Movers attempted to extend 13.5 hr quote 30 mins after the move began. Damage to patio table falsely listed on prior damage report given at the end.
We obtained a quote 2 months before our move detailing 50-60 boxes and every room of furniture. We were promised that all items could be moved with 4 men and two 24' trucks in 13.5 hours. 30 minutes after the move began we received a call from their office stating that we would need to split the move into two days at extra expense because our furniture was not wrapped in cellophane, which was not a requirement mentioned when we booked. A supervisor came on site and advised us that we could complete the move in one day but a few of the boxes in the garage may not be included. The movers loaded furnishings only onto two trucks, both not filled to capacity. During the move, the movers dis-assembled the marble top patio table from its bases and failed to wrap the top in cellophane. The table arrived with nine missing marble tiles on its top.(photographs attached) All previous damage forms were signed before we left and we did not receive customer copies until the move was complete. On the damage report, the patio table is listed below the last line indicating cracked tiles on the table top which did not exist. We sent a photograph taken just a day before the move by our Realtor's photographer showing no pre-existing damage and expressing concern that this item was listed on the prior damage report after it was signed. ******* corresponded many times requesting documents and photographs, stating that we had not reported damage within the initial 96 hours after the move but that she was also concerned about the mover fraudulently adding an item on the prior damage report. The move was finished at 8:30 pm on Wednesday 10/15 and we discovered the damage late on Saturday. The movers are closed all day Sunday (which would have been the 4th day) so we called first thing Monday morning. On 11/4, ******* sent an email stating that they would not cover the damage since it was reported after the 96 hours. We have not asked for replacement, just to be reimbursed for the cost of re-fabricating the nine missing tiles. This should not have taken 2 weeks to be determined and we find it to be poor customer service.
At the end of the delivery, We had to rent a 26' UHAUL truck, completely filled with our boxes to complete our move the next day at an additional $300.
We will not recommend these movers again.
If the company is not open on Sunday, customers cannot be required to report damage until the business is reopened regardless of the verbiage in the contract. It is poor business practice ask a customer to sign a prior damage report and not provide a copy at the time of signing. We have suggested that prior damage be photographed by the movers before loading to avoid further issues. We would like to be reimbursed for the cost of the missing tiles to be replaced.
Contact Name and Title: ******* ******** Claims
Contact Phone: XXX-XXX-XXXX
Contact Email: ***************@twomen.com
Thank you for the opportunity to explain our side of the story concerning the move we conducted for ***** and **** ******* on 10/15/14.I hope that the following summary, though lengthy it may be, sheds some light as to why we have taken the actions we have.
Shortly after our arrival on the day of the *******'s move, our driver called to inform us he thought the move would go over our estimate. This was a concern to us because we have to abide by the rules set in place by the Florida Department of Transportation. One such rule is that the men cannot work over a 14 hour day. I called to explain this to Mrs. *******, and offered to make arrangements for the guys to load their belongings on 10/15/14, and unload them on 10/16/14. Mrs. ******* informed me that this was unacceptable, so we came to the agreement that the two crews at her home would do whatever they could do within the time restraints we were now working with, with the understanding that not all of her belongings may make it. Mrs. ******* agreed to this. We had a Manager in her area, so we had her swing by to access the situation. When she arrived, she stated that Mrs. ******* and the movers had agreed to leave behind the majority of her garage contents (mainly boxes), which the *******'s would later move on their own.
When I called Mrs. ******* during the conversation mentioned above, I never mentioned that it was required of her to wrap her own items in cellophane, or that this was the reason we would need to split her move into two days. In fact, one of our selling points is that we do stretchwrap (the term we use for wrapping items in cellophane) our Customers belongings to prevent damage. Our stretchwrapping service is complimentary, and we inform all potential Customers of this.
The move was completed on 10/15/14, and I did not hear from Mrs. ******* again until 10/21/14, when she called to report missing nine stone tiles that topped her patio table. I spoke to her on 10/22/14 at length about this, and let her know that I was going to look into her claim, but per our contract, which she signed, we had to be notified of damages within 96 hours of the move. While I appreciate the suggestion that we include only days we are in operation to count within the 96 hour window, we do have voicemail, which is checked daily as soon as our phones are turned on. If I had at least gotten a voicemail within this time frame, we would have had the opportunity to explore this claim further.
In regards to the point brought up by Mrs. ******* about the photograph of the table that was sent to us, I did receive it, however it is not time-stamped. I have no tangible proof as to when the picture was taken. Even if the picture was taken the day before the move, there's still time between this point and when the men arrived for a damage to occur.
Then there's the issue of the Previous Damage Report, which is a document we have Customers sign off on if we find any pre-exsisting damage to any of their items - the patio table in question is listed on this document, and was signed off on by the *******'s . When I brought this up with Mrs. *******, she told me that the paperwork was fraudulent, which as you can imagine worried me. Upon hearing this, we investigated this further by asking for copies of the *******'s paperwork, so we could match it against what we have listed. Everything - all items listed, and signatures - matched. We couldn't find any instances of fraud. Our stance on this issue is that the *******'s did acknowledge the damage listed by signing the document. They did receive copies of this paperwork, and if the *******'s had any grievances with the items listed, we would think they would have reported them immediately to our staff. To address the suggestion that we photograph items that are previously damaged, this is something we have considered in the past, however we feel as though the best route is to create a list and have both parties sign off acknowledging the damage. While we trust our employees to make good decisions, we know that it's easy to alter photos, which opens up a gray area should a situation like the one we are facing with the *******'s arise.
Because of the facts stated previously concerning the time limit to report damages, and the Previous Damage Report, we couldn't pursue the *******'s damage claim further. I did email Mrs. ******* a notification of this on 11/4/14, after looking into all the factors concerning her claim. If there's any additional information that can be gleaned, we are open to exploring the claim further.
Knowing that any of our Customers are less than satisfied is a disappointment to us, but we have to operate according to our contract and paperwork. I am including copies of the paperwork for your review; If you find that you need anything else, or have questions, please let me know. Again, thanks for this opportunity.