Mind Bloom Preschool

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved] Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: the facts the director has provided are falseI was not offered any policies or enrollment documents in person nor was it explained in writing or in person that the money I left was non-refundableHad that been explained to me I would not waste my time or anyone's timeMoney should not have been accepted without me either acknowledging that I was refusing policies in writing or otherwiseI have emails asking for policies and enrollment documents as early as the same day of the tour, which again does not align with her account of me being given the policies in personAs I stated, I asked for the documents in person and was told that she did not have them and would email them immediatelyI did not interact with any other staff but MsB***She abruptly ended the tour after I gave her the check and didn't even formally say goodbyeI was left in the hallway to tend to my child and had to interrupt the class where the director was to remind her to send me the receipt and enrollment documents As I believe it is my right to state clear facts which are substantiated by emails that the director responded to again where I am asking for enrollment documentsAgain, had I been given the documents and explained that the fee I left was non refundable I would not have pursued this channel Please move forward with posting this formal complaint against the business practices of MindBloom Preschool Regards, [redacted]

I have retained counsel in this matter, but I am writing to dispute a claim made in the case ID# [redacted] The complainant is not entitled to a refund because she assisted in creating a contract for a guaranteed slot for her child in our program and we gave her valid consideration by not considering other parents with children who would have wanted the slot, especially during a timeframe when enrollment is the slowest in the year.The complainant is correct regarding the timeframe of mid-April when she reached out to me to inquire about a Mandarin slot in our program for her son and she was told upfront, prior to her visiting our program, that slots were scarce, our school is small, and that parents who really wanted a slot for their child could guarantee a slot for their child by either paying one week of tuition to enroll within days of having a tour or one month of tuition if they chose to enroll anytime after days into the programOur program is only licensed for slots and there was one slot coming available in Mandarin in June, which is what the complainant wanted.However, when the complainant first contacted me, she expressed that she wanted to enroll her son in July, but due to the one slot coming available prior to July, she wanted to ensure that her son got the slot and so she visited the program soon afterwards and paid $with a check for one month to guarantee the slot for her sonOur program does not have a waitlist, like some other child care programs, so all of our slots are given on first come, first served basis, based on availabilityThe paid guarantee serves as enrollment and insurance that any parent who paid money up front to guarantee a future slot, would not be paying a deposit to "hold" a slot, as the complainant mentions in her complaintThe money paid for a guarantee in our program is applied towards tuition and is not a hold fee, which is like a deposit that would not be applied towards tuition, as is customary in the child care industryAttached is a copy of the email between myself and the complainant that mentions what is required for guaranteed enrollment into the program (see Email #1).When the complainant visited us, she was offered the policies for the program, but was busy watching her son interact and participate in the Mandarin classat our program and in the playroom and consoling him when it was time for them to leave because he did not want to goShe was offered the policies during her tour, but at that time she mentioned that she would just fill out everything later on, when she got her son's medical records—she did have time to do thisI assumed she received the policies and other forms prior to leaving, as she interacted with others at the program during the hour she was thereOur tours generally last half an hourHaving the forms is irrelevant to the guarantee she chose to create to obtain the slot for her son.During the tour, complainant was told that any guaranteed advanced tuition to enroll was nonrefundable, but complainant STILL offered the money for the slot because she did not want to lose the opportunity to have her son attend the Mandarin program at our schoolWe are located in Washington,DC and complainant lives in Gaithersburg, MD, which is close to miles away one wayComplainant told me that she was guaranteeing the slot "that day" because she did not want to have to come back to drop off the check or mail it, which both methods could risk her potentially losing the slot if another parent came to guarantee the slotComplainant knew that our program does not maintain a wait list or collect fees for that (please see Email #1); as I mentioned above, all slots are given on a first come, first served basis, based on availabilityI could not make the complaimant give me money for the slot--she did it on her own volition and she understood what the money was for.Complainant mentions that she finally received the forms on the day herson allegedly suffered an asthma attack, but this is not true, as I replied to her email on April 30th and her email to me dated May 2nd, stated that herson allegedly had an asthma attack on May 1st, the day prior to her emailing me about itThough there is a difference of one day between the time complainant states she finally received the forms and when she said her son had an asthma attack, this still does not negate the fact that complainant paid for the guarantee of a slot for her son and we obliged her by not allowing another parent to have the slot for their child.Complainant's possession or perusal of the policies and other forms is irrelevant to this fact because her having and signing the policies was not a condition of her child being enrolled into the program--it was the payment of at least one of the tuition options presented to the complainant, which she obliged us by paying for one month of tuition to guarantee the slot to enroll her son and have him attend on June 1st.in the District of Columbia, as well as other jurisdictions, a valid contract is created with an offer, acceptance, and valid considerationThese factors are applicable to this matter (which coincidentally is a bilateral contract, where we both had to satisfy each of the requirements to form a contract), as we made an offer to complainant of a guaranteed slot in our program, complainant accepted by offering to pay the $to guarantee the slot and enroll her son into our program, and we gave complainant the utmost consideration because we could not take another child for the slot or offer it to another parent because it was guaranteed for complainant's son via payment of the tuition.On the day complainant emailed me to say that her son suffered an asthma attack, complainant asked for a "portion" of her money back and mentioned that she thought it be fair that I keep "some" of it (see Email 4); however, complainant did not mention how much money she thought was "fair" for me to keep, nor did she mention what "portion"; should send back to herEven if she had, complainant would not be entitled to any money back, due to the contract that was reached when we both did our part under the written guarantee expressed to complainant in Email #Instead of totally rejecting complainant's request by not sending her any money, I told her that I would send her $of the $back and I promptly did that the day mentioned that to her.Email shows complainant's attitude towards me, stating that I chose to unfairly keep "over 80%" of the $and she threatened to sue me, but unlike complainant, I know contract law very well and knew that anything I sent her back would be classified as a gift because legally, she was not entitled to anything back, considering she would have had a windfall if she would have received ALL of the $back, while I would have been stuck with an open slot in June—the slowest month for enrollment in the childcare industry, due to family vacations and schools of older siblings dismissing for the summer.Besides, complainant's request to have just about ALL of the $back is also a hardship to me on another level for my small program because the serious parents who had inquired about the slot have since made other arrangements for their childrenBeing a provider in the childcare industry is tough, considering timing and slot availability is what really drives the market and wait list fees and timely paid tuitions are mostly what fund parts of a program when there may not be any money coming in during the slow times.Complainant's desire to enroll her son in our program, literally within hours of reaching out to me to inquire about availability, is a feeling that is shared by many parents in this metropolitan area where quality child care programs are either scarce or non-existent; however, I and my program are not in a position to play games with enrollment, with us being a newer provider in the business and only having a small number of slots—I love serving the needs of children and families, but this is business.Soon after complainant left our program and went home, she emailed me to offer me equipment from her own defunct home family daycare programOne of the last emails complainant sent to me shows her stating that she at first liked me enough that she made the offer of help with a newsletter for my school and to give me things from her program, but her feelings about me have since soured when I refused to honor her request for a refund (Email 11)I was cordial and engaged her, but I never asked her for any of this and I never would because I did not know her--complainant took it personal when she should have kept it in perspective as the business transaction it is.There was no need to offer me anything because I knew that anything she would give to me certainly might have a price where she would someday be expecting me to compromise my program to appease her, like she has already demonstratedComplainant said she had also been a child care provider, but had decided to fold her business (which is why she offered to give me her things)Yet, I am making a firm business decision in choosing not to allow others to cause my business to fold based on things that are immaterial to the business at handThus, complainant should know and understand what my position is and she should be respectful of the contract she made with me for the guaranteed slot.Complainant paid for a month of tuition to enroll her son, but when she mentioned he had an asthma attack and would not be attending in June (Email 4), she didn't even give me the opportunity to accommodate her in the future, as her email stated that she didn't want to burden our staff and would "consider" enrolling her son in the FallIf she was to get all of her money back now, I believe there would not be any consideration for her to have her son attend in the Fall, when she has behaved so crudely and unprofessionally towards me nowComplainant is simply not entitled to any of the $she paid to guarantee the slot, but I obliged her request for a "portion" back and sent her $of the money back when did not have toYet, I still have an open slot for June...I even wrote to complainant and told her that if she found another parent for the slot or if I was able to get another parent for the slot, that I would give her the rest of the money back without issue (Email 7)As of yet, I have not found a parent to enroll their child into the Mandarin slot for June and complainant refused to reply to the offer, which shows that she feels entitled while I would just have to deal with the issue of having to fill the slot any way I could or not at allThis is totally not fair.Furthermore, complainant has chosen to embellish facts around the day withdrawal policy listed in the policies by stating that I told her she had to comply with the day withdrawal policy within, in order to be refunded her moneyHowever, it is COMPLAINANT who first brought up the withdrawal policy by stating that she had complied with it and is thus, entitled to a full refund based upon that (Email 8)My reasoning for not giving complainant a full refund is based upon the written guarantee explained in the initial email to her (Email 1), which has nothing to do with the policies she says she got after she paid for the guaranteed slot.In fact, every instance of me advocating for the school to keep the money complainant paid, revolves around the contract that was created when she paid for the guaranteed slot and I agreed to not give the slot to another parent, while giving complainant's son utmost consideration in exchange for the money she paid for him to have the slotBesides, the days notice to withdraw listed in the policies is separate from the guarantee I emailed to complainant; the day withdrawal policy would go into effect for complainant on June 1st, the date she was supposed to bring her son to attend the program, which is very different than the guarantee she paid to enroll her son into the program, which would not allow me to consider another child for that same slot.Last, complainant exaggerates that I am not operating my program "in accordance with the law and business regulations and is withholding policy forms whether intentionally or unintentionally" to benefit myselfComplainant has no proof of these outlandish claims and I have not broken any laws or regulations in my transaction with herDaycares and schools that ask for application fees and waitlist fees are more self-serving than how my program operates, as parents who pay these fees at multiple places to try to get their child in somewhere, usually are not refunded if the child does not get a slot anywhere or ages out of being considered for a slot because they are on a list for way too long.These parents would never know where they really are on a list anyway and they pay the money to be considered, but hardly ever get the chance at their child attending the programAt least with my program, a parent can guarantee a slot for their child and actually have what they pay for, instead of the hope of a slot.Complainant says I have broken the law, but in reality, complainant has broken the law by attempting to blackmail me into giving her a refund, in exchange for her not contacting governmental agencies who purportedly administer my ability to operate my business and not contacting the Revdex.com (see Email #9).If complainant states anything and/or defamatory about my dealings with her to any agency or to any other forum or entity, complainant risks being fined and or jailed for the criminal offense of blackmailMsFreeman, no offense to you or your agency (I know you are just doing your job in writing to me), but seriously, anything that the Revdex.com or any other online medium may negatively print about my business will also warrant litigation of all involved partiesI have retained counsel in this matter because of complainant's stated intent to sue and for her threats to blackmail me and defame me via your organization.If there are any further questions, please direct your communications to my attorney at the information stated below: [redacted] Esq [redacted] ***, PLC [redacted] Fairfax, Virginia Telephone: ###-###-#### Fax: ###-###-####E-mail: [redacted]

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because: the facts the director has provided are falseI was not offered any policies or enrollment documents in person nor was it explained in writing or in person that the money I left was non-refundableHad that been explained to me I would not waste my time or anyone's timeMoney should not have been accepted without me either acknowledging that I was refusing policies in writing or otherwiseI have emails asking for policies and enrollment documents as early as the same day of the tour, which again does not align with her account of me being given the policies in personAs I stated, I asked for the documents in person and was told that she did not have them and would email them immediatelyI did not interact with any other staff but MsB***She abruptly ended the tour after I gave her the check and didn't even formally say goodbyeI was left in the hallway to tend to my child and had to interrupt the class where the director was to remind her to send me the receipt and enrollment documents. As I believe it is my right to state clear facts which are substantiated by emails that the director responded to again where I am asking for enrollment documentsAgain, had I been given the documents and explained that the fee I left was non refundable I would not have pursued this channel. Please move forward with posting this formal complaint against the business practices of MindBloom Preschool.
Regards,
*** ***

I have retained counsel in this matter, but I am writing to dispute a claim made in the case ID#[redacted]. The complainant is not entitled to a refund because she assisted in creating a contract for a guaranteed slot for her child in our program and we gave her valid consideration by not...

considering other parents with children who would have wanted the slot, especially during a timeframe when enrollment is the slowest in the year.The complainant is correct regarding the timeframe of mid-April when she reached out to me to inquire about a Mandarin slot in our program for her son and she was told upfront, prior to her visiting our program, that slots were scarce, our school is small, and that parents who really wanted a slot for their child could guarantee a slot for their child by either paying one week of tuition to enroll within 30 days of having a tour or one month of tuition if they chose to enroll anytime after 30 days into the program. Our program is only licensed for 16 slots and there was one slot coming available in Mandarin in June, which is what the complainant wanted.
However, when the complainant first contacted me, she expressed that she wanted to enroll her son in July, but due to the one slot coming available prior to July, she wanted to ensure that her son got the slot and so she visited the program soon afterwards and paid $1175 with a check for one month to guarantee the slot for her son. Our program does not have a waitlist, like some other child care programs, so all of our slots are given on first come, first served basis, based on availability. The paid guarantee serves as enrollment and insurance that any parent who paid money up front to guarantee a future slot, would not be paying a deposit to "hold" a slot, as the complainant mentions in her complaint. The money paid for a guarantee in our program is applied towards tuition and is not a hold fee, which is like a deposit that would not be applied towards tuition, as is customary in the child care industry. Attached is a copy of the email between myself and the complainant that mentions what is required for guaranteed enrollment into the program (see Email #1).
When the complainant visited us, she was offered the policies for the program, but was busy watching her son interact and participate in the Mandarin classat our program and in the playroom and consoling him when it was time for them to leave because he did not want to go. She was offered the policies during her tour, but at that time she mentioned that she would just fill out everything later on, when she got her son's medical records—she did have time to do this. I assumed she received the policies and other forms prior to leaving, as she interacted with others at the program during the hour she was there. Our tours generally last half an hour. Having the forms is irrelevant to the guarantee she chose to create to obtain the slot for her son.
During the tour, complainant was told that any guaranteed advanced tuition to enroll was nonrefundable, but complainant STILL offered the money for the slot because she did not want to lose the opportunity to have her son attend the Mandarin program at our school. We are located in Washington,DC and complainant lives in Gaithersburg, MD, which is close to 30 miles away one way. Complainant told me that she was guaranteeing the slot "that day" because she did not want to have to come back to drop off the check or mail it, which both methods could risk her potentially losing the slot if another parent came to guarantee the slot. Complainant knew that our program does not maintain a wait list or collect fees for that (please see Email #1); as I mentioned above, all slots are given on a first come, first served basis, based on availability. I could not make the complaimant give me money for the slot--she did it on her own volition and she understood what the money was for.
Complainant mentions that she finally received the forms on the day herson allegedly suffered an asthma attack, but this is not true, as I replied to her email on April 30th and her email to me dated May 2nd, stated that herson allegedly had an asthma attack on May 1st, the day prior to her emailing me about it. Though there is a difference of one day between the time complainant states she finally received the forms and when she said her son had an asthma attack, this still does not negate the fact that complainant paid for the guarantee of a slot for her son and we obliged her by not allowing another parent to have the slot for their child.
Complainant's possession or perusal of the policies and other forms is irrelevant to this fact because her having and signing the policies was not a condition of her child being enrolled into the program--it was the payment of at least one of the tuition options presented to the complainant, which she obliged us by paying for one month of tuition to guarantee the slot to enroll her son and have him attend on June 1st.
in the District of Columbia, as well as other jurisdictions, a valid contract is created with an offer, acceptance, and valid consideration. These factors are applicable to this matter (which coincidentally is a bilateral contract, where we both had to satisfy each of the requirements to form a contract), as we made an offer to complainant of a guaranteed slot in our program, complainant accepted by offering to pay the $1175 to guarantee the slot and enroll her son into our program, and we gave complainant the utmost consideration because we could not take another child for the slot or offer it to another parent because it was guaranteed for complainant's son via payment of the tuition.
On the day complainant emailed me to say that her son suffered an asthma attack, complainant asked for a "portion" of her money back and mentioned that she thought it be fair that I keep "some" of it (see Email 4); however, complainant did not mention how much money she thought was "fair" for me to keep, nor did she mention what "portion"; should send back to her. Even if she had, complainant would not be entitled to any money back, due to the contract that was reached when we both did our part under the written guarantee expressed to complainant in Email #1. Instead of totally rejecting complainant's request by not sending her any money, I told her that I would send her $235 of the $1175 back and I promptly did that the day 1 mentioned that to her.
Email 5 shows complainant's attitude towards me, stating that I chose to unfairly keep "over 80%" of the $1175 and she threatened to sue me, but unlike complainant, I know contract law very well and knew that anything I sent her back would be classified as a gift because legally, she was not entitled to anything back, considering she would have had a windfall if she would have received ALL of the $1175 back, while I would have been stuck with an open slot in June—the slowest month for enrollment in the childcare industry, due to family vacations and schools of older siblings dismissing for the summer.
Besides, complainant's request to have just about ALL of the $1175 back is also a hardship to me on another level for my small program because the 2 serious parents who had inquired about the slot have since made other arrangements for their children. Being a provider in the childcare industry is tough, considering timing and slot availability is what really drives the market and wait list fees and timely paid tuitions are mostly what fund parts of a program when there may not be any money coming in during the slow times.
Complainant's desire to enroll her son in our program, literally within hours of reaching out to me to inquire about availability, is a feeling that is shared by many parents in this metropolitan area where quality child care programs are either scarce or non-existent; however, I and my program are not in a position to play games with enrollment, with us being a newer provider in the business and only having a small number of slots—I love serving the needs of children and families, but this is business.
Soon after complainant left our program and went home, she emailed me to offer me equipment from her own defunct home family daycare program. One of the last emails complainant sent to me shows her stating that she at first liked me enough that she made the offer of help with a newsletter for my school and to give me things from her program, but her feelings about me have since soured when I refused to honor her request for a refund (Email 11). I was cordial and engaged her, but I never asked her for any of this and I never would because I did not know her--complainant took it personal when she should have kept it in perspective as the business transaction it is.
There was no need to offer me anything because I knew that anything she would give to me certainly might have a price where she would someday be expecting me to compromise my program to appease her, like she has already demonstrated. Complainant said she had also been a child care provider, but had decided to fold her business (which is why she offered to give me her things). Yet, I am making a firm business decision in choosing not to allow others to cause my business to fold based on things that are immaterial to the business at hand. Thus, complainant should know and understand what my position is and she should be respectful of the contract she made with me for the guaranteed slot.
Complainant paid for a month of tuition to enroll her son, but when she mentioned he had an asthma attack and would not be attending in June (Email 4), she didn't even give me the opportunity to accommodate her in the future, as her email stated that she didn't want to burden our staff and would "consider" enrolling her son in the Fall. If she was to get all of her money back now, I believe there would not be any consideration for her to have her son attend in the Fall, when she has behaved so crudely and unprofessionally towards me now. Complainant is simply not entitled to any of the $1175 she paid to guarantee the slot, but I obliged her request for a "portion" back and sent her $235 of the money back when did not have to. Yet, I still have an open slot for June...
I even wrote to complainant and told her that if she found another parent for the slot or if I was able to get another parent for the slot, that I would give her the rest of the money back without issue (Email 7). As of yet, I have not found a parent to enroll their child into the Mandarin slot for June and complainant refused to reply to the offer, which shows that she feels entitled while I would just have to deal with the issue of having to fill the slot any way I could or not at all. This is totally not fair.
Furthermore, complainant has chosen to embellish facts around the 30 day withdrawal policy listed in the policies by stating that I told her she had to comply with the 30 day withdrawal policy within, in order to be refunded her money. However, it is COMPLAINANT who first brought up the withdrawal policy by stating that she had complied with it and is thus, entitled to a full refund based upon that (Email 8). My reasoning for not giving complainant a full refund is based upon the written guarantee explained in the initial email to her (Email 1), which has nothing to do with the policies she says she got after she paid for the guaranteed slot.
In fact, every instance of me advocating for the school to keep the money complainant paid, revolves around the contract that was created when she paid for the guaranteed slot and I agreed to not give the slot to another parent, while giving complainant's son utmost consideration in exchange for the money she paid for him to have the slot. Besides, the 30 days notice to withdraw listed in the policies is separate from the guarantee I emailed to complainant; the 30 day withdrawal policy would go into effect for complainant on June 1st, the date she was supposed to bring her son to attend the program, which is very different than the guarantee she paid to enroll her son into the program, which would not allow me to consider another child for that same slot.
Last, complainant exaggerates that I am not operating my program "in accordance with the law and business regulations and is withholding policy forms whether intentionally or unintentionally" to benefit myself. Complainant has no proof of these outlandish claims and I have not broken any laws or regulations in my transaction with her. Daycares and schools that ask for application fees and waitlist fees are more self-serving than how my program operates, as parents who pay these fees at multiple places to try to get their child in somewhere, usually are not refunded if the child does not get a slot anywhere or ages out of being considered for a slot because they are on a list for way too long.These parents would never know where they really are on a list anyway and they pay the money to be considered, but hardly ever get the chance at their child attending the program. At least with my program, a parent can guarantee a slot for their child and actually have what they pay for, instead of the hope of a slot.
Complainant says I have broken the law, but in reality, complainant has broken the law by attempting to blackmail me into giving her a refund, in exchange for her not contacting governmental agencies who purportedly administer my ability to operate my business and not contacting the Revdex.com (see Email #9).
If complainant states anything false and/or defamatory about my dealings with her to any agency or to any other forum or entity, complainant risks being fined and or jailed for the criminal offense of blackmail. Ms. Freeman, no offense to you or your agency (I know you are just doing your job in writing to me), but seriously, anything that the Revdex.com or any other online medium may negatively print about my business will also warrant litigation of all involved parties. I have retained counsel in this matter because of complainant's stated intent to sue and for her threats to blackmail me and defame me via your organization.
If there are any further questions, please direct your communications to my attorney at the information stated below:
[redacted] Esq. ** [redacted], PLC [redacted] Fairfax, Virginia 22030 Telephone: ###-###-#### Fax: ###-###-####E-mail: [redacted]

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: the facts the director has provided are false. I was not offered any policies or enrollment documents in person nor was it explained in writing or in person that the money I left was non-refundable. Had that been explained to me I would not waste my time or anyone's time. Money should not have been accepted without me either acknowledging that I was refusing policies in writing or otherwise. I have emails asking for policies and enrollment documents as early as the same  day of the tour, which again does not align with her account of me being given the policies in person. As I stated, I asked for the documents in person and was told that she did not have them and would email them immediately. I did not interact with any other staff but Ms. B[redacted]. She abruptly ended the tour after I gave her the check and didn't even formally say goodbye. I was left in the hallway to tend to my child and had to interrupt the class where the director was to remind her to send me the receipt and enrollment documents. 
As I believe it is my right to state clear facts which are substantiated by emails that the director responded to again where I am asking for enrollment documents. Again, had I been given the documents and explained that the fee I left was non refundable I would not have pursued this channel. 
Please move forward with posting this formal complaint against the business practices of MindBloom Preschool. 
Regards,
[redacted]

I have retained counsel in this matter, but I am writing to dispute a claim made in the case ID#[redacted]. The complainant is not entitled to a refund because she assisted in creating a contract for a guaranteed slot for her child in our program and we gave her valid consideration by not considering...

other parents with children who would have wanted the slot, especially during a timeframe when enrollment is the slowest in the year.The complainant is correct regarding the timeframe of mid-April when she reached out to me to inquire about a Mandarin slot in our program for her son and she was told upfront, prior to her visiting our program, that slots were scarce, our school is small, and that parents who really wanted a slot for their child could guarantee a slot for their child by either paying one week of tuition to enroll within 30 days of having a tour or one month of tuition if they chose to enroll anytime after 30 days into the program. Our program is only licensed for 16 slots and there was one slot coming available in Mandarin in June, which is what the complainant wanted.However, when the complainant first contacted me, she expressed that she wanted to enroll her son in July, but due to the one slot coming available prior to July, she wanted to ensure that her son got the slot and so she visited the program soon afterwards and paid $1175 with a check for one month to guarantee the slot for her son. Our program does not have a waitlist, like some other child care programs, so all of our slots are given on first come, first served basis, based on availability. The paid guarantee serves as enrollment and insurance that any parent who paid money up front to guarantee a future slot, would not be paying a deposit to "hold" a slot, as the complainant mentions in her complaint. The money paid for a guarantee in our program is applied towards tuition and is not a hold fee, which is like a deposit that would not be applied towards tuition, as is customary in the child care industry. Attached is a copy of the email between myself and the complainant that mentions what is required for guaranteed enrollment into the program (see Email #1).When the complainant visited us, she was offered the policies for the program, but was busy watching her son interact and participate in the Mandarin classat our program and in the playroom and consoling him when it was time for them to leave because he did not want to go. She was offered the policies during her tour, but at that time she mentioned that she would just fill out everything later on, when she got her son's medical records—she did have time to do this. I assumed she received the policies and other forms prior to leaving, as she interacted with others at the program during the hour she was there. Our tours generally last half an hour. Having the forms is irrelevant to the guarantee she chose to create to obtain the slot for her son.During the tour, complainant was told that any guaranteed advanced tuition to enroll was nonrefundable, but complainant STILL offered the money for the slot because she did not want to lose the opportunity to have her son attend the Mandarin program at our school. We are located in Washington,DC and complainant lives in Gaithersburg, MD, which is close to 30 miles away one way. Complainant told me that she was guaranteeing the slot "that day" because she did not want to have to come back to drop off the check or mail it, which both methods could risk her potentially losing the slot if another parent came to guarantee the slot. Complainant knew that our program does not maintain a wait list or collect fees for that (please see Email #1); as I mentioned above, all slots are given on a first come, first served basis, based on availability. I could not make the complaimant give me money for the slot--she did it on her own volition and she understood what the money was for.Complainant mentions that she finally received the forms on the day herson allegedly suffered an asthma attack, but this is not true, as I replied to her email on April 30th and her email to me dated May 2nd, stated that herson allegedly had an asthma attack on May 1st, the day prior to her emailing me about it. Though there is a difference of one day between the time complainant states she finally received the forms and when she said her son had an asthma attack, this still does not negate the fact that complainant paid for the guarantee of a slot for her son and we obliged her by not allowing another parent to have the slot for their child.Complainant's possession or perusal of the policies and other forms is irrelevant to this fact because her having and signing the policies was not a condition of her child being enrolled into the program--it was the payment of at least one of the tuition options presented to the complainant, which she obliged us by paying for one month of tuition to guarantee the slot to enroll her son and have him attend on June 1st.in the District of Columbia, as well as other jurisdictions, a valid contract is created with an offer, acceptance, and valid consideration. These factors are applicable to this matter (which coincidentally is a bilateral contract, where we both had to satisfy each of the requirements to form a contract), as we made an offer to complainant of a guaranteed slot in our program, complainant accepted by offering to pay the $1175 to guarantee the slot and enroll her son into our program, and we gave complainant the utmost consideration because we could not take another child for the slot or offer it to another parent because it was guaranteed for complainant's son via payment of the tuition.On the day complainant emailed me to say that her son suffered an asthma attack, complainant asked for a "portion" of her money back and mentioned that she thought it be fair that I keep "some" of it (see Email 4); however, complainant did not mention how much money she thought was "fair" for me to keep, nor did she mention what "portion"; should send back to her. Even if she had, complainant would not be entitled to any money back, due to the contract that was reached when we both did our part under the written guarantee expressed to complainant in Email #1. Instead of totally rejecting complainant's request by not sending her any money, I told her that I would send her $235 of the $1175 back and I promptly did that the day 1 mentioned that to her.Email 5 shows complainant's attitude towards me, stating that I chose to unfairly keep "over 80%" of the $1175 and she threatened to sue me, but unlike complainant, I know contract law very well and knew that anything I sent her back would be classified as a gift because legally, she was not entitled to anything back, considering she would have had a windfall if she would have received ALL of the $1175 back, while I would have been stuck with an open slot in June—the slowest month for enrollment in the childcare industry, due to family vacations and schools of older siblings dismissing for the summer.Besides, complainant's request to have just about ALL of the $1175 back is also a hardship to me on another level for my small program because the 2 serious parents who had inquired about the slot have since made other arrangements for their children. Being a provider in the childcare industry is tough, considering timing and slot availability is what really drives the market and wait list fees and timely paid tuitions are mostly what fund parts of a program when there may not be any money coming in during the slow times.Complainant's desire to enroll her son in our program, literally within hours of reaching out to me to inquire about availability, is a feeling that is shared by many parents in this metropolitan area where quality child care programs are either scarce or non-existent; however, I and my program are not in a position to play games with enrollment, with us being a newer provider in the business and only having a small number of slots—I love serving the needs of children and families, but this is business.Soon after complainant left our program and went home, she emailed me to offer me equipment from her own defunct home family daycare program. One of the last emails complainant sent to me shows her stating that she at first liked me enough that she made the offer of help with a newsletter for my school and to give me things from her program, but her feelings about me have since soured when I refused to honor her request for a refund (Email 11). I was cordial and engaged her, but I never asked her for any of this and I never would because I did not know her--complainant took it personal when she should have kept it in perspective as the business transaction it is.There was no need to offer me anything because I knew that anything she would give to me certainly might have a price where she would someday be expecting me to compromise my program to appease her, like she has already demonstrated. Complainant said she had also been a child care provider, but had decided to fold her business (which is why she offered to give me her things). Yet, I am making a firm business decision in choosing not to allow others to cause my business to fold based on things that are immaterial to the business at hand. Thus, complainant should know and understand what my position is and she should be respectful of the contract she made with me for the guaranteed slot.Complainant paid for a month of tuition to enroll her son, but when she mentioned he had an asthma attack and would not be attending in June (Email 4), she didn't even give me the opportunity to accommodate her in the future, as her email stated that she didn't want to burden our staff and would "consider" enrolling her son in the Fall. If she was to get all of her money back now, I believe there would not be any consideration for her to have her son attend in the Fall, when she has behaved so crudely and unprofessionally towards me now. Complainant is simply not entitled to any of the $1175 she paid to guarantee the slot, but I obliged her request for a "portion" back and sent her $235 of the money back when did not have to. Yet, I still have an open slot for June...I even wrote to complainant and told her that if she found another parent for the slot or if I was able to get another parent for the slot, that I would give her the rest of the money back without issue (Email 7). As of yet, I have not found a parent to enroll their child into the Mandarin slot for June and complainant refused to reply to the offer, which shows that she feels entitled while I would just have to deal with the issue of having to fill the slot any way I could or not at all. This is totally not fair.Furthermore, complainant has chosen to embellish facts around the 30 day withdrawal policy listed in the policies by stating that I told her she had to comply with the 30 day withdrawal policy within, in order to be refunded her money. However, it is COMPLAINANT who first brought up the withdrawal policy by stating that she had complied with it and is thus, entitled to a full refund based upon that (Email 8). My reasoning for not giving complainant a full refund is based upon the written guarantee explained in the initial email to her (Email 1), which has nothing to do with the policies she says she got after she paid for the guaranteed slot.In fact, every instance of me advocating for the school to keep the money complainant paid, revolves around the contract that was created when she paid for the guaranteed slot and I agreed to not give the slot to another parent, while giving complainant's son utmost consideration in exchange for the money she paid for him to have the slot. Besides, the 30 days notice to withdraw listed in the policies is separate from the guarantee I emailed to complainant; the 30 day withdrawal policy would go into effect for complainant on June 1st, the date she was supposed to bring her son to attend the program, which is very different than the guarantee she paid to enroll her son into the program, which would not allow me to consider another child for that same slot.Last, complainant exaggerates that I am not operating my program "in accordance with the law and business regulations and is withholding policy forms whether intentionally or unintentionally" to benefit myself. Complainant has no proof of these outlandish claims and I have not broken any laws or regulations in my transaction with her. Daycares and schools that ask for application fees and waitlist fees are more self-serving than how my program operates, as parents who pay these fees at multiple places to try to get their child in somewhere, usually are not refunded if the child does not get a slot anywhere or ages out of being considered for a slot because they are on a list for way too long.These parents would never know where they really are on a list anyway and they pay the money to be considered, but hardly ever get the chance at their child attending the program. At least with my program, a parent can guarantee a slot for their child and actually have what they pay for, instead of the hope of a slot.Complainant says I have broken the law, but in reality, complainant has broken the law by attempting to blackmail me into giving her a refund, in exchange for her not contacting governmental agencies who purportedly administer my ability to operate my business and not contacting the Revdex.com (see Email #9).If complainant states anything false and/or defamatory about my dealings with her to any agency or to any other forum or entity, complainant risks being fined and or jailed for the criminal offense of blackmail. Ms. Freeman, no offense to you or your agency (I know you are just doing your job in writing to me), but seriously, anything that the Revdex.com or any other online medium may negatively print about my business will also warrant litigation of all involved parties. I have retained counsel in this matter because of complainant's stated intent to sue and for her threats to blackmail me and defame me via your organization.If there are any further questions, please direct your communications to my attorney at the information stated below:[redacted] Esq. ** [redacted], PLC [redacted] Fairfax, Virginia 22030 Telephone: ###-###-#### Fax: ###-###-####E-mail: [redacted]