This customer's claim - Is It True?

The fact that you are viewing this page indicates that you are interested in our side of story also.
Thank you, and here we give a factual report as it really happened.

We take this matter seriously because our good name is on the line.

The Case In a Nutshell

Mrs. M claimed that we damaged her new dress and attempted to conceal it, and she demanded compensation of $90.50.
The dress appeared old, and we knew that we had not caused the damage.
She was adamant, however.
Not wishing to see the matter go to the small claims court, which she was threatening, we agreed to compensate the customer the full amount, provided the original receipt was provided.
The customer was unable to produce the receipt.
We inquired at Ann Tayor and learned from the store that the blue label on the dress was discontinued in 2003. [See signed proof from Ann Taylor.]
After receiving two letters of complaint from her and her husband, we chose to put the matter behind us, and offered to pay the demanded amount even without a receipt.
The customer lowered the amont to $50 on her own volition.
We paid the customer, and the case was resolved in a reasonable period of time.

Then, the custmoer submits a carping review of our store on Yelp...

Chronology:

Nov 25, 2008: The customer drops the dress for drycleaning

Dec 1, 2008: The customer picks up the dress.

Dec 2, 2008: The customer returns with the dress with complaint, asks about store insurance. We disagreed that we caused the damage.

Dec 3, 2008: The first letter of complaint is received.

Dec 15, 2008: We sent a reply in writing.

Jan 3, 2009: Mr. M returns with dress, demanding compensation. We inform him that the receipt is necessary. The customer says he would be back with the receipt, but does not return.

Jan 5, 2009: The second letter of complaint is received.

Jan 15, 2009: We send a reply in writing.

end of Jan, 2009: The case is resolved by compensating the customer.

 

Facts That are NOT True in Customer's Claim

Claim: "The dress is a recent purchase and in excellent condition"

Fact: We checked with Ann Tayor in Pleasanton, and was told that the dress with its blue label was discontinued in 2003, and was therefore at least 5 years old at the time. Here is the signed proof from Ann Taylor.

Claim: We refused to compensate the customer.

Fact: We offered to compensate the customer full amount, provided the receipt for the new dress is shown to us.

Claim: "I'd been a long time customer including the many changes in management."

Fact: The store, founded in 1993, changed hand only once in Feb 2007. Our computer record shows that the customer visited the store 11 times since 2007.

 

Our Rebuttal to Mr. & Mrs. M

The dress in dispute was obviously a worn-out, and the damage she faults us with was not caused by us. We could have chosen to turn the matter over to industry's reputable third party mitigator such as D.L. I (Dry Cleaning & Laundry Institute) for objective opinion. However, we did not wish to argue with our customer, and compensated the customer in due time the full amount the customer was asking for.

It is beyond us, after having been fully compensated to her apparent satisfaction, why the customer submitted a review on Yelp, portraying us as dishonest and refusing to compensate - both of which are not true as documented here.

 

hit counters
hit counter