Pitney Bowespitney bowes

L Jul 10, 2019

I have a grievance against Pitney Bowes. I have been a loyal customer of a leased postage meter for 28 years. Last year we decided to take another route for postage. I calcualted that my 42 month lease contract [protected] was signed on Dec 22, 2015 and would expire as of June 21, 2019 I paid my balance through the expiration and returned my meter in good order.

Pitney Bowes is demanding I continue to pay quarterly payments into next year.

Their justification extends back over a decade. Contract A203646001 in Oct 2009 was for $142/quarter. In April 2012 I called their representative and let them know I was not going to renew my contract because I had better quotes from other companies. Their representative told me they would match this but I would have to sign a new contract for $99.40.

On 4/25/2012 I signed contract A203646002. The disagreement occurs here, where I understood that this new contract over-rode the prior contract and had a start date of 4/25/2012 and a 42 month duration ending 10/25 2015.

Following 4/25/2012 Pitney Bowes immediately started billing me at the new quarterly rate of $99.40 showing that they now were honoring the new contract and no longer enforcing the old contract.

Contract A203646002 ended 42 months later on 10/25/2015. This corresponds to the phone calls I received in Nov 2015 from them stating that my contract had expired and they would raise my rates if I didn't re-enter a new contract. I did enter another 42 month contract [protected] starting on Dec 22, 2015. As such, the end date of June 21, 2019 is valid.

Now Pitney Bowes says I have to continue paying. My lawyer has advised me that their contractual interpretations are incorrect on a number of levels.

1) He wants to understand how I had 2 active contracts for 1 machine during that period following 4/25/2012. One can not have 2 contracts for 1 machine, and their actions clearly shows Contract A203646001 was voided on 4/25/12 when they started billing me at the new A203646002 contractual rate.

2) Their arguements rely on contractual evidence from 2009 and April 2012, both of which are beyond the 7 year statue of limitations. The only valid contracts are the last 2 contracts A203646002 and contract [protected], both of which were paid in full to the completion of their terms.

I have spoken with dozens of Pitney Bowes representatives, most recently JoAnn Brown to no resolution. Pitney Bowes is insistent on collecting 2 additional unjustified payments of $124.12 from me no matter the reasoning.

Post your comment