Jonathan Gee

Good overall, just a little late, but not the biggest issue

Good clothing, just wish they didn’t move the label to the shoulder area as it’s extremely annoying for someone with sensory issues

Arnold Clark Misled Me and Denied Faults — I Have Evidence

Arnold Clark has consistently engaged in misleading practices. They denied faults I reported, only for independent inspections (RAC) to confirm them. They misrepresented key information verbally and in paperwork, and repeatedly shifted responsibility to the finance company or other departments instead of taking accountability.

These actions caused severe financial loss and unnecessary stress — from paying for faults already on the car when I bought it (which AC downplayed) to losing days of work. Customers are left unaware of what they are truly agreeing to. I have evidence of these issues, including independent inspections which support my claims and show AC may be acting fraudulently. I will not stop pursuing this until every instance of misrepresentation or mis-selling I’ve experienced is corrected fully and legally.

I can’t wait to be told to contact customer service at email address (Trustpilot Doesn’t Allow Them) or call 0141 648 1088 — I’ve done so over 25 times, only to be misled, lied to, or ignored.

If Arnold Clark wants this matter to go away, they should have Russell Borrie ensure the car is restored to the condition it was advertised in, with all features correctly provided, and fix everything that was mis-sold in line with the law.

I only get one dental appointment per year, and MyDentist Anfield has cancelled at least four of my appointments over the last few years. Today’s cancellation was 27 minutes before my appointment, after I had been up since 7am to get ready.

When I tried to make a complaint verbally because I struggle with writing, I was refused and told the process is email only. Reception minimised my concerns, saying “one cancelled appointment per year isn’t bad,” which ignores that all my appointments have been repeatedly disrupted, causing stress, wasted time, and lost wages.

While these may be routine check-ups for most patients, for me, due to sensory issues and other conditions, they are far more challenging. Repeated cancellations make accessing dental care extremely difficult and put me at a substantial disadvantage compared to patients without my conditions.

I purchased an Arnold Clark vehicle with the Autocare warranty after it was presented to me as covering major components, including steering and suspension. At the point of sale, this was explained verbally and shown on screen by the dealer in a way that reasonably led me to believe those components were covered.

Only after making a claim did I discover that important components — including suspension bushes and items excluded under broad “fair wear and tear” terms — were not covered. These exclusions were not clearly or prominently explained to me at the point of sale. The focus of the explanation was on what the warranty covered, not on its key exclusions.

Being told afterwards that the terms were “available in the handbook” does not change the sales presentation I relied on when deciding to purchase the warranty. Making terms available is not the same as ensuring transparency, particularly when a product is actively sold as comprehensive.

As a result, I was left financially worse off and spent months disputing an issue that could have been avoided if the exclusions had been clearly and honestly explained from the outset.

Based on my experience, the way the Autocare warranty is marketed does not reflect how claims are later assessed. I strongly advise customers to obtain written confirmation of exactly what is and is not covered before agreeing to this warranty.

I would also recommend that customers do not rely solely on verbal explanations from sales staff and instead read the full Autocare handbook in detail before purchasing, to avoid unexpected exclusions later.

G2A promised me a refund, but it never appeared in my bank or PayPal account. Despite this, they are refusing to address the issue, claiming the case was resolved.

I have contacted both the seller and G2A multiple times, and neither has taken responsibility. The seller is profiting from fraudulent sales, and G2A does nothing to protect buyers.

This is unacceptable. I cannot recommend G2A until they start taking accountability and actually process refunds they promise.

I have been dealing with this retailer for over four months regarding a misleading advertising issue. Despite multiple opportunities to resolve the matter, my complaint has been mishandled repeatedly:
• Promised call-backs never occurred
• Complaints were closed twice without discussion or agreement
• A manager made false allegations against me instead of investigating the issue
• Inconsistent and low-value compensation offers were made
• I have spent over six hours on the phone, plus additional time waiting for delivery and collection, trying to resolve the issue

The original problem involved a product advertising feature (shown in an app image) that the product does not actually have. The retailer has shown a pattern of ignoring the facts, mismanaging complaints, and failing to follow through on commitments.

I am only pursuing this complaint because of the serious mishandling, wasted time, and misleading advertising, yet the company has refused to provide a fair resolution.

I cannot recommend this retailer for customer service or complaint handling.

I am currently trying to resolve a warranty issue with two Ferrex products that failed within six months of purchase, and the process has been unnecessarily difficult.

I have been passed between different parties and departments, with responsibility repeatedly shifted rather than clearly taken ownership of the issue. Aldi staff directed me to Ferrex due to the products being outside the store return window. However, Ferrex’s process itself has not been straightforward or accessible, with suggestions that they are unable to assist because they are not based in the UK, which raises concerns about how UK warranty issues are handled for products sold here.

Simple warranty matters should not require this level of effort, especially for products clearly marked on the box as having a 5-year warranty. The lack of clear accountability and the ongoing back-and-forth between departments has made what should be a basic consumer rights process far more stressful and time-consuming than necessary.

I am still waiting for a clear and reasonable resolution.

I’ve had an awful experience trying to open a NatWest business account. I was given incorrect information online, wasted hours going to a branch, and was promised a call back within 48 hours that never arrived. I was also told I would receive an email to confirm my availability – that never arrived either.

Today I spent almost 50 minutes on hold earlier with no result. Later I called again and was told the wait was 18 minutes, but after nearly 40 minutes I was still in the queue. Only then was I finally told that the team I actually needed had closed at 5pm, meaning I had been sitting on hold for absolutely nothing.

I made it clear that I have disabilities, and this constant misinformation, lack of care, and repeated wasted time has caused me significant distress. The whole process has been chaotic, disorganised, and completely inaccessible.

This is not acceptable from a major bank. I expected better, and I’m now seriously reconsidering whether I want to bank with NatWest at all.

I submitted a company registration application and provided all required information and verified identification. I have disabilities that make form-filling and written communication extremely difficult, yet my application was rejected due to a name issue.

After contacting the team and providing proof of identity, I was explicitly told this would not cause a rejection. Despite this, my application was rejected again for the same reason, requiring me to provide the same ID that had already been verified.

This has caused unnecessary stress and wasted hours of time. The process has shown a lack of reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010, ignoring the difficulties caused by disabilities.

The handling of the application was unnecessarily punishing and inaccessible, making what should be a straightforward process extremely difficult.

I purchased a Bitdefender Premium Security subscription through G2A from a seller called “Unshop,” and after 5 months my subscription was suddenly deactivated. BitDefender confirmed that the key had been illegally resold, G2A is not an authorised reseller, and the original purchaser requested and received a refund — which instantly cut off my access even though I paid in full. I am not the only customer left in this position if you check the reviews of the seller in question.

I contacted both the seller and G2A and neither of them has responded. I have lost the product I paid for and I am being ignored, even though this situation involves clear fraud. BitDefender has provided evidence directly confirming everything.

This isn’t just poor service — it’s customers being left out of pocket because of fraudulent reselling on the platform. Until G2A starts taking responsibility and protecting buyers, I would strongly recommend avoiding them.

TikTok Shop ran an offer saying “buy 5 items, get £100 in coupons.” What they didn’t make clear upfront is that one of those coupons (a £50 one) requires you to spend £135 to use it. That’s a critical detail they buried in the terms.

I believed I was getting £100 of usable value. I don’t have money to spend just to “unlock” a discount. I complained and they admitted the detail wasn’t clear, but said they’ll just “improve next time.” No refund, no fix — just an empty apology and a request for 5 stars.

This is misleading and unfair. I’ve reported it to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and would strongly advise others to be cautious before trusting TikTok Shop promotions.

TikTok Shop ran an offer saying “buy 5 items, get £100 in coupons.” What they didn’t make clear upfront is that one of those coupons (a £50 one) requires you to spend £135 to use it. That’s a critical detail they buried in the terms.

I believed I was getting £100 of usable value. I don’t have money to spend just to “unlock” a discount. I complained and they admitted the detail wasn’t clear, but said they’ll just “improve next time.” No refund, no fix — just an empty apology and a request for 5 stars.

This is misleading and unfair. I’ve reported it to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and would strongly advise others to be cautious before trusting TikTok Shop promotions.

I ordered an item through B&Q’s website from a third-party seller. I knew it wasn’t sold directly by B&Q, but I still used their platform, trusted their name, and paid through their system.

I bought the item on the 12th of June with delivery being clearly listed as arriving between the 13th and 16th of June. It’s now the 18th, and there’s still no sign of the item.

When I contacted B&Q, they refused to help and told me to deal with the third-party seller myself. That’s not good enough. B&Q is happy to host and profit from third-party sales, but takes zero responsibility when something goes wrong.

If you allow sellers to operate through your platform, then you are part of the transaction and share the responsibility. Otherwise, you’re just hiding behind technicalities while customers are left chasing their own orders.

I’ve had no major issues at all and overall really happy with the service and quality. Just wanted to share a bit of feedback that might help others and improve the experience even more.

Most items I’ve bought have fit me well in a medium, but now and again there’s a style that runs a bit tighter, and I end up needing a large. It can be hard to judge just from the photos whether something will fit without trying it on.

It might be helpful if the website included a disclaimer like, “If you usually wear medium with our clothing, consider sizing up in this style due to a tighter fit,” you could figure this out by having the models wearing different sizes across different styles to figure out if this is a item that needs this disclaimer. That kind of info could really help reduce returns and save time.

This is not a complaint at all, just something that might make a great shopping experience even better for all customers!

I ordered multiple breakfast wrap meals from McDonald’s Queens Drive, Liverpool, specifically asking for egg to be removed due to mild egg allergy. Despite this clear instruction on both the label and the receipt, they kept leaving egg in my wraps. This happened repeatedly and put me at serious risk and ruined my meal every time.

They ruined over £50 worth of food with these allergy failures plus other costs. When I raised the issue, their offer of compensation was weak and did not properly address the danger or inconvenience caused.

This shows a lack of care and understanding about food allergies. I do not trust this McDonald’s Franchise to handle allergy requests safely. They need to improve their processes and take allergy concerns seriously to avoid putting customers in harm’s way. I have since stopped eating at all McDonald’s restaurants due to these issues.

I strongly believe Liverpool City Council has discriminated against me because of my disabilities. I have multiple diagnosed conditions, including ADHD, Autism, OCD & Tourette’s to name a few. Instead of providing reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010, they have chosen to exclude me.

I was banned from contacting all departments because of behaviours directly linked to my disabilities, for example making multiple contacts with them, which was 31 phone calls to the leaders office in a 6 month period, despite repeatedly explaining my conditions and requesting adjustments. Rather than supporting me, they treated my disability-related struggles as misconduct and shut me out by imposing a ban on me making contact.

This could be seen as direct discrimination and would show a complete failure in their duty of care. Public bodies are legally required to support disabled people, not punish them for symptoms of their conditions. They were provided with medical and professional proof of my disabilities.

I am posting this review to make others aware of how Liverpool City Council treats disabled residents in my view. If you are vulnerable or neurodivergent, be cautious when dealing with them and maybe ask for an appropriate adult to help make contact so you have a whiteness of potential mistreatment.

Overall good but some things need to be addressed like the water machine having no flavours on most of my visits, things not being topped up in the vending machine like towels and toilet cleanliness but mainly good

Main reason for the 3 stars is the ridiculous £30 fee for a kiosk that is there no matter if I sell my phone or not should be no more than £10 and that’s a push, you don’t go to McDonalds and get charged a fee to use the kiosks instead of the tills, customers shouldn’t be paying £30 plus for a robot

Overall good, but please get your staff to make sure security tags are removed from shoes before shipping to customer or to stores for collections as out of 4 orders 3 have involved me having to go to store to have security tags removed after purchase