Complaints

• Initial Complaint

  04/03/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Delivery Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Back on September 13 2023 **** ****** was delivering something to a customer at *** * *** ******. He was driving a company truck that belongs to ***** Enterprise Llc. I spoke with the owner of the company who is ***** *****. **** ****** was driving when he backed into my parked car that was in a parking lot outside of the building. He caused damage to my trunk and taillight. ***** was supposed to take care of my damages which he has not! I’ve reached out several times with no response. I have 3 eye witnesses to this incident and I also have video footage of the incident. I have been more than patient. Before I file a lawsuit I would like for the bbb to try and get this resolved

  Business response

  04/11/2024

  ***** ***** <**************************>
  Apr 10, 2024, 8:15 PM (17 hours ago)
  to Better
  
  Hello,
  
  I am so sorry. My daughter had emergency surgery and I've been at the hospital for a week. 
  
  I hope to get a response sent in the next couple days.
  
  Will that be acceptable?
  
  Thank you
  

  
  

  Business response

  04/16/2024

  
  On September 13, 2023 our driver contacted the owner of the company to let him know that he had bumped into a car parked on the street during a delivery. Fortunately, the customer he was delivering to knew who owned the car and notified her so she could come out and speak to the driver. The driver gave her the contact information for the owner of the company. At no point did he deny that he bumped into her car. 
  ***** texted her that same day giving his first and last names, the name of his company and stating that his driver bumped into her car. He requested photos of the damage and stated he would get this taken care of for her. She did respond with a photo of a small dent in her trunk. 
  On September 15th, ***** gave her the contact information for a mobile repairman but unfortunately, the repairman did not respond to her. ***** let her know that we do have insurance, but this would be less than our deductible so he would just pay for it himself.  
  ***** was out of town without cell service over the weekend. The owner of the car told ***** she was going to call the police. He apologized for not being able to respond over the weekend. He told her he would go ahead and contact his insurance company and to send him the police report number. 
  She then stated she did not have *****’s name; which he gave to her in the first text message he sent on Sept. 13th. He apologized for the mobile repairman not responding to her and let her know that he had contacted his insurance company. He resent his name as requested and the name of his insurance company. He let her know that he had not had a driver hit a car before and that he was trying his best to get this taken care of for her in a timely manner. 
  On September 19th, he suggested 2 options - She could take her car to an autobody shop for an estimate, or he could give her $300 cash which is the estimated amount of the damages to her trunk based upon his research showing the picture she had texted to autobody repair shops. He gave her the choice. She was in complete control. At no point did he refuse to take responsibility. 
  She said she thought she should go to an autobody shop because she thinks the repair would be more than $300. At this point she said her light was damaged in addition to her trunk. This was the first time she had mentioned her light. She said she would send a video of the damage to the light. 
  He waited for her to respond with her choice. On September 26th, she texted that he had not gotten back with her and asked her what shop he wanted her to take the car to. ***** responded that he had assumed she would want to choose a shop herself. She stated that she did not want to find a shop herself. He offered to find a shop for her. He also told her he had spoken with the driver, and they did not see how he could have damaged her light. ***** said the trunk would be the only area the truck could have made contact with. ***** also stated that he had to do his due diligence to be sure he is responsible for the damage to the light and if so, he would happily take care of it. 
  He informed her that the video she sent was very blurry and he would find a shop for her as she requested. 
  On September 27th, ***** sent a screenshot of Three-C Body Shops to her so she could contact them for an estimate. She replied with a “thumbs up” emoji. 
  
  This was the last time she contacted *****.  
  We can provide screenshots of all the text messages if you would like to see them.  
  ***** stated that he would happily get this taken care of for her: but he could not do so without her providing an estimate. We are very confused as to how she thought he could have her car repaired without an estimate or any contact from her at all.  
  At this point, she has chosen not to contact ***** for about seven months. This brings up concerns over other damage to her car which could have occurred during this time.  

  Customer response

  04/26/2024

  [If you do not say why you are rejecting the company's response, BBB must close your complaint.] 
  
  Complaint: 21523526
  
  I am rejecting this response because: this man has told numerous lies. He stopped answering the phone! I have my original pictures that I took when it first happened I also have video and I have people that witnessed his truck hitting my car! I also have estimates! I’m prepared to take it to court if it doesn’t get resolved! I will sue for more than the estimated damages ! I need a couple more days I’m waiting on a witness written statement 
  
  Regards,
  
  ***** *********

  Business response

  05/03/2024

  ***** contacted this person before she contacted him on the day of the incident in a text message and said: “Hello this is ***** with ***** Enterprises my driver said he bumped into your vehicle. Can you please send me pictures of the damage so I can get this taken care of for you.” 

  
  ***** has stated (in writing via text) from the day of the incident that he will take care of the damage. At no point has he refused to take responsibility. He has only questioned whether he is also responsible for damage to her light because in response to his request for photos, she sent one photo of a dent in her trunk. After he offered a settlement for the dent in her trunk, she replied that her light was also damaged. He then texted: “I have to do my due diligence and make sure we cause that damage is all then we’ll happily take care of it”. She sent a video which he informed her was very blurry. She did not send any additional photos or videos.  

  
  There are no phone calls. All the communications about this incident have been via text message. Screenshots of all the messages were uploaded to the BBB and back up everything stated here.  

  
  It is not possible to pay for damages with no estimates. ***** has waited for estimates since September 27, 2023. 

  
  All she has to do is send him the estimates and proof that his driver also damaged her light. 

  
  ***** is very confused by the fact that she has not sent any estimates for over six months and then chose instead to file a claim with the BBB.  

• Initial Complaint

  08/15/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Dear Sir/Madam,

  Complaint against Elick Entreprises LLC due to significant damages to my new home. Seeking resolution for a property valued at nearly half a million dollars and the endured emotional toll. Despite hopes for fair resolution, parties involved evaded responsibility. As the one-year refusal mark nears, escalating for accountability.

  On October 13, 2022, engaged Manard’s for delivery to **** ******** ****** ********** ****. Purchased a refrigerator from Manard’s, delivered same day.

  Unfortunately, Elick Entreprises LLC delivery team, managed by Manard’s, caused extensive damage—doorbell breakage, wall scratches, stairway handle damage, and floor ruin. Reported same day at Manard’s location, 1805 Morse Rd, Columbus, OH 43229. Regrettably, response unsatisfactory. During delivery, refrigerator’s handle damaged, refused it. In response, delivery team became enraged, rushing out with damaged refrigerator without regard to my property. Aggressive behavior added further distress.

  Despite undeniable evidence and team’s firing, their insurance Erie Insurance, denied claims. Provided photographs, sales documents, and video displaying undamaged home before delivery. Purchased from Manard’s for over $2500, need for replacement shortly after underscores extent of damage. Lack of acknowledgment, compensation, and transparency from Manard’s, Erie Insurance, and Elick Entreprises LLC constitutes significant breach of trust.

  Beyond financial burden, emotional toll strained relationship with spouse.

  Seeking justice and accountability, demand:

  1. Acknowledgment of damages caused by delivery team.

  2. Adequate compensation for property damage.

  3. Compensation for emotional distress.

  4. Formal apologies from both Manard’s and Erie Insurance.

  Prepared to escalate matter further if necessary, kindly request BBB intervention for just resolution.

  Enclosed are necessary documents, including photographs, sales records, and correspondence. Thank you

  Business response

  08/29/2023

  The customer claims Elick Enterprises “evaded responsibility” and accountability. We cooperated fully with our insurance company in their investigation of the customers claim, which was denied. We feel this proves both responsibility and accountability.
  
  The customer claims he ordered a refrigerator for delivery same day by Menards on October 13, 2022. Menards does not offer same day delivery.
  
  This refrigerator was first scheduled for delivery on September 13, 2022. The delivery team arrived to find that the home was not yet built. The refrigerator was returned to the store.
  
  The delivery team delivered the refrigerator to **** ******** ****** ********** **** on October 13, 2022.
  
  The refrigerator was shipped by the manufacturer with the handles inside to be attached when installed. This is common practice.
  
  When the delivery team removed the handles from the interior of the refrigerator to be attached in the customer’s kitchen, the handles were found by the delivery team to have been shipped damaged by the manufacturer. They could not be attached to the refrigerator.
  
  The delivery driver called the Menards store on Morse Road where the refrigerator had been purchased and was told to return the refrigerator to the store for return to the manufacturer and replacement as is often customary with a manufacturer defect. Menards promptly replaced the refrigerator.
  
  The refrigerator was not damaged. It was returned to the manufacturer because the unattached handles were damaged and could not be attached to the refrigerator.
  
  The delivery team is well trained in Customer Service and accustomed to handling issues such as manufacturer defects. There was no aggressive or angry response. The delivery team is paid per delivery. It makes no difference to them when an item is returned to the store.
  
  Elick Enterprises has many positive online reviews and is among the top delivery companies for Menards Corporate. This is a record we are quite proud of as we have successfully delivered many thousands of items for Menards since 2018.
  
  The customer claims the delivery team was fired. This is simply not true.
  
  The customer is claiming the refrigerator door handle caused damage to his home. The handles were never attached to the refrigerator as noted above. If there had been damage to the home made by the refrigerator; it would have been damaged. It was not. It was returned solely because the handles were shipped damaged and could not be attached.
  
  The customer contacted the owner of the company multiple times; including several calls after their claim was denied by our insurance company. These calls eventually included threats to the company.
  
  Even though it was determined by our insurance company that Elick Enterprises did not cause damage to this home, the owner of Elick Enterprises extended an offer to this customer of $200 as a gesture of goodwill. The customer refused the offer.
  
  We believe this issue was resolved by the completion of the investigation by our insurance company. We advise the customer to contact Erie Insurance if they feel their denial was in error.
  
   

  Customer response

  09/07/2023

  [If you do not say why you are rejecting the company's response, BBB must close your complaint.] 
  
  Complaint: 20472192
  
  I am rejecting this response because: 
  The company recognized that the house is a new build and their first attempt of delivery was not completed because the house was not finish.

  second, how would they offer me money for the trouble if no harm was done by them? What kind of company would do that?

  i have provided pictures of damages and proof that the house was new build and they actually confirmed it here. There was no furniture in the house and only a couple de days between their first attempt and the second attempted delivery.

  when I said the same day I was referring the to the delivery date and the complain date to Menards.

  the company and their insurance are doing everything everything to evade responsibility. 
  I will do everything in my power to gain result here. This is a house that’s costing me almost a half million dollars and I have to pay for years.

  i demand they fix the damages they have caused and all they burdens associated.

  once again the company recognized it is a new build and they affirmed it by saying “ they could not deliver the first time because the house was not finished during their first delivery attempt”.

  i have receipts of my furnitures that were delivered months after I move in, way later than the refrigerator delivery.

  
  Regards,
  
  ******* *****

*Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business. ↩