Susan Dunham is unethical and failed to do her job…read more
On April 19, I spoke with Susan on the phone, about her services. We agreed upon three delivery attempts within three to five days. So, not including the day we spoke (Friday), the deadline was the next Friday, April 26. Her husband, not Susan, only made one delivery attempt during this period. I only received from her one notice of attempted delivery on April 25, Thursday. Incidentally, when I spoke with Susan a second time on the phone, she said her husband made the delivery attempt, not her. But the notice I received via email states that Susan made the delivery attempt. I received notice of another delivery attempt on April 27, Saturday. But by that time the five day requirement had already expired on the previous Friday. But if we include the Friday we spoke (April 19), the expiration day was Thursday. But for the sake of argument, I'll grant her from Monday to Friday (five days); but the actual expiration date was April 26, Friday. I have the documented evidence from her of only one delivery attempt during that five day period. In a later email, she claimed that there were two delivery attempts, but I have no email evidence from her notifying me of another attempt within the five day period; and her claim doesn't help her position, because there were supposed to be three attempts, not two. The documentary evidence doesn't support her claim. The notification evidence only shows one delivery attempt within the five day period. As for her admission to making a phone call to the Defendant, this was not part of our agreement when we spoke on April 19. I would never agree to a phone call made to the Defendant, because this totally destroys the element of surprise. Now that the Defendant is aware they are being sued, they may avoid being at their office, in order to avoid getting served. Further, I never even received any email notification, verifying this phone call. There were supposed to be three physical delivery attempts within three to five days. This is what Susan communicated to me when we spoke on April 19. I am only going by what she actually communicated. In spite of all of the above, Susan had the audacity to bill me for her service, even though she did not fulfill our agreement; and she had the audacity to offer a $5 discount, since I cancelled my request for her service, since she failed to make the three delivery attempts within the three to five day time period. If she was going to offer a discount at all, it should have been for her failure to fulfill her obligation. Please note, at no time did Susan offer me any explanation or apology for why she failed to make three delivery attempts within the three to five day time frame. Instead, she claimed that my refusal to pay her will go to collections. I can prove everything I am saying from her emails. Surprisingly, In her last email, she completely changed her story. Now she claims that she was supposed to make one delivery attempt within the three to five day period. I never agreed to this in our phone conversation or in writing. In fact, I specifically rejected her offer to go beyond the five days, since that would cost more money. To be precise, the agreement was for three delivery attempts within three to five days. I have all the documentation proving my case here. Susan is sloppy and unethical. I cannot recommend her services. Update: I discovered an email from Susan, dated to June of last year. In this email, Susan states that there are always three delivery attempts with a turnaround of three to five days. This is also what we agreed on when we recently spoke on the phone. This email contradicts her recent email, which states that there is only one delivery attempt within three to five days. When I shared a copy of the June email with Susan, there was no response.
