UL Avis 

Great thanks

Very easy to do. Very good communication. Would 109% use again!!

Terrible services waited like a week for them to test it when the review came in they were lying telling me screen was broke luckily I took videos of phone before I sent the offered a ridiculous amount do not trust 0/10 do not recommend

My partner sent off his brand new iPhone that has never been used to be told the price needs to be dropped. So he asked for it to be returned back to us and it’s been returned with an empty box no phone. Absolutely shocking that any company would treat a customer like this.

Good and quick service. My old phone was broken so was glad to still be able to get some money for it. The price did drop by a bit but that was the only negative.

Kept up to date throughout

5/5 really quick and easy they sent out a package to my address with everything needed in it to safely ship off my iPhone that I was selling to them took about 3days to be delivered to them and next day tested and got a good price for my item :)

Quick and easy

I expected £100-£200 after the initial offer of £270 but only ended up getting £81 for my iPhone 14 pro max. It was fully working order just had a little ware and tear. Was disappointed but good with communicating every step.

EXTREMELY POOR SERVICE
Do not trust this company what so ever had a bad feeling when it has taken nearly a week for my phone to even to be looked at to then be told it’s in worse condition than poor condition, small crack on front screen phone less than a year old but still in genuinely good condition, company is a joke and should not be trusted by anyone

Very easy service, clearly stated in detail every problem with the phone and was completely honest with what they thought the phone was worth. Got more for my phone than I thought I would. Would highly recommend.

Seamless. Payment took about longer than expected.

SHOCKING - do not buy with them. '0' star is not an option. Purchased iphone from Uber link via Back Market, who say their policy is phones are unlocked when purchased, received a 'locked phone - with a pass code set up already', sent it back, received it locked/pass coded again, sent it back, they now say it is in the post but tracking number is not recognised. Meticulously returned each time to the seller (Uber Link Ltd) with multi view pictures of phone and detailing the packing process (at least 5 layers of protection) both times only to have to prove with time/date stamps of images from my phone to prove the pictures were from different returns. They now say because it is after 30 day return period I am stuck with the phone if I ever receive it back and it should be easy to unlock myself. WHAT, Uber Link Ltd, the seller, are supposed to be cell phone unlocking service company. If they can't unlock it, how am I supposed to be able to??? Does this mean it is a stolen phone? Beyond Frustrated!!!
08/08 UPDATE: received the phone LOCKED PASS CODE AGAIN, it is the box in a drawer waiting for response.
16/09 UPDATE: Refund finally issued after a very stressful chain of events. PayPal had to intervene to resolve.

I sold a phone to Uber link in march and was due payment in early April. I had written confirmation it would be sent by 6th April. I was checking my bank statements and noticed I had not received it. They have since paid, but just a watch out for anyone thinking of selling to this company to be vigilant…

All fine, think they should offer the correct amount first time. Little pushy on leaving feedback if I'm honest as I always thought it was up to me when I leave it but all told they have done what they said so no complaints.

Offered a much lower price than quoted, extremely misleading particularly as they give an option of 'broken' when initially completing the sale. Despite this I accepted the offer as it was too much to get the device returned. Transfer of payment is extremely slow. Constantly having to chase them, false promises of when the money will be received by, still not received any money almost 2 weeks on. I'd give zero stars if I could.

Very good company with fast service and payment within 48 hours. Unfortunately offer was quite a bit lower than what was shown on the website, but still received payment fine. Would recommend

They come out as the top on compare websites - however the amount they offer you is significantly less. Quoted up to £265 then offered me
£110 less than 50%. I submitted mine as broken (camera glass needed replaced). Incredible difference

Was offered 690 for an iPhone 16 in good condition. They downgraded it and lowballed me with an offer for £400 which I obviously rejected. Then increased offer to £500, to which I rejected.
Then they asked what offer I would accept and I replied I would accept no less then £560.
They accepted, said they were going to process the payment on the 29th and if it hasn’t gone through within one working day, email and they would immediately investigate.
I emailed 3 times asking for an update.
5 days later, I had an email saying they were sending the phone back as their finance department had rejected the offer.
Absolutely disgraceful company and how they operate.
I sent the phone off on the 17th June and only received the phone back today (5th July).
They hold your phone to ransom and lowball you.
Definitely avoid.

Read !! Part of my complaint

17 June 2026 – I created my order after being quoted £259 for my broken iPhone 15.
18 June 2026 – I posted my phone using tracked delivery.
19 June 2026 – Royal Mail tracking confirmed my phone had been delivered to your premises.
22 June 2026 – You finally emailed to confirm receipt of my device, advising that devices are “usually processed on the day of receipt, although during busy periods it may take 1–2 working days after receipt for your mobile to be processed.”
25 June 2026 – You completed your assessment and reduced your offer to £41.
Over the following days, your offer increased to £62 and then £80, despite there being no change whatsoever to the device.
During this period, I repeatedly requested the return of my phone. Those requests were ignored.
4 July 2026 – Only after I informed you that I would be referring this matter to Trading Standards and considering reporting my phone as being unlawfully retained was my device finally returned. It arrived back in a significantly worse condition than when I sent it.
I only chose your company because you quoted £259 for my broken iPhone 15. Before sending it, I had already been offered £150 by an independent phone shop, but I trusted your advertised valuation because it was significantly higher.

Your headline valuation was the reason I chose your company over competitors. It was only after my phone was in your possession that the valuation was reduced by almost 85%, despite the device being submitted in the exact condition for which it had originally been quoted.

The repeated increases in your offer also undermine confidence in your valuation process. An offer that rises from £41 to £62 and then to £80, without any change to the device itself, suggests that the original offer was not based solely on its condition. From my perspective, it appears the amount you were prepared to pay depended more on whether I accepted the offer than on the actual value of the phone.

Your revised valuation email states:

“The screen is damaged and cannot be refurbished. A Genuine Apple Screen replacement is needed.”
“The screen is FAKE / COUNTERFEIT and a Genuine Apple replacement is needed.”
However, I never represented the phone as having a genuine Apple screen, nor did I send it as a fully functioning device. I submitted it under your broken phone category because the screen was already broken.

I completely understand that an “up to” valuation may be appropriate for devices advertised as being Good, Excellent or Like New, where the final value depends on cosmetic condition or previously undisclosed faults.

However, my phone was submitted as a broken device. The faults had already been declared before I sent it. If a broken screen requiring replacement is used as the primary reason to reduce the valuation, despite that already being the condition under which the device was quoted, then I struggle to understand how the original valuation was ever calculated in the first place.

Only after I had sent my phone did you state in a later email that the original valuation was an “up to” price. That was not made sufficiently clear when I chose to use your service. Had it been presented that way, I would never have chosen your company, as I already had an offer of £150 elsewhere.

You then emailed asking what my minimum acceptable price would be. I replied, explaining that I already had an offer of £150 from an independent phone shop. My response was ignored.

On more than one occasion I requested that my phone be returned. Those requests were ignored and repeatedly delayed. It was only after I informed you that I would be referring the matter to Trading Standards, and that I was considering reporting my phone as being unlawfully retained, that you finally returned my property.

Today, 4 July, after being in your possession since 19 June, my phone has arrived back in a significantly worse condition than when I sent it.

Before sending it, the screen powered on perfectly and displayed a full image. The only issue was intermittent touch sensitivity. Now the display will not turn on at all.

My phone has therefore been returned to me in a significantly worse condition than when I entrusted it to your company.

Following this experience, I decided to use another recycler instead. I sent nine old devices to Mazuma. Every single one was assessed promptly, I received exactly the price I was quoted, and I was paid the same day they received each device, exactly as they advertise. That experience only reinforced how disappointing my dealings with your company have been.

From my perspective, the combination of:

A headline valuation that was never remotely honoured.
Repeated reductions followed by incremental increases in your offer.
Reasons for downgrading a phone that had already been declared