Jump to content

hair salon problem - Jo Partridge


JoJoED90

Recommended Posts

Jo Partridge here again- My offer still stands and I didn?t specify you had to go to Jamie although I know he would have sorted out your concerns.

I would like to say Jamie has worked with us for many years with hardly ever a problem.Hes well known in East Dulwich and has a very big clientele.

We have a salon not far away where you could go and let the Manager or a Senior Stylist do your hair if you don?t want to go back to Jamie.

No salon would give you your money back on the phone without checking your hair over.

For what it's worth, if you genuinely want to resolve the situation in a positive way I think you could show some empathy for the OP. Your posts are very focused on your views and defending the manager involved. The OP made clear that it wasn't that she didn't like the cut, it was that it wasn't what she asked for (and what he agreed to do), he took too much off and, by the sound of it, it was technically poor. Given that and what she said about the atmosphere in the salon at the time and the treatment she received when she did contact you about it, you can surely understand why she's now reluctant to put herself through all that again? What can you suggest to make sure the outcome will be any better if she does come back?


I don't know the OP, by the way. I just feel for her.

What RPC said, with bells on. It is extremely distressing having someone stuff up your hair, and if the salon involved is defensive, it is hardly conducive too wanting to come back in again.


No-one is obliged to return to a salon if they have a complaint of poor service. There are other ways to evidence failure to deliver a service adequately. I know of plenty of salons that have been able to be flexible on this point.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Latest Discussions

    • Pretty much, Sue, yeah. It's the perennial, knotty problem of imposing a tax and balancing that with the cost of collecting it.  The famous one was the dog licence - I think it was 37 1/2 pence when it was abolished, but the revenue didn't' come close to covering the administration costs. As much I'd love to have a Stasi patrolling the South Bank, looking for mullet haircuts, unshaven armpits, overly expressive hand movements and red Kicker shoes, I'm afraid your modern Continental is almost indistinguishable from your modern Londoner. That's Schengen for you. So you couldn't justify it from an ROI point of view, really. This scheme seems a pretty good idea, overall. It's not perfect, but it's cheap to implement and takes some tax burden off Southwark residents.   'The Man' has got wise to this. It's got bad juju now. If you're looking to rinse medium to large amounts of small denomination notes, there are far better ways. Please drop me a direct message if you'd like to discuss this matter further.   Kind Regards  Dave
    • "What's worse is that the perceived 20 billion black hole has increased to 30 billion in a year. Is there a risk that after 5 years it could be as high as 70 billion ???" Why is it perceived, Reeves is responsible for doubling the "black hole" to £20b through the public sector pay increases. You can't live beyond your means and when you try you go bankrupt pdq. In 4 yrs time if this Govt survives that long and the country doesn't go bust before then, in 2029 I dread to think the state the country will be in.  At least Sunak and co had inflation back to 2% with unemployment being stable and not rising.   
    • He seemed to me to be fully immersed in the Jeremy Corbyn ethos of the Labour Party. I dint think that (and self describing as a Marxist) would have helped much when Labour was changed under Starmer. There was a purge of people as far left as him that he was lucky to survive once in my opinion.   Stuff like this heavy endorsement of Momentum and Corbyn. It doesn't wash with a party that is in actual government.   https://labourlist.org/2020/04/forward-momentum-weve-launched-to-change-it-from-the-bottom-up/
    • I perceive the problem.simply as spending too much without first shoring up the economy.  If the government had reduced borrowing,  and as much as most hate the idea, reduced government deiartment spending (so called austerity) and not bowed to union pressures for pay rises, then encouraged businesses to grow, extra cash would have entered the coffers and at a later stage when the economy was in a stronger position rises in NI or taxes would have a lesser impact, but instead Reeves turned that on its head by increasing ni which has killed growth, increased prices and shimmied the economy.  What's worse is that the perceived 20 billion black hole has increased to 30 billion in a year. Is there a risk that after 5 years it could be as high as 70 billion ???     
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...