Restaurant owner confronts negative reviewer at their home

Following an online uproar when a restaurant owner confronted a customer who had left a negative review, the owner herself sought to clarify events. She states she did not intend to cause distress but rather to understand the customer’s complaints.

The owner identified only as Tum elaborated on what happened regarding the negative review. The customer accused the unnamed Thai restaurant of underserving, and Tum claimed this directly lead to a drop in customers and income loss.

Bad reviews online are inevitable, as keyboard warriors hurl complaints they wouldn’t dare say to the business owner’s face. But the disgruntled owner took it personally and went to the negative reviewer’s house to confront him.

Tum admitted that while visiting the customer’s house seems unorthodox and way over the top, their primary intention was not hostile. Tum sought only to have a proper conversation to understand the customer’s dissatisfaction.

Tum further explained how the negative review had prompted suspicion about the credibility of the restaurant. Business operations were running normally, with no reductions in serving portion sizes. But the negative review turned people away from dining at the restaurant

Several attempts were made by the restaurant owner to contact the customer who left the negative review, but they did not respond, leading Tum to track down the customer’s address indirectly, reported KhaoSod.

Contrary to widespread reporting, Tum clarified that the customer’s address was ascertained by retracing delivery routes and not by questioning delivery riders.

After the house visit, a post was made confirming the customer was genuine, citing differences between the actual conversation and a post by a relative on a consumer review page. Tum maintains the conversation at the customer’s house was cordial, involving no threats or disturbances and ended with a handshake and apology from the customer’s aunt.

Tum further asserted that the customer is entitled to review the restaurant, denying she intended to stifle dissent. She was merely pleading for fair treatment. Emphasising that no charges would be pressed against the customer, Tum revealed that an offer to compensate the customer has been made, but the customer who left the negative review hasn’t responded to the offer yet.