triumphs
[Top] [All Lists]

*U(%^%) postoffice - the conclusion

To: triumphs@autox.team.net
Subject: *U(%^%) postoffice - the conclusion
From: "Brad Kahler" <brad.kahler@141.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 16:01:55 -0600
References: <19990122155508781.AAA178@mail.141.com@[38.14.74.88]>
For those of you following this thread I thought I would fill you in on the 
final conclusion.

Yesterday I had talked to I think four different people at three different 
branches trying to locate my express mail package.  Several had promised 
to return calls which did not happen.  Finally this morning around 10:30 I 
called the main branch again and talked to someone in the express mail 
department.  He said it would be about an hour before he could access the 
computers to try and locate the package.  He also said he would be calling 
me back around noon.  So around 2:30 today after not getting any call back 
I decided I'd had enough and called the main branch and asked to speak to 
the post master.  I was intercepted by his secretary who said he was out 
and then asked if she could help.  So I proceeded to tell the whole story yet 
again.  She also was baffled by the erroneous article (tracking) number that 
was written on the slip.  I also mentioned the lack of apparent concern by 
the people I had talked to so far.  She promised to look into it and 
mentioned that this could be "ugly".  

Well about 3:30 I got a call from the post master directly.  Yes they did find 
the package and he apologized about 4 or 5 times for the error and from the 
tone of his voice he wasn't pleased with the overall sequence of events that 
took place this past week.  Apparently what happened is the driver on 
sunday left the package in the delivery vehicle and some how it managed to 
find a nice little nook where it wasn't easily seen.  So after my call at 2:30 
I 
guess they did a thorough search of said vehicle and found the package.  
He couldn't explain the bad article number written down but he did mention 
that he would see what he could do to try and see that this type of thing 
never happens again.  He also mentioned that he was "expecting" me to file 
a claim to be reimbursed for the delivery costs and also mentioned that he 
didn't think "he" would have any trouble approving such claim.  I did 
suggest that I didn't really need to file a claim and he told me he really 
wished I would.

Also it looks like I will get to meet the post master since he is delivering 
the 
package to me personally sometime in the next hour or so!

To be honest, the delay in receiving the package didn't bother me near as 
much as the thought of having possibly lost the package for good.  I 
checked with the the place I bought the lights from and they are NOS Lucas 
lights and NOT new reproduction like I had thought.  These lights  
apparently are pretty rare.  If anyone is interested in seeing which lights I'm 
refering to, look in Bill Piggotts latest book Original Triumph TR4/4A/5/6 on 
page 8 and on page 110.  The lights in question are the backup lights below 
the rear bumper.

So alls well that ends well, however I must admit I'm glad the saga has 
finally ended!


Brad  (Lincoln Nebraska 402-464-1502)
My Web Site Http://www.141.com/triumphs (updated 12/3/98)

1964 Spitfire4 BFC25720L -- 1973 Spitfire 1500 FM3353U
1962 TR4 CT288L          -- 1965 TR4 CT38888LO parts car?
1959 TR3A TS41311L       -- 1959 TR3A TS53523L parts car
1951 Dodge Truck B-3-B-108

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>