I am rejecting this response because:The little bit of grass seed and fertilizer they sent did not help the lawn at all. The grass is dead everywhere. Please help me.
Again, Scotts Miracle Gro regrets that our consumer was not satisfied with the results after an application of Turf Builder Bonus S Southern Weed & Feed. We have received the original proof of purchase in the form of the original UPC bar codes from the product packaging. We also have on file, a copy of the store receipt showing a max refund value of $519.64 after a store discount was given. Unfortunately, we do not refund sales tax as this is due and payable to the state in which our consumer resides. To honor our guarantee, a refund check for the purchase amount $519.64 is in process and should be received within 10-14 business days.
The Scotts Company is not disputing the consumer’s lawn is in poor condition and made no mention that consumer did not attempt to prove his claim. Instead, the Scotts Company contends that evidence consumer provided does not confirm the damage is related to the use of a Scotts product. There are many variables that could cause this damage including, but not limited to, fungus, disease, drought and insect activity.There are no known issues with the product the consumer used and The Scotts Company denies any liability for damage. The Scotts Company made multiple attempts to resolve as a compromised customer service gesture but these offers have been rejected. Consumer's demand to have his lawn replaced is not reasonable or warranted.
The Scotts Miracle Gro Company apologizes that our consumer was receiving unwanted e-mails from our company. We have unsubscribed him from receiving further communications. Please note that this can take up to 10 business days to take effect.
** [redacted], I am sorry tohear about your concern. If you will advise if the address on this complaint is correct, I will forward you $8 in Miracle Gro Coupons.
I am responding to the response of [redacted] he states that hundreds of calls have been received from my family members this is not true .Our phone records will surely serve as evidence to this fact . As for the statement [redacted] is the broker for Scott's miracle company listed on policy is the [redacted] as the holder this is listed with [redacted]s supplier proof of insurance certificate of liability insurance for garden supplies at [redacted] a requirement that [redacted] requires for their suppliers this information is recorded with [redacted] I had an advocate forward the information to me si I could attempt to submit a claim Vericlaim is not allowing a claim to be submitted with the insurance company of Scott's / [redacted] . I have every right to file a claim with the insurance carrier not a suggestive third party that is not court ordered to handle the claims they are not licensed insurance adjusters . He claims that the mulch was purchased in March 2015 which is another lie by him it was purchased in April 2015 to be clear it was applied the next day after purchase I was told by the local [redacted] that the things I saw flying from the mulch were baby flies and was told I could use vinegar traps I am a naturalist and have every right not to use chemicals around my pets and myself and family they have no right to decide which alternative treatments [redacted] claims that my mom stated [redacted] is a friend is false we never have known him before he inspected the property prior to treatment he was the closest person that used the cryonite treatment aka dry ice . As for his accounting method of handwritten bills I believe no law says his bill invoices need to be computerized in no disrespect to him is business I am sure is not as commercialized as [redacted] .I have reached out to the exterminator and also forwarded him a copy of this complaint and the accusations of his business accounting methods he told me he had not received any contact from anyone other than my mom and myself . As for no proof that my home is half owned by my mom that is not true my mom is co owner of our home as for a release I will toward what [redacted] offered solely it clearly states nothing of releasing Scott's the bills were the 40 bags of mulch the removal of the infested mulch the repair of the eaves and the two treatments for the extermination the fence was a wooden privacy the damages to the fence and post I did not choose the vinyl fencing I would have chosen wooden over the vinyl I had to make an executive decision if I had only replaced portions of the wooden fence with vinyl I would have been in violation of city codes mixing vinyl and wood let alone the hodgepodge look of my property if I kept the wood and just replaced the wood sections there would be no guarantee that the termites would not eat the wood replaced termites do not eat plastic there is no way to fully eliminate termites that any company will guarantee [redacted] wanted me during our conversation to have [redacted] exterminate with chemicals who they have a contract with they would pay for two years treatments after that any termite warrantee would then turn hands to [redacted] he stated a couple wanted five years treatments and he said they told them absolutely not only two years Scott's has known of this termite problem for quite some time and all of this could have been prevented if they had recalled and discontinued this product the doj was sent a letter and an affadavavit of the facts and the conversation from [redacted] and the conversation from [redacted] mr [redacted] told me not to send any mulch back to Scott's he said it would not be a good idea I do not trust Scott's or vericlaims I have good reason not true they have told to many lies as for [redacted] I felt threatened by him I was advised by my treating doctors after they witnessed his behavior on the speaker phone when I was at my appointment when he called me and after speaking with my neighbor who witnessed his behavior outside my home it was later agreed by [redacted] who is [redacted] boss that was him outside my home by the description of my neighbors video of him and his grey Volkswagen with Delaware tags it was described as behavior erratic and violate . Someone else from vericlaim or Scott's or [redacted] or the insurance could have come to my property I reported to my local [redacted] in April and also Scott's customer service of the problem with the infested mulch I have no control when Scott's turned it over to [redacted] I was contacted on June 30 2015 from [redacted] at his home he said this was just thrown at him and he would contact me the following week after he had a meeting at Scott's corporate office my phone records will prove all phone calls to [redacted] and. Scott's to prove point of contact time frame . [redacted] letters date date of loss to be 2014 which is another lie . I never refused inspection of my property I feared for my safety because of [redacted] behavior verbally and physically it was vericlaims that denied sending another representative . As for my pets that died I never put a claim in at the time reason being they can't be replaced like a fence or repairs etc they were are babies and nothing I can do can bring them back it pains me that there death could have been prevented if the product was not sold to consumers it should have been recalled I will do everything in my power for them to get this product recalled as for the many lies told by [redacted] it was told to us that they wanted to see the dogs bodies to inspect of evidence of termites as for my property there is proper disclosure laws in real east ate that I will have to disclose the termite damage and deaths of my pets to potential buyers of the property as I was told by the realtor this will depreciate the property value . I will try to send email copies of proof of purchase and I will also forward a copy of letters from all parties please note it may arrive separately thank you for your patience please allow me a few hours to scan the documents and email them Sincerely [redacted]
rebate being denied by Scotts Miracle-Gro. The claim was closed on 5/30/2017 because Scotts Miracle-Gro gave the following reply on 5/18/2017:“I am sorry for the confusion on this matter. I have reviewed your submission to our rebate company and everything seems to be in order. I have asked them to generate a check to you for $100. I would give them 3-4 weeks to process the check.”Now 4 weeks already passed, I haven’t received the rebate check and online status of my rebate still shows INVALID.Would you please help me reopen the complaint?Your help will be highly appreciated!
[redacted]
I had provided copy of the receipt and the letter I had mailed in July. I also find it difficult to believe that they did not receive the letter. Their product stated No Quibble Guarantee for refund. However my son told me that they started questioning him about how could I need the amount of product I had purchased, Google map shows that my property is not that big. They also were asking details of place where it was applied etc. I had offered to send the UPC label, if they provide me a return label for a trackable postal service. They declined to even do that. If they are not willing to spend $5 on a return label, I doubt they are willing to honor the so called no quibble guarantee. This appears to be a sham and marketing gimic. IF I send the UPC, they are going to say that they did not receive that also and then I have no other prrof in my hand.I want to thank Revdex.com for the follow-up
Regards,
[redacted]
Customer alleges product damage to his lawn. A local
adjuster was sent to inspect and document the extent of damage to the
customer’s lawn. The local adjuster measured 3500 square feet of damage
that could potentially be related to the use of the product in question.
An estimate was prepared that included the removal and replacement of the
damaged areas, topsoil, water, labor, tax and the hauling away of all
debris. This estimate came to $3942.33 and an offer of this amount was
extended to the customer on 9-25-15.
Customer submitted an estimate for repairs to 6000 square feet
of damage. This is almost double the area noted by the local adjuster.
Further, the estimate submitted by customer includes repairs to anything
damaged during excavation including pipes, drain lines and phone. There is no
mention of providing a refund if these items are not damaged during
excavation. The estimate comes in at over $20,000. This is not a
reasonable estimate for the documented damages.
Customer has not provided any additional information that would
warrant a change in the offer. As a result, the original offer of
$3942.33 remains.
Scotts Miracle Gro regrets that our consumer was not satisfied with the results after using Ortho Weed B Gon. We are sorry to hear of our consumers' experience when contacting our helpline. We have processed a refund to honor our guarantee. Please allow 10-14 business days to receive the refund...
[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I reviewed the response made by the business and find the resolution is satisfactory to me.
Mr. [redacted], I am sorry for the confusion on this matter. I have reviewed your submission to our rebate company and everything seems to be in order. I have asked them to generate a check to you for $100. I would give them 3-4 weeks to process the check.
Consumer alleges he purchased 5 bags of Scotts Turf Builder SummerGuard and applied 4 of those bags to his lawn. A week later consumer saw some patches of burned grass appear. Consumer was advised Turf Builder is produced in large batches and when there is a bad mix it results in numerous similar claims. That has not been the case with this product. As a result there is no evidence that this is a malfunction on the part of the product. While there is no diagnosis of what caused his damage, it is possible the product was over applied or applied to a lawn that was already suffering stress unrelated to the product. Of note is the fact that consumer states he has a ½ acre lawn, which is about 22,000 square feet, and used 4 bags of product. Each bag covers 15,000 square feet when applied according to the instructions. Consumer used enough product to cover 60,000 square feet, or roughly 3 times the directed application rate. The guarantee on the label indicates consumer will be reimbursed the full purchase price of the product if consumer is not satisfied. Consumer was told on 9-25-17 that a check has been issued to consumer for a full refund of the 5 bags purchased. An additional offer of seed and fertilizer was extended but was rejected.
The Scotts Miracle Gro Company regrets that our consumer experienced a problem with his lawn after using Scotts Bonus S Southern Weed & Feed. We have received our consumer's proof of purchase, as requested. We are continuing to work with our consumer to obtain an equitable resolution. We...
are currently waiting to receive the additional items needed to review his claim.
We regret that our consumer did not obtain the desired results when using our Scotts EZ Seed. It is important that the seed be kept moist at all times so that the seed does not dry out during the germination process. Unfortunately, there are hundreds of weed seeds in the soil that can germinate along with the grass seed. Many of these weeds will die off with regular care and mowing of the new grass. When our consumer contacted us, we did make the offer of Ortho coupons to assist in the purchase of a Weed B Gon product to help eliminate the weeds. Our consumer has rejected this offer. We have, in good faith, refunded our consumer for the 2 containers of EZ Seed that she purchased. Unfortunately, our offer does not extend to lawn repair, water, professional labor or other supplies.
I reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find the resolution is satisfactory to me.
Regards, [redacted]
Your further assistance is requested.There was no message from anyone included in your below 2/22/16 communication. Therefore, I have nothing to respond to (in your Revdex.com answer selections).I faxed you additional background information 2/23/16.Your assistance is appreciated.
Per our telephone discussion today, please allow the following to serve as The Scotts Company, LLC response to the Revdex.com complaint #[redacted] filed by the claimant, [redacted].As you are aware, vrs>>vericlaim, Inc. (“VC”) is the third-party claims administrator for The Scotts Company, LLC...
(“Scotts”) and this matter was submitted to our direction for investigation, evaluation and proper disposition of this claim. As stated this morning, I would estimate hundreds of calls have been received by multiple parties at VC, Scotts, [redacted] and [redacted] from the claimant, her mother and brother. Further, in addition to the Revdex.com complaint we’ve received calls from Scotts broker, and multiple unrelated insurance companies stating the claimant has called them wanted to present a claim against Scotts GL insurance policy. Since the [redacted]’ have no idea who’s Scotts GL carrier is, they’ve been contacting random carriers and making claims, so we’ve been compelled to reply to these Insurance Companies and confirm they 1) have no coverage for Scotts GL claims and 2) are not party to this matter.VC’s initial contact was made by me with Ms. [redacted] on 6/30/15. We discussed her allegations in a 45minute-1 hour phone call. Ms. [redacted] alleged to have applied multiple bags of Scotts Mulch to the planting beds on her property. She purchased the product in March 2015, but claims to have not applied it until the 1st of April (approximately). Why she took 2 months to report what she purports to be “flying ant/termites” that she believes came from Scotts product, is unknown?Further, Ms. [redacted] made it abundantly clear during that call that she would not have chemicals in or near her home, and she refused to call or allow any exterminators access to her property to try and resolve the alleged termite issue. She stated she wanted to try to resolve the termite issues via natural extermination ie vinegar, honey or dry ice? We then discussed 1) removing the mulch, which had already been done by the claimant directly and 2) repair estimates/phots of her eaves/fence – Eaves were already repaired, but she agreed to provide invoices and estimate for vinyl fence. Lastly, Ms. [redacted] informed me she was consulting her attorney the following day to evaluate her rights. I did confirm she was not represented by counsel during our conversation.Prior to completion of the above call, I recommended we have a local adjuster visit the property and scope the damage and evaluate the extent and/or how old the damages were, if possible? She seemed agreeable, but how we were to resolve the issues given her demands and disposing of evidence was obviously making resolution difficult from the onset.It was our initial impression, which we still believe to be the case today, that the damage claims (fence/eaves) were vastly overblown and is why we were not provided access to that evidence. We find it unlikely, but at a minimum extremely suspicious that in 60 days damage would be severe enough where an entire fence needs to be replaced, but not provide us access to that day? My suspicion is she found some modest termite damage to her wood eaves/fence and because she did not want chemicals on/near her property, her solution was to remove the items altogether since termites (as she stated) were active. She would then demand Scotts/HD pay for the new vinyl/termite free fence/eaves. This is only my subjective opinion and no evidence has been received to support this theory as the claimant discarded all evidence prior to any site inspection.7/1/15, the day following my initial contact with [redacted], we assigned the local site investigation it to my VC associate, [redacted] , [redacted]. On 7/7/15 [redacted] was visiting another location for a separate claim in Ms. [redacted]’ vicinity and attempted to cold call her to complete his inspection. In hind sight, obviously it would have been better for [redacted] to set an appointment, but this location is approximately 2 ½ hours from [redacted]’s office, so since he was in the area felt attempting to scope the property as he had unexpected time availability would please most potential claimants as he expected they wanted the damaged witnessed, photographed and scoped as soon as possible.[redacted] report and summary is attached. In short the claimant alleged to have not been home, refused him access or to assist him with directions and when he suggested another meeting, she stated she wanted to consult her attorney first. At this point and for the coming weeks we had no further contact with the claimant, [redacted], but her mother [redacted] began to contact us on a daily basis. When asked how she had standing to pursue this claim, Mrs. [redacted] stated she owned half the subject property and stated she “was fixing the issues, not waiting around for Scotts” and had ordered the replacement fence, though it was not installed yet. She also claimed that [redacted] used profane language and was rude to her, which he completely refutes. Mrs. [redacted] went on to state that she helped remove the mulch and would continually advise she was 80 years old and under 100lbs in weight. We have yet to receive proof from Mrs. [redacted] that she owns ½ of this property and has standing to make any claim in this case.Mrs. [redacted] provided us a handwritten invoice she claims was “a friend and exterminator” she contends confirms termites. Even if we were to stipulate to this conclusion and not question the alleged exterminators credentials or relationship to the claimant, there was nothing received to support the termites were from the Scotts mulch product.In conjunction with the above handwritten invoice, we also received invoice in excess of $11k for the eaves and fence replacement the claimant was completing to her home.As this matter was clearly spiraling and we were nowhere near a resolution in this matter, on 7/29/15 we recommended to Scotts that the claim be denied officially as we saw no opportunity for a customer service resolution due to the claimant and her mother’s entrenched position on settlement. The denial letter is attached.On this date we both verbally and in writing denied this matter. We received 2 voice message from [redacted] that same date, but never made direct contact. However, we did speak with her mother, [redacted] on this date and it was at this time, approximately 30 days into our investigation, she claimed to have an unopened bag of mulch with termite visible within the bag. She never mentioned it in our multiple previous conversation and she further claimed during that same conversation that Ms. [redacted]’s cat died and dog was made sick as a result of these termites. We offered to have Scotts send a retrieval package for the unopened bag of mulch and we would accept their termite claim if, as she stated, the bag was not tampered with and termites were confirmed. She refused, told me she was hiring an attorney, contacting my supervisor and VC upper management (which she did do), Scotts CEO and the US Justice Department. The call ended abruptly and I have had no direct contact with either Ms. [redacted] since, but have received numerous telephone calls, legal threats and complaints from her mother, Mrs. [redacted].On 8/4/15 we completed a conference call with both Scotts representatives and [redacted]’s Executive Escalation Committee and Scotts agreed to contribute $1,000 toward any customer service related resolution that HD could negotiate with Ms. [redacted] pending Scotts be named and received a full release of all claims. Further, given both Ms. [redacted] and Mrs. [redacted]’s disposition toward VeriClaim and Scotts, we also agreed the [redacted] would be the primary negotiating contact in this case going forward. That has since changed.On 10/26/15 (attached) we issued a more detailed denial letter on behalf of HD, Scotts, [redacted] and VC addressed to the claimant, [redacted], her brother, [redacted] and her mother, [redacted] specifically outlining when their claim was denied and providing them specifics as the Statute of Limitations in this matter. I have since had heated conversations with the brother, [redacted] that ended with him hanging up on me and accusing us of demanding they have their dogs remains exhumed for testing. This is completely untrue, added to the long list of supposed accusations made by these individuals, but no such demands were discussed let alone made to the [redacted]’.Scotts remains willing to attempt a nominal customer service resolution in this matter pending receipt of a fully executed release of all claims alleged by the claimant, her brother and her mother against Scotts and [redacted], but as of now the matter has been denied in writing twice and verbally on countless occasions by Scotts, [redacted], [redacted] and VC.It is my opinion, Scotts and/or [redacted] may need to involve their attorneys to demand cease/desist actions be taken against the [redacted]’ via the legal system and/or insist they retain legal representation and pursue what means they deem necessary, but the ongoing harassment of Scotts, HD, VC and [redacted] will have to be addressed soon.Please advise with any further questions or comments.Regards,[redacted]
[redacted]Office: ###-###-#### efax: ###-###-#### [redacted]
I reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find the resolution is satisfactory to me. Not really but we just wont purchase any more Aerogarden items.
I am rejecting this response because: The guarantee does not indicate the replacement cost of the purchase price of the product on the bags. It indicates a no quibble guarantee leaving open the remedy of the issue. The product indicates will not burn your lawn in bold print on the face of the package in the largest type face. The product does not discuss over use and in fact in the directions tells consumers to overlap the product while spreading it. If the burning or damage issue was a known side effect of too much product it should have been clearly specified as a risk and possibly a void of the warranty/guaranty. Remember if it is not specifically spelled out as a consumer product and damage can happen we need to be warned. The seed offered was insufficient to replace the damaged areas of the lawn. The company did receive pictures of the lawn before the damage showing no stress.The damage remains. This was not a matter of over use. There are areas of dead lawn next to perfectly green lawn. A representative from the company should have come out to see this issue as I requested many times. With a known name like Scotts you would think that the consumer relations department would be invested in actually seeing and developing a dialogue with it's customers outside of saying what I as a consumer cannot prove, (the quality of the other batches), (no other customer complaints). I know that I take a lot of pride in my property and the lawn. It was looking good this year, in fact it looked it's best this year. After the placement of the Scotts product it was ruined and an eye sore. Scotts asked for an estimate for repair for what I thought was a good faith decision to take care of their customer as indicated in the no quibble guaranty. It seems this too is a marketing ploy.
I am rejecting this response because:The little bit of grass seed and fertilizer they sent did not help the lawn at all. The grass is dead everywhere. Please help me.
Again, Scotts Miracle Gro regrets that our consumer was not satisfied with the results after an application of Turf Builder Bonus S Southern Weed & Feed. We have received the original proof of purchase in the form of the original UPC bar codes from the product packaging. We also have on file, a copy of the store receipt showing a max refund value of $519.64 after a store discount was given. Unfortunately, we do not refund sales tax as this is due and payable to the state in which our consumer resides. To honor our guarantee, a refund check for the purchase amount $519.64 is in process and should be received within 10-14 business days.
The Scotts Company is not disputing the consumer’s lawn is in poor condition and made no mention that consumer did not attempt to prove his claim. Instead, the Scotts Company contends that evidence consumer provided does not confirm the damage is related to the use of a Scotts product. There are many variables that could cause this damage including, but not limited to, fungus, disease, drought and insect activity.There are no known issues with the product the consumer used and The Scotts Company denies any liability for damage. The Scotts Company made multiple attempts to resolve as a compromised customer service gesture but these offers have been rejected. Consumer's demand to have his lawn replaced is not reasonable or warranted.
The Scotts Miracle Gro Company apologizes that our consumer was receiving unwanted e-mails from our company. We have unsubscribed him from receiving further communications. Please note that this can take up to 10 business days to take effect.
** [redacted], I am sorry tohear about your concern. If you will advise if the address on this complaint is correct, I will forward you $8 in Miracle Gro Coupons.
I am responding to the response of [redacted] he states that hundreds of calls have been received from my family members this is not true .Our phone records will surely serve as evidence to this fact . As for the statement [redacted] is the broker for Scott's miracle company listed on policy is the [redacted] as the holder this is listed with [redacted]s supplier proof of insurance certificate of liability insurance for garden supplies at [redacted] a requirement that [redacted] requires for their suppliers this information is recorded with [redacted] I had an advocate forward the information to me si I could attempt to submit a claim Vericlaim is not allowing a claim to be submitted with the insurance company of Scott's / [redacted] . I have every right to file a claim with the insurance carrier not a suggestive third party that is not court ordered to handle the claims they are not licensed insurance adjusters . He claims that the mulch was purchased in March 2015 which is another lie by him it was purchased in April 2015 to be clear it was applied the next day after purchase I was told by the local [redacted] that the things I saw flying from the mulch were baby flies and was told I could use vinegar traps I am a naturalist and have every right not to use chemicals around my pets and myself and family they have no right to decide which alternative treatments [redacted] claims that my mom stated [redacted] is a friend is false we never have known him before he inspected the property prior to treatment he was the closest person that used the cryonite treatment aka dry ice . As for his accounting method of handwritten bills I believe no law says his bill invoices need to be computerized in no disrespect to him is business I am sure is not as commercialized as [redacted] .I have reached out to the exterminator and also forwarded him a copy of this complaint and the accusations of his business accounting methods he told me he had not received any contact from anyone other than my mom and myself . As for no proof that my home is half owned by my mom that is not true my mom is co owner of our home as for a release I will toward what [redacted] offered solely it clearly states nothing of releasing Scott's the bills were the 40 bags of mulch the removal of the infested mulch the repair of the eaves and the two treatments for the extermination the fence was a wooden privacy the damages to the fence and post I did not choose the vinyl fencing I would have chosen wooden over the vinyl I had to make an executive decision if I had only replaced portions of the wooden fence with vinyl I would have been in violation of city codes mixing vinyl and wood let alone the hodgepodge look of my property if I kept the wood and just replaced the wood sections there would be no guarantee that the termites would not eat the wood replaced termites do not eat plastic there is no way to fully eliminate termites that any company will guarantee [redacted] wanted me during our conversation to have [redacted] exterminate with chemicals who they have a contract with they would pay for two years treatments after that any termite warrantee would then turn hands to [redacted] he stated a couple wanted five years treatments and he said they told them absolutely not only two years Scott's has known of this termite problem for quite some time and all of this could have been prevented if they had recalled and discontinued this product the doj was sent a letter and an affadavavit of the facts and the conversation from [redacted] and the conversation from [redacted] mr [redacted] told me not to send any mulch back to Scott's he said it would not be a good idea I do not trust Scott's or vericlaims I have good reason not true they have told to many lies as for [redacted] I felt threatened by him I was advised by my treating doctors after they witnessed his behavior on the speaker phone when I was at my appointment when he called me and after speaking with my neighbor who witnessed his behavior outside my home it was later agreed by [redacted] who is [redacted] boss that was him outside my home by the description of my neighbors video of him and his grey Volkswagen with Delaware tags it was described as behavior erratic and violate . Someone else from vericlaim or Scott's or [redacted] or the insurance could have come to my property I reported to my local [redacted] in April and also Scott's customer service of the problem with the infested mulch I have no control when Scott's turned it over to [redacted] I was contacted on June 30 2015 from [redacted] at his home he said this was just thrown at him and he would contact me the following week after he had a meeting at Scott's corporate office my phone records will prove all phone calls to [redacted] and. Scott's to prove point of contact time frame . [redacted] letters date date of loss to be 2014 which is another lie . I never refused inspection of my property I feared for my safety because of [redacted] behavior verbally and physically it was vericlaims that denied sending another representative . As for my pets that died I never put a claim in at the time reason being they can't be replaced like a fence or repairs etc they were are babies and nothing I can do can bring them back it pains me that there death could have been prevented if the product was not sold to consumers it should have been recalled I will do everything in my power for them to get this product recalled as for the many lies told by [redacted] it was told to us that they wanted to see the dogs bodies to inspect of evidence of termites as for my property there is proper disclosure laws in real east ate that I will have to disclose the termite damage and deaths of my pets to potential buyers of the property as I was told by the realtor this will depreciate the property value . I will try to send email copies of proof of purchase and I will also forward a copy of letters from all parties please note it may arrive separately thank you for your patience please allow me a few hours to scan the documents and email them Sincerely [redacted]
I have a Complaint ID # [redacted] on an...
rebate being denied by Scotts Miracle-Gro. The claim was closed on 5/30/2017 because Scotts Miracle-Gro gave the following reply on 5/18/2017:“I am sorry for the confusion on this matter. I have reviewed your submission to our rebate company and everything seems to be in order. I have asked them to generate a check to you for $100. I would give them 3-4 weeks to process the check.”Now 4 weeks already passed, I haven’t received the rebate check and online status of my rebate still shows INVALID.Would you please help me reopen the complaint?Your help will be highly appreciated!
[redacted]
I had provided copy of the receipt and the letter I had mailed in July. I also find it difficult to believe that they did not receive the letter. Their product stated No Quibble Guarantee for refund. However my son told me that they started questioning him about how could I need the amount of product I had purchased, Google map shows that my property is not that big. They also were asking details of place where it was applied etc. I had offered to send the UPC label, if they provide me a return label for a trackable postal service. They declined to even do that. If they are not willing to spend $5 on a return label, I doubt they are willing to honor the so called no quibble guarantee. This appears to be a sham and marketing gimic. IF I send the UPC, they are going to say that they did not receive that also and then I have no other prrof in my hand.I want to thank Revdex.com for the follow-up
Regards,
[redacted]
Customer alleges product damage to his lawn. A local
adjuster was sent to inspect and document the extent of damage to the
customer’s lawn. The local adjuster measured 3500 square feet of damage
that could potentially be related to the use of the product in question.
An estimate was prepared that included the removal and replacement of the
damaged areas, topsoil, water, labor, tax and the hauling away of all
debris. This estimate came to $3942.33 and an offer of this amount was
extended to the customer on 9-25-15.
Customer submitted an estimate for repairs to 6000 square feet
of damage. This is almost double the area noted by the local adjuster.
Further, the estimate submitted by customer includes repairs to anything
damaged during excavation including pipes, drain lines and phone. There is no
mention of providing a refund if these items are not damaged during
excavation. The estimate comes in at over $20,000. This is not a
reasonable estimate for the documented damages.
Customer has not provided any additional information that would
warrant a change in the offer. As a result, the original offer of
$3942.33 remains.
Scotts Miracle Gro regrets that our consumer was not satisfied with the results after using Ortho Weed B Gon. We are sorry to hear of our consumers' experience when contacting our helpline. We have processed a refund to honor our guarantee. Please allow 10-14 business days to receive the refund...
check.
[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I reviewed the response made by the business and find the resolution is satisfactory to me.
Mr. [redacted], I am sorry for the confusion on this matter. I have reviewed your submission to our rebate company and everything seems to be in order. I have asked them to generate a check to you for $100. I would give them 3-4 weeks to process the check.
Consumer alleges he purchased 5 bags of Scotts Turf Builder SummerGuard and applied 4 of those bags to his lawn. A week later consumer saw some patches of burned grass appear. Consumer was advised Turf Builder is produced in large batches and when there is a bad mix it results in numerous similar claims. That has not been the case with this product. As a result there is no evidence that this is a malfunction on the part of the product. While there is no diagnosis of what caused his damage, it is possible the product was over applied or applied to a lawn that was already suffering stress unrelated to the product. Of note is the fact that consumer states he has a ½ acre lawn, which is about 22,000 square feet, and used 4 bags of product. Each bag covers 15,000 square feet when applied according to the instructions. Consumer used enough product to cover 60,000 square feet, or roughly 3 times the directed application rate. The guarantee on the label indicates consumer will be reimbursed the full purchase price of the product if consumer is not satisfied. Consumer was told on 9-25-17 that a check has been issued to consumer for a full refund of the 5 bags purchased. An additional offer of seed and fertilizer was extended but was rejected.
The Scotts Miracle Gro Company regrets that our consumer experienced a problem with his lawn after using Scotts Bonus S Southern Weed & Feed. We have received our consumer's proof of purchase, as requested. We are continuing to work with our consumer to obtain an equitable resolution. We...
are currently waiting to receive the additional items needed to review his claim.
We regret that our consumer did not obtain the desired results when using our Scotts EZ Seed. It is important that the seed be kept moist at all times so that the seed does not dry out during the germination process. Unfortunately, there are hundreds of weed seeds in the soil that can germinate along with the grass seed. Many of these weeds will die off with regular care and mowing of the new grass. When our consumer contacted us, we did make the offer of Ortho coupons to assist in the purchase of a Weed B Gon product to help eliminate the weeds. Our consumer has rejected this offer. We have, in good faith, refunded our consumer for the 2 containers of EZ Seed that she purchased. Unfortunately, our offer does not extend to lawn repair, water, professional labor or other supplies.
I reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find the resolution is satisfactory to me.
Regards, [redacted]
Your further assistance is requested.There was no message from anyone included in your below 2/22/16 communication. Therefore, I have nothing to respond to (in your Revdex.com answer selections).I faxed you additional background information 2/23/16.Your assistance is appreciated.
Per our telephone discussion today, please allow the following to serve as The Scotts Company, LLC response to the Revdex.com complaint #[redacted] filed by the claimant, [redacted].As you are aware, vrs>>vericlaim, Inc. (“VC”) is the third-party claims administrator for The Scotts Company, LLC...
(“Scotts”) and this matter was submitted to our direction for investigation, evaluation and proper disposition of this claim. As stated this morning, I would estimate hundreds of calls have been received by multiple parties at VC, Scotts, [redacted] and [redacted] from the claimant, her mother and brother. Further, in addition to the Revdex.com complaint we’ve received calls from Scotts broker, and multiple unrelated insurance companies stating the claimant has called them wanted to present a claim against Scotts GL insurance policy. Since the [redacted]’ have no idea who’s Scotts GL carrier is, they’ve been contacting random carriers and making claims, so we’ve been compelled to reply to these Insurance Companies and confirm they 1) have no coverage for Scotts GL claims and 2) are not party to this matter.VC’s initial contact was made by me with Ms. [redacted] on 6/30/15. We discussed her allegations in a 45minute-1 hour phone call. Ms. [redacted] alleged to have applied multiple bags of Scotts Mulch to the planting beds on her property. She purchased the product in March 2015, but claims to have not applied it until the 1st of April (approximately). Why she took 2 months to report what she purports to be “flying ant/termites” that she believes came from Scotts product, is unknown?Further, Ms. [redacted] made it abundantly clear during that call that she would not have chemicals in or near her home, and she refused to call or allow any exterminators access to her property to try and resolve the alleged termite issue. She stated she wanted to try to resolve the termite issues via natural extermination ie vinegar, honey or dry ice? We then discussed 1) removing the mulch, which had already been done by the claimant directly and 2) repair estimates/phots of her eaves/fence – Eaves were already repaired, but she agreed to provide invoices and estimate for vinyl fence. Lastly, Ms. [redacted] informed me she was consulting her attorney the following day to evaluate her rights. I did confirm she was not represented by counsel during our conversation.Prior to completion of the above call, I recommended we have a local adjuster visit the property and scope the damage and evaluate the extent and/or how old the damages were, if possible? She seemed agreeable, but how we were to resolve the issues given her demands and disposing of evidence was obviously making resolution difficult from the onset.It was our initial impression, which we still believe to be the case today, that the damage claims (fence/eaves) were vastly overblown and is why we were not provided access to that evidence. We find it unlikely, but at a minimum extremely suspicious that in 60 days damage would be severe enough where an entire fence needs to be replaced, but not provide us access to that day? My suspicion is she found some modest termite damage to her wood eaves/fence and because she did not want chemicals on/near her property, her solution was to remove the items altogether since termites (as she stated) were active. She would then demand Scotts/HD pay for the new vinyl/termite free fence/eaves. This is only my subjective opinion and no evidence has been received to support this theory as the claimant discarded all evidence prior to any site inspection.7/1/15, the day following my initial contact with [redacted], we assigned the local site investigation it to my VC associate, [redacted] , [redacted]. On 7/7/15 [redacted] was visiting another location for a separate claim in Ms. [redacted]’ vicinity and attempted to cold call her to complete his inspection. In hind sight, obviously it would have been better for [redacted] to set an appointment, but this location is approximately 2 ½ hours from [redacted]’s office, so since he was in the area felt attempting to scope the property as he had unexpected time availability would please most potential claimants as he expected they wanted the damaged witnessed, photographed and scoped as soon as possible.[redacted] report and summary is attached. In short the claimant alleged to have not been home, refused him access or to assist him with directions and when he suggested another meeting, she stated she wanted to consult her attorney first. At this point and for the coming weeks we had no further contact with the claimant, [redacted], but her mother [redacted] began to contact us on a daily basis. When asked how she had standing to pursue this claim, Mrs. [redacted] stated she owned half the subject property and stated she “was fixing the issues, not waiting around for Scotts” and had ordered the replacement fence, though it was not installed yet. She also claimed that [redacted] used profane language and was rude to her, which he completely refutes. Mrs. [redacted] went on to state that she helped remove the mulch and would continually advise she was 80 years old and under 100lbs in weight. We have yet to receive proof from Mrs. [redacted] that she owns ½ of this property and has standing to make any claim in this case.Mrs. [redacted] provided us a handwritten invoice she claims was “a friend and exterminator” she contends confirms termites. Even if we were to stipulate to this conclusion and not question the alleged exterminators credentials or relationship to the claimant, there was nothing received to support the termites were from the Scotts mulch product.In conjunction with the above handwritten invoice, we also received invoice in excess of $11k for the eaves and fence replacement the claimant was completing to her home.As this matter was clearly spiraling and we were nowhere near a resolution in this matter, on 7/29/15 we recommended to Scotts that the claim be denied officially as we saw no opportunity for a customer service resolution due to the claimant and her mother’s entrenched position on settlement. The denial letter is attached.On this date we both verbally and in writing denied this matter. We received 2 voice message from [redacted] that same date, but never made direct contact. However, we did speak with her mother, [redacted] on this date and it was at this time, approximately 30 days into our investigation, she claimed to have an unopened bag of mulch with termite visible within the bag. She never mentioned it in our multiple previous conversation and she further claimed during that same conversation that Ms. [redacted]’s cat died and dog was made sick as a result of these termites. We offered to have Scotts send a retrieval package for the unopened bag of mulch and we would accept their termite claim if, as she stated, the bag was not tampered with and termites were confirmed. She refused, told me she was hiring an attorney, contacting my supervisor and VC upper management (which she did do), Scotts CEO and the US Justice Department. The call ended abruptly and I have had no direct contact with either Ms. [redacted] since, but have received numerous telephone calls, legal threats and complaints from her mother, Mrs. [redacted].On 8/4/15 we completed a conference call with both Scotts representatives and [redacted]’s Executive Escalation Committee and Scotts agreed to contribute $1,000 toward any customer service related resolution that HD could negotiate with Ms. [redacted] pending Scotts be named and received a full release of all claims. Further, given both Ms. [redacted] and Mrs. [redacted]’s disposition toward VeriClaim and Scotts, we also agreed the [redacted] would be the primary negotiating contact in this case going forward. That has since changed.On 10/26/15 (attached) we issued a more detailed denial letter on behalf of HD, Scotts, [redacted] and VC addressed to the claimant, [redacted], her brother, [redacted] and her mother, [redacted] specifically outlining when their claim was denied and providing them specifics as the Statute of Limitations in this matter. I have since had heated conversations with the brother, [redacted] that ended with him hanging up on me and accusing us of demanding they have their dogs remains exhumed for testing. This is completely untrue, added to the long list of supposed accusations made by these individuals, but no such demands were discussed let alone made to the [redacted]’.Scotts remains willing to attempt a nominal customer service resolution in this matter pending receipt of a fully executed release of all claims alleged by the claimant, her brother and her mother against Scotts and [redacted], but as of now the matter has been denied in writing twice and verbally on countless occasions by Scotts, [redacted], [redacted] and VC.It is my opinion, Scotts and/or [redacted] may need to involve their attorneys to demand cease/desist actions be taken against the [redacted]’ via the legal system and/or insist they retain legal representation and pursue what means they deem necessary, but the ongoing harassment of Scotts, HD, VC and [redacted] will have to be addressed soon.Please advise with any further questions or comments.Regards,[redacted]
[redacted]Office: ###-###-#### efax: ###-###-#### [redacted]
I reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find the resolution is satisfactory to me. Not really but we just wont purchase any more Aerogarden items.
I am rejecting this response because: The guarantee does not indicate the replacement cost of the purchase price of the product on the bags. It indicates a no quibble guarantee leaving open the remedy of the issue. The product indicates will not burn your lawn in bold print on the face of the package in the largest type face. The product does not discuss over use and in fact in the directions tells consumers to overlap the product while spreading it. If the burning or damage issue was a known side effect of too much product it should have been clearly specified as a risk and possibly a void of the warranty/guaranty. Remember if it is not specifically spelled out as a consumer product and damage can happen we need to be warned. The seed offered was insufficient to replace the damaged areas of the lawn. The company did receive pictures of the lawn before the damage showing no stress.The damage remains. This was not a matter of over use. There are areas of dead lawn next to perfectly green lawn. A representative from the company should have come out to see this issue as I requested many times. With a known name like Scotts you would think that the consumer relations department would be invested in actually seeing and developing a dialogue with it's customers outside of saying what I as a consumer cannot prove, (the quality of the other batches), (no other customer complaints). I know that I take a lot of pride in my property and the lawn. It was looking good this year, in fact it looked it's best this year. After the placement of the Scotts product it was ruined and an eye sore. Scotts asked for an estimate for repair for what I thought was a good faith decision to take care of their customer as indicated in the no quibble guaranty. It seems this too is a marketing ploy.