Complaints

The complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:09/30/2024

  Type:Product Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  I paid FTF $13,326 to cater my wedding. The experience was disastrous due to multiple breaches of contract, grossly negligent food handling, and unethical practices. Despite trying to resolve this with the owner (Alexis), she was uncooperative. FTF failed to deliver an extremely significant portion of the food and services outlined in our contract. This led to disruption and embarrassment, as guests, including the mothers of the bride and groom, had to enter the kitchen to ask about the missing food. The caterer's failure left my guests hungry, disoriented, and fell below professional standards. The most alarming issue was the reckless disregard for guest safety. My sister has a severe, life-threatening nut allergy, which we communicated during the tasting and via email. Despite this, my sister was served food containing nuts. With the venue over an hour from the nearest hospital, this negligence posed life-threatening danger, constituting reckless endangerment under Colorado law. Alexis promised to attend the wedding to oversee catering but failed to appear without notice. We later discovered that she was at the Olympics in Paris, yet she falsely claimed her mother’s death as the reason for her absence. I posted a Google review to share my experience. Subsequently, Alexis had her sisters (*****, *****, ******) post fake reviews in an attempt to suppress my honest review. When I posted my review, Alexis harassed me for weeks, during my honeymoon and after, and threatened legal action. She offered a partial refund (~20%) under the condition I remove my review and sign a takedown release agreement. Additionally, FTF misrepresents its services via social media and advertising, claiming the use of local, farm-fresh produce, which was inconsistent with our experience, and appears to be deceptive and exploitative. Due to the breaches of contract, severe safety risks, and unethical practices, I am requesting a refund and urge the BBB to investigate FTF’s deceptive conduct.

  Business Response

  Date: 10/17/2024

  Dear BBB Dispute Resolution Department:
  
  This correspondence is intended to serve as Farm to Fingers’ (“FTF”) response to Complaint No. ********.  FTF did enter into an agreement with the wife of the Complainant to provide catering services at their wedding at a total cost of $13,236.41.  Per that agreement FTF agreed to provide hors d’oeuvres at a cost of $1,750.00 and a family style dinner with added stuffed poblano peppers and bread service at a cost of $6,226.75.  The remaining $5,259.66 covered the cost for rentals, service, labor, taxes, gratuity, and associated fees.  The Complainant’s now mother-in-law paid the invoice.
  
  At the wedding FTF served all the hors d’oeuvres and the customers enjoyed the benefit of the rentals and catering services provided.  This dispute focuses upon the dinner provided and the purported lack of food.  Immediately after FTF became aware of the Complainant’s dissatisfaction, FTF spoke with its team at the wedding and the venue owner.  Through these discussions FTF determined one table did not receive the side dishes and another table did not have enough salmon to pass around.  FTF staff reported tables passing plates between each other during service, which could have impacted the team’s ability to determine what items each table received.  As an attempt to bring more food to the venue quickly, an FTF staff member drove to a local restaurant to pick up approximately $300 worth of tacos to supplement the dinner and to ensure the guests were sufficiently fed.  FTF did not pass this added cost on to the customer, nor did it even attempt to do so.
  
  FTF cares deeply about its customers and its reputation and does not want to see any of its customers unhappy with the food or the services provided.  To that end, FTF refunded $2,000 to Complainant’s mother-in-law as she paid the bill. Complainant’s mother-in-law seemed pleased with the refund and accepted the refund as shown by the fact she has not returned the money to FTF. The $2,000 represents approximately one third of the cost for the dinner service.  FTF believed it had appropriately rectified the situation.
  
  Shortly after, Complainant posted a one-star Google review for FTF during, or just before, the Complainant and his wife left for their honeymoon.  FTF contacted the Complainant regarding the review and requested a response when the couple retuned.  FTF did not attempt to contact the Complainant or his wife again until the couple returned, and then only stated it just wanted to follow up.  Between August 20 and August 27, 2024, FTF and the Complainant and his wife engaged in ongoing email correspondence that certainly did not amount to harassment. FTF has attached this email chain to its response, in which Claimant also acknowledges receipt of the refund. 
  
  Throughout Complainant has demanded a total refund of $10,000.  Ultimately Complainant reduced his demand to $6,000.  FTF did request that Complainant take down the review as it is very damaging to a small business like FTF.  Ultimately, FTF offered Complainant and his wife an additional $1,100 for the dinner service, which brought the total refund to approximately one-half of the total cost of the dinner.  Complainant rejected this offer and stated he contacted the Durango Chamber of Commerce and intended to file a complaint with the BBB.  This was on August 27, 2024, and FTF has not attempted to contact them since. 
  
  FTF has repeatedly attempted to make this situation right and to adequately compensate the Complainant and his wife for any shortcomings in the dinner.  The total cost of the dinner was $6,226.75.  FTF has already refunded $2,000 of those funds and attempted to add an additional $1,100 to bring the refund up to $3,100 – roughly one half of the dinner service cost.
  
  In response to Complainant’s other claims, FTF will attempt to address them individually below:
  
  1) My (Alexis S*****) lack of attendance at the wedding – Long before the couple hired FTF for their wedding, my mother and I purchased tickets to see the sailing events during the Paris Olympics due to my mother’s love of sailing. My mother passed prior to the wedding, and I still attended the events in Paris as my mother would have wanted.  At no point did I represent I would attend the wedding as my plans were already set.
  
  2) Guest with a nut allergy – FTF and its team ensured it accounted for each guest with a food restriction, including nut allergies, and plated those dishes accordingly for the guests as identified on the seating chart.  While FTF regrets Complainant’s sister received a non-restricted plate, it did deliver the correct food to the correct seat in accordance with the seating chart.  FTF is relieved to hear she recognized the food contained nuts and was able to alert FTF’s staff and avoided further incident.
  
  3) Locally sourced food – FTF is confused how Complainant feels he can speak to this.  Regardless, FTF does locally source it’s food from local farms and vendors as available and sources high quality ingredients for those foods, like Italian olive oil, that are not locally produced from reputable vendors. This is true for every wedding FTF caters, including Complainants.
  
  4) Threat of legal action – At no point did FTF threaten legal action against Complainant.  At most, FTF stated it wanted to discuss an appropriate refund with its lawyers.  This is a far cry from threatening legal action.
  
  FTF deeply regrets the Complainant feels its service felt short of FTF’s standards and has made multiple attempts to make things right.  FTF hopes the BBB recognizes these attempts as genuine attempts to repair FTF’s relationship with these customers.  To that end, FTF is still willing to refund Complainant and his wife an additional $1,100 to make further amends. That said, FTF must deny it has acted in any way that could be deemed deceptive, reckless, or otherwise unethical. Throughout this ****er, FTF has attempted to reach a fair and reasonable resolution.   Thank you for your time and consideration of this ****er.
  
  
                                                                                      Best,
  
  
                                                                                      /s/ Alexis S*****
                                                                                      Alexis S*****, MAS
                                                                                      Owner of Farm to Fingers

  Customer Answer

  Date: 10/23/2024

  Complaint: ********
  
  I am writing to formally reject Farm to Fingers’ (FTF) response to Complaint No. ********. While they acknowledge several issues, their response significantly downplays the severity of the service failures at my wedding and contains multiple misrepresentations, omissions, and deflections. Below, I outline the key reasons why their response is unacceptable and why their attempts to "rectify" the situation remain inadequate.
  
  Food Shortage / Inadequate Dinner Service:
  FTF’s response minimizes the food shortage by claiming only one or two tables were affected. This is entirely inaccurate—all ten tables were impacted, and many guests were left hungry due to insufficient portions. The appetizers did not reflect the contracted quantity, and all tables did not receive the agreed-upon amounts of food. Additionally, the charcuterie board looked nothing like the pictures FTF advertised on their website and social media, which was disappointing considering this was a key reason we hired them. FTF attempts to deflect responsibility by suggesting that guests passing plates interfered with service, but this is misleading and unprofessional. It was FTF’s responsibility to ensure proper organization and service to every table. Several guests, including both mothers of the bride and groom, as well as friends in the wedding party, had to personally go into the kitchen to inquire about missing food, causing unnecessary embarrassment and stress. Furthermore, FTF provided only three staff members for a wedding of 104 guests, which was inadequate and resulted in guests, including the mother of the bride, having to bus tables during dinner. This complete failure to meet contractual obligations was a major disruption to the event and constitutes a breach of contract.
  
  Nut Allergy Incident (Negligence and Safety Hazard):
  FTF’s response to this critical safety issue was disturbingly dismissive. My sister, who has a severe, life-threatening nut allergy, was served food containing nuts despite us clearly communicating this allergy during the tasting and via email. FTF claims they followed the seating chart, but this does not change the fact that my sister was served food with nuts. This constitutes gross negligence on FTF’s part. While it was fortunate that she recognized the nuts before consuming them, the risk she was placed in was completely avoidable and extremely dangerous. This incident reflects a reckless disregard for guest safety and could have led to a medical emergency.
  
  Failure to Address Allegations of Fake Google Reviews:
  FTF completely avoided addressing the allegation of posting fake Google reviews. If these reviews were genuine, FTF could have easily provided evidence to support them. Their failure to do so only reinforces suspicion that they engaged in deceptive practices to manipulate their public image. As evidenced by a significant uptick in five-star reviews on their Google page after my August 2024 review, with at least three coming from the owner’s family members and friends, FTF's failure to address these concerns raises further suspicion.
  
  Minimizing Tone and Lack of Genuine Apology:
  FTF’s response is defensive and dismissive, lacking a sincere apology or acknowledgment of the extent of their failures. Rather than taking responsibility, FTF attempts to downplay the issues, particularly the food shortage and the allergy incident. Communication with FTF has been stressful, as they have repeatedly misrepresented the facts. When Alexis disagreed with an email from me, she bypassed me and emailed my mother-in-law independently, attempting to manipulate the situation.
  
  Locally Sourced Food Claims and Transparency:
  FTF provided a vague explanation regarding their locally sourced food claims without offering specific details. They stated they source food from local farms "as available," but did not provide the names of any vendors or farms. If their claims were legitimate, this information should have been easy to supply. The lack of transparency raises concerns about deceptive business practices. When we attended the food tasting, there was no mention of locally sourced food, and I observed several Wal-Mart branded food items in their kitchen.
  
  Inadequate Compensation:
  While FTF issued a $2,000 refund to my mother-in-law, this amount only represents about 15% of what we paid FTF ($13,236). Their offer of an additional $1,100, bringing the total refund to $3,100, is still far below what would reasonably compensate us for the magnitude of their failures. We requested a refund of $6,000, which is a fair reflection of the significant shortcomings in service.
  
  Misrepresentation of Refund Satisfaction:
  FTF falsely claims that my mother-in-law was satisfied with the $2,000 refund simply because she did not return the money. This is a gross misrepresentation. Accepting a partial refund does not imply satisfaction—it merely acknowledges that some compensation was owed. It does not address our overall dissatisfaction with the service. My mother-in-law explicitly informed FTF of her dissatisfaction via email after the $2,000 refund was provided.
  
  Owner’s Absence:
  Alexis’ absence from the wedding was a significant issue, especially as she had assured us during the tasting that she would be present to oversee the event. The lack of communication regarding her absence created confusion and contributed to the disorganization at the event. When we first asked Alexis why she wasn’t there, she said it was “due to pressing family ****ers,” but her out-of-office message stated she was away in Paris at the Olympics. After corresponding with her for weeks, she never once mentioned her mother’s death until the last email in our chain. Upon further investigation, we discovered her mother had passed away in April 2023. We would have been entirely understanding of her absence if it was truly due to a death in the family, but she never communicated this with us. We only discovered her absence when her staff arrived and admitted they had no idea where she was. When we raised concerns about the service onsite with her staff, they even suggested we leave negative reviews across social media, further highlighting the lack of leadership and professionalism.
  
  Denial of Responsibility and Unethical Practices:
  FTF’s refusal to take full responsibility for the failures at our wedding is clear throughout their response. They frame their actions as generous attempts to “make things right,” yet the offered compensation is inadequate given the scale of their shortcomings. Their denial of any unethical behavior, particularly regarding the fake reviews and safety issues, lacks credibility. Alexis also threatened retaliation, once stating she would rescind the $2,000 refund, and another time stating she needed to cease communication to review our contract with a lawyer, insisting that all future communication be conducted via email. She also required us to sign a takedown release form in order to provide any refund beyond the initial $2,000, which shows she wanted to pay us to take down our honest review of FTF services.
  

  
  
  FTF’s response contains numerous omissions, deflections, and attempts to minimize the severity of their actions. Their response fails to address the core issues of the complaint, including multiple breaches of contract, food shortages, the safety hazard posed by the nut allergy incident, and unethical practices surrounding fake reviews and deceptive advertising. Their partial refund and additional compensation offer do not reflect the extent of their failures. A fair resolution would involve a total refund of $6,000, requiring an additional $4,000 beyond the $2,000 refund already provided.
  
  
  

  
  

  Business Response

  Date: 11/07/2024

  Dear BBB Dispute Resolution Department:
  
  This correspondence is intended to serve as Farm to Fingers’ (“FTF”) reply to Complaint No. ********.  Since the wedding, FTF has attempted to resolve this ****er amicably with the Complainant.  FTF has been responsive to the Complainant’s concerns and the issues he has raised.  FTF has taken reasonable steps to provide an appropriate refund throughout this dispute.  Contrary to the Complainant’s claims, FTF has been forthcoming and honest with the BBB, the Complainant, and his family.  FTF has repeatedly apologized to the Complainant and his family and has attempted to make this right.  The fact that FTF disputes the Complainant’s claims does not make the apologies or attempts to rectify the situation any less genuine.  FTF has a right to defend its reputation and not just simply capitulate to unreasonable demands, defamatory statements, and allegations based on conjecture.  Nevertheless, FTF once again will address each of the Complainant’s topics.
  
  Food Shortage/Inadequate Dinner Service:
  This is the first time the Complainant has ever raised any complaint regarding the hors d’oeurves or the charcuterie board.  FTF once again states it supplied the contracted amount of hors d’ouerves, which the wedding guests readily consumed.  The same can be said about the charcuterie board.  FTF provided 5 staff members, not three as the Complainant states.  FTF does not dispute there was an error that resulted in not all tables getting all of the dishes. FTF apologizes to the Complainant for any embarrassment and stress this caused.  FTF has offered to refund the Complainant an additional $1,100 to the $2,000 it has already refunded to the Complainant, which covers approximately half of the costs for the dinner service.  This is a reasonable refund, and FTF remains willing to provide this to Complainant.
  
  Nut Allergy Incident: 
  Complainant does not dispute FTF served the dishes according to the seating chart.  There is not much more to be said about this.  FTF fully understood the specific dietary restrictions for certain guests and plated the correct meals according to the seating chart.  If the individual is not in the correct seat, there is no way for FTF’s staff to ensure the correct dish is served to the correct person.  FTF is not dismissive of the potential issues this could have caused, but this is not negligence or recklessness on FTF’s part.
  
  Failure to address Google reviews:
  FTF did not originally address this issue because it is immaterial to the actual complaint.  These purported fake reviews did not impact Complainant’s decision to use FTF for his wedding, so it is unclear how he feels deceived by them.  To the extent he is angry because they may dilute his review, this is unfounded.  FTF has 51 Google reviews total – 49 five-star reviews, 1 four-star review, and 1 one-star review (Complainants).  Most of the reviews reference specific events that the reviewer hired FTF to cater.  Beyond this I can honestly say that I have never solicited fake reviews from family members and friends.  Perhaps the increase in positive reviews has to do with the fact that FTF is growing and is coming off our busiest season yet.
  
  Minimizing Tone and Lack of Genuine Apology:
  FTF’s “tone” was not and has not been dismissive.  FTF cannot help it if the Complainant feels a straightforward narrative of the facts feels defensive and dismissive.  Complainant continues to accuse FTF of misrepresentation without basis.  There may be disagreement over what occurred, and FTF is entitled to tell its side of the story.  To the extent Complainant says I contacted his mother-in-law directly, there was nothing manipulative about it.  I contacted her to see if she was willing to assist in resolving this issue.  She was not, and I left it at that. 
  
  Locally sourced food claims:
  Again, it is unclear why the Complainant insists on this claim or feels like he is in a position to comment on this.  FTF has no obligation to identify its vendors to the Complainant.  Given Complainant’s prior behavior, FTF has a genuine concern Complainant will attempt to interfere with those relationships.  FTF is happy to provide this information to the BBB directly but does not believe Complainant has a right to know who FTF uses as vendors.  FTF is unsure what Wal-Mart branded products Complainant is referring to and why Complainant thinks the food at his wedding used subpar ingredients.  Certain dry goods, like flour, sugar, and salt, cannot be locally sourced.  FTF sources particular dry goods from companies like Sysco or Shamrock.  Frankly, this claim seems like nothing more than an attempt to intentionally harm FTF’s reputation without any factual basis. 
  
  Inadequate compensation:
  The offered refund compensates Complainant for roughly one-half the cost of the dinner service, which is what his complaints are based on.  FTF feels this offer is reasonable and remains willing to honor its offer.  
  
  Misrepresentation of Refund Satisfaction:
  Again, FTF refunded the Complainant’s mother-in-law $2,000.  The Complainant’s mother-in-law did not demand a greater refund.  The Complainant, who did not pay for the services provided, wants more. FTF stated in its response that she seemed pleased with the outcome and thought that was the end of this. The Complainant left his one-star Google review after FTF issued the refund to his mother-in-law.  I was caught off guard by that and reached out to his mother-in-law about the review and she responded “I totally understand and agree with you. In my mind, you made it right and I put it behind me. I will reach out to them as ask them to remove the review. Again, I am sorry. I certainly don’t want your business to suffer. I found you a pleasure to work with and the food was tasty.”  FTF thought it had rectified the situation, although she admittedly later sided with her son-in-law’s position.     
  
  Owner’s Absence:
  I have explained my response to this claim and do not believe this warrants further discussion.  After Complainant initially accused me of lying about the death of my mother he cannot leave this one alone.  I never represented I would attend their wedding during the tasting or otherwise.
  
  Denial of Responsibility and Unethical Practices:
  FTF has taken responsibility for falling short of its standards and has apologized to Complainant numerous times.   FTF has already refunded $2,000 and has offered to increase the refund by $1,100.  Complainant’s allegations that FTF operates in a deceptive or unethical manner are not supported and are intended as inflammatory.  I never threatened to retaliate against the Complainant, and his claim is baseless.  I ceased verbal communications with Complainant because of his demeanor and speaking over the phone was unproductive.  Also, I felt it was important to document these communications for instances like this where I would need to defend my business.  As for the claims about contacting an attorney, like I previously said, I wanted guidance on an appropriate refund.
  
  FTF fell short in its dinner service and recognizes this.  FTF has apologized multiple times and has attempted to rectify the situation with a reasonable refund.  The Complainant has rejected this.  Meanwhile, the Complainant continues with baseless claims that FTF is unethical and deceitful.  FTF is sorry Complainant feels this way and has done everything within reason to attempt to resolve this ****er. 
  
  
                                                                                      Best,
  
  
                                                                                      /s/ Alexis S*****
                                                                                      Alexis S*****, MAS
                                                                                      Owner of Farm to Fingers

  Customer Answer

  Date: 11/18/2024

  Complaint: ********
  
  I reject this response and request that the BBB suggest a fair refund for this ****er. We continue to explain ourselves, and the owner of FTF (Alexis S.) continues to misrepresent the situation. Here are five key facts: 

  1) FTF did not provide the amount of food they were contracted to deliver. Evidence of this pattern can be found in a Google review from a wedding on 06/24/23, which mentions a shortage of food despite 20 guests being absent**. Similiarly, at my wedding, not all guests attended, yet every table was still short of food. This suggests a recurring issue. 

  2) FTF served nuts to my sister, who has a nut allergy, despite us providing a detailed seating chart with clearly articulated allergy information. My sister was seated in the correct seat, yet FTF still served her a salad containing nuts. 

  3) FTF did not provide enough staff for 104 people, resulting in family and friends needing to bus tables throughout dinner. When FTF arrived, I was introduced to one coordinator (Shea) and two junior staff. FTF may have attempted to send two additional staff after realizing three staff members were insufficient for 104 guests - however, even five staff members would be inadequate for an event of this size. During a 15-minute phone conversation on 08/12/24, I explained what happened to Alexis, who then blamed her staff for FTF's shortcomings, shifting responsibility onto them, stating that "she thought she could trust them." Alexis' deflection of responsibility was unprofessional and demostrated a lack of accountability. 

  4) On 08/27/24, Alexis referenced her mother's passing to explain her inability to be present on my wedding day, writing "My mom passed away and I sincerely apologize I wasn't able to make their special day." We later discovered through public records that her mother had passed on 04/08/23, more than 15 months before our wedding. This misrepresentation was distressing. 

  5) Transparency in food sourcing is critical, particularly given FTF's emphasis on local, farm-fresh produce in their marketing. My intention is not retaliation against vendors, as suggested by Alexis, but to understand if the food at my wedding was truly sourced as advertised. 

  The misrepresentations, breaches of contract, and significant safety risks created by FTF have had a lasting impact on what was meant to be a joyous celebration for us and our guests. I trust that the BBB will carefully consider these facts and recommend a fair refund that acknowledges the seriousness of these issues. Thank you for your time and for upholding accountability and integrity in our community.

  
  All the best,

  ****

   

  ** - here is the language from the aforementioned Google review, "My only slight issues were the lack of response right around the wedding/last payment which did stress me a bit and at least 20 people (2 tables) didn’t show up and people were still short of food at every table."

   

  [To assist us in bringing this ****er to a close, the consumer must give a reason why they are rejecting the response. If the consumer does not provide a reason the complaint will be closed Answered]