Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the offer and/or response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
With regards to the washer they did not contact the "inspector/adjuster"The adjuster was at my house multiple times and admitted to me he had forgotten to include the picture and told me multiple times he had resubmitted the picture showing the damage.Table: The blue fuzz was visible on the table from 10-feet awayIt's quite obviousThe inspector/adjuster did NOT carefully inspect the table the first timeHad I known about their policy I would have made sure to look over each minute inch of the table. Refrigerator: The refrigerator was NOT tagged at allSo why would I assume the shelves had been tagged and did not show up? I have different sets of numbersOne from the packing/loading and one from the deliveryHow was I supposed to verify I got everything when they CHANGED the numbers on half of the shipment?! In addition, their inspector/adjuster inspected the refrigerator and never noted that the shelves were missing - even when he took all of the tape offThe tape all over the refrigerator appeared to be holding the shelves together. It is quite obvious that Dunmar's investigator was acting on their behalf and not mineHe was looking at specifically what I said was wrong and did not fully inspect the items for further damage that might have been overlooked the first time because the original damage was obvious
Regards,
*** ***
*** is an email, where Mr*** concerns were addressed on 6/23/16. In addition, our sales manager responded to a similar complaint/review that Mr*** posted on ***
Ms*** claim was initially filed directly with *** *** ***, for whom Dunmar is an agent. *** settled the interstate portion of the claim and referred the balance of the items, deemed to be storage liability, back to Dunmar for settlement. Dunmar used the inspection
report that had been obtained by *** *** ***, as the repair service sent by *** had viewed all of the items being claimed by the customer. The inspection of the washer specifically states that no external damage was noted. Therefore, the claim for the washer was denied, based on this report. This item was actually addressed by *** *** ***, as part of the interstate portion of the claim. When Ms*** attempted to file the same claim for the washer with Dunmar, we simply reiterated Allied's positionDunmar, nor *** *** ***, were ever contacted by the inspector to indicate that an error had been made. While supplemental claims are certainly allowed, an item that has already been inspected will not be reconsidered for additional damage. The damage claimed on the table would have been visible at the time of the original inspection and, yet, was not seen by the repair service. The denial of the fuzzy residue on the table was made because this was not transit-related damage. Rather, the product that the customer had used to secure photos to the table, was the cause of the pad sticking to the surface. This was beyond the carrier's control. *** (Dunmar) does have a policy regarding missing items. The policy is that, any missing items must be noted at the time of delivery. The customer signed that everything had been received. Unfortunately, we cannot consider a claim for missing items, months after delivery, when the customer has indicated that all items were received. No additional settlement is due to the customer
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the offer and/or response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
With regards to the washer they did not contact the "inspector/adjuster"The adjuster was at my house multiple times and admitted to me he had forgotten to include the picture and told me multiple times he had resubmitted the picture showing the damage.Table: The blue fuzz was visible on the table from 10-feet awayIt's quite obviousThe inspector/adjuster did NOT carefully inspect the table the first timeHad I known about their policy I would have made sure to look over each minute inch of the table. Refrigerator: The refrigerator was NOT tagged at allSo why would I assume the shelves had been tagged and did not show up? I have different sets of numbersOne from the packing/loading and one from the deliveryHow was I supposed to verify I got everything when they CHANGED the numbers on half of the shipment?! In addition, their inspector/adjuster inspected the refrigerator and never noted that the shelves were missing - even when he took all of the tape offThe tape all over the refrigerator appeared to be holding the shelves together. It is quite obvious that Dunmar's investigator was acting on their behalf and not mineHe was looking at specifically what I said was wrong and did not fully inspect the items for further damage that might have been overlooked the first time because the original damage was obvious
Regards,
*** ***
*** is an email, where Mr*** concerns were addressed on 6/23/16. In addition, our sales manager responded to a similar complaint/review that Mr*** posted on ***
Ms*** claim was initially filed directly with *** *** ***, for whom Dunmar is an agent. *** settled the interstate portion of the claim and referred the balance of the items, deemed to be storage liability, back to Dunmar for settlement. Dunmar used the inspection
report that had been obtained by *** *** ***, as the repair service sent by *** had viewed all of the items being claimed by the customer. The inspection of the washer specifically states that no external damage was noted. Therefore, the claim for the washer was denied, based on this report. This item was actually addressed by *** *** ***, as part of the interstate portion of the claim. When Ms*** attempted to file the same claim for the washer with Dunmar, we simply reiterated Allied's positionDunmar, nor *** *** ***, were ever contacted by the inspector to indicate that an error had been made. While supplemental claims are certainly allowed, an item that has already been inspected will not be reconsidered for additional damage. The damage claimed on the table would have been visible at the time of the original inspection and, yet, was not seen by the repair service. The denial of the fuzzy residue on the table was made because this was not transit-related damage. Rather, the product that the customer had used to secure photos to the table, was the cause of the pad sticking to the surface. This was beyond the carrier's control. *** (Dunmar) does have a policy regarding missing items. The policy is that, any missing items must be noted at the time of delivery. The customer signed that everything had been received. Unfortunately, we cannot consider a claim for missing items, months after delivery, when the customer has indicated that all items were received. No additional settlement is due to the customer