DNA reinsurance needed :)

Dear Community,

long time no see. I'm here again :smile:

The package was dumped into a mailbox, where it was obviously stolen and I didn't receive it :yawn:
Gotta hate these mailbox thieves.

The company is asking for an oath letter with signature, so the claim is moving into the right direction.
From what I understand, they would give this letter to DHL, which would refund them the money, which they would then refund to me.

My last claim (3 month ago) was the exact same with the same delivery company. They also asked for my oath that what I'm claiming is correct.
Won't it be extremely obvious that two packages go missing, both at the same address and directed at the same person?
It's an upper neighborhood so I can't imagine these things happen regularly here.
I know its better to switch delivery companys & methods ever now and then, but I couldn't in this situation.

Do you think its safe to go ahead and sign the document?

Best Regards
contriveD

Pretty sure the doc is for their own business insurance and not DHL but I might be wrong.

(10-14-2022, 05:58 PM)lolokimnew Wrote:

[To see links please register here]

Pretty sure the doc is for their own business insurance and not DHL but I might be wrong.

I thought so as well, it has their logo on it. The last company told me that they would be getting the money back from the carrier though.

I'm just shitting myself a tiny bit because of this statement in the document:
"I assure you that I have given the above information to the best of my knowledge and conscience and that the information is true and I have not concealed anything. I am aware that providing this assurance of the truth may lead to criminal consequences from the point of view of fraud. This declaration may be used in court"

@"mothered" I know you told me in a previous thread that company documents like these are not legally binding, as legally binding documents have to be signed under the presence of "law personnel". I want to question what "legally binding" means in that case.
Obviously, in the scenario of law enforcement agencies getting suspicious, these documents can and will be consulted to unveil the truth.
What do you think?

Best Regards

(10-14-2022, 08:46 PM)contriveD Wrote:

[To see links please register here]

"I assure you that I have given the above information to the best of my knowledge

That's a loophole that renders It useless.

The keywords are "to the best of my knowledge". Whether It's true or not, Is Irrelevant - you've provided the Information that "you believed was true". Essentially, you're being truthful "to the best of your knowledge" which covers you In every aspect of the Incident.

(10-14-2022, 08:46 PM)contriveD Wrote:

[To see links please register here]

I want to question what "legally binding" means in that case.

They've stated It "may" be used In court, and not "will".

If It's signed In the presence of an authorized law personnel, It "will" be used In court If warranted.

(10-14-2022, 08:46 PM)contriveD Wrote:

[To see links please register here]

Obviously, in the scenario of law enforcement agencies getting suspicious, these documents can and will be consulted to unveil the truth.

You have said the truth "to the best of your knowledge".