Based upon my direct experience I consider UKWC to be very expensive, provide a very poor cleaning service, and more importantly, they perform such service with negligent disregard to their customer’s property, causing damage as they work then denying all responsibility with aggressive threats of legal action if the customer delays payment.
Further, such negligent damage and dismissive attitude to customer complaints is a recurring theme within UKWC reviews, and it is apparent on reading other reviews that they do no more than send out standard dismissive emails when receiving customer complaints, contemptuously waving away eye witness, photographic and video evidence of damage.
I used UKWC for a number of years and overtime the cost has increased and the service provided has become worse, with windows missed, only partially cleaned or left streaky. Talking to the operative made no difference as you never see the same person twice. The latest cost increase meant I was paying £19.75 for someone to run around the house dragging a hosepipe behind them for 5 to 10 minutes.
This service is now cancelled as during a recent visit I noticed UKWC drag the hose from their van, hook it around the back of my car and then walk the length of the house with the hose scraping around the rear wing and wheel arch, by the time I had got outside (following a phone call) the operative had left, with substantial damage to the rear of my vehicle.
I sent a report and photographic evidence to UKWC on the same day, and the next day received a reply dismissing my report of damage and stating “none of our equipment could have caused that damage……..The hose lays on the ground so it cannot tangle or cause danger. In any event it is made from pliable rubber which will not cause scratches”.
UKWC added “all outstanding amounts must be paid. We use the services of a third party licensed debt collection company and their instruction will not be delayed”.
UKWC also stated that a dispute resolution procedure involved corresponding with their customer service department, before appointment of external ADR and that “ADR providers do charge the consumer a fee for starting the process” , and “You are obligated to complying with the internal complaints procedure of the supplier before requesting ADR”
All of the above in the first response to a reasonably worded complaint from a long-standing customer, an apparently standard reply without due consideration and the same reply I have seen elsewhere to similar customer complaints.
I immediately replied and pointed out that UKWC was effectively stating that my statement of witnessing the damage was untrue, as their hose never left the ground, and if it did it couldn’t possibly cause damage, a quite unbelievable and contemptuous response.
Despite correspondence with customer service being their stated dispute resolution process, UKWC did not reply and had to be chased for the further statement of “complaint has followed procedure and not upheld……this case is closed”.
This leaves the injured party with the option to either pay for some kind of ADR or pursue through the courts, both of which are expensive and time consuming, or to cancel UKWC and walk away, which it appears is what UKWC want in refusing to even consider they could be at fault.
I would advise all who read this to avoid UKWC, I cannot express on here how angry it has made me to observe UKWC negligently trample across my property, damage my car and then act with such insulting and dismissive contempt toward a long standing customer.
My unique customer reference is 16409.