Gainey Village Cleaners

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

Dear Ms. [redacted],

I am responding to the above com plaint, and do not accept the document as satisfaction to my complaint.

My comforter was delivered to Gainey Village Cleaners, who in turn delivered it to [redacted] Cleaners. The comforter was returned with large dark, streaky stains, and a different color. Instead of taupe, it was dark grey.  This dry cleaner has cleaned this comforter many times in the previous years without the stains.  It was delivered to them in good condition, and returned to me ruined.

They have not accepted any responsibility for ruining an expensive silk comforter. As you can see on my receipt, there is no indication that any damage was visible when I delivered it to Gainey Village Cleaners.

Since I returned the comforter to Gainey Village/ [redacted] Cleaners in March of 2014, I have not been compensated for da mage that they caused with the solution they used. My bedroom ensemble of bed skirt, drapes, pillows and cornice are all coordinated with this fabric. They still have the comforter and now it is four months since I delivered it to them. All I get from the owners/manager are excuses.

They owe me $4535.80 or a new comforter. I sent the comforter to them in good faith that it would be returned to me in the same condition. It was not, and has not been rectified.
 

Regards,[redacted]

There was no care or fiber content label attached to the garment leaving the dry cleaner to depend on his professional experience of fabrics and dyes in choosing the safest and best method of care for the garment. According to the garment analysis form the garment was dry cleaned in a recognized...

dry cleaning solvent which in our opinion was the safest and best care process for the garment. When we viewed the garment under our UV lighting we noted a staining substance that shows a reddish brown coloration. This shows that the substance belongs to the tannin group such as soda beverages, coffee, beer, wine, fruit juices, tea and foods. After coming in contact with the garment these substances can remain invisible to the naked eye however they soon begin to deteriorate the fibers. The coloration of the substance also shows that the substance has begun to oxidize which happens when the substance begins to absorb oxygen. These substances are water soluble and would not come out in the dry cleaning process. During the care process when the garment is subjected to heat there is an acceleration of a chemical reaction causing the substance to become visible. We also noted when we viewed the garment under our UV lighting that the textile finish that had been applied to the gray fabric shows signs of being unstable which causes a discoloration due to the way the fibers reflect light. These textile finishes are applied by the manufacturer prior to the construction of the garment. Because of the age of the garment which according to the DLI (fair claims guide) (copy attached) has a life expectancy of 37 months it would not be possible to obtain from the manufacturer either  a partial or full refund of the purchase price due to the unstableness of the textile finish.

The care process is a total immersion process. During this process the entire garment receives the same treatment so it would not cause this type of local staining substance. The condition of the garment is not due to the care process but from the users wear and care of the garment. We can find no evidence to suggest that the garment was mishandled in the care process.

Our opinion is based on the information provided to us on the analysis form, our laboratory inspection and from tests conducted with thegarment.