LLP, Thanks for your review. I suspect you are going to spark an interesting discussion about policy. Particularly I think there is debate to be had about whether this actually constitutes a review. I realise it meets the criteria - a booking was made. What you describe is what I consider qualification and confirmation of services which, for me comes prior to the booking being made. I don’t necessarily disagree with what you have done here. If we all share what we learn through qualification it would save a lot of punters a lot of time, and create pressure for WG’s to be more accurate in their profiles when describing “likes”, fees and extras.
The problem is - it doesn’t tell us very much. Rare is the WG who reports all these things accurately, and that doesn’t necessarily preclude them from providing good service or value. Personally I am increasingly of the view (although I know Virtualwaster will consider I am merely parroting the words of my high priest Jimyredcabs
) that we should amend guidance about arriving at the rating so the the message (and accuracy) of the aggregate is paramount. Personally, in similar circumstances I would write an advisory rather than call it a review.
I am interested to hear others opinions.
