Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
This is actually a more serious issue than most think
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="dannyboy" data-source="post: 568175" data-attributes="member: 484"><p>IT used to be that you could go down to the bank, and they would "certify" your check on its face. All that meant was that you had the funds in the bank to cover that check, and they would put a hold on that amount until the check cleared.</p><p> </p><p>THen there were too many dishonest people doing it themselves, so that no longer is proper.</p><p> </p><p>A bank check drawn on a bank itself, or a money order like you can get anywhere are considered certified funds. You pay for them in cash, and the bank then makes the check good.</p><p> </p><p>Problem is that the thieves are really good at printing up these documents, and they look exactly like the real thing. And an additional problem is that check printing stuff is out there, along with blank check paper available from any office store.</p><p> </p><p>The problem also lies with UPS knowingly continuing to do business with this type of customer. IT is a serious issue company wide. And more and more, UPS is looking to the drivers for repayment.</p><p> </p><p>C</p><p> </p><p></p><p>I would suggest that until I see the evidence in this case, <strong><em><u>the $20,000 Daniels owes </u></em></strong> is something of a assumption on our parts. The spokes person agreed with UPS, so then why would it not be the 20 grand, instead of just one. Part of that I believe are the limits of the driver set by the contract. </p><p> </p><p>But the fact still remains, If he took what the tag suggested, and the diad prompted, then his liability should be zero. If he took two personal or company checks instead of certified funds, then he should be held responsible for at least part of the loss.</p><p> </p><p>d</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="dannyboy, post: 568175, member: 484"] IT used to be that you could go down to the bank, and they would "certify" your check on its face. All that meant was that you had the funds in the bank to cover that check, and they would put a hold on that amount until the check cleared. THen there were too many dishonest people doing it themselves, so that no longer is proper. A bank check drawn on a bank itself, or a money order like you can get anywhere are considered certified funds. You pay for them in cash, and the bank then makes the check good. Problem is that the thieves are really good at printing up these documents, and they look exactly like the real thing. And an additional problem is that check printing stuff is out there, along with blank check paper available from any office store. The problem also lies with UPS knowingly continuing to do business with this type of customer. IT is a serious issue company wide. And more and more, UPS is looking to the drivers for repayment. C I would suggest that until I see the evidence in this case, [B][I][U]the $20,000 Daniels owes [/U][/I][/B] is something of a assumption on our parts. The spokes person agreed with UPS, so then why would it not be the 20 grand, instead of just one. Part of that I believe are the limits of the driver set by the contract. But the fact still remains, If he took what the tag suggested, and the diad prompted, then his liability should be zero. If he took two personal or company checks instead of certified funds, then he should be held responsible for at least part of the loss. d [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
This is actually a more serious issue than most think
Top