Julie's Beachwear

Review: The swimsuit "cover up" she sold me bled and ruined two brand new suits costing me over $500 to replace. I tried to work it out with the owner [redacted], but she was unwilling to accommodate. She couldn't even fix the suit with her "professional" cleaning she tried to do. I offered to split the difference with her (she pay for one and I pay for one, or she could replace the suit/s) but she declined and offered me a $70 credit for $500 worth of ruined suits. She also tried to argue that she doesn't know what happens when it leaves her store. She sold me a cover up FOR swimsuits and it ruined 2 new ones. Not only does she sell cheap products that ruin your suits, but the customer service is deplorable.Desired Settlement: I would like her to either replace the ruined suits or refund me for the suits that I had to buy twice.

Business

Response:

Revdex.com

Re: [redacted]'s [redacted] / [redacted]

I am writing in response to the Complaint by [redacted] to the Revdex.com regarding [redacted]'s [redacted].

[redacted] allegedly purchased a Raviya "Convertible Dress" from [redacted]'s [redacted] on June 1, 2013. She has been unable to provide a receipt for the purchase, although we believe she did purchase the dress from our store. We have a 14 day return policy, clearly stated on the receipt signed by the customer (if she has one), which we have agreed to waive to correct the alleged problem.

On or about August 7, 2013 - 67 days after the purchase, [redacted] contacted [redacted]'s for the first time to allege that the dress bled and damages other clothing. According to her letter, the alleged damage occurred in early June, yet it took almost 2 months to contact [redacted]'s regarding the issue. She alleges in the Revdex.com Complaint that the damage occurred on or about July 8, 2013, yet a letter to [redacted]'s states that it was early June. Even if the issue arose in July, it took over a month to contact [redacted]'s.

[redacted] has never attempted to directly contact [redacted]'s. Her letter to [redacted]'s appears to be her first personal attempt to resolve the issue. A gentleman, identifying himself as her boyfriend, personally visited the store. [redacted] has never personally visited the store to discuss this matter.

[redacted] filed the Revdex.com Complaint, wrote [redacted]'s a letter and posted a negative review on [redacted]. They all tell a slightly different story.

[redacted] alleges that $1,000 in other clothing was damaged. She makes this claim without any proof that the dress purchased from [redacted]'s actually caused the problem. In fact, when her boyfriend brought the items to [redacted]'s they were all damp and in one bag. Attached is a letter from the manufacturer of the dress, that they have not seen a problem, as claimed by

[redacted], under normal care.

[redacted] has never produced a receipt from [redacted]'s (although we do carry the dress and we have offered a cash refund). [redacted] has never provided any receipts or other proof of the costs of the clothing she alleges was damaged. Now it appears that [redacted] is threatening to file a small claims lawsuit without having ever met personally with [redacted] or providing any documentation or other evidence to

support her claim.

Instead, after more than 60 days from the original purchase and over 30 days after [redacted] became aware of the alleged problem (July 8, according to her Revdex.com Complaint), her Revdex.com Complaint says she contacted [redacted]'s for the first time. Within 11 days of her first contact with [redacted]'s she filed a Revdex.com Complaint and a negative review on [redacted]. From everything I have reviewed and read, her attack on [redacted]'s and her Revdex.com Complaint is inaccurate and without proof. While she may have proof of the purchases and the other issues she claims in her letters and Complaints, it would seem that a reasonable person would provide that information to the business owner first for a fair review of the situation. Instead she filed complaints and online posts and threatens to file her information with the court next. That seems odd, unless her real objective is to post negative critiques, which seem to be generally associated with her name online.

I have offered to refund $100 for the purchase of the dress from [redacted]'s. As to the other items, if it can be established that the dress was the sole cause of the damage to the other clothing, [redacted]'s will make a fair and reasonable offer to resolve that alleged problem. This will require proof of the date and purchase price of the other items and confirmation from the vendor of the dress that the damage was caused solely by the dress.

Absent any proof of [redacted]'s claims, [redacted]'s has no alternative but to defend herself from her baseless allegations and her attacks and Complaints about her business.

Very truly yours

[redacted]'s [redacted]

Consumer

Response:

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.

[

The letter was not my first attempt with [redacted]. Its my second, as I said in my letter. I spoke with her on the phone and asked for her to replace the swimsuits since she would most likely get them at cost. She said she couldn't, and then I offered to split the difference with her, asking for her to reimburse me for one of the two swimsuits I had to replace, as I was trying to come up with a compromise . She refused that as well, and that’s when I told her that I would need to go to small claims court because I couldn't absorb the cost twice. She is not being honest with you about me not contacting her prior to this letter, nor was she honest on her reply back to my [redacted] review. She did offer to clean one of the suits, but she was unable to get the bleeding out, so we were back to square one, which is when she offered me $100 store credit, which I declined. When my boyfriend picked the suit back up (which took over a week, when she said it would be just a few days), she offered $100 cash, which I declined.

As I said, initially I offered to split this down the middle with her. As I explained to her, I give people the benefit of the doubt, and always try to support small local businesses. If she agrees to $344.15, which is the cost reimbursement of one of the suits, plus the $100 to replace the cover up per your email / letter, we can settle that now. If not, then we can do it in small claims court, and I will be asking for full reimbursement for both suits and cover up.I can of course provide a receipt that shows the replacement suit cost of $244.15, plus the $100 for the cover up that you mention in your letter.

As I stated in my letter, I didn't get back from being abroad until the end of July. I was flabbergasted that this happened to two swimsuits, and this was the point when I said enough is enough and contacted [redacted] a week later. When I purchased the cover up in June, I told her it was for a trip in the middle of July. I didn't use it in June, which is why I didn't contact her in June. I only filed with the Revdex.com and on [redacted] AFTER I spoke with Ms. [redacted], and we could not come to an agreement.

I did not allege $1000 dollars in clothing was damaged. I specifically state in my letter that it was $500.

Your letter claims Ms. [redacted] sold me a "convertible dress". She sold it as a swim suit cover up (her words), and it ruined two swimsuits. I would not wear a dress after getting out of the ocean or pool, but I would wear a swimsuit cover up.

I did and do have all receipts. At no time did I not have proof of payment for everything. I have proof of payment for the cover-up she sold me, as well as the new swimsuits that were purchased (twice).

I do not have a history of suing people. I made what I thought was a fair offer and have the proof to back it up, but I can not absorb the $500+ twice. Meeting in the middle seemed fair, and she declined. The bottom line is that she sold me a cover up that ruined two new swimsuits, and [redacted]'s [redacted] does have liability here.]