Fabrictech2000

Review: On Feb 27, 2011, I purchased a Fabrictech mattress protector from Sleepys as part of an overall new mattress purchase, which I received on Mar 13, 2011. Throughout owning the mattress, I used the Fabrictech protector in accordance with proscribed guidelines and service requirements. On Feb 9, 2014, I noticed mold growing on mattress and contacted Fabrictech International to file a warranty claim. According to the Fabrictech product description, the protector is designed and advertised as both moisture resistant and mold resistant. I left a voicemail with the company as they were closed that day. I received a call on Feb 10, 2014 from a Fabrictech representative and provided all requested information. I was told the company would contact me within 3-5 business days. On Feb 22, 2014, I received a letter in the mail from Fabrictech that denied my warranty claim based on the product not being a Fabrictech product. I called Sleepys and confirmed again, the mattress protector was a Fabrictech product. The Sleepys representative did confirm the product was in fact a Fabrictech product and provided me with a copy of my original invoice.Desired Settlement: As was described to me upon purchasing the mattress protector manufactured by Fabrictech, I require the full replacement of the mattress purchased on Feb 27, 2011 or financial compensation for the full replacement cost of the mattress and protector.

Business

Response:

Good afternoon! I'm sorry for the delay in responding. Customer Service has been in contact with this customer since the complaint has been filed. I will begin at the start of the Claim until Friday afternoon. Mr. [redacted] filed a Claim on 2/17/14 for mold on the underside of a Cal King Mono Gold Mattress. We received a copy of the Sales Receipt from Sleepy's which stated a mattress purchase only. A letter was sent to the customer cancelling the Claim because the Sales Receipt did not reflect a purchase of a mattress protector. Mr. [redacted] then emailed Customer Service with a 2nd Sales Receipt on 2/22/14 requesting the Claim be processed. The 2nd Receipt does show a mattress and Cal King protector FTA6072 which is a PureCare product. The Claim was sent to the Claims Department for processing. The Claim stated mold is present on the bottom or underside of the mattress. This mold is due to the plastic remaining on the box spring. The five sided protector Mr. [redacted] had purchased covers the top and four sides of the mattress. The five sided protector does not cover the bottom or underside of the mattress. Based on the warranty, the Claim was not within warranty restrictions due to the presence of mold and due to the affected location being on the underside of the mattress. As an accommodation Customer Service offered Mr. [redacted] a Courtesy spot cleaning of the mold affected area. Mr. [redacted] accepted this resolution. Customer Service sent a request to Stanley Steemer on Friday 2/28/14 to perform the spot cleaning on the mattress. Unfortunately over the weekend Stanley Steemer replied to PureCare to cancel the request for a spot cleaning. Stanley Steemer sighted concerns over air contamination of mold spores and possible damage to their machinery. Based on the liability concerns Stanley Steemer will not perform a cleaning of a mold contaminated mattress. As a final resolution I would like to offer a refund of the purchase price of the protector which is $139.99. PureCare will not address the mattress itself as mold is not covered under the PureCare warranty and the damage to the mattress was not the result of a failure of the protector. Thank you for the opportunity to respond.

Consumer

Response:

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:

PureCare has repeatedly made a false claim the mold was caused by "plastic remaining on the box spring". The mattress has always been located on a wooden bed frame and there is no plastic located anywhere around the mattress. The mattress was approximately 14 inches off the ground with no sources of moisture from under the protector. All moisture that caused the mold came from on top of the mattress. Furthermore, the mattress protector is advertised as being mold preventative and resistant. The mold is visible on the underside of the mattress and is the cause of moisture that penetrated the mattress protector and soaked into the mattress. PureCare continues to deny a claim without visibly inspecting the mattress in anyway. There claims are false and unfounded. I reject the offer of a refund of the mattress protector and demand a full refund of the mattress and protector. The purpose of purchasing a mattress protector was to prevent moisture from entering the mattress. I have sent multiple emails to the company since Feb 26th with no response form the company.

Regards,

Business

Response:

Good afternoon!

I'm sorry Mr. [redacted] is disappointed with a refund. However, the mattress has no spills or stains and the affected area is the underside of the mattress and is not protected by the five sided protector or warrantied under the limited lifetime warranty. Stains present not resulting from a failure of the protector is not covered under the warranty. The protector purchase is past the thirty day refund period. However, as an accommodation we have offered a refund of the protector. We will process the refund of the protector upon acceptance from Mr. [redacted]. Thank you for the opportunity to respond.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. Please process the refund when possible.

Regards,