Keystone Pack & Ship

I have already responded to this complaint twice before, and there is little more I can say It is a fact that Navis Pack & Ship has done more than shipments with zero at-fault insurance claims It is also a fact that shipments can be damaged in transit, which is why companies like Navis offer insurance The customer's mother declined insurance when we did the pickup and the customer declined insurance before shipment, and both were provided release forms stating "the customer has their own insurance that will cover any loss or damage to the items," If the customer had taken the optional insurance we offered, we would have been able to submit a claim on her behalf under our policy But she did not, she elected to waive our insurance coverage Instead, she has submitted the damage claim to her own insurance company and will be reimbursed by themThe same release form, presented twice to the customer, also stated "Liability covers only the merchandise The shipper is not liable for freight cost, carton and packaging materials costs." Despite this, the customer has also gotten her credit charges reversed for the work we performed This customer is an attorney with a major law firm and a PhD She understood the terms of our contract all along, as well as the risks inherent in waiving insurance coverage, and is now pretending otherwise As it is, the customer has now not paid us anything for our work, is being reimbursed by her own insurance company, yet continues going out of her way to cause trouble for a small, family-owned business Enough already!

We are sorry that this customer’s clock was damaged in transit, and have expressed that to her and offered a settlement, though we are not obligated to do so under the terms of her shipping contract with Navis Pack & Ship The unfortunate truth, however, is the customer made the wrong decision by not insuring this shipment and is now trying to scam my company to make up for her mistake We did nothing wrong here, but some items, especially older ones, do not hold up well to and unavoidable vibration in transit and fall apart in certain ways when they are handled and moved, having to do with the condition of the piece itself, not how it was handled and moved That is what happened in this instance We have shipped many Grandfather clocks this way without any damages It was packed with the weights on top, which is the packaging protocol for Grandfather clocks established by our corporate franchisor, because the weights can fit right behind the decorative ornament In this case, the board on top of the clock was older, in deteriorated condition and it gave way, when others have not I understand that the customer is upset and trying to blame us and injure the reputation of our business and damage us financially But the Revdex.com should not allow itself to be used for what amounts to extortion There are several inaccuracies in this complaint: For the customer to assert that the value of the clock is $10,is simply absurd A mint condition model of this clock sells for about $and the customer’s clock was very old and in deteriorated condition The most it would be valued at would be around $and the customer knows that full well The customer was twice offered the opportunity to declare a value for the clock and have it covered under our insurance policy and she declined both times – did not even respond to the offer She is an attorney and did not fail to understand that the clock would not be insured under our policy Attached is the release form, signed by the customer, clearly indicating that there was no value declared and no insurance was purchased This was not out of the ordinary, since the clock was old, the value was mainly sentimental and would be difficult to establish in the case of an insurance claim If, on the other hand, the customer had truly believed that the value of the clock was $10,000, why did she not purchase any insurance at all for the shipment? That is what insurance is for Could it be that, as an attorney, the customer knows that insurance fraud is a felony, which would be prosecuted by the insurance company, but filing a dispute with the Revdex.com because we did not agree to her demand to pay her $10,is also against the law, but would be much more difficult for us to litigate since I do not have a team of attorneys on my staff In addition to filing a complaint with the Revdex.com, the customer has also disputed the credit card charges for the entire job, with absolutely no justifiable basis It was also made clear on the release form that insurance – which, once again, she did not purchase – would only cover damage to the merchandise, not the packing & shipping costs Though I am not obligated to do so, I have offered the customer $toward repairs of the clock, which is extremely generous, but the customer has refused to respond to my offer and has chosen dishonest methods instead I trust the Revdex.com will not let itself be used as a party in this deception and will dismiss this complain and maintain my company’s spotless recordPeter M [redacted] Owner/President

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Regards,
*** ***

I have already responded to this complaint twice before, and there is little more I can say. 
It is a fact that Navis Pack & Ship has done more than 5400 shipments with zero at-fault insurance claims.  It is also a fact that shipments can be damaged in transit, which is why companies like Navis offer insurance.  The customer's mother declined insurance when we did the pickup and the customer declined insurance before shipment, and both were provided release forms stating "the customer has their own insurance that will cover any loss or damage to the items,"  If the customer had taken the optional insurance we offered, we would have been able to submit a claim on her behalf under our policy.  But she did not, she elected to waive our insurance coverage.  Instead, she has submitted the damage claim to her own insurance company and will be reimbursed by them.
The same release form, presented twice to the customer, also stated "Liability covers only the merchandise.  The shipper is not liable for freight cost, carton and packaging materials costs."  Despite this, the customer has also gotten her credit charges reversed for the work we performed. 
This customer is an attorney with a major law firm and a PhD.  She understood the terms of our contract all along, as well as the risks inherent in waiving insurance coverage, and is now pretending otherwise.  As it is, the customer has now not paid us anything for our work, is being reimbursed by her own insurance company, yet continues going out of her way to cause trouble for a small, family-owned business.  Enough already!

We are sorry
that this customer’s clock was damaged in transit, and have expressed that...

to
her and offered a settlement, though we are not obligated to do so under the
terms of her shipping contract with Navis Pack & Ship.  The unfortunate truth, however, is the
customer made the wrong decision by not insuring this shipment and is now
trying to scam my company to make up for her mistake.
We did
nothing wrong here, but some
items, especially older ones, do not hold up well to
normal and unavoidable vibration in transit and fall apart in certain
ways when they are handled and moved, having to do with the condition of the piece
itself, not how it was handled and moved. 
That is what happened in this instance.   
We have shipped many Grandfather clocks this way
without any damages.  It was packed with the weights on top, which is the
packaging protocol for Grandfather clocks established by our corporate
franchisor, because the weights can fit right behind the decorative
ornament.  In this case, the board on top
of the clock was older, in deteriorated condition and it gave way, when others
have not.
I understand that the customer is upset and
trying to blame us and injure the reputation of our business and damage us
financially.  But the Revdex.com should not
allow itself to be used for what amounts to extortion.  There are several inaccuracies in this
complaint: 
For the customer to assert that the value of the
clock is $10,000 is simply absurd.  A mint
condition model of this clock sells for about $1400 and the customer’s clock
was very old and in deteriorated condition. 
The most it would be valued at would be around $500 and the customer
knows that full well. 
The customer was twice offered the opportunity to
declare a value for the clock and have it covered under our insurance policy
and she declined both times – did not even respond to the offer.  She is an attorney and did not fail to
understand that the clock would not be insured under our policy.  Attached is the release form, signed by the
customer, clearly indicating that there was no value declared and no insurance
was purchased.  This was not out of the
ordinary, since the clock was old, the value was mainly sentimental and would
be difficult to establish in the case of an insurance claim. 
If, on the other hand, the customer had truly
believed that the value of the clock was $10,000, why did she not purchase any
insurance at all for the shipment?  That
is what insurance is for.  Could it be
that, as an attorney, the customer knows that insurance fraud is a felony,
which would be prosecuted by the insurance company, but filing a dispute with
the Revdex.com because we did not agree to her demand to pay her $10,000 is also
against the law, but would be much more difficult for us to litigate since I do
not have a team of attorneys on my staff.
In addition
to filing a complaint with the Revdex.com, the customer has also disputed the credit
card charges for the entire job, with absolutely no justifiable basis.  It was also made clear on the release form
that insurance – which, once again, she did not purchase – would only cover
damage to the merchandise, not the packing & shipping costs. 
Though I am
not obligated to do so, I have offered the customer $200 toward repairs of the
clock, which is extremely generous, but the customer has refused to respond to
my offer and has chosen dishonest methods instead.  I trust the Revdex.com will not let itself be used
as a party in this deception and will dismiss this complain and maintain my
company’s spotless record.
Peter M[redacted]
Owner/President

Such charges occur frequently, as shipments may be assessed additional charges after the customer has paid the basic job charges. No customer has ever disputed these charges before, and this customer is completely wrong and without any justifiable basis to dispute these charges.
Sometimes, but...

not always, our trucking company, [redacted], charges a premium price of $65 for delivery to a university, based on considering it a limited access facility (please see attached). We do not charge for this unless it happens, but it did on this shipment, and we have charged the customer’s credit card for this additional, pass-along expense. It is well within our rights to pass along any additional job expenses which were not known to us before, which might have to do with any number of circumstances too numerous to detail beforehand.

I have tried to explain to the customer that there are several circumstances which might change the job pricing after we send a shipment out with a common carrier, which are not complete until the job is complete, and the job is not complete until the delivery has been made. For instance, the address may not be correct, a lift gate delivery might be required, the delivery might be to a residential address, the delivery might be to a location covered under the “limited access tariff,” the building might be closed during normal working hours, etc. It is impossible for us to make customers aware beforehand of all the things that possibly could happen to change job pricing.
Though the trucking companies do not always apply it, “limited access,” is a federally-imposed tariff to support the trucking industry. It does not mean that the building actually has limited access or is inaccessible. It means that the Federal Transportation Commission allows trucking companies an additional tariff for deliveries to colleges/universities, churches, construction sites, storage units and several other locations.
There is no valid basis whatsoever for this dispute and I request that it be expunged from my records so it can not, in any way, damage my ranking with Revdex.com

Review: The company has charged an hidden fee ($65) which was never mentioned as a previous possibility regarding the transaction, a packaging and shipment of goods.

In all correspondence with the company, other additional charges such as delivery to a location which lacks a loading dock or is a residential address was clearly stated. The current charge, 'limited access', was never mentioned as even possibility. Nothing leaves a worse taste in the mouth when a company adds hidden fees to an agreed upon price.

Reading over the invoice, no mention of additional possible charges were ever mentioned. The charge to my credit card was made without my authorization.Desired Settlement: The company should clearly state the possibility for additional charges and explain this to the customer. In this case a refund is justified.

Business

Response:

Such charges occur frequently, as shipments may be assessed additional charges after the customer has paid the basic job charges. No customer has ever disputed these charges before, and this customer is completely wrong and without any justifiable basis to dispute these charges.

Sometimes, but not always, our trucking company, [redacted], charges a premium price of $65 for delivery to a university, based on considering it a limited access facility (please see attached). We do not charge for this unless it happens, but it did on this shipment, and we have charged the customer’s credit card for this additional, pass-along expense. It is well within our rights to pass along any additional job expenses which were not known to us before, which might have to do with any number of circumstances too numerous to detail beforehand.

I have tried to explain to the customer that there are several circumstances which might change the job pricing after we send a shipment out with a common carrier, which are not complete until the job is complete, and the job is not complete until the delivery has been made. For instance, the address may not be correct, a lift gate delivery might be required, the delivery might be to a residential address, the delivery might be to a location covered under the “limited access tariff,” the building might be closed during normal working hours, etc. It is impossible for us to make customers aware beforehand of all the things that possibly could happen to change job pricing.

Though the trucking companies do not always apply it, “limited access,” is a federally-imposed tariff to support the trucking industry. It does not mean that the building actually has limited access or is inaccessible. It means that the Federal Transportation Commission allows trucking companies an additional tariff for deliveries to colleges/universities, churches, construction sites, storage units and several other locations.

There is no valid basis whatsoever for this dispute and I request that it be expunged from my records so it can not, in any way, damage my ranking with Revdex.com

Consumer

Response:

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.

Regards,