Let's Dance Rochester Inc.

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 1 and is noted as SECOND PARAGRAPH…
“The single asterisk in the chart above signifies that Mrs. Complaining Party may not have been present at each of these lessons.  Correction: [redacted] WAS present for 5/4 lesson, as an observer only, and participated in the 5/16 lesson. Mr. Complaining Party, however, was present at each of these lessons, Correction: [redacted] was NOT present for 5/22, 6:15pm lesson. That 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 5/4 and 5/16 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 lesson. The Complaining Party also videotaped these lessons for their later review. Correction: multiple lessons were not videotaped; [redacted] only videotaped the 5/4 lesson. The double asterisk signifies that only Groom (the Complaining Party’s son-in-law) and his mother were present at this lesson. Correction: our daughter and our family joined in the last 10-15 minutes of this specific lesson (May 20th) at Ms. [redacted]’s suggestion to the Bride at an earlier lesson.Alexandra [redacted] received authorization from Mr. Complaining 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 7 lesson package.  Groom’s 7 lesson package were for the dates 3/20, 3/28, 4/6, 4/17, 5/5, 5/20 and 5/22.  (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 [redacted]’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 lesson. Correction: if [redacted] was NOT at the 5/20 lesson, as they state here, how could he authorize that he would pay for it???  Again, poor communication on their part. The May 20th lesson was the 6th lesson in the Bride and Groom’s 7 lesson package that WAS ALREADY PAID FOR.     In the spirit of cooperation and fairness, we would like to ask Mr. Complaining Party whether he recalls authorizing Alexandra to count a lesson taken by the Groom and the Groom’s mother against the Complaining Party’s program. Correction:  No, [redacted] does not recall this because it never happened. If Mr. Complaining Party does not recall doing this, then we are willing to offer a refund in the amount of $70 for this lesson. AGAIN, this lesson, 5/20 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 happening. What breathtaking nerve, when Let’s Dance Rochester owes US a
refund. This is quite antagonistic. Further payment to Let’s Dance Rochester is
NOT required. Why? AGAIN, Cailee and Jim paid for 7 lessons, and took 7 lessons
– see dates above. [redacted] and [redacted] took 8 lessons and paid for 10 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. [redacted]. 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 issue. Correction:  [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]