I’m one of those people who is kind enough to send the prepaid return envelopes from unsolicited credit card offers back to the banks that sent them. But lately the envelopes have been “improved” with what I suspect is an empty threat aimed at people like me. On the back it now says:
There is also a barcode with “Locator Identification” written just above. As if the bank can simply scan the envelope and see that it came from me. I suspect this barcode is identical on all envelopes sent out in these offers, maybe others can check their junk mail and report back. The number under my barcode is visible in the linked image.
My question is about the defrauding part. Could sending back an empty envelope (or one stuffed with the junk flyers from the offer) be considerd as an attempt to defraud?
I would think that notice is there more in an attempt to deter people who might use those offers to attempt an identity theft by representing themselves as you at a new address, but that’s about 90% WAG.
Could mailing back unfilled forms be reasonably considered an attempt to defraud the financial institution?
I suppose you’re attempting to make them waste their bulk rate postage. But you’re not passing yourself off as someone you’re not. I tend to agree with Knead’s WAG.
It is defrauding the rest of the taxpayers & postal customers in the USA.
Because the company can get their money refunded by the Post Office for any empty envelopes (or ones stuffed with the junk flyers). But the Post Office has already done the work of delivering the envelope to them, spending money on this delivery, which they will now not get paid for. And they even have to pay a Postal clerk’s time to process the refund. All extra expense, which will inevitably be paid by the rest of us postal customers.
Thanks a lot for defrauding the rest of us. Hope it made you feel real proud of yourself.
Let’s see…
Assuming the postage on one of those envelopes is, oh, around 30 cents (it’s probably a lot less, but let’s go nuts). Let’s go even more nuts and say none of it is profit–it costs the taxpayers the whole thirty cents for each empty envelope. How many taxpayers are there in the US? I dunno, but let’s pretend there are only 100 million. That means that each taxpayer’s burden for Patty’s evil deed is…
So just put a note in there saying thanks for the offer, but I’m not interested. No free postage for them, more paid postage for the USPS,( which judging by their pathetic attempt to get a cut of their proposed email tax, they’re desperately looking for) Everybody wins!
I’d like a cite for this, too, because I’ve been using business reply mail for ten years and have never heard this. Now, I almost never get empty BRM envelopes, so I haven’t had much incentive to look into this. You may be right. But I’m skeptical.
As for the OP, I’m pretty sure that Knead is right. This is a anti-identity theft measure, not a way to track down those dastardly scoundrels who mail back empty BRM envelopes.
As to that childish practice, remember what Mr. Prosser told Arthur Dent about the amount of damage the bulldozer would suffer if he let it roll over Arthur?
“None at all.”
This is precisely the impact those empty envelopes have on direct mailers.
You are not deterring them. You are not giving them something to think about. They don’t care or even think about them. The only conceivable impact you are having is to increase infinitesimally the cost of every product and service that uses direct mail, which probably includes many products and services you buy.
But don’t imagine that you’re actually accomplishing anything.
I’ve heard that before, but usually regarding things like picking up litter, or voting.
Maybe by some miracle a million people or 2 will hear about this, and this practice will catch on and then maybe only 75 million trees will be used the following year for junk mail instead of 100 million. Probably not, but while sending back empty reply envelopes may be childish, sending back all the contents of what they sent you certainly is not. Not any more childish than sending 50 million people bits of garbage to throw away every day.
For that matter, what were to happen if I were to write “return to sender” on the envelope? I have heard that the post office would just throw them away.
You know how there is a “Do not call,” list? There should also be a “Do not send credit card application” list. After joining this list, for every letter telling me that I’m approved for a credit card I don’t want, I can take it to court and get, let’s say, $1,000, from the bank which sent the letter.
You dreams are answered. This site is a joint venture between the three major credit reporting agencies to allow a one stop opt-out of credit card offers:
On First Class mail, “Return to Sender” is sent back to the mailer. Undeliverable or Moved-No Forwarding Address also goes back to the sender. That’s free, as part of First Class service.
But on Bulk mail (like these), it depends on what the sender has indicated they are willing to pay for. Any action gets charged to the mailer. There will be a notice printed right on the envelope, usually under the stamp or under the return address, indicating what services the sender wants:
“Address Service Requested” – the letter is forwarded, and the mailer gets a notice of the new address (and pays for both of these).
“Return Service Requested” – not forwarded, just returned to mailer with the new address indicated.
“Forwarding Service Requested” – only forwarded (or returned if un-forwardable). Mailer gets no notice (except for returned ones).
“Change Service Requested” – not forwarded or returned, just discarded. But mailer gets a notification of the new address.
But if none of these are printed on the envelope, the Post Office just discards it when it is undeliverable or refused (like you writing “Return to Sender” on it). They won’t spend money on returning it to the sender unless the sender has indicated a willingness to pay for this. (Many don’t, because they are using a rented mailing list, and so aren’t concerned about making corrections to the list.)
What is the company supposed to do, collect the empty envelopes, take them back to the Post Office, and say, “These were empty when we opened them–cross our hearts and hope to die!”?
Perhaps I’m simply transferring the cost of disposing of waste THEY generated back to them?
“Here’s your trash back, the city charges me by the pound when I take my trash to the dump…”
When a company pays into its Advance Deposit Account at their local Post Office, they can claim credit for “Improper use of Business Reply Mail”. I believe there is the usual disclaimer on the bottom of that receipt ‘By signing this form, I certify that the information herein is accurate …’.
Presumably, that Post Office could request evidence, such as having them bring in the empty envelopes, ones pasted to a brick or stuffed with scrap, etc., but it’s unlikely that they would actually do so. The postal workers have better things to do than look at such junk envelopes. Besides, these are major customers of that Post Office – they work together all the time, and there is a certain amount of trust between them.
What is the company supposed to do, collect the empty envelopes, take them back to the Post Office, and say, “These were empty when we opened them–cross our hearts and hope to die!”?