How about claiming expenses for (a) stress, (b) labour costs for writing plus postage and also asking for the 'proof' that they had, so that the little toerag that inputted your number wrongly can be brought to book.
9.6 The scope of the duty of disclosure in summary prosecutions has been defined by the Supreme Court in Director of Public Prosecutions v. Gary Doyle [1994] 2 IR 286. In the light of that judgment the following principles should be observed by the prosecution:
there is no general duty on the prosecution in a summary case to furnish in advance the statements of intended witnesses whether or not there is a request for them from the defence. However, if there is some reason arising from the particular circumstances of a case why advance disclosure of the details of the case, whether by furnishing statements or otherwise, is necessary in the interest of justice, this should be done whether or not there is a request;
the test to be applied by a court on an application by the defence to be furnished pre-trial with the statements on which the prosecution case will proceed is whether "in the interests of justice on the facts of the particular case" this should be done (Gary Doyle's case, at p.301). The requirements of justice must be considered in relation to the seriousness of the charge and the consequences for the accused. Very minor cases may not require that statements be furnished. Complexity of the case is also a factor. Amongst the matters which the Supreme Court in Gary Doyle identified as possibly relevant to the court's decision were:
"(a) the seriousness of the charge; (b) the importance of the statements or documents; (c) the fact that the accused has already been adequately informed of the nature and substance of the accusation; (d) the likelihood that there is no risk of injustice in failing to furnish the statements or documents in issue to the accused."
(Gary Doyle's case, at p.302);
in making a decision whether to furnish statements the prosecutor should have regard to the principles set out in Gary Doyle's case and referred to above;
a request for statements made by the defence should be considered in the context of the witnesses whom it is proposed to call at the trial and whether the Gary Doyle principles require disclosure. It is primarily a matter for the defence, when requesting statements in summary cases, to advance the reason or reasons why the accused considers that statements should be furnished. If the defence does not advance any adequate reason for disclosure, and the case does not appear to be one where the Gary Doyle principles require disclosure, then they need not be furnished without an order of the court;
statements or information not intended to be tendered at a summary trial should be furnished to the defence where it is necessary in the interest of justice. This should be done with or without a request. This includes statements or information which, even if the prosecutor does not regard them as reliable, might reasonably be regarded as of assistance to the defence;
while the Gary Doyle case arose from indictable offences which were being dealt with summarily, the principles set out in that case are applicable to all offences being tried summarily.
I got a similar letter from Galway /lived in Dublin at the time and last time I'd been to Galway was seven years ago/ - called them, asked what it means and was told that it was a typo because the car in question was some 97 nissan primera /which i don't have/ and told to forget about it