| rev:text
| - I rarely get annoyed at service personnel. I rarely write negative reviews. Jackson's, however, is worthy of both.
If you scroll up to early September, you'll see a review from my wife re: the scratches they put in her car. After 3 months of no contact, a Matthew Teneyck contacted my wife within 1 hour of posting a negative review. As detailed by my wife in her updated post, Matthew swore that headquarters had contacted my wife and asked us to come in so he could look at the car himself.
I expected that Matthew's intent was to whitewash what had occurred; sadly, I was not disappointed. Matthew claimed to have entered the discussion with "an open mind," yet he entered the discussion where he left off with my wife by explaining how the equipment worked and how it was "highly unlikely" that the equipment had damaged the car (and if it did, the scratches would be different than what were on the car). He sought to get our agreement that since "the accusation was that the equipment damaged the car" that this couldn't be the case. We reminded Matthew that the accusation was that "Jacksons scratched the car," not that the equipment specifically had been responsible, and asked him to move on to telling us how Jacksons COULD have caused the scratch. Matthew explained how the manager had reviewed the tapes of before and after the car went through the car wash and "saw nothing wrong," and further explained that the detailers weren't allowed to wear rings or watches.
In the end, Matthew's actions and attitude amounted to corporate whitewashing. Jacksons can now state that it "tried to resolve" this issue but that the customer is being unreasonable, despite not doing anything resembling an investigation (more on that in a moment). I asked Matthew about the percentage of these visits that resulted in him ruling in favor of the customer; he said it "wasn't about percentages." He insisted (again) that corporate had contacted us initially within days of the initial complaint but (again) failed to produce the data.
As an aside: despite Matthew's insistence that the corporation doesn't allow its detailers to wear rings, watches, or pins, we saw (and captured evidence of) at least one detailer adorned with a watch and a pin currently on the detailing line this morning, clearly with a cloth in hand and rubbing said cloth on a car.
Bad service happens. Mistakes happen. I get that. But (a) being unresponsive to an initial complaint, then (b) responding to a negative review only to (c) whitewash the issue by wasting the customer's time in a show of faux support? That's unconscionable and speaks to the character of the company.
Avoid these guys. Please.
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)
![[cxml]](/fct/images/cxml_doc.png)
![[csv]](/fct/images/csv_doc.png)
![[text]](/fct/images/ntriples_doc.png)
![[turtle]](/fct/images/n3turtle_doc.png)
![[ld+json]](/fct/images/jsonld_doc.png)
![[rdf+json]](/fct/images/json_doc.png)
![[rdf+xml]](/fct/images/xml_doc.png)
![[atom+xml]](/fct/images/atom_doc.png)
![[html]](/fct/images/html_doc.png)