Majestic Flooring & Design Center Ltd

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/06/07) */




________________________________________________________________________________...⇄ />
[redacted]

[redacted]...

[redacted]. The carpet did indeed have a very small factory flaw in it. It was not noticed by the installers and no conspiracy to cover up this flaw ever existed. When the consumer noticed the flaw several days after the installation the complaint was quickly reviewed by the sales person and a management team member and a full replacement for the room affected was immediately offered. The customers were having some furniture delivered and did not want to delay this with the time it would have taken to replace this area and instead asked for other "options". ie a price reduction. It was suggested instead that we would carry out a repair since even if we offered them a price reduction there would still be a small but visible flaw which they would likely still complain about long after they had forgotten all about the money they received back as a price reduction. The consumer was warned that seams from the repair could not be guaranteed to be invisible however even if slightly visible these would likely be less noticeable than the factory flaw. The consumer was asked again which route they would prefer and without any undue pressure they chose the repair. Upon completion the repair was reviewed and found to be extremely satisfactory.

At a later date the customer then complained about some areas that were "cut short", again the sales person and a management team member immediately went to the site to review the situation. The carpet had not been cut short however in one bedroom it had slipped off of the pins of the smooth edge strips which run along the perimeter of the room and which hold the carpet in place. Rather than schedule a repair date and because it was such an exceedingly simple fix the management team member immediately fixed the carpet at that moment so the consumer would not have to wait and would not be inconvenienced. Unfortunately some blue dye from the management team members jeans apparently rubbed off on the carpet in one corner where the re-stretch took place. This was not noticed by the staff from Majestic Flooring who were present or by the consumer who stood in the room the entire time and supervised and then inspected the re-stretch. Several days later when the consumer finally noticed this and informed Majestic Flooring the company immediately offered to send someone over to clean this corner. The consumer informed Majestic Flooring that this was not necessary and was asked how they could clean it themselves. They were informed that a light solution of water and vinegar applied with a clean white cloth should clean the spot on the carpet and were asked again if they did not want someone from the store to come and do it for them. The consumer insisted they could do it themselves, and they were told by Majestic Flooring staff that if it did not clean off as it should then we would send someone out to clean it or pay for a full steam cleaning from a professional steam cleaning company. A team management member followed up several days later and was told by the consumer that the spot had cleaned off quite easily with the vinegar and water solution that was recommended.

Months later the consumer registered another complaint with regards to the carpet on their stairs. The sales person in charge of this file made an appointment to view the complaint and found it valid enough to issue a work order to the repair department as the complaint was still within the timeline of the consumers installation warranty. A repair crew was dispatched shortly after that and the repairs carried out to the consumers apparent satisfaction.

It is important to take note of the pattern here. Each and every time the consumer had a complaint it was dealt with quickly and efficiently. It has always been core to our beliefs that as a company we are not only judged by the projects that are completed without any problems, but also how we respond to consumers on projects where there may be issues. In this particular case, although none of the issues complained about by the consumer were particularly large or dramatic we are still extremely proud of how everyone in the organization has followed the proper procedures and responded as quickly, efficiently and professionally as they did to even such minor complaints. This is the type of customer service we strive for on a daily basis.

The consumer has stated that they have spent $5000, which to them is a lot to spend, on their carpet and is not receiving the expected wear and that they have had carpet on two other occasions which wore much better. There are a host of problems with these erroneous statements . First and foremost is the fact that the carpet itself only cost (according to their invoice) $2207.07. Regardless of the problem with the math, what is considered to be "a lot of money" with regards to a carpet purchase has a lot of other factors involved in it. Even $2207.70 may be considered a lot of money if the amount of carpet involved is relatively small, say only 10 or 12 square feet. However the same amount of money may not be considered to be very much at all if the amount of carpet involved is considerably large, such as the 1233 square feet of carpet that were involved in this project. That puts the cost of the carpet at the relatively low cost of $1.79/sf. The statement that there must be something wrong with this carpet the consumer has purchased because they have had carpet twice before that still had lots of wear after 8 years is also flawed. Saying that carpet is carpet and it is all the same is much like saying that cars are cars and all the same. It baffles me that consumers can understand that any material good purchased will have different features within its catch all category except for flooring where apparently everything is equivalent because it is called carpet. The durability of carpet is encompassed by a lot of factors: what fibre is the carpet made from... is it Polypropylene, is it Polyester, is it Nylon? What type of construction is it....is it a staple yarn or a bulked continuous filament? What is the gauge of the carpet....1/6th gauge, 1/8th gauge, 1/10th gauge, 1/12th gauge? What is the style of the carpet and how does that affect the wear.... Is it a saxony, a looped product, an LCL patterned product? What is the ounce weight of the carpet? What type of underlay was the carpet installed over? What is the layout of the carpet installation and how will that affect seam placement and how it will stretch? And most importantly what type of wear will the carpet be facing....is it a relatively quiet household where the owners wear slippers, which is recommended by carpet mills to avoid undue wear and tear on their carpet, or is it an active household with high traffic flow patterns that are seeing a large amount of bare foot traffic. Did this consumer have the same amount of foot traffic on their previous carpets as they do now with a growing young family?

As soon as we had been made aware by the consumer of their dissatisfaction the salesperson again immediately went to view the concern. The consumer had a letter sent to them from Majestic Flooring shortly after that. The letter explained quite clearly that it was our belief that the matting and packing that they were complaining about was being caused by the high amount of bare foot traffic that was observed on site. Again, as stated earlier, bare foot traffic is not recommended by carpet manufacturers and is known to cause premature matting and packing especially in high traffic areas such as on stairs in in front of couches and chairs. These are the exact areas affected in this consumers complaint. Matting and packing is not considered a warranty issue by carpet mills as it is not actual wear, which is usually defined as more than 10% of the carpet fibre actually abrasively wearing off in a set time frame (usually in less than 10 years). Matting and packing is purely a visual affectation caused by consumer traffic patterns and the type of maintenance they do. All flooring products require some type of maintenance and carpet mills recommend weekly vacuuming with a quality vacuum cleaner and more frequent vacuuming in high traffic areas such as stairs and in front of couches and chairs. As well the carpet mills recommend regular steam cleaning by a professional steam cleaner to help the carpet fibre stand upright and avoid the matted and packed appearance and to help remove grit and bodily oils (from the feet) which will contribute to premature matting and packing. As the complaint the consumer has about the carpet is purely about the visual appearance of the carpet and not actually related to wear, the consumer was advised of these maintenance steps and informed that adhering to these guidelines would likely improve the appearance of their carpet. The consumer was also informed that even though we believed that the manufacturer would make the same assessment of the situation we were more than willing to register their concerns with the manufacturer of this particular carpet. The carpet mill would then make their own determination and we would proceed accordingly from there.

That is perhaps the most disappointing aspect of this consumer complaint. Once again we have responded with speed and efficiency to this consumers particular complaint and rather than take the maintenance steps suggested and/or waiting for a determination from the carpet manufacturer they have tried to circumvent the required process steps.

________________________________________________________________________________...⇄ />


At this time we find the consumers Desired Resolution to be unacceptable. The carpet mill has responded to the concerns we forwarded on behalf of this consumer and is sending a company representative to view the carpet and make an assessment. We can take no further action until a determination from the carpet mill. If they deem the carpet to be defective in some manner they will take the appropriate steps to rectify the situation, however if they determine that the carpet is within the acceptable tolerance levels specified by their manufacturing specifications for this product and that the problem does indeed stem from poor consumer maintenance then no further action will be forthcoming from Majestic Flooring. I have also attached the letter initially sent to the consumers outlining our findings and the maintenance steps they would need to take to rectify the situation.

Thank You,
Stephen H[redacted]
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2016/06/10) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
[redacted] First of all, our complaint regarding the carpet defect was called in the day after installation, not several days after. Additionally, there was a third party present when the business owner admitted to us that the installers told him about the defect in the carpet and the owner at the time of visit indicated one of the installers tried to fix it. His indication that none of that happened is false. [redacted] Moreover, we are not experts regarding carpet, only experts regarding our individual experiences with previous carpets. Given this fact, it would be our expectation that discussions regarding the type of material, durabilility, gauge, layout and type of wear would be initiated by the salespeople prior to installation. [redacted] Telling a consumer what to expect from the product they are purchasing is a reasonable expectation and an opportunity for upselling quite frankly. At no time prior to installation were we informed about any details at all regarding the specifications of the product. Not until the most recent visit from Majestic were we told that it was a cheap carpet. In fact, as mentioned previously, the employee sent out most recently was surprised by the wear. Furthermore, I'd like to know how any representative from a company can make judgement calls regarding our supposed "high amount of bare foot traffic" when the individual in question was in our home for all of ten minutes and I had just gotten home from work and picking up my children from their dayhome. [redacted]