various companies' databases. Most will accept authorisation over the
phone (if it's membership of a society or subscription to a magazine rather
than anything financial) but some require me to write in. One would only
accept the authorisation if I quoted an ID that they posted to me old
address and which I then received via a Royal Mail redirection.
As with so many things, it's a trade-off between security to the company and
convenience to the punter.
On Tuesday, 19 June 2018 14:05:58 UTC+1, NY wrote:
That's what I thought.
I wouldn;t want to use a company that accepted such things for imporantn purposes, I;d prefer to actually have to post the item or have a signature witnessed.
Yep. so there's only one answer in these cases.
Well I'd assume if you know the fax number and the person you are recieving the fax from and it's something like a solicitors office then that would be be relatively safe as you could get in touch with the origanator of the fax.
But for a number of documents my solicitor emailed me the documents so I could read them and sent the orginals in the post which had to be signed and returned to the office in person. They do NOT accept facsimiles or emails of these.
Maybe they think your financial advisor is a trust worthy source.
That's your problem then or the way you want it done.
I was asked what bank account I wanted money transfered to, I assume they trust the person to give them the correct account details.
Good for them I'd prefer that.
It's a bit like Aples two step authentication then a good idea I'd have thought.
How happy would you be if I emailed your bank telling them that you chnaged bank account details and all you money should now be transfered into my account.
I did relatively recently have one bank, Citicorp, when I had managed
to have my account locked due to their stupidity, demand that I write
them a physical letter before they would unlock the account.
Just a week or so ago another which had also locked my account,
said that if I couldn’t answer the security questions over the phone
call successfully, I would have to go in to the physical branch. But
I did get all but one question right. The one I didn’t was the account
number. That banks has lots of different numbers, different one for
the account itself, for the debit card and also another security number
and it wasn’t at all clear which number they were asking for.
I now have an extra field in my database with the name they use
for a particular number which should fix that problem if they don’t
start calling a particular number by a different name later, which
is always possible.
Yes, but they are the ones who printed what gets signed, not the signer.
So while it certainly makes sense for the solicitor to have a laser printer
that they use to print what gets signed, no need for the signer to have one.
And most of what gets signed on a piece of paper now
needs a proper witness etc, so you can't even claim that
its convenient to have a printer at home so you can print
what arrives electronically and post it back now.
For the very very few items where that is still needed,
it makes more sense to print it down the library etc
instead of having a laser printer at home for the very
very few occasions where you do need to do that now.
Sure, but in that case it’s the solicitor that prints it, not the signer.
So it makes sense for the solicitor to print it, not the signer.
If they do that, they will keep the emails they receive too.
But they don’t even now require a snailmail letter.
Still means that there is no need for the
buyer to print anything, the agent does that.
Or in our case, the solicitor actually shows up at the
auction in person with the printed paperwork which
the buyer signs once they have won at the auction.
That’s what happened with the one I bought and what
happened at the auction I attended last Saturday too.
Bullshit. Particularly when few have a fax anymore so have
to take it to somewhere that still has a fax to send it.
More fool you.
No difficulty forging what gets faxed either.
In fact I did the last one by phone. Got them to setup and automatic
payment in full of the credit card balance every month from another
bank which pays a better interest rate on my substantial cash deposits.
Plenty let you do that with online forms now too.
On Tuesday, 19 June 2018 19:05:24 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
Which is why they send it through the post yes, that way they can charge fo
r it too. Plus if the person signing the paper can print it they could also
No need for a signer to own or have a pen either. There;s no reason for the
signer to wear clothes either but that isnlt the point.
yes I know.
Depending what it is, but most might prefer to print out a legal document t
han read it on their phone. I do and I highlighted any errors, and emailed
the solicitor back expalining the any errors.
So it;s always been that way even with typewriters for some they were
a worthwhile addition to their hone for others they were a waste of space.
Yes so. Even if the solicitor prints it they ahve to send it too, whereas I
can print it and read it before it arrives.
Apple don't send you their T&Cs as a printed document but you have to click
to accept it, I doubt you've read those 20k odd words everytime up update.
Yes and that is what they do, what's your point, if you have one.
Emails didn't exist when the windrush arrived in the UK which arrived at Ti
lbury Docks, Essex, on 22 June 1948.
But they can't seemd to find the scanned versions if they did scan them.
Irrelevent, as the buyer might want to print our things for themseles anywa
Yep, so hopefully the buyer has checked what the solicitors brings to the a
uction. The person buying at auction might want to print out the catalogue
or just the pages they are interested in.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.