Long Gone
nospamforadam.net> wrote:>"Adam H. Kerman"
chinet.com> wrote:>>The rent on one of my post office boxes expired at the end of March. It
>>was a very busy time for me. I wasn't checking the mail and didn't send
>>in the check. I asked the other person who accepts mail for the
>>organization to pay the fee. He used the envelope provided but the
>>payment didn't get posted till the middle of the following month,
>>although I don't think he really mailed it that late.
>Box should be blocked on April 1 and closed on April 11 if payment not
>received.
I've never had my boxes closed for renewing late. If your office does
that, that's a little harsh. They've plugged the lock to remind me to
pay but still place mail in the box.
>>This had been No Big Deal in the past; I admit to paying late before.
>>The locks were supposed to be changed if the fee is more than 10 days
>>late and the box closed. But changing locks was a low priority and
>>typically the box wouldn't be closed all that promptly, assuming the
>>customer would renew.
>I suspect that is the typical of many offices. I don't agree with the "NBD"
>but once the box is closed there is no major rush to change locks as long as
>other boxes are available for rent.
>>It seems with the new, much higher lock change fee, the post office is
>>treating it as a profit center, like bank fees, so those locks get
>>yanked on a priority basis.
>I think it more a case of post office box information be maintained in a
>computer program. The program is unforgiving and requires lock changes and
>the like to take place.
You're saying this isn't by design? Somebody at Elephant Center's bonus
relies on these lock change fees being collected.
>It is not a "profit center" but it is revenue protection that was
>frequently overlooked in the manual system.
I really don't recall a lock change fee before a year ago. What was it?
>>So, when I finally went to get the mail, the lock had been changed. That
>>supervisor who frequently hassles me was gleeful. I didn't have time to
>>stand in line that day. I did reach clerk who deals with the box fees
>>who promised to expedite matters for me by handling it at the mail
>>pickup window rather than one of the general retail windows. I begged
>>her to put the old lock back on and let me pay the lock change fee by
>>mail but she said they no longer keep an inventory of locks and that the
>>old lock had been disposed of.
>I doubt the lock was disposed of in that sense. More likely it was simply
>put in with other available locks.
I am relaying a conversation. Why do you doubt me? She told me that they
used to keep the locks, but now they are disposing of them. This is the
original lock. I vaguely recall using the combination lock 25 years ago,
perhaps for just the first year or two. She said they order new locks
from Topeka.
>I don't know of any office that maintains "inventory" to the extent of
>knowing where a given lock is at any given time (other than for those
>installed on the boxes).
Then what, pray tell, was the purpose of the key deposit, if it's
impossible to reuinte the returned key with its yanked lock?
>>Yesterday, I finally made the time and met the other person at the post
>>office since I had to retrieve his key and get him the new one.
>>Unfortunately the box clerk wasn't on duty so we stood in the general
>>line, which actually moved right along. The clerk insisted that I had to
>>fill out a new application. (Why can't the old application simply be
>>updated?) I brought a letter on stationery as the box clerk instructed.
>>But my identification was insufficient. She refused to accept my state
>>ID and driver's license. None of the other ID I had on me was acceptable.
>>In the past, state ID and driver's license were sufficient. The other
>>person didn't have two forms of ID either. She called a supervisor over
>>who wasn't helpful, insisting that she could lose who job if she accepted
>>my ID.
>Don't know how all offices do it but some take the original application and
>attach it to the paperwork for the closed box. So in that sense, even
>though you are getting the same box back it is still a "new" application.
>Not sure what the stationary is all about unless the box belongs to a
>business or organization and they were trying to establish a connection.
For some reason, this office insists on a letter on company letterhead
for lock boxes opened by firms. It's not a standard I'm familiar with.
>Pray tell what form of identication did they want? What you indicate is
>acceptable identification and among the most widely used. Did they want the
>identification of some other person?
No. He wasn't receiving mail at the box. I was the applicant, so they
wanted mine. She handed me a photocopied paper that didn't say what
document it was from, but it appears to be DMM
508.4.3.2a.
At the time of application, applicants must present two items
of valid identification; one item must contain a photograph of
the applicant. Social Security cards or credit cards and birth
certificates are unacceptable as identification. The following
are acceptable identification:
1. Valid driver's license or state non-driver's identification
card.
2. Armed forces, government, university, or recognized corporate
identification card.
3. Passport, alien registration card, or certificate of
naturalization.
4. Current lease, mortgage, or deed of trust.
5. Voter or vehicle registration card.
6. Home or vehicle insurance policy.
She claimed she couldn't accept both the state ID and driver's license
as the numbers on the two IDs were very similar (it's true that a few
of the digits are rearranged).
>>I gave my friend my key and asked him to try again today. My friend
>>returned to the post office himself. Again the box clerk wasn't in
>>(attending a class) but he was helped by another window clerk. She agreed
>>that the rent had been renewed and that we needed new keys. She accepted
>>the three keys for the yanked lock, took his money for the lock change
>>fee and deposit for two new keys (we really never needed three keys)
>>and, in a seperate transaction, refunded the key deposit for two of
>>the three keys for the old lock. She didn't demand a new application
>>and didn't demand identification.
>They owe you a dollar. You are entitled to a refund of all keys returned.
There was much disagreement about whether the deposit for the third key
was refundable. Only the box clerk said yes; the others said no.
I think you are correct but I'll never see that buck again.
DMM
508.4.8.2 discusses a nonrefundable key fee seperate from the
refundable deposit, referring to 4.3b. This section doesn't exist. The
fee chart at 4.1 states
Key duplication or replacement (after first 2 keys), each $6.00
if that's the proper reference, but I'm not sure.
>>He's bringing me a huge pile of mail to sort through. Aargh.
>That is the amazing part of your story. You said the box was closed,
I never said the box was closed. The rent was due by March 31. The other
person who accepts mail retrieved the payment envelope from the box in
early April, which means that not only wasn't the box closed, the lock
wasn't even plugged.
>lock changed and you were in the middle of the month before taking action.
This part of the story I'm not certain of. He says he mailed in the
check the day he retrieved the payment envelope from the box; I don't
think it was too many days into April. His check wasn't posted till the
16th. The receipt says we paid for a 12 month period 3/31/2008 -
3/30/2009, sheesh.
>When the box was closed all of your mail should have been returned
>to sender as "Box Closed - No Order" so very interesting that it
>accumulated for you.
They did process the renewal fee, which is why they were letting the
mail accumulate. The mail was being held hostage till we paid the lock
change fee.
