Mint Floor Coverings

Mint is very surprised to have received this complaint from the customer due to the multiple compliments they provided to Mint after the installation was complete During a home visit on June 29, Mint measured the customer’s surfaces and provided them with samplesDuring this visit, the customer asked if the product could be installed between the dates of July 19th and July 23rdThe customer was informed by Mint that the requested timeframe was reliant in the products availabilityAnd on the edge of Mint’s procedural ½ to 3-week timeframe from the date a service agreement is completedApproximately a week after this visit the customer signed and returned the service agreement on July 7, The agreement the customer signed did not state an installation date of July 19th; however the customer was told by Mint that they would work to accommodate the installation on a rush basisOn July 7th, after receiving the signed agreement back from the customer, Mint ordered the product from the vendorPromptly after Mint was notified that the customer’s product was not going to arrive in time to begin the July 19th install timeframe of 8-9am MST, the customer was called and also emailed to rescheduled to July 19th between and pmThe product delivered to the customer was consistent with the samples the customer was shown and with how it was explained to the customer June 29thThe customer did appear to have some misconceptions about the product which Mint was quick to correct with the customer and would thoroughly reinforce that the product came in several different widths on several occasionsFurther, prior to the installation on July 19th, Mint provided the customer an opportunity to view the product spread out on their floor so they had a visual of what the product would look likeAt the time of this demonstration the customer was offered the opportunity to select another product that would fit their needs, the customer declined on July 19thMint provided the customer with an opportunity to cancel the order and installation consistent with its procedureThe customer declined to cancel the order and installation and confirmed their decision to proceed with the original services agreementAfter the job was completed the customer stated that they were happy with the floor, happy with the installer and that he did a great jobAn additional comment was made by the customer that he was impressed with the timing of the installation on their staircasesThe customer’s job was completed a day later (actually was completed by noon that following day) than originally planned which was due to the customer making a change in the original installation (July 19th) request to the manner in which the baseboard was to be removed and replacedThe installer did fail to put the customer’s door back which Mint was notified by the customer days after the installation was completeMint then failed to inform the installer of the door issue in a timely fashion and therefore their operations manager made a special house call on Augto replace the doorDuring this visit Mint’s operations manager provided the customer with the final invoice an approximate discount of 8% to take accountability for the door issue and any inconvenience the customer may have experienced due to the door issue and or; customer serviceThe warranty was included on the service agreement paperwork and was also mailed to the customer’s home on Aug3, Additionally, due to the customer stating they had not received the warranty Mint then sent the warranty via email on Sept1, and 7, I would be more than happy to meet with the client personally on site to clear up any other misconceptions regarding this project [redacted] President Mint Floor Coverings [redacted]

Mint is very surprised to have received this complaint from the customer due to the multiple compliments they provided to Mint after the installation was complete.   Background: During a home visit on June 29, 2016 Mint measured the customer’s surfaces and provided them with samples. During...

this visit, the customer asked if the product could be installed between the dates of July 19th and July 23rd. The customer was informed by Mint that the requested timeframe was reliant in the products availability. And on the edge of Mint’s procedural 2 ½ to 3-week timeframe from the date a service agreement is completed. Approximately a week after this visit the customer signed and returned the service agreement on July 7, 2016. The agreement the customer signed did not state an installation date of July 19th; however the customer was told by Mint that they would work to accommodate the installation on a rush basis. On July 7th, after receiving the signed agreement back from the customer, Mint ordered the product from the vendor. Promptly after Mint was notified that the customer’s product was not going to arrive in time to begin the July 19th install timeframe of 8-9am MST, the customer was called and also emailed to rescheduled to July 19th between 1 and 2 pm. The product delivered to the customer was consistent with the samples the customer was shown and with how it was explained to the customer June 29th. The customer did appear to have some misconceptions about the product which Mint was quick to correct with the customer and would thoroughly reinforce that the product came in several different widths on several occasions. Further, prior to the installation on July 19th, Mint provided the customer an opportunity to view the product spread out on their floor so they had a visual of what the product would look like. At the time of this demonstration the customer was offered the opportunity to select another product that would fit their needs, the customer declined on July 19th. Mint provided the customer with an opportunity to cancel the order and installation consistent with its normal procedure. The customer declined to cancel the order and installation and confirmed their decision to proceed with the original services agreement. After the job was completed the customer stated that they were happy with the floor, happy with the installer and that he did a great job. An additional comment was made by the customer that he was impressed with the timing of the installation on their staircases. The customer’s job was completed a day later (actually was completed by noon that following day) than originally planned which was due to the customer making a change in the original installation (July 19th) request to the manner in which the baseboard was to be removed and replaced. The installer did fail to put the customer’s door back which Mint was notified by the customer 3 days after the installation was complete. Mint then failed to inform the installer of the door issue in a timely fashion and therefore their operations manager made a special house call on Aug. 2 to replace the door. During this visit Mint’s operations manager provided the customer with the final invoice an approximate discount of 8% to take accountability for the door issue and any inconvenience the customer may have experienced due to the door issue and or; customer service. The warranty was included on the service agreement paperwork and was also mailed to the customer’s home on Aug. 3, 2016. Additionally, due to the customer stating they had not received the warranty Mint then sent the warranty via email on Sept. 1, 6 and 7, 2016. I would be more than happy to meet with the client personally on site to clear up any other misconceptions regarding this project. [redacted]President Mint Floor Coverings[redacted]