American Petroleum Products

In 22years of doing business, ChemDry of Mars has flourished because of our attention to customer service It is the cornerstone of our business and that is reflected in our numerous repeat customers, including the complainant, [redacted] ***) We have come to recognize that some customers are looking to get something for nothing despite the fact that they agreed to the work being done and signed off on the invoice that they were satisfied at the end of the job This appears to be one of those cases, as you will see in the following description of the job details On 7/20/15, our technician arrived at [redacted] (***) to clean their carpets Keep in mind that the lead technician on this job has an excellent record of satisfaction from customers The technician had done work at the location before so, he knew that they typically were requesting only a service call/spot cleaning As a result of the nature of a service call (time spent, product and equipment used, manpower, etc.), previous pricing was approximately $plus tax and fees Upon their arrival, the ChemDry technicians met with two employees of [redacted] The women advised them that they wanted to do a full cleaning and more areas than they typically did This meant that the areas had to be measured and pricing would be significantly different than that of a service call They agreed and walked our technician through the areas they wanted cleaned The technician advised them that there was significant wear in some of the areas and that it may not appear as clean as areas with less wear (wear patterns often appear darker as a result of damage to the carpet fibers) After measuring the areas and showing pricing to the employees, they stated that the price was too high Our technician walked through with them again to decide which areas they would cut out and he gave them an additional discount of more than $ Both employees of [redacted] agreed to have the work done for that price Our technicians went to work on the areas agreed upon All the while they cleaned, numerous employees repeatedly walked over the carpets they were trying to clean It is typically not our practice to clean during regular business hours for this reason, but [redacted] insisted that the cleaning had to be done at that time Obviously, if we clean an area and employees are repeatedly tracking dirt over the area while it is still damp, there will be potential for recurrence of spots Our technician brought the two employees back in more than times during the job to look at how the carpets were coming out They pointed out some concerns and the techs went back over the area and both [redacted] employees approved When our technicians completed the work at ***, the employees signed off that they were satisfied with the work done It was again explained that the wear on the traffic areas is just that, wear, not dirt and that the employees walking over the areas while it was still damp may be an issue They expressed that they understood This job was exponentially larger than the spot cleaning/service calls in the past at this location For this reason, as is practice when jobs change, the technicians altered the invoice accordingly The complainant in this case was not present at the time the cleaning was done, which means that he was not there for any explanations or warnings His employees were allegedly authorized to approve pricing and oversee the job If there was a problem, it should have come to light when our technicians were there Their request for our technicians to come back and clean again was denied as a result of the constant foot traffic on the carpets as we cleaned and repeated warnings to the employees approving the job that this could potentially be an issue As stated previously, this is a case of [redacted] officials delegating a job to their employees and not being satisfied with the pricing they approved They were warned of consequences of tracking dirt on the carpets while they were being cleaned They failed to heed our warnings at the time They were advised of the square footage and pricing and approved it before the work began They have always been happy with our work in the past when the price was $for a service call/spot cleaning but are only unhappy now because they want a full cleaning for the same price

In 22years of doing business, ChemDry of Mars has flourished because of our attention to customer service.   It is the cornerstone of our business and that is reflected in our numerous repeat customers, including the complainant, [redacted]).  We have come to...

recognize that some customers are looking to get something for nothing despite the fact that they agreed to the work being done and signed off on the invoice that they were satisfied at the end of the job.  This appears to be one of those cases, as you will see in the following description of the job details      On 7/20/15,  our technician arrived at [redacted]  ([redacted]) to clean their carpets.  Keep in mind that the lead technician on this job has an excellent record of satisfaction from customers.  The technician had done work at the location before so, he knew that they typically were requesting only a service call/spot cleaning.  As a result of the nature of a service call (time spent, product and equipment used, manpower, etc.), previous pricing was approximately $200 plus tax and fees.   Upon their arrival, the ChemDry technicians met with two employees of [redacted].  The women advised them that they wanted to do a full cleaning and more areas than they typically did.  This meant that the areas had to be measured and pricing would be significantly different than that of a service call.  They agreed and walked our technician through the areas they wanted cleaned.   The technician advised them that there was significant wear in some of the areas and that it may not appear  as clean as areas with less wear.  (wear patterns often appear darker as a result of damage to the carpet fibers)       After measuring the areas and showing pricing to the employees,  they stated that the price was too high.  Our technician walked through with them again to decide which areas they would cut out and he gave them an additional discount of more than $200.   Both employees of [redacted] agreed to have the work done for that price.       Our technicians went to work on the areas agreed upon.  All the while they cleaned, numerous employees repeatedly walked over the carpets they were trying to clean.   It is typically not our practice to clean during regular business hours for this reason, but [redacted] insisted that the cleaning had to be done at that time.  Obviously, if we clean an area and employees are repeatedly tracking dirt over the area while it is still damp, there will be potential for recurrence of spots.       Our technician brought the two employees back in  more than 5 times during the job to look at how the carpets were coming out.  They pointed out some concerns and the techs went back over the area and both [redacted] employees approved.      When our technicians completed the work at [redacted], the employees signed off that they were satisfied with the work done.  It was again explained that the wear on the traffic areas is just that, wear, not dirt and that the employees walking over the areas while it was still damp may be an issue.  They expressed that they understood.  This job was exponentially larger than the spot cleaning/service calls in the past at this location.   For this reason, as is normal practice when jobs change, the technicians altered the invoice accordingly.        The complainant in this case was not present at the time the cleaning was done, which means that he was not there for any explanations or warnings.  His employees were allegedly authorized to approve pricing and oversee the job.  If there was a problem, it should have come to light when our technicians were there.  Their request for our technicians to come back and clean again was denied as a result of the constant foot traffic on the carpets as we cleaned and repeated warnings to the employees approving the job that this could potentially be an issue.     As stated previously, this is a case of [redacted] officials delegating a job to their employees and not being satisfied with the pricing they approved.  They were warned of consequences of tracking dirt on the carpets while they were being cleaned.  They failed to heed our warnings at the time.  They were advised of the square footage and pricing and approved it before the work began.  They have always been happy with our work in the past when the price was $200 for a service call/spot cleaning but are only unhappy now because they want a full cleaning for the same price.