On the day of the pick up, the driver arrived with the list of items that the customer had provided and signed. He thereby asked him if there would be any changes, at which time the customer confirmed and signed the list a second time. The driver then counted the amount of items, according to the changes that Mr. McManus added, and came up with 131(!) items- almost triple the original order. Some of the items even required packing. As the law requires us, we need to give the customer an in-home revised estimate prior to loading - which the driver did. The customer had a chance to cancel and go with another company but he agreed, signed the papers and paid the 50% of the pick up by credit card. At this point, the driver began loading the customer’s items.

Mr. McManus was offered to go with the basic insurance coverage, buy the additional cash value option or go through movinginsurance.com and purchase the full value option. He chose the basic insurance option.

In reference to his claim that we refused to transport certain items, we - as a moving company - are not allowed to carry any plants, chemicals, weapons or a loaded gas tank.

For some reason, we were told to deliver the items to a storage facility rather than to his new home. By the point at which Mr McManus’ items were delivered to the facility, there were no items missing and no damages. All that he actually claimed, in writing, was that the barbecue grill had been missing. It appears that the customer moved the rest of his items either on his own or with the help of another moving company from the storage facility to his new location. He may or may not have used a professional local moving company. This may account for his after-the-fact claims that some of the items were ‘discovered’ damaged after the delivery. The pictures he provided on his claim were clearly taken in a house, as opposed to a storage unit, where our work ended. This makes it pretty obvious that the damages must have occurred in the new house, otherwise why wouldn’t he have photographed the damages while they were still in the storage unit? Why wait until they were moved again by someone else if we were responsible for the damages? This customer is attempting to attribute the problems he incurred – after our work was done – to our company. Nonetheless, we still responded to his claim, through our claims department and are more than happy to look into his post-move claims to try our best to satisfy the customer.

In addition, we required all customers to have access for a 53-foot trailer at delivery. The customer claims that he was charged unfairly for a shuttle service at delivery because he believes he saw other 18-wheeler trucks going into the same storage. He may have seen 38-foot, 45-foot or 48-foot 18 wheel trucks and had mistaken them for larger ones. The simple way would be for the driver to deliver directly from the truck and continue to his other deliveries, rather than going back and forth, looking for a rental truck company and seeking out professional labor for help. The $350.00 was just to cover the expenses for all of these endeavors.

Mr. McManus claims that he has made several attempts to reach us to investigate his claims. Not only did the customer never try to contact any supervisor here at AAA Moving Systems, he also chose a very unethical and potentially dangerous method of getting our
attention.

Sincere Regards,
AAA Moving Systems
www.aaamovingsystems.com