---
id: KB-CC-013
url: https://app.codecontract.io/help/contacts-and-channels/writing-to-a-public-authority
idioma: en
categoria: contactos-canales
audiencia: usuario
nivel: intermedio
actualizado: 2026-08-13
tambienEn: [es]
relacionados: [KB-TZ-012, KB-CC-002]
citadoPor: [KB-LE-015]
---

# Writing to a public authority

_What differs from writing to a company, and what to keep either way._

**Responde a:** communicating with a public authority · electronic registry receipt · submitting documents to an authority · keeping an official acknowledgement

Writing to a public body differs fundamentally from writing to a company: there is usually a mandatory formal channel, and using another does not count. The email you sent the case officer may have served to talk, but not to submit.

## The two channels, and what each is for

| Channel | What it is for | What remains |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Formal (registry, portal, platform) | Submitting, responding, meeting a deadline | A receipt with date and number |
| Informal (email, phone) | Clarifying, asking, speeding things up | Whatever you keep |

> [!IMPORTANT]
> The formal receipt is the important document, more than what was submitted. It is the only thing proving it arrived and when, and it is exactly what belongs in the file next to what you sent.

## What to keep from each procedure

1. **What was submitted, exactly as submitted** — Not the working draft: the exact file that went.
2. **The receipt, with its number and date** — It is what will be asked for if the deadline is disputed.
3. **Their reply, in the same file** — Including requests for further information, which usually run short.
4. **And relevant informal conversations** — A line with the date and what was said; not formal evidence, but it orients.

> [!WARNING]
> The costliest failure is a notification landing in a mailbox nobody watches. Deadlines run regardless, and many are ten days. Notifications should reach somewhere with an owner, not a generic address created years ago.

## When several procedures run at once

**En corto**

- One file per procedure, not a folder with everything from that body.
- With the deadline visible, which is almost always what matters.
- And who answers for it, even when an adviser handles it.

That last point prevents silence: when a third party handles a procedure, both sides easily assume the other is responding.

> [!NOTE]
> If your advisers file on your behalf, ask for the receipt and keep it yourselves. It is not distrust: the deadline is yours, and so is the consequence of not being able to prove it.

**Is email valid for submitting?**

Unless the body expressly accepts it, no.

**What if their system fails?**

Keep dated evidence of the attempt; it is usually provided for.

**Should submissions be sealed?**

The receipt gives the date; sealing the sent file adds proof of content.

## Ejemplos

**A company receives an official request in a generic mailbox and finds out late.**

- Routes notifications to a file with an owner
- Keeps the receipt and reply for each procedure

→ Deadlines stop depending on someone checking a mailbox that belongs to nobody.

**A public body is written to through a channel they do not monitor.**

- Checks the official channel before writing

→ The submission reaches where it is processed.

**There is no record of having filed something.**

- Keeps the filing receipt

→ The filing is demonstrable.

**Filing happens out of time through miscalculation.**

- Records the deadline with its own warning

→ The margin does not depend on remembering.

**A document is missing and it is discovered on filing.**

- Checks what is missing in advance

→ The gap closes with time to spare.

**A reply arrives and nobody attaches it to the file.**

- Files the reply with what was submitted

→ The file explains itself.