I hired the company for a Pest Management Program. The company failed to provide the services I paid for in the contract.
Before I hired this company, I spoke via phone and in person to a technician to be CERTAIN that I would be paying for both prevention and current problems. I was told to go bug collecting and when the technician was here, he did very little but wrote on his reports that he had done far more. He also conveyed information that confirmed a pest problem as well as my concerns for prevention of further problems, yet wrote down that there was no evidence. This all is in direct contradiction with the contract, as well as what I was assured of. Also, fleas don't jump per the technician, yet they do per one of the managers. I happen to know that they do jump. The tech failed to thoroughly check the areas I had pointed out for pest problems. He failed to see the obvious signs of active rodent activity merely because he did not look at where the droppings were. I was given a job in hiring this company to search for proof. That is part of what I paid a professional to do.
A partial refund was issued in check form (I had paid cash). I would like the remaining amount refunded as well as the cost of my time, my inability to hire another company while waiting for this company to return my calls (I had to initiate contact and ask for expediency in resolving this), as well as waiting for a partial refund. Meanwhile, the problem has not only escalated in my home, but my intention to prevent seasonal pests as well as take care of immediate problems have caused my cat and I to experience yet more problems that could have been prevented, and my health conditions for which I am on disability have been exacerbated.
Business' Initial Response
Our manager had a conversation with this client regarding her concerns, and had the impression that we adequately addressed them. In fact, in the most recent conversation, she was pleasant and seemed to agree with the resolution offered, with the possible exception that she wanted cash reimbursement, rather than a check. It is difficult for us to offer cash reimbursement, due to the distance from our office and system constraints (we had written and sent her a reimbursement by check, adjusted for services rendered, as she had agreed). Evidently, she has reconsidered her position upon further reflection, without contacting us directly to have an opportunity to discuss it again.
There may have been some elements of discussion with the client regarding the pest situation that were not effectively conveyed, and so there may be some misunderstandings implicit in her complaint. For example, we don't believe the technician intended to convey the impression that fleas do not jump, as he knows that they do. But evidently, effective mutual understanding was not achieved. Another of her concerns is that we were ineffective in verifying the flea infestation that she claims. We are experienced with flea remediation, and with finding them, but our techniques for locating them did not show fleas to be present, and she did not present us with actual fleas to confirm. We are not certain that fleas are in fact present at that location, and therefore, according to our protocols, could not initiate all the steps (including extensive spraying) that flea remediation would involve. Even if we had done such a treatment, it would have been remediation, rather than preventative, for fleas, as we cannot prevent fleas from being carried back into the house by pets. If another company is making a flea treatment without verifying the presence of fleas, it could create a regulatory issue with state officials.
The service we offered to the client was our Home Service program, which is an annual program that can address a variety of pests which we did note on or around the premises, and would also include service for fleas if their presence were validated. We rendered the initial service under that agreement. Clearly, we did not meet her expectations.
When she contacted us about that, our manager heard her concerns. They determined that she did not want to continue the agreement. He thought that she agreed that we would cancel the agreement, and we would refund the amount paid, minus the charge for the services that had already been rendered. Other than her interest in being reimbursed in cash, which he was unable to accommodate, he did not have the impression that there were any unresolved issues, and he reported the conversation to be calm and pleasant.
We do feel we capably performed the services we were requested to do, and did so in a professional and proper manner consistent with pesticide regulations. We will initiate contact with her to offer to refund the remainder of the amount paid, despite the costs of the services already rendered. Once again, our previous conversation had not indicated that this was still a significant concern. Her perception has obviously changed, and we will try to be responsive to it. We value our reputation, and our experience with BBB indicates a good track record for client care. We will work again to resolve this issue. Thank you for making us aware of it.