Revdex.com:
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.
The Company's response is found lacking as it does NOT address the failure of the Company to the use of "best business practices" in providing customers with WRITTEN estimates (of costs) of work TO BE PERFORMED, and which should be presented to the customer, who will provide SIGNED APPROVAL of any part, or all, such work TO BE PERFORMED, before such work BEGINS.
The presentation of a SIGNED INVOICE and CREDIT CARD CHARGE RECEIPT to the customer as a claim that the work was performed, with or without the customer's prior approval, renders the customer captive to the Company as the Company can place a"mechanic's lien" against the customer's property if the customer refuses to pay the INVOICE IN FULL. Therefore, the INVOICE AND CREDIT CARD RECEIPT represents the authorization by the customer to the invoice paid by the credit card issuer (and thus the parties to the dispute are the customer and his/her credit card issuer) so as to avoid having his/her property encumbered by a lien being placed upon his/her property. That is to say, the INVOICE AND CREDIT CARD CHARGE RECEIPT is NOT an AUTHORIZATION BY THE CUSTOMER TO HAVING WORK PERFORMED BEFORE such work is ACTUALLY PERFORMED. Instead, the INVOICE represents a CLAIM BY THE BUSINESS that such work was performed, whether or NOT such work was approved by the customer prior to the commencement of such work. Lacking written documentation that the customer approved such work to be performed prior to its performance makes the customer captive to the Company's claims. Such failure as to provide the customer a written estimate of the costs of the recommended work to be performed, for which the customer must provide his/her signed approval before the work is commenced is the cause of many such complaints as this. In this complaint, the Company failed to provide the customer such written estimates for recommended work. The customer DID NOT SIGN NOR DID HE PROVIDE APPROVAL of any such work to be performed (save the charges for an oil change = $35.99) PRIOR TO it being performed (as is claimed by the company, whether or not if it had actually been performed at all). Therefore, the INVOICE DOES NOT represent PRIOR APPROVAL or ESTIMATE of work to be done or performed. Instead, it represents a claim by the Company for charges for work performed by the Company AFTER such work has been performed (as claimed by the Company) whether the work was or WAS NOT APPROVED by the customer PRIOR TO its commencement. Thus the "contract" between the customer and the Company was lacking consideration as the customer approved ONLY the oil change work to be performed BEFORE ANY work was performed. This lack of legal consideration (i.e. prior written approval by the customer for work beyond the requested oil change service) renders the "contract" unenforceable.As it is an objective of the Revdex.com to assist its members in making their businesses better, the Revdex.com may wish to provide guidance to the company in how to avoid future complaints, and the time consuming aspects of such complaint resolutions, by offering the Company suggestions as to "best practices". In this case, an example of "best practices" would be that the Company offer the customer written estimates of the costs to which the customer may approve (by providing his/her signature to the written document) or disapproval. Finally, it is noted as being curious that the Revdex.com had closed this complaint on September 5, 2015 (as per the email communication of that date) for the failure of the Company to respond to the Revdex.com. Then on September 29, 2015 the Company eventually does provide a response, even though the original complaint was was submitted on August 19, 2015, a full 41 days after submission of the original complaint. The Company's failure to respond in a timely fashion to any complaint seems rather curious to me, as well as being somewhat of a failure to apply "best business practices". Whatever sanctions, reprimands, or other actions the Revdex.com wishes to take against the Company is a matter for the Revdex.com alone. However, it is suggested that the Revdex.com may wish to offer instruction and/or advice to the Company so that it may imporve it business practices so as to avoid such complaints in the future
Regards,
[redacted]
Revdex.com:
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.
The Company's response is found lacking as it does NOT address the failure of the Company to the use of "best business practices" in providing customers with WRITTEN estimates (of costs) of work TO BE PERFORMED, and which should be presented to the customer, who will provide SIGNED APPROVAL of any part, or all, such work TO BE PERFORMED, before such work BEGINS.
The presentation of a SIGNED INVOICE and CREDIT CARD CHARGE RECEIPT to the customer as a claim that the work was performed, with or without the customer's prior approval, renders the customer captive to the Company as the Company can place a"mechanic's lien" against the customer's property if the customer refuses to pay the INVOICE IN FULL. Therefore, the INVOICE AND CREDIT CARD RECEIPT represents the authorization by the customer to the invoice paid by the credit card issuer (and thus the parties to the dispute are the customer and his/her credit card issuer) so as to avoid having his/her property encumbered by a lien being placed upon his/her property. That is to say, the INVOICE AND CREDIT CARD CHARGE RECEIPT is NOT an AUTHORIZATION BY THE CUSTOMER TO HAVING WORK PERFORMED BEFORE such work is ACTUALLY PERFORMED. Instead, the INVOICE represents a CLAIM BY THE BUSINESS that such work was performed, whether or NOT such work was approved by the customer prior to the commencement of such work. Lacking written documentation that the customer approved such work to be performed prior to its performance makes the customer captive to the Company's claims. Such failure as to provide the customer a written estimate of the costs of the recommended work to be performed, for which the customer must provide his/her signed approval before the work is commenced is the cause of many such complaints as this. In this complaint, the Company failed to provide the customer such written estimates for recommended work. The customer DID NOT SIGN NOR DID HE PROVIDE APPROVAL of any such work to be performed (save the charges for an oil change = $35.99) PRIOR TO it being performed (as is claimed by the company, whether or not if it had actually been performed at all). Therefore, the INVOICE DOES NOT represent PRIOR APPROVAL or ESTIMATE of work to be done or performed. Instead, it represents a claim by the Company for charges for work performed by the Company AFTER such work has been performed (as claimed by the Company) whether the work was or WAS NOT APPROVED by the customer PRIOR TO its commencement. Thus the "contract" between the customer and the Company was lacking consideration as the customer approved ONLY the oil change work to be performed BEFORE ANY work was performed. This lack of legal consideration (i.e. prior written approval by the customer for work beyond the requested oil change service) renders the "contract" unenforceable.As it is an objective of the Revdex.com to assist its members in making their businesses better, the Revdex.com may wish to provide guidance to the company in how to avoid future complaints, and the time consuming aspects of such complaint resolutions, by offering the Company suggestions as to "best practices". In this case, an example of "best practices" would be that the Company offer the customer written estimates of the costs to which the customer may approve (by providing his/her signature to the written document) or disapproval. Finally, it is noted as being curious that the Revdex.com had closed this complaint on September 5, 2015 (as per the email communication of that date) for the failure of the Company to respond to the Revdex.com. Then on September 29, 2015 the Company eventually does provide a response, even though the original complaint was was submitted on August 19, 2015, a full 41 days after submission of the original complaint. The Company's failure to respond in a timely fashion to any complaint seems rather curious to me, as well as being somewhat of a failure to apply "best business practices". Whatever sanctions, reprimands, or other actions the Revdex.com wishes to take against the Company is a matter for the Revdex.com alone. However, it is suggested that the Revdex.com may wish to offer instruction and/or advice to the Company so that it may imporve it business practices so as to avoid such complaints in the future
Regards,
[redacted]