Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/03/01

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] 1.25 magnifier shipping problem with Slobodan Dimitrov
From: hankpix at juno.com (hankpix@juno.com)
Date: Thu Mar 1 05:11:00 2007

Hello Everyone,
   I didn't intend to cite a name  regarding this problem, but now that 
Slobodan Dimitrov has responded publicly, here are the facts. 
    (1)  Although delivery of the packet to the post office on 14th Street 
here in NYC was confirmed, that doesn't mean that it was delivered to the 
addressee. 
     (2) The postal authorities here in NYC confirmed that the package was 
lost and disciplined the mail carrier. They confirmed this by tracing the 
insured packet number.
     (3) Although I did omit my apartment number from my address, the postal 
authorities stated that doing so was of no consequence. The packet should 
have been returned to the addressee.
      (3)Because the packet was shipped via insured mail, it required a 
signature. The fact that no one signed for the packet proved to the post 
office that it wasn't delivered. This information is crucial when making a 
claim, which can only be done by the sender.
       (4) Initially, Slobodan did not call the number of the supervisor at 
the post office I sent him to verify those facts. His response to me was, 
"The ball is in your court." and that he was sorry I lost the 1.25 
magnifier. 
        (5)  After  I pressed him repeatedly and posted my problem on LUG, 
Slobodan responded by stating that he would call the number I had given him, 
that he would have to wait 21 days to file a claim (long gone), and that I 
should be patient. I haven't heard from him since.
       The point of this sad tale is that  if you're going to ship items via 
USPS, you need to understand the procedures. What's more, when a recipient 
claims not to have received an insured package, and when the post office 
confirms that fact, the sender has no reason to disbelieve the addressee.  
That's only good business practice. Finally, it's never a good idea to 
respond to important messages with such curt statements as "The ball is in 
your court."
        At this point I despair of getting the $175 I paid Slobodan back.  
But if by some miracle I do, I'll be sure to inform the group.
Regards,
Hank  

Replies: Reply from telyt at earthlink.net (Doug Herr) ([Leica] 1.25 magnifier shipping problem with Slobodan Dimitrov)
Reply from s.dimitrov at charter.net (Slobodan Dimitrov) ([Leica] 1.25 magnifier shipping problem with Slobodan Dimitrov)