I wish I could leave a zero-star rating, as this has been the worst experience I have had with any medical or cosmetic service, both in terms of the treatment process and how my complaint was handled by the clinic and its partner clinic in Manchester.
In October 2025, I attended an in-person consultation in Shrewsbury. During this consultation, the entire hair transplant process was presented to me as one seamless service provided under a single clinic brand. The written contract I was given at the consultation clearly showed a single total price of £3,800, made up of a £2,300 non-refundable deposit and a £1,500 balance payable on the day to “the surgeon.” There was no mention in the contract of two separate companies, separate agreements, or separate terms and conditions. The wording throughout referred to “your Hair Transplant Surgery,” “the surgical team,” and “the booking process & forward planning of the surgical team,” all under one clinic identity.
I was also told during this consultation that I would return to Shrewsbury for follow-up injection treatments, which I understood would be carried out by the same consultant I met. This gave me a strong and clear impression that the consultation, surgery, and aftercare were all part of one integrated service.
I paid the £2,300 deposit to the Shrewsbury clinic, and the procedure was booked for Manchester.
The procedure was cancelled twice due to high blood pressure identified during pre-procedure screening. This condition was newly diagnosed at the time and later confirmed by my GP as new hypertension. On the second attempt, on 18 December 2025, I was instructed at the Manchester clinic to take an additional full dose of my blood pressure medication, despite having already taken my maximum daily dose. Based on subsequent medical advice, I understand that this carried a significant risk.
I was then administered a Class C controlled medication without any clear explanation of risks, side effects, interactions, or alternatives, despite having epilepsy and being on high-dose medication to control it. I was not provided with what I consider to be adequate informed consent. I was asked to leave the clinic after approximately 15–20 minutes, without extended monitoring.
Shortly after leaving, I experienced a severe reaction including confusion, slurred speech, extreme drowsiness, unsteadiness, dizziness, and intense visual and auditory hallucinations. My mother, who witnessed this, had to write an email on my behalf because I was not cognitively able to do so myself at the time. A letter from my GP dated 7 January 2026 describes this as a “significant adverse reaction” that was traumatic and has resulted in situational anxiety, particularly in medical environments. My GP has also advised that returning to the same clinic would now be unsafe for me due to stress-related blood pressure spikes.
Following this, I requested a full refund of the £3,800 paid, reimbursement of additional costs incurred (approximately £800 for travel and accommodation and £150 for GP visits and medication), compensation for the harm caused, and a formal apology.
Instead, I was informed that my £2,300 deposit would be forfeited on the basis that I had allegedly withheld medical information. This is incorrect, as my hypertension was newly identified during screening and not previously known to me. I was also told that the Shrewsbury and Manchester clinics are “completely separate entities,” despite the contract presenting the service as a single procedure and the earlier description of the Manchester clinic as a partner clinic.
I later became aware that the Manchester clinic’s own published terms state that where cancellation is due to a previously unknown medical condition, and rescheduling is not possible, a full refund minus £500 should apply. Based on my situation, I believe this clause is directly relevant.
An email written by my mother at the time of my reaction, while I was impaired, was later referenced in a way that appeared to question the severity of my symptoms. This was particularly distressing, as subsequent medical advice explained that paradoxical reactions to the medication administered can escalate over time and are consistent with what I experienced.
As a result of how this situation has been handled, I have pursued a Section 75 chargeback and submitted reports to the relevant regulatory and oversight bodies. These steps were taken after repeated attempts to resolve the matter directly.
Overall, my experience involved what I perceive to be a lack of transparency about how the service was structured, unsafe handling of a medical situation that caused real harm, refusal to issue a refund despite published policies, non-medical commentary on a medical incident, and dismissive complaint handling.
This has been an extremely distressing experience. I did not receive the professional, transparent, and safe service that was presented to me at the consultation, and I am left dealing with ongoing anxiety as a result.
