The Furniture Doctors, Inc.

This letter is in response to case ID [redacted]. On August 5, 2015 the client brought in a 6-sided table that he wanted to have refinished. We went over the refinishing process with the client (we chemically strip the old finish in our Flow-Over System, prep sand, stain, and finish with a lacquer...

finish). Next we had the client choose a stain color from our stain sample book and choose a sheen (shininess of the finish) from samples of the four sheens we offer, flat, satin, semi-gloss and high gloss. The client chose a flat sheen. The client was also concerned about the splits in the top of the table due to the glued boards pulling apart, and we discussed how we would secure the splits, fill the voids in the splits and then custom color touch up the repairs to the splits in the top of the table. We noted and discussed with the client that the base of his table was loose and really needed to have the loose joints reglued. The client stated that he only wanted to get the table looking decent and did not want to spend any extra on regluing the loose joints on the base. The client agreed to refinishing the entire table and repairs to the splits on the top of the table for the estimated amount of $350-$400. A Sales Receipt was written up, summarizing the work to be done, the total estimate of $350-$400, the due date and the deposit amount. The client received a carbon copy of this receipt. All details of the project, including color of stain and sheen of finish, and repairs to be made (or not made) were noted on a Job Ticket that would travel with the piece throughout the process. On September 15, 2015 the client came in to pick up the 6-sided table. We went over the repairs and the refinishing that had been done, and was noted on the final Sales Receipt. The client did note that there were two gouges on the top of the table that he wished had been taken care of during the refinishing process. These two gouges were not part of the regluing of the splits in the table top, but imperfections that are common with older pieces of furniture. The Office Manager, who was assisting the client with pick up, explained that to take care of the two gouges a two part fill could be applied and then custom color touched up. The Office Manager suggested that the she get the Shop Manager who could let the client know if there would be an additional cost to take care of the two gouges and how long it would take. When the client spoke to the Shop Manager he did not mention the gouges and let the Shop Manager know he was very happy with the work done on his 6-sided table. The client signed the Repair Sign Off on the final Sales Receipt and paid the remaining balance. On September 16, 2015 we received both a phone message and a faxed Memorandum from the client expressing disappointment with the 6-sided table he had just picked up and taken home. In the faxed Memorandum the client stated that he believed the finish on the top of the table was cloudy/milky, remarked on the gouges on the top of the table, and suggested that the table top and base had pitting. The client also gave his opinion for each concern, even suggesting that during the finishing process that sanding sealer was not used (sanding sealer is always used during the refinishing process). Our Shop Manager called and left a message for the client to give us a call to discuss the issues in his fax. The Furniture Doctors states on all Sales Receipts the following: “The Furniture Doctors guarantees the work performed with the guidelines of my custom project and as outlined during the initial estimate and deposit. Any discrepancies on work performed must be returned to The Furniture Doctor’s shop within 14 days of pickup to enable them to correct the problem.” The Shop Manager did connect with the client and requested that he bring the 6-sided table back to the shop so we could discuss options. On September 28, 2015 the client brought back the 6-sided table to discuss his concerns with the Shop Manager. The client said that he felt the finish on the top was “cloudy”. Although we could not see any cloudiness, the Shop Manager offered to refinish the top again (no charge), and the client said he would think about it. The client also said that he felt that all gouges on the top of the table should have been removed. When we go over the refinishing process with a client, we discuss if they would like any of the dings to be taken care of (some clients want dings to be taken care of, other clients want to keep the dings because they rep resent a memory from the past). During the intake of the 6-sided table, the client had stated that he was only concerned about the splits in the top and wanted the table to still look old. The Shop Manager did offer to take care of the gouges, but the client said he would have to think about it. The client also said that he felt that there was “orange peeling” in the finish on cut ends of the legs of the base. There is not any “orange peeling” in the finish on any part of the table, but there is the natural grain that can be felt through the finish, as is the case in a quality refinished piece. The client choose to take the 6-sided table home and think about the options that the Shop Manager had offered. It should be noted that both the refinishing and the repairs made to the table were of high quality. The table look great and functions well. All pieces that we work on have detailed records that are noted on the Job Ticket (we have been keeping Job Tickets since 1978). Also, all pieces that we work on go through a final quality control inspection to insure that there are no obvious errors in workmanship. We want to do a good job for each of our clients, and over the years we have developed processes that insure the work is consistent and of the highest quality. On September 29, 2015 we received a faxed Memorandum from the client stating his disappointments with the 6-sided table, and demanding nearly two thirds of the total cost be refunded to him. We have sent the client a letter letting him know that we would be happy to refinish the top of the table and to take care of the two gouges on the top of the table. Our policy is for the client to let us correct any discrepancies in workmanship within 14 days of picking up their item. We do not believe that there are discrepancies in our workmanship. We are happy to do the above listed items to make the customer happy, and believe that in doing so we would be going above and beyond the original agreement for work to be done. However, we do not believe that the client should receive a refund that is two thirds of the total cost, as the work was performed as outlined during the initial estimate and deposit. We would also like to mention that the client only mentioned one person in his complaints, our Shop Manager. It is true that our Shop Manager did work with the client during the intake process, but we have a total of 9 team members, and the client’s pieces were worked on by several team members. Initially, the client phoned our office and spoke with our Office Manager at length about our process and products. Again, we are happy to work with this client to resolve issues that can be resolved. Please call 208-687-8800 or email **@thefurnituredoctors.com if you have any questions. Thank you, Jacqueline M[redacted] Owner and President The Furniture Doctors Inc.

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 complaint. Please see attached correspondence.Regards,[redacted]
I am responding to your letter received today, about one month from my initial written complain send by facsimile to you. You have made no attempt to resolve your substandard work until now; presumably because you know I will not pay for it beyond the deposits you have received. The remaining amounts have been disputed with Bank of America and will not be paid. Of course you know this, which is why you've made a half-hearted attempt to resolve matters. I challenge your references to "policy," "standard policy," and "return policy" in your letter because I was never provided a copy of these polices and, therefore, I am certainly not bound by such. A contract requires the consent of all parties. It does not allow for an unscrupulous business owner to make up self-serving requirements after the fact which is what you are trying to do. Regarding the "14-day return policy," I specifically refused to agree to that in the presence of two of your employees. You can not hold me to a requirement I refused to accept. Again, this is basic contract law which you should know but for some reason think you can ignore. Lisa F[redacted] and I met face to face and together examined the furniture you refinished. She refused to acknowledge most all of the obvious defects which even you admit to in your letter of October 08, 2015. How can it be that Lisa F[redacted] was able to inform you the various issues with your bad work, but could not acknowledge the same and discuss them with me face-to-face? I found Lisa F[redacted] to be disingenuous, quick with excuses, and not willing to accept any responsibility for your terrible work. Many of the characterizations in your letter are misleading and self-dealing. For example, the octagonal table has a finish on the top different from the base. If the base has sheen, and the top does not, how can it be the same finish throughout which is what I specifically ordered in writing? By your own words, therefore, you failed to provide me with what I ordered: the same finish for the entire piece of furniture. Furthermore, the finish for the top is not clear like liqueur is supposed to be. It is cloudy; probably as a result of too much moisture at the time it was sprayed. Lisa F[redacted] solution offered at the time of our meeting was so spray over the defect which, because it is a clear finish, could not possibly be a solution. Another example of your misleading and self-dealing characterizations is "pre­ existing warp" on the kitchen table. I've never raised that as an issue so why are you? My clear, written grievance was that the edge board that you re-glued is not level with the table top, it slants at a downward angle. Simply stated, you glued it wrong and obviously never checked to see that it was true and level, or you simply did not care. Sloppy work. Another example of your misleading and self-dealing characterizations is sheen being different on the top versus bottom of the kitchen table and that difference is somehow a result of some policy of yours that I never agreed to. In fact, I wanted the same finish everywhere on this piece of furniture. This is like saying: "I know you ordered a white car but we decided to paint the hood red and the rest white because of a policy we never told you about." Your argument here is simply ridiculous. For the rest of my grievances you don't even bother to offer a misleading or self­ dealing characterization. For example, there are scuff marks on the octagonal table from your mishandling. The finish is flawed on both the base and top with blushing, orange-pealing, pitting, and inconsistent coverage of whatever the product is you applied. The sheen on the top is different from the sheen on the bottom which is not what I specified in writing and paid for regardless of your fantasy policies. And you don't bother to refute my grievances for the kitchen table. For example, the end pieces were supposed to be disassembled and re-glued. You have not put the pieces back together so that they fit squarely with one another. Once again, you glued it wrong and obviously never checked to see that it was true, level, and square,. or you simply did not care. Also, sloppy work. The sheen on the top is different from the sheen on the bottom which is not what I specified in writing and paid for. Please don't embarrass yourself by claiming this is some kind of "policy" unless your policy is to ignore written instructions, charge for it anyway, and then do as you please. It's schlock work, and nothing to be proud of. What this boils down to for me is that I've been in the trades for many years and I know when someone is trying to cheat me, which is what you are trying to do. I have gone out of my way to carefully document my concerns in two letters, discussed by telephone twice, and met in person to try and resolve the problems with your bad work. Only now, with the threat of non payment do you respond. Your response engenders no trust or belief you can handle the job. These are important family heirlooms that I do not trust you to work on further. You have caused enough damage as it is. You are charging premium prices for careless, sloppy, inferior work that you should be ashamed of. I will not pay you beyond the deposits you were previously paid. I have made a complaint against you with the Revdex.com. I will seek all additional remedies necessary if you insist on not refunding the payments of $275.00 and $500.00.