Steve

Excellent, quick delivery. Well-wrapped package for transportation.
To be reommended.

Excellent delivery (especially for a Saturday!)
Well-notified at regular stages via SMS.
Friendly driver, Jack.
Thank you.

Here we go again with DPD. Out of all the British courier services I deal with, it can be guaranteed that DPD generates the most problems for me.

A delivery was scheduled for between 15:57 and 16:57 this afternoon. It never arrived. I've therefore been sitting waiting for this worse-than-useless example of an how-not-to-run-a-courier-company for ten & three-quarter hours.

Since 16:57, when the scheduled delivery was promised, I've been looking at their app which has assured me that "the driver is on his way" and "the driver is 15-minutes' away" right up to 19:50 when I was finally told: "Sorry, your ... parcel is delayed due to unexpected [sic] issue. Delivery is now due Wed 28 Jan..."

This has happened in EXACTLY the same way on a number of occasions, which is why I state that DPD is, without fail, the very worse courier in Britain today.

DPD now expect me to sit and wait - as though I have nothing better to do, or no appointments and engagements to honour, tomorrow - all over again, just because they profoundly messed up my delivery.

And no, there was no snow, hail, sleet, mist, fog or anything on the roads around me. In fact, apart from one short shower that we had, it's been a bright, sunny Tuesday. For most of the day.

I'm stating the above as DPD will lie about either road conditions, the 'fact' that the driver couldn't find my address, "there was no-one at home" or, as has happened before "no such address exists".

Again, I cannot state strongly enough about DPD's incompetence and general 'couldn't care less attitude'. As far as actually getting an apology from the company, they wouldn't even think of offering me one.

Caveat emptor.

I've ordered a few items from Bullion by Post, over the years, and in every case it's been spot on.

From my experience I think that Bullion by Post is the best company around for purchasing precious metals.

What an appalling mess REVOLUT is in. After asking me a week ago, to verify' myself (after holding an account with them for years), I finally gave it up this afternoon when, after around twenty attempts, their system again would not allow me to upload a photo of myself (sure, I know I'm ugly, but their system should have at least let me prove it to them!)

And then... after I had been ranting and raving at them over the past seven days, the sloppy AI chatbot thing finally said that they were having problems with their system!

Appalling service from REVOLUT to allow me to carry on like that, unbeknown to myself that they were 'having problems'.

I immediately drew all my money out and transferred it elsewhere, just in case they put a stop on my account. I shall, of course, be reporting them to the Financial Ombudsman for harassment.

An appalling service.

I have had home contents' insurance through Swinton Insurance for a while. However, the building in which I reside is undergoing major refurbishment so there is scaffolding surrounding it.

I telephoned Swinton Insurance yesterday afternoon to inform them as such... and after a long wait to get through to someone, I was then transferred three times to various departments; the last employee to whom I spoke to was an HAMZAH.

HAMZAH told me that as far as his system was telling him there was no problem with the scaffolding in relation to my home contents' insurance, so I left it at that.

However, at 14h31 yesterday (Weds 24.09.2025) HAMZAH rang again saying that he would have to cancel my policy because of the scaffolding posing a risk. However, he said that he could put me through to a different organisation which, he told me, may be of assistance.

Forty-minutes' later, after being left 'hanging on' with music playing, I decided enough was enough and put down the phone. In these past 24-hours, no-one from Swinton has since been in touch. They've evidently given up with me and seemingly they don't want my business any longer.

So, to cut a long story short, I have now cancelled Swinton's payments through my bank. I have tried contacting them via their online chat, but it does not function (I have tried three browsers: Safari, Mozilla (Firefox) and Opera, all without success.

I can't speak to them as my sinusitus is particularly bad today. However, they give no other form of communication on their Web site, other than telephone numbers, but I am not prepared to give up yet another afternoon sorting out a problem which should have been sorted out yesterday.

Altogether a horrible company to deal with.

It was on 2 August 2016, that I invested in a lifelong membership for Windscribe’s VPN service, purchased through StackSocial, a decision made in good faith to support a nascent Canadian business. While a degree of risk was inherent in supporting a relatively unknown entity, I was willing to contribute to its early development.

My subsequent interactions with Windscribe have been, in the main, satisfactory. Queries have been addressed relatively promptly, even personally by founder Yegor Sak, and the VPN service itself has functioned reliably. However, a recent experience has revealed a deeply troubling and discriminatory pattern within the company’s support structure.

On 8 September 2025, I sought assistance regarding the implementation of ‘Anti-Fingerprinting,’ a feature recommended by Windscribe itself to enhance online privacy. Despite following instructions, I was utterly unable to locate the necessary settings within either the desktop application or the browser extension. Even enlisting the aid of my teenage grandchildren, who possess considerable technical aptitude, proved fruitless.

The response from Windscribe Support representative Katrina was not one of helpful guidance, but rather an implicit assumption of technical expertise that I simply do not possess. This is not a reflection of a lack of willingness to learn, but a stark illustration of Windscribe’s apparent belief that all users are technologically proficient – a presumption that borders on discriminatory.

I see no reason to disclose my age or medical circumstances, yet Windscribe’s approach effectively forces such disclosures by creating a system that penalises those who require basic assistance. Why should individuals be judged, and implicitly devalued, based on their presumed level of computer literacy? It is unacceptable that a company providing a service intended to enhance privacy and security simultaneously erects barriers to access for those who may require a modicum of support. This is not merely an inconvenience; it is a systemic exclusion that reflects a profound lack of consideration for a significant portion of its user base.

I ask that Windscribe re-evaluate its support practices and address this blatant disregard for the diverse technological capabilities of its customers.

This comment is regarding printer toner which should have been delivered from Brother, by DPD today.

I'm at my French house at the moment so I cannot put my finger on my usual phone or laptop, and thus have no details at hand regarding the order made last week.

DPD, the company which should have delivered the toner this afternoon, just tootled off back from whence they came, saying (through the app) that they couldn't find the address, after they had first notified me through the app that "they were on their way and my address was next".

Someone was in the house waiting for DPD so I am firstly very unhappy with DPD, and secondly, I am very unhappy with Brother, and in particular, an employee named Alex who I have just spoken to in their Customer Service, who put down the phone on me as I did not have the original order number.

As I told him, I am in my French house and have no details at hand. He said that he was not "prepared to deal with me unless I had an order number".

I'm really fed up with this afternoon's dealings with both DPD and Brother's customer service, that I am now just going to send back the order to John Lewis, the company from where I ordered the printer.

DPD is a company which is either OK or they are just not interested.

The latter is the case today.

Someone was at home today to receiver parcel: 1550 5093 297 963 from Brother. I had been notified by DPD's app just when DPD was going to arrive. The person waiting in for the delivery company missed a day at work and stayed in my property ALL DAY. She even waited outside in the rain when the app advised her that the driver was just a few minutes' away.

I have just been told - through the app - that the DPD driver couldn't find the address! Evidently Rebecca wasn't wearing her eyeballs today. It's inexplicable why, in these days of GPS, online maps showing just where the driver is, real-time maps showing just where the property is... companies just 'give in'.

I am presently in my French house, so I do not wish delivery of the parcel. I have asked that DPD just return it to Brother as I've now run out of patience with DPD as DPD is a company just not worth bothering about. Truly, DPD is a useless company. Exactly the same thing happened a few months' ago (that day it was a Friday so the driver presumably just went home... I never, ever did get my parcel, as that, too, was just returned to the company from which it had stemmed).

I have just phoned up on DPD's 0121-275-9222 number speaking to a Zaid - to explain that because of this farce I no longer want this parcel. I made it very clear that DPD is just to return it to Brother.

Excellent delivery by DPD this morning... and making the delivery on a Saturday morning, too.

Full marks to DPD and their very efficient driver.

I'm rather baffled as to just why I joined Motoring Assistance, knowing what I know now.

I signed up in August with Motoring Assistance for Roadside Assistance, National Recovery, Home-Start, Onward Travel and their additional towing service, paying extra for the latter.

Unfortunately, I couldn't start my car on Monday 1 September after all the rain and damp weather that we'd had. I therefore phoned Motoring Assistance to come help me in accordance with my fully paid-up membership.

The young, very friendly mechanic arrived shortly afterwards, had a prod and a poke around the engine and decided that he couldn't start it using his super-duper, oversized battery pack (I'd already given my own battery pack a go, without success).

The mechanic left, but before he did, I asked that he might tow me to a car-electrics' specialist for a diagnosis and subsequent repair. After a sharp intake of breath, he replied that they didn't have the facility.

And so it was left to me - despite me paying for the extra 'towing' fee with Motor Assistance, - to arrange my own towing away of the car at a cost to my wallet of £95 !

I'm rather bemused by all of this... I paid for the extra 'towing', yet Motoring Assistance never honoured it. Just why?!

Following the call-out, the same afternoon at 13h13, Monday 1 September, I was asked by Motoring Assistance to give a review of how my breakdown was dealt with by the company (R5Y6NPMJ30776).

I answered honestly, of course, and gave just the one-star for what I believed was a breach of our mutual contract. Their system gave the perfunctory response: "We're sorry to hear you had a negative experience. This feedback has been passed on for review by our operations team who are continuously looking to improve the service we provide."

However, to this day I have received no explanation, no apology or any compensation for their breach of contract.

If this is the way we start off our relationship, Motoring Assistance, then I prefer to have nothing more to do with you.

eBay STILL is committing hara-kiri, slowly but surely. It's a painful death to watch... but a business death it most certainly is.

Not only does it now charge eBay customers to purchase from them (how ridiculous is that?!), it also makes little or no provision for people with either no printer, or a printer which is broken.

Having sold an earphone cable on eBay for £15 (weighing all of 60g), they have the nerve to charge me £5.13 for postage, and which they already know that I cannot make use of as my home printer is broken, as I have told them several times.

The outcome is that I have now refunded the buyer the full amount (he paid an extra £1.15 for the 'privilege of purchasing it from eBay!)

I'm also going to post out the cable to the would-be purchaser for free, as why should he do without just because of eBay's farcical business practices?!

I now buy from Amazon instead of eBay - like a lot of my family, friends and acquantances - as eBay has now gone beyond the pale. I really cannot see their business lasting much longer unless they make HUGE changes to their ridiculous business practices.

Although the sale didn't work out (there was an intermittently faulty 'menu' button on the camera), a refund was made extremely quickly for the 'Blackmagic Pocket Cinema camera (MFT)' that I purchased from CEX.
The fault was evidently something that CEX didn't pick up on at point of sale, due to its occasional non-functionality.

While I avoid broad generalisations and conceptualising businesses too much, my experience with Vospers of Plymouth (Peugeot dealers) demonstrates a concerning lack of customer care.

On 21 August 2025, I contacted their parts’ department and spoke with a representative named Sam. After providing a detailed description of the part I needed, Sam assured me he would return my call. Despite waiting for an extended period (six full days), I have yet to hear back.

Let’s look at Vospers’ apparent client philosophy, bearing in mind that twice more that same afternoon I attempted to contact Vospers by telephone, but was unable to do after receiving the ‘engaged tone’.

When a company places the sole responsibility on customers to return calls and follow up on sought-after information, it undoubtedly speaks volumes about that company’s client philosophy, suggesting that, generally, it indicates a client-centric deficit implying that the company prioritises efficiency and cost-saving over providing a positive and supportive customer experience.

Implications include:
- Lack of Value for Customer Time: It implies the company doesn't highly value customers’ time and effort. Requiring customers to chase up information or repeatedly attempt contact suggests their time isn't considered valuable.
- Transactional Relationship: It points towards a transactional relationship rather than a partnership. A company which truly invests in its clients proactively manages its communications and ensures customers have the information they need.
- Poor Customer Service Culture: It can be a symptom of a broader issue within the company's customer service culture. It suggests a lack of empowerment for employees to resolve issues and a general disregard for customer satisfaction.
- Potential for Frustration and Dissatisfaction: This approach is highly likely to lead to customer frustration, dissatisfaction and potentially, ‘churn’ (i.e. customers leaving for competitor companies).
- Missed Opportunities: Proactive follow-up isn't just about service; it's an opportunity to build rapport, identify additional needs and strengthen the client relationship. By not doing so, the company misses these chances.

While there could be rare exceptions (e.g. an overwhelmingly high volume of calls, COVID-19 & other high sickness rates), a company which puts the onus on customers to follow up their own queries, generally demonstrates a client philosophy which prioritises internal processes over customer satisfaction and relationship building. It's a red flag for potential customers such as I.

Needless to say, after speaking to Sam and attempting to phone back Vospers twice more afterwards and even e-mailing the company without obtaining a reply, I’d by then lost all interest in Vospers and went elsewhere.

From this one pertinent example we can see just how staff can easily make or break a business by subverting goodwill and the desire to extend a client base, thus undermining and lowering any future prosperity of that company.

So far, so good. However, I've only, as yet, filled in an online membership form, parted with my money for the year, and read documents spurred from joining the Motoring Assistance organisation.

So in response to the invitation of leaving a TRUSTPILOT review, all I can say that it's gone swimmingly well so far, with no problems. However, to be as realistic as possible, 'the proof is in the pudding', as they say.

It should be noted that the real reason of joining 'Motoring Assistance' is to put myself as far away from the RAC as possible, thus losing the remainder of my five-months' subscription with them, as I cannot abide the RAC's arrogant and taking-for-granted attitude when dealing with their customers.

I’m old enough to remember when Royal Automobile Club (RAC) patrolmen used to salute RAC members as they drove by. Nowadays the RAC seems to be nothing more than a money-grabbing enterprise, run by investment trusts, with the aim of fleecing members for all they can (three investment companies have owned the RAC since 1998: the Lex Group, Aviva and the Carlyle Group).

Such is the case here when, on 24.07.2025 I had a flat battery and RAC patrolman Andrew came out to help. He replaced the battery – at a cost of £257.99 – and eventually started the car. A few days’ later the Peugeot's battery was flat again. On this occasion it was patrolman Matt who got the car going with his jump starter battery pack, telling me that there was a fault with the relay switch (a fact which was not divulged to me when the first RAC man came a few days’ earlier).

Henceforth, I was very dubious about whether I needed the new battery costing £257.99, at all, and whether I had wasted my money, especially as the car had undergone a ‘Summer check-up’ at Halfords only the week before, including lamp, tyre and battery tests.

I put this question to the RAC and made an official complaint. They told me that they would look into the matter. But having the RAC investigate the RAC is like have the police investigate itself, or a known criminal interrogate himself. It’s a pretty worthless exercise, and I give below why an organisation investigating itself after an accusation is NOT generally a good idea:

1. Lack of Impartiality & Objectivity:
- Conflicts of Interest: Those within the organisation have a vested interest in protecting the organisation's reputation and potentially their own jobs. This inherent bias can significantly hinder an objective investigation. They may be hesitant to find fault with colleagues or processes they are part of.
- Loyalty & Relationships: Employees often have established relationships with those accused or involved. This can cloud judgment and make it difficult to gather honest and unbiased testimony.
- Fear of Retaliation: Witnesses (as in the second RAC man) might be reluctant to be totally truthful if they fear repercussions from colleagues or superiors within the same organisation.

2. Perceived Lack of Credibility:
- Public Perception: Even if the internal investigation is conducted with good intentions, the public (and often stakeholders) will likely view it with scepticism. It's perceived as a self-serving exercise designed to clear the organisation rather than uncover the truth. This can damage the organisation's reputation further.
- Legal Risks: If legal action is taken (e.g., a lawsuit), an internal investigation may not be considered credible by a court, potentially weakening the organisation's defence.

3. Limited Resources & Expertise:
- Specialised Skills: Complex allegations (like harassment, fraud, or discrimination) often require specialised investigative skills, legal knowledge, and forensic expertise that an organisation's internal staff may not possess.
- Time & Resources: A thorough and impartial investigation can be time-consuming and resource-intensive. Internal teams may be stretched thin and unable to dedicate the necessary attention to the matter.

4. Potential for Cover-Up:
- Inadvertent or Intentional Bias: There's a risk, even without malicious intent, that the investigation could be steered to downplay the severity of the allegations or protect those involved.
- Destruction of Evidence: Individuals within the organisation might be tempted to conceal or destroy evidence that could be damaging.

This is why, following the RAC’s investigation of itself and its own methods I will not be rejoining the RAC at the end of my paid subscription, or at any time ever again.

To me, and from now on, the RAC stands for nothing more than ‘Royally Arranged Cover-up’ and is a company being run for the interests of investors – as a way of maximising their profits and investments - and NOT their car-owning members.

Going further, some might even conclude that the RAC is a recipe for ‘Regally Assured Corruption’.
_______________________________________________________________

Cara: Thank you for your reply. You say that you are "sorry to see that (I) remain unhappy", but evidently not sorry enough to do something about my complaint or answer any of the messages that I have written to the RAC.

While these go unanswered, you continue to treat me like an infant (I am in my seventies), and 'close' each and every message that I have written to you through your ineffectual complaints' procedure.

My car presently is in a local garage (no thanks to the RAC) which is investigating that which seems a serious lapse in the RAC's practices.

I shall add more upon the return of my mended vehicle.

An excellent purchase from Cash Converters of Harlesden, London. I'd been looking around for an Fxlion, Nano One Battery, for my Blackmagic camera for a while, but, to be honest, they were all just too expensive.

In came CC Harlesden with one at just £63.98 (inc postage) AND with a 12-month guarantee! Needless to say, I snapped it up straight away!

Companies like MPB do their damnedest to hang on to your hard-earned money until the very last moment. As is the case here.

I bought a camera lens from MPB on 02.08.2025. It clearly gave out the description of the advertised lens as: “Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm t/3.5-5.6 ASPH Mega O.I.S.”. And I believed it. Except that all of it was wrong and had been incorrectly labelled by MPB.

However, I paid for the advertised lens which MPB was selling, but immediately wrote to tell them that they had used the wrong image.

Except that they hadn’t used the wrong image, as I found out upon delivery. It turned out that the image they had shown had been the correct one, but it was the description which was incorrect.

As acknowledgement of my e-mail, someone named Will from MPB wrote two days’ later saying: “ I wanted to let you know that I have looked into the issue and can confirm that the item in question was mistakenly listed. I have gone ahead and brought this to the attention of my team, and we are working to fix this.”

So, they evidently knew – before sending out the incorrect lens – that it was the wrong one, yet still they sent it out!

MPB’s incorrect description of the lens which I’d bought, led me:
- Having to stay in to await delivery of the incorrect lens
- Having to re-pack it (in another, bigger outer carton, once I had determined that the lens, by opening the box, was indeed the wrong item sent)
- Having to take it around to a local shop & tackle queues (twice) – on the very same day that I had to drive 176km to the airport
- Have the return be refused by the local DPD drop-off shop on 07.08.2025 as they had no printer, even though I had been told by MPB: “Pack and label: No printer? No problem. Just write your MPB transaction on the outside of each box. Scan your QR code at the DPD drop-off point and they’ll attach the labels for you”.
- On top of that, the phone image of the QR code which I gave to them wasn’t recognised by their equipment and neither were the red / black labels of which I had taken photos
- The consequence was that I had to hurriedly return home from the DPD drop-off shop and garner what else they needed.
- The next procedure in this farce was that once back in the DPD drop-off shop, I then had to re-queue, wait for the person I’d seen previously to become available, e-mail the shop and send to them the labels which I had on my phone.

What an absolute palaver. What a needless mess. And what a stain on any worthwhile business I could otherwise have had with MPB if they’d just bothered about - and had any concern in - doing their job properly. And all on the very day I had to rush to get myself to the airport!

In conclusion: what an altogether dreadful indictment of modern day ‘convenience’ of purchasing items over the Internet.

On top of all this I did not even gain repossession of my £85.95 until today, 14.08.2025.

Added to this debacle I was subsequently sent this further e-mail by MPB, as though to rub salt in an already-gaping wound: “I’m more than happy to offer you a future discount with us as a gesture of goodwill, by way of apology. The discount code is £10.00 off any transaction over £100.00. It is single use and valid for 6 months.”

However, to gain this “future £10 discount”, I had to spend 16.35% more than I had already spent with MPB on an incorrect lens - and had to do so within half a year! The £10 discount would barely cover the sticky tape I used, the outer box I begged from a neighbour, together with all the time I wasted in returning the wrong lens to him.

The irony of the naivety of Will at MPB, was that he really did believe that he was doing me a great favour by offering me his worthless £10 discount!

MPB has turned out to be one of the worst companies I have EVER had the misfortune to deal with and which had had the nerve and audacity to be “generous” with me to the tune of precisely nothing.

Just how (and why) do these companies survive?!

Note that this review is NOT for one-star (i.e. 20%)… it is for ZERO %. And that’s me being generous.

CEX: an excellent company. Helpful, good prices, extremely quick delivery... and now a 5-year guarantee on all their products. What's not to like?

This review is about the purchase of a 'Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K (MFT)' from CEX. At £605 this was not a cheap camera, but sadly, the purchase did not work out.

However, CEX refunded me in full and with no fuss. I can highly recommend CEX in every way.

On their Facebook page and head-office Web site, it states, of HiQ Tyres, that they pride themselves in “excellent customer service”. No, it’s not. Not at all. Their customer service falls way below that of any British company which values its loyal customer core: by its rudeness, its inability to grasp that individuals are not ruled by the same clock as the one HiQ Tyres uses, and its realisation that customers are its ‘bread and butter’.

This morning saw me awakened at precisely 8 o’clock in the morning by an officious HiQ Tyres member of their PLYMOUTH franchise reception staff, telephoning me in relation to an e-mail enquiry which I had written the day before.

He didn’t introduce himself but asked if I “were the person who had booked in a car for some work doing?”.

The man was very surprised when I “thanked him”, sarcastically, for waking me up. His reply was that he had been at work since “seven o’clock”, insinuating that I should be up and about my daily business, too!

He still never introduced himself. I could only guess - in my stupefied and medication-induced state - that he was from HiQ Tyres.

I asked again just why he was waking me up so early, and again, en passant, ‘thanked him’ for telephoning me so early in the morning. I have to state that because of a serious, long-term medical condition I take very strong tablets to both help me sleep and lessen the painful effects of my condition.

Paul, for that is whom it was, of PLYMOUTH HiQ, one of two reception staff, was less than interested in what time of day it was and more interested that I called him a “stupid, stupid man” for belittling the fact of him awakening me. I put down the phone as a result.

I have been dealing with HiQ Tyres of PLYMOUTH for several years. But with this morning’s dreadful ‘how not to do customer service’ episode, it will be the last time that our paths will cross.

Oh, and by the way, I never did “book my car in” as Paul suggested. It was merely a simple query of a possible repair that I was asking of the franchise, via e-mail. And I never did get a reply to my e-mail to them. I will, of course, be going elsewhere in the future.

Please note too, that this review is not for ‘one-star’. It’s for ZERO-stars, and even that would be too much for a company which places so very little value on its customers.

--------------------------------

STUART from HiQ, PAUL's working colleague from HiQ PLYMOUTH, has just telephoned at 15h48 on 13.08.2025 to tell me that I am "the only person ever to complain about times of the day that HiQ telephones customers". Well, I am pleased to be unique (although I am most certain that that is NOT the case and he is not telling the truth).

Again, I told him that I was NOT booking the car in... I just made an e-mail enquiry yesterday (one which I would take it that they will not be replying to, now).

Interesting to note that HiQ are now ganging up on me. What a dreadful company I've had the misfortune to use in the past.