Capitol Investigator Services

[redacted] was correct in his "Consumer's Statement of the Problem" wherein he stated the seventy-five dollar charge for three attempts per address was the agreed upon rateThe seventyfive dollars, billed to [redacted] 's credit card, did not include the time [redacted] wanted my process server to wait at the courthouse for the respondent to leave the courtroom to complete serviceTo that end, my server waited for over one hour for respondent to leave, not including the travel time to and from the court nor the parking fees required to attend this hearing[redacted] requested that my server wait for an unlimited amount of time at the courthouse to accomplish service and not be paidMoreover, [redacted] , whereupon he agreed to have my server leave, requested that Capitol Process Services, Incgo to an alternate address in Southeast Washington, DC for which we were not to be paidClearly, the "three attempts per address" would not be subsumed under the original agreement and would not apply to going to a separate address in Washington, DC.I explained to [redacted] over the phone his options, and he declined to pay to have us wait or go to another address in Washington, DC.His assertion that his card not be charged until "three attempts" were made defies any sound business practices I have seen in over thirty-five years in the industry and was clearly not the document he signed

August 11, 2014The matter in which [redacted] has complained and seeks a reduction of our fees is baseless.Capitol Process Services, Incwas hired to serve her husband with legal papers and Service was successfully completedAn affidavit of service was prepared and sent to *** ***Her complaint does not acknowledge that proper service was made and an affidavit was provided in a timely fashionIn addition, [redacted] fails to account for the multiple addresses to which my servers were sent to perfect service nor the repeated days of standby on which we were placed whereby we were poised to make serviceFurthermore, [redacted] made repeated calls to my office which also consumed our timeIronically, proper service was made and this invalid complaint has been filed.I have agreed to refund $to [redacted] which she has not accepted.?D SF*, President

*** *** was correct in his "Consumer's Statement of the Problem" wherein he stated the seventy-five dollar charge for three attempts per address was the agreed upon rateThe seventyfive dollars, billed to *** ***'s credit card, did not include the time *** *** wanted my process server to wait at the courthouse for the respondent to leave the courtroom to complete serviceTo that end, my server waited for over one hour for respondent to leave, not including the travel time to and from the court nor the parking fees required to attend this hearing*** *** requested that my server wait for an unlimited amount of time at the courthouse to accomplish service and not be paidMoreover, *** ***, whereupon he agreed to have my server leave, requested that Capitol Process Services, Incgo to an alternate address in Southeast Washington, DC for which we were not to be paidClearly, the "three attempts per address" would not be subsumed under the original agreement and would not apply to going to a separate address in Washington, DCI explained to *** *** over the phone his options, and he declined to pay to have us wait or go to another address in Washington, DCHis assertion that his card not be charged until "three attempts" were made defies any sound business practices I have seen in over thirty-five years in the industry and was clearly not the document he signed

Dear [redacted]:
[redacted] was correct in his "Consumer's Statement of the Problem" wherein he stated the seventy-five dollar charge for three attempts per address was the agreed upon rate. The seventy-five dollars, billed to [redacted]'s credit card, did not include the time [redacted]...

[redacted] wanted my process server to wait at the courthouse for the respondent to leave the courtroom to complete service. To that end, my server waited for over one hour for respondent to leave, not including the travel time to and from the court nor the parking fees required to attend this hearing.[redacted] requested that my server wait for an unlimited amount of time at the courthouse to accomplish service and not be paid. Moreover, [redacted], whereupon he agreed to have my server leave, requested that Capitol Process Services, Inc. go to an alternate address in Southeast Washington, DC for which we were not to be paid. Clearly, the "three attempts per address" would not be subsumed under the original agreement and would not apply to going to a separate address in Washington, DC.
I explained to [redacted] over the phone his options, and he declined to pay to have us wait or go to another address in Washington, DC.
His assertion that his card not be charged until "three attempts" were made defies any sound business practices I have seen in over thirty-five years in the industry and was clearly not the document he signed.
Regards,
David F.
President

[redacted] was correct in his "Consumer's Statement of the Problem" wherein he stated the seventy-five dollar charge for three attempts per address was the agreed upon rate. The seventyfive dollars, billed to [redacted]'s credit card, did not include the time [redacted] wanted my process server to wait at the courthouse for the respondent to leave the courtroom to complete service. To that end, my server waited for over one hour for respondent to leave, not including the travel time to and from the court nor the parking fees required to attend this hearing.[redacted] requested that my server wait for an unlimited amount of time at the courthouse to accomplish service and not be paid. Moreover, [redacted], whereupon he agreed to have my server leave, requested that Capitol Process Services, Inc. go to an alternate address in Southeast Washington, DC for which we were not to be paid. Clearly, the "three attempts per address" would not be subsumed under the original agreement and would not apply to going to a separate address in Washington, DC.I explained to [redacted] over the phone his options, and he declined to pay to have us wait or go to another address in Washington, DC.His assertion that his card not be charged until "three attempts" were made defies any sound business practices I have seen in over thirty-five years in the industry and was clearly not the document he signed.

From: [redacted]<[redacted].com>Date: Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 7:51 AMSubject: Re: You have a new message from the Revdex.com of Metro Washington DC & Eastern Pennsylvania in regards to your complaint #[redacted].To: Revdex.com <[email protected]>
What kind of message tactics are the Revdex.com employing? You're closing my case on the premise that I never responded to you? Whoa, I never heard from you until a 1:am message in my mail box. Only when I go to your message portal do I see where you sent messages to me that I never received. I just read a reply from the business I complained about for the first time. I disagree with this business reply. They never submitted this "other" address they speak of. I asked them to meet a the court house, which was one attempt. And there were two remaining, just as there would have been other court appearances. They didn't  want to wait at the court house and that's all there is to it.

From: [redacted]<[redacted].com>Date: Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 7:51 AMSubject: Re: You have a new message from the Revdex.com of Metro Washington DC & Eastern Pennsylvania in regards to your complaint #[redacted].To: Revdex.com <[email protected]>What kind of message tactics are the Revdex.com employing? You're closing my case on the premise that I never responded to you? Whoa, I never heard from you until a 1:am message in my mail box. Only when I go to your message portal do I see where you sent messages to me that I never received. I just read a reply from the business I complained about for the first time. I disagree with this business reply. They never submitted this "other" address they speak of. I asked them to meet a the court house, which was one attempt. And there were two remaining, just as there would have been other court appearances. They didn't  want to wait at the court house and that's all there is to it.

I am responding to the complaint issued on 10/18/2016, ID: [redacted].We are a Washington, DC process serving firm. Service on a Sunday in Washington, DC is perfectly acceptable. [redacted] did not make us aware of her state's service rules of not being able to perfect service on a Sunday. Although they...

were served on Sunday, we made every effort to re-serve the documents as demonstrated in Exhibit A. [redacted] was made aware that our service fee includes three attempts to perfect service, and after three attempts, another fee is incurred with authorization for an additional three attempts, in this case, we made 15 attempts, and in the end, only charged [redacted] $50,00 (Exhibit B). We also removed from the invoice our copy fees. She had sent us an e-mail (Exhibit C) requesting the amended invoice on October 18, 2016, and the amended invoice was sent to her on October 19, 2016.Given this information, I am very interested to understand what part of our services were "poor and unethical". Please advise us on next steps in settling this complaint.

August 11, 2014The matter in which [redacted] has complained and seeks a reduction of our fees is baseless.Capitol Process Services, Inc. was hired to serve her husband with legal papers and Service was successfully completed. An affidavit of service was prepared and sent to [redacted]...

[redacted]. Her complaint does not acknowledge that proper service was made and an affidavit was provided in a timely fashion. In addition, [redacted] fails to account for the multiple addresses to which my servers were sent to perfect service nor the repeated days of standby on which we were placed whereby we were poised to make service. Furthermore, [redacted] made repeated calls to my office which also consumed our time. Ironically, proper service was made and this invalid complaint has been filed.I have agreed to refund $75.00 to [redacted] which she has not accepted.?D S. F[redacted], President

Dear [redacted] was correct in his "Consumer's Statement of the Problem" wherein he stated the seventy-five dollar charge for three attempts per address was the agreed upon rate. The seventy-five dollars, billed to [redacted]'s credit card, did not include the time [redacted]...

wanted my process server to wait at the courthouse for the respondent to leave the courtroom to complete service. To that end, my server waited for over one hour for respondent to leave, not including the travel time to and from the court nor the parking fees required to attend this hearing.[redacted] requested that my server wait for an unlimited amount of time at the courthouse to accomplish service and not be paid. Moreover, [redacted], whereupon he agreed to have my server leave, requested that Capitol Process Services, Inc. go to an alternate address in Southeast Washington, DC for which we were not to be paid. Clearly, the "three attempts per address" would not be subsumed under the original agreement and would not apply to going to a separate address in Washington, DC.I explained to [redacted] over the phone his options, and he declined to pay to have us wait or go to another address in Washington, DC.His assertion that his card not be charged until "three attempts" were made defies any sound business practices I have seen in over thirty-five years in the industry and was clearly not the document he signed.Regards,David F.President