[ad_1]
Stomper P He was enraged when he saw that his Pomeranian, which costs $ 4,000, was ‘shaved to the skin’ by a groomer at The Precious Pets, adding that he did not ask that his dog be shaved.
However, the groomer and the head of the mobile grooming company refuted her claims and said that her husband had given specific instructions for her to shave the dog’s hair.
It all started when P organized a grooming session for his dog, Dede, at his home on Saturday (January 9).
P told Stomp that he asked the groomer, J, to groom Dede’s fur “like a Shiba Inu.”
“My husband and I showed J two pictures of what Dede looked like after his previous grooming sessions. J saw our own grooming equipment (scissors, comb, razor) and asked about the razor,” said P.
“I told him that the previous groomer only used scissors to cut Dede’s fur and didn’t use a razor. We didn’t even charge the razor’s battery because it wasn’t in use.
“My husband and I later left Dede with J in the room so that she could comfortably do her work. But when we returned, we saw that all of Dede’s fur was shaved off, much to our horror.
“His outer and inner coat were gone. Everything was gone!”
P added that her husband refused to pay the $ 100 cleaning fee and asked J to ask his boss to call the couple.
“The boss didn’t call us. Instead, he just sent us a message on WhatsApp asking for payment and saying that the hairdresser was just following instructions,” said P.
“But we didn’t tell him to shave Dede’s outer and inner fur! In fact, we told him that the previous hairdresser only used the scissors to cut the fur.”
P explained that they hired The Precious Pets to groom Dede, as they saw that the online reviews were good.
“But look at our Pomeranian now. The pictures speak louder than a thousand words! My dog is shivering all the time because he has no more hair left. He is in shock and refuses to play. He was actually sitting in a corner behind the door all day after cleaning. “
However, the hairdresser, J, refuted P’s claims, explaining in a Facebook post that he did a mandatory pre-grooming consultation with P’s husband to clarify how short he wanted Dede’s coat to be.
This is my account of what happened. I’m J, a mobile pet groomer working for The Precious Pets. I was the hairdresser …
Posted by Joycelin Ong on Monday Jan 11, 2021
According to the Facebook post, the conversation went a bit like this:
J: “How short should I cut Dede’s fur?”
P’s husband: “Short.”
J: “How short? Botak?”
P’s husband: “Not so low.”
J wrote that while setting the table with his professional grooming tools, P’s husband snapped, “Don’t use your tools. Use ours.”
“His tools were a portable household shaver and three pairs of grooming scissors,” J wrote in his post.
“I pointed out to him that the longest blade was 2mm and asked him if he was sure he wanted me to shave Dede with this. He said it was fine.”
J added that when P entered the room, he clarified with the couple again if they wanted to use his razor, which would result in Dede being ‘botak’, to which they both responded with a firm yes.
“P then told her husband that her previous groomer made scissors and did not use a razor. Sensing their uncertainty, I immediately reminded them that a 2mm blade would result in their dog being a botak,” wrote J.
P’s husband said ‘yes’ and the couple left the room to allow J to groom Dede.
“I proceeded to shave Dede. When I was halfway through, P came in and commented ‘Wah’. I looked at him trying to understand what he meant by that, he said, “You’ll find out later,” wrote J.
Just when J had almost finished shaving Dede’s body, P walked in and “started crying”, saying that his dog had never had such a short coat before.
Later P told J: “It is a lack of communication. Next time don’t listen to my husband, he doesn’t know anything. “
She even told J that her husband was so angry that he didn’t want to look at the dog anymore.
P’s husband then motioned for J to enter his room and the conversation that followed went like this:
P’s husband: “How much do you think I should pay you?”
J: “It’s $ 100 for today’s haircut and transportation fee.”
P’s husband: “$ 100? You yourself think I should pay you $ 100 or not. Do you think you let me know later?
J said that P’s husband stepped on the bathroom door and slammed it shut. He then proceeded to leave the room while closing the bedroom door.
In his Facebook post, J said that he subsequently left the house without receiving payment because he “feared for (his) safety.”
She mentioned in the Facebook post that she wanted to explain her side of the story, as the matter had broken out on social media.
In response to a query from Stomp, Sylvester Tan, the boss of The Precious Pets, said: “From our perspective, our groomer had done his best, under the circumstances, to accommodate the requests of the client and the client’s husband.
“While we understand that the client is frustrated by how the grooming turned out, it is not right for her to refuse to pay for our services, then threaten a lawsuit and spread a one-sided story that leaves out important facts.
“Importantly, we understand that the customer has also posted a screenshot of our pet groomer Facebook page including their name and photo. We support all Precious Pets members. There can be no excuse for doxing, bullying or harassment “.
Sylvester added that they will receive advice regarding the client’s threats of legal action and will take the necessary steps to protect Precious Pets and its members.
You can read the full statement here:
Precious Pet Care Services (UEN 53205372M) PUBLIC STATEMENT 1. As an animal lover, I know how important it is that …
Posted by Precious Pets Singapore on Sunday, Jan 10, 2021
In response to the statement, Stomper P disputed his claim in the comment section of the Facebook post.
P wrote that the hair salon company “showed no remorse at all”, adding that his account of the story is “false.”
Many netizens have weighed in on this incident, claiming it is a “he said, she said” situation.
Other netizens, on the other hand, have made it clear which side they are on.
See more photos in the gallery.
[ad_2]
