We establish what happened first
We record the review, its date and its link, then compare the reported problem with the service information available to us. We separate the emotional tone from facts we can verify. An unfamiliar reviewer name is not, by itself, proof that a review is fake. We assign responsibility for the case and set a deadline for preparing a response.
We address the problem without attacking the author
Where there is a genuine problem, we address the specific concern and propose a practical next step. We do not paste an identical reply under every review. We keep customer details, order histories and correspondence out of public responses. For clinics, we do not publicly confirm patient status or treatment details. We provide an appropriate contact channel instead of asking for confidential information in a comment.
We report violations rather than criticism itself
We compare the review with Google’s policies. A low score or unfavourable comment alone is not a reason for removal. Where we identify a violation, we report it under the appropriate category and record the case status. The platform decides the outcome, so we do not promise removal. We do not buy ratings, intimidate reviewers or offer benefits for changing or deleting a review.
We follow through with the service team
We pass findings to the team responsible for the service and check that agreed actions have been completed. Our records distinguish a public response, a platform report and resolution of the customer’s problem. Repeated concerns inform improvements to the service process rather than becoming communication tasks alone. We assess response time and whether the cause was addressed, not just the average rating.
