Who's unreasonable - me or window cleaner?

[HugATwat]

My dog is petrified of the window cleaner.

The reason I started using my current window cleaner is because he always texts so I know in advance when he's coming.

On Friday evening, WC text to say he was coming on Saturday morning. But I was going to be out Saturday morning so I texted him back and said to leave it for this month because the dog would be home alone and wouldn't cope. I said I'd still be happy to pay but please don't clean the windows.

No reply.

I texted again first thing on Saturday morning. No reply.

I called him on Saturday morning. He didn't answer. I left a message. No reply.

I texted him again before we went out saying please don't clean my windows today.

I went out because I couldn't avoid it. I'd asked a couple of friends if they could sit with the dog but they couldn't, far too short notice. When I came back, the windows had been cleaned. The dog was in a right state and had pissed and shit all over the floor.

So I spent an hour or so calming the dog down. Then another couple of hours cleaning everything up. And the living room carpet will need a professional because the piddle has stained quite badly.

I texted the WC to tell him I wouldn't be paying because I'd specifically asked him not to clean the windows.
This time, he texted back. Quelle fucking surprise.

I'm holding firm and not paying. Needless to say I've told him to take me off his books for the future.

It's a weird situation because I was actually willing to pay him for NOT doing the work. But I'm not willing to pay for work that he's done that I specifically asked him not to do.

Am I being unreasonable here? I'm still so pissed off.

The ones who pay his wages.

She was going to pay his fucking wages - the idiot was going to get paid for doing nothing!

Having a rescue dog isn't the WC problem. It's the owners.

He knew about the rescue dog and agreed the terms with the OP FFS. I'm beginning to think you're the fucking WC!

And you still haven't said why animal cruelty is funny to you.

But his wages were going to be paid WITHOUT HIM HAVING TO DO ANY WORK. Why are you finding this so difficult to comprehend?

@Bettyboop3 That's the thing that amazed me about this story - well, two things. First, OP offered to pay him if he stayed away (presumably she doesn't have to) & secondly, that he was idiot enough not to take her up on the offer, when it was in his own best interests to do so.

To me, she was nicer than she needed to be & he didn't do the right thing for his customer or himself.

There's a third thing - I can't believe how many posters seem to think the OP is in the wrong despite having the agreement with the window cleaner because of the dog!

I do understand. It's irrelevant.
The poster in question used the term pays his wages.

I know DP offers direct customer-facing service.
3 requests.
Parking must be available.
All pets must be kept out of the way or under control.
All customer belongings eg furniture are to be protected by the customer.

He visited a woman this week who had apparently found great difficulty in finding someone to fix her problem (She had 6 people to look at the problem). Upon arrival, she complained about the level of service offered by others. Why don't they reply, turn up on time, etc? Bragged about taking a service provider to court. He offered a repair and then advised this might not be successful. The next day the customer called to say the repair was unsuccessful, he quoted, and she told him the quote was excessive.
He replied that's the charge, take it or leave it. She slammed the phone down.
He's still billed her for his call-out. She's refusing to pay because it wasn't successful.
A money claim is en route after the correct procedures are followed.

I think some customers do feel a sense of ownership regarding service providers, hence my highlighting the 'pays his wages' comment. Which was an incorrect assessment of the relationship. You're not his boss-it's a rather pompous attitude tbh.

@Hurrahhurrah your examples completely different. If she'd text him on the morning of the original call out and cancelled would he have still gone?

In your DP's situation, he's done work she agreed to and allowed him in to complete it.

@Hurrahhurrah that situation is totally different to OPs, but thanks for the story

@Hurrahhurrah cool story. Absolutely nothing relevant to this thread

She didn't have an agreement with the WC about the dog, though. He sends that text because it's part of his service, not because of the dog. She chose him because that is useful to her. I doubt he gives a single thought about that dog ever.

Read the OP's posts. She explicitly agreed to use his services with those requirements for the dog in mind. It was a mutual agreement re the dog.

I don't think he cares about the ops dog either.

Texting is part of his service. He does that for all of his customers. It's not something he does especially for her. She needs him to text so she can deal with the dog.

I wonder if the op has found a new WC.

@BadNomad that's not what the OP has said their agreement is.

He's definitely in the wrong considering their initial conversation. He should pay the cleaning bill and he should look at his phone. It's part of the job. Shame for the dog being in such distress it shit itself, not a pleasant experience for any living thing.

No your completely right, don't pay him if he can't follow instructions, you tried everything to get hold of him.

Hope you took pics of the mess to back up your reasoning to him.

We're not talking about your husband but cool story.

Nasty AND thick as pig shit.

How is expecting the WC to check his business mobile for messages once in a few hours "stretching customer service expectations to other worldly levels that are unrealistic"?

How many people's dogs shit on the outside of their windows??? They must have a spectacularly good aim!

I expect so, Facebook are full of them.

You just say my current WC (and name the company) can't follow simple instructions, anyone know a decent one.

You'll get tons of recommendations.

Or his reputation and clients.

@Hurrahhurrah I think by having a mobile phone, the WC is inferring that it is a means of communication?

Do you think that the onus is on the WC to explain that whilst he texts from this, it is not to be expected to be a means of communication for issues or incoming messages or calls?

With your attitude, I shouldn't think you'd be getting many calls anyway.

Nor can the WC prove he cleaned the windows.

Maybe he should limit his clients to those who have no pets. Would save any further inconvenience to him!!

Still wouldn't solve the problem of him ignoring his fucking texts though.