Response from the owner - a year ago
Dear Ms. Barton,
I have puzzled for two months how to respond to your review.
When your mother, Betty Barton, brought DJ in for his groom, she stated that she was DJ’s legal owner and that she had responsibility for his account. Betty read our release form, initialed each paragraph, and signed and dated the bottom6-18-13. I counter-signed, creating a legally binding contract.
Paragraph 3 of the release form states: “Owner agrees not to bring their pet into our facility if the dog appears sick; has fleas or ticks (owner will be charged for flea bath); has diarrhea, worms, coughing, mange or another communicable disease; or if its behavior may jeopardize the safety and health of other pets and/or our staff.”
When I called to tell Betty that DJ had fleas, the person who picked up the telephone indicated he or she understood that Betty would be charged $25.00 for the flea bath. We captured several fleas and included a sample for Betty’s verification.
While completing DJ’s groom, Betty called to ask why she was being charged extra. The employee who answered the call explained the flea bath charge. It was at this point that I learned that Betty had not answered her telephone when I called to notify her of DJ’s flea infestation, but rather, her 11-year-old son. Her son did not identify himself to me. I was under the impression that I was speaking to Betty.
When you arrived to pick DJ up, you were angry and upset that your 11-year-old brother had answered the telephone and that I had not known that I was speaking to a child. I called the number that Betty left to be reached at. She had indicated that she would be answering it.
Who was rude to whom when you picked up DJ, or whether your mother authorized your brother to answer her telephone is far beside the point. Failure to pay for services rendered constitutes theft of services. Rather than offering to throw you out on your ear, I should have called the Raleigh Police Department and pressed charges.