So today PBS took a credit and when I looked for the reason it shows this:

The transaction details show this:

Mailed From: PA
Mailed To: MO

Request Date: 4/6/2009 10:01 AM ET 
Alternate Date: 4/8/2009 11:00 PM ET 
Wrapper Printing(s):

• 4/9/2009 10:21 PM ET

Date Mailed: 4/9/2009 10:24 PM ET 
Date Received: 7/17/2017 8:51 PM ET 
Date Canceled: 5/5/2009 3:13 AM ET 
USPS DC#: 9102165561353007441379 

The book was mailed in 2009??????  Why the hell is PBS taking a credit from me NOW for this book?  I honestly don't remember if it was mailed, cancelled or what since it's from 8 years ago, in a state I haven't lived in for 5 years.  WTH????  

Did you ask them what this is about?

That's weird! Could it be a glitch? Write PBS and when you find the answer let us know. I'm thinking glitch.

It could have been triggered by an inquiry from the other person. Maybe they had suspended her account because she wasn't marking books received and she has come back and told them that she definitely never got this one. I can guess that there are no USPS scans for the book and it also wasn't marked received, and that's why they concluded that it wasn't mailed. 

It's a bit concerning that you don't know if you were actually mailing your books back in 2009, but if all the other books you sent around that time arrived; and especially if the books you sent right before and right after this one were both received normally; then I think you have a good argument that this was a USPS glitch and you should get the credit back. Otherwise, there's no time limit. If PBS has a reason to look at your account now even though they didn't before, and they find out that you were getting credits for unmailed books any time in the past, then they can go back and take all those credits from you now.

Tory: The book was mailed in 2009??????  Why the hell is PBS taking a credit from me NOW for this book?  I honestly don't remember if it was mailed, cancelled or what since it's from 8 years ago, in a state I haven't lived in for 5 years.  WTH????  

Cathy: It's a bit concerning that you don't know if you were actually mailing your books back in 2009, but if all the other books you sent around that time arrived; and especially if the books you sent right before and right after this one were both received normally; then I think you have a good argument that this was a USPS glitch and you should get the credit back.

To be fair, she didn't say that she didn't know if she was regularly mailing out books that were requested from her at that time but rather that she wasn't sure if that particular book had been cancelled for any reason or if the request had gone through normally. I agree that this seems like it's some kind of glitch since it's so far out of date that the tracking number will have been recycled through their system multiple times by now.

If you had something going on in your life in 2009 that caused you to mark a number of books that you'd marked mailed to not actually be mailed, then it's possible that they had caught some of the others earlier, but just saw this one.  It looks as if you may have received the credit originally because you used PBS postage (or PBS delivery confirmation, which was available back then). But if the book wasn't actually mailed, then you shouldn't have received credit. You could check your transactions archive, sorted by title, to see if you reposted the same book later -- that would indicate that you likely hadn't actually mailed it the first time.

I had problems with lost books when I lived in PA (2008 to 2012)....the books were being mailed with PBS postage and tracking and then disappearing along the route.  MANY complaints to the PO and attempts to track the lost books resulted in nothing.....This book in particular was MAILED in 4/2009 with tracking. But the transaction archive shows cancelled in 5/2009?  That I have no idea about as I didn't cancel it (as the book was already mailed).  And now it says recieved on 7/17/2017 but took a credit?  I have no idea what is going on.  I did send a feedback inquiry into PBS, waiting to hear from them.   

The cancellation on 5/5/2009 was the system automatically marking the book "lost in the mail". It does that just after 3:00 AM ET on the 26th day after you mark the book mailed if it has not yet been marked received.

No reply from PBS yet about this.  It's been 5 days so far.......

Still no response from PBS, sent in a second inquiry today through feedback asking them what is going on.  A reply would be nice since they did this with no warning or explanation.

They should explain it.

Did you go into your Tranaction Archive? Very dangerous to mark old orders there. There is often more than one copy of a book listed, such as orders that were not responded to on time.

Had one member go and mark all the books she knew she had read. Huge problem as it cannot be undone. Cost her many credits. 

Always double or triple check orders before marking them in the TA. Check the sender. 

PBS still has NOT responded to two inquires into this.  NOTHING.  It's been 3 weeks since my first inquiry and two weeks since my 2nd.

Wow..I want to know what happened because of the time line involved.

The weird thing is it look slike someone marked it received ..so many years later!!

I am curious too. You know, PBS does have a snail mail address. If you can't get them to respond any other way, you might try mailing them a printed copy of everything. Maybe by doing that, they will see that you are serious about wanting some kind of explanation/resolution. Just a suggestion, but in your case, I would totally do it.

Pam

Still no reply. I send in a 3rd feedback request today since they have no responded to my inquriy of 7/17 or 7/26.  So not happy they took a credit with zero explanation.  I did not mark anything in my transaction achive, so I have no idea what prompted this at all after 8 YEARS.

http://www.paperbackswap.com/PBS-Responding-Feedback/topic/313146/

So instead of replying to me about this, PBS posted a public post to my son's thread about them not responding to his FB requests.  I've posted my rebuttal to that crap there, so see the link for that thread.