Simple Moving Labor

Mrs[redacted] entered into a HHGs (household goods) moving
contract with SML Relocation to move her items from NY to FLThis contract
specifically requires each customer to select in writing a valuation option
Mrs[redacted] waived her option for Increase Carrier Valuation (ICV)
and opted
to select a more economical valuation called Released Value Valuation (RVV) Below is a quick reference of these different
levels of valuation:
·
ICV:
helps to protect the actual value of HHGs
up to the amount of the accepted declared value or the full cost of repair
to the damaged [approved] item(s)
o
ICV is generally sold as a ‘full-coverage'
valuation option, available for purchase above the cost of the move
·
RVV:
provides repair or replacement for up to a
maximum of $per pound per [approved] item
o
RVV is the minimum liability valuation option
required by law for all interstate moving companies to include at no additional
cost
Mrs[redacted] makes reference to a vehicle accident during
her moveWhile this has no relevance on the valuation or compensation of
potentially damage items, here are the facts: During the course of the move, as
our company driver was in route to delivery, he completed an illegal u-turn
This resulted in a minor accident & a citationOur crew onsite transferred
the HHGs into a sub-truck and the items were delivered to Mrs[redacted]'s
destination address that same day
After the move was completed, Mrs[redacted] followed the
steps required by every customer to submit a claim. Upon receipt, our office immediately began to
process the claim Relevant notes regarding
this claim, and specific to Mrs[redacted]'s Revdex.com complaints are below:
1.
As noted in her complaint, Mrs[redacted] is not
disputing her selection of RVV, nor her understanding of the compensation
level
2.
Regardless of where/how alleged damage may occur,
our claims process will settle any approved claim per the customer selected
valuationThat said, regardless if Mrs[redacted]'s items were possibly damaged
during the loading process, while in transit (vibrations of a truck or while
being transferred from one truck to another), or during the unloading process
the settlement amount would be the same for any approved item – per her
pre-selected valuation choice
3.
Mrs[redacted] selected the RVV option per the
attached Service Agreement and Addendum
4.
Our office did not decline or question any item
Mrs[redacted] submittedWe approved everything per the terms of the agreement
5.
Regarding the weights used for settlement: RVV
addresses this specifically:
a.
"RVV will fix or replace your items at a rate
schedule of $cents per pound per item as determined by the US Dot
standard weights and measures"
b.
Each of the twenty-three (23) HHG items Mrs
[redacted] included in her claim were individually identified per the US Dot
standard weights and measuresTheir sum weight totaled to 898lbsc.
Per Released Value Valuation (RVV) - This
resulted in a HHGs settlement check of $
6.
Regarding Mrs[redacted]'s towed vehicle: Mrs[redacted]
also filed a claim for a scratch on her vehicle (also contracted to be
transported by SML Relocation)While the placement of this scratch is
completely inconsistent with moving the vehicle on and off the towing
equipment, our office internally agreed to approve compensation as ‘customer
satisfaction'a.
Our office verbally requested Mrs[redacted] to
submit her own suggested settlement amountb.
Under no direction or suggestion of our office,
Mrs[redacted] provided us with the settlement amount of $for the alleged vehicle
scratchc.
As noted, our office approved this claim without
further question
d.
As we do with every customer who files a claim
for a damage vehicle, our office asked Mrs[redacted] to sign a vehicle damage
release & settlement letterUpon its receipt our office immediately
drafted and mailed the agreed upon check for $
Our office was unaware of Mrs[redacted]'s dissatisfaction
regarding her claim settlement until the date of this Revdex.com submission (she sent
our office an email stating the same things on the same date)
After this additional review, our office concludes that upon
the completion of Mrs[redacted]'s move, her claims were processed quickly and
accurately. We do wish to extend our apologies for the damage that occurred during the shipment of her HHGs. We strive to have zero damage and have an industry best damage claim rate of <5.0% of all shipments we carry. Unfortunately accidents happen in this business and that is why we offer multiple levels of valuation. Unfortunately the valuation selected by Mrs[redacted] is the free RVV and per the terms of the valuation and our agreement we have fulfilled our obligation regarding this claim. Based on these facts and the amount already awarded to Mrs[redacted] (a total of $788.80) we now consider this matter closed and we wish Mrs[redacted] the best of luck at her new home

The helpers did not have identification (one
helper had identification). I have no idea if the person allegedly on the paper
was the person I was letting into my home. I am not paying for service that I did not receive! I think it is important that
your future customers know that you are asking them to let individuals
in their home without any type of identification; this is certainly unsafe
employment practices.  A name on a paper is not identification. 
In addition to seeking a FULL REFUND, I am also
seeking reimbursement for having to stay in Lafayette an extra day (Hilton Hotel). I was not able to obtain additional help due to the
short notice. If this matter is not resolved through the Revdex.com, I have every intention
on taking this matter to small claims. I also think some of the local news will
have an interest in this story and SML’s unsafe employment practices. ~ Dr.
Harris

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my dispute.
Please enter your reason(s) for rejecting the business response below.
Regards,
[redacted]
I never received the refund amount stated here I will accept if they offer me 200 credit if not I will continue the complaint

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:On behalf of the firm, Mr [redacted] supports my position by his comments and photographs.  The photographs support my assertion that the movers are not trained professional movers as represented but merely untrained itinerant laborers who represented themselves as trained movers, a clearly fraudulent business practice used by this firm to justify a higher rate.  Its partnership with the prominent name of Penske as professional movers further deceives even the astute consumer.These photos show the workers failure to adequately protect my furniture as requested by me using the 3 dozen blankets provided.  Further, they show a chest top loaded unprotected with boxes, a headboard also uncovered and turned on its side, and a very expensive adjustable bed buried unprotected under garage items carelessly piled on top of it.  These practices show these workers were not trained and did not know what they were doing. They not only did it wrong, they didn't follow my instructions to use the blankets and be extra careful with the bedroom furniture.  There were only three rooms of items on this job that took nearly three hours to load carelessly.  The damage done was not in transit--it was the result of sloppy unskilled work at over $100 per hour.  This company must be discouraged from misrepresentation of its services and urged to make this right with me.  They damaged my furniture and overcharged me for laborers in lieu of trained movers.  
Regards,
[redacted]

I accept the settlement offer of $150.  Please have SML send the check to [redacted]

SML strives to provide exceptional service to all of our
customers, and understands that moving can be a stressful situationWe are
happy to investigate any claim/complaint a customer makes, to ensure our
customers are receiving nothing but quality moving labor
Mrand Mrs
[redacted] utilized SML Pro-Movers to load her
rented moving truck on August 6th and unload on August 11th
after they, or their representative, drove the truck from Origin to the
unloading DestinationSubsequently Ms[redacted] submitted a damage claim to SML
on August 12thFor reference,
as a courtesy SML sends every customer our "Important things to Know" email
which details specific items that every customer should be aware of, and
prepared for prior to their job being performed. In this email we explain, among other things,
that customers are responsible for providing all furniture pads, tie-downs, and
having everything packed for our team of loaders to get everything loaded
efficientlyOur records indicate that
these emails were received by Mr[redacted] on August 3rd, and August 5th
While the claim was submitted correctly, we do instruct our
customers to check all items before the movers leave their location, and
indicate any and all issues with the service provided on the work ticket before
executingMs[redacted] is claiming that
the damage occurred during both the loading and unloading. She also indicates in her claim that no
furniture pads or tie-downs were provided.
This is congruent with the loading work ticket as well. On our labor only jobs, we instruct customers
that they are responsible for provide moving blankets, tie-downs and any other
projection necessary for their move.
Further we communicate that the Loaders will not provide themNot having enough of either will increase the
likelihood of damage during transit significantly.
While investigating the claim we reviewed the paperwork
filled out by the customerThe Work
Ticket for the Load reads, "Great job! Highly recommendedProfessional, quick
and efficient." Furthermore, there is no indication of damage having occurred
on either the load or unload work ticket's.
Had damage occurred the way Ms[redacted] is claiming, where she states she
witnessed them banging into doors and dropping items it would seem appropriate
to list this damage on the paperwork as instructed. Or at the very least not give such a glowing
review
Based on the investigation of the claim and all paperwork
provided SML concluded that the damage being claimed occurred during transit. As SML was not the carrier of Ms[redacted]'s
goods we are not liable for damage occurring during transit for any
reason. This is stated very clearly in
the load/unload contract Ms[redacted] executed with SML
We apologize that Mrand Mrs[redacted] had damage occur
during their move. However, SML remains
confident that the damage occurred during transit due, in-part, to insufficient
supplies being provided to the loaders and is not subject to our valuation.

Simple Moving
Labor appreciates the opportunity to address these concerns with our service Mr[redacted] did not make us aware of any
issues with the worker until two days after his job on May 1st. However, as soon as he did, we apologized and
reassured him that appropriate
measures would be taken. The employee in question has since been
lfrom our services SML makes
every effort to deliver the best service experience in the industry, while we
understand we fell short of that with your loading services, we are always
committed to a providing an equitable resolution.Service notes
from the loading services provided on April 29, indicate our
representative listened to Mr[redacted]'s concerns and escalated the issue(s)
for a manager review. Mr[redacted] was
informed of this at that time and made aware that any discounts would be
applied once all moving labor was completed and the SML paperwork had been
received. Considering he also had an
unload scheduled with us on May , a discount of $was applied
immediately as a show of good faith. It
was never intended to be the final discount considering the concerns expressed
to this point.On May 7, after receiving all paperwork for Mr
[redacted]'s move, an SML staff member called to go over all applicable discounts
Upon reviewing the Work Orders, no damages were reported on either the Loading
or Unloading work tickets (attached) Point
of fact, the work ticket for Mr[redacted]'s unloading services, stated "THEY
WERE GREAT AND NEED A RAISE." Although
the feedback provided on the work ticket was positive, Mr[redacted]'s original
concern still needed to be addressed.
Therefore, SML offered an additional $credit At that time, SML understood Mr[redacted] was
satisfied with the discount for the Loading and Unloading Services. Mr[redacted] acknowledged with an SML
Representative that we had addressed all concerns and he would be submitting
the information needed to file a claim.
Please understand
that SML service managers are not permitted to discount services due to alleged
damages We have a claims process that
is as efficient and effective as any in the industry. This process must be followed in order to
properly determine the cause and liability for damages The SML Claims Examiner reviews each
case individually.
Specific to Mr[redacted]'s alleged damages, SML has yet to
receive the claim. The necessary claim
documents were emailed to him on May 1st. As part of the Service Agreement Mr[redacted]
executed, SML is limited to liability of $0.60/Lb./item for damage caused during the loading and/or
unloading of items only, and he has days from the date of his load/unload to
file the claim (effectively July, 29th) In summation, to date SML has credited Mr[redacted]
$for his dissatisfaction (a 45% discount) with the loading crew. No damage claim has been received, thus we
have not made a determination as to what liability there may be

We do apologize that Ms[redacted]'s
belongings were damaged during the course of her moveSML strives to provide
exceptional service to
each of our customers and we did fall short of thatHowever,
it is clear from documentation submitted through our claims process, from both
Ms[redacted] and the crew loading the truck that no damage occurred during the
actual loading process
Our Service Agreement states very
clearly that SML is not liable for damage during transitOnce our crew members
leave a work site SML can no longer accept liability for any damage that may
happen while the goods are in transit by a customer driven vehicleAs such,
the claim will remain declined.
In efforts to settle this matter as quickly and
equitably as possible, SML is offering Ms[redacted] a full reimbursement of all
monies paid by herThis totals $(NOTE: this is more than what an
approved claim settlement would be.) Via this Revdex.com forum, we request that Ms[redacted]
verify a current mailing address; upon our receipt of the address, a check will
be mailed to her within business day

SML reached a resolution with Mr. [redacted] outside of this forum.  SML has provided an additional 1/2 hour off of the Load and a 10% discount on the unload.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business...

in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Regards,
[redacted]
the company did contact me and a grant was perposed to mea gentleman named [redacted] did an excellent job understanding the customer problem solved. Thank you[redacted]

SML received the consumer complaint in reference to loading services performed on May 25th, 2016. We have completed a comprehensive managerial review in regards to account [redacted] in association with the Revdex.com Complaint ID [redacted]. The managerial review included: examining notes on account [redacted],...

consulting with the crew sent to perform the job, reviewing calls between the customer(s) and SML, and having a Service Specialist contact Mr. [redacted] about his complaint. Mr. [redacted], per Revdex.com Complaint ID [redacted], is disputing payment for services based on the assertion our crew forged his signature after completing the job. Mr. [redacted] agrees the job was completed, but is refuting charges based on the perception his signature was forged. SML has reviewed, and compared, his signatures between the loading, unloading, and to signatures from services provided on jobs performed in the previous year. All work tickets are attached for review. The signature on the disputed work ticket is not the same as the signatures written on the other work tickets. However, our crew which performed the loading used a PDF based program to complete the work ticket. Electronic signatures are rarely similar to written signatures, and the customer inputted a note onto the work ticket indicating a minor issue with the labor hours. Upon receiving the work ticket, we called the customer to discuss the job performed due to the note, “Took a little longer than I expected, but guys got the job done”. During this call there was no mention of his signature being forged, and the customer confirmed the crew was on site for five hours. Mr. [redacted] mentioned the job should have only taken three and a half hours because his loading the previous year took three and a half hours. Our Service Specialist explained, “We make no guarantees on timeframe for moves due to the fact that minor deviations can increase, or decrease, work time dramatically.” Mr. [redacted]’s new loading site had a flight of stairs our crew had to negotiate in order to load the truck. The loading from the previous year Mr. [redacted] is referring to did not.  Mr. [redacted] instigated a Chargeback of all charges from SML through his credit card company. His request to have all charges voided was denied by his credit card company after a brief discussion between the customer, the credit card representative, and our Operations Manager. SML contacted Mr. [redacted] on July 14th, 2016 to discuss a review posted to our Customer Lobby account. Our Service Specialist offered a refund of $108.50 as a customer service gesture. Mr. [redacted] agreed to the discount and indicated this gesture would settle his disputes. A receipt for services, displaying the refund, has been attached for review. At this time, we consider this situation resolved.   Best Regards,   [redacted] Customer Relations Manager

Simple Moving Labor received the rejection to the response for Revdex.com Complaint ID [redacted] on March7th, 2017. [redacted] is reiterating her claim and requesting SML reimburse her for all costs relatedto the repair to her curio cabinet.Our damage coverage is stated within the Service Agreement, “All damage claims must be filed within 90days of your job. With the purchase of our ProMover Service, Simple Movers and its vendors are liable fordamage during the load and/or unload ONLY. Damage which occurs during transit is not covered for any reasonunder any valuation. We will fix or replace your item(s) for damages at a rate schedule of $.60 cents per poundper item as determined by the US DOT standard weights and measures.” Ms. [redacted] did not return the completedclaims forms within the 90-day window, but SML approved a Customer Service Check for the value of the claimto ensure a better customer experience.Customer [redacted] was not on the job site at the moment she is alleging our crew damaged hercurio cabinet. She did not witness how or when her curio cabinet was damaged. Based on theinformation provided to us by both Ms. [redacted] and our crew members, the curio cabinet wascompletely wrapped in blankets. This may have concealed the damage until the crew members tiltedthe item to carry it into the storage unit. Alternatively, our crew member may have attempted tocarry it and placed too much pressure on the glass causing it to break. Due to these factors, weapproved a Customer Service check at the full value of her claim despite the claims form beingsubmitted beyond the 90-day window.Ms. [redacted] referred to the crew on the work ticket as “Gentlemen” and stated they were “Great” and“on time”. At no point during her unload did Ms. [redacted] call to express any concerns about her crewmembers being impaired by drugs. Ms. [redacted] did not cite any concerns about our crew members beingintoxicated until her claim was processed and denied.As stated previously, a check has been sent to the customer’s unload address on her account.However, the unload site is a storage company and not a residence. Once Ms. [redacted] provides us withan updated mailing address SML will send a new check to the address provided.

Complaint Detail / ProblemComplaint Type:Repair IssuesselectProblem:We hired SML to load and unload or moving truck. While they incorrectly charged us for ProMovers and sent laborors (taken care of now, thank you Revdex.com), they are still not holding true to their written policy of damage. Over 50% of my furniture was damaged due to careless truck packing and occurred during transit (which is not covered), there are 2 large and sentimental items that were damaged beyond repair while unloading. Several witnesses saw and heard the damages at the moment they occurred and SML denied the claim that they "were clearly damaged during transit", another lie from SML. These 2 items are: 1. A large 5 foot tall 8 drawer rolling toolbox from HomeDepot - Myself, my wife, child, 2 electricians, and a neighbor heard them drop it as they were unloading, we looked to see and they were picking it up franticly trying to piece it back together. 2. Large 70" flat screen Visio Smart Tv (Best Buy 12/2015). Again, myself, my wife, 2 electricians noticed the SML worker carrying it on his head. Once they left, Direct TV workers plugged it in, the pixels are damaged, in the exact spot where he was carrying it- on his head.TranslateDesired Resolution / OutcomeDesired Resolution:ReplacementselectDesired Outcome:Replacement Visio TV, M-Series $1799.99 Tool Box, $598. The TV was less than 6 months old, the Toolbox was over a year old, hardly used.

Ms. [redacted] and SML have reached a settlement agreement as of 04/19/2017. We have attached the settlement agreement to this account for review.  Thank you,[redacted]Customer Experience Manager

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
Wwhen I settled they still needed to get back to me on the loss of my warranty. I never received a call.
Regards,
[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:  It does not accurately reflect the situation, and did not show the unprofessional behavior and inflammatory things the manager said to me during the call.  The timeline is also incorrect, and my full complaint to them was not reflected in their response.  
[redacted]

SML received the consumer complaint in reference to loading services performed on March 23rd, 2016. We have completed a comprehensive managerial review in regards to account 163958 in association with the Revdex.com Complaint ID [redacted].  The managerial review included: examining notes on account...

163958, consulting with the crew sent to perform the job(s), examining processed claims forms, and all correspondence between the customer and SML. As stated within Revdex.com Complaint ID [redacted], Mr. [redacted] is asking for SML to: ·         Waive the Terms and Conditions ·         Refund his payment for both his loading and unloading. A total of $1,345.00 ·         Reimburse him for all damages ·         Remove the positive review of the loading team Mr. [redacted] is disputing an amount of $5,200.00 and asking for the amount paid for services of $1345.00 (stated as $1,200.00 in complaint), on both the loading and unloading, to be reimbursed due to the damages. Mr. [redacted]’s damage claim, C-PRO163958, was denied based upon damages occurring during transit. As stated within the Service Agreement signed by Mr. [redacted], “All damage claims must be filed within 90 days of your job. With the purchase of our ProMover Service, Simple Movers and its vendors are liable for damage during the load and/or unload ONLY. Damage which occurs during transit is not covered for any reason under any valuation. We will fix or replace your item(s) for damages at a rate schedule of $.60 cents per pound per item as determined by the US DOT standard weights and measures. Items which are part of a pair or set will be valued as individual items. Shipper understands that the loader/unloader is not responsible for unsealed cartons or item(s) not packed by Simple Movers.” This message is reiterated on the Work Ticket, in the top right corner, and is initialed by the customer.  We have attached a copy of the Work Ticket to the Revdex.com account. Per the Work Ticket, the truck was loaded properly, 48 blankets and 4 straps were used to secure his house hold goods. Under the Customer Comments section, Mr. [redacted] noted, “A great team, can they come to the Tacoma and unload for us?”. The customer also noted all Customer Experience boxes as “Excellent”.  There is no indication of concerns or issues with the way his truck was loaded. In fact, all indications contradict the accusation of our crew being “unprofessional”. SML has made multiple attempts to resolve the dispute with Mr. [redacted]. An offer was made as a Customer Satisfaction gesture via email, from our Operation Manager.  Below is a copy of the email and the reply from Mr. [redacted] (email and physical addresses have been omitted): From: [email protected] Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 19:08:41 -0500 Subject: SML- Account review To: [email protected] Mr. [redacted], Our claims coordinator did inform me of your dissatisfaction with the claims decision and requested that I review your account. I apologize I have not sent you this email earlier but I was on vacation last week. Upon my return, I did review both your pictures and Sheila’s notes to make sure no errors were made while processing your claim. Unfortunately, I did not have any records that would allow me to alter the decision reached by our claims department. Both our paperwork and pictures submitted do indicate that the damage to your items occurred during transit. As stated on our labor only agreement, SML does not cover damage during transit.  However, from reviewing your claims, I can see that you had a poor experience. Knowing this, I have authorized for our accounting department to issue a check for $361.00. This is a 50% customer service credit off the $722.00 billed for the load. This is a gesture of goodwill, as we do recognize that the damage created a poor customer experience.  Once the address is confirmed, we would be happy to issue this credit in the form of a check. Is the 1802 112th St. E, Tacoma WA 98445 address where it should be sent to?   Regards, [redacted] Operations Manager   From: [redacted] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 12:28 AM To: [redacted] <[email protected]> Subject: RE: SML- Account review Thanks for the offer [redacted]. That helps but is woefully short of the expenses we're incurring due to the negligence of the supposedly professional packers we received from Simple Moving Labor. None of this damage would have occurred if the "professional" packers had used the materials provided and followed normal packing standards. This is pure negligence on your company's part. The terms and conditions should be null and void given the poor performance of the packers. I ask that our claim be given special consideration and we be reimbursed for all damaged rendered due to the improper loading. Our address is: "edited to remove address" Thanks for your assistance in elevating this claim to the level needed to get it properly resolved. Regards, [redacted] C: ###-###-#### SML always takes matters of customer dissatisfaction, and damages, seriously. We aim to provide a simple uncomplicated move for our customers. We are saddened to know that items were damaged during the transit of Mr. [redacted]’s move. However, in no way were our crews negligent or unprofessional. SML sees no cause to waive our Terms and Conditions. We will not be refunding all costs related to his move. SML has previously offered a Customer Satisfaction gesture of $361.00 (50% off of his loading cost) due to Mr. [redacted]’s stated poor experience. He has declined the offer. At this time, we will again offer a reimbursement of $361.00 in an effort to resolve the complaint.  Best Regards, [redacted] Customer Relations Manager

Mr
[redacted], to address your first point in your response, the "thug worker" as you
refer to him does not own the company we sub-contracted with to perform your
load. He is, or rather was merely an
employee of that company. Based on our
contracted relationship with the company who performed your load the employee
has been terminated and will no longer be performing moving services for SML or
our customers Per
your second statement regarding your pictures, I am unable find the attachments
you referenced. Furthermore, as we have
informed you on multiple occasions you are completely within your right to file
a damage claim and any damage that was sustained during our loading or
unloading of your truck will be considered per the terms of our agreement with
you I'd
like to reiterate that we have provided you a 45% customer satisfaction discount
in the amount of $already. We
have provided you the damage claim paperwork at least once and are happy to
send them again if you have lost the original email. I encourage you to turn in the completed
damage claim paperwork if you wish to pursue recompense for damages occurred during
loading/unloading. However, this forum is
not intended to be used as a vehicle to circumvent the standard claim process With
regards to your request to speak with us in an effort to resolve your issue, I
am afraid the Revdex.com is the forum you have selected and we must finish this
process prior to taking anything off-line.
To that point, and per your request of a "close to full refund", and in-lieu
of going through the damage claim process I will authorize a check for $to
be cut and mailed to the address you provide to settle this matter. With the $we have already credited you
this will total $we have given you as a customer service credit and will
close your fileI look forward to receiving your positive response and
mailing you a check for $within the week

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
Thanks for resending Simple Moving Labor's (SML’s) response to my claim. Needless to say, this does not meet the mark at all. The damages we sustained during our move from Columbus, OH to Tacoma, WA were a direct result of the failure of their loading team to properly load our furniture onto the rented Penske truck. Six dozen blankets and 24 ratchet straps were provided to property pad and secure the furniture. Less than twenty blankets were used along with only 4 ratchet straps. While nice people, the loading team was grossly negligent in loading our furniture such that there was direct wood-to-wood contact throughout the 2500 mile drive. None of the furniture was fully wrapped with the materials provided. That wood-to-wood contact resulted in damages ranging from unrepairable to ruined finishes. As seen in the photos, the damages were so extensive that some pieces are not repairable. Others will require a complete refinishing to be usable again. My wife is thorough distraught over the damages and wants to replace all damaged items. This is pure negligence on SML’s part. Even their unloading team was shocked at the improper loading and extensive damages that resulted. Their unloading team was professional and took great care in offloading and storing our property. Had the truck had been loaded properly by professional loaders as we requested and paid for none of these damages would have occurred. Their offer of $361 to cover their negligence and over $5000 in damages is an insult. The terms and conditions I agreed to were based on a professional team of loaders which they did not provide. Given SML’s failure to meet their own terms and conditions by providing an improperly trained team they should fully reimburse us for the damages rendered.  Had I known how poorly the truck was loaded I would never have rated the loading team so highly. Based on the damages found during the unloading by their team I requested that review be removed for the loading team. I have no issues with the unloading team. They performed as I would have expected.  Thanks for your assistance in the situation. I don’t know whether the damages we incurred are normal for SML or not. If they are then the company should relook its entire process because this is a complete failure. If the damages are not representative of their normal performance then I expect SML to stand up and take responsibility for their team’s failure.  Given the above, I stand by my request to be fully reimbursed for the damages we received.  Regards, [redacted]
[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. I appreciate the plan for a change in wording but hope that their employees are further trained to give accurate information during booking.
Regards,
[redacted]