Vita-Mix
Corporation (“Vitamix”) is responding to the complaint issued by Mr. [redacted] E. [redacted]
regarding a Vitamix 5200s machine.
Mr. [redacted] purchased a 5200s from C[redacted] on
12/9/2014. The customer contacted our
Household Contact Center in Ohio on 12/10/2014 to report that the...
machine he
received had a black base, instead of a black base with a silver face
plate. Given the nature of this concern,
the call was immediately escalated to our Supervisory Team Lead.
Team Lead apologized for Mr. [redacted]’s poor experience, and
offered to replace his machine with the correct C[redacted] machine, extend his
warranty by three additional years free of charge, and offered a free set of
Vitamix spatulas. The Vitamix Customer
Service Team Lead spoke with Mr. [redacted] personally on 12/10, 12/12, 12/13 and
12/22/2014 in our attempt to ensure customer satisfaction.
Mr. [redacted] has refused the replacement machine, warranty
and spatula offer and has instead requested a completely free machine. This request for a free machine is, in our
view, unreasonable. The customer’s
experience was due to a mistake in a production and distribution item number
which resulted in some boxes containing mismatched faceplates. There is no difference in the functionality
or capabilities of the machine he received and the correct machine we offered
to replace it with, other than the different color faceplates. Our Production
team has been notified of this error and corrective action has been systemized.
In our
opinion, the solutions offered to the customer in response to the complaint
filed by Mr. [redacted] are reasonable. We
consider this matter closed.
Vita-Mix Corporation 8615 Usher Road Olmsted Township, OH 44138 Response to Consumer Complaint No. [redacted] Vita-Mix Corporation (“Vitamix”) is responding to [redacted]’s complaint regarding an outstanding balance from his September 23, 2015 purchase. [redacted] purchased a...
Vitamix utilizing our 5-payment plan method and was able to take the Vitamix home from the show after his credit card was authorized. His remaining payments were scheduled to be made on 10/8/2015, 11/7/2015, 12/7/2015, 1/6/2015, and 2/5/2016. These payments were to be automatically drafted from the credit card account provided by [redacted]. Vitamix was able to successfully collect 3 of the 5 payments. When the fourth payment was attempted on January 6, 2016 the payment was declined by his bank with a message of Do Not Honor. Once a payment fails, our system does not continue requesting the transfer as we do not want customers to incur additional fees from their financial institutions. The failure of this payment resulted in an open balance of $218.37. An update in our computer system caused a lengthy delay in our delinquent account notification and as a result we did not send out a notice to [redacted] reminding him of this open balance until October 13, 2016. As was stated in the letter we sent, we acknowledged and apologized for the delayed notification. We have since reviewed our notification process and have implemented a change to improve our timing of these notifications in the future. In the letter, [redacted] was asked to contact us by November 3, 2016 to discuss the open balance or to make payment arrangements. When a response was not received, a final 10-day notice was sent on February 16, 2017 asking [redacted] to remit payment within 10 days to avoid collection activity. [redacted] contacted us on February 27, 2017. He spoke with a Customer Service Representative and advised that he had not gotten the first letter. He asked to speak to a supervisor after being advised that he would have to make payment arrangements or provide proof of his payments within the 10 days to prevent his account from being referred to collections. While on the phone with the supervisor [redacted] shared that he had not gotten any previous letters. Additionally, he requested more time to research his account to confirm that his payments had in fact failed. He was transferred to a Senior Finance Associate for further assistance. [redacted] was not given clear expectations of how much time he would be given to complete his research and make payment arrangements if necessary. After reviewing the account, a supervisor has contacted [redacted] and has made arrangements to assist him with his research and to manage future payments if appropriate. His account will not be referred to collections. We anticipate these actions will serve to resolve the matter. Submitted by: Loree *. C[redacted], CPA CFO and Treasurer 440-782-2401 [redacted]
Vita-Mix Corporation (“Vitamix”) is responding to Ms. [redacted]
[redacted]’s complaint regarding the duplicate credit card charge of $353.68 on the
purchase of his Vitamix machine that took place at the Gold County Fair in
Auburn, California. Mr. [redacted] contacted
our customer service...
representative on September 12, 2015 to inform us of the
duplicate charge. Our research confirmed
that Vitamix erroneously double charged Mr. [redacted]’s credit card for the purchase. On September 12, 2015 when this error was
discovered, we immediately processed a refund to take care of the matter. It typically takes 2 to 3 business days
before the account holder sees the credit on their account.
A customer service
representative reached out to Mr. [redacted] on September 14, 2015 to let him know
that the double charge was corrected. Mr.
[redacted] seemed to be satisfied with that resolution to the matter.
Submitted
by:
[redacted]
CFO
and Treasurer
January 28, 2016 Vita-Mix Corporation 8615 Usher Road Olmsted Township, OH 44138 Response to Consumer Complaint No. [redacted] Re: [redacted]...
[redacted] [redacted] Vita-Mix Corporation (“Vitamix”) is responding to Mr. [redacted] complaint regarding a problem with his Vitamix machine. Mr. [redacted] contacted Vitamix on March 11, 2015 to request a repair on his Vitamix. The warranty on his Vitamix had expired on September 18, 2015. Mr. [redacted] was charged for the repair and was advised at that time the Vitamix repairs would be warranted for 6 months. When Mr. [redacted] called Vitamix again on January 26, 2016 to report that his machine had overheated he was advised that there was no warranty remaining and was quoted the cost to have a repair completed. A supervisor has reached out to Mr. [redacted] to discuss his service options. As a measure of good faith, a one-time courtesy repair was offered to Mr. [redacted] because his repair warranty had just expired. We anticipate these actions will serve to resolve the matter. Submitted by: Loree W. C[redacted], CPA CFO and Treasurer 440-782-2401 LC[redacted]@vitamix.com
Vita-Mix Corporation (“Vitamix”) is responding to Ms. [redacted]
[redacted]’s complaint regarding the performance of her newly acquired
reconditioned machine. Ms. [redacted]
contacted our customer service representative on August 24, 2015 to inform us
that the container was not blending...
the ingredients properly. At that time, we
issued a replacement order to send a replacement container to Ms. [redacted] with
instructions to send the old container back to us.
Unfortunately, however, we discovered that the replacement
order was set up incorrectly and Ms. [redacted] did not receive the replacement
container. Vitamix would like to
exchange Ms. [redacted]’s reconditioned Vitamix machine with a new Vitamix 5200 as
a courtesy to Ms. [redacted] to solve the issue.
A customer service representative reached out to Ms. [redacted] and left a
voicemail message to contact us in order to assist with the exchange
process.
We
anticipate these actions will serve to resolve the matter.
Submitted
by:
[redacted]
CFO
and Treasurer
Vita-Mix
Corporation (“Vitamix”) is responding to Ms. [redacted]’s complaint regarding her
request to repair her Vitamix machine. Our
customer service center reps and manager placed several calls and emails to Ms.
[redacted] so that we could make arrangements for a no charge repair. Though...
we were unable to speak with her
during those attempts, Ms. [redacted] did call us back on 2/13/2015, and a no charge
repair order was successfully entered.
When last checked, the pre-paid UPS shipping label that we provided to
Ms. [redacted] so that she can return her Vitamix had not yet been utilized. Once the Vitamix machine comes back to our
Cleveland, OH repair facility, we will make sure the repair is completed and
will follow-up with Ms. [redacted] to ensure her satisfaction.
We
anticipate these actions will serve to resolve the matter.
Vita-Mix Corporation (“Vitamix”) is responding to Mr. [redacted]
& [redacted]’s complaint regarding the warranty of their reconditioned
machine. Mrs. [redacted] has contacted our
customer service representatives on several occasions since receiving her
Vitamix in March...
2013.
The first call came on March 3, 2014 when Mrs. [redacted]
reported her blender container was leaking. The customer service representative
that Mrs. [redacted] spoke with shipped a new container with expedited shipping.
The next interactions we had with Mrs. [redacted] came in
August 2014. On August 1, 2014 Mrs. [redacted] called and reported a burning
smell and a surging motor. The customer was offered and accepted a repair of
the unit. The customer called back later in the day and advised that she wanted
to speak with a supervisor regarding her options for the repair process. Mrs.
[redacted] expressed that she had a child with a medical need and stated that she
could not be without the machine. The supervisor explained that Vitamix has a
loaner process which would provide a certified reconditioned machine at normal
costs for the customer to use while her owned machine was being serviced. Mrs.
[redacted] expressed that she could not provide payment for a loaner machine. At
that time, an exception was granted to send out a loaner unit to the customer without
charging her. This was offered by collecting Mrs. [redacted]’s credit card information
to retain in the event that the loaner machine was never returned. It was
explained to Mrs. [redacted] that if the loaner machine was not returned, her
credit card would be charged.
Mrs. [redacted] contacted the supervisor that had been
assisting her with the loaner machine several times in August 2014. On those
dates, Mrs. [redacted] shared various concerns. On August 4, 2014 and August 8,
2014 she stated that she could not print the UPS and Fed Ex labels that were
provided to return her machine for repair. On August 8, 2014 the supervisor
mailed Mrs. [redacted] a return label through USPS. On August 5, 2014 Mrs.
[redacted] called and expressed that she was concerned that the loaner machine
was not delivered on a Saturday. The supervisor explained that the order was
placed on a Friday after the shipping department had left for the day and that
her order was delivered has quickly as possible.
On August 13, 2014 Mrs. [redacted] called a representative and
emailed the supervisor to state that she was not going to return the loaner
unit because she claimed a hold was placed on her credit card. Mrs. [redacted]
was assured that there was no way a hold was placed on her card as her loaner
unit was shipped to her at no charge. Customer never contacted Vitamix
regarding that concern again.
Mrs. [redacted]’s machine was received in the repair
department on August 18, 2014. There were no motor issues found with the unit
and the speed increased appropriately. The container was found to have bad
bearings. The container was replaced.
On August 31, 2014 Mrs. [redacted] emailed to state that she
had returned the loaner machine and she reported that her repaired machine had
been returned but was still not working. On September 2, 2014 Mrs. [redacted] was
contacted by a representative in regards to her email. Mrs. [redacted] was
offered a second repair and was provided a second loaner unit, again at no
charge and shipped via next day delivery.
On September 16, 2014 the machine was received in the repair
department. Again no issues were found, but due to the nature of the customer’s
complaint, the repair team replaced the variable speed board and high low
switch. The machine was once again shipped back to the customer via next day
delivery.
Mrs. [redacted] called Vitamix several times on September 23,
2014. The first time the representative was unable to determine why the
customer was calling and due to how she was speaking to the representative she
was referred to a supervisor. The customer ended the call before the supervisor
answered. Mrs. [redacted] called a second time and the representative was unable
to determine what the customer wanted. At the end of the call the
representative set up a return for the loaner machine. Mrs. [redacted] called a
third time on September 23, 2014 to report that her Vitamix pops when she turns
it on. During this call, the representative conducted several troubleshooting
steps but what the customer had described could not be duplicated. The
representative cancelled the return of the loaner machine and set up a third
repair with quality inspection. According to our system tracking, this repair
was never completed as the unit was not returned.
The customer called on February 19, 2015 and was escalated
to a supervisor. During that call the customer history was reviewed with the
customer. The customer stated that she had sent the repair unit in but never
got it back so she thought the decision had been made to allow her to keep the
loaner. The customer went on to state that she was currently experiencing a
problem with the loaner unit. The initial description of the customer’s problem
was that the unit was broken. The supervisor was discussing exchanging the
loaner machine for a new machine when it became clear that the problem the
customer had was not with the motor, but was with the container. At that time,
the customer was sent two containers for the Vitamix. Mrs. [redacted] was advised
that this was being done to allow her to alternate containers daily to prolong
the life of the containers because of her need to frequently blend for her
child.
On September 18, 2015
Mrs. [redacted] called to inform Vitamix that her blender sparked, caught on
fire, and burned her hand. At that time, our customer service representative
initiated an order to return and replace the Vitamix and advised Mrs. [redacted]
that a claim’s specialist would follow up with her within 48 business hours.
On Monday September 21, 2015 a manager contacted Mrs.
[redacted]. The manager informed Mrs. [redacted] that due to the nature of her
claim, we would need to gather some additional information and would need to
handle the return of her machine in a specific manner. Mrs. [redacted] was asked
several questions to assist in the claims process and was advised of the
procedure for returning her Vitamix. At that time, Mrs. [redacted] advised that
she could not be without her Vitamix because she uses it for a child that has
medical needs. When Mrs. [redacted] made that known, our manager provided
information about our loaner program which would allow Mrs. [redacted] to
purchase a machine to use while hers was being assessed. That machine would
then be returned to Vitamix and Mrs. [redacted] would be refunded. Once the
loaner program was discussed, Mrs. [redacted] stated she did not wish to speak
with the manager any longer and she provided the contact information for her
husband, Mr. [redacted].
On Wednesday September 23, 2015 the manager contacted Mr.
[redacted]. The manager explained she was reaching out to him at the request of
his wife. The manager explained the claims process and advised Mr. [redacted]
that since speaking with his wife some additional research was completed and we
were willing to offer a loaner at no-charge as long as we had a profiled credit
card should the machine not be returned within 30 days. Mr. [redacted] was
advised that this exception was being made based on records showing that they
had received no-charge loaners on August 4, 2014 and September 2, 2014. Mr.
[redacted] advised he was not satisfied by this offer and stated he would need to
talk it over with his wife. He was advised to contact the manager directly once
a decision was made on returning the machine for incident processing.
At this
time, we are still waiting for Mr. or Mrs. [redacted] to call and complete the
incident process.
Submitted
by:
[redacted]
CFO
and Treasurer
[redacted]
[redacted]
Vita-Mix
Corporation (“Vitamix”) is responding to the complaint issued by Mr. [redacted] E. [redacted]
regarding a Vitamix 5200s machine.
Mr. [redacted] purchased a 5200s from C[redacted] on
12/9/2014. The customer contacted our
Household Contact Center in Ohio on 12/10/2014 to report that the...
machine he
received had a black base, instead of a black base with a silver face
plate. Given the nature of this concern,
the call was immediately escalated to our Supervisory Team Lead.
Team Lead apologized for Mr. [redacted]’s poor experience, and
offered to replace his machine with the correct C[redacted] machine, extend his
warranty by three additional years free of charge, and offered a free set of
Vitamix spatulas. The Vitamix Customer
Service Team Lead spoke with Mr. [redacted] personally on 12/10, 12/12, 12/13 and
12/22/2014 in our attempt to ensure customer satisfaction.
Mr. [redacted] has refused the replacement machine, warranty
and spatula offer and has instead requested a completely free machine. This request for a free machine is, in our
view, unreasonable. The customer’s
experience was due to a mistake in a production and distribution item number
which resulted in some boxes containing mismatched faceplates. There is no difference in the functionality
or capabilities of the machine he received and the correct machine we offered
to replace it with, other than the different color faceplates. Our Production
team has been notified of this error and corrective action has been systemized.
In our
opinion, the solutions offered to the customer in response to the complaint
filed by Mr. [redacted] are reasonable. We
consider this matter closed.
Submitted
by:
[redacted]
W. [redacted]
CFO
and Treasurer
440-782-2401
Vita-Mix Corporation 8615 Usher Road Olmsted Township, OH 44138 Response to Consumer Complaint No. [redacted] Vita-Mix Corporation (“Vitamix”) is responding to [redacted]’s complaint regarding an outstanding balance from his September 23, 2015 purchase. [redacted] purchased a...
Vitamix utilizing our 5-payment plan method and was able to take the Vitamix home from the show after his credit card was authorized. His remaining payments were scheduled to be made on 10/8/2015, 11/7/2015, 12/7/2015, 1/6/2015, and 2/5/2016. These payments were to be automatically drafted from the credit card account provided by [redacted]. Vitamix was able to successfully collect 3 of the 5 payments. When the fourth payment was attempted on January 6, 2016 the payment was declined by his bank with a message of Do Not Honor. Once a payment fails, our system does not continue requesting the transfer as we do not want customers to incur additional fees from their financial institutions. The failure of this payment resulted in an open balance of $218.37. An update in our computer system caused a lengthy delay in our delinquent account notification and as a result we did not send out a notice to [redacted] reminding him of this open balance until October 13, 2016. As was stated in the letter we sent, we acknowledged and apologized for the delayed notification. We have since reviewed our notification process and have implemented a change to improve our timing of these notifications in the future. In the letter, [redacted] was asked to contact us by November 3, 2016 to discuss the open balance or to make payment arrangements. When a response was not received, a final 10-day notice was sent on February 16, 2017 asking [redacted] to remit payment within 10 days to avoid collection activity. [redacted] contacted us on February 27, 2017. He spoke with a Customer Service Representative and advised that he had not gotten the first letter. He asked to speak to a supervisor after being advised that he would have to make payment arrangements or provide proof of his payments within the 10 days to prevent his account from being referred to collections. While on the phone with the supervisor [redacted] shared that he had not gotten any previous letters. Additionally, he requested more time to research his account to confirm that his payments had in fact failed. He was transferred to a Senior Finance Associate for further assistance. [redacted] was not given clear expectations of how much time he would be given to complete his research and make payment arrangements if necessary. After reviewing the account, a supervisor has contacted [redacted] and has made arrangements to assist him with his research and to manage future payments if appropriate. His account will not be referred to collections. We anticipate these actions will serve to resolve the matter. Submitted by: Loree *. C[redacted], CPA CFO and Treasurer 440-782-2401 [redacted]
Vita-Mix Corporation (“Vitamix”) is responding to Ms. [redacted]
[redacted]’s complaint regarding the duplicate credit card charge of $353.68 on the
purchase of his Vitamix machine that took place at the Gold County Fair in
Auburn, California. Mr. [redacted] contacted
our customer service...
representative on September 12, 2015 to inform us of the
duplicate charge. Our research confirmed
that Vitamix erroneously double charged Mr. [redacted]’s credit card for the purchase. On September 12, 2015 when this error was
discovered, we immediately processed a refund to take care of the matter. It typically takes 2 to 3 business days
before the account holder sees the credit on their account.
A customer service
representative reached out to Mr. [redacted] on September 14, 2015 to let him know
that the double charge was corrected. Mr.
[redacted] seemed to be satisfied with that resolution to the matter.
Submitted
by:
[redacted]
CFO
and Treasurer
January 28, 2016 Vita-Mix Corporation 8615 Usher Road Olmsted Township, OH 44138 Response to Consumer Complaint No. [redacted] Re: [redacted]...
[redacted] [redacted] Vita-Mix Corporation (“Vitamix”) is responding to Mr. [redacted] complaint regarding a problem with his Vitamix machine. Mr. [redacted] contacted Vitamix on March 11, 2015 to request a repair on his Vitamix. The warranty on his Vitamix had expired on September 18, 2015. Mr. [redacted] was charged for the repair and was advised at that time the Vitamix repairs would be warranted for 6 months. When Mr. [redacted] called Vitamix again on January 26, 2016 to report that his machine had overheated he was advised that there was no warranty remaining and was quoted the cost to have a repair completed. A supervisor has reached out to Mr. [redacted] to discuss his service options. As a measure of good faith, a one-time courtesy repair was offered to Mr. [redacted] because his repair warranty had just expired. We anticipate these actions will serve to resolve the matter. Submitted by: Loree W. C[redacted], CPA CFO and Treasurer 440-782-2401 LC[redacted]@vitamix.com
Vita-Mix Corporation (“Vitamix”) is responding to Ms. [redacted]
[redacted]’s complaint regarding the performance of her newly acquired
reconditioned machine. Ms. [redacted]
contacted our customer service representative on August 24, 2015 to inform us
that the container was not blending...
the ingredients properly. At that time, we
issued a replacement order to send a replacement container to Ms. [redacted] with
instructions to send the old container back to us.
Unfortunately, however, we discovered that the replacement
order was set up incorrectly and Ms. [redacted] did not receive the replacement
container. Vitamix would like to
exchange Ms. [redacted]’s reconditioned Vitamix machine with a new Vitamix 5200 as
a courtesy to Ms. [redacted] to solve the issue.
A customer service representative reached out to Ms. [redacted] and left a
voicemail message to contact us in order to assist with the exchange
process.
We
anticipate these actions will serve to resolve the matter.
Submitted
by:
[redacted]
CFO
and Treasurer
Vita-Mix
Corporation (“Vitamix”) is responding to Ms. [redacted]’s complaint regarding her
request to repair her Vitamix machine. Our
customer service center reps and manager placed several calls and emails to Ms.
[redacted] so that we could make arrangements for a no charge repair. Though...
we were unable to speak with her
during those attempts, Ms. [redacted] did call us back on 2/13/2015, and a no charge
repair order was successfully entered.
When last checked, the pre-paid UPS shipping label that we provided to
Ms. [redacted] so that she can return her Vitamix had not yet been utilized. Once the Vitamix machine comes back to our
Cleveland, OH repair facility, we will make sure the repair is completed and
will follow-up with Ms. [redacted] to ensure her satisfaction.
We
anticipate these actions will serve to resolve the matter.
Submitted
by:
[redacted]. [redacted], CPA
Vita-Mix Corporation (“Vitamix”) is responding to Mr. [redacted]
& [redacted]’s complaint regarding the warranty of their reconditioned
machine. Mrs. [redacted] has contacted our
customer service representatives on several occasions since receiving her
Vitamix in March...
2013.
The first call came on March 3, 2014 when Mrs. [redacted]
reported her blender container was leaking. The customer service representative
that Mrs. [redacted] spoke with shipped a new container with expedited shipping.
The next interactions we had with Mrs. [redacted] came in
August 2014. On August 1, 2014 Mrs. [redacted] called and reported a burning
smell and a surging motor. The customer was offered and accepted a repair of
the unit. The customer called back later in the day and advised that she wanted
to speak with a supervisor regarding her options for the repair process. Mrs.
[redacted] expressed that she had a child with a medical need and stated that she
could not be without the machine. The supervisor explained that Vitamix has a
loaner process which would provide a certified reconditioned machine at normal
costs for the customer to use while her owned machine was being serviced. Mrs.
[redacted] expressed that she could not provide payment for a loaner machine. At
that time, an exception was granted to send out a loaner unit to the customer without
charging her. This was offered by collecting Mrs. [redacted]’s credit card information
to retain in the event that the loaner machine was never returned. It was
explained to Mrs. [redacted] that if the loaner machine was not returned, her
credit card would be charged.
Mrs. [redacted] contacted the supervisor that had been
assisting her with the loaner machine several times in August 2014. On those
dates, Mrs. [redacted] shared various concerns. On August 4, 2014 and August 8,
2014 she stated that she could not print the UPS and Fed Ex labels that were
provided to return her machine for repair. On August 8, 2014 the supervisor
mailed Mrs. [redacted] a return label through USPS. On August 5, 2014 Mrs.
[redacted] called and expressed that she was concerned that the loaner machine
was not delivered on a Saturday. The supervisor explained that the order was
placed on a Friday after the shipping department had left for the day and that
her order was delivered has quickly as possible.
On August 13, 2014 Mrs. [redacted] called a representative and
emailed the supervisor to state that she was not going to return the loaner
unit because she claimed a hold was placed on her credit card. Mrs. [redacted]
was assured that there was no way a hold was placed on her card as her loaner
unit was shipped to her at no charge. Customer never contacted Vitamix
regarding that concern again.
Mrs. [redacted]’s machine was received in the repair
department on August 18, 2014. There were no motor issues found with the unit
and the speed increased appropriately. The container was found to have bad
bearings. The container was replaced.
On August 31, 2014 Mrs. [redacted] emailed to state that she
had returned the loaner machine and she reported that her repaired machine had
been returned but was still not working. On September 2, 2014 Mrs. [redacted] was
contacted by a representative in regards to her email. Mrs. [redacted] was
offered a second repair and was provided a second loaner unit, again at no
charge and shipped via next day delivery.
On September 16, 2014 the machine was received in the repair
department. Again no issues were found, but due to the nature of the customer’s
complaint, the repair team replaced the variable speed board and high low
switch. The machine was once again shipped back to the customer via next day
delivery.
Mrs. [redacted] called Vitamix several times on September 23,
2014. The first time the representative was unable to determine why the
customer was calling and due to how she was speaking to the representative she
was referred to a supervisor. The customer ended the call before the supervisor
answered. Mrs. [redacted] called a second time and the representative was unable
to determine what the customer wanted. At the end of the call the
representative set up a return for the loaner machine. Mrs. [redacted] called a
third time on September 23, 2014 to report that her Vitamix pops when she turns
it on. During this call, the representative conducted several troubleshooting
steps but what the customer had described could not be duplicated. The
representative cancelled the return of the loaner machine and set up a third
repair with quality inspection. According to our system tracking, this repair
was never completed as the unit was not returned.
The customer called on February 19, 2015 and was escalated
to a supervisor. During that call the customer history was reviewed with the
customer. The customer stated that she had sent the repair unit in but never
got it back so she thought the decision had been made to allow her to keep the
loaner. The customer went on to state that she was currently experiencing a
problem with the loaner unit. The initial description of the customer’s problem
was that the unit was broken. The supervisor was discussing exchanging the
loaner machine for a new machine when it became clear that the problem the
customer had was not with the motor, but was with the container. At that time,
the customer was sent two containers for the Vitamix. Mrs. [redacted] was advised
that this was being done to allow her to alternate containers daily to prolong
the life of the containers because of her need to frequently blend for her
child.
On September 18, 2015
Mrs. [redacted] called to inform Vitamix that her blender sparked, caught on
fire, and burned her hand. At that time, our customer service representative
initiated an order to return and replace the Vitamix and advised Mrs. [redacted]
that a claim’s specialist would follow up with her within 48 business hours.
On Monday September 21, 2015 a manager contacted Mrs.
[redacted]. The manager informed Mrs. [redacted] that due to the nature of her
claim, we would need to gather some additional information and would need to
handle the return of her machine in a specific manner. Mrs. [redacted] was asked
several questions to assist in the claims process and was advised of the
procedure for returning her Vitamix. At that time, Mrs. [redacted] advised that
she could not be without her Vitamix because she uses it for a child that has
medical needs. When Mrs. [redacted] made that known, our manager provided
information about our loaner program which would allow Mrs. [redacted] to
purchase a machine to use while hers was being assessed. That machine would
then be returned to Vitamix and Mrs. [redacted] would be refunded. Once the
loaner program was discussed, Mrs. [redacted] stated she did not wish to speak
with the manager any longer and she provided the contact information for her
husband, Mr. [redacted].
On Wednesday September 23, 2015 the manager contacted Mr.
[redacted]. The manager explained she was reaching out to him at the request of
his wife. The manager explained the claims process and advised Mr. [redacted]
that since speaking with his wife some additional research was completed and we
were willing to offer a loaner at no-charge as long as we had a profiled credit
card should the machine not be returned within 30 days. Mr. [redacted] was
advised that this exception was being made based on records showing that they
had received no-charge loaners on August 4, 2014 and September 2, 2014. Mr.
[redacted] advised he was not satisfied by this offer and stated he would need to
talk it over with his wife. He was advised to contact the manager directly once
a decision was made on returning the machine for incident processing.
At this
time, we are still waiting for Mr. or Mrs. [redacted] to call and complete the
incident process.
Submitted
by:
[redacted]
CFO
and Treasurer
[redacted]
[redacted]