Classic Cleaners

We have reviewed the specific request submitted by [redacted] , regarding the outstanding balance due under the terms of the loanIf [redacted] is willing to pay the unpaid balance, we will then remove the information regarding this debt, from his account recordThank you

I will contact this person immediately and resolve this issue

Revdex.com:
At this time, I have not been contacted by Classic Cleaners regarding complaint ID ***
Regards,
*** ***

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me and the matter has been resolved
Sincerely,
*** ***

I am responding to this additional charge you received on your bill at Cheddarsi would like to speak to personally an apologize an resolve this matter My name is *** *** an would be glad to contact you at your earliest convenience My phone number is *** *** if you
would like to call me we do appreciate your business an want to make this right

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# ***, and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:
Due to SFCU’s negligence, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty, *** *** will only accept a full discharge of the loan. The vehicle loan was more than an arms-length transaction SFCU, and its authorized agents held a fiduciary duty to *** *** in which they breached They failed to protect their security interest in the loan and the vehicle, and, subsequently, *** *** has been harmedUntil this loan is fully discharged, *** *** is fully prepared to pursue all avenues available to avoid further harm from SFCU and to prevent SFCU from harming other hard working members. Pursuant to the loan and security agreements, *** *** hereby relinquishes any claims of possession to the vehicle by delivering both sets of keys to SFCUAs previously mentioned, the vehicle is located at: All About Automotive II *** *** ***
*** *** *** ***
***Along with a full discharge of the loan, we also respectfully request SFCU mitigate any alleged damages by seeking claim to the vehicle pursuant to its security interest
In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above
Sincerely,
*** ***

I will contact this person immediately and resolve this issue? ?

Suffolk Federal Credit Union has reviewed the complaint submitted by [redacted] to the Revdex.com, and provides the following response: In summary, it appears that both [redacted] (as purchaser) and Suffolk Federal Credit Union (as lender) were defrauded by the individual who sold a...

vehicle to [redacted] in November of 2015.  As such, SFCU understands [redacted]’s dismay upon Honda’s repossession of the vehicle.  However, SFCU has done no wrong, and at all times dealt with [redacted] fairly, honestly, and responsibly.  In October of 2015, [redacted] applied to SFCU for a loan to finance his purchase of a 2015 Honda.  He indicated to SFCU that he was buying the vehicle from someone named “[redacted]”, whom we have since come to learn was actually [redacted].  It is important to note that SFCU itself had no affiliation with [redacted], and that [redacted] became involved with [redacted] on his own prior to approaching SFCU to ask for a loan. In considering [redacted]’s loan application, SFCU required [redacted] to provide various documents, including a copy of the title to the vehicle that he was planning to purchase.  [redacted] provided a copy of the title bearing the owner’s name [redacted], which document reflected “no liens recorded” on the vehicle. SFCU did not rely solely on this document, however.  In an abundance of caution and in an effort to verify that title to the vehicle was indeed free and clear from liens as stated, SFCU independently searched the records of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).  In doing so, SFCU itself discovered that there were two liens in Honda’s name listed in connection with the vehicle that [redacted] intended to purchase.  SFCU then notified [redacted] of this fact and indicated that [redacted] needed to obtain lien releases to show that the liens had been paid in order for SFCU to approve the loan.  Based upon SFCU’s experience in vehicle loan underwriting, it understands that a prior loan obligation might be legitimately paid off and satisfied while the associated lien could still be reflected in the DMV’s records.  This occurs if a lien release was not filed with the DMV by the owner.  Such scenario is not uncommon. When SFCU’s branch representative made this notification to [redacted] said that he would talk to the seller.  Subsequently, [redacted] told SFCU’s branch representative that he spoke with the seller and that the seller had assured him that the liens had been cleared and that he would forward lien releases.  After a certain amount of time passed without SFCU receiving any lien release from either [redacted] or the seller, and because [redacted] had been calling SFCU to find out the status of his loan application and was expressing concern that he would lose the opportunity to buy the vehicle, SFCU’s branch representative obtained the seller’s contact information from [redacted] and called the seller directly and asked if lien releases were forthcoming.  The seller told SFCU’s branch representative that the liens were indeed paid and that he would forward the lien releases directly to SFCU.  Thereafter, SFCU received two separate documents by facsimile transmission purporting to be lien releases from Honda that matched the lien information on file with the DMV.  These documents bore fax headers at the top of each page purporting to indicate that they had been transmitted directly from Honda.  They each designated the vehicle that [redacted] intended to purchase; they each bore a signature purporting to be that of a Honda representative; and they each claimed that the accounts had been paid in full.  Only after seeing such releases did SFCU approve the loan and disburse $19,000.00 to [redacted] to finance his vehicle purchase.  SFCU had no reason to believe at that time that these documents were fraudulent, or that the seller was anyone other than he had represented himself to be, i.e. a person named [redacted].  Likewise, SFCU had no knowledge or reason to believe that the seller with whom [redacted] was dealing was a convicted felon.  SFCU, throughout its dealings with [redacted], sought to ensure that his loan application was processed efficiently.  In reaching out to the seller, SFCU’s branch representative was attempting to facilitate the process that [redacted] had begun of gathering all documents that were needed in order for his loan application to be approved. Far from committing negligence, SFCU itself pinpointed the existence of the liens in DMV’s records and notified [redacted] of these notations, and only approved the loan after receiving the very documentation that is routinely relied upon within the lending industry as evidence of satisfaction of a prior lien. At some point after [redacted] purchased the vehicle, [redacted] contacted SFCU and informed SFCU that Honda had repossessed the vehicle from him due to nonpayment.  This was the first indication to SFCU that the documents purporting to be lien releases were fraudulent. In [redacted]’s complaint, he claims that “due to Suffolk Federal’s negligence, the car was repossessed by Honda…”  This is inaccurate.  The vehicle was repossessed by Honda due to nonpayment of liens, which nonpayment was concealed by [redacted]’s fraud. [redacted] also asserts in his complaint that SFCU “refuse[s] to speak with Honda.”  [redacted] makes this assertion because he has misconstrued SFCU’s position and overestimated its ability to “clear up this matter” for him.  Specifically, after informing SFCU of Honda’s repossession of the vehicle, [redacted] asked SFCU to intervene in Honda’s sale of the vehicle.  However, SFCU’s representative informed [redacted] that, under these circumstances, it was not in a position to do so because Honda is a lienholder with priority.  Apparently, [redacted] misconstrued SFCU’s statement about its inability to prevent Honda from selling the vehicle as unwillingness to help him. [redacted] further asserts in his complaint that SFCU “refuse[s] to put [him] in contact with the Director of Collections so [he] may see about deferring the loan…” By way of explanation, after SFCU was notified of the seller’s fraud, and once [redacted] and his wife (an attorney) asked SFCU to discharge his loan obligation and intervene in Honda’s sale, SFCU referred the matter to its attorneys.  When [redacted] asked to be put in contact with the Director of Collections in order to ask that SFCU take certain action, SFCU told [redacted] that its attorneys has been consulted and were looking into the matter.  Rather than ignoring [redacted], SFCU provided [redacted] with its attorneys’ contact information.  Since then, [redacted] has been in contact with them. With respect to [redacted]’s “desired settlement” as stated in his complaint, SFCU believes that his loan obligation to SFCU is not dischargeable.  Again, SFCU did not engage in any wrongdoing.  The wrongdoing was perpetrated solely by [redacted], and [redacted]’s remedy is as against Cohen, not against SFCU.  Indeed, SFCU itself is a victim of fraud by Cohen as it disbursed to [redacted] $19,000.00 based upon Cohen’s fraudulent representation that the liens on the vehicle were satisfied, and SFCU has now lost its ability to proceed against the collateral securing [redacted]’s loan as a result of such fraud. Purely as a courtesy to [redacted], SFCU has agreed to offer him a three month deferment of the loan under terms and conditions that are in the process of being communicated to him.  This gesture should not be construed as anything more than an act of courtesy made in SFCU’s discretion to its member based upon his circumstances.

We have reviewed the specific request submitted by [redacted], regarding the outstanding balance due under the terms of the loan. If [redacted] is willing to pay the unpaid balance, we will then remove the information regarding this debt, from his account record. Thank you.

I wanted to share my recent experience hoping it will save someone from having the same incident. I recently went to Classic Cleaners in Schofield and had a great experience with the ladies that work in that location. I have gone into this location very frequently. I have never had any issues until this last time going there. I went to Cancun to get married as a destination wedding and by the end of the evening I had wine spilled onto my dress. I brought it to classic cleaners the day after arriving back in WI. The young girl working the counter told me they could not have it cleaned in a few days (My reception and pictures was the next Saturday) I told her I could try to go somewhere else I just wanted it lightened for the pictures. She was very helpful and called the manager and explained everything. I watched as she typed things into the system and did everything because I was nervous about it being cleaned in time. She then told me it will be done in two days. I explained I couldn't come in in two days but I would be back on Friday which was three days. When I arrived on Friday to pick up my dress the same young lady was arriving into work. Neither employee could find my dress so they called the same manager that had taken it in to be cleaned. The manager said it would be a month to get cleaned and hung up. I told the ladies working that I needed to talk to the manager so they called him back and gave me the phone. I told him I needed my dress for tomorrow (Saturday) for my wedding pictures. The manager said it would be a month because the employee didn't enter it in the right way. I let him know I watched her and verified with her to know I would have it back and I heard him say it was going to be cleaned in two days. The manager then got very loud and started telling me that she didn't know what she was doing since she was a 17 year old high school student. Also he had the nerve to question me on how I got wine on my dress if I needed to wear it to my wedding. This manager was so rude and unprofessional to me that I was in shock. The young girl behind the counter heard him say she was just a young high school student so she was crying and I had to attempt to console her and tell her it wasn't her fault. I called the main office after leaving and talked to the owner and tried to explain everything to her and she didn't give me the time of day. They surprisingly had my dress for me before the pictures. I had my husband pick it up while I was getting my hair done for pictures and the same manager I talked to gave him my dress. They offered no apology and had the nerve to charge me over 100 dollars. I am a business owner in central WI with seven locations and cannot believe how I was treated. I will never bring another article into this cleaners and neither will my other offices.

Review: On August **, 2013 Saturday 12:45pm, I brought in one BOSS shirt, 1 Elie Tahari shirt, & 1 banana republic pant to be dry cleaned. The ticket # is [redacted]. The total for the dry cleaning was $23.65 charged to my AMEX. The dry cleaners failed to deliver my clothes & the clothes were lost or stolen. The clothing could be over $600.00 & these items cannot be replaced. The doorman doesn't have the clothing & dry cleaning. [redacted] who works at Classic Cleaners never returned my phone call. These clothes cannot be replaced. I also have a dry cleaning bill on July [redacted], Saturday at 3:25pm ticket # [redacted] for $101.35 for 13 shirts, another dry cleaning ticket on July [redacted], Saturday at 3:27pm ticket #[redacted] for $112.55 for 12 pants, 2 shorts. I also have a dry cleaning from August [redacted] for $38.75 ticket #[redacted] and on August [redacted] for $56.15. Many of my clothing for these tickets are also missing. I have over 5 pairs of pants missing, and over 6 shirts missing. I am missing over $2,000.00 of clothes. They also charged me to clean the missing or stolen clothes for a total of $332.45. I have been using the same dry cleaners for almost one year. I will also report the dry cleaners to my AMEX and NYC Dept of consumer affairs.Desired Settlement: $2,000 for missing clothes and $332.45 credit for dry cleaning.

Consumer

Response:

At this time, I have not been contacted by Classic Cleaners regarding complaint ID [redacted].

Sincerely,

Review: I had a winter coat to be cleaned. the owner assured me that it could be cleaned. the coat had an excess of lint on a black wool coat. when I went to pick it up after one week, it was not clean--still loads of lint remaining on the coat. the owner told me to come back in one more week, and said that she would work on it and get it cleaned. after 2 weeks, went back and the coat STILL looked terrible! I told the owner that I was not happy with the way it looked, and she told me 'you go home and clean yourself" and I said, "thats why I brought it to you to clean!" she told me "next time you no get black coat and you not have this trouble" she was very rude and in a million years, I would NEVER refer them to ANYONE.Desired Settlement: I payed 16 dollars for the coat to be cleaned. that is NOT a large amount, but they assured me that it could be cleaned. its just the point that you CANNOT treat customers that way and say whatever you want to a paying customer and expect to run a business.

Consumer

Response:

At this time, I have not been contacted by Classic Cleaners regarding complaint ID [redacted].

Regards,