Doggie Washerette, LLC

In response to the complaint made to the Revdex.com on March 2,
2016, by [redacted] ("the Complainant") against the Doggie Washerette
("the Business") and by reference, the Owner and Proprietor, MrsEthel T[redacted]
("the Owner"), the Business and the Owner appreciate the opportunity to refute
the allegations therein, and offer the following
The Complainant brought her dog to the Business on Friday, February 5, 2016, for scheduled grooming. This was the
first time that Complainant and her dog had come to the Business for
grooming. As is the usual and customary
practice of the Business, an intake form as given to the Complainant to
complete about the status of her dog, any issues or ailments, and any
instructions. Proof of current
vaccinations is also required before grooming.
Complainant completed the forms.
No mention of any previous ailments was made by Complainant.In the interaction between Complainant and Owner at the
point of drop off, Complainant described the style and type of cut she desired
for her dog. She gave no warning about
any current or previous conditions.
Complainant left. Owner evaluated
the dog and determined it to be very matted, or tangled in a thick mass,
usually the result of infrequent brushing and grooming.Employer groomed the
dog. The dog's ears were groomed in the
standard manner for the breed which included removal of the ear hair in the
visual area of the ear canalAs is the standard practice in our facility for
all dogs, before the bath, cotton is gently inserted into the ears to prevent
water from entering the canalAs an extra precaution our practice is to gently
hold the ear down when the water comes near the neck and faceThe dog did not
grimace in pain or express any apparent discomfort during the grooming process
The groom was completed without incidentThe dog was happy and content the
rest of his stay and even at pick up by the Complainant there were no issues by
either parties to discussIt is our procedure that all potential issues
noticed by groomers immediately be brought to the attention of the business owner
which is practiced even if it entails taking a picture and sending it via text.On Tuesday February 9, 2016, the Complainant and Owner began
interactions and they went as follows:*Complainant communicated via phone that she
had taken her dog to the veterinarian, who allegedly said the dog had an ear infection
and the dog's condition was a result of the grooming received(Meaning, the
veterinarian allegedly assigned blame for the dog's condition on the Business.)
Let it also be noted, that the first time the Owner heard any complaint of any
problems with the groom on the dog's body was on social media after the
Complainant's last phone conversation with the Owner.* The Owner then began to assure the
Complainant that she would take responsibility if indeed the vet's diagnosis
proved something that happened while the dog was in the Business' care led to
the dog's complications.*The Owner then began to ask the Complainant
questions about the vet visit and what was told to her during the vet visit
Almost immediately, the Complainant began to get frustrated with the questions
and finally blurted out angrily, "I am not the vet if you want to know what he
said call him and talk to him yourself!"*The Owner conceded apologetically, "Please,
there's no need to get angryIf there is anything in my grooming practices
that need to change to prevent this from happening, I would like to know his (the
vet's) recommendations, as we both are working together for the health of your
petWith your permission I would like to talk to him (the vet)." Angrily, the
Complainant threatened, "If you don't pay this bill I will write a bad review
on Yelp and any other means I can on social media!" *Even after the threats from the
Complainant, the Owner insisted the vet bill be sent via emailThe Complainant
responded that the bill was at home and she was at work, and Complainant would
send the bill when she got home.*On Wednesday February 10, when the
Owner arrived at Doggie Washerette, pulled up her emails and did not see the
invoice, she pulled the Complainant's file and called to ask about the
invoice. Owner reached Complainant's voicemail,
and left a message that Owner was waiting for the invoice.*Early afternoon Wednesday February 10,
approximately 2:27pm, an email was sent to the Owner by the Complainant which
included pictures of a dog's ear (the pics do not show the dog's face and
body to confirm it's the Complainant's dog and if so what date the pics were
taken) and a copy of the vet bill.*Immediately a
red flag went up in the Owners mind because the Complainant conversation took
place on the morning of Tuesday February 9, were she informed the Owner
that she had already taken the dog to the vet* The Owner then called the vet, introduced
herself to a young lady who answered the phone and informed her that the
Complainant was at the vet just that morningThe Owner explained the
accusations of the Complainant and asked to speak to the vetThe Owner was
informed that the Vet was unavailable but a message would be left.*The next day Thursday February 11,
the Owner put in another call to the vet who was dealing with an emergency and
could not talk at the moment and was assured another message would be left.·
Finally, Saturday February 13, the vet
returned the Owner's callThe Owner was informed that truly the dog had an ear
infection but he could in no way accused the groomerThe Owner was told that
the Complainant came into his facility proclaiming that every time the dog goes
to the groomer he ends up with an ear infection, and the Complainant was the
only one pointing the finger at the groomer and he never didThe Complainant
had also already begun to self-medicated the dog's ear before the vet wrote any
prescription On February 29, 2016, the Complainant called the
Owner to inquire about the paying of the bill and the conversation went as
follows: ·
The Owner informed the Complainant that there
was a hesitancy in the paying of the bill because of the inconsistent
information she had given:The first being that this was the dog's
first ear infection, and nothing like this had ever happened to the dog before
If that was so, how did she have ear medicine from a previous infection and why
did at least people on staff quote her saying, "Every time my dog goes to the
groomer he gets an ear infection!"?Second, the Complainant called saying she
had already been to the vet when she had notIt then became clear to the Owner
why there was such frustration with the Owner's question asking of the vet
diagnoses and instructions on that first phone conversation(One of the
questions asked by the Owner was: "Did the vet say it was a bacterial or yeast
infection?" Complaintant could not
answer Owner's question.)Third, only in this complaint to the RevDex.com did the Complainant include the point the Owner called her
inconsistent on which was the history of previous infectionsShe only
mentioned it was a bacterial infection in the complaint after I asked her and
she didn't know because she hadn't been to the vetIt should also be noted on
the grooming intake form there is a space for any disclosure or instruction of
any medical or grooming concerns that should be attended toThe Complainant
wrote, "No." Fourth, it should also be noted that the
following statements in the complaint are completely fabricated:The woman who operates the establishment
was rude, unprofessional, and argumentative when I called in to explain the
situationShe shouted at me, called me a liarThe woman who operates the
(groomer??), her words
accused me of abusing my dog, and made derogatory racial
remarks to meAlso, the accusation that she was belittled and made to feel
afraid
Fifth, in the Owner's last phone conversation
with the Complainant, the Complainant continually threatened the Owner if the
vet bill was not paid she would ruin her and the business via social media, and
through the Revdex.comWith all of the fabrications in the
complaint she has definitely made an attempt to do soIf this Complainant's
seeds of falsity and disdain grow any negative harvest, as a small business
owner, my trust in the justice of the Revdex.com (which is the reason I became a member)
will be lost.Complainant subsequently posted on Yelp and on her Facebook
an account that is not factual. The
issues described in her complaint to the Revdex.com mischaracterize and omit that
Owner sought to understand the problem with the dog and the vet disavowed the
Business' responsibility for any ear injuryThe statement that Owner used a
racial term is not only false, it is offensive to the Business and the Owner
that they would be characterized in this manner.The Business and the Owner welcome any additional questions
the Revdex.com may have to close this matter expeditiously and without a negative
implication against the individual and the establishment. Thank you for the consideration of the full
story as described by these facts.Respectfully,Ethel T[redacted]
Owner, Doggie Washerette, LLC