[redacted] from our Quality Control Department was to look into this when she was contacted on I believe it was Friday the 30th. [redacted] has taking the action and reviewed the paperwork and customer this morning had a credit put back onto their credit card in the amount of $300.00. Thank...
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.Thier is no offer for compensation in this last message. They aren't even offering the amount of 60 cents per pound because they are excluding items that weight a lot. They also speak of [redacted] as if he is still a employee of theirs. He is not. I called and attempted to speak with him and was told "'he no longer works here". Their needs to be a fair and reasonable offer made or a different approach on my end will be taken. Also they don't address the packing materials I was charged for that I did not receive my items wrapped. They also don't address charging me for a storage where they charged per items that they ruined for example the couch they cracked in half. Why should I pay to store a ruined item???
Regards,
[redacted]
Absolutley understood what customer said, I am awaiting a call back from her as I want to make this right with her, we do not want any upset customers and the neglect of the salesperson not getting back to her is inexcusable !
I will again attempt contact with customer tomorrow
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.Problem: Damaged large piece of furniture and lost 2 other pieces. Refused to work with us in getting item repaired and replacing lost items
Desired Outcome: Republic Moving originally said that they would pay to have our item repaired and for us to get a quote to have the work done We sent the quote to them and have never heard from them since.
Regards,
[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not
resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
My responses to the comments made by Republic are highlighted below (for sake of clarity, I've included the text
from the comments made by Ms. [redacted] from Republic and provided responses to applicable remarks):
"To
Whom It May Concern.
We
are aware that [redacted] is unhappy with our decision to deny an alleged
property damage claim.
As a courtesy, we have turned the claim over to the
Military Claims Office in Norfolk, VA, which is
standard operating procedure
for a military member when they are in disagreement as to the settlement of
their claim.
We
have shared with [redacted] the reasoning for this denial:
1)
His move took place in July 02,2013. At the time of delivery, the
alleged property damage caused by our crew,
was not documented on his
Loss & Damage Statement or the Scorecard signed by his wife, on the day of
the move.
(this is SOP on a military move).
Response (#1): Republic is factually in error. Military PCS regulations allow for the option
to have
movers unpack household goods in their entirety or partially. Any damages identified the day of the move
are to be documented on the forms
provided at the time of the move. Any additional damages are to be filed within
75 days. This would include any
additional damages identified
after movers have left. This allowance accommodates the impossibility
of any service member to realistically inspect every item contained in
a 17,500
lbs move in what amounts to roughly 8 hours.
This is practically impossible, and military regulation accounts for
that, which is why
the 75 days are provided to service members.
2)
[redacted] notified Republic Moving of his alleged property damage claim on October
15, 2014. That is 1 year
and 3 months after our crew allegedly
scratched the hardwood floors. The rules pertaining to shipments moved under
SDDC's DPS Program state very clearly, that he needs to notify the TSP of the
damage within 75 days. Response (#2):
Republic is correct in that I notified
Republic Moving 1 year and 3 months after the crew damaged the hardwood
floors. What Republic fails to
mention
is the requirement for military service members to file damage claims via the
Defense Personal Property System (DPPS) within 75 days,
not notify the moving
company directly. I followed this
required procedure and remained within the timeline required (75 days). I was notified on
22 May 2014 that my claim
was finalized. After subsequent inquiry
into how to handle the declined floor damage claim, I received an e-mail from
Global Claim Services on 05 Aug 2014 (see ENCL 2) that directed me to contact
my “delivery agent”. I subsequently
contacted the TSP at the number
provided, per instructions in the e-mail. So, while my contact with Republic was 1 year
and 3 months from the date of the damage they caused,
I handled the claim in
full accordance with military procedures, and from the date it was made aware
to me that I needed to contact Republic
(05 Aug 2014) to the date I actually
contacted them, it was only 2 months and 10 days.
3)
[redacted] initiated the claim filing in the DPS System on Sept. 11, 2013 (71
days after his move was completed).
However, he did NOT file the alleged floor
damage claim until October 24, 2013 (113 days after his move was
completed).
This means that he did not meet the 75 day notification of
loss and damage deadline. Response (#3): Republic is making a false claim.
Documentation attached (see attachment ENCL
1) attests to this fact. The LDR date
(Loss-Damage-Report date) indicates the claim was submitted 70 days
(not 71),
and clearly states that all damages were filed within prescribed timelines
(note the statement, “Not Late: LDR has
all items on it” in red text).
As
a courtesy, [redacted] (Republic Employee), arranged for an inspection by a
3rd party service. Apparently,
[redacted] notified his landlord / property
management company. Soon after we received an email from the floor
repair
company and the [redacted], not requesting that we repair the floor BUT replace
an area of the floor. Emails were
exchanged between [redacted] at Republic, the floor repair company, and [redacted]
over the next couple months.
Response (“As a courtesy…”):
ENCL 4 highlights the e-mail communications between myself and a Republic
representative ([redacted]). In this e-mail
thread, an e-mail from [redacted] (Republic) dated 16 Oct 2014 indicates that
following the estimate provided by the local contracting company,
Republic will
“move forward with
assigning him to call you and schedule the repairs.” This in no way suggests
this was a “courtesy inspection”
and only indicates they have approved the
repair. In no way did Republic ever
indicate they were still reviewing the claim for approval purposes.
Moving forward with scheduling the repair is
clear communication that the repair has been approved. Additionally, ENCL 3 corroborates
above-referenced e-mail.
This is an
e-mail from the local contractor assigned to conduct the repairs. In this e-mail, the representative clearly
asks us to identify dates so they could
“begin working” on our floors. As can be seen in this e-mail, there is
nothing that states they either performed a “courtesy inspection”, nor were
they still
arbitrating over the claim to determine if they were authorized (or
not) to perform the repair.
In mid-January, [redacted] brought the
file to me for review. I told her that I was hesitant to authorize the repair
for two reasons:
(1) Republic was not notified of the damages in a timely
manner and (2) there was no proof that our crews were responsible.
Meanwhile,
we requested the claim file from the TSP who managed the claim. Information
contained in that file confirmed the
timeline for filing. Response (“In
mid-January…”): Republic is making a
false claim. Again, see ENCL 1 for the
documentation stating that my claim
was submitted in accordance with prescribed
timelines. Secondly, in a phone
conversation with Republic representative, I asked for written documentation
from the moving company that articulated their timelines for submitting a
claim. I explained that it was not until
05 Aug 2014 (see ENCL 2) that I was
instructed to contact the “delivery
agent.” My initial contact to Republic
was 15 Oct 2014, 2 months and 10 days, from the e-mail directing me to contact
them.
Despite my request on 09 Feb 2015
in a phone conversation with a Republic representative ([redacted]), Republic has yet
to provide any documentation to me that
ndicates this time period exceeds
a
threshold for reporting damages.
February 9, 2015,
[redacted] (Republic) advised [redacted] that she was NOT authorized to proceed with
any repairs or replacement
of the floors, that his claim was denied by
management.
February 10, 2015,
I emailed [redacted] and advised of my review of his claim, and that I felt
there was no proof that our crews
damaged the floor 1 year and 3 months prior,
and that he did not notify our office in a timely manner to file his claim for
property
damage. Response (“February 10, 2015…”): Republic
representative claims she “felt” there was no proof. I have sufficient proof. I have provided pictures
to the
Transportation Service Provider on multiple occasions – both in October 2014
when they asked for them the first time, and again in February when they
asked
for the same pictures again. I have a
walkthrough inspection from the landlord with no indication said damages were
there prior to our occupying the house.
The owner of the house who saw the scratches also attested these were
not there prior. I have testimony from
my wife, who was 7-months pregnant at the time
the movers arrived, that the
movers brought our couches into the house and dragged them across the
floor. I was physically not present at
the time, and there
was no way she was physically able to move a couch. It was not until later that evening, after
movers had left and after she signed the documents that we learned of the
damages.
February, 17, 2015,
I received an email from [redacted] requesting that I reconsider, and he
argued my points of denial. Meanwhile,
[redacted] reached out to the Military Claims
Office (MCO) in Norfolk, and inquired if the claim had been filed (per SOP).
The email
response she received indicated that the MCO had no record of
communication with [redacted] on this matter. Response
(“February 17, 2015…”):
This is
factually in error and not consistent with procedures as I was directed to
comply with. MCO handles damages to
household goods. Global Claim services
representative instructed me on 05 Aug to contact the delivery agent (see ENCL
2). Of course there is no communication
with the MCO – I had no issues with the
other items claimed, which were all
part of my household goods, vice the floor.
She went one step further, and contacted the local Personal
Property
office to inquire if [redacted] reached out to their office to file his claim.
Again, we were advised that there was
no communication documented between
the PPSO and [redacted] pertaining to the claim.
Today,
I have reached out to the Landlord / Property Management Company to advise of
our findings. Have not received a
return phone call or email response as of
2:30. We believe that the MCO will find resolution on this matter, as this is
their Function
in the SDDC Personal Property Program (DP3). MCO will not find a resolution to this
matter. Response
(“Today, I have…”): It is not a part
of
household goods. It is a responsibility
of the moving company, per ENCL 2.
We
take these matters very seriously, as we move a lot of military families in and
out of San Diego and the surrounding military
installations. We have done
what we feel is in the best interest of the military member, and turned this
over to the Military Claims Office to review.
We have every confidence,
that the MCO will get this resolved quickly.
Response (“We take these matters…”): Republic has not done all they can do.
They have misrepresented themselves, as is
clear in the attachments provided. I
have patiently and politely tried to articulate the details of the
situation. I was initially
received with
overwhelming assistance and what is clear acceptance of responsibility of the
damages with a clear path to getting the issue repaired. Suddenly, and without
warning, the decision
to move forward was reversed with abrupt termination of any future
communication by Ms. [redacted] (Republic) in an e-mail to me. I am appalled
that such a reversal is
allowed. I have moved my family 9 times
in 18 years of service, and this is the first time I have ever encountered such
challenges.
Should
you need any supporting documentation, please don’t hesitate to contact me
directly.
Respectfully,
[redacted]
Republic Moving" [redacted]NO FURTHER RESPONSES[redacted]
Regards,
[redacted]
face="Calibri">
We are aware that [redacted] is unhappy with our decision to deny an alleged property damage claim.
As a courtesy, we have turned the claim over to the Military Claims Office in Norfolk, VA, which is
standard operating procedure for a military member when they are in disagreement as to the settlement of their claim.
We have shared with [redacted] the reasoning for this denial:
1) His move took place in July 02,2013. At the time of delivery, the alleged property damage caused by our crew,
was not documented on his Loss & Damage Statement or the Scorecard signed by his wife, on the day of the move.
(this is SOP on a military move).
2) [redacted] notified Republic Moving of his alleged property damage claim on October 15, 2014. That is 1 year
and 3 months after our crew allegedly scratched the hardwood floors. The rules pertaining to shipments moved
under SDDC's DPS Program state very clearly, that he needs to notify the TSP of the damage within 75 days.
3) [redacted] initiated the claim filing in the DPS System on Sept. 11, 2013 (71 days after his move was completed).
However, he did NOT file the alleged floor damage claim until October 24, 2013 (113 days after his move was completed).
This means that he did not meet the 75 day notification of loss and damage deadline.
As a courtesy, [redacted] (Republic Employee), arranged for an inspection by a 3rd party service. Apparently, [redacted]
notified his landlord / property management company. Soon after we received an email from the floor repair company and the [redacted],
not requesting that we repair the floor BUT replace an area of the floor. Emails were exchanged between [redacted] at Republic,
the floor repair company, and [redacted] over the next couple months.
In mid-January, [redacted] brought the file to me for review. I told her that I was hesitant to authorize the repair for two reasons:
(1) Republic was not notified of the damages in a timely manner and (2) there was no proof that our crews were responsible.
Meanwhile, we requested the claim file from the TSP who managed the claim. Information contained in that file confirmed
the timeline for filing.
February 9, 2015, [redacted] (Republic) advised [redacted] that she was NOT authorized to proceed with any repairs or
replacement of the floors, that his claim was denied by management.
February 10, 2015, I emailed [redacted] and advised of my review of his claim, and that I felt there was no proof that
our crews damaged the floor 1 year and 3 months prior, and that he did not notify our office in a timely manner to file
his claim for property damage.
February, 17, 2015, I received an email from [redacted] requesting that I reconsider, and he argued my points of denial.
Meanwhile, [redacted] reached out to the Military Claims Office (MCO) in Norfolk, and inquired if the claim had been filed (per SOP).
The email response she received indicated that the MCO had no record of communication with [redacted] on this matter.
She went one step further, and contacted the local Personal Property office to inquire if [redacted] reached out to their office to file his claim. Again, we were advised that there was no communication documented between the PPSO and [redacted] pertaining to the claim.
Today, I have reached out to the Landlord / Property Management Company to advise of our findings. Have not received a return
phone call or email response as of 2:30. We believe that the MCO will find resolution on this matter, as this is their Function in
the SDDC Personal Property Program (DP3).
We take these matters very seriously, as we move a lot of military families in and out of San Diego and the surrounding
military installations. We have done what we feel is in the best interest of the military member, and turned this over
to the Military Claims Office to review. We have every confidence, that the MCO will get this resolved quickly.
Should you need any supporting documentation, please don’t hesitate to contact me directly.
Hi [redacted],
I am writing to respond your message received on 27th May.
I haven't received any response from the company regarding my complaint.
Best regards,
[redacted]
We have been advised that the above company has responded to your complaint.
Sent Via:
Email (ODR)
From:
[redacted]
To:
Ms. [redacted]
Subject:
We have been advised that the above company has responded to your complaint.
Date Sent:
5/27/2014 4:26:48 PM
Attachments:
Click here for printer friendly version
[redacted]
[redacted]
Dear [redacted] :
This message is in regard to your complaint submitted on 3/10/2014 8:35:27 PM against Republic Moving & Storage. Your complaint was assigned ID [redacted].
Please confirm if you have received a resolution to your complaint from the business. If not, please provide a statement indicating why your complaint is not resolved.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
The Revdex.com
[redacted] from our Quality Control Department was to look into this when she was contacted on I believe it was Friday the 30th. [redacted] has taking the action and reviewed the paperwork and customer this morning had a credit put back onto their credit card in the amount of $300.00. Thank...
You !
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.Thier is no offer for compensation in this last message. They aren't even offering the amount of 60 cents per pound because they are excluding items that weight a lot. They also speak of [redacted] as if he is still a employee of theirs. He is not. I called and attempted to speak with him and was told "'he no longer works here". Their needs to be a fair and reasonable offer made or a different approach on my end will be taken. Also they don't address the packing materials I was charged for that I did not receive my items wrapped. They also don't address charging me for a storage where they charged per items that they ruined for example the couch they cracked in half. Why should I pay to store a ruined item???
Regards,
[redacted]
Absolutley understood what customer said, I am awaiting a call back from her as I want to make this right with her, we do not want any upset customers and the neglect of the salesperson not getting back to her is inexcusable !
I will again attempt contact with customer tomorrow
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.Problem: Damaged large piece of furniture and lost 2 other pieces. Refused to work with us in getting item repaired and replacing lost items
Desired Outcome: Republic Moving originally said that they would pay to have our item repaired and for us to get a quote to have the work done We sent the quote to them and have never heard from them since.
Regards,
[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not
resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
My responses to the comments made by Republic are highlighted below (for sake of clarity, I've included the text
from the comments made by Ms. [redacted] from Republic and provided responses to applicable remarks):
"To
Whom It May Concern.
We
are aware that [redacted] is unhappy with our decision to deny an alleged
property damage claim.
As a courtesy, we have turned the claim over to the
Military Claims Office in Norfolk, VA, which is
standard operating procedure
for a military member when they are in disagreement as to the settlement of
their claim.
We
have shared with [redacted] the reasoning for this denial:
1)
His move took place in July 02,2013. At the time of delivery, the
alleged property damage caused by our crew,
was not documented on his
Loss & Damage Statement or the Scorecard signed by his wife, on the day of
the move.
(this is SOP on a military move).
Response (#1): Republic is factually in error. Military PCS regulations allow for the option
to have
movers unpack household goods in their entirety or partially. Any damages identified the day of the move
are to be documented on the forms
provided at the time of the move. Any additional damages are to be filed within
75 days. This would include any
additional damages identified
after movers have left. This allowance accommodates the impossibility
of any service member to realistically inspect every item contained in
a 17,500
lbs move in what amounts to roughly 8 hours.
This is practically impossible, and military regulation accounts for
that, which is why
the 75 days are provided to service members.
2)
[redacted] notified Republic Moving of his alleged property damage claim on October
15, 2014. That is 1 year
and 3 months after our crew allegedly
scratched the hardwood floors. The rules pertaining to shipments moved under
SDDC's DPS Program state very clearly, that he needs to notify the TSP of the
damage within 75 days. Response (#2):
Republic is correct in that I notified
Republic Moving 1 year and 3 months after the crew damaged the hardwood
floors. What Republic fails to
mention
is the requirement for military service members to file damage claims via the
Defense Personal Property System (DPPS) within 75 days,
not notify the moving
company directly. I followed this
required procedure and remained within the timeline required (75 days). I was notified on
22 May 2014 that my claim
was finalized. After subsequent inquiry
into how to handle the declined floor damage claim, I received an e-mail from
Global Claim Services on 05 Aug 2014 (see ENCL 2) that directed me to contact
my “delivery agent”. I subsequently
contacted the TSP at the number
provided, per instructions in the e-mail. So, while my contact with Republic was 1 year
and 3 months from the date of the damage they caused,
I handled the claim in
full accordance with military procedures, and from the date it was made aware
to me that I needed to contact Republic
(05 Aug 2014) to the date I actually
contacted them, it was only 2 months and 10 days.
3)
[redacted] initiated the claim filing in the DPS System on Sept. 11, 2013 (71
days after his move was completed).
However, he did NOT file the alleged floor
damage claim until October 24, 2013 (113 days after his move was
completed).
This means that he did not meet the 75 day notification of
loss and damage deadline. Response (#3): Republic is making a false claim.
Documentation attached (see attachment ENCL
1) attests to this fact. The LDR date
(Loss-Damage-Report date) indicates the claim was submitted 70 days
(not 71),
and clearly states that all damages were filed within prescribed timelines
(note the statement, “Not Late: LDR has
all items on it” in red text).
As
a courtesy, [redacted] (Republic Employee), arranged for an inspection by a
3rd party service. Apparently,
[redacted] notified his landlord / property
management company. Soon after we received an email from the floor
repair
company and the [redacted], not requesting that we repair the floor BUT replace
an area of the floor. Emails were
exchanged between [redacted] at Republic, the floor repair company, and [redacted]
over the next couple months.
Response (“As a courtesy…”):
ENCL 4 highlights the e-mail communications between myself and a Republic
representative ([redacted]). In this e-mail
thread, an e-mail from [redacted] (Republic) dated 16 Oct 2014 indicates that
following the estimate provided by the local contracting company,
Republic will
“move forward with
assigning him to call you and schedule the repairs.” This in no way suggests
this was a “courtesy inspection”
and only indicates they have approved the
repair. In no way did Republic ever
indicate they were still reviewing the claim for approval purposes.
Moving forward with scheduling the repair is
clear communication that the repair has been approved. Additionally, ENCL 3 corroborates
above-referenced e-mail.
This is an
e-mail from the local contractor assigned to conduct the repairs. In this e-mail, the representative clearly
asks us to identify dates so they could
“begin working” on our floors. As can be seen in this e-mail, there is
nothing that states they either performed a “courtesy inspection”, nor were
they still
arbitrating over the claim to determine if they were authorized (or
not) to perform the repair.
In mid-January, [redacted] brought the
file to me for review. I told her that I was hesitant to authorize the repair
for two reasons:
(1) Republic was not notified of the damages in a timely
manner and (2) there was no proof that our crews were responsible.
Meanwhile,
we requested the claim file from the TSP who managed the claim. Information
contained in that file confirmed the
timeline for filing. Response (“In
mid-January…”): Republic is making a
false claim. Again, see ENCL 1 for the
documentation stating that my claim
was submitted in accordance with prescribed
timelines. Secondly, in a phone
conversation with Republic representative, I asked for written documentation
from the moving company that articulated their timelines for submitting a
claim. I explained that it was not until
05 Aug 2014 (see ENCL 2) that I was
instructed to contact the “delivery
agent.” My initial contact to Republic
was 15 Oct 2014, 2 months and 10 days, from the e-mail directing me to contact
them.
Despite my request on 09 Feb 2015
in a phone conversation with a Republic representative ([redacted]), Republic has yet
to provide any documentation to me that
ndicates this time period exceeds
a
threshold for reporting damages.
February 9, 2015,
[redacted] (Republic) advised [redacted] that she was NOT authorized to proceed with
any repairs or replacement
of the floors, that his claim was denied by
management.
February 10, 2015,
I emailed [redacted] and advised of my review of his claim, and that I felt
there was no proof that our crews
damaged the floor 1 year and 3 months prior,
and that he did not notify our office in a timely manner to file his claim for
property
damage. Response (“February 10, 2015…”): Republic
representative claims she “felt” there was no proof. I have sufficient proof. I have provided pictures
to the
Transportation Service Provider on multiple occasions – both in October 2014
when they asked for them the first time, and again in February when they
asked
for the same pictures again. I have a
walkthrough inspection from the landlord with no indication said damages were
there prior to our occupying the house.
The owner of the house who saw the scratches also attested these were
not there prior. I have testimony from
my wife, who was 7-months pregnant at the time
the movers arrived, that the
movers brought our couches into the house and dragged them across the
floor. I was physically not present at
the time, and there
was no way she was physically able to move a couch. It was not until later that evening, after
movers had left and after she signed the documents that we learned of the
damages.
February, 17, 2015,
I received an email from [redacted] requesting that I reconsider, and he
argued my points of denial. Meanwhile,
[redacted] reached out to the Military Claims
Office (MCO) in Norfolk, and inquired if the claim had been filed (per SOP).
The email
response she received indicated that the MCO had no record of
communication with [redacted] on this matter. Response
(“February 17, 2015…”):
This is
factually in error and not consistent with procedures as I was directed to
comply with. MCO handles damages to
household goods. Global Claim services
representative instructed me on 05 Aug to contact the delivery agent (see ENCL
2). Of course there is no communication
with the MCO – I had no issues with the
other items claimed, which were all
part of my household goods, vice the floor.
She went one step further, and contacted the local Personal
Property
office to inquire if [redacted] reached out to their office to file his claim.
Again, we were advised that there was
no communication documented between
the PPSO and [redacted] pertaining to the claim.
Today,
I have reached out to the Landlord / Property Management Company to advise of
our findings. Have not received a
return phone call or email response as of
2:30. We believe that the MCO will find resolution on this matter, as this is
their Function
in the SDDC Personal Property Program (DP3). MCO will not find a resolution to this
matter. Response
(“Today, I have…”): It is not a part
of
household goods. It is a responsibility
of the moving company, per ENCL 2.
We
take these matters very seriously, as we move a lot of military families in and
out of San Diego and the surrounding military
installations. We have done
what we feel is in the best interest of the military member, and turned this
over to the Military Claims Office to review.
We have every confidence,
that the MCO will get this resolved quickly.
Response (“We take these matters…”): Republic has not done all they can do.
They have misrepresented themselves, as is
clear in the attachments provided. I
have patiently and politely tried to articulate the details of the
situation. I was initially
received with
overwhelming assistance and what is clear acceptance of responsibility of the
damages with a clear path to getting the issue repaired. Suddenly, and without
warning, the decision
to move forward was reversed with abrupt termination of any future
communication by Ms. [redacted] (Republic) in an e-mail to me. I am appalled
that such a reversal is
allowed. I have moved my family 9 times
in 18 years of service, and this is the first time I have ever encountered such
challenges.
Should
you need any supporting documentation, please don’t hesitate to contact me
directly.
Respectfully,
[redacted]
Republic Moving" [redacted]NO FURTHER RESPONSES[redacted]
Regards,
[redacted]
We
have an ongoing claim settlement going with this customer: she has been given
two offers to settle her claim...
which she has refused. We are preparing
one more: if she refuses again we will submit this file to the Revdex.com for
their Mediation services.
To Whom It May Concern.
face="Calibri">
We are aware that [redacted] is unhappy with our decision to deny an alleged property damage claim.
As a courtesy, we have turned the claim over to the Military Claims Office in Norfolk, VA, which is
standard operating procedure for a military member when they are in disagreement as to the settlement of their claim.
We have shared with [redacted] the reasoning for this denial:
1) His move took place in July 02,2013. At the time of delivery, the alleged property damage caused by our crew,
was not documented on his Loss & Damage Statement or the Scorecard signed by his wife, on the day of the move.
(this is SOP on a military move).
2) [redacted] notified Republic Moving of his alleged property damage claim on October 15, 2014. That is 1 year
and 3 months after our crew allegedly scratched the hardwood floors. The rules pertaining to shipments moved
under SDDC's DPS Program state very clearly, that he needs to notify the TSP of the damage within 75 days.
3) [redacted] initiated the claim filing in the DPS System on Sept. 11, 2013 (71 days after his move was completed).
However, he did NOT file the alleged floor damage claim until October 24, 2013 (113 days after his move was completed).
This means that he did not meet the 75 day notification of loss and damage deadline.
As a courtesy, [redacted] (Republic Employee), arranged for an inspection by a 3rd party service. Apparently, [redacted]
notified his landlord / property management company. Soon after we received an email from the floor repair company and the [redacted],
not requesting that we repair the floor BUT replace an area of the floor. Emails were exchanged between [redacted] at Republic,
the floor repair company, and [redacted] over the next couple months.
In mid-January, [redacted] brought the file to me for review. I told her that I was hesitant to authorize the repair for two reasons:
(1) Republic was not notified of the damages in a timely manner and (2) there was no proof that our crews were responsible.
Meanwhile, we requested the claim file from the TSP who managed the claim. Information contained in that file confirmed
the timeline for filing.
February 9, 2015, [redacted] (Republic) advised [redacted] that she was NOT authorized to proceed with any repairs or
replacement of the floors, that his claim was denied by management.
February 10, 2015, I emailed [redacted] and advised of my review of his claim, and that I felt there was no proof that
our crews damaged the floor 1 year and 3 months prior, and that he did not notify our office in a timely manner to file
his claim for property damage.
February, 17, 2015, I received an email from [redacted] requesting that I reconsider, and he argued my points of denial.
Meanwhile, [redacted] reached out to the Military Claims Office (MCO) in Norfolk, and inquired if the claim had been filed (per SOP).
The email response she received indicated that the MCO had no record of communication with [redacted] on this matter.
She went one step further, and contacted the local Personal Property office to inquire if [redacted] reached out to their office to file his claim. Again, we were advised that there was no communication documented between the PPSO and [redacted] pertaining to the claim.
Today, I have reached out to the Landlord / Property Management Company to advise of our findings. Have not received a return
phone call or email response as of 2:30. We believe that the MCO will find resolution on this matter, as this is their Function in
the SDDC Personal Property Program (DP3).
We take these matters very seriously, as we move a lot of military families in and out of San Diego and the surrounding
military installations. We have done what we feel is in the best interest of the military member, and turned this over
to the Military Claims Office to review. We have every confidence, that the MCO will get this resolved quickly.
Should you need any supporting documentation, please don’t hesitate to contact me directly.
Respectfully,
[redacted]
Republic Moving
Hi [redacted],
I am writing to respond your message received on 27th May.
I haven't received any response from the company regarding my complaint.
Best regards,
[redacted]
We have been advised that the above company has responded to your complaint.
Sent Via:
Email (ODR)
From:
[redacted]
To:
Ms. [redacted]
Subject:
We have been advised that the above company has responded to your complaint.
Date Sent:
5/27/2014 4:26:48 PM
Attachments:
Click here for printer friendly version
[redacted]
[redacted]
Dear [redacted] :
This message is in regard to your complaint submitted on 3/10/2014 8:35:27 PM against Republic Moving & Storage. Your complaint was assigned ID [redacted].
Please confirm if you have received a resolution to your complaint from the business. If not, please provide a statement indicating why your complaint is not resolved.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
The Revdex.com