Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 8, 2016/01/18) */ [redacted] contacted us for service at her homeShe was not available to meet us so she arranged for her father to be there for the inspection and paymentWe did the inspection, found that mice was her issueHer father authorized the poison treatment but was unable to pay [redacted] was suppose to call with a credit cardWe never heard from herSeveral letters were sent in an effort to collectI never received any response from her until the 3rd collection letterIt was at that point she started to say that she didn't ok the poison treatment and refused paymentShe contacted our corporate offices and we stopped the collection processI contend that she received services that she never intended to pay for and took advantage of our consideration for her being out of town and trusting her for paymentHonestly, if I had specifically requested that no poison be used, I would have left messages, continued to call...whatever it tookI only had one message from her after the 3rd letter stating she has no intention of paying our invoiceThis customer was a complete scam Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (3000, 10, 2016/01/18) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) This business was unresponsive to over four phone calls, emails and finally took a Facebook post to get a response The reason an appointment was scheduled was not resolved, course of treatment was not authorized and the job was never completedNot only was the customer service horrible, the owners handled the situation unprofessionally and were very rudeWe had to start the process over to find our problem was not mice as the CC owners claims, and sought a separate plan of action with a company that was reputable, responsive and finished the job correctlyMisinformation, disrespect and lack of response with legal threats are not responsible business practices Final Business Response / [redacted] (4000, 12, 2016/01/19) */ Contact Name and Title: Dawn [redacted] /Office Manager We have no further comment on this issue OFFER:
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2017/04/20) */
Contact Name and Title: [redacted] Owner
Contact Phone: XXX-XXX-XXXX
Contact Email: [redacted]@hotmail.com
The problem here is miscommunication within the home owners association. It was explained over the phone and in person...
that the set up of [redacted] was per pond plus [redacted] per nest. This subdivision has several different ponds and they had nests at every pond. We did receive approval from their contact person [redacted] to proceed. I have attached the flyer the customer is referring to in his complaint. I'm sorry the information wasn't correctly explained to the proper authority at the home owners association. But he did delegate the responsibility to [redacted] and we had [redacted] approval to proceed with the work. I do not feel we owe a refund to this customer for that reason.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2017/04/21) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I talked to Mr. [redacted] the first contact person and Mr. [redacted] the person that ordered the service. They both denied of being told there was a [redacted] charge per nest. If either one had been told it was [redacted] per nest, we would not have used them. They also said they had never meet Ms. [redacted], so I don't know who the "in person" was that she is talking about.
Ms. [redacted] is correct that we have multiple ponds. But if you were to go from the first nest to the last nest and back to the first again, you would have traveled 1.7 miles. Regardless of that, if all four nest had been on the same pond, it is my understanding that the [redacted] per nest would have still applied
In my working years if I had to call an HVAC company for repairs on multiple units, there would be one trip charge, then billing for the repairs for each unit serviced It made no difference if we had some units on building one and then some on building two. There was just one trip charge to get to our location.
If they had come out on four different days and serviced one nest per day, I could understand the [redacted] per nest, but to service four nests in one trip and still charge [redacted] per nest is, in my opinion, ridiculous.
I made four phone calls to Critter Control to find out about the bill I received. Each time I gave my name, Association name, and the reason I was calling. On calls #1 and #3, I was told they would have the office get back to me, which never happened On call # 2, I was told that they had to keep the line open for customers, and promptly hung up. At that moment I was quite sure I knew what kind of company I was dealing with.
Call # 4 was when I was given their take on the situation.
I think I now know why they don't require a signed contract before they do the service.If every detail was listed in a contract,fewer people would use their service.
Therefore, I'm still requesting a $600 reduction on our bill. I would also like for them to replace the wording "per set-up" with "per nest". I feel the wording per set-up is misleading, bordering on deceptive.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2017/04/21) */
To close this matter I will meet the homeowners association halfway. I will reduce the invoice by [redacted] but no more than that because I personally heard my office assistant explain very clearly about the [redacted] per pond I will not reduce the charges any further. Whether we had to drive to each pond in one day or different days is not an issue.
Final Consumer Response /* (2000, 11, 2017/04/25) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
The Creekwood Community Association board has decided to accept Critter Controls proposal of deducting [redacted] from our original bill.
Even though we don't believe their pricing flier is accurate, we have decided to move on.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2016/01/18) */
[redacted] contacted us for service at her home. She was not available to meet us so she arranged for her father to be there for the inspection and payment. We did the inspection, found that mice was her issue. Her father authorized the...
poison treatment but was unable to pay. [redacted] was suppose to call with a credit card. We never heard from her. Several letters were sent in an effort to collect. I never received any response from her until the 3rd collection letter. It was at that point she started to say that she didn't ok the poison treatment and refused payment. She contacted our corporate offices and we stopped the collection process. I contend that she received services that she never intended to pay for and took advantage of our consideration for her being out of town and trusting her for payment. Honestly, if I had specifically requested that no poison be used, I would have left messages, continued to call...whatever it took. I only had one message from her after the 3rd letter stating she has no intention of paying our invoice. This customer was a complete scam.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 10, 2016/01/18) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
This business was unresponsive to over four phone calls, emails and finally took a Facebook post to get a response.
The reason an appointment was scheduled was not resolved, course of treatment was not authorized and the job was never completed. Not only was the customer service horrible, the owners handled the situation unprofessionally and were very rude. We had to start the process over to find our problem was not mice as the CC owners claims, and sought a separate plan of action with a company that was reputable, responsive and finished the job correctly. Misinformation, disrespect and lack of response with legal threats are not responsible business practices.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 12, 2016/01/19) */
Contact Name and Title: Dawn [redacted]/Office Manager
We have no further comment on this issue.
OFFER:
Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 8, 2016/01/18) */ [redacted] contacted us for service at her homeShe was not available to meet us so she arranged for her father to be there for the inspection and paymentWe did the inspection, found that mice was her issueHer father authorized the poison treatment but was unable to pay [redacted] was suppose to call with a credit cardWe never heard from herSeveral letters were sent in an effort to collectI never received any response from her until the 3rd collection letterIt was at that point she started to say that she didn't ok the poison treatment and refused paymentShe contacted our corporate offices and we stopped the collection processI contend that she received services that she never intended to pay for and took advantage of our consideration for her being out of town and trusting her for paymentHonestly, if I had specifically requested that no poison be used, I would have left messages, continued to call...whatever it tookI only had one message from her after the 3rd letter stating she has no intention of paying our invoiceThis customer was a complete scam Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (3000, 10, 2016/01/18) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) This business was unresponsive to over four phone calls, emails and finally took a Facebook post to get a response The reason an appointment was scheduled was not resolved, course of treatment was not authorized and the job was never completedNot only was the customer service horrible, the owners handled the situation unprofessionally and were very rudeWe had to start the process over to find our problem was not mice as the CC owners claims, and sought a separate plan of action with a company that was reputable, responsive and finished the job correctlyMisinformation, disrespect and lack of response with legal threats are not responsible business practices Final Business Response / [redacted] (4000, 12, 2016/01/19) */ Contact Name and Title: Dawn [redacted] /Office Manager We have no further comment on this issue OFFER:
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2017/04/20) */
Contact Name and Title: [redacted] Owner
Contact Phone: XXX-XXX-XXXX
Contact Email: [redacted]@hotmail.com
The problem here is miscommunication within the home owners association. It was explained over the phone and in person...
that the set up of [redacted] was per pond plus [redacted] per nest. This subdivision has several different ponds and they had nests at every pond. We did receive approval from their contact person [redacted] to proceed. I have attached the flyer the customer is referring to in his complaint. I'm sorry the information wasn't correctly explained to the proper authority at the home owners association. But he did delegate the responsibility to [redacted] and we had [redacted] approval to proceed with the work. I do not feel we owe a refund to this customer for that reason.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2017/04/21) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I talked to Mr. [redacted] the first contact person and Mr. [redacted] the person that ordered the service. They both denied of being told there was a [redacted] charge per nest. If either one had been told it was [redacted] per nest, we would not have used them. They also said they had never meet Ms. [redacted], so I don't know who the "in person" was that she is talking about.
Ms. [redacted] is correct that we have multiple ponds. But if you were to go from the first nest to the last nest and back to the first again, you would have traveled 1.7 miles. Regardless of that, if all four nest had been on the same pond, it is my understanding that the [redacted] per nest would have still applied
In my working years if I had to call an HVAC company for repairs on multiple units, there would be one trip charge, then billing for the repairs for each unit serviced It made no difference if we had some units on building one and then some on building two. There was just one trip charge to get to our location.
If they had come out on four different days and serviced one nest per day, I could understand the [redacted] per nest, but to service four nests in one trip and still charge [redacted] per nest is, in my opinion, ridiculous.
I made four phone calls to Critter Control to find out about the bill I received. Each time I gave my name, Association name, and the reason I was calling. On calls #1 and #3, I was told they would have the office get back to me, which never happened On call # 2, I was told that they had to keep the line open for customers, and promptly hung up. At that moment I was quite sure I knew what kind of company I was dealing with.
Call # 4 was when I was given their take on the situation.
I think I now know why they don't require a signed contract before they do the service.If every detail was listed in a contract,fewer people would use their service.
Therefore, I'm still requesting a $600 reduction on our bill. I would also like for them to replace the wording "per set-up" with "per nest". I feel the wording per set-up is misleading, bordering on deceptive.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2017/04/21) */
To close this matter I will meet the homeowners association halfway. I will reduce the invoice by [redacted] but no more than that because I personally heard my office assistant explain very clearly about the [redacted] per pond I will not reduce the charges any further. Whether we had to drive to each pond in one day or different days is not an issue.
Final Consumer Response /* (2000, 11, 2017/04/25) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
The Creekwood Community Association board has decided to accept Critter Controls proposal of deducting [redacted] from our original bill.
Even though we don't believe their pricing flier is accurate, we have decided to move on.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2016/01/18) */
[redacted] contacted us for service at her home. She was not available to meet us so she arranged for her father to be there for the inspection and payment. We did the inspection, found that mice was her issue. Her father authorized the...
poison treatment but was unable to pay. [redacted] was suppose to call with a credit card. We never heard from her. Several letters were sent in an effort to collect. I never received any response from her until the 3rd collection letter. It was at that point she started to say that she didn't ok the poison treatment and refused payment. She contacted our corporate offices and we stopped the collection process. I contend that she received services that she never intended to pay for and took advantage of our consideration for her being out of town and trusting her for payment. Honestly, if I had specifically requested that no poison be used, I would have left messages, continued to call...whatever it took. I only had one message from her after the 3rd letter stating she has no intention of paying our invoice. This customer was a complete scam.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 10, 2016/01/18) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
This business was unresponsive to over four phone calls, emails and finally took a Facebook post to get a response.
The reason an appointment was scheduled was not resolved, course of treatment was not authorized and the job was never completed. Not only was the customer service horrible, the owners handled the situation unprofessionally and were very rude. We had to start the process over to find our problem was not mice as the CC owners claims, and sought a separate plan of action with a company that was reputable, responsive and finished the job correctly. Misinformation, disrespect and lack of response with legal threats are not responsible business practices.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 12, 2016/01/19) */
Contact Name and Title: Dawn [redacted]/Office Manager
We have no further comment on this issue.
OFFER: