Business Correspondence Critique (Post #3)

The following is a short, edited excerpt from an email reply with regards to an enquiry that I sent to the Land Transport Authority(LTA):

Feedback Reply from LTA‏
From:feedback@lta.gov.sg
To: ***@***.com

Our Ref: LTA/CSV/***

Date : **-***-20**

Tel : 1800 - ***

Fax : 6*** ****

Dear Mr ***

Celica

SS1 Legal Exhaust Systems

FEEDBACK NUMBER: 738808

We refer to your email dated ** *** 20**.

We wish to inform you the following makes of aftermarket exhaust systems have been approved for Toyota Celica. You may wish to contact the respective authorised agents to check for the availability of the approved exhaust systems. Their details are as follow:

1) HKS

Address:

***

2) APEXi

Address:

***

3) SUPERSPRINT

Address:

***

4) REMUS

Address:

***

Please note that every vehicle fitted with an approved after-market exhaust system will be required to produce for an inspection a JASMA certificate at any of the LTA-authorised inspection centres. The certificate for the after-market exhaust system is also required to be presented for verification during the inspection. An application fee of $20 and inspection fee of $30 (both exclusive of GST) will be payable to the inspection centre.

You can submit the documents to the LTA's Vehicle Engineering Division at 10 Sin Ming Drive, Singapore 575701.

We hope the above addresses your query.

Once again, we thank you for your feedback.

Yours sincerely,

(SIGNED IN LOTUS NOTES)

**** *** ***

for DEPUTY DIRECTOR

VEHICLE ENGINEERING DIVISIONLAND TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

===============================================================

Due to the lack of clarification on pg 72, para 2.2.1.3, "The Science of Effective Communication in the Workplace" , on the proper format & layout of how emails should be crafted in a formal note, the analysis of the above email shall be based upon the cross-referencing of benchmarks from other business correspondences.

Overall, the above showed the proficiency expected of an email dispatched on behalf of a government body; standard components in the format such as the date, recipient’s name & address, salutation, subject line, complimentary close and the signature & sender’s names are in place. However, the subject line seemed to follow that of an automated reply template which does not indicate the essence of the email. Also, the inconsistency in terms of punctuation, i.e. the comma following the recipient’s name & the complimentary close, is evident. The layout was aligned to the left, but lacked justification.

With respect to the 7 C's of writing, courtesy was well-adressed: phrases like 'you may wish', 'please note', 'we hope', & 'thank you' were used in the reply. The usage of formal english and absence of awkward grammatical or vocabulary errors ensured correctness was achieved. Despite my editing of specific details, the conciseness of the reply was distinct: the issue and solutions were addressed without beating about the bush. Proper paragraphing, coupled with a systematic solution approach, presented clarity in the reply. A logical linking of ideas demonstrated coherence. However, more conjunctions and transitional phrases could be utilised in the paragraph following the distributors' details to illustrate cohesion. As the authorising body in Singapore for vehicle legislations, LTA cannot quote any other government body in a bid to substantiate the concreteness of its claims; LTA, however, had given exact figures for the processsing fees. The completeness of the reply ensured that i had all the details I required from my enquiry to LTA.