Action Moving Services

February 19, Complaint ID # [redacted] Response to consumer rejection of response First, we question why the repairs were signed for as being acceptable in August when the repairs were performed and now they are notIf they were unacceptable at the time of the repair in August, no contact was made on the consumer's part to our company regarding this issueIt is not only until after the claim has been fully executed and closed in August and our further questions to the consumer in December asking what they were seeking did we learn that a repair is not acceptable through a complaint to the Revdex.com at the end of JanuaryNot once did they report an unacceptable repair to our company or the company that repaired the itemSecond, if the repair to this item is still visibly damaged, we have not been afforded the substantiation of an unacceptable damage repairIf the consumer would provide evidence of this unacceptable repair, we would be willing to reopen the claim for further investigation under the rules governing the valuation coverageWe will hold our file for days from the date of this letterWe cannot, however, refund an insurance premium as this file has been executed

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2015/11/11) */ November 11, Revdex.com Burnsville, MN Re: Case Number [redacted] To Whom it May Concern, This letter is in response to the above mentioned case filed with the Revdex.com of Minnesota Please be aware that Action Moving Services booked this shipmentThis shipment was hauled by an Atlas Van Lines driverAction Moving Services Certified Claims Analysis is handling this claim on behalf of Atlas Van LinesFrom the complaint filed, the following items are in question: 1.) Missing poles to a shelf 2.) Missing medium size carton 3.) Large brown bar 4.) Several boxes crushed and items in them destroyed 5.) One box was wet and the items in the box had black mold 6.) Missing container Here is our response to the items listed above Missing Container - Attached are the three claims filed with Action Moving ServicesA missing container does not appear on any of the claims filed Missing Medium Carton - Attached are the three claims filed with Action Moving ServicesA missing medium carton does not appear on any of the claims filed Several boxes crushed and items in them destroyed - Attached are the three claims filed with Action Moving ServicesThere is no mention of cartons crushed and items destroyed One box was wet and the items in the box had black mold - This item was claimed on their original claim formThis carton was packed by owner and we do not know what was insideThe carton was thrown out before we could inspect itThis item was denied for this reason on our settlement offer Large Brown Bar - This item was on a supplemental claim form filed on August 27thThis item was shown to the inspector on August 18thUpon inspection, damage was noted on the "back panel, screw holes damaged"Action Moving offered $as cost to repairNo other damage was noted at the time of inspectionAlso, Action was not notified of the new damage until after the shipper had moved againOnce this piece was moved by another carrier, our liability ends Missing poles to a shelf - This was filed on a supplemental claim on August 31stThe claim filed is very vagueThese units are sold with four shelvesWhy could this not have been inspected on August 18th? It is our policy to send an inspector out to residence only once per claimIt would not make sense to send the inspector out to just look at the shelving In conclusion, Action has offered a generous settlement offer, which I have enclosed, that fairly addresses the claims filed by the shipperAction Moving will honor that settlement offer for another days and will also add a good will gesture of $for the shelvingAction Moving Services/Atlas Van Lines will not honor anymore claims filed, because the shipper has now moved with another carrier Respectfully, ACTION MOVING SERVICES, INC Paul [redacted] Controller Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (3000, 7, 2015/11/12) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) We would like to see the total settlement offer in writingThank you! Final Business Response / [redacted] (4000, 9, 2015/11/16) */ ***Corresponding document attached RE: Atlas Van Lines Reg# [redacted] Amendment to Settlement issued 09/15/ Reference Revdex.com Case # [redacted] Dear [redacted] : We have received further correspondence regarding the request to see the total settlement offer in writingAs such, we have amended our settlement offer on the wire rack from a denial, to a customer service gesture in the amount of $as stated with no admission of liability on the part of the carrier All other items that are referenced in our September 15, settlement letter remain This brings the original settlement of $to the new settlement amount of $with no deductible This is our complete, full and final offer and/or denial of your claim for the items you have claimed Attached is a release in the amount of $Please sign and return the release at your earliest convenienceUpon receipt of the signed release, we will commence with paymentPlease see the release for further details Again, we thank you for your patience and cooperation throughout the claims process Sincerely, Sue [redacted] , CCA Operations/Claims Final Consumer Response / [redacted] (2000, 11, 2015/11/20) */ (The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)

August 19, Response to complaint # [redacted] We have reviewed this consumer complaint and respond as follows: We are Action Moving Services, Incan agent for Atlas Van Lines This shipment moved under Atlas Van Lines dispatch authority While we are aware that moving can be a stressful event, we apologize for any misconception on the part of the consumer regarding the delivery date spread as well as the delivery delay on behalf of Atlas Van Lines The consumer, MrM, booked his shipment with the agent with the premise the shipment would be picked up and delivered within a delivery spreadDelivery spreads are made with respect to traffic patterns in freight movements to allow for distance, Federal regulations in regard to time allowable for drivers to drive, impassable roadways and incidentals such as breakdownsThis booking / registration was packed on July 28, picked up on July 29, and had a delivery spread of August 1, to August Logistically, a shipment moving from Minnesota to Georgia could take the full spreadMrM was advised of this both verbally and in writing and he signed his non-binding COD estimate with these dates Unfortunately, we, as Action Moving Services, were advised by Atlas dispatch as to the delay of the shipment due to the high volume of trafficWe notified MrM via email on the 10th that his shipment is being delayed by two daysThe original spread was intended to deliver by the 11th which is a ThursdayThe two day delay for the delivery is August 13th, which is a SaturdayWe advised MrM that our van operators do not have the capability to run credit cards on their vehicles and advised him they can only accept certified fundsHe could contact our office to have charges placed on his credit cardThis would be during business hours Monday through Friday 8AM to 5PM CSTHe did contact our office on the 12th, only to have the charges on his credit card deniedCertified Funds were collected by the Van operator on the day of delivery MrM’s remarks regarding harassing customers for payment when goods are not delivered are not a clear picture of the actual events that did or could happen .Under Federal Regulations, if the COD transportation charges are not paid prior to the shipment unloading, the carrier has the right to deliver the goods to the nearest storage facility to set off the shipmentAny applicable storage and delivery charges are additional COD charges to the consumer with the scheduling of the delivery made by the warehouseman holding the shipmentSo in essence, this could have turned into something far more inconvenient for MrM and his family if the payment for transportation charges were held up on a non-business dayThis was not harassment on the part of the carrierWe apologize he saw it this way, but we feel it was a misunderstanding on his part MrM’s remarks in regard to the children going to school for two weeks and not having any of their things or their work necessities, our records show that two weeks prior to the delivery date is the same day as the loading date of July 29th If they did not have their items needed to attend school or work, this would not be attributed to anything less than an act or an omission on the part of the consumer MrM has the right to file for a Delay Claim through Atlas Van LinesHe was made aware of this prior to the shipment being deliveredWe have sent the applicable forms to him via US mail which he should receive shortly Sincerely, Action Moving Services, IncAgent for Atlas Van Lines

August 19, Response to complaint # [redacted] We have reviewed this consumer complaint and respond as follows: We are Action Moving Services, Incan agent for Atlas Van Lines This shipment moved under Atlas Van Lines dispatch authorityWhile we are aware that moving can be a stressful event, we apologize for any misconception on the part of the consumer regarding the delivery date spread as well as the delivery delay on behalf of Atlas Van Lines The consumer, MrM, booked his shipment with the agent with the premise the shipment would be picked up and delivered within a delivery spreadDelivery spreads are made with respect to traffic patterns in freight movements to allow for distance, Federal regulations in regard to time allowable for drivers to drive, impassable roadways and incidentals such as breakdownsThis booking / registration was packed on July 28, picked up on July 29, and had a delivery spread of August 1, to August Logistically, a shipment moving from Minnesota to Georgia could take the full spreadMrM was advised of this both verbally and in writing and he signed his non-binding COD estimate with these dates Unfortunately, we, as Action Moving Services, were advised by Atlas dispatch as to the delay of the shipment due to the high volume of trafficWe notified MrM via email on the 10th that his shipment is being delayed by two daysThe original spread was intended to deliver by the 11th which is a ThursdayThe two day delay for the delivery is August 13th, which is a SaturdayWe advised MrM that our van operators do not have the capability to run credit cards on their vehicles and advised him they can only accept certified fundsHe could contact our office to have charges placed on his credit cardThis would be during business hours Monday through Friday 8AM to 5PM CSTHe did contact our office on the 12th, only to have the charges on his credit card deniedCertified Funds were collected by the Van operator on the day of delivery MrM’s remarks regarding harassing customers for payment when goods are not delivered are not a clear picture of the actual events that did or could happen .Under Federal Regulations, if the COD transportation charges are not paid prior to the shipment unloading, the carrier has the right to deliver the goods to the nearest storage facility to set off the shipmentAny applicable storage and delivery charges are additional COD charges to the consumer with the scheduling of the delivery made by the warehouseman holding the shipmentSo in essence, this could have turned into something far more inconvenient for MrM and his family if the payment for transportation charges were held up on a non-business dayThis was not harassment on the part of the carrierWe apologize he saw it this way, but we feel it was a misunderstanding on his part MrM’s remarks in regard to the children going to school for two weeks and not having any of their things or their work necessities, our records show that two weeks prior to the delivery date is the same day as the loading date of July 29th If they did not have their items needed to attend school or work, this would not be attributed to anything less than an act or an omission on the part of the consumer MrM has the right to file for a Delay Claim through Atlas Van LinesHe was made aware of this prior to the shipment being deliveredWe have sent the applicable forms to him via US mail which he should receive shortly Sincerely, Action Moving Services, IncAgent for Atlas Van Lines

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2014/11/04) */ November 3, 2014 Complaint report [redacted] Action Moving Services, Inc. response to complaint. Ms. M contracted with Action Moving Services, Inc. to relocate her household goods from Eden Prairie, MN to Sunland CA. in June of... 2014. In her contract, she elected to pack all of her cartons. We, as the carrier, packed the mattress cartons only. Her shipment was loaded on June 10, 2014 and was brought to our facility for a brief storage period. Her shipment loaded out of our facility on July 3, 2014 and delivered in Sunland, CA on July 12, 2014. During transit, a few items were damaged along the way. One of which included a floor lamp. This floor lamp had a glass shade that was packed separately in a carton. This carton was packed by Ms. M. Ms. M called Action Moving on July 25, 2014 to inquire how to file for Loss and Damage Claims. We discussed her packed by owner cartons, one of which she was claiming damage to the contents of the carton. She advised at that time there was no external damage to the outside of this carton that would give cause to damage the contents. We advised at that time, the limits of carrier liability on packed by owner cartons does not cover acts or omissions by the consignee (improper packing). Ms. M filed a Loss and Damage claim on August 12, 2014 for the lamp and the other items that were damaged in the move. She also filed for this carton that was discussed which contained pottery that she had packed. Although we advised her that liability for this would not be accepted due to no damages to the carton prior to her claim filing, she filed for this item and indicated on her claim form that there was damage to the carton. We assigned a repair firm of W [redacted] G [redacted] in Los Angeles, CA. to view this carton for damages and to take photos. They were also assigned to repair the metal floor lamp that had damage to the bulb socket. Since this repair would need to be performed in the shop, the lamp was taken in along with a few other items that would also need to be repaired. Her items were returned to her on September 26, 2014. Our reports from W G were received for processing on September 29, 2014. Included in this report is the lamp base only that was returned to her, as the shade was not part of the claim and was not taken to the shop. Included in this report were the photos of all the items that were claimed as well as a release signed and dated September 26, 2014, stating all repairs were completed to her satisfaction. On October 2, 2014, we processed the remainder of Ms. M's claim, which included a denial of the packed by owner carton of pottery. The status letter was emailed to Ms. M. The same day, we received a rebuttal to the denial of the denied carton. There was no mention of a glass shade for a floor lamp whatsoever. In turn, we contacted W G for further information regarding this carton. On October 9, 2014, we were then informed, that Ms. M was contacting them regarding the lampshade on her lamp that was repaired and signed for. We learned that while the repair firm was at the home, the repair firm placed the glass shade on the lamp. There was no damage to the shade at that time. They also advised us that Ms M had called them a few days after they were in the home and advised she noticed the cracks in the top of the glass shade when she was moving items around inside the home, one of the items she moved included this lamp. On October 10, 2014, Ms M called us and told us how she told the repair person not to pick up the lampshade by the finial and he did and he cracked it. She then advised us that she put the shade on the lamp. On October 11, Ms M sent us photos of the lamp and a letter via email, stating when the tech was placing the shade on the lamp, she immediately rushed over to him and lifted the shade from the bottom edge out of his hands and placed it on the lamp. I told him it was fragile and that it couldn't be handled by the finial." On October 14, 2014, we forwarded this information to W G. On October 16, 2014 they responded, advising they would have noticed if the shade was cracked while he was at the home. If this was something they felt they had done they would take full responsibility. Since this incident had not been reported until after they had left her residence and the release was signed that everything was completed satisfactorily and this incident was after she had been moving items around inside her home, they would not be able to take responsibility. The photos that were sent along show the cracks in the top area of the lampshade and are rather obvious. Since the information we were initially inquiring about for Ms. Ms rebuttal to her claim was for a carton containing pottery and we received the information we requested, we advised W G they did not need to contact her on our behalf. We prepared and sent our rebuttal response on or about October 21, 2014. The rebuttal response was for the denied carton as this was the only item in the rebuttal request. Since the lampshade is an issue outside of the loss and damage claim, we did not address it in the rebuttal as it was not an item on the loss and damage claim. In regards to the dollar amount she is requesting from Action Moving Services, Inc. for the cracked lampshade, we are not in a position to offer compensation. We feel we have enough evidence to support this denial as this was not a transit damage related claim related to her relocation. This was not damaged in her home by the repair firm as she states or they would have noted this and taken full responsibility. We assert this lampshade was damaged in her home by her when she moved the lamp herself. Thank you, Action Moving Services, Inc.

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2014/11/04) */ November 3, Complaint report [redacted] Action Moving Services, Incresponse to complaint MsM contracted with Action Moving Services, Incto relocate her household goods from Eden Prairie, MN to Sunland CAin June of In her contract, she elected to pack all of her cartonsWe, as the carrier, packed the mattress cartons onlyHer shipment was loaded on June 10, and was brought to our facility for a brief storage periodHer shipment loaded out of our facility on July 3, and delivered in Sunland, CA on July 12, During transit, a few items were damaged along the wayOne of which included a floor lampThis floor lamp had a glass shade that was packed separately in a cartonThis carton was packed by MsM MsM called Action Moving on July 25, to inquire how to file for Loss and Damage ClaimsWe discussed her packed by owner cartons, one of which she was claiming damage to the contents of the cartonShe advised at that time there was no external damage to the outside of this carton that would give cause to damage the contentsWe advised at that time, the limits of carrier liability on packed by owner cartons does not cover acts or omissions by the consignee (improper packing) MsM filed a Loss and Damage claim on August 12, for the lamp and the other items that were damaged in the moveShe also filed for this carton that was discussed which contained pottery that she had packedAlthough we advised her that liability for this would not be accepted due to no damages to the carton prior to her claim filing, she filed for this item and indicated on her claim form that there was damage to the cartonWe assigned a repair firm of W [redacted] G [redacted] in Los Angeles, CAto view this carton for damages and to take photosThey were also assigned to repair the metal floor lamp that had damage to the bulb socketSince this repair would need to be performed in the shop, the lamp was taken in along with a few other items that would also need to be repaired Her items were returned to her on September 26, Our reports from W G were received for processing on September 29, Included in this report is the lamp base only that was returned to her, as the shade was not part of the claim and was not taken to the shopIncluded in this report were the photos of all the items that were claimed as well as a release signed and dated September 26, 2014, stating all repairs were completed to her satisfaction On October 2, 2014, we processed the remainder of MsM's claim, which included a denial of the packed by owner carton of potteryThe status letter was emailed to MsMThe same day, we received a rebuttal to the denial of the denied cartonThere was no mention of a glass shade for a floor lamp whatsoever In turn, we contacted W G for further information regarding this cartonOn October 9, 2014, we were then informed, that MsM was contacting them regarding the lampshade on her lamp that was repaired and signed forWe learned that while the repair firm was at the home, the repair firm placed the glass shade on the lampThere was no damage to the shade at that timeThey also advised us that Ms M had called them a few days after they were in the home and advised she noticed the cracks in the top of the glass shade when she was moving items around inside the home, one of the items she moved included this lamp On October 10, 2014, Ms M called us and told us how she told the repair person not to pick up the lampshade by the finial and he did and he cracked itShe then advised us that she put the shade on the lamp On October 11, Ms M sent us photos of the lamp and a letter via email, stating when the tech was placing the shade on the lamp, she immediately rushed over to him and lifted the shade from the bottom edge out of his hands and placed it on the lampI told him it was fragile and that it couldn't be handled by the finial." On October 14, 2014, we forwarded this information to W GOn October 16, they responded, advising they would have noticed if the shade was cracked while he was at the homeIf this was something they felt they had done they would take full responsibilitySince this incident had not been reported until after they had left her residence and the release was signed that everything was completed satisfactorily and this incident was after she had been moving items around inside her home, they would not be able to take responsibilityThe photos that were sent along show the cracks in the top area of the lampshade and are rather obvious Since the information we were initially inquiring about for MsMs rebuttal to her claim was for a carton containing pottery and we received the information we requested, we advised W G they did not need to contact her on our behalfWe prepared and sent our rebuttal response on or about October 21, The rebuttal response was for the denied carton as this was the only item in the rebuttal requestSince the lampshade is an issue outside of the loss and damage claim, we did not address it in the rebuttal as it was not an item on the loss and damage claim In regards to the dollar amount she is requesting from Action Moving Services, Incfor the cracked lampshade, we are not in a position to offer compensationWe feel we have enough evidence to support this denial as this was not a transit damage related claim related to her relocationThis was not damaged in her home by the repair firm as she states or they would have noted this and taken full responsibilityWe assert this lampshade was damaged in her home by her when she moved the lamp herself Thank you, Action Moving Services, Inc