From: [redacted] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 1:PMTo: drteamSubject: Update for Complaint # [redacted] We would like the opportunity to update our response to complaint # [redacted] At the time this complaint was originally closed as unresolved, Bradford Moving Services was in contact with the customer and in the process of finalizing her claim with us Since that date we have talked with Ms [redacted] and agreed to prolong this issue no further and wrap up this claim The following is a detailed account of our actions, intentions, and conversation with the customer As previously stated in the Revdex.com response submitted on 2/26/14, Ms***'s complaint was in the process of being resolved in the manner we had previously discussed with her on 2/21/This issue was ongoing and could not be updated BEFORE we were able to gather the information requested in that conversation The 2/21/discussion informed Ms [redacted] that we would pay out the Release Valuation Amount for the table in question She has been informed of this process several times since her original complaint by the owner Roosevelt Bradford Ms***'s interest was in the repair of the table which Roosevelt tried to help her with by having Bradford Moving Services' contractor assess the table for repairs During a claim we ask that the damaged item is not moved or repaired before we can assess it In Ms***'s case, she had a contractor work on her table before Bradford Moving Services was scheduled to come out and assess it This step usually voids the claim as we cannot assess the original damages We did not hear from Ms [redacted] until several weeks later when her contractor did not complete the job to her satisfaction and she began contacting Roosevelt again to have him repair her table In an effort to help her, Roosevelt had the Bradford Moving Services' contractor assess at Ms***'s table anyway Unfortunately our contractor could not make repairs due to the work that had previously been done on the table by Ms***'s contractor His assessment stated that repair attempts would further weaken the wood and not supply a strong steady result Please understand that the attempt to help Ms [redacted] repair this table was not mandatory on our part Usually a claim like this is investigated, if proved to be our fault, it is paid out and closedThe owner was trying to help the customer outside of our policy Unfortunately, Ms [redacted] has blurred the lines as to what our responsibility was in this matter demanding that we pay out beyond the Release Valuation amount to help her repair this table even after her outside contractors involvement should have voided her claim Ms [redacted] insists that the table could be fixed even after our contractor said he did not feel that it couldIn a last effort to honor Ms***'s request for repair we asked her to submit photos of the table in its current condition We received those photos on March 6, The photo request was in an effort to help her find someone outside of our company who may be able to fix the table for her at reasonable rate We did not agree to pay half of this amount just to help her lookAlthough our claims policy does not allow for actual value payout we believe in going above and beyond to make restitution with our customers by helping right our mistakes This was one of those efforts Per our policy, Ms***'s claim should have been closed days after her initial report of damageThis claim has been open beyond the day period upon Ms***'s request There were also large gaps of time where Ms [redacted] was unreachable due to what she says were family related issues which understandably came before her table repair Regrettably our efforts to help this customer beyond our written policy limits has only proved to blur the lines of responsibility which has resulted badly for our company At this point we feel it best to revert back to our original claims policy and issue Ms [redacted] a check in an amount equal to the Release Valuation for the item in question and close the claim Please note that this is the manner in which the claim would have been handled in the very beginning This decision is in spite of the fact that she had the table repaired before we could inspect the initial damages and subsequently should have voided her claim Usually, if the customer chooses to repair their items after receiving a check from us, that is their decision as once we pay out our responsibility ends The last time this was explained to Ms [redacted] was on Monday 3/10/ We feel that this claim has gone on longer than necessary and that we need to bring closure to this issueMs [redacted] understands the need to close this claim although she is not happy about how the process will proceed Our decision is based upon the following information: The table in question was originally claimed by Ms [redacted] as damaged by our company(No other items will be considered as there was never any mention of any other damages until last month.) The table was deemed unrepairable by our contractor behind the works of Ms***'s hired contractor We will pay out according to our original policy limits since the original damage was claimed by Ms [redacted] as our fault The claim will be closed As we've expressed to her several times before, we regret that she was unhappy with the outcome of this claim and apologize for her original damages We know that she desired more in restitution but hope she will accept what our policy allows us to pay out We wish her the best -- Bradford Moving ServicesQuality Moving Professionals [redacted]
Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below [Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.] Regards, [redacted] When the table was broken apart that day and the other furniture damaged as well, I did show that to [redacted] and he took pictures He never mentioned the 60day claim time period nor the federally mandated valuation coverage [redacted] was the first to tell me about that on 2-21- I was told by [redacted] that he would get my table repaired for me (the other damages paled in comparison to table destruction.) I was most concerned with the table I called him numerous times and he said he would take care of itThey mentioned the day claim, when it was more than days that I had been calling [redacted] and I had not had a definite response That was when I went to another person to at least get the ball rolling to fix the table because he did nothing to get it repaired and I would not hear back from him [redacted] had said that they were very working in Beaumont providing their moving services I did not have a table, I did not know what else to do I felt forced into trying to do somethingI did call him and told him that the table was "put back together" but needed to be refinished He did have the table pick7-27-by friends of his that were going to refinish the table I thought He had told me that his friend [redacted] was going to charge $to do this.( Just prior to their picking up the table, I called another company and they said they would refinish the table but would cost $and relayed that info to Roosevelt.) Roosevelt's friend, ***, returned the table to me 10-27-but had not refinished it So I asked him actually I pleaded with him to pay the other company that I had contacted the $he was going to pay his friend, ***, and I would pay the other part to get the table refinished I did not demand anything I was begging him to please help me get the table refinished In Nov 2013, (I was going to a family funeral) was the last time I had made that plea to him and he mentioned to me that I could file a claim with his insurance and he would send me that papers for thatThat was the first time he mentioned insurance to me Even so he did not say a federally mandated valuation situation about the insurance or a time period in which to do so Then I was involved with my family because we lost other close family members during that time even until mid Jan 2014.I had been checking the mail when back in Houston but I still had not received anything from him That was when I started calling him again All the times I called him it was to his cell phone except that week of Feb when I looked up the address and phone number to the officeI then made a complaint to the Revdex.com just because I did not know what else to do at that point I just trusted [redacted] and him that they would take really good care of my furniture as she first told me and that [redacted] had also told me I was devastated when this happened and with what happened after the table was broken The response noted large gaps in time I had called him numerous times during those gaps and was not able to get a call back except every "once in a blue moon." Then his friend had the table from July to Oct and I did not know until Oct that [redacted] was not gong to refinish the table I have been so very upset with this entire process The worst is that my Mother's dining table was ruinedRegardless of my getting another to piece it together, I would not have needed to do that if they had not broken it in the first place [redacted] has always had my cell phone number Every time I called him it was from my cell to his cell phone and I was always reachable and would return the call with a day or two if I were called I was not and am not trying to take advantage of the Bradfords I think I have been disadvantaged by what happened to my furniture when they moved it I had a lovely antique dining table before this occurred and that is no longer true The other furniture was not damaged when I entrusted it to them to move it either and now I am reminded of that ill fated move every time that I look at my furniture I don't remember their offering me anything to rectify the situation which was stated in the response noteWhen I talked with [redacted] on 2-21-13, she said that she had not even been told anything about my table having been destroyed on March 22, when they moved it back into my home That was when she told me about the federally mandated insurance claim period It sounded to me as if she were telling me that they were no longer going to honor what [redacted] had told me when he had first looked at the broken table She said to send her pictures which I did
To
address Ms*** claim:
Bradford
Moving Services completed a labor only service for Ms*** back in
March of
*** who is an owner of the company supervised this move. This move was a standard labor only service in
which any damaged items were covered according to the federally mandated release
valuation coverage. According to our
policy, Ms***’s table in question would have been paid out at the federally
mandated release valuation amount for a table of its size and weight within
days of her original claim. Ms***
expressed that she really wanted to regain the use of her table so as a
courtesy *** offered to have our repair specialist look at the table to
see if he could fix it for her. Ms
*** accepted his offer choosing to see if the table could be repaired and understanding
that the release valuation payment was still an option. Before an appointment was ever scheduled to
assess Ms***’s table she called and informed *** that she had found a
contractor and was having him come out and fix the table for her. It was explained to her at that time that
having someone else touch the table before we can assess or pay out would void
her claim. She chose to proceed and has failed
to mention in this dispute that the contractor she hired to “fix” her table did
not complete the job and subsequently ruined the furnishing. After the encounter with the contractor and
still not having use of her table, Ms*** began to contact ***
again. At this point he agreed to still
try to help her by having our furniture repair specialist take a look at the
piece Upon inspection of this table our
specialist determined that he was unable to sufficiently repair the table. He noted that the previous repair efforts had
weakened the wood making him unable to restore the item. Ms
*** then comes back to our company demanding that we pay her over $for
the table’s repairs which now include the contractor’s damages as well. As
originally stated in this response and to Ms*** on several occasions with Friday
2/21/being the last date of discussion, restitution for her table would have
been made based on the original damages and paid out at the federally mandated
release valuation amount before she hired her contractor to work on the
table.
Bradford Moving Services tried to help Ms*** get her item repaired even after she had
someone else work on and further damage the table. Upon speaking to her on Friday February 21,
2014, *** the other owner of the company explained to Ms*** that since
the original damage was supposedly caused by our company the only thing we
could possibly do at this point would be to pay out at release valuation in the
same manner the claim would have been paid out at when the original damages
occurred. It was also explained that we
could not include the additional items she is claiming as damaged since they
were not brought to our attention until almost a year after her service
date. Ultimately it was Ms*** choice
to have *** try to help her recover the use of her table instead of receiving
the claims check upfront. This does not
change the fact that before the contractor involvement, her claim would have
been handled and paid out according to our day claims policy and the federally
mandated release valuation requirement. Offering
to have the table looked at for repairs was a courtesy to Ms*** and was not
a requirement based on company policy and the service she received. Please note that the large gaps of time
between her original damages and the last conversation we had with her were due
to Ms*** being unreachable. As she
explained to us she had several family matters that were at the forefront of
her priorities causing this matter to be pushed aside until she could resume
handling it. We realize that in this
industry accidents do happen and apologize for the original damages to Ms
***’s belonging. As a company we have
policies in place that are geared towards rectifying these situations. Although the hiring of an outside contractor
to repair her table voids her original claim, we were willing to work with Ms
*** to resolve this issue in the manner previously discussed with her on
Friday 2/21/2014. We feel that we have
made a reasonable effort to rectify this claim
From: [redacted] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 1:14 PMTo: drteamSubject: Update for Complaint #[redacted]
We would like the opportunity to update our response to
complaint #[redacted]. At the time this complaint was originally closed as
unresolved, Bradford Moving Services was in contact with the customer and in
the process of finalizing her claim with us. Since that date we have
talked with Ms. [redacted] and agreed to prolong this issue no further and wrap up
this claim. The following is a detailed account of our actions,
intentions, and conversation with the customer.
As previously stated in the Revdex.com response submitted on 2/26/14, Ms. [redacted]'s
complaint was in the process of being resolved in the manner we had previously
discussed with her on 2/21/2014. This issue was ongoing and could not be
updated BEFORE we were able to gather the information requested in that
conversation.
The 2/21/14 discussion informed Ms. [redacted] that we would pay
out the Release Valuation Amount for the table in question. She has been
informed of this process several times since her original complaint by the
owner Roosevelt Bradford. Ms. [redacted]'s interest was in the repair of the
table which Roosevelt tried to help her with by having Bradford Moving
Services' contractor assess the table for repairs. During a claim we ask
that the damaged item is not moved or repaired before we can assess it.
In Ms. [redacted]'s case, she had a contractor work on her table before Bradford
Moving Services was scheduled to come out and assess it. This step
usually voids the claim as we cannot assess the original damages.
We did not hear from Ms. [redacted] until several weeks later when her contractor
did not complete the job to her satisfaction and she began contacting Roosevelt
again to have him repair her table. In an effort to help her, Roosevelt
had the Bradford Moving Services' contractor assess at Ms. [redacted]'s table
anyway.
Unfortunately our contractor could not make repairs due to the work that had
previously been done on the table by Ms. [redacted]'s contractor. His
assessment stated that repair attempts would further weaken the wood and not
supply a strong steady result. Please understand that the attempt to help
Ms. [redacted] repair this table was not mandatory on our part. Usually a
claim like this is investigated, if proved to be our fault, it is paid out and
closed. The owner was trying to help the customer outside of our policy.
Unfortunately, Ms. [redacted] has blurred the lines as to what our responsibility
was in this matter demanding that we pay out beyond the Release Valuation
amount to help her repair this table even after her outside contractors
involvement should have voided her claim.
Ms. [redacted] insists that the table could be fixed even after
our contractor said he did not feel that it could. In a last effort to honor
Ms. [redacted]'s request for repair we asked her to submit photos of the table in
its current condition We received those photos on March 6, 2014. The
photo request was in an effort to help her find someone outside of our company
who may be able to fix the table for her at reasonable rate. We did not
agree to pay half of this amount just to help her look. Although our claims
policy does not allow for actual value payout we believe in going above and
beyond to make restitution with our customers by helping right our mistakes.
This was one of those efforts.
Per our policy, Ms. [redacted]'s claim should have been closed 60
days after her initial report of damage. This claim has been open beyond
the 60 day period upon Ms. [redacted]'s request. There were also large gaps of
time where Ms. [redacted] was unreachable due to what she says were family related
issues which understandably came before her table repair. Regrettably our
efforts to help this customer beyond our written policy limits has only proved
to blur the lines of responsibility which has resulted badly for our
company.
At this point we feel it best to revert back to our original
claims policy and issue Ms. [redacted] a check in an amount equal to the Release
Valuation for the item in question and close the claim. Please note that
this is the manner in which the claim would have been handled in the very
beginning. This decision is in spite of the fact that she had the table
repaired before we could inspect the initial damages and subsequently should
have voided her claim. Usually, if the customer chooses to repair their
items after receiving a check from us, that is their decision as once we pay
out our responsibility ends. The last time this was explained to Ms.
[redacted] was on Monday 3/10/14. We feel that this claim has gone on longer
than necessary and that we need to bring closure to this issue. Ms. [redacted]
understands the need to close this claim although she is not happy about how
the process will proceed.
Our decision is based upon the following information:
1. The table in question was originally claimed by Ms. [redacted] as damaged
by our company. (No other items will be considered as there was never any
mention of any other damages until last month.)
2. The table was deemed unrepairable by our contractor behind the works
of Ms. [redacted]'s hired contractor .
3. We will pay out according to our original policy limits since the
original damage was claimed by Ms. [redacted] as our fault.
3. The claim will be closed.
As we've expressed to her several times before, we regret
that she was unhappy with the outcome of this claim and apologize for her
original damages. We know that she desired more in restitution but hope
she will accept what our policy allows us to pay out. We wish her the
best.
--
Bradford Moving ServicesQuality Moving Professionals
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]
Regards,
[redacted]
When the table was broken apart that day and the other furniture damaged as well, I did show that to [redacted] and he took pictures. He never mentioned the 60day claim time period nor the federally mandated valuation coverage. [redacted] was the first to tell me about that on 2-21-14. I was told by [redacted] that he would get my table repaired for me (the other damages paled in comparison to table destruction.) I was most concerned with the table. I called him numerous times and he said he would take care of it. They mentioned the 60 day claim, when it was more than 60 days that I had been calling [redacted] and I had not had a definite response. That was when I went to another person to at least get the ball rolling to fix the table because he did nothing to get it repaired and I would not hear back from him. [redacted] had said that they were very working in Beaumont providing their moving services. I did not have a table, I did not know what else to do. I felt forced into trying to do something. I did call him and told him that the table was "put back together" but needed to be refinished. He did have the table picked-up 7-27-13 by friends of his that were going to refinish the table I thought. He had told me that his friend [redacted] was going to charge $750.00 to do this.( Just prior to their picking up the table, I called another company and they said they would refinish the table but would cost $1500.00 and relayed that info to Roosevelt.) Roosevelt's friend, [redacted], returned the table to me 10-27-13 but had not refinished it. So I asked him actually I pleaded with him to pay the other company that I had contacted the $750 he was going to pay his friend, [redacted], and I would pay the other part to get the table refinished. I did not demand anything. I was begging him to please help me get the table refinished. In Nov 2013, (I was going to a family funeral) was the last time I had made that plea to him and he mentioned to me that I could file a claim with his insurance and he would send me that papers for that. That was the first time he mentioned insurance to me. Even so he did not say a federally mandated valuation situation about the insurance or a time period in which to do so. Then I was involved with my family because we lost 2 other close family members during that time even until mid Jan 2014.I had been checking the mail when back in Houston but I still had not received anything from him. That was when I started calling him again. All the times I called him it was to his cell phone except that week of Feb 17 when I looked up the address and phone number to the office. I then made a complaint to the Revdex.com just because I did not know what else to do at that point. I just trusted [redacted] and him that they would take really good care of my furniture as she first told me and that [redacted] had also told me. I was devastated when this happened and with what happened after the table was broken. The response noted large gaps in time. I had called him numerous times during those gaps and was not able to get a call back except every "once in a blue moon." Then his friend had the table from July to Oct 2013 and I did not know until Oct that [redacted] was not gong to refinish the table. I have been so very upset with this entire process. The worst is that my Mother's dining table was ruined. Regardless of my getting another to piece it together, I would not have needed to do that if they had not broken it in the first place. [redacted] has always had my cell phone number. Every time I called him it was from my cell to his cell phone and I was always reachable and would return the call with a day or two if I were called. I was not and am not trying to take advantage of the Bradfords. I think I have been disadvantaged by what happened to my furniture when they moved it. I had a lovely antique dining table before this occurred and that is no longer true. The other furniture was not damaged when I entrusted it to them to move it either and now I am reminded of that ill fated move every time that I look at my furniture. I don't remember their offering me anything to rectify the situation which was stated in the response note. When I talked with [redacted] on 2-21-13, she said that she had not even been told anything about my table having been destroyed on March 22, 2013 when they moved it back into my home. That was when she told me about the federally mandated insurance claim period. It sounded to me as if she were telling me that they were no longer going to honor what [redacted] had told me when he had first looked at the broken table. She said to send her pictures which I did.
From: [redacted] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 1:PMTo: drteamSubject: Update for Complaint # [redacted] We would like the opportunity to update our response to complaint # [redacted] At the time this complaint was originally closed as unresolved, Bradford Moving Services was in contact with the customer and in the process of finalizing her claim with us Since that date we have talked with Ms [redacted] and agreed to prolong this issue no further and wrap up this claim The following is a detailed account of our actions, intentions, and conversation with the customer As previously stated in the Revdex.com response submitted on 2/26/14, Ms***'s complaint was in the process of being resolved in the manner we had previously discussed with her on 2/21/This issue was ongoing and could not be updated BEFORE we were able to gather the information requested in that conversation The 2/21/discussion informed Ms [redacted] that we would pay out the Release Valuation Amount for the table in question She has been informed of this process several times since her original complaint by the owner Roosevelt Bradford Ms***'s interest was in the repair of the table which Roosevelt tried to help her with by having Bradford Moving Services' contractor assess the table for repairs During a claim we ask that the damaged item is not moved or repaired before we can assess it In Ms***'s case, she had a contractor work on her table before Bradford Moving Services was scheduled to come out and assess it This step usually voids the claim as we cannot assess the original damages We did not hear from Ms [redacted] until several weeks later when her contractor did not complete the job to her satisfaction and she began contacting Roosevelt again to have him repair her table In an effort to help her, Roosevelt had the Bradford Moving Services' contractor assess at Ms***'s table anyway Unfortunately our contractor could not make repairs due to the work that had previously been done on the table by Ms***'s contractor His assessment stated that repair attempts would further weaken the wood and not supply a strong steady result Please understand that the attempt to help Ms [redacted] repair this table was not mandatory on our part Usually a claim like this is investigated, if proved to be our fault, it is paid out and closedThe owner was trying to help the customer outside of our policy Unfortunately, Ms [redacted] has blurred the lines as to what our responsibility was in this matter demanding that we pay out beyond the Release Valuation amount to help her repair this table even after her outside contractors involvement should have voided her claim Ms [redacted] insists that the table could be fixed even after our contractor said he did not feel that it couldIn a last effort to honor Ms***'s request for repair we asked her to submit photos of the table in its current condition We received those photos on March 6, The photo request was in an effort to help her find someone outside of our company who may be able to fix the table for her at reasonable rate We did not agree to pay half of this amount just to help her lookAlthough our claims policy does not allow for actual value payout we believe in going above and beyond to make restitution with our customers by helping right our mistakes This was one of those efforts Per our policy, Ms***'s claim should have been closed days after her initial report of damageThis claim has been open beyond the day period upon Ms***'s request There were also large gaps of time where Ms [redacted] was unreachable due to what she says were family related issues which understandably came before her table repair Regrettably our efforts to help this customer beyond our written policy limits has only proved to blur the lines of responsibility which has resulted badly for our company At this point we feel it best to revert back to our original claims policy and issue Ms [redacted] a check in an amount equal to the Release Valuation for the item in question and close the claim Please note that this is the manner in which the claim would have been handled in the very beginning This decision is in spite of the fact that she had the table repaired before we could inspect the initial damages and subsequently should have voided her claim Usually, if the customer chooses to repair their items after receiving a check from us, that is their decision as once we pay out our responsibility ends The last time this was explained to Ms [redacted] was on Monday 3/10/ We feel that this claim has gone on longer than necessary and that we need to bring closure to this issueMs [redacted] understands the need to close this claim although she is not happy about how the process will proceed Our decision is based upon the following information: The table in question was originally claimed by Ms [redacted] as damaged by our company(No other items will be considered as there was never any mention of any other damages until last month.) The table was deemed unrepairable by our contractor behind the works of Ms***'s hired contractor We will pay out according to our original policy limits since the original damage was claimed by Ms [redacted] as our fault The claim will be closed As we've expressed to her several times before, we regret that she was unhappy with the outcome of this claim and apologize for her original damages We know that she desired more in restitution but hope she will accept what our policy allows us to pay out We wish her the best -- Bradford Moving ServicesQuality Moving Professionals [redacted]
Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below [Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.] Regards, [redacted] When the table was broken apart that day and the other furniture damaged as well, I did show that to [redacted] and he took pictures He never mentioned the 60day claim time period nor the federally mandated valuation coverage [redacted] was the first to tell me about that on 2-21- I was told by [redacted] that he would get my table repaired for me (the other damages paled in comparison to table destruction.) I was most concerned with the table I called him numerous times and he said he would take care of itThey mentioned the day claim, when it was more than days that I had been calling [redacted] and I had not had a definite response That was when I went to another person to at least get the ball rolling to fix the table because he did nothing to get it repaired and I would not hear back from him [redacted] had said that they were very working in Beaumont providing their moving services I did not have a table, I did not know what else to do I felt forced into trying to do somethingI did call him and told him that the table was "put back together" but needed to be refinished He did have the table pick7-27-by friends of his that were going to refinish the table I thought He had told me that his friend [redacted] was going to charge $to do this.( Just prior to their picking up the table, I called another company and they said they would refinish the table but would cost $and relayed that info to Roosevelt.) Roosevelt's friend, ***, returned the table to me 10-27-but had not refinished it So I asked him actually I pleaded with him to pay the other company that I had contacted the $he was going to pay his friend, ***, and I would pay the other part to get the table refinished I did not demand anything I was begging him to please help me get the table refinished In Nov 2013, (I was going to a family funeral) was the last time I had made that plea to him and he mentioned to me that I could file a claim with his insurance and he would send me that papers for thatThat was the first time he mentioned insurance to me Even so he did not say a federally mandated valuation situation about the insurance or a time period in which to do so Then I was involved with my family because we lost other close family members during that time even until mid Jan 2014.I had been checking the mail when back in Houston but I still had not received anything from him That was when I started calling him again All the times I called him it was to his cell phone except that week of Feb when I looked up the address and phone number to the officeI then made a complaint to the Revdex.com just because I did not know what else to do at that point I just trusted [redacted] and him that they would take really good care of my furniture as she first told me and that [redacted] had also told me I was devastated when this happened and with what happened after the table was broken The response noted large gaps in time I had called him numerous times during those gaps and was not able to get a call back except every "once in a blue moon." Then his friend had the table from July to Oct and I did not know until Oct that [redacted] was not gong to refinish the table I have been so very upset with this entire process The worst is that my Mother's dining table was ruinedRegardless of my getting another to piece it together, I would not have needed to do that if they had not broken it in the first place [redacted] has always had my cell phone number Every time I called him it was from my cell to his cell phone and I was always reachable and would return the call with a day or two if I were called I was not and am not trying to take advantage of the Bradfords I think I have been disadvantaged by what happened to my furniture when they moved it I had a lovely antique dining table before this occurred and that is no longer true The other furniture was not damaged when I entrusted it to them to move it either and now I am reminded of that ill fated move every time that I look at my furniture I don't remember their offering me anything to rectify the situation which was stated in the response noteWhen I talked with [redacted] on 2-21-13, she said that she had not even been told anything about my table having been destroyed on March 22, when they moved it back into my home That was when she told me about the federally mandated insurance claim period It sounded to me as if she were telling me that they were no longer going to honor what [redacted] had told me when he had first looked at the broken table She said to send her pictures which I did
To
address Ms*** claim:
Bradford
Moving Services completed a labor only service for Ms*** back in
March of
*** who is an owner of the company supervised this move. This move was a standard labor only service in
which any damaged items were covered according to the federally mandated release
valuation coverage. According to our
policy, Ms***’s table in question would have been paid out at the federally
mandated release valuation amount for a table of its size and weight within
days of her original claim. Ms***
expressed that she really wanted to regain the use of her table so as a
courtesy *** offered to have our repair specialist look at the table to
see if he could fix it for her. Ms
*** accepted his offer choosing to see if the table could be repaired and understanding
that the release valuation payment was still an option. Before an appointment was ever scheduled to
assess Ms***’s table she called and informed *** that she had found a
contractor and was having him come out and fix the table for her. It was explained to her at that time that
having someone else touch the table before we can assess or pay out would void
her claim. She chose to proceed and has failed
to mention in this dispute that the contractor she hired to “fix” her table did
not complete the job and subsequently ruined the furnishing. After the encounter with the contractor and
still not having use of her table, Ms*** began to contact ***
again. At this point he agreed to still
try to help her by having our furniture repair specialist take a look at the
piece Upon inspection of this table our
specialist determined that he was unable to sufficiently repair the table. He noted that the previous repair efforts had
weakened the wood making him unable to restore the item. Ms
*** then comes back to our company demanding that we pay her over $for
the table’s repairs which now include the contractor’s damages as well. As
originally stated in this response and to Ms*** on several occasions with Friday
2/21/being the last date of discussion, restitution for her table would have
been made based on the original damages and paid out at the federally mandated
release valuation amount before she hired her contractor to work on the
table.
Bradford Moving Services tried to help Ms*** get her item repaired even after she had
someone else work on and further damage the table. Upon speaking to her on Friday February 21,
2014, *** the other owner of the company explained to Ms*** that since
the original damage was supposedly caused by our company the only thing we
could possibly do at this point would be to pay out at release valuation in the
same manner the claim would have been paid out at when the original damages
occurred. It was also explained that we
could not include the additional items she is claiming as damaged since they
were not brought to our attention until almost a year after her service
date. Ultimately it was Ms*** choice
to have *** try to help her recover the use of her table instead of receiving
the claims check upfront. This does not
change the fact that before the contractor involvement, her claim would have
been handled and paid out according to our day claims policy and the federally
mandated release valuation requirement. Offering
to have the table looked at for repairs was a courtesy to Ms*** and was not
a requirement based on company policy and the service she received. Please note that the large gaps of time
between her original damages and the last conversation we had with her were due
to Ms*** being unreachable. As she
explained to us she had several family matters that were at the forefront of
her priorities causing this matter to be pushed aside until she could resume
handling it. We realize that in this
industry accidents do happen and apologize for the original damages to Ms
***’s belonging. As a company we have
policies in place that are geared towards rectifying these situations. Although the hiring of an outside contractor
to repair her table voids her original claim, we were willing to work with Ms
*** to resolve this issue in the manner previously discussed with her on
Friday 2/21/2014. We feel that we have
made a reasonable effort to rectify this claim
From: [redacted] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 1:14 PMTo: drteamSubject: Update for Complaint #[redacted]
We would like the opportunity to update our response to
complaint #[redacted]. At the time this complaint was originally closed as
unresolved, Bradford Moving Services was in contact with the customer and in
the process of finalizing her claim with us. Since that date we have
talked with Ms. [redacted] and agreed to prolong this issue no further and wrap up
this claim. The following is a detailed account of our actions,
intentions, and conversation with the customer.
As previously stated in the Revdex.com response submitted on 2/26/14, Ms. [redacted]'s
complaint was in the process of being resolved in the manner we had previously
discussed with her on 2/21/2014. This issue was ongoing and could not be
updated BEFORE we were able to gather the information requested in that
conversation.
The 2/21/14 discussion informed Ms. [redacted] that we would pay
out the Release Valuation Amount for the table in question. She has been
informed of this process several times since her original complaint by the
owner Roosevelt Bradford. Ms. [redacted]'s interest was in the repair of the
table which Roosevelt tried to help her with by having Bradford Moving
Services' contractor assess the table for repairs. During a claim we ask
that the damaged item is not moved or repaired before we can assess it.
In Ms. [redacted]'s case, she had a contractor work on her table before Bradford
Moving Services was scheduled to come out and assess it. This step
usually voids the claim as we cannot assess the original damages.
We did not hear from Ms. [redacted] until several weeks later when her contractor
did not complete the job to her satisfaction and she began contacting Roosevelt
again to have him repair her table. In an effort to help her, Roosevelt
had the Bradford Moving Services' contractor assess at Ms. [redacted]'s table
anyway.
Unfortunately our contractor could not make repairs due to the work that had
previously been done on the table by Ms. [redacted]'s contractor. His
assessment stated that repair attempts would further weaken the wood and not
supply a strong steady result. Please understand that the attempt to help
Ms. [redacted] repair this table was not mandatory on our part. Usually a
claim like this is investigated, if proved to be our fault, it is paid out and
closed. The owner was trying to help the customer outside of our policy.
Unfortunately, Ms. [redacted] has blurred the lines as to what our responsibility
was in this matter demanding that we pay out beyond the Release Valuation
amount to help her repair this table even after her outside contractors
involvement should have voided her claim.
Ms. [redacted] insists that the table could be fixed even after
our contractor said he did not feel that it could. In a last effort to honor
Ms. [redacted]'s request for repair we asked her to submit photos of the table in
its current condition We received those photos on March 6, 2014. The
photo request was in an effort to help her find someone outside of our company
who may be able to fix the table for her at reasonable rate. We did not
agree to pay half of this amount just to help her look. Although our claims
policy does not allow for actual value payout we believe in going above and
beyond to make restitution with our customers by helping right our mistakes.
This was one of those efforts.
Per our policy, Ms. [redacted]'s claim should have been closed 60
days after her initial report of damage. This claim has been open beyond
the 60 day period upon Ms. [redacted]'s request. There were also large gaps of
time where Ms. [redacted] was unreachable due to what she says were family related
issues which understandably came before her table repair. Regrettably our
efforts to help this customer beyond our written policy limits has only proved
to blur the lines of responsibility which has resulted badly for our
company.
At this point we feel it best to revert back to our original
claims policy and issue Ms. [redacted] a check in an amount equal to the Release
Valuation for the item in question and close the claim. Please note that
this is the manner in which the claim would have been handled in the very
beginning. This decision is in spite of the fact that she had the table
repaired before we could inspect the initial damages and subsequently should
have voided her claim. Usually, if the customer chooses to repair their
items after receiving a check from us, that is their decision as once we pay
out our responsibility ends. The last time this was explained to Ms.
[redacted] was on Monday 3/10/14. We feel that this claim has gone on longer
than necessary and that we need to bring closure to this issue. Ms. [redacted]
understands the need to close this claim although she is not happy about how
the process will proceed.
Our decision is based upon the following information:
1. The table in question was originally claimed by Ms. [redacted] as damaged
by our company. (No other items will be considered as there was never any
mention of any other damages until last month.)
2. The table was deemed unrepairable by our contractor behind the works
of Ms. [redacted]'s hired contractor .
3. We will pay out according to our original policy limits since the
original damage was claimed by Ms. [redacted] as our fault.
3. The claim will be closed.
As we've expressed to her several times before, we regret
that she was unhappy with the outcome of this claim and apologize for her
original damages. We know that she desired more in restitution but hope
she will accept what our policy allows us to pay out. We wish her the
best.
--
Bradford Moving ServicesQuality Moving Professionals
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]
Regards,
[redacted]
When the table was broken apart that day and the other furniture damaged as well, I did show that to [redacted] and he took pictures. He never mentioned the 60day claim time period nor the federally mandated valuation coverage. [redacted] was the first to tell me about that on 2-21-14. I was told by [redacted] that he would get my table repaired for me (the other damages paled in comparison to table destruction.) I was most concerned with the table. I called him numerous times and he said he would take care of it. They mentioned the 60 day claim, when it was more than 60 days that I had been calling [redacted] and I had not had a definite response. That was when I went to another person to at least get the ball rolling to fix the table because he did nothing to get it repaired and I would not hear back from him. [redacted] had said that they were very working in Beaumont providing their moving services. I did not have a table, I did not know what else to do. I felt forced into trying to do something. I did call him and told him that the table was "put back together" but needed to be refinished. He did have the table picked-up 7-27-13 by friends of his that were going to refinish the table I thought. He had told me that his friend [redacted] was going to charge $750.00 to do this.( Just prior to their picking up the table, I called another company and they said they would refinish the table but would cost $1500.00 and relayed that info to Roosevelt.) Roosevelt's friend, [redacted], returned the table to me 10-27-13 but had not refinished it. So I asked him actually I pleaded with him to pay the other company that I had contacted the $750 he was going to pay his friend, [redacted], and I would pay the other part to get the table refinished. I did not demand anything. I was begging him to please help me get the table refinished. In Nov 2013, (I was going to a family funeral) was the last time I had made that plea to him and he mentioned to me that I could file a claim with his insurance and he would send me that papers for that. That was the first time he mentioned insurance to me. Even so he did not say a federally mandated valuation situation about the insurance or a time period in which to do so. Then I was involved with my family because we lost 2 other close family members during that time even until mid Jan 2014.I had been checking the mail when back in Houston but I still had not received anything from him. That was when I started calling him again. All the times I called him it was to his cell phone except that week of Feb 17 when I looked up the address and phone number to the office. I then made a complaint to the Revdex.com just because I did not know what else to do at that point. I just trusted [redacted] and him that they would take really good care of my furniture as she first told me and that [redacted] had also told me. I was devastated when this happened and with what happened after the table was broken. The response noted large gaps in time. I had called him numerous times during those gaps and was not able to get a call back except every "once in a blue moon." Then his friend had the table from July to Oct 2013 and I did not know until Oct that [redacted] was not gong to refinish the table. I have been so very upset with this entire process. The worst is that my Mother's dining table was ruined. Regardless of my getting another to piece it together, I would not have needed to do that if they had not broken it in the first place. [redacted] has always had my cell phone number. Every time I called him it was from my cell to his cell phone and I was always reachable and would return the call with a day or two if I were called. I was not and am not trying to take advantage of the Bradfords. I think I have been disadvantaged by what happened to my furniture when they moved it. I had a lovely antique dining table before this occurred and that is no longer true. The other furniture was not damaged when I entrusted it to them to move it either and now I am reminded of that ill fated move every time that I look at my furniture. I don't remember their offering me anything to rectify the situation which was stated in the response note. When I talked with [redacted] on 2-21-13, she said that she had not even been told anything about my table having been destroyed on March 22, 2013 when they moved it back into my home. That was when she told me about the federally mandated insurance claim period. It sounded to me as if she were telling me that they were no longer going to honor what [redacted] had told me when he had first looked at the broken table. She said to send her pictures which I did.