Dock Dog, Incorporated

March 15, 2017Please accept our response to your request in the matter of complaint ID ***We take this matter seriously, and disagree with the information submitted to the Revdex.com by Client.We have been grooming Client's dog since February Specifically, Client's dog has been to our grooming
facility on the following dates for grooming services: February 2, 2016, May 3, 2016, August 17, 2016, and November 4, 2016, without complaint or incidentWe have also groomed Client's mother's pet since with absolutely no complaints or Concerns.On February 28, 2016, Client's mother brought in her dog and her son's dogClient's dog was picked up by someone other than Client or Client's motherThe dog was picked up from our facility at 1:p.mand left in good health and condition, with no limp and/or mouth issueAt 5:p.mClient called to say something was "wrong with my dogI don't know what, he is making chicken neck motions, and limping." When I assured Client that his pet was fine when he left, and that I was unaware of anything happening, Client asked to speak with the groomerMy groomer, who has had formal training and has been employed with my company for years without customer complaints or issues, called Client back, and let him know that she understood his concern, and his pet was groomed without incidentClient insisted on "Just hearing the truthI don't care if you dropped a box of tissues on him, just want the truthSomething is wrong with my dog." Client repeatedly stated he didn't want his money back, was not interested in posting bad reviews, but "just wanted the truth." Client stated he would be taking his dog to the vetMore than hours passed from the time the pet left our shop with whomever Client asked to pick the dog up and his phone call to us.The following morning, Client called again and asked to speak with my groomeragain put the groomer on the phone and Client again insisted on "hearing the truth." Again, my groomer explained that nothing had occurred, that she follows all safety regulations, takes safety standards seriously and the pet was fine when he leftClient proceeded to tell my groomer that he worked in construction and has learned that those who profess to be safety conscious are usually the "fk-ups.” At that point, advised my groomer to end the phone conversation as she did not need to be talked to in that mannerHe then thanked her for how professional she had been during each phone callWe never spoke to or heard from Client again.In review of the situation, have no confirmation that the dog was seen by a vetWe have no vet of record listed; our records indicate the dog is seen by the SPCA yearly for shotsAs more than hours passed before Client's dog was allegedly brought to a veterinarian, other than Client's thoughts relayed to the vet, I don't see how a diagnosis of incorrect restraint and/or too short nails could be givenThe veterinarian should know that the restraint loops are adjustable and do not go in or near the dog's mouthWhile some nails can be Cuttoo short, it does not result in limping, but in slight bleeding which is easily stopped with stypticThat being said, this was not the case for Client's dog on this day, as his dog's nails were cut without issue.Our facility is open to the public; the groomers are in full view of all clients coming into and out of our shopWe do not plan on contacting client in the future as he has made baseless accusations, and was very disrespectful to my groomer when she was "giving him the truth."Sincerely,Danielle DOwner