This complaint is submitted to formally document a business transaction with Zerorez, a cleaning service company, involving a serious breach of contract, unauthorized charges, solicitation of cash payment, substandard service delivery, and a demonstrated pattern of unprofessional conduct. This account is factual, firsthand, and supported by retained written communications and preserved security footage.
Prior to booking, thorough vetting of this company was conducted. Photographs of all areas requiring cleaning were submitted in advance, along with explicit and detailed descriptions of the carpet conditions, including heavily soiled areas with food and drink spills, with particular emphasis on the most severely affected room. Zerorez was directly asked whether they were equipped to handle that level of soiling, what products they used, and what their cleaning method entailed. Their representative explained the process in full: applying a solution, allowing it to soak, followed by steam and deep cleaning. They confirmed their capability to handle the job. Based on that assurance, the booking proceeded.
Zerorez quoted $117 to clean two rooms and a hallway. That quote was communicated in writing and has been retained. The budget was made explicitly clear prior to agreeing to any service. Zerorez confirmed the price. The booking was made in good faith on that basis.
On Sunday, April 25, 2026, the amount charged was over $200+, nearly double the agreed price, with no prior notice, no written amendment, and no authorization from the contracting party. A household member who was present but not part of the original booking was caught off guard by the charge. When the discrepancy was questioned, the technician cited stair cleaning as justification, a service that was never discussed, never quoted, and never authorized. This constitutes a clear and direct breach of the original service agreement.
Documented Violations
1. Unauthorized Charges
The amount collected exceeded the contracted price by nearly 100%, with no prior communication or consent from the contracting party.
2. Cash Solicitation, Recorded
The technician solicited cash payment following the service. This interaction was captured in its entirety on an in-home security system, and that footage has been preserved.
3. Undisclosed Add-On Conditions Applied After Payment
Only after payment was rendered did the technician introduce additional conditions, specifically that the stairs would require separate deep cleaning. These disclosures should have been made at the time of booking or, at minimum, before service commenced. Introducing them post-payment is deceptive and constitutes an unethical business practice.
4. Substandard Quality of Work
The cleaning performed fell significantly below the standard represented during the booking process and below what any reasonable consumer would expect for the amount charged. The quality of work was wholly unacceptable.
5. Time-Sensitive Information Willfully Disregarded
Multiple Zerorez representatives, reached across two to three different phone numbers, were informed that this cleaning was time-sensitive due to a furniture delivery scheduled for the following day. That information was disregarded entirely, causing direct and measurable inconvenience.
A review of Zerorez's reputation outside of their own curated and self-managed platforms indicates that this experience is not an isolated incident. The conduct described here appears consistent with a broader pattern of behavior toward consumers.
Zerorez presents itself as a capable and professional cleaning service. However, this transaction revealed a complete absence of integrity, as the quoted price was not honored, no accountability, as unauthorized charges were applied with no corrective response, no transparency, as critical cost changes and service conditions were withheld until after payment was collected, and solicitation practices that bypass standard invoicing and create unverifiable payment trails.
Zerorez's response to this matter was not a refund, an apology, or any acknowledgment of wrongdoing. Instead, they proposed to return and reclean the carpet, the very same service they failed to deliver the first time. Furthermore, this offer came with a condition: that all newly delivered furniture be removed from the rooms in order to grant them access to the carpet again.
This is unacceptable on every level. A company that failed to perform the job correctly the first time, despite receiving advance notice, photographs, detailed descriptions, and having confirmed their capability, does not merit a second opportunity, particularly under conditions that are now less favorable than the original. The furniture delivery that this cleaning was specifically scheduled ahead of has already taken place. That timeline was communicated to multiple representatives and was ignored. read more