On August 29, 2008, I forwarded the USPS a recap to a series of horrific and shameful postal deliveries that were highlighted by the destruction of an "Artist's Proof" and additional art items that I had insured while conducting a forced move from Washington State to Texas. I had documented many deliveries in which the USPS had left important packages exposed to the elements and the potential loss by leaving packages outside in view of others.
Upon receipt of a large package containing framed and unframed artworks, I attempted to initiate a claim to find a number of unrealistic demands placed upon me by supposedly knowledgeable postal agents that resulted in the USPS' denying my claim. I lost an investment (Artist Proof entitled: "Bufallo Soldier" by Chuck Carlino), that was destined to appreciate over time; the amount of money for the insurance, and I sustained damages to other Items involved in the shipment. I now submit the following letter in the event that other individuals have found themselves in a similar situation in which they find themselves facing the overwhelming odds of entrusting valuables to an organization that easily dismisses concerns/claims for inept agents and deliveries. It should also be noted that subsequent deliveries through UPS saw a professional agency that embedded care within their markings and deliveries of items that were of critical concern to me.
USPS Parcel Ident Code: VH25117365US
Attention: Autria Finley, Supervisor Claim ID: 961150
Accounting Service Center Date Mailed: June 22, 2007
PO Box 90141
Saint Louis, MO 63180-0141
Ms. Autria Finley:
This letter serves as a recap to my nightmarish experience with the United States Postal Service (USPS) and its claim processing relative to damages to pieces of art that I had even insured through the postal service. The letter is the final appeal that I will forward to the USPS, asking that this organization does the harder right of processing my claims for damages sustained as a result of the poor handling of the items while under the care of the USPS and its agents. In light of the fact that I had received notification that the USPS final approving authority has made its decision, I realize that my pursuit of this issue will constitute an exception to your existing policy. I also acknowledge that there were several extenuating circumstances which would justify the USPS taking time to carefully review all materials relative to this claim submission. I am utilizing this recap process to identify viable concerns that I see as systemic.
Initial Complaint
I initially sent the package from Washington state to San Antonio, Texas on June 22, 2007 and through one of your sub-contractors. I had earlier packaged the items in a larger box and was informed that I would be assessed with an excessive charge for the package being oversized. I repackaged the items to fall within acceptable postage rates and turned the package over The package was sent along with several other packages that arrived at various times and in various states of disorder. Concerns were raised, as the majority of the packages were left outside/exposed upon delivery. I documented each of the deliveries and provided a copy on cd to the USPS as part of the initial claim. The USPS initially would not receive the cd until I informed the clerk that it was highlighted in the claim. To date, I doubt that the USPS had even taken the time to view all of the problems associated with the many poor deliveries of USPS agents. I encourage the USPS to review the copy of the cd submitted with the initial claim and would be more than happy to make an additional one, if needed.
Claim Submission
The claim was initially submitted within one week of delivery to the J. Frank Dolby Post Office; however, the clerk on duty would not receive the claim due to the fact that I did not have receipts for the purchase of the items nor did I have the actual receipt for insurance issued by the USPS. I then sought out pricing from the Chuck Carlino, Artist of Buffalo Soldier, who indicated that it was not possible to obtain an additional numbered Artist Proof (13/186). This investment is an irreplaceable and total lost. The glass to the frame of this artwork was totally shattered and resulted in collateral damage to other framed works and tears to several prints. The postal clerk also stated that I had 180 days to submit the claim. During the time between this contact and submitting the claim on 12/22/07, I searched for and found the original receipt and attempted to submit the claim with all of the contents and packing materials available. The claims department informed me that the clerks should have initiated the claim without receipts that the clerks said were mandatory for the claim. Had I known of this fact from the outset, the claim would have been submitted within the 60 day period for damaged items. Once again, I trusted your agents to know what they were saying. Yet, just as the clerk #13 would not divulge her name of assist in my processing the claim; just as she indicated that she would not receive the package without the original receipts for purchases; just as the claims department revealed that clerks should receive the items regardless of my having sales receipts, I now find myself placing blind faith in the USPS to do the right thing through taking the high road to compensate my losses for items entrusted to your care. I further saw little need to document the names of each clerk that I had come into contact with. I will not make this mistake a second time. I had to purchase a .42 stamp to even get the name of the adversarial clerk #13 at J. Frank Dolby. I recently received a final decision letter from the USPS indicating that I submitted the claim 197 days after the initial shipment. I question the USPS motives, as the Round Date Stamp of Accepting Office has a date of DEC 26 2007 which is less than the 197 days indicated by the USPS.
Appeal Process
I had submitted my claim and extenuating circumstances with the understanding that it might come back disapproved. The USPS was quick to disallow for the claim, stating that I was out of the required time period for submission. Upon reiterating the circumstances surrounding the claim, I submitted an appeal. This also extended the length of time that I had been without my prized possessions, as each was incorporated in the packing. It should be noted that I followed each step given by the USPS and its agents in an attempt to come to an amicable end to this crisis. I now find it difficult to understand how readily the USPS has discounted the actions that I felt to be reasonable and prudent. It appears that this is yet one additional U.S. Governmental agency that establishes policies to make itself untouchable with respect to accounting for its poor performance. The USPS has not even made an effort to even reimburse me for the cost of insuring the package. Something is inherently wrong with this situation.
Having heard nothing from the USPS for months, I contacted the USPS in June 2008 and was informed that they had sent me a letter denying the appeal on February 14, 2008 for problems with my packing. I questioned the agent as to why there was no follow-up for the four months, as I never received the supposedly sent denial letter? I ask for the USPS to send me a copy of the letter and was told that they could not send it, but I could submit another appeal. On asking about the status of my possessions, the agent notified me that I could report to the Perrin-Beitel Station to retrieve items not involved in the claim; therefore, I reported to the station. The clerk on-site questioned the information that I had received from the Washington, DC USPS officials information that I passed on to the Perrin-Beital Claims office, which had closed while I was waiting in line to get to the mail clerk. The clerk asked if I could return the next day to retrieve a portion of the items minus those that would continue as part of the appeal. I agreed to the request and met a different and highly disagreeable mail clerk upon my return to the station. This clerk questioned many of the items claimed and was determined to disallow my recovering those items that the Washington DC officials had stated I could reclaim while going through the additional appeal process. The nasty and inhospitable attitude of this clerk, coupled with the previous poor deliveries and misinformation of the postal staff placed me in a defensive posture, and I referred the clerk to contact the USPS headquarters for further guidance. She informed me that I would not be able to take the majority of the items and that all items would become the property of the USPS in the event that the appeal was approved. I countered her rationale and informed her that I would not allow the USPS to retain my West Point Diploma; A signed print entitled Duty-Honor-Country by Paul Steucke and several prints, to include two Buffalo Soldier Prints by Don Stivers, as the items were undamaged and of much greater value than the $1, 000.00 in insurance that I could afford at the time of shipment. I explained to the clerk that the frames for the West Point Diploma and Duty-Honor-Country print were damaged during the shipment. I explained to her that the additional prints were in a separate internal package that was not damaged by the glass frame that broke while under the control of the USPS. The clerk presented an incredulous smirk, as she questioned me on my claim for carpet cleaning and necktie cleaning. Once again, I challenged the clerk and explained to her that my mother is on blood thinners that could potentially cost her life if she were to cut herself and that I have a brother with a serious blood condition that would place others at risk should he encounter one of the glass slithers that were seeping through the package. I asked the clerk if she were the approving authority for the claim. Our activity attracted the Perrin-Beitel Station Manager, who asked what was going on in a negative manner. He further stated that if I did not calm down, he would call the police on me. I was a senior instructor for Tactical Verbal Skills in a large Washington state prison; therefore, I know how to utilize rate, tone and volume to diffuse a situation. In this situation I chose to match the manager's and clerks tone and volume to stand my ground. The manager summoned a postal police to the situation which concluded with my leaving with a portion of the items from the claim. I told the postal staff that I would leave the additional items pending an outcome of the appeal. Upon returning from conventions in Las Vegas, I received notice that the appeal was denied by the final appeal authority for taking 197 days to initiate the claim. Solely based on the inaccuracy of this statement, I would solicit the USPS's reconsideration of the appeal and providing me with the monies claimed to correct the situation.
Packing Discrepancies
The USPS earlier indicated that I had incorrectly packaged the fragile items and sent the brochure Preparing Packages for Mailing (Publication 227, February 1999), detailing:
1 Choose the Right Container
2 Cushion the Contents
3 Seal Your Package
4 Mark Your Package
5 Hazardous and Illegal Items
In response to the USPS allegations of my improperly packaging the materials sent, I chose a glass package suitable for shipping the framed items. The package clearly stated the fragility of the items and contained sufficient room for additional cushioning material. The package was well within the required strength explained in USPS publications sent after the fact of the damage.
The USPS suggested that When you package several items together, put cushioning around and between each item. I fail to see where my packaging efforts fell short, in that, cushioning in the form of fiberboard/cardboard inserts, cloth/paper cushioning was incorporated throughout the packaging. The USPS further suggested that the package should be able to withstand normal postal handling. I would question: Whether or not the noticeable puncture holes in the clearly marked Fragile GLASS PAK shipment underwent normal postal handling? I unknowingly sealed and marked the package according to USPS sponsored standards; however, I was still deemed to have packaged the shipment incorrectly.
Additional Costs of Pursuing This Claim
As I consider the potential loss of investments that would only appreciate over time, I am compelled to do the math to ascertain the additional costs associated with this claim and find myself compelled to make the additional investment of :
Gas (4 rd trips) 72.8 x (.22) =15.73
Stamps 8 x (.42) = 3.36
Envelopes 8 x (.07) = .56
Paper 40 x (.040) = 1.60
Ink 40 x (.090) = 3.60
Cell Time 58 x (.25) = 14.50
Typing 8 x (12) = 96.00
Headache = Priceless
Total: $135.35
As a Disabled American Veteran, whose sole income is Social Security Disability, I can ill-afford the investments associated with this claim. Nevertheless, the principal of doing right by others demand my taking steps to guarantee that I have done all that I could to expose inconsistencies. I welcome the opportunity to clarify points raised in this letter.
As I send forth this document, I will also seek to regain control of the remaining items associated with the shipment.
Sincerely,
[Name Removed]
Encl: Compact Disc of Shameful Deliveries
cc: Congressman Lamar Smith
USPS, Perrin Beitel Station Manager
USPS Claims Office, Perrin Beitel Station
Scott Huddleston, San Antonio Express News
Federal Trade Commission
Interested Public
File
I really shoul not be shocked that the USPS, once again, seeks to increase its rates, for as the rates have gone up, the USPS accountablity and level of service has diminished. I would love to be one of the first to go on record to state that I feel the rate increases to be an injustice against those that find themselves at the whim of an organization that appears to set its own rules. I wholeheartedly support the UPS, in that, this private organization took prudent measures to guarantee that items of importance to me, arrived in a secure state. I condemn the USPS arrogant attitude in going well out of its way to attempt to place the conditions surrounding the loss of items entrusted to their care upon the customer. Where is the oversight? Where is the perception of justice in the USPS actions? How many unsuspecting customers have sustained substantial losses under the USPS' statements of "being able to withstand normal postal handling? "
Edward
San Antonio, Texas
U.S.A.
0 comments