Monticello Pet Hospital

I am rejecting this response because: Wednesday, December 14, In all actuality (I) first contacted you on 11/22/(not the other way around)In fact I had contacted your office immediately after my husband brought the dog’s home from your facilityAnd sense I didn’t record names of individuals which I spoke with, & I do not know your staff personally, I can only assume that you are correct & that I spoke with (Renee T.) I told Renee of the concerns we had with Molly & the hasty/unprofessional job she didRenee immediately tried to defend the hospital (The Monticello Pet Hospital) by declaring that (Molly) was not part of the hospital, that she was actually an independent groomer and that I would have to take my concerns to herBut Molly had left early that day (11:30am) and so I had to wait for Renee to contact her and then for her to contact meThis also did not happen “promptly” as you saidMolly then called us later that eveningI told her my concernsOnce again I was met with defensivenessIn fact Molly responded very immaturely and in a “roundabout way” pointed the finger of blame at us! She actually said: “that our Pomeranians fur on her hind quarters was long & tight”I told her that our Pomeranians fur was longer & thicker and that this was why we bring her to be groomed and to have her fur trimmedI also told her that our Pomeranians fur was in no way “matted” (if that was what she really meant by saying that our dog’s fur was “tight”), that we would never let that happenMolly then in a desperate act of defense blurted that we were just upset because of our other complaint that neither she nor your staff let our dogs out in order to relieve themselves in a 6-hour periodI told her that I was a mature woman whom would not resort to such immature actions and that although that is ridiculous that you would not let our dogs out to relieve themselves in that long of a time frame, that I was even more bothered by the fact that she did such a hasty & unprofessional groom on our dogs and especially our PomeranianIt was then and only then that Molly suggested a partial refund for our Pomeranian and only our PomeranianAnd it was then and only then that I brought up that she should waive the entire grooming fee for our Pomeranian and only for our Pomeranian and not the entire grooming bill (for both dogs) as you statedTo us that would have been the right thing to doAnd I am sure that most people who own Pomeranians and if they could view the photos I sent to you & the Revdex.com of our Pomeranian after Molly was finished with her would agreeYou stated that a Linda contacted me on 11/28/and left a message of apology I never received so called messageI am not sure if she left a message on my home or cell phone but I am sure that I would have returned such a call and simply because it would have been the respectful thing to doIn fact the very last conversation I remember with any of you including Molly, was when once again (I) called you/your office and directly after I finished speaking with Molly on 11/22/I then told Renee that absolutely nothing was resolved when I spoke with Molly that Molly took to being defensive but that she did say that she would refund us the thirty dollars (not $15) on our Pomeranians billRenee then said that she would relay the message to the owners/supervisors (I assume that is you), that we were not happy and to simply relay the entire negative experience which we hadAnd in fact she did this upon my requestYou say that you feel strongly that you have made attempts to work with usHow? We have never even received an apology via phone or in writing (even though you claim that Linda left a message of apology)And why would you apologize if you indeed have done nothing wrongYou stated that you understand and respect our opinion that the grooming was not to our likingBut with all due respect (and we mean that) we aren’t looking for your understanding on the matterWe want you to look at the pictures we sent and make an honest confession that Molly did not do a professional job and that we indeed should not have to pay for such bad serviceAnd (yes) quite frankly at this time and after all the undue stress and hassle this issue has caused us, we (now) absolutely do think it fair to ask that you waive the entire billServices were rendered as you put it, but the services WERE NOT SATISFACTORY and we have the pictures to prove itYou should honor that, it is simply good customer relationsAnd especially after the long history of faithful business and (payment) we have given to you in the pastIn regard to the “check” for payment which you keep relentlessly coming back to and although it is not what this entire issue is about We did call our bank to try to “stop payment” on that checkWe were unable toSo we simply did not put the funds into that account to cover the checkThus “the non-sufficient funds”This account is not our primary accountOnce again you know full well that we have always paid in full, but we felt very strongly although against the horrible service and treatment that our dogs & we received from Molly and You, therefore we felt it was a worthy issue to try and bring to light and before we paid you anythingWe were trying to give you a chance to make this rightIn Closing: ALL Potential Customers of Molly The groomer at the Monticello Pet Hospital and now of The Monticello Pet Hospital, where they claim that Molly is not a paid staff member, but oddly can be contacted through their office and their staff assists her by taking reservations for her & payments addressed to them for her, THINK TWICE before you have her groom your petsEspecially if they are a Pomeranian!

I am rejecting this response because:
Wednesday, December 14, 2016 In all actuality (I) first contacted you on 11/22/2016 (not the other way around). In fact I had contacted your office immediately after my husband brought the dog’s home from your facility. And sense I didn’t record names of individuals which I spoke with, & I do not know your staff personally, I can only assume that you are correct & that I spoke with (Renee T.) I told Renee of the concerns we had with Molly & the hasty/unprofessional job she did. Renee immediately tried to defend the hospital (The Monticello Pet Hospital) by declaring that (Molly) was not part of the hospital, that she was actually an independent groomer and that I would have to take my concerns to her. But Molly had left early that day (11:30am) and so I had to wait for Renee to contact her and then for her to contact me. This also did not happen “promptly” as you said. Molly then called us later that evening. I told her my concerns. Once again I was met with defensiveness. In fact Molly responded very immaturely and in a “roundabout way” pointed the finger of blame at us! She actually said:  “that our Pomeranians fur on her hind quarters was long & tight”. I told her that our Pomeranians fur was longer & thicker and that this was why we bring her to be groomed and to have her fur trimmed. I also told her that our Pomeranians fur was in no way “matted” (if that was what she really meant by saying that our dog’s fur was “tight”), that we would never let that happen. Molly then in a desperate act of defense blurted that we were just upset because of our other complaint that neither she nor your staff let our dogs out in order to relieve themselves in a 6-7 hour period. I told her that I was a mature woman whom would not resort to such immature actions and that although that is ridiculous that you would not let our dogs out to relieve themselves in that long of a time frame, that I was even more bothered by the fact that she did such a hasty & unprofessional groom on our dogs and especially our Pomeranian. It was then and only then that Molly suggested a partial refund for our Pomeranian and only our Pomeranian. And it was then and only then that I brought up that she should waive the entire grooming fee for our Pomeranian and only for our Pomeranian and not the entire grooming bill (for both dogs) as you stated. To us that would have been the right thing to do. And I am sure that most people who own Pomeranians and if they could view the photos I sent to you & the Revdex.com of our Pomeranian after Molly was finished with her would agree. You stated that a Linda contacted me on 11/28/2016 and left a message of apology.  I never received so called message. I am not sure if she left a message on my home or cell phone but I am sure that I would have returned such a call and simply because it would have been the respectful thing to do. In fact the very last conversation I remember with any of you including Molly, was when once again (I) called you/your office and directly after I finished speaking with Molly on 11/22/2016. I then told Renee that absolutely nothing was resolved when I spoke with Molly that Molly took to being defensive but that she did say that she would refund us the thirty dollars (not $15) on our Pomeranians bill. Renee then said that she would relay the message to the owners/supervisors (I assume that is you), that we were not happy and to simply relay the entire negative experience which we had. And in fact she did this upon my request. You say that you feel strongly that you have made attempts to work with us. How? We have never even received an apology via phone or in writing (even though you claim that Linda left a message of apology). And why would you apologize if you indeed have done nothing wrong. You stated that you understand and respect our opinion that the grooming was not to our liking. But with all due respect (and we mean that) we aren’t looking for your understanding on the matter. We want you to look at the pictures we sent and make an honest confession that Molly did not do a professional job and that we indeed should not have to pay for such bad service. And (yes) quite frankly at this time and after all the undue stress and hassle this issue has caused us, we (now) absolutely do think it fair to ask that you waive the entire bill. Services were rendered as you put it, but the services WERE NOT SATISFACTORY and we have the pictures to prove it. You should honor that, it is simply good customer relations. And especially after the long history of faithful business and (payment) we have given to you in the past. In regard to the “check” for payment which you keep relentlessly coming back to and although it is not what this entire issue is about.  We did call our bank to try to “stop payment” on that check. We were unable to. So we simply did not put the funds into that account to cover the check. Thus “the non-sufficient funds”. This account is not our primary account. Once again you know full well that we have always paid in full, but we felt very strongly although against the horrible service and treatment that our dogs & we received from Molly and You, therefore we felt it was a worthy issue to try and bring to light and before we paid you anything. We were trying to give you a chance to make this right. In Closing: ALL Potential Customers of Molly The groomer at the Monticello Pet Hospital and now of The Monticello Pet Hospital, where they claim that Molly is not a paid staff member, but oddly can be contacted through their office and their staff assists her by taking reservations for her & payments addressed to them for her, THINK TWICE before you have her groom your pets. Especially if they are a Pomeranian!

To: [redacted] & [redacted]We are in receipt of your recent Revdex.com complaint pertaining to the grooming completed for your 2 dogs on 11/22/2016.  The Monticello Pet Hospital takes all complaints and client concerns very seriously.  When you contacted us on 11/22/2016, we immediately...

took action and put you in touch with the groomer, Molly L. to discuss your concerns.   As you’ve indicated, yes, Molly is an independent contractor that leases space for grooming services.  She agreed to offer you a $15 discount for the grooming completed on Foxy considering you were not pleased with the service.  Considering payment was made with a check, the refund cannot be issued until the check clears the bank.  Her discussion with you in reference to the mats that Foxy had around her rear and Molly’s inability to comb them out was conveyed to our management group and Molly’s agreement to offer the discount.  You also spoke with Renee T., our Practice Manager in reference to your concerns not only with the grooming, but the care given to your dogs while they were with us.  Renee assured you that at no time were your dogs neglected or mistreated.  A call was also made to you Tonia, as per your request, by Linda J. to discuss these concerns further. That message was left on 11/28/2016.On 11/22/2016 your 2 dogs were dropped off for grooming at approximately 9:00am.    They were then checked into the grooming room and a comfortable kennel appropriate for their size and breed with bedding. Molly groomed your 2 dogs at that time, as that was their allotted appointment time. (She was also your groomer for the 2/17/2015 and 7/29/2015 grooming services) She then took them out for a bathroom break at 11:30am once the grooming was completed.  At the time of check-in you indicated that you would return at 1:00pm to pick them up.  It is reasonable to then re-kennel your dogs for the remainder of their 1.5 hour stay with us once their grooming is complete.  It appears as you indicated, that you were unable to arrive at 1:00 pm to pick up your dogs and came at a later time.  Our records indicate you checked out at 4:08pm.  Your dogs would have then been in an appropriate and safe kennel for their size and breed for approximately 4 hours.  Considering these are younger dogs, they should have no problem holding their bladders for that period of time.  As Renee discussed with you, it is not uncommon for most people to leave their dogs home either kenneled or free in the home for 8-9 hours while their owners are at work or asleep at night.  If your dogs required more frequent care we would have gladly met those needs had they been made aware to us. (An example would be diabetic or geriatric patients which do require more frequent breaks) We do not consider this mistreatment of an animal.  They were cared for and safe the entire time they were with us.  It is also customary for any dog once they are taken out, either from their kennel or home upon the owner’s arrival that they would need to relieve themselves.   Had your 2 dogs been with us past 4:30pm we have kennel staff that arrive at that time and begin letting all the dogs out again for bathroom breaks, and your dogs would have been cared for again at that time.  There was no charge passed on to you for the daycare that was provided to your dogs before and after their grooming appointment.  We understand that clients have to work and hence offer this as a courtesy to all grooming clients.We are again, sorry that you were not satisfied with the grooming that was provided.  Molly is an experienced groomer and had not seen Foxy for over 1.5 years.  We understand and respect that grooming, like a haircut for humans, is a subjective service and at times does not meet the expectation that we have for the overall aesthetic outcome.  Hence, Molly agreed to offer you a discount.  Yours dogs were bathed and groomed/brushed and trimmed as requested and a service was provided and payment is due.In reference to your statement regarding the check that was issued on 11/22/2016 in the amount of $101.53 we have the following response.   This check was presented for payment on 11/23/2016 with our regular deposits.  On 12/2/2016 our account was debited for the $101.53 Non-Sufficient Funds Check that you issued in addition to other bank charges.  At no time do we repeatedly work to cash a check, this is a process that is handled by the banks and checks are generally presented twice for payment before being returned as NSF.  Had you contacted your bank for a “Stop Payment” service, we would recommend that you speak with your bank in reference to that as it is generally a chargeable service per check that you should have a confirmation number for.  If we receive a “Stopped Payment” check it will indicate it as such and the reason for the stop.  This is not the case, this check is a Non-Sufficient Funds (NSF) check.  Had we received a “Stop Payment” check you would still owe us the funds for the services that were provided for your dogs.In summary, a check dated 11/22/2016 bearing your name as the issuer is presently being held by the Monticello Pet Hospital after having been dishonored and returned by your bank, TCF Bank. Amount of the check is $101.53 plus a collection fee of $30.00, totaling $131.53 is now due to the practice.You are hereby notified that pursuant the State Law, Section 609.535, subd 2a*, Subd.3, Any person who issued a check without having sufficient funds in, or credit in, a bank or other depository for the payment of such check, draft, or order in full upon its presentation shall be guilty of a misdemeanor; unless within 5 days after the issuer shall have written notice of dishonor, he/she shall pay to the party in possession of such check, draft, or order, sufficient money to constitute payment in full.  This is your written notice.  If the payment in full is not received within 5 days of mailing of this notice, the drawee (bank) is authorized to release information relating to your account to me, to the Wright County Sherriff’s Department and to the Wright County Attorney’s Office.This matter will be taken up with the Wright County Sheriff’s Department, Buffalo, Minnesota on December 30, 2016 if the payment is not received by us prior to this date.Crimes committed in violation of the state law, section 609.535 subd. 2a, issuing a worthless check, are punishable by up to 90 days in jail and up to $1000 in fines if the value of the check (s) is $250 or less, or up to one year in jail and a fine up to $3000 if the value of the check (s) is greater than $250 up to $500.Once you have satisfied the requirements of honoring this NSF check we will gladly issue the $15 courtesy refund as indicated in your conversation with Molly on 11/22/2016 as a compromise for your dissatisfaction with the aesthetics of your dog’s haircut.  Again, as noted, a credit/refund cannot be issued for a payment that is not yet collected. Again we apologize you were not satisfied with the service, however the Monticello Pet Hospital is not responsible for NSF fees and overdrafts on an account that you have incurred as a result of submitting a check written to us for payment that was subsequently denied by your bank due to insufficient funds. Regards,Scott & Linda [redacted], Monticello Pet Hospital

Thank you for your recent response.   We are very sorry to read that we are unable to see eye to eye on this matter; as you stated below; “But know that we are deeply saddened & offended that our attempts of working with you in regard to the most recent grooming so called “service” have failed and that unfortunately our attempts of blocking payment to you has failed”   We contacted you on 11/22/2016, both Molly L. and Renee T. discussed this matter promptly with you and arrived at a solution to offer a discount for the services provided to Foxy.  Your concerns about the apparent lack of care provided to your dogs was also heard and the feedback about your concerns passed to Linda and I.  You were also contacted by Linda on 11/28/2016 and a message was left for you, apologizing that you were not happy about the grooming and acknowledging that you felt your pets were mistreated.  We feel strongly that many attempts were made to work with you and discuss our perspective in this matter. We have not heard from you or your husband since 11/22/2016.  The first we heard from you was via the Revdex.com on the day that your check was returned to us due to “Non-Sufficient Funds”.  In your initial complaint you indicated that you would like to have the $101.53 waived in addition to compensation for overdraft fees that resulted from our depositing a check provided for payment. As we stated in our initial response both on 11/22/16 via phone and in our written response; we understand and respect your opinion that the grooming was not to your liking, and as such Molly agreed to offer a discount for the services that were provided.  You did receive services, your dogs were groomed and cared for and those services are due to be paid for. In terms of your request for compensation of overdraft fees; as stated in our initial correspondence the check was presented for payment to our bank and it was returned to us for the reason of “Non-Sufficient Funds”.  You continue to reference a blocked payment, however that is not the case, there were not funds to pay for your grooming in your account, irrelevant to what your concerns were regarding the service that Molly provided.  A check was provided for payment, written on an account that did not have sufficient funds to pay for those services.  At no time were we asked to delay depositing that check or agreed to refund the grooming services.  Your pets did not suffer at our facility, nor were they mistreated.  In addition at no time were they locked up for 7-8 hours, as we indicated in our previous response.   It deeply saddens us to hear that you believe we would treat any animal in our care in an inhumane manner and we feel these claims are false and misleading.   We did not blame you for not being able to pick your pet up at 1pm, rather stated that all pets in our care during grooming services are provided that care as a complimentary courtesy, which was the case for your dogs. Unfortunately, it seems that we are unable to come to an understanding regarding the services that were provided and the discount that was offered and accepted initially on 11/22/16.  It appears that now that your check has been presented for Non-Sufficient Funds we are being asked to further compensate you in an effort to offset your check. We are unwilling to offer this as a settlement to your complaint and respectfully disagree with your opinions about the care and service we provide at our facility.   $101.53 + $30 NSF Fee Totalling: $131.53 Is Due to the Monticello Pet Hospital.  Once the check and overdraft fee have been satisfied we will honor the credit for grooming as discussed on 11/22/2016.