A diamond earring retailing $198 was reported stolen from my home, following a regular biweekly cleaning by Molly Maids. I know this because I always check the house after a cleaning to view the quality of work performed. There was no other access to my residence following the cleaning, other than by me.
I noticed that my computer desk was not dusted, which is where the earring had been placed prior to being taken. When I initialized a verbal complaint to the local owner Adam, I asked that he assign different personnel for the cleaning services of my home, at which time he indicated that he would check with his staff and get back with me on the theft issue.
I informed Adam that the desk had not been dusted and that another less expensive earring was also on the desk, which remained untouched. Following a period of time and to the current day, the issue never resolved to my satisfaction which has led to the outstanding invoice, in the interim.
As a customer, I am completely dissatisfied with the result, never did get a replacement earring, and never received an apology or a reimbursement for same. I had asked Molly Maids to terminate services around Christmas of 2007 and requested at that time that they return the key to my residence. This key has yet to be returned and as a consequence, I have had the locks re-keyed on my residence at a cost of $55. There is an outstanding balance remaining for cleaning services provided, which is in dispute, but for these issues.
I am a Senior Vice President for a company that handles business in multiple states. As such, I understand the elements of customer relations management in business practice and doing what is right for sustainability in the market. I have learned to listen to my customers and identify that what they are telling me is truthful.
Molly Maids has treated this whole issue with disbelief, which will only foster problems internally. It embraces that stealing is acceptable underneath their umbrella and has pushed me, the customer, away for good. Subject to the devices of good business practice, I thought the local owner and corporate office of Molly Maids would at least do something to make good on the part of this claim, yet the resounding element is distaste.
While the amount at claim here may seem petty, what's significant is the matter of principle over money. All of this could have been avoided if Molly Maids listened and had understanding to reason, thus bringing the issue to resolve. Seemingly, these measures are sensible to me, but for a company like Molly Maids, abstract, advanced and out of reach. For that, I remain.