Wrong  Avis 

Réponse de Wrong

29 sept. 2026

We completely reject the misleading claims made in this review and strongly dispute the version of events presented.

Firstly, you were not quoted £48.50 per hour. Our pricing was explained before any work commenced. Our labour rate is £45 per half hour per engineer, with an additional £59 per half hour for machinery/equipment where required. These rates are explained to customers before attendance and are supported by our recorded telephone conversations.

You were not secretly charged for equipment or “chemicals”. The charges were based on the labour and machinery actually used at your property.

Your invoice was £270 for three hours of labour and £177 for 1.5 hours of jetting/machinery, totalling £447 + VAT. The suggestion that you were simply charged “over £500 for three hours of work” without explanation is misleading.

You also claim that the blockage was never cleared. If that were genuinely the case, why did you wait more than a month before contacting us to say it had blocked again? If the blockage had never been cleared, you would reasonably have contacted us immediately or shortly afterwards. Instead, you contacted us over a month later and reported that it had blocked back up, which directly contradicts your claim that it was never cleared.

When you contacted us yesterday, our engineer explained that a recurring blockage can indicate an underlying problem with the drainage system and that a CCTV survey was required to establish the cause.

Importantly, you refused to pay for the CCTV inspection yesterday. Our engineer explained what was required and why, but you declined because you did not want to pay for the further investigation.

We are a professional drainage company and no company works for free. Specialist CCTV equipment, engineers and further investigations are chargeable services. We cannot repeatedly attend a property and provide specialist diagnostic work without payment.

A CCTV survey is the appropriate next step where a drainage system continues to experience problems. It can identify issues such as damaged or displaced pipes, root ingress, scaling, fractures, collapsed sections and other defects. Simply continuing to jet the drain would not necessarily identify or resolve the underlying cause.

Your husband was also supposed to contact our engineer yesterday to confirm when he could attend to carry out the further investigation, but he never got back to our engineer.

We therefore reject the claim that we refused to deal with the problem or demanded further money without explanation. We explained what was required, why it was required and that the CCTV inspection would be chargeable.

We also strongly dispute your allegation that we “simply hang up” when customers complain. When you called our office today, you were screaming down the phone and repeatedly talking over our operative, preventing him from having a reasonable conversation or explaining the situation. The call was ended because you were not allowing our operative to speak. That is very different from refusing to deal with a complaint.

We are not going to accept being labelled “scammers” simply because you are unhappy with the cost of the work or because your drainage system has subsequently developed another blockage.

The price was explained, the work was carried out, the equipment was used and the invoice reflects the labour and machinery provided. The subsequent CCTV recommendation was made because the drain had blocked again more than a month after the previous clearance.

Customers are entitled to leave reviews when unhappy, but that does not make inaccurate or misleading statements factual.

We carried out the work requested, charged according to the rates explained in advance, and advised you of the appropriate next step. Further specialist investigations and equipment cannot reasonably be expected to be provided free of charge.

Réponse de Wrong

23 sept. 2026

We are extremely disappointed to read this review, particularly as several of the statements made do not reflect the circumstances surrounding the work carried out.

Firstly, we are genuinely unsure what you mean by stating that our engineer “ruined” your brand-new bathroom. Before leaving the property, our engineer provided our office with video footage of the bathroom, and the footage does not appear to show any damage whatsoever.

When you contacted our office regarding your concerns, our team asked you to provide photographs of the bathroom so that we could properly investigate the matter. At the time, our engineer was still upstairs carrying out the works.

However, by the time you went upstairs, our engineer had already completed the clean-up and removed the waste and mess associated with the drainage works. This is why we have not received any photographs showing the alleged damage you have referred to in your review. Had there been any damage that you believed had been caused by our engineer, we would have expected this to have been photographed and provided to us so that we could investigate it properly.

We are also unclear as to why you have stated that we “misquoted” you. The quotation was provided to you in advance, and you were happy to proceed with the works on that basis. No concern regarding the quotation was raised until after the works had been completed and concerns were subsequently raised regarding the bathroom.

For clarity, this was an upstairs toilet blockage, with the blockage located behind the toilet. Drainage works of this nature can unfortunately involve some mess due to the location of the blockage, the access required and the nature of the waste being removed. Our engineer carried out the work as professionally and carefully as possible and also cleaned the area before leaving the property.

There are also further circumstances surrounding this matter which we believe should be clarified. During the attendance, your husband attempted to arrange additional private work directly with our engineer outside of the company. Our engineer refused to undertake any private work and continued to carry out the work through our company and in accordance with our procedures.

During the work, the drainage system was also found to contain a significant amount of scale, which required descaling. A charge of £700 was therefore agreed with your husband for the descaling work that was carried out. This charge remains unpaid.

You subsequently refused to make payment, stating that you would not pay because you alleged that our engineer had damaged your bathroom. However, as explained above, we have video footage provided by our engineer from before leaving the property, and there does not appear to be any damage to the bathroom shown in that footage.

We have also given you the opportunity to provide photographs or videos demonstrating the alleged damage, but none have been provided to us.

We therefore find it extremely concerning that a public review has described our company as “scammers” when there remains an outstanding £700 balance for drainage work that was carried out, and when no photographic or video evidence of the alleged damage has been provided to us.

We take genuine customer complaints seriously and are always willing to investigate concerns and address any legitimate issues appropriately. However, we cannot accept serious allegations being made against our company without supporting evidence, particularly where we hold contemporaneous video footage that appears to contradict the claims being made.

We remain willing to review any photographs or videos of the alleged damage should you provide them to us. We would also encourage you to contact our office directly so that this matter can be addressed professionally and fairly.

We stand by the work carried out by our engineer and strongly reject the suggestion that our company is a “scam”.

Réponse de Wrong

23 sept. 2026

We strongly dispute this review, which contains a number of significant inaccuracies and gives a completely misleading account of what actually happened.

Firstly, your claim that you were misadvised about our charges is simply false. Our rates, including labour charged in 30-minute increments and applicable equipment charges, were clearly explained to you over the telephone before attendance. That telephone conversation is recorded.

Furthermore, when our engineer arrived, the rates were presented to you AGAIN. We have a strict procedure whereby customers are shown our charges on site and must SIGN to confirm their acceptance before work proceeds. You therefore had the rates explained twice and signed to accept them. To subsequently suggest that these charges came as a surprise is completely misleading.

You acknowledge that our engineer spent approximately 40–45 minutes at your property. As clearly explained beforehand, our labour is charged in half-hour increments. Once the work exceeds 30 minutes, it enters the second chargeable half-hour. You were invoiced according to the agreed rates and the time spent on site.

Most importantly, WE SUCCESSFULLY UNBLOCKED YOUR DRAIN. Our engineer attended a blocked drainage system, carried out the necessary work and restored the flow.

Your comparison with another company charging £120 is particularly misleading. That company attended AFTER WE HAD ALREADY UNBLOCKED YOUR DRAIN. According to your account, they did not carry out comparable clearance work. Naturally, inspecting an already-flowing drain is not the same as attending an active blockage and spending the time and using the equipment necessary to clear it. Comparing these charges as though the companies performed identical work is completely unreasonable.

Your statement regarding our remedial quotation is also incorrect. You were NOT quoted £3,000.

Our original quotation was £2,800 INCLUDING VAT, broken down as £2,333.33 + £466.67 VAT.

Following your request for a substantial reduction, we were prepared to reduce the quotation to £2,000 ALL IN, INCLUDING VAT, broken down as £1,666.67 + £333.33 VAT.

That represents an £800 reduction, approximately 28.6% off the original quotation. Omitting this substantial reduction while claiming you were quoted £3,000 gives readers an entirely inaccurate impression.

Furthermore, the recommendation for relining was NOT invented. We retain the engineer’s CCTV footage, which shows displacement within your drainage system. The recommendation was based on defects identified during that inspection.

You were under absolutely no obligation to proceed with the recommended remedial work and were perfectly entitled to obtain another professional opinion. However, another contractor subsequently reaching a different conclusion does not establish that our engineer was dishonest or attempted to deceive you.

We categorically reject your description of our company and engineer as “con artists.”

The facts are straightforward:

You contacted us because your drain was blocked. Our rates were explained to you during a recorded telephone conversation. They were presented to you AGAIN when our engineer arrived, and you signed to accept them. Our engineer then spent approximately 40–45 minutes carrying out the work and successfully unblocked your drain.

Our CCTV inspection identified displacement, and remedial relining was recommended. The original quotation was £2,800 including VAT, subsequently reduced to £2,000 including VAT at your request.

You then chose to obtain another opinion, which was entirely your right.

What we will not accept is a public accusation of dishonesty based on an inaccurate account of the charges, the quotation and the work actually carried out.

We retain the recorded telephone conversation, the signed documentation and the CCTV footage supporting our account.

We stand firmly by the service provided, the charges disclosed and agreed before hand and the recommendations made.

Réponse de Wrong

23 sept. 2026

Your review is simply not accurate.

Not only were the charges clearly explained to you over the telephone before attendance — a conversation which is recorded — but our engineer also showed you the applicable rates again upon arrival.

We have a clear procedure in place: the customer is shown the rates on site and is required to sign the documentation confirming acceptance of those charges before the work proceeds. You therefore had the charging structure explained to you once over the telephone and then presented to you a second time on site, which you signed to accept.

Our engineers then carried out the work and successfully unblocked your drain, and you were charged according to the agreed rates and the time/equipment used.

Therefore, the suggestion that you were simply quoted £44.50 and then unexpectedly charged over £200 is completely false. The rates were disclosed twice, accepted and signed for, and the work you instructed us to carry out was successfully completed.