BB
Bartholomew Jenkins (Bigz)
Nov 2, 2025
On the behalf of my lady (this evening, 02-Nov-2025) , I want to share an experience that speaks to a deeper concern about consistency and customer care at Tommy’s. Until tonight, we were loyal monthly subscribers, and we genuinely valued the brand.
For context, about a month ago, I went through the 32nd Ave S location and the wash did not remove basic surface dirt. When I returned later and mentioned it, the associate was outstanding — professional, direct, and immediately acknowledged they’d had some cleaning issues recently. He told me: “Bring it back — we’ll make it right.” That interaction mattered. It’s the kind of service that earns brand loyalty.
Tonight, that trust evaporated.
My partner went through the same 32nd Ave wash and again the vehicle — a Honda Fit — came out visibly dirty on the rear glass and bumper. I suggested she stop at the 40th St S location, confident that Tommy’s would stand behind their service just as they had before. Instead, the district manager approached with a posture that communicated refusal before he ever examined the car.
He began by saying he could not “find a record” of her earlier wash — as though the absence of a log negates visible dirt on a vehicle washed minutes prior. He then stated, in a dismissive tone, that with the basic $12 wash “you get a little water and a little soap,” implying that a clean car requires purchasing a higher-tier wash.
That is not up-selling.
That sounds like engineered deficiency.
At no point did he offer a courtesy rewash — the minimal gesture expected in any service-based business where quality and trust matter. Instead, when she pointed out the visibly dirty vehicle and stated she should not have to pay a second time for a service that should have been delivered the first time, he doubled down. He even encouraged her to “go ahead” and leave a review — while making clear she would still need to pay again if she wanted her car properly cleaned.
This interaction did not read as policy.
It read as indifference.
* * * * * * * *
(05 Nov 2025) Response to Owner: (not the original review)
Respectfully, your version omits critical facts while implying customer misconduct where there was none.
Timing:
My partner drove from the 32nd Ave location directly to the 40th St location. The discrepancy in your system is not a reflection of her behavior — it is a reflection of your system's lag or error. It does not change the reality that the vehicle was washed once, came out visibly dirty, and was brought immediately to another Tommy’s location for assistance.
Policy vs. practice:
A rewash was not offered. Instead, your district manager insisted the only remedy was to purchase a higher-tier wash — effectively stating that a basic $12 wash is not intended to fully clean a car. That is not policy. That is an admission of engineered deficiency.
Behavior:
There was no hostility until your district manager dismissed a loyal customer’s concern and told her to “go ahead” and write a review rather than resolve a clear service failure. If a customer calmly stating “this is unacceptable” is what you define as hostility, the bar for professionalism is in the wrong place.
Upsell as solution:
Offering an “upgrade to an unlimited plan” is not resolution — it is opportunistic sales in the face of a complaint. A courtesy rewash was the obvious and reasonable solution, and it was refused.
We have been monthly subscribers and supporters of Tommy’s for a few years. The associate at the 32nd Ave location demonstrated genuine customer service--promote that guy. The district manager did not. That discrepancy in training, attitude, and accountability is what prompted this review — not a single wash gone wrong. Your attempt to recast this narrative, for future consumers, as customer misbehavior and company response as policy-as-civility about represents what we've recently come to understand about Tommy's.
We have since moved our business to Don’s Car Wash, where service is consistent and respect is not conditional.