Our Response. Symbridge will acknowledge receipt of your Complaint form after you submit it. A Symbridge customer relations agent (“Agent”) will review your Complaint. The Agent will evaluate your Complaint based on the information you have provided and information in the possession of Symbridge. No later than 15 business days of our receipt of your Complaint form, the Agent will address the issues raised in your Complaint form by sending you an e-mail ("Resolution Notice") in which the Agent will: (i) offer to resolve your complaint in the way you requested; (ii) make a determination rejecting your Complaint and set out the reasons for the rejection; or (iii) offer to resolve your Complaint with an alternative solution. In exceptional circumstances, if the Agent is unable to respond to your Complaint within 15 business days for reasons beyond Symbridge’s control, the Agent will send you a communication indicating the reasons for any delay in answering your Complaint, and specifying the deadline by which the Agent will respond to your Complaint, which will be no later than 35 business days from our receipt of your Complaint form.
Our Response. Notwithstanding this unprecedented level of turbulence, we remain steadfastly committed to our mission to deliver opportunity for all. We are proud of our tradition in attracting and retaining students from non-traditional backgrounds and expect the majority of our students to continue to come from widening access priority groups. Our primary objective therefore is to maintain our focus on recruiting and supporting students from a diverse range of backgrounds both to maximise their potential at University and to progress into graduate level employment or further study to enhance their life chances. In order to maximise our resources, we intend to continue to deliver on this objective through the way in which we configure and deliver our mainstream services and support. In order to identify our future priorities, we have undertaken analysis of our past performance and considered both the internally and externally available evidence on the effectiveness of different forms of financial support; we have also considered the external environment within which we are likely to be operating, including the competitive environment and the likely impact on student numbers and on the potential for growth. On the basis of this analysis, we have identified our future strategic priorities and, through our Performance Indicators, those areas where we feel we can make the most significant contribution. As can be seen from the proposed balance of spend, the activities we will undertake and our performance indicators, we will seek to achieve a balance between access, success and progress and will configure our financial support in pursuit of these objectives. In what we anticipate to be challenging circumstances, we remain committed to maintaining our position as a provider of higher education for students from low income families and students from low participation neighbourhoods; we will also maintain our commitment to supporting access to Care Leavers and to disabled students. Given our commitment to supporting access from these groups (and the expectation that the majority of our students will continue to come from widening access priority groups), we will place a greater emphasis on supporting retention, attainment and opportunities for progression into graduate level employment. In deciding how to configure our financial support package, we have considered the evidence of the relative effectiveness of the NSP, as compared to the Access to Learning Fund and our own Hards...
Our Response. After short listing of candidates from the recruitment team and sub-contractor who matches the State ITSSI Response requirement, our SME’s conduct detailed interviews to verify the consultant’s skills and ensure their capability for the position. We usually conduct: Pre-Screening & Interview Criteria
Our Response. At ITSSI, we verify and screen candidates with utmost detail to ensure only highly qualified candidate submission. We verify all levels of education included on an application. We verify three most recent employers or the past five year’s employment. Depending on the client requirement, candidates are subjected to mandatory pre-employment background checks. In addition to this, if the candidate has worked with the same client in the past, as practice we con- duct professional reference check with them to ensure that the candidate performance, professional appearance, working ability and change-readiness is as per the Client expectations. Based on the feedback of this professional reference check, candidature of the successfully shortlisted candidate is processed. Employee Reference Check Form is provided as an appendix 1 on page # 14
Our Response. In common with PwC, we agree that it is not appropriate that the credit support policy should leave Transpower exposed to material costs, primarily because this would not be consistent with an allocative efficiency objective. We also agree that Transpower would potentially be exposed to real costs if the proposed reduction in the rating threshold resulted in Transpower facing a material increase in the probability of experiencing a rating downgrade. However, we explained in both our initial and supplementary reports that we did not consider the proposed reduction in the rating threshold would have this effect, and PwC has not rebutted the specific points made by us in support of this conclusion. In particular: ▪ We noted in our 12 October report that, if we were to take PwC’s illustrative calculations at face value, a reduction in the rating threshold from A- to BB would reduce the amount of debt Transpower was able to carry, while holding the probability of maintaining its current credit rating constant, by approximately $20m, which is around 1.3% of Transpower’s total debt of approximately $1.5b at 30 June 2005. We did not believe this would be considered material by a rating agency or that it would materially affect Transpower’s cost of capital. PwC has not addressed this analysis. ▪ We noted in our initial report that, even if all Transpower’s customers had a BB rating, Transpower’s expected annual losses on default would be less than 0.12% of its revenues – less than $700,000 annually.1 In fact, most of Transpower’s revenue is sourced from customers with actual or implied credit ratings materially in excess of BB. More generally, the crux of PwC’s argument is that our analysis essentially assumes the expected losses to Transpower at different levels of credit support comprise the sole source of potentially material costs. PwC’s point is that a conventional approach to establishing credit policy will consider the distribution of potential losses in addition to the value of expected losses, and that a prudently run business will put in place measures to ensure that an excess of actual over expected losses does not impose unanticipated or unreasonable costs on the business, and that it will incur costs in putting such measures in place. We refer to such costs below as the costs associated with unexpected losses. We agree with PwC’s analysis, so far as it goes. However, we disagree with PwC’s contention that the increment in costs associated with unexpect...
Our Response. We accept PwC’s contention that it is straightforward to implement an approach to both establishing a credit policy and to quantifying the ‘capital at risk’ associated with different credit policies using either Basel II capitalisation ratios or a customised model. Despite PwC’s assertions to the contrary, we did not argue in our 12 October report that such an approach is “unimplementable”. Rather, our comments were simply intended to point out that PwC did not explain how they might go about determining whether their preferred approach to establishing Transpower’s credit support policy was consistent with the Part F principles underpinning the economic analysis in our initial report. As explained above, the only relevant test in our view is whether an increased exposure to credit risk results in Transpower facing material costs. Also as explained above, we believe expected losses at varying levels of credit support comprise the primary source of credit-related costs faced by Transpower, with the funding costs associated with the need to have incrementally larger lines of credit (for example) at lower rating thresholds being essentially immaterial.
Our Response. When the SSA report was originally written (2018), we were not aware of any ongoing conservation actions. Following the completion of the first version of the SSA report, draft conservation plans from the Park and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe became available that discussed future conservation activities. However, we had not yet evaluated these plans under our PECE policy, and the Park had not yet completed its implementation plan. We have since updated our discussion of conservation efforts in the SSA to incorporate relevant ongoing conservation activities and information from the Park’s conservation plan and implementation plan for Xxxxxx Mesa milkvetch at Mesa Verde National Park; these conservation efforts also informed updated analysis on species’ status in this notice, in accordance with the provisions of the PECE policy (Service 2021b, entire).
Our Response. The Tribe has communicated to us that Xxxxxx Mesa milkvetch is present on Tribal land and we know that they have begun to conduct surveys on their Tribal lands; however, no survey data were provided to us for the SSA report or this final determination.
Our Response. This meeting would have happened in a timely fashion, but the customer insisted that the owner, Xxxxx, was available for the meeting with Xxxxx as well. Both were on two different vacations and as you’ll see in the correspondence, constant contact was made between Xxxxx and the customer, to assure her a meeting would happen.
