Complaints

The complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:04/12/2024

  Type:Order Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  1. Our position is that this involves the breach of an oral contract. 2. We engaged Merry Maids of Ottawa (MMO) to do a deep clean of two bathrooms and the kitchen at ************************************ (On November 26, 2024 from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. We have no dispute about the bathrooms.) The quoted price was $100 per hour X 3 hours plus tax, in other words $339. After two hours *** called to say the staff (two cleaners) had completed the work early. But the inside of the kitchen cupboards and drawers had not been done. Neither were the spaces in between appliances cleaned. 3. The plain meaning of "deep clean" is "a very complete cleaning process that includes all parts of something, not just surfaces or places where dirt can be seen" (Cambridge English Dictionary). The measure of damages was $100, since my wife spent an hour doing the deep cleaning herself. ***, knowing the task had been completed, offered to resolve the dispute by sending the cleaners back to complete the job. We do not consider this a bona fide offer.4. *** may argue that the oral contract was replaced by a written (online) contract. We believe it was unenforceable. It was contract of adhesion, i.e., "a contract in which the essential stipulations were imposed by one of the parties and not negotiable." (Civil Code of ******, Art. 1379) 5. The *********************** has ruled that such contracts are unconscionable (unenforceable) where there is an inequality of bargaining power (i.e., "take it or leave it") resulting in a strong advantage to the party drafting the agreement. (********************** *. ******, 2020 SCC 16) ***'s offer was take-it-or-leave it. It was also improvident. The online terms were tricky and difficult to understand (35 boiler plate paragraphs requiring individual initials). They imposed onerous requirements on us, the weaker party, by allowing MMO to unilaterally reclassify the oral contract, making it far more costly, e.g., as much as 3 times the price.

  Business Response

  Date: 06/12/2024

  Dear BBB,
  Thank you for reviewing this matter. Below is a detailed,step-by-step account of our interactions with *** ****** to provide full transparency and clarify our position.

  Booking Process:
  November 18, 2024, 10:16 AM: Our sales team contacted *** ****** via call and email after receiving his lead. The estimate provided was based on the homes square footage and number of rooms, as we do not charge hourly. It was noted that additional services (e.g., inside fridge, oven, cabinets, walls, and windows) are optional at additional costs.
  November 18, 2024, 2:25 PM: The sales representative logged that contact was made, the estimate was sent, and the clean was booked. The email also informed *** ****** that our Ottawa office would follow up to finalize the booking.
  November 18, 2024, 2:32 PM: Notes were logged confirming the following: we could not arrive before 11 AM, the client would be home to let us in, and street parking was available.
  November 18, 2024, 3:34 PM: ********** called *** ****** to confirm address details, parking instructions, arrival time preferences, and the cleaning scope. During this call, he declined all additional services. He was informed that a Confirmation DocuSign, outlining policies and services, would be sent for review and signature. *** ****** noted he could not sign that evening, so we offered to send it the following day.
  November 19, 2024, 9:26 AM: The DocuSign was sent to *** ******.
  November 19, 2024, 10:19 AM: The signed DocuSign was received, finalizing the clean. The document included our cancellation policy, confirmation of services, and acknowledgment of all terms.

  Client Concerns Before the Cleaning:
  November 20, 2024, 1:36 PM: We received an email from *** ****** asserting that, as a lawyer, he found the DocuSign unreasonable, though he had signed it. He indicated it would not protect us. This email is attached for reference.

  Service Day:
  November 26, 2024, 10:23 AM: Upon arrival, the team called *** ****** to confirm parking instructions. He indicated he would meet them.
  November 26, 2024, 10:29 AM: The cleaning began. A team of two was allocated 1.5 hours based on the service scope. If one team member were assigned, the time allotted would have been 3 hours.
  November 26, 2024, 12:25 PM: We informed *** ****** the cleaning was wrapping up. He stated he would not arrive until 1 PM.
  November 26, 2024, 12:50 PM: The team completed the clean. One member moved to the next job in the same building while the other waited for *** ****** to conduct a walkthrough.
  During the walkthrough, *** ****** requested inside cabinet cleaning, which had been declined during the booking process. While minor adjustments were made, the cabinets were not cleaned as this was outside the agreed scope.

  Post-Cleaning Follow-Up:
  November 26, 2024, 2:23 PM: *** ****** expressed dissatisfaction and sent photos of the inside cabinets. He requested a $100 refund.
  November 26, 2024, 2:27 PM: We offered to return the same day and as we were still in the building could be there within minutes. This is part of our satisfaction guarantee, which he declined.
  November 26, 2024, 2:38 PM: During a call, we explained that the inside cabinets were not part of the agreed services, as confirmed during booking and in the DocuSign. *** ****** and his wife responded rudely and hung up after a 2-minute, 43-second call.

  Our Position:
  We take great care to confirm all details with clients during booking, via follow-up calls, and through signed documentation. *** ****** explicitly declined additional services, including cabinet cleaning, and acknowledged our policies in the DocuSign. Despite this, we offered a resolution through our satisfaction guarantee, which he declined. His dissatisfaction stems from a service he chose not to include.

  We believe we fulfilled our obligations as per the agreed terms and respectfully disagree with *** ******* claims. All supporting documents, including call logs, emails, and the signed DocuSign, are attached for your review. If you would like we can also provide recordings if needed.

  Thank you for your time and understanding.

  Sincerely,
  Merry Maids of Ottawa

  
  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 06/12/2024

  Complaint: 22641846
  
  I congratulate Merry Maids of Ottawa (the Business) on their quick and well-worded response.  Nonetheless, I am rejecting the response because:

  First, the omission of kitchen cabinets from the scope of work was NOT mentioned during the telephone call arranging the work.  If memory serves, it was my wife, not I, that had the conversation with the Business in that regard.  Her recollection is that there was no mention of the kitchen cabinets being out-of-scope.  Moreover, she would have reacted had there been such a mention, given that this was one of the primary purposes of the deep clean.  My wife is Chinese.  Taking the point of view most favourable to the Business, all I can say is that perhaps there was a misunderstanding due to language. (That is not an admission.)  If indeed it was I that was on the other end of the line when "cabinets" were excluded -- which I don't remember happening -- then I failed to hear (I am hard of hearing) or it otherwise failed to register.  

  Second, I admit that the Business did make an offer to return and clean the cabinets.  However, the offer was stillborn since it was made after we had completed the work ourselves, as I said at the time.  They later repeated the offer.  In fairness, I don't think this should be considered as acting in good faith.  

  Third, I admit that from the beginning I objected to the form of agreement we were forced to sign and said it was a contract of adhesion.  The Business failed to address this point in its response and yet -- even leaving legalities aside -- it is at the root of the dispute. Where there is an inequality of bargaining power (my wife and I are senior citizens) such that the customer is left with a take-it-or-leave-it offer, and the Business uses its leverage to justify (at least from the customer's point of view) unreasonable and one-sided behaviour, should the Business be rewarded with a glowing BBB rating?  (Or does it need some work on the transparency and user-friendliness of its business practices?)
  
  

  
  
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ****** ******

  Business Response

  Date: 10/12/2024

  Dear BBB,

  Thank you for forwarding the complainant's response. We appreciate the opportunity to address their concerns and provide additional clarification.

  Regarding the Scope of Work and Communication:

  We maintained records of the interactions, including recordings of phone calls,to ensure transparency and accuracy. The recording confirms that during the follow up call before sending our DocuSign on November 18, 2024, at 3:34 PM,the omission of inside cabinet cleaning, an optional additional service, was clearly communicated and declined. During this call, our team member specifically asked if any additional services were needed, including cabinet cleaning, and the client confirmed they were not required. Both Mr. ****** and **** **** were on the phone. We have had the Recording Transcribed and attached it as we could not attach the recording itself to this platform.

  While Mr. ****** asserts that the omission of kitchen cabinets was not mentioned, we rely on these recordings to substantiate that it was clearly communicated and agreed upon during the booking process. Whether due to a language barrier or hearing difficulty, both parties were privy to the confirmation process and had multiple opportunities to clarify any misunderstandings. Additionally, the signed ******** explicitly outlined the agreed-upon scope of services, ensuring further transparency.

  Regarding the Offer to Return:

  We offered to return and address the cabinets within 1-2 business days,consistent with our satisfaction guarantee policy. This policy, outlined in our DocuSign agreement, ensures that any dissatisfaction reported within 24 hours of the clean is resolved promptly through a no-cost reservice. It is also important to note that we informed the complainant that our next cleaning was in the same building. Had they notified us of their dissatisfaction before cleaning the cabinets themselves, we would have been happy to discuss the matter and find a resolution. In fact, it would have taken only a few minutes for one of our team members to return and address the concern.

  We cannot be held accountable for their decision to clean the cabinets themselves without first informing us of the issue. By signing the DocuSign, the complainants acknowledged and agreed to our satisfaction guarantee policy, which provided a clear avenue for resolving any concerns. If they were dissatisfied, we respectfully question why they chose not to notify us prior to taking matters into their own hands.

  Our satisfaction guarantee is a cornerstone of our commitment to client care, and we believe our actions demonstrated good faith in attempting to resolve this matter.

  Regarding the DocuSign Agreement:

  The complainant expressed objections to our DocuSign agreement, referring to it as a "contract of adhesion." While we appreciate this feedback and told him so through email and conveyed that it would be shared with management for review, the DocuSign is an essential part of our process.

  While we understand the complainants concerns regarding perceived bargaining power, the DocuSign agreement provides transparency and fairness by allowing clients to review and confirm all terms before proceeding. This document ensures that clients are fully informed of the scope of services, additional options, and company policies. If there are any terms or clarifications required, clients have the opportunity to either decline the service or proceed with the understanding that the cleaning will align strictly with the agreed-upon scope of work as outlined in the DocuSign.

  The purpose of this agreement is not to create an imbalance but to avoid misunderstandings, such as the one described in this case, by ensuring all details are clear and acknowledged prior to service. By signing the DocuSign, the complainant accepted the outlined terms, which included the omission of cabinet cleaning as an optional, additional service.

  Conclusion:

  We value all client feedback and are committed to continuously improving our practices where possible. However, we stand by our policies and processes,which were followed correctly in this instance. All communications, including phone recordings and the signed DocuSign agreement, support our position that the scope of work was clearly communicated, agreed upon, and acknowledged

  We appreciate the BBBs understanding in reviewing this matter and have attached the transcription of the phone conversation as again it would not allow for us to attach the relevant recording for your consideration. If there is somewhere else, I can attach the recording please let us know we would be happy to provide.

  Thank you for your time and attention.

  Sincerely,
  Merry Maids of Ottawa

  Customer Answer

  Date: 10/12/2024

  Complaint: 22641846
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  I. There are irreconcilable factual issues.  First, it's hard for me to deny the initial conversation about inside cabinets when a transcript to the contrary is tendered.  However, I don't feel it should be given much -- if any -- weight.   At the time I was driving in heavy traffic and trying to avoid any accident.  I could not give my full attention.  It's possible I didn't hear or catch the significance of a mention of "inside cabinets."  Certainly, they did not explain that they were referring to Kitchen cabinets.  

  II. Second factual issue.  The discussion of the checklist at the time of booking was between the Business and my wife.  She's adamant that no mention was made of the inside of the kitchen cabinets.  Her recollection is that only the fridge and oven were mentioned.  Notwithstanding the Business's claim to the contrary, the exhibit documenting the phone call is only evidence that "a conversation" took place.  It does not prove that kitchen cabinets were discussed.  That remains a matter of our word versus their word. 

  III. The legalities of the dispute.  I have maintained from the beginning that this dispute is about the equities of the case, not the legal details.  Even in the court room there are always parties that rely on the letter-of-the-law as a total answer.  (Where there is no other option, the higher courts ordinarily must deal with any equitable implications).  The Business has ample self-serving documentation to support its position, if only the letter of the law is considered.  Though legal, it may be argued that the Business's practices are "smooth as silk as they cut your throat", (but that still qualifies them as cutthroat). 

  IV.  The equities of the dispute.  Even by the Business's own evidence, "kitchen cabinets", our biggest concern, were never mentioned.  In a deep clean it is ordinarily presumed that they would be included unless specifically -- not as here generally -- excepted.    However, the BBB is not limited to a letter of the law review and is well suited to consider the equities of this case.  The BBB plays an important role in maintaining consumer confidence in the market place and as such is allowed, if not mandated, to consider ALL matters relating to the case, including whether or not a business's practices take unfair advantage of the consumer or are otherwise unethical.  (The Business gave us to believe that if they had provided what we expected they would have had to charge much more than the $300 we agreed to.  The fact that they offered instead to come back and clean, when the reasons why we had to clean it ourselves, have been given so often now, is meaningless).  

  V. This counter-reply begins a third round of back-and-forth between ourselves and the Business.  In my opinion it is now pretty obvious that the Business is not interested in the equities of the dispute and unlikely to change its position in the future.  It has, in my opinion, offered no value-added in its representations.  Rather, it keeps covering the same ground by failing to address the issues raised in my comments.  (We have tried to at least advance the argument by narrowing and clarifying the issues).  If the BBB's procedure is to continue these exchanges indefinitely, it will be a waste of time. The Business appears to desire the last word in each exchange, however self-serving and stale it may be.  One fails to see the point in "flogging a dead horse" and our recommendation is that the Business's comments on this counter-reply bring these exchanges to an end.  (This is NOT to be interpreted as a request for mediation or further action).  
  
  

  
  
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ****** ******

  Business Response

  Date: 13/12/2024

  Dear BBB,

  Thank you so much for your assistance in this matter. We truly value your time and efforts in helping us address this situation.

  We are always committed to ensuring our clients are satisfied with our services, and it is disheartening to learn when expectations are not met. In this case, the client did not pay for the additional services requested, which included inside cabinet cleaning. While they expressed dissatisfaction with this specific aspect, they did share that they were happy with the overall cleaning we provided. Based on this feedback, we believed that offering a refund would not have been appropriate or fair.

  We also want to make you aware that the client has left us a 1-star ****** review, which I have attached here for your reference.

  Once again, we appreciate your support and understanding in navigating this matter. Please dont hesitate to reach out if further clarification or information is needed.

  
  Warm regards,
  Merry Maids of Ottawa