Complaints

• Initial Complaint

  12/18/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Product Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  My wife needed to authenticate her signature and get the apostille from Secretary of State. ***** from Seattle's Notary Public LLC came to my house and notarized the the document and I paid him $160 in cash. Afterwards, I sent the documents to Secretary of State for apostille and it was rejected because the notary act doesn't comply to RCW42.45 and I was asked to correct it. So I asked ***** and he agreed to redo it. However, after the correction, he asked my wife to pay $164 again. Because we need the document in timely manner (already delayed 4 weeks because of this error), my wife paid him. I open the discussion with ***** on the same day, but he refused to admit it is his mistake. I couldn't even dispute the 2nd charge from my bank because I paid him in cash for the first time and I don't have a proof. I strongly believe that ***** should fully refund me the 2nd charge and it is a correction of his error. Sure, maybe he made same mistake in the past and it worked because it was not sent to Secretary of Sate for apostille, but it just make him right. The notice from the Secretary of ************ and my conversation with him are attached. If he truly believe what he did was correct, I don't think he should have the notary license as he clearly doesn't know the law.

  

  Business response

  12/20/2024

  Hello, 

  when I first went to the customers home, I asked originally if there was any specific verbiage that needed to be used. He informed me there was no specific verbiage that was required for this specific document. I let him know that I would use the verbiage that is normally accepted throughout many different notarizations. The client then informs me a few weeks later that the document has been sent back due to the specific verbiage used. When informing me of the information, he never detailed why it was sent back, so Id had no clue until I got to the appointment what the problem was to begin with. I informed him that if I ask if there is specific verbiage to be used, then I need to be informed. He did not do his due diligence and Verify the information required for this document to begin with. By the time I had gotten to his home for the second appointment, he contacted me as I got there and sent over required language that the embassy was looking for. I reminded him that I asked for this the first time that I had showed up and it was not provided. I also informed him that if I am asking for a specific verbiage and its not provided that I am not held liable. As a notary, we are required to know all different types of verbiage. Doesnt mean one is right or wrong unless there is directions stating this. I never received any sort of direction Even though I had asked for it. I should not be held liable for someone elses mistake, even after I asked him to look into this information to start with. Unfortunately, there will not be a refund on my end to the client. This type of information is stated on our website and was covered with the customer when inquired over this type of situation. I have been doing this and working in this industry for ************************************************************* my past, but this is one that I asked for the required information and the client did not do his homework to follow through. If the client had given the specific instructions of how the document was supposed to be detailed, and I did not follow them then I would gladly redo the documents for free. Unfortunately, the information was not given to me, even though I had asked. 

  Customer response

  12/20/2024

   
  Complaint: 22704411
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  I am a customer and I don't have a ********************** license. I don't require any specific verbiage because I know any standard will do the job. However, according to the law rcw *****, what ***** provided is not valid in any case. It may work out in the past for different reasons, but it is still invalid when it is presented to a formal authority that checks. What I provided to ***** for the second time is just a sample given in the rcw. Again, it is not important how it is written, which words have been used. It is all about if any required information is included, which ***** missed in the first place. That's why Secretary of State clearly called out that it is a "correction" and Secretary of State doesn't charge me twice for such correction.

  Once again, it is not about who is receiving the document, it is not about how information is presented in the notary act. It is about if all the required information is included. As a customer, I don't have to have the knowledge of which information is required for what type of notary action. It is notary's job to make sure whatever they wrote suits the need and follow the compliance.  

  
  Sincerely,
  
  Yi *** *****

*Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business. ↩