This is how the usps responded to the complaint I mailed the Postmaster General and others, after failure of the internet contact to lead any suitable reaction, regarding taking my brief to be delivered to the Court of Appeals at 10:30 in the night (see USPS took my brief to the court at 10:30 in the night)
How probable is it that someone who him/herself is not only careless about this kind of corruption but part of it would write a response like that or forward to someone to write a response like that?
Look at this part and see if it signify any other conclusion:
So, what are they saying here? That the system data was wrong and shouldn't be trusted? If so then they are merely replacing or justifying one questionable thing with another that itself may need a longer series of explanations.
Again it is very clear that this response was intended to deny and defend rather than seeking the truth. Nevertheless, lets take a detailed look at some of what is there.
First they say that they " cannot state with certainty what actually happened" ,yet they still appear to be able to state confidently that " The subsequent scans" were "system generated entries to account for the non-delivery event".
Also does that happen with all other packages that the system " account for the non-delivery event" in the same manner? Does it also always state the time of the delivery attempt at 10:32 PM? Does it always state that "Business Closed" on it own? Does it always state that " Notice left" without really knowing that and claims to the customers things that could be false? (see USPS delivery attempt to the court after 10:30 PM and Top of above page showing tracking number)
As for the "extremely large volume of mail" to the court, nobody told me that was the last day before the court took a vacation. What? The court did not close for a vacation the next day? Then that "extremely large volume of mail" to the US Court of Appeals is countered by how the USPS is accustomed to the usual business of the court. In addition, assuming that there was unusual volume on that day shouldn't that also increase the chances of more errors happened on that day with other packages? Why just mine? Even if there were more errors and complaints from customers related to delivery in that date how many of those errors was similar to what happened to my package? In fact, I doubt one could find a similar thing in a range of years and for the entire court system of the country not to mention one day and for one court.
They also claim that " the carrier cannot recall". Aside from the fact that it was not a package of the common size because of its containing seven copies of the brief with their covers which probably should make it more noticeable, what does that claim even mean? Even if the carrier doesn't remember what happened to my package specifically how could he fail to remember if he took a package ,any package, to the court at 10:30 in the night or not?
They also said that they apologize if "the information on usps.com was in anyway confusing or misleading" when, in fact, I did not complain about the descriptions of the actions on the tracking website. I complained about the actions themselves. It is they who tried to shift the responsibility of what happened to the system in their letter.
Finally, they wanted to even reach a higher level of shameless pretending in lack of understanding so they made their way in offering refund to me.
" Unfortunately, we cannot state with certainty what actually happened after that time and the carrier cannot recall. For some reason, the delivery action was not scanned. This could have been human error on the part of the carrier, due to the extremely large volume of mail the US Court of Appeals receives. Or, there may have been issues with the barcode that prevented the scan. The subsequent scans were not on the actual mail piece but rather system generated entries to account for the non-delivery event."
So, what are they saying here? That the system data was wrong and shouldn't be trusted? If so then they are merely replacing or justifying one questionable thing with another that itself may need a longer series of explanations.
First they say that they " cannot state with certainty what actually happened" ,yet they still appear to be able to state confidently that " The subsequent scans" were "system generated entries to account for the non-delivery event".
Also does that happen with all other packages that the system " account for the non-delivery event" in the same manner? Does it also always state the time of the delivery attempt at 10:32 PM? Does it always state that "Business Closed" on it own? Does it always state that " Notice left" without really knowing that and claims to the customers things that could be false? (see USPS delivery attempt to the court after 10:30 PM and Top of above page showing tracking number)
As for the "extremely large volume of mail" to the court, nobody told me that was the last day before the court took a vacation. What? The court did not close for a vacation the next day? Then that "extremely large volume of mail" to the US Court of Appeals is countered by how the USPS is accustomed to the usual business of the court. In addition, assuming that there was unusual volume on that day shouldn't that also increase the chances of more errors happened on that day with other packages? Why just mine? Even if there were more errors and complaints from customers related to delivery in that date how many of those errors was similar to what happened to my package? In fact, I doubt one could find a similar thing in a range of years and for the entire court system of the country not to mention one day and for one court.
They also claim that " the carrier cannot recall". Aside from the fact that it was not a package of the common size because of its containing seven copies of the brief with their covers which probably should make it more noticeable, what does that claim even mean? Even if the carrier doesn't remember what happened to my package specifically how could he fail to remember if he took a package ,any package, to the court at 10:30 in the night or not?
They also said that they apologize if "the information on usps.com was in anyway confusing or misleading" when, in fact, I did not complain about the descriptions of the actions on the tracking website. I complained about the actions themselves. It is they who tried to shift the responsibility of what happened to the system in their letter.
Finally, they wanted to even reach a higher level of shameless pretending in lack of understanding so they made their way in offering refund to me.
No comments:
Post a Comment