The email provided for the managing director on this site for problems previously did not work. I am apparently not allowed to tell you what this email is, because Trustpilot does not want any emails in their reviews. if you look at a negative review on Trustpilot dated on 28 March 2024, and tech shack’s reply, techshack does however publicise this email.

When I pointed this out, Trustpilot noted “ We do understand that the email address was found in a reply to another review, but we can still deem that the email address is contravening our guidelines since the business didn't include the personal information in their reply to your review, the company's website, or the description of their profile page on Trustpilot.”

The firm Techshack sold Chinese goods that don’t always work, like Litrobots robo-vacuums. They knew the Litrobots robots were problematic, people had been defrauded, and they continued to sell them for some time afterwards. They were defensive about their decision in an email exchange. Interestingly, the Litrobots UK website was taken down because of increasing consumer complaints, and tech shack is trying to distance themselves from their actions. I have reported them to Trading Standards.

Trustpilot left this review up because it is simply true. I have seen the defensive reply below. They are actively working to have legitimate consumer warnings removed from public view, preventing other consumers from making informed decisions. They also are implying that criticism of their business indicates the complainant is not medically well and then are condescending. It may give you an indication of how you might be treated as a customer.

TechShack states in their 28 September reply:
“We categorically deny the allegations you have made, and we are currently seeking legal advice regarding the defamatory nature of your repeated reviews.”
This is an attempt to intimidate a consumer from posting legitimate warnings about their business practices.
While I may not have personally purchased from them (I purchased from the manufacturer directly), I have:
• Direct experience with the product they sell
• A CCJ against the manufacturer for consumer law violations
• Legitimate knowledge of the product’s defects
• Provided them with a good-faith warning about the products they’re selling