(from theView attachment 24492 eClean Blog Page)
Is giving your customers instructions to care for their plants after roof cleaning enough to protect contractors from liability? That's the debate in a recent newspaper column by a "consumer watchdog."
A reputable roof washing company was recently targeted by an unhappy customer who complained that his roof-cleaning chemicals killed $600 worth of plants. The customer was so unhappy, in fact, that he wrote a local columnist who picked up the case. The headline: "Clean Kills Green."
(Note: I'm not mentioning the roof cleaning contractor or his company name to minimize bad press for his company. I will say the article mentions he has been in business for 11 years, and advertises using low-pressure cleaning techniques that allow him to not walk on the roof. Also, the customer said he was very happy with the roof cleaning itself.)
The contractor admitted that the cleaning solutions possibly killed one plant and likely damaged the others, but states that the homeowner did not follow his instructions for caring for his plants after the cleaning.
The columnist wrote: "My suggestion to (contractor's name) was that he print those instructions so customers know what to do. If they ignore the advice, it’s their own fault and (he) can’t be held accountable. Or since heavy rain dilutes chemicals, maybe he should just tell people to water heavy for a week or so."
In the meantime, however, the columnist points out that she believes the contractor is at fault. The question now is which is more expensive...the $600 for new landscaping, or the price of negative press.
Is giving your customers instructions to care for their plants after roof cleaning enough to protect contractors from liability? That's the debate in a recent newspaper column by a "consumer watchdog."
A reputable roof washing company was recently targeted by an unhappy customer who complained that his roof-cleaning chemicals killed $600 worth of plants. The customer was so unhappy, in fact, that he wrote a local columnist who picked up the case. The headline: "Clean Kills Green."
(Note: I'm not mentioning the roof cleaning contractor or his company name to minimize bad press for his company. I will say the article mentions he has been in business for 11 years, and advertises using low-pressure cleaning techniques that allow him to not walk on the roof. Also, the customer said he was very happy with the roof cleaning itself.)
The contractor admitted that the cleaning solutions possibly killed one plant and likely damaged the others, but states that the homeowner did not follow his instructions for caring for his plants after the cleaning.
The columnist wrote: "My suggestion to (contractor's name) was that he print those instructions so customers know what to do. If they ignore the advice, it’s their own fault and (he) can’t be held accountable. Or since heavy rain dilutes chemicals, maybe he should just tell people to water heavy for a week or so."
In the meantime, however, the columnist points out that she believes the contractor is at fault. The question now is which is more expensive...the $600 for new landscaping, or the price of negative press.
