Cardial Van & Storage

I am rejecting this response because: 1- Please see uploaded notepad copy of the last correspondence I had with the CA Public Utilities Commission, which goes back to November 9, Neither Mr [redacted] nor any other person at the CA Public Utilities Commission stated to me that they received a check from Cardinal Van and would forward to meThere is no indication that [redacted] mailed a check to the CA PUCAlso, why [redacted] refuses to mail the check to me directly by certified mail and RR (which would resolve the dispute), as I requested numerous times, is incomprehensible [redacted] lied numerous times before on several occasions, which are very well documented, such as that I did not return his claim formsThe Revdex.com and the CA PUC have a copy of [redacted] ***'s e-mail, which exhibits that [redacted] originally denied me my right to file a claim Thus, he could not have given/mailed me a claim form That his staff gave me a claim form on the date of delivery (7.17.2017) is also a lie evidently, as I would have filled out the form and filed a claim instead of asking [redacted] for a claim form [redacted] ***'s statement that he mailed a check to the CA PUC to forward to me appears to be a new lie What evidence does [redacted] have to substantiate his allegation that he mailed a check to the CA PUC ? I am asking for evidence that he mailed a check to the CA PUC, and a copy of his letter to the CA PUC in which he allegedly asked them to forward the check to me2- On 6.7.2017, no Person Moving Household Goods booklet was forwarded to me by the staff of Cardinal Van No such booklet was attached to any of their e-mails, which I stated to Cardinal Van's staff by e-mail in my replyIn fact, [redacted] delivered the Person Moving Household Goods booklet to my mail box in front of my house days before they did the return delivery [redacted] stated to me in his e-mail shortly before the return delivery that he would deliver me the booklet and he placed it into my mail box (days before 7.17.2017).I have [redacted] ***'s own e-mail as my evidence that he did not give me the booklet until The booklet was supposed to be given to me days before the Packing Out date of May 15, 2017, not shortly before the return deliveryThus, I was entitled to a refund from Cardinal Van for failure to give me the Person Moving Household Goods bookletBy advise of the CA PUC, I deducted $ 100,-- from the payment for their service [redacted] ***'s statement of "discount" is reflective of his nonsense-based rendition of incidentsThe $ 100,-- I deducted was not a discount but a punitive refund to me for depriving me of my right to be informed about how the move should have been done correctlyIt appears they deliberately did not give me the information booklet timely, so I would be left in the dark regarding their intentions, which included stealing my household goodsBy no means did the CA PUC ever decide that Cardinal Van was not negligentThe CA PUC is aware that [redacted] failed to give me the booklet timely for instance, which is an undisputable negligenceAlso, the PUC closed the case prematurely by disregard of key evidence, namely that [redacted] lied about the claim formsThe case was reopened and is still open as of now at the CA PUC, as the case is not settled3- As explained above, no blank claim form was given to me on by Cardinal Van's staffCardinal Van only allowed me to file a claim for the solar light their staff stole from my carport on 2017, on the date of the Pack Out and MoveI filed a claim for $ 10,-- , which they reimbursed meFor the $ 166,--, I needed to file a claim for (pertaining to the other items they stole from me), [redacted] did not allow me to file, as summarized aboveOnly after I complained to the CA PUC, Cardinal Van offered to settle the claim, however with a fake settlement offer apparently, as they refused to mail me the check by certified/ RR as soon as I expressed willingness to settle the claim As long as Cardinal Van / [redacted] does not give/mail me the settlement check (by certified mail/RR), their "settlement" is fake, and I will not sign their release formIf [redacted] wishes to do this via the CA PUC, that is fine, but he must have evidence of his mailing of the check to the CA PUC, and the CA PUC certainly should also forward the check also by certified/RR to meAs stated above, I am also requesting that [redacted] presents to the Revdex.com (and to me) a copy of his letter that he allegedly mailed to the CA PUC regarding his alleged "check forwarding" inquiry If needed, the exchange of settlement check and their release form will be done in front of a judge at court, which will be my next step4- [redacted] does know that his so-called Inventory List does not list any details regarding what items were in which boxesThe boxes were numbered, but the content of boxes were not listedOnly definitions such as "BR items", "LR items", and the size of boxes were listedThus, my initials next to "BR items" and "LR items" certainly can not reference the contents of any boxesAlso, due to several problems Cardinal Van's staff caused already on 5.15.2017, I wrote on all Inventory List pages "I did not count boxes/nr's when they were placed into the truck", and I initialed these statements Cardinal Van's packer [redacted] had chased me out of the house aggressively when he did the packing/numbering, apparently so I would not see how he would steal my household items That was why I placed that note on the Inventory List Thus, I never agreed that the Inventory List was complete, which is another lie from [redacted] *** Apparently, [redacted] knew that his staff would steal household items from me, which is why he did not deliver me the booklet mentioned above until days before the return delivery, so I would not know what to do when they would steal stuff from meI contacted the CA PUC already in May of 2017, after I realized what Cardinal Van's staff did to me, to find out what to do The first thing the CA PUC found negligent was that [redacted] did not give me the information bookletAll my e-mail correspondences with the CA PUC, Cardinal Van's staff and [redacted] are a testimony to this fact, and I will present a copy of them to the Revdex.com and anyone who wishes to view them5- I complained also to the Governor of California, Mr [redacted] ***, regarding this matterHis staff proposed to me that I filed a report with my local police agencyI did soHere is the Report Nr.: [redacted] never stated to me that I should file a report stating that his staff stole items from meHis wording was very broad, misleading, and vague:"If you feel that items were stolen from your residence you should contact the Sherriff's office and file a report." I did not feel items were stolen from my residenceI knew items were stolen from my house, and they were stolen by Cardinal Van's staffThat is how I filed the report6- By written agreement and the Maximum Rate Tarriff 4, I am entitled to a claim and reimbursement of losses caused by a carrier, as discussed aboveCardinal Van / [redacted] is still trying everything in his power not to settle the case, now with a new story that he mailed the check to the CA PUC In conclusion, it does not appear that Cardinal Van & Storage / [redacted] wants to settle the claim I am rejecting their new fake settlement scenario

November 29, 2017 The following was sent to the California Public Utilities Commission(CPUC) regarding the complaint filed Ms***As none of the items claimed by Ms*** as stolen by our company were part of move or service provided by our companyThe CPUC agreed that we were
not negligent in any way and that we were not required to pay a claimBecause the amount claimed was insignificant, we felt it was in our best interest to make the customer happy and a check for $was sent to the CPUC for them to forward to Ms***. ** *** Cardinal Van and Storage

I am rejecting this response because:
1- Please see uploaded notepad copy of the last correspondence I had with the CA Public Utilities Commission, which goes back to November 9, 2017.  Neither Mr. [redacted] nor any other person at the CA Public Utilities Commission stated to me that they received a check from Cardinal Van and would forward to me. There is no indication that [redacted] mailed a check to the CA PUC. Also, why [redacted] refuses to mail the check to me directly by certified mail and RR (which would resolve the dispute), as I requested numerous times, is incomprehensible.  [redacted] lied numerous times before on several occasions, which are very well documented, such as that I did not return his claim forms. The Revdex.com and the CA PUC have a copy of [redacted]'s e-mail, which exhibits that [redacted] originally denied me my right to file a claim.  Thus, he could not have given/mailed me a claim form.  That his staff gave me a claim form on the date of delivery (7.17.2017) is also a lie evidently, as I would have filled out the form and filed a claim instead of asking [redacted] for a claim form.  [redacted]'s statement that he mailed a check to the CA PUC to forward to me appears to be a new lie.  What evidence does [redacted] have to substantiate his allegation that he mailed a check to the CA PUC ? I am asking for evidence that he mailed a check to the CA PUC, and a copy of his letter to the CA PUC in which he allegedly asked them to forward the check to me. 2- On 6.7.2017, no Person Moving Household Goods booklet was forwarded to me by the staff of Cardinal Van.  No such booklet was attached to any of their e-mails, which I stated to Cardinal Van's staff by e-mail in my reply. In fact, [redacted] delivered the Person Moving Household Goods booklet to my mail box in front of my house 4 days before they did the return delivery. [redacted] stated to me in his e-mail shortly before the return delivery that he would deliver me the booklet and he placed it into my mail box (4 days before 7.17.2017).I have [redacted]'s own e-mail as my evidence that he did not give me the booklet until 7.13.2017. The booklet was supposed to be given to me 3 days before the Packing Out date of May 15, 2017, not shortly before the return delivery. Thus, I was entitled to a refund from Cardinal Van for failure to give me the Person Moving Household Goods booklet. By advise of the CA PUC, I deducted $ 100,-- from the payment for their service. [redacted]'s statement of "discount" is reflective of his nonsense-based rendition of incidents. The $ 100,-- I deducted was not a discount but a punitive refund to me for depriving me of my right to be informed about how the move should have been done correctly. It appears they deliberately did not give me the information booklet timely, so I would be left in the dark regarding their intentions, which included stealing my household goods. By no means did the CA PUC ever decide that Cardinal Van was not negligent. The CA PUC is aware that [redacted] failed to give me the booklet timely for instance, which is an undisputable negligence. Also, the PUC closed the case prematurely by disregard of key evidence, namely that [redacted] lied about the claim forms. The case was reopened and is still open as of now at the CA PUC, as the case is not settled. 3-  As explained above, no blank claim form was given to me on 7.17.2017 by Cardinal Van's staff. Cardinal Van only allowed me to file a claim for the solar light their staff stole from my carport on 5. 15. 2017, on the date of the Pack Out and Move. I filed a claim for $ 10,-- , which they reimbursed me. For the $ 166,--, I needed to file a claim for (pertaining to the other items they stole from me), [redacted] did not allow me to file, as summarized above. Only after I complained to the CA PUC, Cardinal Van offered to settle the claim, however with a fake settlement offer apparently, as they refused to mail me the check by certified/ RR as soon as I expressed willingness to settle the claim.  As long as Cardinal Van / [redacted] does not give/mail me the settlement check (by certified mail/RR), their "settlement" is fake, and I will not sign their release form. If [redacted] wishes to do this via the CA PUC, that is fine, but he must have evidence of his mailing of the check to the CA PUC, and the CA PUC certainly should also forward the check also by certified/RR to me. As stated above, I am also requesting that [redacted] presents to the Revdex.com (and to me) a copy of his letter that he allegedly mailed to the CA PUC regarding his alleged "check forwarding" inquiry.  If needed, the exchange of settlement check and their  release form will be done in front of a judge at court, which will be my next step. 4- [redacted] does know that his so-called Inventory List does not list any details regarding what items were in which boxes. The boxes were numbered, but the content of boxes were not listed. Only definitions such as "BR items", "LR items", and the size of boxes were listed. Thus, my initials next to "BR items" and "LR items" certainly can not reference the contents of any boxes. Also, due to several problems Cardinal Van's staff caused already on 5.15.2017, I wrote on all Inventory List pages "I did not count boxes/nr's when they were placed into the truck", and I initialed these statements.  Cardinal Van's packer [redacted] had chased me out of the house aggressively when he did the packing/numbering, apparently so I would not see how he would steal my household items.  That was why I placed that note on the Inventory List.  Thus, I never agreed that the Inventory List was complete, which is another lie from [redacted].  Apparently, [redacted] knew that his staff would steal household items from me, which is why he did not deliver me the booklet mentioned above until 4 days before the return delivery, so I would not know what to do when they would steal stuff from me. I contacted the CA PUC already in May of 2017, after I realized what Cardinal Van's staff did to me, to find out what to do.  The first thing the CA PUC found negligent was that [redacted] did not give me the information booklet. All my e-mail correspondences with the CA PUC, Cardinal Van's staff and [redacted] are a testimony to this fact, and I will present a copy of them to the Revdex.com and anyone who wishes to view them. 5- I complained also to the Governor of California, Mr. [redacted], regarding this matter. His staff proposed to me that I filed a report with my local police agency. I did so. Here is the Report Nr.: 231702183. [redacted] never stated to me that I should file a report stating that his staff stole items from me. His wording was very broad, misleading, and vague:"If you feel that items were stolen from your residence you should contact the Sherriff's office and file a report." I did not feel items were stolen from my residence. I knew items were stolen from my house, and they were stolen by Cardinal Van's staff. That is how I filed the report. 6- By written agreement and the Maximum Rate Tarriff 4, I am entitled to a claim and reimbursement of losses caused by a carrier, as discussed above. Cardinal Van / [redacted] is still trying everything in his power not to settle the case, now with a new story that he mailed the check to the CA PUC.   In conclusion, it does not appear that Cardinal Van & Storage / [redacted] wants to settle the claim.  I am rejecting their new fake settlement scenario.