Sir Walter Moving

Dear Revdex.com and Prospective Customers,

Sir Walter Moving has been, and continues to be, committed to resolving this matter in an honest and transparent manner. Our goal with every customer interaction is to leave a favorable impression of our brand and, when appropriate, to go above and beyond customer expectations to ensure that we honor this goal. The challenging reality of household goods moving is that service provision will occasionally result in damage claims, despite best efforts.

According to the American Moving and Storage Association, 18% to 20% of household goods moves result in damage claims. Sir Walter's rate of damage claims is a fraction of the national average, a metric we are proud of and that we use as an indicator for the success of our performance.

We recognize that damage claims are troublesome and can lead to a negative brand impression, thus we work diligently to avoid claims. When they do occur, our goal is to go above and beyond expectations to address claims to the satisfaction of the customer. This case is no different.

On December 3rd, 2019, Sir Walter Moving was hired by this customer to complete a two bedroom apartment move. Outside of the 12/3/19 move, we performed no other work for this customer. The average time required for a two person crew to complete a two bedroom apartment move is 3 to 5 hours. In this instance, we were not made aware that the customer was moving into the 20th floor of an apartment building. Due to limited elevator access, a long elevator ride and a challenging building floor plan, the move took longer than expected. We never stall or intentionally increase hours. We worked efficiently to complete this move in a timely manner, however had we known the customer was moving to a 20th floor unit we would have amended our estimate to account for logistical inefficiencies stemming from the location of the unit.

Prior to beginning the move, the customer acknowledged via a contract that the job would be completed on a non-binding, hourly rate basis. The customer also elected to release the household goods at a value of 60 cents per pound. This level of protection is provided at no additional cost to the customer. This election is also indicated on the contract.

We recognize, and regret, that this customer's move resulted in blemishes to items. On the day of the move, we sent a manager to assess the items in question and Sir Walter agreed that we would follow up promptly to resolve the claim. We also agreed not to collect payment on the day of service. Through regular communication and in less than a week, we arranged for another team member to visit the customer's apartment to assess the items in question and to make an offer to resolve the claim. During the in-home visit, we acknowledged that minor blemishes to some items had taken place, and that the glass tops in question should be replaced. We also shared images of the blemishes with a furniture repair specialist who commented that the size, type and location of the blemishes were so minimal that they did not warrant fixing. Despite this advice, our goal was to leave the customer feeling as if we appropriately addressed the customer's concern. We offered to (i) replace the glass; (ii) repair the blemished items; (iii) and to adjust the total amount due for services. The customer rejected this offer.

When settling claims, Sir Walter Moving acts in accordance with the guidelines created by the North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC), the state agency that governs household goods moves. In this case, our offers to settle the claim have been within the agreed to terms of the contract, and have exceeded the requirements of the North Carolina Utilities Commission. For instance, the NCUC explicitly states that claims must be accompanied by a paid bill. Despite Sir Walter Moving not having been compensated for services provided on 12/3/19, we have acted in good faith by offering to settle the claim without a paid bill. Again, our goal is to never leave a negative brand impression thus we seek to settle claims to the satisfaction of the customer.

Our second attempt to resolve this claim in December 2019 was met with a request by the customer's mother to delay the claim until January 2020. On December 18th, 2019, we agreed to abide by the customer's request to address the claim in January.

On January 9th, 2020 we again visited the apartment in an attempt to find a resolution that worked for both parties. We reiterated our offer to (i) replace the glass; (ii) repair the blemished items; (iii) and to adjust the total amount due for services. In a sign of good faith, we also offered to hire a cleaning service to clean the customer's apartment once the furniture had been repaired. The customer rejected this offer.

On January 27th, 2020, the customer submitted an email to Sir Walter rejecting the January 9th offer and requesting that Sir Walter pay him $1,600 dollars and waive the bill for $977.50, a total settlement of $2,578. Sir Walter then requested an itemized list of the furniture in question, the weight of each furniture item and a description of the damage to each item. When the customer submitted this information, Sir Walter worked through each item and determined that most of the items in question, when assessed under a reasonable standard, could be restored to mint condition with minimal touch ups from a furniture technician.

Had these items not been restorable, and assuming each item required full replacement at 60 cents per pound, Sir Walter's max contracted liability would be $1,037. Per the contract executed on 12/3/19 and in following the North Carolina Utilities Commission guidelines, Sir Walter has the option to repair, using like materials, the items in question, or to provide the customer with the estimated cash required to repair the items.

On February 10th, we submitted a third offer to the customer. Below is an excerpt from the offer:

"Our recommended course of action is for Sir Walter Moving to replace the glass pieces and to hire a furniture repair technician to restore your items to an improved state relative to the current condition. Alternatively, we are willing to compensate you for the estimated cost of repairing your items, hence our previous offer of $527.50. Please note we will credit $527.50 towards the outstanding balance of $977.50. The remaining $450 would be owed to Sir Walter Moving for services rendered on 12/3/19.

Again, we regret that our service provision fell short of our quality standards. We constantly work with our team to train crews to properly care for household goods and to act with high levels of customer service. The least desirable outcome for Sir Walter Moving is the one in which a customer walks away with a negative perception of our brand. We work diligently to avoid this outcome, and we hope that you understand that our goal with resolving your claim is to restore your items to a condition that would warrant you feeling like we properly addressed your claim.

We thank you again for submitting the weights of the items in question. We will be happy to coordinate repairs with a trained technician, or to compensate you for those repairs, and are committed to acting swiftly to resolve this matter."

A copy of the entire February 10th email has been submitted to the Revdex.com. Following our submission of the February 10th email to the customer, we received no return correspondence from the customer until June 2020 when the customer (i) left incomplete and misleading reviews on the internet; (ii) solicited his roommate, who was not listed as a customer on the contract, to leave a second, duplicate negative review; and (iii) submitted a complaint to the Revdex.com.

We regret that this process has resulted in the customer distributing defamatory and misleading information about our small business. Categorically, we deny that we have not offered to repair the furniture, or to work with the customer to resolve this issue. To the contrary, in an attempt to assess the appropriate path forward, we have (i) reviewed the items in question; (ii) reviewed the contract that was executed on 12/3/19; and (iii) consulted the North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC) regulations governing household goods moves. We have made three attempts to settle this claim, each of which was consistent with the terms of the contract we agreed to on 12/3/20, but more importantly each of which we feel were consistent with our goal of creating a positive customer experience.

It is never our intent to create a negative brand impression for a customer or a prospective customer. We value the trust that our customers place in our service, and we act with integrity in every instance. Our offer to this customer stands and we would welcome the opportunity to honor our commitment to repair the customer's items, replace the glass pieces and to discount the total due to Sir

Per the offer we submitted to you on February 10th, 2020, we are happy to replace the glass pieces and to send a furniture repair technician to work on the blemished items, including the TV console. We are also happy to hire a cleaning crew to clean your apartment after your furniture is repaired. When settling claims we follow the guidance put forth by the North Carolina Utilities Commission, as well as the terms of the contract signed on move day. Those guidelines state that we have the right to repair furniture. In the event furniture is damaged beyond repair, items are to be replaced at the released value of 60 cents per pound.

Based on the images you've provided and our own in person inspection of the TV stand, the stand suffered a cosmetic blemish. We would like to hire a trained furniture repair technician to touch up the TV stand. If this item were damaged beyond repair we would compensate you per the terms of the contract (weight in pounds x $0.60).

Because we recognize that we did not meet our service standard, we also offered to discount your bill by over 50% from $977.50 to $450. This is in addition to our offer to replace the glass pieces and to hire a furniture repair technician, at our expense, to address the blemishes to your items. The North Carolina Utilities Commission guidelines clearly state that claims must be accompanied by a paid bill (Section 1, Rule 52.A). We have not collected payment for your job, therefore we have acted in good faith by attempting to resolve your claim without a paid bill.

Again, we recognize that this move was not executed to our standard and for that we apologize. When claims arise, we pride ourselves on working with customers to find a solution that works for both parties, thus we regret that this issue has not yet been resolved to mutual satisfaction. Per your Google review, you publicly stated that we "did nothing to fix the situation at all." This statement is not based in fact and is therefore misleading and defamatory. On three separate occasions we have made offers to settle this claim. These offers have exceeded our contractual obligation and should be construed as a good faith attempt to placate what has been a challenging issue to resolve.

We hold ourselves to a high and reasonable standard and we have attempted to meet that standard in this case. Our offer stands. We are happy to (i) replace the glass; (ii) hire a furniture repair technician to touch up your items; (iii) hire a cleaning service for your apartment; and (iv) reduce the balance owed from $977.50 to $450.