Update: responding to a letter and refund check from My Dog. Ms. Erb,
I am in receipt of your letter and partial refund check. I will address each issue individually:
* The refund "calculations"
* Leo's behavior
* Your trainer
* My "gratitude
Refund Calculations:
Attached is a photo of the final check out receipt for Leo. On it you will see that we had 6 full days and 7 half days left, not 4 full days that you refunded us. Second, there was never a refund pf $47.00, (or any other amount) from you on our credit card. Those funds were transferred to another service, so essentially we have been charged twice for them. So as far as the refund goes, you still owe us $119.00, which I will make the Better Business Bureau aware of, complete with receipts. As far as your "no refund policy" goes, since our departure from your care was due to your negligence your refund policy is null and void.
Leo's Behavior:
As far as the said damages that Leo is accused of go, we would have been more than happy to pay for any damages had there been any proof other than hearsay from your employees and a report of it long after the fact. Some of your former employees, who Laura keeps in contact with, have stated emphatically that Leo is not responsible for any damage and that there was never any problems with him. His new daycare has had nothing but glowing reports. Leo is simply not a destructive dog when he is being cared for properly. Teething has nothing to do with it. Leo is a mischievous puppy who likes to abscond with a bag of potato chips and is demanding of attention, but he is not destructive in any way. Laura travels with him frequently and he has never demonstrated destructive behavior away from home.
Your Trainer:
When Laura suggested to me that we bring your trainer in for advice I was completely against it. That said, our concerns had nothing to do with any sort of destructive behavior. Laura thought that a trainer might help me to better communicate with Leo as I tend to be too easy going with him. The one, and only one, session we had with your trainer was completely useless and a waste of money. She was completely unhelpful and we never called again. If she keeps any sort of accurate records they will indicate my daughter's desire to help me communicate with Leo to help with his need for attention and scratching at me for it. I am on blood thinners and any cut can be dangerous. This was our only concern.
My "Gratitude":
It takes an enormous amount of hubris to suggest that someone should be grateful for another person doing the right thing. I wish it surprised me that you decide to acknowledge my role in caring for Leo, when you refused the same when asked for the military discount you advertise. In response to your Facebook post, I am left wondering what your definition of "strong Christian values" means when you deny a war veteran advertised benefits. I'm also left wondering what that means to you while you are allowing Leo to be physically reprimanded without our knowledge or consent. What makes your facility different from other daycare facilities is the fact that it's crumbling down and has no area that is visible to owners. Leo is at a daycare where he receives constant attention. His care can be monitored by us at any time as all areas are open for observation. What makes your facility different is that it is unsafe and completely hidden from view, and where dogs are left unsupervised long enough to do damage and then physically reprimanded. What I am grateful for is that this has come to light and that Leo, Emily and Arthur will no longer be subjected to these conditions. I am also grateful that our interactions are over.
Regretfully,
Richard Kamienski
I'm an 87 year old Korean War veteran. I've been paying for my daughter's dogs to go to grooming and daycare for the past couple of years. When I learned about the military discount I was refused because, "they are my daughter's dogs." Since my daughter lives with me, and the dogs live in my house, AND I was paying over 700.00 a month to this facility, I am angered to be denied this discount. Also, the owner has accused one of our dogs of doing damage without any proof at all. She is charging my card without permission or proof. Leo is a puppy and is mischievous as are all puppies. It seems to me that a responsible daycare would design the facility not to endanger clients. It also seems to me that they should be attended at all times. Imagine if these were human kids being left alone to possible ingest something dangerous. I've also noticed that Leo hasn't wanted to go there lately. I asked my daughter why and she told me that the owner had fired all of the staff who actually cared about the dogs. We will not be using My Dog again. read more