Domestic cleaning company refusing to pay for damage to our carpet

Grumpy_chap

midsummer100 said:

she deceitfully rooted in our cupboards, found some carpet cleaner spray at the back, sprayed it, got a clean cloth and scrubbed the carpet, thereby bleaching the carpet, chemically sealing in the ink, and making the carpet pile, none of which can be removed.

midsummer100 said:

We supply the products.

midsummer100 said:

supermarket spray carpet cleaner containing bleach shouldn't have been used.

1. You disliked the cleaner / cleaning company before this incident.
2. The dog got ink on the carpet.
3. You made some arrangements for a specialist firm to clean the ink after your holiday.
4. You did not communicate to the cleaner that you did not want them to attempt to clean the ink from the carpet.
5. The cleaner tried to clean the ink from the carpet, using "carpet cleaner" which you had in the property.  "Carpet Cleaner" seems like a reasonable thing to use to clean a carpet.  You view the cleaner locating this carpet cleaner as deceitful.  Others might view it as using initiative.
6. You were disappointed at the cleaner's communication, but previously expected the cleaner to just understand that you did not want that carpet to be cleaned even though you took no steps to communicate that message to the cleaner.  The property owner's communication seems to be at least as wanting as the cleaners communications.  The failure to communicate by the property owner would potentially be at least "contributory" to the final outcome.
7. If the "carpet cleaner" available in the property was not suitable for the carpets, the onus would seem to be on the property owner to have disposed of that carpet cleaner.
8. The cleaner / cleaning company have made non-confrontational responses but not admitted liability and not paid out.
9. The property owner has a duty to mitigate the losses but only willing to accept a whole new carpet.  Even if a whole new carpet is required, it would not be the full cost that falls to the cleaner / cleaning company as there is no claim for betterment.  Some of the new carpet value has already depreciated.

I don't really see that there is a claim against the cleaner / cleaning company here.  The company might make a small "goodwill" payment.  It would be better for all if the property owner and the cleaner / cleaning company parted ways.

There may be a route for the OP to claim on their home insurance.  If there is a viable claim against the cleaner / cleaning company, the home insurer will be better placed to pursue that recovery than the OP.

The root cause seems to be the dog getting ink on the carpet.  The OP could sue the dog.
The dog might counter-sue for exposure to ingesting ink which could be detrimental to the dog's health.

This really seems like one of those things to just be put down to life and experience.

The OP has not liked any responses that did not agree with the OP and say "yes, of course it is the cleaner's fault entirely".  Unfortunately, being a "money-saving" site does not mean agreeing with a claim against the cleaner where such a claim is not certain.  It would be very much the opposite of "money saving" if commentators said to pursue the cleaner and incur expenses to make that claim when the information to achieve success in that claim is not clear from the thread.  

Section62

WIAWSNB said:

...
Be sure to include that you called the specialist carpet cleaner following the accident, but did not call your 'general cleaning' outfit, who were due to visit. Also worth adding that you provide the cleaning products, of which this bleaching spray carpet cleaner was present.
...

Agree with what you say, but not sure the BiB above is correct, it would be useful if the OP could confirm either way.  My reading was the OP googled the subject before going away and read that a carpet technician could clean the ink off, but no contact was made with a specialist carpet cleaner at that point in time.