Jamil

PDF-XChange Editor has proven itself to be an exceptional tool for managing and editing documents.

It serves as a highly robust alternative to Adobe, offering comprehensive features at a fraction of the cost.

The interface is intuitive, ensuring that complex tasks remain manageable for all users. Unlike free alternatives like PDFgear, it handles large/complex files with ease, maintaining speed and stability (no crashes) throughout your editing or merging process.

Of note is the company's UK origin and current operation from its headquarters in Canada. They maintain a diverse international presence with offices in the UK, Ukraine, and Bulgaria. This geographic distribution is an excellent choice for those looking to reduce their reliance on US-based software products. Supporting a developer with such strong UK, European, and Commonwealth ties provides peace of mind regarding which country your money is going to.

The support staff are remarkably attentive and demonstrate a genuine commitment to helping their users. They provide clear guidance on how to use specific features effectively within the software. Their team is thorough when investigating bug reports, including more complex "unknown errors." This level of personalised assistance is rare in the software industry and adds significant value to the product.

A. Unauthorised Renewal & Lack of Notice

1. My annual Wolt+ subscription renewed automatically. I received absolutely no prior reminder or notification that this charge was impending.

2. This failure to notify violates Visa/Mastercard merchant rules for annual subscriptions, which mandate a reminder 7 to 30 days before billing. It also contravenes UOKiK guidelines regarding unfair market practices and tacit renewals.

B. Refusal of Refund & Escalation

3. I contacted support immediately (within minutes of the charge) to cancel and refund, as I have not used the service. The agent (Aleksandra) refused, citing "procedures", even though there was zero cost to Wolt to correct this.

4. I explicitly requested escalation to a manager multiple times. The agent refused this reasonable request, stating that "any other consultant will need to do the same way", effectively blocking my access to a resolution.

D. Conclusion

5. Wolt is happy to take your money silently but refuses to follow basic consumer protection laws. Avoid their subscription service (if you must use their service at all).

Do not walk, run away from the Legal Ombudsman. If you are a disabled or vulnerable person seeking justice against a law firm, I urge you to find another path. My experience has shown them to be a profoundly dysfunctional organisation that fails at every level: service, investigation, impartiality, and its basic duties under the Equality Act 2010. They are not a route to justice; they are a barrier to it.

My case was simple: I paid a law firm a significant sum for legal advice that was so deficient it caused immense damage to my Employment Tribunal case, necessitating three separate case management hearings just to fix the mess they made. What I received from the Legal Ombudsman was not a resolution, but a masterclass in institutional failure.

1. Blatant Disregard for Disability:

From my very first communication, I clearly stated my disabilities (autism, ADHD, PTSD) and outlined my simple, legally-protected reasonable adjustments for communication. These were not suggestions; they were requirements for me to access their service. They were completely ignored. Dense blocks of text were sent, clear instructions were not followed, and a supporter I had asked to be copied in was excluded. When challenged, the investigator's manager defended the failures. This isn't just poor service; it is discriminatory and unlawful.

2. A Shamefully Incompetent Investigation:

The initial investigator assigned to my case was grossly incompetent. His first assessment was factually incorrect, brazenly stating I hadn't suffered any financial loss when this was the entire basis of my complaint. After I complained about his service, he sent a "revised" assessment. He admitted his first one was wrong, but then invented a new, equally absurd reason to dismiss my complaint, concluding the legal advice wasn't "obviously wrong".

This ignores the concrete, real-world fact that the advice was demonstrably unfit for purpose, evidenced by the three court hearings required to undo the damage. Their logic is a bureaucratic shield to avoid proper scrutiny.

3. Conflict of Interest and Institutional Indifference:

The most shocking part was what happened after I filed a formal complaint against the investigator for his incompetence and discrimination. Instead of removing him from my case, his manager insisted he continue to handle it, forcing me to deal with the very person I had a live complaint against. This is an outrageous conflict of interest that caused me immense distress. Their justification was that they were "following the process". Their process, it seems, is designed to protect their staff, not the public.

The final decision, unsurprisingly, rubber-stamped the investigator's flawed recommendation. They have closed my case without ever properly investigating the core issue.

Conclusion:

The Legal Ombudsman has failed me. They have failed in their duty of care, failed to uphold the Equality Act, and failed to provide anything resembling an impartial or competent investigation. They took a clear case of professional negligence and turned it into a bureaucratic nightmare. If this is the "justice" they offer, consumers are better off without it. Avoid at all costs.

I purchased Ordo's Sonic Electric Toothbrush via Amazon in July 2024. Within 10 or so months, the handle began degrading, becoming sticky and unpleasant to touch. I later discovered that this usually indicates a breakdown in the plastic material breaking down.

But what followed was far worse: an unprecedented ordeal of unprofessional, inconsistent, and—eventually—discriminatory customer service.

Despite my repeatedly stating that this was a formal product complaint under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Ordo failed to acknowledge it as such. Basic queries were ignored, promised follow-ups were missed, and their representative offered contradictory and confusing information about replacements and shipping.

As a disabled customer, I explicitly requested reasonable adjustments in communication: plain English, short sentences and paragraphs, and clear formatting. These were disregarded from the outset. I had to escalate the issue several times and issue a formal final notice before Ordo reluctantly agreed to a refund I was legally entitled to.

After I formally raised Equality Act 2010 breaches, Ordo’s director responded with further unacceptable conduct. He requested "proof of disability" to access a goodwill gesture, made statements implying that I might be attempting to “scam” the company, and suggested I remove my genuine review in exchange for compensation. This conduct was not just inappropriate. It was discriminatory and deeply offensive.

Only after I issued a threat of legal action did Ordo agree to issue a £145 payment and a formal apology. But by then, the damage was done. What should have been a straightforward product complaint became a sustained episode of exclusion, legal threats, and distress.

This company has shown it is unfit to serve disabled customers and lacks the basic understanding of its legal duties under the Equality Act and GDPR. I will never buy from Ordo again and urge others, especially disabled customers, to avoid them entirely.

Spend your money with a reputable brand like Philips Sonicare instead. Their products are better, and their service actually respects consumer rights and dignity.

Avoid this site. I purchased what was clearly advertised as “Steam Wallet Gift Card 25 GBP Key – UNITED KINGDOM.” However, the codes I received were actually Hong Kong Dollar (HK$) gift cards worth HK$240 each.

When redeemed on Steam, each card only added a converted 22.60 GBP to my wallet – a shortfall of £2.40 per card, meaning I lost £4.80 in total. That’s nearly 10% less than advertised.

To make matters worse, there was no upfront warning on the product page that these were HK$ cards being misrepresented as GBP. This is clearly misleading, deceptive, and a breach of contract through fraud/misrepresentation.

Customer support initially stalled, asking for screenshots even after I clearly explained the problem. Eventually, they sent a HK$50 gift card as a “solution” — still not enough to make up the missing value. After further pressure, they finally agreed to initiate a partial refund. It took hours of follow-up and formal complaints to get this far.

They also laughably offered a minuscule 10% discount code for a future purchase. Why would I buy again from a site that blatantly misrepresents products?

It feels like a classic bait-and-switch. You think you’re buying a UK £25 Steam gift card, but instead, you get a cheaper product meant for the Hong Kong market.

What’s even more concerning is that Gameseal is not a UK-based company. Their operations run through Cyprus and the United Arab Emirates, far outside most consumer protection jurisdictions. This offshore setup is probably intentional to make it harder for consumers to pursue legal remedies against them.

Avoid Gameseal. You’re not getting what you pay for – and they know it.

I turned to the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman ("LGSCO" / "LGO"), hoping for an impartial referee. Instead, I found a body that bends over backwards to defend councils while stonewalling disabled complainants like me.

1. Dismissive, box-ticking “investigations”:

1.1. Despite the London Borough of Newham Council admitting multiple faults (wrongly recording my name, delaying a Stage-2 review by nine months, giving unclear instructions about student council-tax discount, failing to grant my student council tax discount, etc.), the LGO refused to investigate because the “likely fault has not caused significant injustice.”

1.2. The investigator decided that a then-unpaid token £100 from Newham Council was a sufficient remedy and closed the case without even asking the council to put things right or prove if/when they paid said remedy.

2. Equality Act? What Equality Act?:

2.1. I repeatedly asked for reasonable adjustments (plain-English emails only, numbered paragraphs). Instead I received unreadable portal messages and generic letters.

2.2. When I complained, an assessment manager, coolly replied that the Equality Act does not require the LGO to answer as many questions as I might want to ask. That contemptuous tone tells you everything about their attitude to disabled people.

3. Threats instead of answers:

3.1. After I requested a review, the LGO warned that if I tried judicial review, they would pursue me for £2,000 to £3,000 in costs — an intimidation tactic more befitting an aggressive law firm than a public-service ombudsman.

4. Stonewalling service-complaint process:

4.1. When I lodged a formal service complaint under the Equality Act detailing unreadable correspondence and an unqualified “readability analysis” of my disability-related emails, the response ducked every substantive point and blamed “human error,” offering only another hollow apology.

5. Forcing litigants into court:

5.1. Their own solicitor later bragged that the Ombudsman’s findings show my claim is “trivial,” and threatened cost orders if I pursued the matter.

5.2. The watchdog’s default stance seems to be: Save councils money at any cost — even if that means crushing the citizen.

6. Bottom line:

6.1. The LGO markets itself as “independent and fair.” My experience shows it is anything but.

6.2. If you are disabled, expect patronising brush-offs, procedural hurdles, and veiled cost threats.

6.3. The organisation that should champion accountability has instead become a gatekeeper, shielding local authorities from scrutiny.

6.4. Use with extreme caution — and don’t count on them for justice.

*** UPDATE: 13 October 2025 ***

Lawhive's conduct has become farcical.

After I refused their attempt to add gagging conditions to a previously unconditional £500 offer, they've now withdrawn it entirely. Their excuse is that I'm "broadening the scope" of my complaint by reserving my right to sue for negligence—a core part of my complaint for over a year.

They've now withdrawn the offer and demanded I restart the entire process. This bad-faith pattern—offer, attach strings, then withdraw—is a masterclass in evasion and speaks volumes about their lack of integrity.

*** UPDATE: 8 October 2025 ***

Lawhive’s conduct validates my original review. The Legal Ombudsman confirmed their £500 offer was unconditional. I accepted it only for their complaints handling delays, reserving my right to pursue separate claims for negligent advice and data breaches.

Predictably, Lawhive then tried to move the goalposts, demanding I waive all rights to future claims. This is a classic bait-and-switch: make an unconditional offer, then try to turn it into a gagging order to buy silence. It proves their priority is burying negative feedback, not resolving issues.

---

ORIGINAL REVIEW (Updated 5 May 2025):

In short, Lawhive is not merely disappointing—it is dangerous for anyone who values competent legal representation, regulatory compliance or the bare minimum of respect for disabled clients. If you are even thinking of instructing them, do yourself a favour: walk away.

---

My experience with Lawhive has been nothing short of a disaster. Based on extensive and frustrating email correspondence, I can unequivocally state that their service is detrimental to your legal matter and deeply distressing. If you value your time, money, and legal standing, look elsewhere.

The communication from Lawhive is a complete and utter failure. Expect glacial response times, empty holding statements, and a shocking lack of transparency. My repeated attempts to get clear answers and updates were met with dismissive silence, dragging out crucial matters unnecessarily and causing immense stress.

Worse than the abysmal communication is the demonstrably deficient legal advice I received. This wasn't just unhelpful; it actively harmed my case! I was given advice that led me to remove critical claims from my particulars, resulting in documents that the other party later deemed inadequate and required substantial, costly, and stressful revisions. Relying on Lawhive's "expertise" proved to be a grave mistake that prejudiced my legal position.

Their complaint handling process is a cynical exercise in delay and deflection. My formal complaint about their failures was dragged out for months, met with the same pattern of evasive responses. The final "resolution" was insulting – a paltry offer contingent on my agreeing to remain silent about my horrific experience and remove any negative feedback. This practice of attempting to buy silence and manipulate review scores is a clear indication of their priorities – protecting their reputation over genuinely resolving client issues. This is not about resolving issues; it's about burying negative feedback.

Their disdain for basic disability adjustments is every bit as galling. Despite repeated written requests to use plain English and email‑only communication because I am autistic and live with ADHD and other disabilities, they persisted with vague, generic replies that did nothing except escalate my stress.

Lawhive's contempt recently culminated in an egregious data‑protection breach. I submitted a Data Subject Access Request (DSAR) on 16 February 2025; by 5 May 2025—seventy‑eight days later—Lawhive still had not produced a single document, sailing past the one‑month deadline mandated by UK GDPR. Any legal outfit that can’t even follow the most basic letter‑of‑the‑law requirement about personal data—something every corner‑shop newsletter manages—speaks volumes about its competence, integrity, and respect for statutory obligations.

Lawhive has proven to be incompetent, unaccountable, and seemingly indifferent to the harm caused by their substandard service. They wasted my time, jeopardised my legal case, and compounded my distress. Their failure to even comply with a basic legal obligation like responding to a DSAR within the statutory time limit speaks volumes about their disregard for data protection and client rights.

I urge anyone considering Lawhive to heed this warning and seek legal representation from a competent and trustworthy source.

My stay at Novotel London Excel was deeply distressing and raised serious concerns about the hotel's attitude toward disabled guests and their legal obligations under the Equality Act 2010.

Despite informing the hotel in advance about our disabilities and assistance animals, we were unexpectedly charged a cleaning fee at check-in. The staff refused to make reasonable adjustments, such as providing a quieter check-in environment to accommodate my sensory processing difficulties as an autistic individual.

During the check-in process, Operations Manager Chanchal Kumar also refused my reasonable request to slow down his speech to help me better understand what he was saying, dismissively claiming he couldn’t slow down.

However, it was the behaviour of Cluster General Manager Amine Zungi that was particularly disturbing. Upon discovering that I was recording the interaction as a disability aid, Zungi’s conduct escalated dramatically. He repeatedly threatened to call the police — and eventually did so — despite my attempts to explain that the recording was a necessary adjustment for managing my disabilities. His demeanour was hostile and intimidating, with wide, glaring eyes and dismissive body language. At one point, he even threatened to bring in his legal team against me, saying, "We're going to take legal action. I need to check with my lawyers".

Zungi’s behavior throughout the interaction suggests that something is seriously wrong with his approach to handling guests in distress. His actions caused significant psychological harm, triggering an autistic meltdown, and his repeated attempts to escalate the situation — instead of calming it down — show a complete lack of empathy and understanding of disability-related needs.

Despite multiple complaints, Novotel London Excel and the Accor Group have refused to admit any wrongdoing under the Equality Act or offer suitable remedies. Their responses have been dismissive and inadequate, demonstrating a lack of accountability and a troubling disregard for disabled guests.

This hotel is not safe for anyone who requires reasonable adjustments or assistance animals. The staff’s ignorance of disability rights and their aggressive, intimidating responses to legitimate needs make it a highly unsafe and unwelcoming environment. I strongly urge anyone considering staying here to look elsewhere.

Avoid at all costs.

We used Jovada Express's home removal and delivery service. The company managers/staff were professional, knowledgeable, and always courteous in their communication.

The delivery driver was equally polite and efficient, ensuring everything arrived safely. We were notified of any changes to the delivery time.

What stood out for us was the way Jovada Express handled all of the necessary post-Brexit paperwork. They took care of all of the Brexit Britain customs bureaucracy, saving us a huge amount of time and hassle.

I recommend Jovada Express to anyone who needs a reliable and professional removal service.

ESB Energy has provided an appalling and substandard level of service throughout my interactions with them, marked by delays, inadequate responses, and a blatant disregard for my rights as a disabled customer.

Their financial mismanagement has been astonishing. I was overcharged multiple times due to their defective pre-authorisation process for one EV charging session. It took a month for them to calculate and refund the amount owed.

As someone with disabilities that affect my communication and cognition, I made clear and explicit requests for communication adjustments in line with the Equality Act 2010. These requests were ignored in the initial interactions, with the company sending unstructured and confusing emails that only added to the stress caused by their mistakes.

Their customer service was similarly unacceptable. During a phone call, one of their agents, Niall, was dismissive and rude and responded immaturely when I challenged his unprofessionalism. ESB Energy’s response to my complaint about this call handler was disturbingly generic, offering vague assurances of “training” and issuing disingenuous apologies for how I felt about things, ultimately failing to address the gravity of the situation or demonstrate any real accountability.

Adding to these failings, their privacy policy listed an invalid email address for complaints, which was incompetent and potentially a breach of data protection legislation.

Overall, ESB Energy has shown shocking incompetence and a complete lack of respect for its customers. They cannot be trusted to handle finances correctly, respect customer rights, or deliver even basic service levels. This is a company to avoid at all costs.

Newham Council epitomises the very worst in local government. From their shocking financial mismanagement to the seemingly endless parade of incompetent executives, their dysfunction seeps into every facet of their operations.

Basic tasks like setting up a council tax account, obtaining a student exemption, or reporting street litter become exercises in futility. Expect endless delays, unanswered emails, and a complete disregard for your time. Their block waste collection service is equally abysmal. Overflowing bins and uncollected rubbish pollute block waste rooms, creating a breeding ground for pests and generally unpleasant communal spaces.

Formal service complaints are akin to shouting into a void. Investigations are either non-existent or so poorly conducted that they add insult to injury. Noise complaints are met with indifference, leaving residents at the mercy of inconsiderate neighbours.

One can't help but draw parallels between Newham Council's operational effectiveness and the kind of governance one might expect from a developing nation riddled with corruption. The pervasive sense of apathy and disregard for public service is truly appalling.

Adding to the chaos is Chief Executive Abi Gbago's frequent and unexplained absences. One has to question her commitment and ability to manage this dumpster fire of a council. Under her leadership, or lack thereof, Newham has descended into a state of utter disarray.

If you have the misfortune of living in Newham, brace yourself for a constant battle with incompetence and neglect. This council is a disgrace to local governance.

Edit 17 Oct 2024:

Psychiatry-UK did not request more information from me to "investigate further". So I never declined to provide my details as they alleged because I was never asked to provide more information about myself or my complaint.

You know a medical firm is negligent when they're willing to gaslight and lie to defend themselves.

Edit 15 Oct 2024:

Psychiatry-UK reported this review in an attempt to censor this genuine negative experience with their service.

It is reasonable to assume that they have done this to other service users who have had bad experiences with them.

What a horrible organisation.

---

Original review:

I've had an absolutely dreadful experience with Psychiatry-UK. They've shown a shocking disregard for my well-being and basic standards of care.

I had to wait an unreasonable amount of time for my ADHD assessment. While the assessment experience and letter redraft with/by Dr Kamat was good, I faced further delays in starting the essential medication titration process because Psychiatry-UK couldn't be bothered to request or process my ECG result.

They repeatedly failed to respond to my queries on their patient portal for weeks. They only take action when you raise formal complaints. So, in other words, you have to raise service complaints to get a basic standard of service from Psychiatry-UK.

Their responses to my formal complaints have always been inadequate. They always fail to address the core issues and don't give you any clear resolution or information about the next steps if you are dissatisfied with their complaint response. They've shown little to no empathy or understanding for the distress and negative impact their delays and poor communication have had on my mental health.

Psychiatry-UK’s patient portal and booking tools are also outdated and lack user-friendliness, despite the organisation’s claim to specialise in neurodiverse conditions. Their booking system forces users to scroll through endless unavailable dates, and my request for reasonable communication adjustments was ignored. This reflects a lack of awareness and consideration for neurodiverse patients’ needs.

Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if this dismissive attitude and cheap service delivery starts at the top. Psychiatry-UK's CEO, N Montgomery (publicly-available information), seems utterly uninterested in patient concerns, which likely influences the organisation's overall disregard for patient needs. It’s clear that Montgomery's indifferent attitude has trickled down through the ranks.

Overall, Psychiatry-UK has proven to be a distressing, unprofessional, and uncaring provider. If you need timely, supportive care for ADHD or other neurodiverse conditions, I strongly recommend seeking help elsewhere.

As a customer, my experience with Google Store has been disappointing. I recently purchased a new phone and traded in my old one for a promotional refund. However, the trade-in process turned into a nightmare. Despite providing all the necessary information and following all the return instructions, I have yet to receive my refund.

I contacted Google Store customer service several times, but my requests for updates and action were met with generic responses and repetitive requests for information that had already been provided. Clearly, Google's customer service representatives don't read emails carefully or have any interest in helping customers.

I even filed a formal complaint under the UK Consumer Rights Act 2015, but it was ignored. This is unacceptable, showing that Google does not value its customers or their time.

Throughout this process, there has been a lack of transparency and accountability on the part of Google Store. I have no idea what is going on with my refund or when I can expect to receive it.

I would not recommend Google Store to anyone. The company's poor customer service, lack of transparency, and disregard for customer complaints make it a risky choice for any consumer. This experience has significantly damaged my trust in Google Store and affected my perception of the company as a whole.

I hope that Google Store will take my feedback seriously and improve its customer service in the future. But, given the plethora of other negative reviews dating back years, I doubt they will.

I recently contacted LM Notary Public Limited for notary services and was extremely disappointed with their lack of professionalism and poor customer service. My initial inquiry on 25 Aug 2024 was ignored for 46 calendar days.

After chasing by phone on 8 Oct 2024 and 10 Oct 2024, I finally received a response. Except there was no apology offered for the excessive delay. Instead, the representative simply stated that my email "may have been overlooked".

The initial response, which had the unhelpful email subject of "Timeslots", also lacked clarity regarding the consent form required for document verification. I had to seek further clarification on several points, further delaying the process. Their response to my request for clarity was unprofessionally written, with no email greeting or signature.

LM Notary Public Limited's unresponsiveness, lack of apology, and unprofessional communication collectively left me feeling undervalued as a potential client.

Based on my experience, I cannot recommend LM Notary Public Limited to anyone seeking notary services.

My experience with Wharf Notaries has been extremely disappointing. I initially emailed them on 25 August 2024 to enquire about notary services for my medical documents. When I received no response, I followed up with a phone call on 8 October 2024. Despite these efforts, I’ve yet to receive any substantive reply or acknowledgement.

I tried calling again on 10 October 2024, but my call was diverted straight to voicemail. Not only have they failed to respond to my enquiry, but they also seem uninterested in answering their phone. This level of unresponsiveness is unprofessional and frustrating, especially when dealing with time-sensitive medical documents.

I would not recommend Wharf Notaries if you’re looking for a notary service that values communication and reliability. Based on my experience, they seem unwilling to respond to potential clients, let alone provide the necessary services.

I had a highly disappointing experience with Circle Health Group and The London Independent Hospital regarding my recent complaint about their handling of an incident that left me feeling humiliated and distressed.

On 11 September 2024, I filed a formal complaint under the Equality Act 2010 about the discriminatory treatment I experienced at the hospital. Despite raising serious concerns about a staff member's inappropriate conduct, including physical intimidation and unconsented physical contact with my body, and deeply offensive comments about my sitting in a quiet space to manage my sensory difficulties, Circle Health Group’s investigation fell far short of expectations.

They only partially upheld the issues I raised without thoroughly addressing the gravity of the staff member’s actions. I provided Circle Health Group with the opportunity to review an audio recording, which directly supported my complaint. However, they failed to request or follow up on this crucial evidence during their so-called investigation. Their lack of initiative in securing this evidence was unprofessional and suggests they did not take my complaint seriously.

Further, Circle Health Group assumed I didn’t want to share this evidence—an offensive and incorrect assumption that undermines my experience as a neurodivergent person. It reflects a disregard for the adjustments required by individuals with disabilities. They neglected to ask for specific evidence directly, even though they knew it existed and could have easily requested it through appropriate channels.

The inadequate response from Circle Health Group and a lack of detailed explanation for the staff member’s specific, offensive comments highlight a worrying failure in their complaint-handling procedures. This experience suggests they are more interested in protecting their reputation than conducting a thorough, fair investigation.

I have requested escalation and asked for the details of Circle Health Group’s legal representatives, as I intend to pursue this matter further if they cannot provide a satisfactory resolution. If you are neurodivergent or require any specific accommodations, I strongly advise caution when considering Circle Health Group, as their response to legitimate complaints about discrimination and harassment is disappointing and dismissive.

I’ve been shopping with Hit.co.uk for several years including when they were known as Base. They've been my go-to for pre-ordering games in the UK. What stands out is their consistently competitive pricing. I often find games cheaper here than on other sites (including digital-only stores), which is a huge plus.

The delivery is always reliable too. Whenever I pre-order a game, it arrives in time for release day without fail. Knowing I can count on them to get my orders to me when they say they will is nice.

My only criticism is that they usually don't offer SteelBook or special edition variants of new releases. For these, you have to buy elsewhere.

Overall, I’m really happy with the service. Competitive prices, reliable delivery, and no hassle. I highly recommend Hit for any gamer looking for competitive prices and fast, dependable service.

I appreciate grüum's commitment to sustainability and its range of natural, effective products. I've been particularly impressed with their shave bar and toothpaste tablets. However, my experience has been marred by their subscription service.

Due to my autism and ADHD, I often struggle with time management and remembering important dates. Timely reminders are essential to keep track of my subscriptions and avoid unexpected deliveries.

Unfortunately, grüum doesn't send reminders about upcoming charges or deliveries, which has led to me receiving multiple unwanted orders. This is incredibly frustrating, leading to a build-up of products I don't need yet.

A simple email or text message notification a few days before would make a huge difference and prevent these unwanted orders. This is especially important for neurodivergent customers like myself, who may rely more heavily on such reminders.

I contacted customer support about this issue, hoping for a solution. Disappointingly, they informed me that they don't have the technology to send email reminders for subscription orders. In this day and age, this is simply unacceptable. A simple email or text notification a few days before would make a huge difference and prevent these unwanted orders. This is especially important for neurodivergent customers like myself, who rely more heavily on such reminders.

Until grüum addresses these fundamental issues with its subscription management and invests in basic customer service functionalities, I can't recommend its subscription service in good faith. It's a shame because their products are genuinely good.

I have had an incredibly disappointing experience with InHealth, and I feel compelled to share my story to raise awareness about their failure to make reasonable adjustments for individuals with disabilities, despite being legally obligated under the Equality Act 2010.

As someone diagnosed with autism, ADHD, PTSD, depression, and anxiety, I expected InHealth to accommodate my specific needs during my interactions with them. However, from the moment I attended my MRI scan in April 2024, I was met with discrimination and a lack of basic respect. My reasonable request to wait a few minutes for my partner before my consultation was dismissed by their staff as a "waste of time."

Following this, I formally requested communication adjustments, such as using email or pre-arranged calls due to my disabilities. Not only did they ignore these adjustments, but their Operations Manager repeatedly called me without notice and behaved in a dismissive and disturbing manner. His conduct, including multiple interruptions and the abrupt termination of phone calls (including lying about doing this), left me suffering significant distress.

Despite raising formal complaints and attending a recorded meeting with senior staff on 30 September 2024, InHealth failed to offer any meaningful resolution. Instead, they denied responsibility for their breaches of the Equality Act and left me in a state of emotional distress. The meeting was nothing more than a formality, with no tangible action to address their breaches of the Equality Act.

InHealth has shown a complete disregard for the well-being of their disabled patients and has failed to take accountability for their actions. I am now forced to take legal action to seek justice for the discrimination and emotional harm I have suffered.

I would strongly advise anyone who requires reasonable adjustments or is disabled/neurodiverse to reconsider using InHealth's services. My experience has been nothing short of traumatic, and their failure to satisfactorily address these issues has been unacceptable.

I recently applied for support from Able Futures. I found their induction process incredibly frustrating and inaccessible.

Despite indicating my disabilities (which include autism and ADHD) and requesting alternative induction processes, my needs were disregarded, and adjustment requests were rejected. I was forced to complete a lengthy telephone induction with no prior knowledge of the questions. This made me feel unprepared and overwhelmed.

When I raised these issues via a service complaint, my concerns were dismissed. I was even told that I should have requested adjustments beforehand, even though this was my first interaction with the program after my initial adjustment request was rejected!

The complaint response from Able Futures / Ingeus's Operational Support Manager was bad. Their email was filled with long, convoluted sentences that were difficult to understand, especially for someone with ADHD. It felt like they were more interested in justifying their actions and deflecting the blame than making genuine attempts to address my concerns.

Able Futures / Ingeus claims to accommodate people with disabilities, but my experience suggests otherwise. It makes me wonder if their priority is to maximise profits by providing services at the lowest possible cost, rather than genuinely supporting participants based on individual needs. This might explain their reluctance to offer more accessible options like video calls or email-based meetings and inductions.

I hope they will take my feedback seriously and improve communication and accessibility for future participants. But, given the state of publicly-funded services for disabled/neurodivergent people, I wouldn't hold my breath.