Back
What makes your company stand out?
This moving company has not yet answered this question.
Services
National moving
About
There's no information available about this removalist.
Sirelo asks...
What is your insurance policy? How do you deal with damaged items?
This moving company has not yet answered this question.
What is the best advice you would give to customers?
This moving company has not yet answered this question.
Have you moved with this company?
We'd love to hear about your experience.
Reviews
James Bell
January 17, 2017
on Google
Terrible company. Nothing more than sharks. We nicknamed them De-ffecctive removals! They will swindle you for absurd costs and if you so much as question the extraordinary bill, prepare for a campaign of abuse and harassment.
They quoted less than a removalist we used a couple of years ago for a move between the same 2 addresses, yet managed to end up with a bill 33% higher.
They were lazy, slow and careless with our furniture. Nothing broke with the first move from house A to B but when these guys moved from B to A there were 4 major breaks, all from careless handling.
They also made no mention at all that they didn't accept credit cards, then abused us for not having cash. When we pointed out their error, they acknowledged (eventually, after repeatedly calling us liars) they had changed the format of the email and missed that notification but still never apologised for the abuse.
They violated several consumer credit laws, including more frequent phone calls than allowed, abusive and threatening calls and unsolicited in-person visits. They target my partner, knowing she was more stressed by their abuse than I was. All of which is expressly forbidden in legislation, even before the morality of standing at a customer's front door yelling for them to open up.
They also illegally record all conversations and when told this was illegal under the Listening Devices Act 1992 (Cth), said it; 'Wasn't his fault that they happened to be recording while I was close enough to be overheard.' Well, sorry morons but the Act SPECIFICALLY says otherwise. As if that wasn't enough, he used only the parts of the recording that supported his case (out of context) and refused to release the whole recording... also forbidden by the act. Three blatant violations of law in that plus goodness only knows how many in the way they went about recovering the fee (which was never unreasonably delayed, as it happens).
In resolution, they eventually agreed to reduced fees and to send someone to repair the most substantially damaged piece of furniture. After getting the money they never came to fix the furniture and stopped responding to all communication.Read more
They quoted less than a removalist we used a couple of years ago for a move between the same 2 addresses, yet managed to end up with a bill 33% higher.
They were lazy, slow and careless with our furniture. Nothing broke with the first move from house A to B but when these guys moved from B to A there were 4 major breaks, all from careless handling.
They also made no mention at all that they didn't accept credit cards, then abused us for not having cash. When we pointed out their error, they acknowledged (eventually, after repeatedly calling us liars) they had changed the format of the email and missed that notification but still never apologised for the abuse.
They violated several consumer credit laws, including more frequent phone calls than allowed, abusive and threatening calls and unsolicited in-person visits. They target my partner, knowing she was more stressed by their abuse than I was. All of which is expressly forbidden in legislation, even before the morality of standing at a customer's front door yelling for them to open up.
They also illegally record all conversations and when told this was illegal under the Listening Devices Act 1992 (Cth), said it; 'Wasn't his fault that they happened to be recording while I was close enough to be overheard.' Well, sorry morons but the Act SPECIFICALLY says otherwise. As if that wasn't enough, he used only the parts of the recording that supported his case (out of context) and refused to release the whole recording... also forbidden by the act. Three blatant violations of law in that plus goodness only knows how many in the way they went about recovering the fee (which was never unreasonably delayed, as it happens).
In resolution, they eventually agreed to reduced fees and to send someone to repair the most substantially damaged piece of furniture. After getting the money they never came to fix the furniture and stopped responding to all communication.Read more
