RSS Feed
Apr 13

Letter to Oce Returned as “Undeliverable”

Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2010 in Oce Correspondence

In recent weeks, I have once again had the joy of less than polite conversations with OCE personnel and ludicrous demand notices from OCE.  (I admit that I have been remiss in keeping this up to date, but I intend to be more diligent in the weeks ahead.  I am astonished by the sheer volume of material in the “OCE” folder in my desk drawer.)  Despite the fact that we have not done any business with OCE in over a year, the dollar amounts demanded vary from statements issued mere days apart.  When OCE contacts my office, I am nearly always confused as to which fairy tale I am responding to; at this point I would be hard pressed to identify any consistency in the correspondence I receive from OCE, other than an increase in the creativeness (read “falsification” or “fabrication” if you are not trying to be polite) and belligerency.

In the fall I requested documentation from RMS, a collections agency OCE contracts with, via certified letter.  The letter was received, no documentation was forthcoming, and OCE was silent for several months.  This March OCE has attempted to feed my firm a steaming fresh pile of nonsense (the kind that is shoveled out of horse stalls), and I once again attempted to request documentation from OCE.  This time, the letter was not delivered.

oce return to sender 040510

Interestingly enough, I sent the letter addressed to where Catherine Obarski’s notice originated.  Notice the words “Insufficient Address” on the yellow label affixed by the Post Office — one would normally assume that the return address on a letter would return the piece to its sender.  Like so many other things at OCE, reasonable assumptions are generally wrong.  The good news is that my cup runneth over with hard documentation of other OCE faux pas, and there is now more incentive to get the material posted.

Sep 9

Final Demand Letter — Final Demand for What?!?!

Posted on Wednesday, September 9, 2009 in Oce Correspondence

I generally try to be a reasonable human being.  Some days, though, the world itself is not reasonable.  (File is a PDF of the letter sent by Oce.)

Oce Final Demand Letter

This is what prompted me to start this blog.  My response is below:

Dear Joshua Edwards:

Thank you submitting a Final Demand Letter (“letter”) to this office dated 04-SEPT-2009 and received 08-SEPT-2009.

On or about 9-APRIL-2009, Carolyn Beahn, Oce Imagistics Accounts Receivable Department, contacted this office regarding outstanding invoices.  It was her contention that this office has unpaid invoices dating back to 2007.  According to our records, those invoices are not open.  Subsequent contacts corrected a problem with a more recent invoice, namely Invoice #718916679 dated 15-APRIL-2009, which was disputed due to a billing error by OCE Imagistics.  On or about 09-JULY-2009, Ms. Beahn provided a corrected total for the invoice, and Check #1374 from the General Account was issued, with funds debited on 24-JULY-2009.

The assertion made in the letter regarding permission to order supplies or service is confusing.  Immediately following the refusal of Oce to provide consumables in April 2009, written notice was issued to Barbara Saviano, Vice President, Administration, Oce North America, indicating that Oce had breached its Equipment Maintenance Agreement and that Bretzel Enterprises was declining any further participation with Oce Imagistics, Inc.  According to Ms. Beahn, Invoice #718895102 dated 26-MAY-2009 was an acknowledgment of the notice sent to Ms. Saviano in that it indicated the removal of the equipment in question from Oce service.  As such, there is no existing service agreement between Bretzel Enterprises and Oce Imagistics, Inc.

This office has made a “good faith” effort to correct the inaccuracies in your records.  However, we were forced to discontinue regular cooperation as the demands placed upon our staff by your agents became unreasonable.  We will gladly provide the information necessary to correct the errors in your records provided remuneration is guaranteed for the time and materials expended.

In making a cursory review of the available records, I have determined that billing errors and failures to provide service in accordance with the terms of the service agreement, generally by failing to service the equipment within the time frame specified by the contract, have been prevalent since the beginning of our business relationship.  It is unfortunate that your back office support is so inept given the quality of the equipment you provide and the quality of service provided by technicians in the field.

These problems are not isolated to our business relationship.  I have recently become aware of billing errors of over $1,600 that have been resolved by an organization upon whose Board of Directors I serve.  Additionally, the aforementioned organization’s equipment was recently disabled for over a week awaiting repair by Oce technicians.  As I was a party to the original negotiation for that piece of equipment, I clearly recall that service was guaranteed within a four-hour time frame from the initial call to Oce service, and that a “loaner” copier would be provided in the event of an extended disablement due to Oce’s inability to procure the necessary parts or service in a timely manner.  The copier was obviously not fixed in a timely manner, and no loaner was provided.

Following receipt of the letter, I contacted the Indiana State Attorney General for guidance as to how to request an investigation into the fraudulent billing practices of Oce Imagistics, Inc.  Additionally, our webmaster has reserved the domain name, where in the coming weeks documentation of the problems experienced by Bretzel Enterprises and other Oce customers we have contacted will be posted.  Hopefully other organizations will heed our warning and choose to business with more reputable firms.

Should you have any questions, please feel free to respond to this email or call me directly at xxx-xxx-xxxx.


Brett S. Stowell, MBA
Bretzel Property Holdings, Inc.