Ms. [redacted]:I am writing in reference to complaint #[redacted], as...
a follow-up to a letter sent to you 1/28/2016. Mr. & Mrs. [redacted] came into M&M Floor Covering in 10/2014, looking for hardwood flooring, and did not want to consider other flooring, such as laminate. The [redacted]s chose Mohawk Armormax hardwood to be installed in their home, and signed a contract with M&M Floor Covering on 10/31/2014. Installation of the floor took place 2/4-18/2015, and Walter F. M[redacted] gave a copy of the warranty information, and information on how to care for the floor to Mrs. [redacted] on completion. On 5/6/2015, Mrs. [redacted] called M&M Floor Covering regarding scratches on her floor, so we called Mohawk who recommended Old English to minimize scratches. She called again on 7/30/2015, saying everything was scratching the floor. On 8/3/2015, Walter F. M[redacted] called Mohawk to file a claim, and sent three planks, as requested by Mohawk, to be tested. On 9/11/2015, Mike M[redacted] received a text from Mrs. [redacted] asking for information regarding the claim, as well as asking Mike to stop up to look at the floor. A call by Walter to Mohawk 9/11/2015 determined that the planks had been sent to testing 8/11/15, and should be back soon. On 10/6/2015, Walter again called Mohawk, and was told that the claim had been declined 9/16/2015; Walter asked that someone look at the floor at the house, and was told it would be sent to the claim’s analyst. Mike received another text regarding the floor on 11/12/2015, and Walter contacted [redacted] with Mohawk on 11/13/2015, and was asked to email info for the claim, which was done. On 12/1/2015, Mrs. [redacted] sent a text to Mike asking for all information regarding M&M Floor Covering’s contact with Mohawk on the claim, which he took to the house. While he was at the house delivering the information, Mrs. [redacted] stated that she may get a lawyer regarding this. On 1/15/2016, Walter J. M[redacted] contacted [redacted] again about the claim, and was given the name and address of an independent inspector to look at the floor. M&M Floor Covering contracted with [redacted] of [redacted] Services to look at the floor. Mr. [redacted] went to the [redacted]’s home on 2/1/2016 to inspect the floor, and sent a report to M&M Floor Covering on 2/9/2016. The conclusion of the report is that the scratches are consistent with damage from dogs’ nails, and that installation is within industry standards. Although there is a warranty on the floor, it is clear that damage by pet claws (nails) is not covered under that; the damages are not the result of either manufacturing defect or installation deficiency.I would ask that you please close this complaint, as the independent report shows that M&M Floor Covering is not responsible for the scratches to the floor.Sincerely,Walter M[redacted]M&M Floor Covering of New Castle
Ms. [redacted]:I am writing in reference to complaint #[redacted], as...
a follow-up to a letter sent to you 1/28/2016. Mr. & Mrs. [redacted] came into M&M Floor Covering in 10/2014, looking for hardwood flooring, and did not want to consider other flooring, such as laminate. The [redacted]s chose Mohawk Armormax hardwood to be installed in their home, and signed a contract with M&M Floor Covering on 10/31/2014. Installation of the floor took place 2/4-18/2015, and Walter F. M[redacted] gave a copy of the warranty information, and information on how to care for the floor to Mrs. [redacted] on completion. On 5/6/2015, Mrs. [redacted] called M&M Floor Covering regarding scratches on her floor, so we called Mohawk who recommended Old English to minimize scratches. She called again on 7/30/2015, saying everything was scratching the floor. On 8/3/2015, Walter F. M[redacted] called Mohawk to file a claim, and sent three planks, as requested by Mohawk, to be tested. On 9/11/2015, Mike M[redacted] received a text from Mrs. [redacted] asking for information regarding the claim, as well as asking Mike to stop up to look at the floor. A call by Walter to Mohawk 9/11/2015 determined that the planks had been sent to testing 8/11/15, and should be back soon. On 10/6/2015, Walter again called Mohawk, and was told that the claim had been declined 9/16/2015; Walter asked that someone look at the floor at the house, and was told it would be sent to the claim’s analyst. Mike received another text regarding the floor on 11/12/2015, and Walter contacted [redacted] with Mohawk on 11/13/2015, and was asked to email info for the claim, which was done. On 12/1/2015, Mrs. [redacted] sent a text to Mike asking for all information regarding M&M Floor Covering’s contact with Mohawk on the claim, which he took to the house. While he was at the house delivering the information, Mrs. [redacted] stated that she may get a lawyer regarding this. On 1/15/2016, Walter J. M[redacted] contacted [redacted] again about the claim, and was given the name and address of an independent inspector to look at the floor. M&M Floor Covering contracted with [redacted] of [redacted] Services to look at the floor. Mr. [redacted] went to the [redacted]’s home on 2/1/2016 to inspect the floor, and sent a report to M&M Floor Covering on 2/9/2016. The conclusion of the report is that the scratches are consistent with damage from dogs’ nails, and that installation is within industry standards. Although there is a warranty on the floor, it is clear that damage by pet claws (nails) is not covered under that; the damages are not the result of either manufacturing defect or installation deficiency.I would ask that you please close this complaint, as the independent report shows that M&M Floor Covering is not responsible for the scratches to the floor.Sincerely,Walter M[redacted]M&M Floor Covering of New Castle