[Leica] 1.25 magnifier shipping problem with Slobodan Dimitrov

[jshul at comcast.net (Jim Shulman)]

I've purchased items from Slobodan in the past, and have been completely
satisfied with the transactions.  I see no reason why this won't be resolved
amicably. 

Best,
Jim Shulman
Bryn Mawr, PA



-----Original Message-----
From: lug-bounces+jshul=comcast.net@leica-users.org
[mailto:lug-bounces+jshul=comcast.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of Slobodan
Dimitrov
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 8:53 AM
To: Leica Users Group
Subject: Re: [Leica] 1.25 magnifier shipping problem with Slobodan Dimitrov

The tempest in a cup saga:

I have no problem this being public. It became public as soon as Mr.  
Kellner's email went out pressing public opinion for the merits of  
his issues.

1) ...?

2) Once the delivery was acknowledged by the NY usps, my unit out  
here didn't want to touch it. So a plan B needed to be worked out.

3) An improper address is always of consequence, and long proven.

4) No I did not call the supervisor, as I needed to know more about  
the procedure for a claim. After nearly a hundred mailings on the  
list, this is the first time this has happened.

5) The packet went out on the the 9th of February. 21 days would it  
March 2nd. But, I have 180 days to make the claim....

6) There is no sad tale, other than an individual driving themselves  
into an emotional frenzy over something easily resolvable.

All the best,

slobodan dimitrov




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