[Leica] 1.25 magnifier shipping problem with Slobodan Dimitrov

[telyt at earthlink.net (Doug Herr)]

On Mar 1, 2007, at 1:08 PM, hankpix@juno.com wrote:

> 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

I am confident that Slobodan will make things right.

Doug Herr
Birdman of Sacramento
http://www.wildlightphoto.com