New PMB rules - why?
Larry Alkoff
handled with new PMB rules and I would like to know the reason why.
I get my mail at a private box service (like Mailboxes Etc) and have
been very comfortable with mail in the format of:
Name
Street Address
Suite 502-296 where 502 is the strip mall nr for MBE
City, State ZIP and 296 is my box number.
The management has been told by the local postal supervisor that
starting October 1999 all mail _must_ be address in the format
PMB 296
Street Address Suite 502
They also want all customers to fill out a USPS form and essentially
sign up for the box again with two forms of ID and demand for lots of
other intrusive information.
So let me ask the experts ... What the hey is going on here?
They seem to be tinkering with a tried and true system.
Perhaps to make sure every private box is identified as a _box_
instead of the time honored way of suggesting you have a suite.
There was some babble in the notice about "preventing fraudulent use".
What this has to do with forcing everyone to change their address and
stationary is beyond me.
The funny thing about all this is that my MBE manager was first told
by a supervisor to address the mail one way, but two weeks later sent
another notice saying a higher supervisor had "corrected" the
"allowable/required" format.
You would think some national change in mail box addressing would have
been worked out definatively the first time.
I'll accept the the USPS is just FUBAR most of the time, but I would
really like to know why all this is going on and what it is supposed
to acomplish.
Of course there is no explanation why all private box customers are
being forced to order new stationary, cards, envelopes and notify
everyone who might send bills or mail to change an address from one
that already works just fine!
Larry labradl...@mindspring.com
Dale14531
www.postalnews.com they have a story from the wall street journal on this. By
the way how much do you pay for your private box? The postal rate in my medium
sized town (200,000 pop.) is $22.00 per six monthes of use. You probably pay
that per month.
J.C.
}The post office is quietly changing the way private mail boxes are
}handled with new PMB rules and I would like to know the reason why.
Bottom line is "to prevent fraud".
Johnny Gowen
Wasn't this an FBI thing?
I thought maybe this was designed to flush out people that
is hiding from Gov'rmt,,
But I could be wrong,
Larry Alkoff wrote:
> The post office is quietly changing the way private mail boxes are
> handled with new PMB rules and I would like to know the reason why.
>
> I get my mail at a private box service (like Mailboxes Etc) and have
> been very comfortable with mail in the format of:
>
sniffed off
Ron Bean
vladimir....@giedi-prime.harkonnen.org (Vladimir Harkonnen) writes:
>If you want people to think you have a real, physical address you'll
>just have to provide a real, physical address. Bummer.
An MBE storefront *is* a "real, physical address" (just ask UPS :-).
I've heard in the past that a regular PO box can be turned into a
"street address" by using the street address of the post office
where the box is located. Does this still work?
BTW it's apparently not necessary to provide MBE with two forms
of ID if they still have copies on file from when you first
opened the box (at least that's what they told me).
I noticed that if an MBE box is used by a business, the USPS
wants the names of *every* employee who might recieve mail there.
I can't see how they'll ever enforce this. No business is going to
bother notifying the Post Office every time they hire someone.
Ron Bean
This issue is also being discussed in comp.society.privacy with
the subject line "USPS Policy Affects Privacy".
Interesting points:
>From: Christopher Burian <bur...@mediaone.net>
>Unfortunately, the requirement to explicitly label the address as
>a private mailbox is actually likely to increase fraud. Many people
>who hold private mailboxes use them because they are a secure
>alternative to unlocked streetside boxes at their homes. This
>greatly reduces the risk of fraud and identity theft. However,
>the major credit reporting bureaus and some credit card issuers
>euphemistically label addresses known to be private mailboxes with
>the word 'fraudulent,' a practice derided by consumer advocates.
>And, to add insult to injury, the letters to designate a private
>mailbox according to the new regulations, 'PMB,' are the same
>letters used to designate inmate addresses at some prisons in the
>U.S. Obviously, this could cause an uninformed person to mistakenly
>believe a private mailbox was a prisoner's mailbox.
Joshua Eight
It's great because they can accept packages and certified mail, etc.
for you, as your agent. I travel around the country, and I can call
them up, ask them what I have in the box, and ask them to send it to
me, wherever I am.
This new regulation sucks! because the mailbox service is not supposed
to forward any mail not addressed with PMB (instead of Suite #)after
October 26, 1999.
Using a mailbox service protects your privacy. Most anyone can look up
information about you (drivers license, credit records, etc) and find
out your home address. There are a lot of nutz out there who may want
to stalk you and kill you because you cut them off in traffic or some
bullshit like that. Having a private mailbox with a normal street
address (not PMB) is way to protect yourself from unwanted privacy
invasions.
The previous regulation still required you to present two forms of ID
(one picture), so you could always be traced by law enforcement.
I'm surpirsed Mail Boxres etc. did not lobby hard against this. I
foresee a big loss of business, since the value of having a normal
street adddress is now gone.
J8
In article <19990512182733...@ng22.aol.com>,
--
Yes, posted via
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Cmppugs
to stalk you and kill you because you cut them off in traffic or some
bullshit like that.
>>
Yeah, I'd just love to know what the actual statistics are on something like
that.......compared to the number of people who get those boxes to use 'em as
scams.
Cyn Plahuta
Villa Park / Lombard N. Texas
Jim Memmott
Jim Memmott
this type of service for about seven years. During that time, I have
only had inquiries from law enforcement on four boxholders. In one of
those cases, as a private establishment with our own security
equipment to monitor after hours access, we were able to provide more
assistance than would have been possible in a post office. During
that same time, we have worked with at least a dozen women escaping
abusive domestic relationships. After they file a personal change of
address with the post office, we are able to see that their mail
safely reaches their temporary shelters while they re-establish
themselves.
It is unfortunate that this is issue is causing such polarization.
The rule changes were meant to address some real problems but they are
having unintended consequences. The credit card companies wanted
these rules to better identify the delivery address but the forwarding
rules mean that we may have to sit on incoming mail for as much as six
months if the forwarding address given to us has been vacated. That
gives the fraud that much more time to disappear before those
companies realize that the bills are going nowhere.
I am also struggling with the plight of several retired people that
have been with us for years. They sold their houses, bought mobile
homes or boats and intended to travel as long as they are healthy
enough to do so. They no longer have permanent addresses. We are
their mailing address. Under these rules, I am supposed to kick them
out of their boxes unless they produce a non-existent physical
address.
I am not publicly trying to undo these rules because I understand the
reason they were implemented and I do not believe that the Postal
System is intentionally trying to harm retirees, abused women and
legitimate businesses. The Postal System has indicated that they are
willing to look at the impact of these rules before they are cast into
concrete this fall. I for one hope that they are sincere and that
some common sense and compassion enters into this process.
Jim Memmott
Santa Cruz, CA
Cmppugs
years I'll be one of those "travelling trailer" folk myself.~g~ In that
situation tho, I always planned to just put in a change of address to a
sibling. And I work with the homeless and this can be a real problem. Right
now, my home address is the home address for a few of 'em, as is my bathroom
and shower. But there are of course tons out there that don't have anyone they
can count on for even the smallest of thangs.
Thanks for reminding me of the real world. North Texas ain't always a rose
garden.
Cyn Plahuta
Villa Park / Lombard, N.TX.
Adam H. Kerman
Joshua Eight <joshua...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>This new regulation sucks! because the mailbox service is not supposed
>to forward any mail not addressed with PMB (instead of Suite #) after
>October 26, 1999.
The new addressing standard is tougher than that.
ABC Company (or personal name if an individual's mail)
PMB 376
951 W. Center St., Ste. 433 (the CMRA's suite, not a box number)
Anytown, USA
The commercial mail receiving agency won't accept or forward such mail not
addressed in this manner because the post office will have returned it
to sender. Please note that "PMB" must be on a line by itself above the
street address of the CMRA!
On the one hand, the post office is correct that the secondary address
designator (suite or apartment) should not be used with this type of mail.
But no senders are really being harmed by it.
Currently, if the sender doesn't know what the correct secondary designator
is, he may address mail thusly:
951 W. Center St., # 433 [note the required space before and after "#"]
You aren't supposed to use "#" if the correct secondary designator is used.
The post office also doesn't want the word "box" used because too much
incompetently-programmed address matching software always converts that
to "PO Box", including what the post office itself uses to apply delivery
point bar codes to letters.
There is currently a valid practice that could have simply been used for
private mail boxes: Call them mailstops.
What is unreasonable is requiring that PMB be put on a line by itself above
the street address. No other secondary designator is required to be placed
in that position [unless there's no room on the line after the street
address]. It's an unreasonable addressing requirement that senders won't
understand. And it will require reprogramming of addressing software.
Adam H. Kerman
<7A90F940D2E40EEC.2F471873...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
Jim Memmott <JMem...@foobar.braeman.com> wrote:
>I don't know about the statistics but I have owned a [commercial mail
>receiving agency] for about seven years. During that time, . . . we have
>worked with at least a dozen women escaping abusive domestic relationships.
>After they file a personal change of address with the post office, we are able
>to see that their mail safely reaches their temporary shelters while they
>re-establish themselves.
>It is unfortunate that this is issue is causing such polarization. The rule
>changes were meant to address some real problems but they are having uninten-
>ded consequences. The credit card companies wanted these rules to better
>identify the delivery address but the forwarding rules mean that we may have
>to sit on incoming mail for as much as six months if the forwarding address
>given to us has been vacated. That gives the fraud that much more time to
>disappear before those companies realize that the bills are going nowhere.
You are claiming that the new standard requires you to retain incoming mail
for up to six months if you don't have a valid address to forward the mail to.
You have drawn an incorrect conclusion.
What correct conclusion should be drawn? I don't know; the standard has
several serious conflicts in it.
An addressee is required to file Form 1583 with the CMRA which must have his
current address. When his address changes, he is supposed to file a new 1583.
When he ends the agency relationship, he is not obligated to file a new Form
1583 is his address has changed, nor is he obligated to file a new Form 1583
during the six months after he stopped using the agency.
It's a very strange standard: The agency is required to pay postage for six
months to re-mail to a former customer, but the former customer who moves
during the six-month period is not required to notify the agent of his new
address. If he chooses to notify the agent of his new address, he need not do
so on a new Form 1583 nor show identification with the new address.
If a customer does not notify you that he has moved, you should re-mail to
the address shown on Form 1583 showing your agency as the sender and endorse
it "Return Service Requested". If the former customer is not at that address
and has a valid Change of Address on file, the piece will be returned to you.
There is no specific standard instructing you to obtain Change of Address
information from the post office to find a current address, or to retain
mail during the six-month period. If the former customer has not notified
you of his current address, there seems to be no obligation for you to pay
any new postage in an attempt to forward his mail.
There is another standard you can rely on: If mail is sent to your agency for
someone who has not Form 1583 on file, you are obligated to nixie the mail
yourself and give it to your carrier or the post office on the next business
day. It seems that if your former customer has failed to give you his current
address, then the Form 1583 he had signed is no longer effective. So treat
his mail as someone who never was a customer.
Another error in the standard: If you receive mail for someone who never was
a customer, you would nixie mail of any class and return it to your carrier
or the post office the next day. If you receive mail for a former customer
after the six-month period, you are only instructed to nixie First-Class Mail
and give it to your carrier or the post office. Are you authorized to dispose
of mail of other classes? Why the dissimilar treatment between mail that isn't
for customers and mail for former customers?
The post office claims that it is bringing the requirements on CMRAs in line
with the requirements of PO Boxes. CMRAs are obligated to remail all classes of
mail during the six-month period. If a COA for a closed PO Box is filed, the
post office only forwards First-Class Mail or Periodicals. Standard (A) is only
forwarded with certain endorsements. Standard (B) is only forwarded postage due
with certain endorsements.
CMRAs are obligated to remail all classes of mail!
>I am also struggling with the plight of several retired people that
>have been with us for years. They sold their houses, bought mobile
>homes or boats and intended to travel as long as they are healthy
>enough to do so. They no longer have permanent addresses. We are
>their mailing address. Under these rules, I am supposed to kick them
>out of their boxes unless they produce a non-existent physical address.
Under federal law, homeless people now have the right to vote! Surely,
itinerants must have the right to an agent to receive mail!
No, you are only obligated to verify the address they fill in on the Form 1583
with identification they present. You have no obligation to verify that they
continue to live there or to force them to file a new Form 1583 when they
change their address. That burden is on the customer.
>I am not publicly trying to undo these rules because I understand the
>reason they were implemented and I do not believe that the Postal
>System is intentionally trying to harm retirees, abused women and
>legitimate businesses. The Postal System has indicated that they are
>willing to look at the impact of these rules before they are cast into
>concrete this fall. I for one hope that they are sincere and that
>some common sense and compassion enters into this process.
You have identified several unintended consequences of the rules. In fact,
there's no way an itinerant can be forced to maintain a permanent address to
do business with you. That would fail a constitutional equal protection test.
Even though the public comment period ended, you should publicly try to get
your valid concerns addressed.
Till December, 1997, public comments had been sent to
Manager
Delivery Operations Support
United States Postal Service
475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Rm. 7142
Washington, DC 20260
In charge of tracking the regulation is Roy E. Gamble on 202 268-3197,
although he is likely an attorney.
Or, I suppose you could write directly to the Postmaster General since it
is long past the end of the comment period.
I strongly urge you to write and continue a public effort to modify
the regulations which are highly flawed.
mark_mannix
about these new regs he told me he has dozens of customers in the
merchant marines, retired with no permanent address, and just
generally on the road. Some of these customers, he said, check in to
get their mail perhaps once every few YEARS, and he has no way to even
reach them, to notify them of these new regulations, before their mail
begins being returned to sender by the Postal Service, in October --
if they follow their existing regulations.
JMem...@foobar.braeman.com (Jim Memmott) wrote:
> I don't know about the statistics but I have owned a store providing
> this type of service for about seven years. During that time, I have
> only had inquiries from law enforcement on four boxholders. In one of
> those cases, as a private establishment with our own security
> equipment to monitor after hours access, we were able to provide more
> assistance than would have been possible in a post office. During
> that same time, we have worked with at least a dozen women escaping
> abusive domestic relationships. After they file a personal change of
> address with the post office, we are able to see that their mail
> safely reaches their temporary shelters while they re-establish
> themselves.
>
> It is unfortunate that this is issue is causing such polarization.
> The rule changes were meant to address some real problems but they are
> having unintended consequences. The credit card companies wanted
> these rules to better identify the delivery address but the forwarding
> rules mean that we may have to sit on incoming mail for as much as six
> months if the forwarding address given to us has been vacated. That
> gives the fraud that much more time to disappear before those
> companies realize that the bills are going nowhere.
>
> I am also struggling with the plight of several retired people that
> have been with us for years. They sold their houses, bought mobile
> homes or boats and intended to travel as long as they are healthy
> enough to do so. They no longer have permanent addresses. We are
> their mailing address. Under these rules, I am supposed to kick them
> out of their boxes unless they produce a non-existent physical
> address.
>
> I am not publicly trying to undo these rules because I understand the
> reason they were implemented and I do not believe that the Postal
> System is intentionally trying to harm retirees, abused women and
> legitimate businesses. The Postal System has indicated that they are
> willing to look at the impact of these rules before they are cast into
> concrete this fall. I for one hope that they are sincere and that
> some common sense and compassion enters into this process.
>
> Jim Memmott
> Santa Cruz, CA
>
> On 28 May 1999 18:09:15 GMT, cmp...@aol.com (Cmppugs) wrotE:
>
> ><< There are a lot of nutz out there who may want
> >to stalk you and kill you because you cut them off in traffic or some
> >bullshit like that.
> >>>
> >
> >Yeah, I'd just love to know what the actual statistics are on something like
> >that.......compared to the number of people who get those boxes to use 'em as
> >scams.
> >
> >Cyn Plahuta
> >Villa Park / Lombard N. Texas
> >
> >
>
chavingo_del_vigros
In reading the rule on the ghastly webpage you mentioned
(http://ribbs.usps.gov/files/fedreg/usps99/99-7352.txt), I am unable
to find a requirement that "PMB 376" be placed on a separate line.
Have you a specific citation for this?
Adam H. Kerman
>>>This new regulation sucks! because the mailbox service is not supposed
>>>to forward any mail not addressed with PMB (instead of Suite #) after
>>>October 26, 1999.
>>The new addressing standard is tougher than that.
>>ABC Company (or personal name if an individual's mail)
>>PMB 376
>>951 W. Center St., Ste. 433 (the CMRA's suite, not a box number)
>>Anytown, USA
>>The commercial mail receiving agency won't accept or forward such mail not
>>addressed in this manner because the post office will have returned it
>>to sender. Please note that "PMB" must be on a line by itself above the
>>street address of the CMRA! . . .
>>Currently, if the sender doesn't know what the correct secondary designator
>>is, he may address mail thusly:
>>951 W. Center St., # 433 [note the required space before and after "#"]
>>You aren't supposed to use "#" if the correct secondary designator is used.
>>. . .
>>What is unreasonable is requiring that PMB be put on a line by itself above
>>the street address. No other secondary designator is required to be placed
>>in that position [unless there's no room on the line after the street
>>address]. It's an unreasonable addressing requirement that senders won't
>>understand. And it will require reprogramming of addressing software.
>In reading the rule on the ghastly webpage you mentioned
>(http://ribbs.usps.gov/files/fedreg/usps99/99-7352.txt), I am unable
>to find a requirement that "PMB 376" be placed on a separate line.
>Have you a specific citation for this?
D042.2.6.e says, in part, "Mailpieces must bear a delivery address that
contains at least the following elements, in this order:", which is
company or individual name, PMB, street address of agent, city, state, & ZIP.
This seems to require use of a 5-digit ZIP Code. Lacking the PMB, the post
office will return mail to sender. This must be read in conjunction with
A010.5.3. The exact text is cited below.
A Addressing
A000 Basic Addressing
A010 General Addressing Standards
5.0 RESTRICTIONS
* * * * *
[Add new 5.3 as follows:]
5.3 Mail Addressed to CMRAs
Mail sent to an addressee at a commercial mail receiving agency
(CMRA) must be addressed to their private mailbox (PMB) number at the
CMRA mailing address.
* * * * *
D Deposit, Collection, and Delivery
* * * * *
D042 Conditions of Delivery
* * * * *
2.0 DELIVERY TO ADDRESSEE'S AGENT
* * * * *
2.6 Delivery to CMRA
[Revise D042.2.6 as follows:]
Procedures for delivery to a CMRA:
e. A CMRA must represent its delivery address designations for the
intended addressees as a private mailbox (PMB). The CMRA delivery
address must specify the location to which the mailpiece is delivered.
Mailpieces must bear a delivery address that contains at least the
following elements, in this order:
(1) Intended addressee's name or other identification. Examples:
Joe Doe or ABC CO.
(2) PMB and number. Example: PMB 234.
(3) Street number and name or post office box number or rural route
designation and number. Examples: 10 Main St or PO BOX 34 or RR 1 BOX 12.
(4) City, state, and ZIP Code (5-digit or ZIP+4). Example: Herndon
VA 22071-2716.
The CMRA must write the complete CMRA delivery address used to
deliver mail to each individual addressee or firm on the Form 1583
(block 3). The Postal Service will return mail without a proper address
to the sender endorsed "Undeliverable as Addressed."
chavingo_del_vigros
than the postal authorities I've been speaking with, you're certainly
more willing to provide information. I can't find the answer to this
question on the Q&A website (www.usps.gov/feedback/cmra_faq.htm), and
the USPS site (http://ribbs.usps.gov/files/fedreg/usps99/99-7352.txt)
has been down for days.
As explained to me by my CMRA, the new i/d standards merely bring
maildrop identification and verification procedures into line with the
i/d and verification procedures for PO Boxes. I've had a PO Box, twice
upon a time, long long ago, and my recollection is that the Post
Office had my carrier verify that I did indeed live at the address
listed on my paperwork. Is my memory correct, that home addresses are
verified before PO Boxes are rented out; and if so, is the same
procedure now being used to verify the home addresses of PMB renters?
Adam H. Kerman
>Sorry to trouble you again, Adam, but if you're not more knowledgeable
>than the postal authorities I've been speaking with, you're certainly
>more willing to provide information. I can't find the answer to this
>question on the Q&A website (www.usps.gov/feedback/cmra_faq.htm), and
>the USPS site (http://ribbs.usps.gov/files/fedreg/usps99/99-7352.txt)
>has been down for days.
>As explained to me by my CMRA, the new i/d standards merely bring
>maildrop identification and verification procedures into line with the
>i/d and verification procedures for PO Boxes. I've had a PO Box, twice
>upon a time, long long ago, and my recollection is that the Post
>Office had my carrier verify that I did indeed live at the address
>listed on my paperwork. Is my memory correct, that home addresses are
>verified before PO Boxes are rented out; and if so, is the same
>procedure now being used to verify the home addresses of PMB renters?
I've had several PO Boxes over the years and no one ever verified an
address for an organization or me.
An applicant for a PO Box files From 1093 and must disclose his name and
address and phone number, or, if an organization, its address. He must notify
the Postmaster of a new address or phone number. He must furnish two types of
ID, one of which must have a picture. The clerk must record the ID numbers.
He must disclose if he's soliciting or doing business with the public from
the PO Box. If so, the information on the form may be disclosed to
anyone at all.
The home address is only verified to the extent of reading it from your ID.
So, yes, the verification procedures for PMBs and PO Boxes are similar.
Cynthia M.C. Richards-Plahuta
So, yes, the verification procedures for PMBs and PO Boxes are similar.
>>
Not necessarily. I regularly receive inquiries from either the folks working
our box section or from folks working the box sections of other Post Offices
asking me to verify that an applicant does indeed live at the address he's
given when the applicant has given an address on my route as his street
address.
Cyn
Adam H. Kerman
Is there really a usual procedure for every new applicant, or is another
Postmaster trying to verify these boxholders in response to complaints of
unfulfilled merchandise?
Long Gone
news:YYk83.27254$Gn3....@news.rdc1.il.home.com...
(clip)
> An applicant for a PO Box files From 1093 and must disclose his name and
> address and phone number, or, if an organization, its address. He must
notify
> the Postmaster of a new address or phone number. He must furnish two types
of
> ID, one of which must have a picture. The clerk must record the ID
numbers.
>
> He must disclose if he's soliciting or doing business with the public from
> the PO Box. If so, the information on the form may be disclosed to
> anyone at all.
>
ID.
> So, yes, the verification procedures for PMBs and PO Boxes are similar.
Gee thanks, Adam. I didn't think you would err so soon. ~g~
1. Customer must provide two forms of identification one of which must be
picture bearing. The second ID must bear a number that can be tracked to
the individual such as credit cards. The credit card number is never
recorded. Just an indication of the company issuing the card. SSAN is not
a valid ID.
2. All information on the application cannot be released simply because it
is a business box. Only the name of the business and the street address.
Personal information on any application is not released except as required
by law.
3. Customer must produce evidence of physical residence. When the address
on application and the ID are different the customer must produce other
evidence. Otherwise, you are correct that PMB applicants must meet same
criteria as those renting a PO box. Guess that proves we don't
discriminate, huh? ~g~
chavingo_del_vigros
> 3. Customer must produce evidence of physical residence. When the address
> on application and the ID are different the customer must produce other
> evidence. Otherwise, you are correct that PMB applicants must meet same
> criteria as those renting a PO box. Guess that proves we don't
> discriminate, huh? ~g~
>
What would be acceptible as other evidence, if the address on DL is
different from the applicant's listed home address?
mark_mannix
the several month waiting period for the box to become available,
there was a second, much shorter waiting period while my home address
was verififed.
How it was verified, I don't remember at all.
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote:
> Chavingo del Vigros wrote:
> >Sorry to trouble you again, Adam, but if you're not more knowledgeable
> >than the postal authorities I've been speaking with, you're certainly
> >more willing to provide information. I can't find the answer to this
> >question on the Q&A website (www.usps.gov/feedback/cmra_faq.htm), and
> >the USPS site (http://ribbs.usps.gov/files/fedreg/usps99/99-7352.txt)
> >has been down for days.
>
> >As explained to me by my CMRA, the new i/d standards merely bring
> >maildrop identification and verification procedures into line with the
> >i/d and verification procedures for PO Boxes. I've had a PO Box, twice
> >upon a time, long long ago, and my recollection is that the Post
> >Office had my carrier verify that I did indeed live at the address
> >listed on my paperwork. Is my memory correct, that home addresses are
> >verified before PO Boxes are rented out; and if so, is the same
> >procedure now being used to verify the home addresses of PMB renters?
>
> I've had several PO Boxes over the years and no one ever verified an
> address for an organization or me.
>
Cynthia M.C. Richards-Plahuta
In article <19990612064617...@ng-fg1.aol.com>,
Cynthia M.C. Richards-Plahuta <cmp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>So, yes, the verification procedures for PMBs and PO Boxes are similar.
>Not necessarily. I regularly receive inquiries from either the folks working
>our box section or from folks working the box sections of other Post Offices
>asking me to verify that an applicant does indeed live at the address he's
>given when the applicant has given an address on my route as his street
>address.
Is there really a usual procedure for every new applicant, or is another
Postmaster trying to verify these boxholders in response to complaints of
unfulfilled merchandise?
>>
Nope, this is SOP. It's done right at the time the person first applies for
the box, not after they've already managed to cause problems for folks.
Cyn
Adam H. Kerman
>Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote in message
>>An applicant for a PO Box files From 1093 and must disclose his name and
>>address and phone number, or, if an organization, its address. He must notify
>>the Postmaster of a new address or phone number. He must furnish two types of
>>ID, one of which must have a picture. The clerk must record the ID numbers.
>>He must disclose if he's soliciting or doing business with the public from
>>the PO Box. If so, the information on the form may be disclosed to
>>anyone at all.
>>The home address is only verified to the extent of reading it from your ID.
>>So, yes, the verification procedures for PMBs and PO Boxes are similar.
>Gee thanks, Adam. I didn't think you would err so soon. ~g~
Wipe that gleeful smile off your face. Before answering that question,
I looked at the PS Form 1093, 7-98, still current as far as I know.
>1. Customer must provide two forms of identification one of which must be
>picture bearing. The second ID must bear a number that can be tracked to
>the individual such as credit cards. The credit card number is never
>recorded. Just an indication of the company issuing the card. SSAN is not
>a valid ID.
Item 9 is completed by the clerk accepting the application. Its instructions
say, "Enter two types of identification and ID nos. . . ." That does not
jive with what you are saying. I would prefer that they record credit card
numbers, obviously. But I never use a credit card for identification unless
I'm charging something.
As the RIBBS host is still down, I'm not able to see if there is an
applicable Federal Register notice. I never use the NARA site for notices as
that host is always so damn slow and overtrafficked.
>2. All information on the application cannot be released simply because it
>is a business box. Only the name of the business and the street address.
>Personal information on any application is not released except as required
>by law.
From the Privacy Act Statement on the back of the form: "As a routine use,
the information [collected on this form] may be disclosed to anyone, when the
box is used for the purpose of doing or soliciting business with the public
. . . " Again, you are wrong: It's all disclosed.
That is the point, isn't it? A ripped-off customer needs a way of tracking
down the crook to properly serve notice to obtain a judgement.
>3. Customer must produce evidence of physical residence. When the address
>on application and the ID are different the customer must produce other
>evidence. Otherwise, you are correct that PMB applicants must meet same
>criteria as those renting a PO box.
Same as what I said: Your address is only verified from your ID. It's not
routine that the Postmaster would attempt to verify your residence by
checking with your mail carrier before approving the application.
>Guess that proves we don't discriminate, huh? ~g~
You do. Equal protection is unconstitutionally denied to transients who make
an honest attempt to comply with the standards. A transient has no permanent
residence, so he is unable to comply with the standard of maintaining his
physical address on file. Someone on the PMB thread brought up the example
of a retired couple selling their home to tour the country in a motor home.
Someone wants to commit mail fraud at a PO Box? Simple. He'll phony up some
ID and give a false name and address. A postal clerk could never tell. He
won't be prevented from obtaining a box.
When courts over the years have recognized that the homeless have the right
to register to vote using a street corner or a dock to prove residency
(now codified in Motor Voter), it's outrageous for the post office to
attempt to enforce this standard. It's overreaching and will not accomplish
the laudible goal of reducing mail fraud.
Unlike any other federal agency, the post office does not have a civil rights
compliance officer with respect to discrination against customers. I checked
with legal counsel in Chicago. I've expressed these thoughts to the General
Counsel in Washington in an attempt to get the post office to see reason
and revise the PMB standard.
I'll post the reply when I get it.
Long Gone
news:3762a311...@news.mindspring.com...
> "Long Gone" <not...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
> > 3. Customer must produce evidence of physical residence. When the
address
> > on application and the ID are different the customer must produce other
> > evidence. Otherwise, you are correct that PMB applicants must meet same
> > discriminate, huh? ~g~
> >
>
> What would be acceptable as other evidence, if the address on DL is
> different from the applicant's listed home address?
How about a rent receipt, a lease agreement or a title to the property?
Long Gone
All I can say to that Adam is you read the Privacy Act Statement. I will
continue to furnish information concerning box holders based on the
Administrative Support Manual. You won't find out from me that PO Box 123
was rented by Mr. X, with DL 123456789 who is the President of XYZ Company
at 123 Main. I will tell you that PO Box 123 is rented to the XYZ Company
located at 123 Main.
(clip)
Long Gone
> Long Gone wrote:
> >Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote in message
> >>Long Gone wrote:
> >>>Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote in message
(clip)
be
> >>>picture bearing. The second ID must bear a number that can be tracked
to
> >>>the individual such as credit cards. The credit card number is never
> >>>recorded. Just an indication of the company issuing the card. SSAN is
not
> >>>a valid ID.
>
> >>Item 9 is completed by the clerk accepting the application. Its
instructions
> >>say, "Enter two types of identification and ID nos. . . ." That does not
> >>jive with what you are saying. I would prefer that they record credit
card
> >>numbers, obviously.
>
> number, despite what the form says. Whoops.
I thought as much. Your credit card numbers are safe with me. I mark them
off of insurance claims or anything else a customer gives me with credit
card information.
> >>>2. All information on the application cannot be released simply
because it
> >>>is a business box. Only the name of the business and the street
address.
> >>>Personal information on any application is not released except as
required
> >>>by law.
(clip)
> If the form says to collect the numbers from all IDs, the clerk will
collect
> the numbers. He's not going to look in the ASM to see if the form
contradicts
> it. On the same basis, he'll be able to get the other information on the
> form. I find it hard to believe that the ASM prevents disclosure of the
name
> of the person representing the company.
You are probably very correct the clerk is not going to go read the ASM.
But they aren't going to read the form for literal interpretation either.
They will obtain the information they have been directed to obtain. And the
last I know is we do not record the credit card information except to
annotate the company.
> What if I go to the location and discover the company isn't there? At that
> point, I'd expect the post office to give me further assistance in
> tracking him down.
Sure Adam. You are turning blue by now aren't you? ~g~
> So the post office won't be playing by the same rules imposed on CMRAs
which
> will have to show their copy of the Form 1583 of someone doing business
with
> the public to anyone who asks.
>
> Can you give me a proper citation?
If you are saying the CMRA has to actually show the application upon request
then I will have to read the CMRA rules again. Not saying it isn't there
just I haven't gotten all that in depth with them.
Adam H. Kerman
>Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote in message
>>Long Gone wrote:
>>>Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote in message
>>>Gee thanks, Adam. I didn't think you would err so soon. ~g~
>>Wipe that gleeful smile off your face. Before answering that question,
>>I looked at the PS Form 1093, 7-98, still current as far as I know.
>>>1. Customer must provide two forms of identification one of which must be
>>>picture bearing. The second ID must bear a number that can be tracked to
>>>the individual such as credit cards. The credit card number is never
>>>recorded. Just an indication of the company issuing the card. SSAN is not
>>>a valid ID.
>>Item 9 is completed by the clerk accepting the application. Its instructions
>>say, "Enter two types of identification and ID nos. . . ." That does not
>>jive with what you are saying. I would prefer that they record credit card
>>numbers, obviously.
Ahem. I meant to say that I don't want the clerk recording the credit card
number, despite what the form says. Whoops.
>>>2. All information on the application cannot be released simply because it
>>>is a business box. Only the name of the business and the street address.
>>>Personal information on any application is not released except as required
>>>by law.
>>From the Privacy Act Statement on the back of the form: "As a routine use,
>>the information [collected on this form] may be disclosed to anyone, when the
>>box is used for the purpose of doing or soliciting business with the public
>> . . . " Again, you are wrong: It's all disclosed.
>All I can say to that Adam is you read the Privacy Act Statement. I will
>continue to furnish information concerning box holders based on the
>Administrative Support Manual. You won't find out from me that PO Box 123
>was rented by Mr. X, with DL 123456789 who is the President of XYZ Company
>at 123 Main. I will tell you that PO Box 123 is rented to the XYZ Company
>located at 123 Main.
If the form says to collect the numbers from all IDs, the clerk will collect
the numbers. He's not going to look in the ASM to see if the form contradicts
it. On the same basis, he'll be able to get the other information on the
form. I find it hard to believe that the ASM prevents disclosure of the name
of the person representing the company.
What if I go to the location and discover the company isn't there? At that
point, I'd expect the post office to give me further assistance in
tracking him down.
So the post office won't be playing by the same rules imposed on CMRAs which