Natural Instincts

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below Regards, [redacted] ***

On August 30, [redacted] came into Natural Instincts with her dog [redacted] for a grooming During the grooming session it was noticed that there was some blood on the right ear of the dog The groomer stopped immediately and called over the other groomer and the Manager All three employees inspected the dogs ear and noted that there was prior injury to the dog’s ear as there was scabbing on the ear and the shear had brushed up on the scab causing the scab to bleed The groomer did not do any further work on the ear and immediately called [redacted] to notify her When [redacted] came into the store to pick up her dog the Groomer and the Manager made sure she was aware of the incident and why the ear had not been finished The owner [redacted] said she understood and stated “ I know she has ear issues as we have been treating it” She left the store and paid for the groomer without any other concerns or questionsWhen the dog’s ear was being looked at by all three employees not once was anything applied to the ear The complaint states we used glue; that is inaccurate as we do not even carry glue in our facility [redacted] returned weeks later with her husband [redacted] and spoke to the Manager They were instructed that the groomer would be in the following day if they would all like to discuss The Manager at this time told [redacted] that your wife [redacted] told us that the ear was being treated prior to your grooming appointment At first [redacted] tried denying that she had said that then the Manager told her that I was there when you told the groomer about [redacted] being treated [redacted] changed her story that the ear was being treated for something else The Manager then told [redacted] there is no way your dog’s ear was glued here as we do not even carry glue, and that she would not even let the groomer put quick stop on the ear since there was a prior laceration with scabbing and that she did not want a secondary infection to happen and that was why the groomer stopped on the ear immediately and no further work was done and that [redacted] was notified The ***’s dog [redacted] has been to Natural Instincts several times on each occasion the groomer has noted that the dog is severely matted, meaning the dog is not receiving adequate bathes and trims for the type of breed that [redacted] is We know the dog’s original injury did not occur while in our care and the dog’s grooming appointment was on August 30, and they did not take the dog to the vet until September 13, We believe that they waited to take the dog to the vet due to his pre- existing ear condition that they were treating prior to his grooming appointment We are disputing the monies owed as the dog had a prior injury to the grooming appointment and the owner admitted that the dog was being treated for ear problems We are sorry that the customer felt the need to file a complaint and slander our company on social media and never returned back to the store to discuss the issue further

On August 30, *** *** came into Natural Instincts with her dog *** for a grooming. During the grooming session it was noticed that there was some blood on the right ear of the dog. The groomer stopped immediately and called over the other groomer and
the Manager. All three employees inspected the dogs ear and noted that there was prior injury to the dog’s ear as there was scabbing on the ear and the shear had brushed up on the scab causing the scab to bleed. The groomer did not do any further work on the ear and immediately called *** *** to notify her. When *** *** came into the store to pick up her dog the Groomer and the Manager made sure she was aware of the incident and why the ear had not been finished. The owner *** *** said she understood and stated “ I know she has ear issues as we have been treating it”. She left the store and paid for the groomer without any other concerns or questionsWhen the dog’s ear was being looked at by all three employees not once was anything applied to the ear. The complaint states we used glue; that is inaccurate as we do not even carry glue in our facility*** *** returned weeks later with her husband *** and spoke to the Manager. They were instructed that the groomer would be in the following day if they would all like to discuss. The Manager at this time told *** *** that your wife *** told us that the ear was being treated prior to your grooming appointment. At first *** tried denying that she had said that then the Manager told her that I was there when you told the groomer about *** being treated*** changed her story that the ear was being treated for something else. The Manager then told *** there is no way your dog’s ear was glued here as we do not even carry glue, and that she would not even let the groomer put quick stop on the ear since there was a prior laceration with scabbing and that she did not want a secondary infection to happen and that was why the groomer stopped on the ear immediately and no further work was done and that *** *** was notified. The ***’s dog *** has been to Natural Instincts several times on each occasion the groomer has noted that the dog is severely matted, meaning the dog is not receiving adequate bathes and trims for the type of breed that *** is We know the dog’s original injury did not occur while in our care and the dog’s grooming appointment was on August 30, and they did not take the dog to the vet until September 13, 2016. We believe that they waited to take the dog to the vet due to his pre- existing ear condition that they were treating prior to his grooming appointment. We are disputing the monies owed as the dog had a prior injury to the grooming appointment and the owner admitted that the dog was being treated for ear problems. We are sorry that the customer felt the need to file a complaint and slander our company on social media and never returned back to the store to discuss the issue further

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
Regards,
[redacted]

On August 30, 2016 [redacted] came into Natural Instincts with her dog [redacted] for a grooming.    During the grooming session it was...

noticed that there was some blood on the right ear of the dog.    The groomer stopped immediately and called over the other groomer and the Manager.  All three employees inspected the dogs ear and noted that there was prior injury to the dog’s ear as there was scabbing on the ear and the shear had brushed up on the scab causing the scab to bleed.    The groomer did not do any further work on the ear and immediately called [redacted] to notify her.   When [redacted] came into the store to pick up her dog the Groomer and the Manager made sure she was aware of the incident and why the ear had not been finished.  The owner [redacted] said she understood and stated “ I know she has ear issues as we have been treating it”.    She left the store and paid for the groomer without any other concerns or questions. When the dog’s ear was being looked at by all three employees not once was anything applied to the ear.   The complaint states we used glue; that is inaccurate as we do not even carry glue in our facility.
[redacted] returned  2 weeks later with her husband [redacted] and spoke to the Manager.  They were instructed that the groomer would be in the following day if they would all like to discuss.  The Manager at this time told [redacted] that your wife [redacted] told us that the ear was being treated  prior to your grooming appointment.  At first [redacted] tried denying that she had said that then the Manager told her that I was there when you told the groomer  about [redacted] being treated. [redacted] changed her story that the ear was being treated for something else.  The Manager then told [redacted] there is no way your dog’s ear was glued here as we do not even carry glue, and that she would not even let the groomer put quick stop on the ear since there was a prior laceration with scabbing and that she did not want a secondary infection to happen and that was why the groomer stopped on the ear immediately and no further work was done and that [redacted] was notified. 
The [redacted]’s dog [redacted] has been to Natural Instincts several times on each occasion the groomer has noted that the dog is severely matted, meaning the dog is not receiving adequate bathes and trims for the type of breed that [redacted] is.   We know the dog’s original injury did not occur while in our care and the dog’s grooming appointment was on August 30, 2016 and they did not take the dog to the vet until September 13, 2016.  We believe that they waited to take the dog to the vet due to his pre- existing ear condition that they were treating prior to his grooming appointment.  We are disputing the monies owed as the dog had a prior injury to the grooming appointment and the owner admitted that the dog was being treated for ear problems.  We are sorry that the customer felt the need to file a complaint and slander our company on social media and never returned back to the store to discuss the issue further.