Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# ***, and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:
[Your Answer Here]
On Wednesday December **, I received an email from Rachel Cho Floral Design Inc expressing distress upon learning of my dissatisfaction with the floral order I placed on October **, This email contained an offer for a 50% refund of the price of my purchase and led me to believe that Rachel Cho was really invested in taking corrective measures to restore my trust as a customer However, in correspondence Rachel Cho sent to the Revdex.com, which was forwarded to me today, I was stunned to learn that Rachel Cho countered my complaint with the claim that their associate, Anya F*, sought and received my approval on October ** before outsourcing my floral order to another florist This claim is shocking for reasons:- 1) it is not true; Anya F* did not contact me on October ** before outsourcing the order (the first time I corresponded with MsF* was on October ** when I called Rachel Cho to report my dissatisfaction) and 2) that Rachel Cho would put forward a claim that does not stand against available and verifiable evidence (there is no record of telephone or email correspondence in which I was contacted by Anya F* on October ** after placing my online order to authorize delivery of a floral arrangement by an alternate florist) If I had indeed authorized the alternate florist, there would not have been any reason to file a complaint with the Revdex.com In fact, filing a complaint with the Revdex.com was the last resort after my email to MsF* dated October ** went unanswered Just when I wanted to believe that Rachel Cho was truly interested in restoring my trust as a customer, their choice to respond with a (verifiably) claim only further reinforces earlier indications - that also form the premise for my initial complaint - of a business philosophy not wholly committed to delivering the value it promises to the customerThank you for your attentionYours sincerely,
*** ***
In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above
Sincerely,
*** ***
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:
[Your Answer Here]
On Wednesday December **, I received an email from Rachel Cho Floral Design Inc expressing distress upon learning of my dissatisfaction with the floral order I placed on October **, 2015. This email contained an offer for a 50% refund of the price of my purchase and led me to believe that Rachel Cho was really invested in taking corrective measures to restore my trust as a customer. However, in correspondence Rachel Cho sent to the Revdex.com, which was forwarded to me today, I was stunned to learn that Rachel Cho countered my complaint with the claim that their associate, Anya F[redacted], sought and received my approval on October ** before outsourcing my floral order to another florist. This claim is shocking for 2 reasons:- 1) it is not true; Anya F[redacted] did not contact me on October ** before outsourcing the order (the first time I corresponded with Ms. F[redacted] was on October ** when I called Rachel Cho to report my dissatisfaction) and 2) that Rachel Cho would put forward a claim that does not stand against available and verifiable evidence (there is no record of telephone or email correspondence in which I was contacted by Anya F[redacted] on October ** after placing my online order to authorize delivery of a floral arrangement by an alternate florist). If I had indeed authorized the alternate florist, there would not have been any reason to file a complaint with the Revdex.com. In fact, filing a complaint with the Revdex.com was the last resort after my email to Ms. F[redacted] dated October ** went unanswered. Just when I wanted to believe that Rachel Cho was truly interested in restoring my trust as a customer, their choice to respond with a (verifiably) false claim only further reinforces earlier indications - that also form the premise for my initial complaint - of a business philosophy not wholly committed to delivering the value it promises to the customer.Thank you for your attention.Yours sincerely,[redacted]
In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
sans-serif;">To Whom It May Concern: We are distressed to hear of [redacted]'s complaint and hope to dispel any lingering confusion or dissatisfaction. On Friday, October **, 2015 at 11:13am EST, we received an online order from [redacted]. The order was for our White on Black arrangement, and it was to be delivered to [redacted]. We are located in Manhattan ([redacted],) and only service the inner areas of the greater NYC area – specifically, Manhattan, near-Queens, near-Brooklyn, near-Bronx, Staten Island (with advance notice,) and near-New Jersey. Rockville Centre is out of our delivery range. However, we are members of a fine florist network, and routinely wire out deliveries to trusted florists who are local to the requested delivery zone. This fine florist network is only used in cases when an order is outside our delivery zone; we do not, under any circumstances, wire out orders that are within our delivery zone, no matter how busy the day may be. In addition, we never wire out-of-range floral orders without first receiving the customer’s permission. This was the case with [redacted] order. Upon seeing the delivery location of [redacted]’s order, Rachel Cho employee, Anya F[redacted], called [redacted] that same day to receive the client’s permission to wire her order out to a trusted member of the fine florist network. [redacted] agreed to this arrangement and the order was wired out. To further address [redacted]’s concerns, it should be noted that all members of the fine florist network are thoroughly vetted by the administrating body, as well as by the sending-florist. The largest qualifying factor for membership is that all florists agree to use only the freshest, premium-grade seasonal blooms to ensure quality. Furthermore, we at Rachel Cho always hand-pick the filling-florist we wire our orders to, carefully researching from the list of available fine florists in a given zip code. It should be noted that we are not able to control what another florist has in stock on any given day. Therefore, we stand behind the fact that [redacted]’s price point of $100 was honored, despite orchids not being used. The caliber and quality of the arrangement was maintained, as dictated by network-policy and as specified by Rachel Cho in our wired instructions. In conclusion, we regret any confusion or miscommunication that may have occurred as the result of these events. We resolve to very clearly state our general delivery policy with all customers going forward, and to detail our wiring policy with any customers placing orders outside our delivery zone. We will never wire out an order without the customer’s permission. We will continue to hold ourselves and all members of the fine florist network to the same high standards of quality as before. It is our goal to carefully tend to each order we receive, and to delight every sender and every recipient with our flowers. Therefore, as a token of good faith and to make amends for any miscommunication, I would like to extend a fifty-percent refund to [redacted]. Please expect to see the refund by the end of the business week (December [redacted] 2015.) Sincerely, Rachel C** Owner, Rachel Cho, Inc.
Revdex.com:At this time, I have not been contacted by Rachel Cho Inc. regarding complaint ID ***.Sincerely,*** ***
Revdex.com:
*, sought and received my approval on October ** before outsourcing my floral order to another florist This claim is shocking for reasons:- 1) it is not true; Anya F
* did not contact me on October ** before outsourcing the order (the first time I corresponded with MsF
* was on October ** when I called Rachel Cho to report my dissatisfaction) and 2) that Rachel Cho would put forward a claim that does not stand against available and verifiable evidence (there is no record of telephone or email correspondence in which I was contacted by Anya F
* on October ** after placing my online order to authorize delivery of a floral arrangement by an alternate florist) If I had indeed authorized the alternate florist, there would not have been any reason to file a complaint with the Revdex.com In fact, filing a complaint with the Revdex.com was the last resort after my email to MsF
* dated October ** went unanswered Just when I wanted to believe that Rachel Cho was truly interested in restoring my trust as a customer, their choice to respond with a (verifiably) claim only further reinforces earlier indications - that also form the premise for my initial complaint - of a business philosophy not wholly committed to delivering the value it promises to the customerThank you for your attentionYours sincerely,
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# ***, and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:
[Your Answer Here]
On Wednesday December **, I received an email from Rachel Cho Floral Design Inc expressing distress upon learning of my dissatisfaction with the floral order I placed on October **, This email contained an offer for a 50% refund of the price of my purchase and led me to believe that Rachel Cho was really invested in taking corrective measures to restore my trust as a customer However, in correspondence Rachel Cho sent to the Revdex.com, which was forwarded to me today, I was stunned to learn that Rachel Cho countered my complaint with the claim that their associate, Anya F
*** ***
In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above
Sincerely,
*** ***
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:
[Your Answer Here]
On Wednesday December **, I received an email from Rachel Cho Floral Design Inc expressing distress upon learning of my dissatisfaction with the floral order I placed on October **, 2015. This email contained an offer for a 50% refund of the price of my purchase and led me to believe that Rachel Cho was really invested in taking corrective measures to restore my trust as a customer. However, in correspondence Rachel Cho sent to the Revdex.com, which was forwarded to me today, I was stunned to learn that Rachel Cho countered my complaint with the claim that their associate, Anya F[redacted], sought and received my approval on October ** before outsourcing my floral order to another florist. This claim is shocking for 2 reasons:- 1) it is not true; Anya F[redacted] did not contact me on October ** before outsourcing the order (the first time I corresponded with Ms. F[redacted] was on October ** when I called Rachel Cho to report my dissatisfaction) and 2) that Rachel Cho would put forward a claim that does not stand against available and verifiable evidence (there is no record of telephone or email correspondence in which I was contacted by Anya F[redacted] on October ** after placing my online order to authorize delivery of a floral arrangement by an alternate florist). If I had indeed authorized the alternate florist, there would not have been any reason to file a complaint with the Revdex.com. In fact, filing a complaint with the Revdex.com was the last resort after my email to Ms. F[redacted] dated October ** went unanswered. Just when I wanted to believe that Rachel Cho was truly interested in restoring my trust as a customer, their choice to respond with a (verifiably) false claim only further reinforces earlier indications - that also form the premise for my initial complaint - of a business philosophy not wholly committed to delivering the value it promises to the customer.Thank you for your attention.Yours sincerely,[redacted]
In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
sans-serif;">To Whom It May Concern: We are distressed to hear of [redacted]'s complaint and hope to dispel any lingering confusion or dissatisfaction. On Friday, October **, 2015 at 11:13am EST, we received an online order from [redacted]. The order was for our White on Black arrangement, and it was to be delivered to [redacted]. We are located in Manhattan ([redacted],) and only service the inner areas of the greater NYC area – specifically, Manhattan, near-Queens, near-Brooklyn, near-Bronx, Staten Island (with advance notice,) and near-New Jersey. Rockville Centre is out of our delivery range. However, we are members of a fine florist network, and routinely wire out deliveries to trusted florists who are local to the requested delivery zone. This fine florist network is only used in cases when an order is outside our delivery zone; we do not, under any circumstances, wire out orders that are within our delivery zone, no matter how busy the day may be. In addition, we never wire out-of-range floral orders without first receiving the customer’s permission. This was the case with [redacted] order. Upon seeing the delivery location of [redacted]’s order, Rachel Cho employee, Anya F[redacted], called [redacted] that same day to receive the client’s permission to wire her order out to a trusted member of the fine florist network. [redacted] agreed to this arrangement and the order was wired out. To further address [redacted]’s concerns, it should be noted that all members of the fine florist network are thoroughly vetted by the administrating body, as well as by the sending-florist. The largest qualifying factor for membership is that all florists agree to use only the freshest, premium-grade seasonal blooms to ensure quality. Furthermore, we at Rachel Cho always hand-pick the filling-florist we wire our orders to, carefully researching from the list of available fine florists in a given zip code. It should be noted that we are not able to control what another florist has in stock on any given day. Therefore, we stand behind the fact that [redacted]’s price point of $100 was honored, despite orchids not being used. The caliber and quality of the arrangement was maintained, as dictated by network-policy and as specified by Rachel Cho in our wired instructions. In conclusion, we regret any confusion or miscommunication that may have occurred as the result of these events. We resolve to very clearly state our general delivery policy with all customers going forward, and to detail our wiring policy with any customers placing orders outside our delivery zone. We will never wire out an order without the customer’s permission. We will continue to hold ourselves and all members of the fine florist network to the same high standards of quality as before. It is our goal to carefully tend to each order we receive, and to delight every sender and every recipient with our flowers. Therefore, as a token of good faith and to make amends for any miscommunication, I would like to extend a fifty-percent refund to [redacted]. Please expect to see the refund by the end of the business week (December [redacted] 2015.) Sincerely, Rachel C** Owner, Rachel Cho, Inc.