Revdex.com:I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below When we contacted the Revdex.com, it was simply to try and bring awareness to the questionable business practices of Let’s Dance Rochester We were not aware that the Revdex.com engaged in any type of mediation Therefore, although we are skeptical of their desire to resolve this issue, we would like to apologize for wasting your time but to offer our many thanks for your time and attention in trying to mediate this complaint Given the lengthy, imprecise and confusing response from Let’s Dance Rochester, wwe will try and be as brief as possible.Two paragraphs from the response from Let’s Dance Rochester stand out, the first being their breakdown of May lessons (see Figure 1) and our corrections made in red (see Figure 2) The second paragraph which stands out follows our corrections to Figure and is noted as SECOND PARAGRAPH “The single asterisk in the chart above signifies that MrsComplaining Party may not have been present at each of these lessons Correction: [redacted] WAS present for 5/lesson, as an observer only, and participated in the 5/lessonMrComplaining Party, however, was present at each of these lessons, Correction: [redacted] was NOT present for 5/22, 6:15pm lessonThat was Bride and Groom only and on a Friday night [redacted] works every Friday, Saturday and Sunday night Ms [redacted] knows this, as she has asked us twice to join in her Friday night “showcase” and we could not he participated in the lessons, and he personally authorized Alexandra [redacted] to “charge” these lessons against his “program.” Correction: The only lessons [redacted] authorized to come from our dance package was for the lessons he participated in: the 5/and 5/lessons The Bride and Groom had already paid for the 5/22, 6:15pm lesson as it was ONLY the Bride and the Groom who participated in the 5/22, 6:15pm lessonThe Complaining Party also videotaped these lessons for their later reviewCorrection: multiple lessons were not videotaped; [redacted] only videotaped the 5/lessonThe double asterisk signifies that only Groom (the Complaining Party’s son-in-law) and his mother were present at this lessonCorrection: our daughter and our family joined in the last 10-minutes of this specific lesson (May 20th) at Ms***’s suggestion to the Bride at an earlier lesson.Alexandra [redacted] received authorization from MrComplaining Party to “charge” this lesson against the Complaining Party’s “program” prior to teaching the lesson Correction: this specific lesson, May 20th, was already paid for by the Bride and Groom in their lesson package Groom’s lesson package were for the dates 3/20, 3/28, 4/6, 4/17, 5/5, 5/and 5/ (Proof of the dates and payment can be provided if necessary.) The poor communication seems to stem between Ms [redacted] and Ms [redacted] From a strictly logical standpoint, why would [redacted] offer to pay for the Groom and his Mother to take a lesson? WHEN exactly did Ms [redacted] get ***’s authorization for THIS lesson? Additionally, why would Ms [redacted] even ask [redacted] to pay for a lesson for the Groom and his Mother? It does not add up.However, in the interest of full disclosure, it should be noted that the Complaining Party was not present at this lessonCorrection: if [redacted] was NOT at the 5/lesson, as they state here, how could he authorize that he would pay for it??? Again, poor communication on their partThe May 20th lesson was the 6th lesson in the Bride and Groom’s lesson package that WAS ALREADY PAID FOR In the spirit of cooperation and fairness, we would like to ask MrComplaining Party whether he recalls authorizing Alexandra to count a lesson taken by the Groom and the Groom’s mother against the Complaining Party’s programCorrection: No, [redacted] does not recall this because it never happenedIf MrComplaining Party does not recall doing this, then we are willing to offer a refund in the amount of $for this lessonAGAIN, this lesson, 5/at 9am, was ALREADY paid for by the Bride and Groom – see above, yet charged against [redacted] and [redacted] ’s account, as was the 5/22, 6:15pm lesson This has nothing to do with “fairness and cooperation” Quite simply, Let’s Dance Rochester has double-billed [redacted] and [redacted] ’s package for two lessons A refund for TWO lessons (May 20th, 9am and May 22nd, 6:15pm) is owed to [redacted] and [redacted] We would request, however, in the spirit of fairness, that Groom make payment for the “unauthorized” lesson at the same time that we process a refund to the Complaining Party.” This is not happeningWhat breathtaking nerve, when Let’s Dance Rochester owes US a refundThis is quite antagonisticFurther payment to Let’s Dance Rochester is NOT requiredWhy? AGAIN, Cailee and Jim paid for lessons, and took lessons – see dates above [redacted] and [redacted] took lessons and paid for lessons All of the participants are amateurs, therefore none of us came up with any kind of “approach” or “switching gears” This approach to dance was suggested by and encouraged by Ms***That being said, we would like to respectfully suggest that because not each member of the Complaining Party was present at each lesson, a breakdown in communication between the Complaining Party may be at the root of this issueCorrection: [redacted] and [redacted] were not at each lesson (See Figure 1) Assumptions made by Ms [redacted] and Ms [redacted] , coupled with their poor communcation, has led to this completely unnecessary waste of time.Alexandra and Marina were the constant in this situation; they were at the studio at the appointed hour, prepared for each lesson, accommodating to requests to record the lessons, Correction: it was not multiple lessons, and Ms [redacted] not only encouraged the videotaping but she herself videotaped on the student’s cell.Regards, [redacted]
Revdex.com:I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below When we contacted the Revdex.com, it was simply to try and bring awareness to the questionable business practices of Let’s Dance Rochester We were not aware that the Revdex.com engaged in any type of mediation Therefore, although we are skeptical of their desire to resolve this issue, we would like to apologize for wasting your time but to offer our many thanks for your time and attention in trying to mediate this complaint Given the lengthy, imprecise and confusing response from Let’s Dance Rochester, wwe will try and be as brief as possible.Two paragraphs from the response from Let’s Dance Rochester stand out, the first being their breakdown of May lessons (see Figure 1) and our corrections made in red (see Figure 2) The second paragraph which stands out follows our corrections to Figure and is noted as SECOND PARAGRAPH “The single asterisk in the chart above signifies that MrsComplaining Party may not have been present at each of these lessons Correction: [redacted] WAS present for 5/lesson, as an observer only, and participated in the 5/lessonMrComplaining Party, however, was present at each of these lessons, Correction: [redacted] was NOT present for 5/22, 6:15pm lessonThat was Bride and Groom only and on a Friday night [redacted] works every Friday, Saturday and Sunday night Ms [redacted] knows this, as she has asked us twice to join in her Friday night “showcase” and we could not he participated in the lessons, and he personally authorized Alexandra [redacted] to “charge” these lessons against his “program.” Correction: The only lessons [redacted] authorized to come from our dance package was for the lessons he participated in: the 5/and 5/lessons The Bride and Groom had already paid for the 5/22, 6:15pm lesson as it was ONLY the Bride and the Groom who participated in the 5/22, 6:15pm lessonThe Complaining Party also videotaped these lessons for their later reviewCorrection: multiple lessons were not videotaped; [redacted] only videotaped the 5/lessonThe double asterisk signifies that only Groom (the Complaining Party’s son-in-law) and his mother were present at this lessonCorrection: our daughter and our family joined in the last 10-minutes of this specific lesson (May 20th) at Ms***’s suggestion to the Bride at an earlier lesson.Alexandra [redacted] received authorization from MrComplaining Party to “charge” this lesson against the Complaining Party’s “program” prior to teaching the lesson Correction: this specific lesson, May 20th, was already paid for by the Bride and Groom in their lesson package Groom’s lesson package were for the dates 3/20, 3/28, 4/6, 4/17, 5/5, 5/and 5/ (Proof of the dates and payment can be provided if necessary.) The poor communication seems to stem between Ms [redacted] and Ms [redacted] From a strictly logical standpoint, why would [redacted] offer to pay for the Groom and his Mother to take a lesson? WHEN exactly did Ms [redacted] get ***’s authorization for THIS lesson? Additionally, why would Ms [redacted] even ask [redacted] to pay for a lesson for the Groom and his Mother? It does not add up.However, in the interest of full disclosure, it should be noted that the Complaining Party was not present at this lessonCorrection: if [redacted] was NOT at the 5/lesson, as they state here, how could he authorize that he would pay for it??? Again, poor communication on their partThe May 20th lesson was the 6th lesson in the Bride and Groom’s lesson package that WAS ALREADY PAID FOR In the spirit of cooperation and fairness, we would like to ask MrComplaining Party whether he recalls authorizing Alexandra to count a lesson taken by the Groom and the Groom’s mother against the Complaining Party’s programCorrection: No, [redacted] does not recall this because it never happenedIf MrComplaining Party does not recall doing this, then we are willing to offer a refund in the amount of $for this lessonAGAIN, this lesson, 5/at 9am, was ALREADY paid for by the Bride and Groom – see above, yet charged against [redacted] and [redacted] ’s account, as was the 5/22, 6:15pm lesson This has nothing to do with “fairness and cooperation” Quite simply, Let’s Dance Rochester has double-billed [redacted] and [redacted] ’s package for two lessons A refund for TWO lessons (May 20th, 9am and May 22nd, 6:15pm) is owed to [redacted] and [redacted] We would request, however, in the spirit of fairness, that Groom make payment for the “unauthorized” lesson at the same time that we process a refund to the Complaining Party.” This is not happeningWhat breathtaking nerve, when Let’s Dance Rochester owes US a refundThis is quite antagonisticFurther payment to Let’s Dance Rochester is NOT requiredWhy? AGAIN, Cailee and Jim paid for lessons, and took lessons – see dates above [redacted] and [redacted] took lessons and paid for lessons All of the participants are amateurs, therefore none of us came up with any kind of “approach” or “switching gears” This approach to dance was suggested by and encouraged by Ms***That being said, we would like to respectfully suggest that because not each member of the Complaining Party was present at each lesson, a breakdown in communication between the Complaining Party may be at the root of this issueCorrection: [redacted] and [redacted] were not at each lesson (See Figure 1) Assumptions made by Ms [redacted] and Ms [redacted] , coupled with their poor communcation, has led to this completely unnecessary waste of time.Alexandra and Marina were the constant in this situation; they were at the studio at the appointed hour, prepared for each lesson, accommodating to requests to record the lessons, Correction: it was not multiple lessons, and Ms [redacted] not only encouraged the videotaping but she herself videotaped on the student’s cell.Regards, [redacted]