You remember a couple of weeks ago in the "Riding around in the Rock bus..." post I had a little head to head with Lowes...?
Well after much wrangling with their corporate customer care, I finally managed to get them to apparently waterboard, magneto, threaten families or whatever, and I got an email from the store manager. Apparently the mail I got from Lowes corporate on the 23rd March saying I'd get a response from the store manager within 24 hours "got lost" (or they had to use physical torture methods). So I asked them to ask the manager to reforward that mail.
Here is the mail I received (the names have been changed to protect the guilty)
From: R Sole
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 1:06 PM
Mr Gungnir esq.,
I would like to apologize for you not receiving the first email from us. We
are more than happy to reimburse you the $150 you spent I would also like to
offer you and additional $50 for the inconvenience for a total of $200.00.
Please just let me know
how you would like that and when you would be coming in to pick it up.
Please use me as your point of contact going forward. Sorry for the
inconvenience of this situation.
All information in and attached to the e-mail(s) below may be proprietary,
confidential, privileged and otherwise protected from improper or erroneous
disclosure. If you are not the sender's intended recipient, you are not
authorized to intercept, read, print, retain, copy, forward, or disseminate
this message. If you have erroneously received this communication, please
notify the sender immediately by phone
(704-555-1000) or by e-mail and destroy all copies of this message
(electronic, paper, or otherwise). Thank you.
Ok so my first question was... Where's the header from the forward...? Unknown, so I checked the mail header itself...
So What you all cry...
Received: from relay3.lowes.com (mail3.lowes.com [188.8.131.52])
by imf25.b.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 21:06:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from msex07corpht2.lowes.com (Unknown_Domain [172.26.145.119])
by relay3.lowes.com (SMTP Banner) with SMTP id 25.5A.25756.7258B9D4; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 17:09:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from msex07ht2.store.lowes.com (172.26.148.18) by
msex07corpht2.lowes.com (172.26.145.119) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id
8.1.375.2; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 17:06:16 -0400
Received: from msex07db02.store.lowes.com ([172.26.148.20]) by
msex07ht2.store.lowes.com ([172.26.148.18]) with mapi; Tue, 5 Apr 2011
Ok so two things, firstly IT Guys are remarkably unimaginitive, or incredibly imaginitive, mail server names have two possible types, something totally arcane for instance mimir.valhalla.com, or something partially descriptive, for instance msex07corpht2.lowes.com. So no the server wasn't named msex because it's short for Mmmmm... Sex! It's probably named such because it's a Microsoft Exchange machine, and I'd hazard a guess it's Microsoft Exchange 2007 too (which I got a ship it award for while at Microsoft). So it's all just conjecture right... No there's also "Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS)" meaning that it's almost certainly using Exchange Server 2003 or later (google it, don't take my word for it).
What this means is the mail that was allegedly sent wasn't sent. Of course it is entirely possible that Mr R Sole of Lowes doesn't know where his "Sent Items" folder is, or their IT Monkeys can't query through WebDAV, but that's unlikely.
So I responded with this...
From: Mr Gungnir Esq.
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 1:56 PM
To: R Sole
Subject: Re: Blower
I'm not sure you're dealing with the core of my grievance.
The core of my grievance was that Ken made a statement that I had agreed to something that I had not and then argued with me that I had agreed to this. As far as I was aware at the time he left the only agreement was on the method of reimbursement, not the amount. However if the money was the core issue then I would have taken what I could have got and left. It was more
the attitude and belligerence that was the issue. You should have tapes that confirm my statement from your surveillance systems.
There is also an apparent discrepancy between the information we were provided at time of sale of the insulation, that the blower would be available for a reasonable period of time (a couple of weeks or more) for free due to our remote location and the amount of product we purchased. This was confirmed several times with several cashiers and assistants, yet was
contradicted by Ken during our discussion but only after we began arguing about the reimbursement value.
Now as to fair reimbursement for my costs based upon the good faith purchase I made of the Thermo-Kool insulation, I'm to my mind $240 down for the hire of the blower from Spenards. Which at time of purchase I was expecting to loan for free from Lowes. It's also ignoring any personal inconvenience of multiple trips to Fairbanks (including costs of transport) and sourcing at an alternate location. Incidentally Spenards were very gracious in not charging us the full fee for the length of time we had the blower (due to our location) which is an example of good customer service you may learn from, that actual cost should have been $650.
So my full list of grievances
1) No blower available multiple times when attempting to obtain from Lowes
2) Having to locate alternate source of blower
3) Having a statement from a manager that they would reimburse the costs of renting that blower due to inability of Lowes to deliver on their commitment (this is only a grievance due to later events)
4) Having a manager become belligerent and hostile about a trifling difference in expectations ($60) on the reimbursement value
5) Contacting Lowes Corporate, getting a response from them that I would get a response in 24 hours and not getting that response
6) Re-contacting Lowes Corporate about lack of contact from your store, and being told that there was a mail sent (the check is in the mail)
7) Not being forwarded the original mail, that would have proven the claim that the original mail from your store was sent
I'll be perfectly honest, for the argued difference (at the time of the incident I was arguing for $210 due to an expected 7 day rental and a reimbursement maximum of $30/day) this has cost Lowes significantly more than that, for your time, for the Corporate time, and certainly in lost
business. This seems counter productive to me.
Now based on all of that, if you will send me what you consider to be fair compensation for the inconvenience and loss of good faith, then I will let you know whether I find that acceptable.
So two days have passed, and no contact so I've kicked my Corporate contact again. The thing I love the most is that Lowes has the following policy...
Well when I had an agreement with one of the senior managers on something, and another manager doesn't live up to that agreement and indeed argues that the agreement wasn't as I was led to believe, is that misrepresenting a material fact...? Well I don't know...
Each Employee will conduct all dealings with Lowe's customers and suppliers fairly and will compete honestly and ethically. Employees should not seek to obtain any advantage for the company by manipulating or concealing facts, misusing privileged information, misrepresenting material facts or otherwise acting illegally, unfairly, dishonestly or unethically.
I will keep you posted however, whether you're interested or not. I'm pretty much neutral on the issue and the only reason I'm still pursuing it is to bring a small degree of sadistic joy into my life knowing that someone somewhere in Lowes corporate might go and repeatedly kick Mr Sole in the gonads, with steel toe capped boots. Once this happens there is also the sadistic joy knowing Mr Sole once he has joined his local choir as a mezzo-soprano will go and take out his steel toe capped boots and perform the same service to the idiot who p*ssed me off.