Consumer Group Takes On Cleaning Firm in Civil Suit
Opening a new front against consumer fraud, the Better Business Bureau filed suit Tuesday against a Van Nuys carpet cleaning company, accusing it of bait-and-switch tactics targeting elderly and poor people.
In the first lawsuit of its kind, the bureau sued Master Carpet Care, citing complaints from 88 customers.
The lawsuit accuses the firm of advertising cheap prices with coupons and pressuring customers to pay 10 to 20 times more after the work is done, said the bureau’s general manager, Gary Almond.
The lawsuit also represents a new tactic by the Better Business Bureau of the Southland, Almond said. Rather than rely on overburdened prosecutors in cases that the bureau cannot settle, civil lawsuits seeking court restraints will be filed, Almond said.
“Many companies could use our attention,” he said. “This is just the first one that’s going to get it.”
Master Carpet general manager David Dar said he expects to settle all customer complaints.
“We are not in the business of taking money and running,” Dar said. “Yes, there are some misunderstandings sometimes, but we try to fix those problems.”
Almond alleged that Master Carpet targeted low-income residents and senior citizens, provided unrequested services and demanded more than the agreed price.
Customer Alexander Rosin, 81, said he welcomed Master Carpet cleaners into his Torrance home last August, believing he would be charged $14.50 for five rooms as advertised on a coupon. He paid $813 after his carpets were stretched. He said he had never asked for such work to be done.
“They did things that I can’t quite understand,” he said. “I’m a trusting person, and they’re pretty slick talkers.”
Alice Serafin, 76, of Norwalk wanted her sofa cleaned for her 50th wedding anniversary. She said she called Master Carpet on Feb. 12, expecting to pay about $20 for the job with a coupon. The workers began cleaning other parts of the house and demanded $400, she said. They bargained down to $245.
In the past, the bureau has referred incidents of suspected consumer fraud they were unable to resolve to the city attorney’s office or the district attorney’s office.
