In
the Matter of the Petition by
APRIL
HANLEY
Determination
to Terminate Post
Office
Box Service for
P.S. Docket No. POB 05-197
APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
James T. Davis, Esq.
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Daniel P. Gimmy,
Esq.
INITIAL DECISION
This proceeding arises from a Petition filed by Ms. Hanley after learning that her post office box had been locked by postal employees because an accumulation of mail had overflowed the box.
Respondent, the United States Postal Service, filed an Answer to the Petition, disputing some of the facts asserted by Petitioner, and also arguing that Petitioner had surrendered the box by submitting a permanent change-of-address order. The parties were advised that, unless a party requested otherwise, this case would be decided on written submissions. The parties were also given an opportunity to file additional evidence and argument, beyond that filed with the Petition and Answer. Neither party filed anything further. The following findings of fact are based on the information submitted with the Petition and the Answer.
FINDINGS
OF FACT
1. Petitioner rented Box 415072 approximately ten years ago. For a time prior to this dispute arising, Petitioner lived temporarily in Arkansas and had her mother pick up her mail from Box 415072. (Petition).
2. In September 2005, an issue arose over the amount of mail that was accumulating in the box. Petitioner learned from her mother that the post office had locked the box on one occasion. Petitioner’s mother spoke with postal employees about this, and Petitioner later spoke with an employee on the telephone to attempt to resolve the problem. Petitioner later filed a complaint with the Postal Service Consumer Affairs Office. (Petition).
3. On September 26, 2005, Petitioner submitted a PS form 3575, Official Mail Forwarding Change of Address Order, showing her new address to be 3530 Mystic Point Drive, Aventura, FL 33180. The Form was marked to indicate that this was a permanent change. (Answer, Ex. A).
4. Sometime thereafter,
DECISION
Much of the information in the Petition, and in the Answer, deals with how Petitioner and her mother were treated by postal employees, and vice-versa, when this controversy arose. As might be expected, the two sides offer different versions of what happened. That is not a matter that needs to be resolved in this forum, however, as Petitioner does not dispute the fact that she submitted the change-of-address order described in Finding #3. That fact determines the outcome of this case.
The rules governing use of post office boxes provide that allowing a post box to overflow through failure to pick up mail regularly may be a basis for terminating a customer’s box service.[1] Whether or not the facts of this case would have supported a termination for this reason is no longer an issue, because postal regulations also state that a customer surrenders a post office box by submitting a permanent change-of-address order.[2]
Petitioner having surrendered Box 415072, and the box having been rented to another customer, there is no authority for returning the box to her. Cyrus Cardan a/k/a Cyrus Azami, P. S. Docket No. POB 98-37 (P.S.D. August 27, 1998); William Kuntz, III, P.S. Docket No. 40/55 (P.S.D. April 26, 1993). The other forms of relief requested in the Petition are beyond the scope of this proceeding and not proper matters for consideration under 39 C.F.R. Part 958. The Petition is denied.
Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge