United States Postal Service(TM) 


 In the Matter of the Complaint Against: 

 UNCLAIMED FUNDS INC.,
 7739 East Broadway, Suite 420,
 at
 Tucson, AZ  85710-3947
 and at
 10101 Glades Road, Suite 1600,
 Boca Raton, FL  33498-6747
 and at
 60 East Chestnut Street, Suite 385,
 Chicago, IL  60611-2012
 and
 MARK TIMON,
 6056 Grace Avenue,
 Great Valley, NY  14741-0009

 P.S. Docket No. 37/2

 10/04/91

 Cohen, James A., Judicial Officer

 APPEARANCE FOR COMPLAINANT: Wendy A. Hocking, Esq., Law Department,
 Consumer Protection Division, United States Postal Service,
 Washington, DC  20260-1144 

 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENTS:  Mitchell I. Weitz, Esq., Davis & Gilbert,
 1740 Broadway, New York, NY  10019-4304

POSTAL SERVICE DECISION ON MOTION TO AMEND AGREEMENT

Respondents have filed a motion requesting that the Agreement Containing Consent Order to Cease and Desist (hereinafter Agreement), executed on February 7, 1991, be amended by modifying the terms of the "bounce-back letter"n1 which was attached and incorporated into the Agreement. In their motion, Respondents request that the return address on the reply envelope accompanying the letter be changed and that a postscript be added to the text of the letter. Respondents assert that the postscript is notinconsistent with the intent and substance of the Agreement, and that without it consumers will continue to be further inconvenienced by return of their nonnegotiable checks.

n1 The "bounce-back letter" is used to return the consumer's remittance, explain the services Respondents offer, clarify Respondents' nonaffiliation with any government entity, and transmit a postage-paid return envelope allowing the consumer an opportunity to reconfirm their prior order with Respondents.

Complainant does not oppose Respondents' request to change the return address, but does object to the addition of the postscript. Complainant states that it is unwilling to renegotiate the Agreement and debate the terms of the "bounce-back letter" six months after the Agreement was filed. Complainant in addition argues that the problems encountered by Respondents are of their own making and can be corrected by other means.

Despite Complainant's contentions, it appears that the postscript would be beneficial not only to Respondents, but also to the very consumers Complainant is seeking to protect. In addition, the postscript is not inconsistent with the intent and substance of the Agreement or the policy reflected in the postal false representation statute, 39 U.S.C. § 3005. Under such circumstances, there is no reason that the "bounce-back letter" should not be amended. Accordingly, Respondents' Motion to Amend Agreement Containing Consent Order to Cease and Desist is granted.