Illustrative Example. This report is invented. "Example Outdoor Store" is not a real business and these are not real reviews. Risk screening, not legal advice.
Summary
We checked the three recurring issues that carried a warning on the dashboard. A reviewer matched two of them to a possible risk area in our consumer-law checklist, both ranked Medium. The third is a service issue with no checklist match. We suggest looking at Finding 01 first, ideally by checking the checkout directly.
Scope
- Client: Example Outdoor Store (invented).
- Reviews: 186 reviews uploaded over 3 months, from the client's own exports.
- Issues checked: the three with 5 or more negative reviews on the same issue.
- Method: AI-assisted screening of each recurring issue, with a person reviewing every match.
- Report date: sample only. This is the first audit, so there is no earlier report to compare with.
Findings At A Glance
Findings ranked by score| No. | Recurring issue | Checklist area | Rank |
|---|
| 01 | Delivery charge added at checkout (17 negative reviews) | Total price | Medium · 36 |
|---|
| 02 | Refunds refused for faulty items (8 negative reviews) | Faulty goods | Medium · 24 |
|---|
| 03 | Slow replies from customer service (6 negative reviews) | No match | Not scored |
|---|
Score = Severity (1 to 5) × Likelihood (1 to 5) × Reach (1 to 3). Bands: Low 1 to 15, Medium 16 to 40, High 41 to 75. For reviews, Likelihood reflects how strongly the reviews support the pattern, and Reach reflects how many customers it represents. The scoring method is still being refined.
Findings In Detail
FINDING 01 · TOTAL PRICE
Customers say a delivery charge appears only at the last step of checkout
- What the reviews say
- 17 negative reviews over 3 months say a delivery charge was added at the final step, after a lower total was shown earlier. The number is rising each month.
- Evidence
- Recurring issue DC-01: 17 reviews, with their dates and review references kept in the dashboard snapshot.
- Why it may matter
- A mandatory charge left out of the total price shown earlier may not meet the total price expectations in CMA207 (Chapter 4).
- Reviewer's note
- The reviews are consistent and specific, but they are what customers say, not something we have seen. We suggest checking the checkout directly, for example with a VeraTrust Website Review.
- Score
- Severity 4 × Likelihood 3 × Reach 3 = 36, which falls in our Medium band (16 to 40).
- Review
- Confirmed by a reviewer after reading all 17 reviews.
FINDING 02 · FAULTY GOODS
Customers say refunds were refused for items that were faulty within weeks
- What the reviews say
- 8 negative reviews say an item was faulty within about a month of delivery, and the customer was offered a repair or nothing when they asked for a refund.
- Evidence
- Recurring issue RF-01: 8 reviews, with their dates and review references kept in the dashboard snapshot.
- Why it may matter
- Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, customers usually have a short-term right to reject faulty goods, normally within 30 days (section 22). Refusing a refund in that period may not meet the Act.
- Reviewer's note
- The reviews do not show the business's side or the exact dates. We suggest checking the returns policy and a sample of refund decisions.
- Score
- Severity 4 × Likelihood 3 × Reach 2 = 24, which falls in our Medium band (16 to 40).
- Review
- Confirmed by a reviewer after reading all 8 reviews.
FINDING 03 · CUSTOMER SERVICE
Customers say replies from customer service are slow
- What the reviews say
- 6 negative reviews mention waiting a week or more for a reply. The number is falling.
- Reviewer's note
- This is a service quality issue. It did not match an area in our consumer-law checklist, so it is not scored. It stays on the dashboard to watch.
What We Did Not Review
- Reviews that were not in the uploaded exports.
- Whether any review is genuine. We analyse the reviews as uploaded.
- The business's website, policies or records, unless agreed separately.
Important
This report is risk screening, not legal advice. It shows possible risks suggested by customer reviews, not confirmed legal findings, and a report with few findings is not a guarantee that a business meets the law. Only a court or regulator can decide that. For advice, speak to a solicitor.
Official sources: Competition and Markets Authority, Unfair commercial practices (CMA207), GOV.UK, updated 18 November 2025, checked 16 October 2026. Consumer Rights Act 2015, Part 1 and section 22, legislation.gov.uk, checked 19 October 2026.
