Michigan woman Kimberly Kemper seeks a $250 refund after claiming a $350 deep clean left dishes, walls and baseboards dirty. (Photo: Facebook)
A Michigan woman has taken to social media to share her experience with a cleaning service after allegedly paying $350 for a deep clean, only to find parts of her home still dirty. In an October 13 Facebook post, Kemper shared photographs and messages relating to her experience with Cecilia’s Cozy Cleaning. However, Kemper said the promised follow-up visit never happened, leading to a dispute over how much of the $350 payment should be refunded. Kemper says Cecilia’s Cozy Cleaning owner Cecilia Bodart offered a $100 refund but failed to return for a promised follow-up cleaning. Questioning what had been completed for the $350 fee, Kemper messaged Bodart: “Can you tell me what work did get done so I can justify it? Cecilia Bodart apologised for poor communication, maintained that the cleaning work warranted payment and offered Kimberly Kemper a $100 refund instead of the $250 she requested. Kemper requested a $250 refund, saying she had spent hours cleaning parts of the house herself. Bodart offered $100 instead, maintaining that the work completed justified retaining the remaining $250.
Because their children attended the same school, kemper said she trusted Bodart.
Kemper said Bodart had visited her home before providing a quote. She specifically highlighted the walls the night before the scheduled cleaning, according to Kemper. She also said she paid for the service before inspecting the house. To support her complaint, Kemper posted photographs of cleaning rags she said she had used to wipe down areas after the service. In response to the complaint, Bodart described Kemper as a client who “wasn’t completely satisfied with her cleaning” and said that “everyone has different expectations. In their private messages, Bodart listed walls, baseboards, windowsills and cabinets among the areas she said had been cleaned. Kemper said she could not accommodate the same-day offer but agreed to a Tuesday appointment after Bodart suggested the day, noting that her family would be home. The messages did not establish an arrival time, and her follow-up messages that morning and afternoon went unanswered, according to her account. She said nobody returned to complete the work. She said she had given Bodart her door code expecting her to carry out the cleaning, but only later learned that an employee had accompanied the owner and helped with the job. Kemper said she had not been told in advance that another worker would be entering the property.
Kimberly Kemper claimed she had to rewash dishes, clean her floors herself and even climb into a dumpster to retrieve her sink strainer after the appointment. She alleged that several areas of her home, including walls, baseboards and stairs, had been left untouched, while dishes had been put away without being properly cleaned. When Kemper contacted the business owner, Cecilia Bodart, to raise her concerns, Bodart offered to return and address the issues. They discussed cleaning the kitchen, living room, bathroom, hallway and stairs, while the bedrooms were excluded from the job. In a message to Bodart, she wrote, “I’m so excited for these walls to be clean. Bodart responded, “I got you!! However, after checking the property, Kemper claimed that sections of the walls she had expected to be cleaned remained untouched. She also alleged that cabinets were still dirty above eye level and that parts of the baseboards and other surfaces had been overlooked. She added, “This is a genuine ask. She maintained that she and an employee had performed work that warranted payment, even as she acknowledged that Kemper was unhappy with the result. Bodart subsequently offered to return to correct the cleaning and provide a free routine cleaning visit afterward. Bodart later apologised for the lack of communication, writing, “You deserved communication from me, and I’m genuinely sorry I didn’t provide that. She cited personal difficulties but acknowledged that she should have responded. With the cleaning concerns unresolved, the disagreement shifted to the amount Kemper should receive back. The two did not reach an agreement on the refund in the account provided. Kemper also raised concerns about who had entered her home while she was away. Bodart later apologised for not informing her about the additional worker. The scope of a deep clean can vary between providers. The cleaning trade association ISSA recommends that customers ask for a detailed list of included tasks when obtaining an estimate and clarify whether the business offers a satisfaction guarantee.
However, Kemper said she was still waiting for confirmation on Tuesday morning.
Kemper linked the removal of her posts to receiving the $250 refund she had requested, while Bodart said she felt pressured but was not asking Kemper to take them down. Kemper later updated her posts to ask readers to stop contacting Bodart, explaining that her intention was to inform potential customers about her experience rather than encourage harassment. ISSA also advises customers to establish whether an individual cleaner or a team will visit, ask how workers are screened and request advance notice of changes to the cleaning crew when that is important to them. The dispute also drew attention to the challenges customers can face when expectations about a paid service are not clearly agreed upon or when follow-up communication breaks down. As the complaint circulated online, Bodart reportedly received unwanted messages from people outside the dispute. You use AI every day. Now get your AI Quotient. Take the AIQ test.