Dave emailed Mark Hughes on 19 December 2011 informing him of his statutory obligations and had not heard from him since.  So, fed up with the behaviour of these morons, Dave wrote directly to the Director of Children Services asking him to see that the statutory guidelines were followed.  Obviously this letter reached the complaints officer (Mark Hughes) who consequently wrote this email to Dave.

His last sentence is interesting.  He says "I am not aware and have not revived the email of 20 December, which you state in your letter you had sent to me.  I have received all other email so cannot explain why that one was not received. I am not aware and have not revived the email of 20 December, which you state in your letter you had sent to me. I have received all other email so cannot explain why that one was not received."

There is an interesting Freudian typo where he says he has not "revived" the email and he goes on to make one of those bizarre claims that illustrates the person cannot think logically.  He says he has "received all other email".  Is that a Freudian typo too?  I think it is just a missing 's'.  He could not possibly know that he has received all the other emails if he is assuming this one did not arrive.  But there lies another one of those revealing pieces of psychology.  He doesn't declare that Dave is lying but rather alludes to it whilst suggesting that it has possibly gone astray in cyberspace.  If his mind was really thinking of an email that 'got lost' he could not say that he received "all other emails" because his mind would recognise that he got 'some other emails'.  So his mind has not accepted or even formed the idea that emails get lost in cyberspace and the next sentence illustrates that.  My own logical psychological analysis of the statement indicates that he definitely received the email and is lying about it.  I say that because had he not received it it would be too obvious that it were 'lost' but his mind finds it too obvious that someone would lie about it because... precisely because... he would and is doing.

Also, he claims that he received all the emails, and yet he only replied to the first 1 of 5.  That was in spite of the fact that the email of 14 November 2011 specifically required his reply to confirm that the alterations were okay and he was asked to reply as soon as possible.  So his slight pomposity and vague insinuation is entirely unjustified because he has no etiquette to speak of himself.  He's rude and a little uncouth under a veil of social correctness.  Perhaps he thinks morality and respect are simply things to judge others by.