• Report: #1050751
Complaint Review:


  • Submitted: Tue, May 14, 2013
  • Updated: Tue, May 14, 2013

  • Reported By: robbie31 — wagga wagga Other
121 Suffolk st,Birmingham,B1 1LX Internet United Kingdom

cityvisas Gurdip Aulakh and Cityvisa.com is a con - don't use Birmingham Internet

What's this?
What's this?
What's this?
Is this
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™

SEO Reputation Management at its best!


  • On December2011, my wife and I signed on with cityvisas to organise a Quebec Skilled Workers
  • We were charged £1700 in three instalments by the company
  • We were assigned a Mr. Aqeel Ahmed as our advisor
  • We were advised by cityvisas that we were not eligible or the Quebec Skilled Workers but for the Federal Skilled Worker classvisas. cityvisass also informed me that due to a capping limit (only 500 places would be available for Federal Skilled Worker Class visa’s) our application needed to be completed by June 1st
  • On 02/01/12 we were sent PDF documents to the company. We instructed Mr. Aqeel in the email to ‘look over the documentation and tell us what's needed’ 1.
  • On 23/01 I received an email from cityvisas in which he reassured us that our visa was processed despite them not receiving an instalment 2. [continued below]....
  • On 30/01another email was sent to cityvisas requesting an update on the visa process and feedback on the documentation sent on 2nd January. We were informed by cityvisas that we would be sent a draft visa application by mid February3.

  • I sent two more emails on 21/02 and 01/03 requesting for the draft documents that was originally promised on 30/01. On the 2nd March cityvisas replied and assured us that we would receive a draft by Monday 5th March. We didn’t receive the draft until Wednesday 7th March.

  • On 13th and 18th April we contacted cityvisa again due to our concerns about the quality of the paperwork we received.

  • On 19th April we received 4 handwritten forms which contained mistakes which could have been resolved with an email eg my mother address. We were also asked for APRO forms (we were not informed that the forms should have been completed 3 months before the submission date not 6 months)

  • My concerns were highlighted  in an email to cityvisas on 20/04 4

  • On 16th May Mr. Achmed wrote a generic email to all 47 clients informing them that he was no longer working for the cpany and we should contact the management (in clear breach of copyright)

  • Between 16th May until 21st May I contacted cityvisas via the phone and email without reply.

  • Out of sheer desperation I sent an email to cityvisas 47 clients. A number of them had experienced the same problems as I had.

  • After numerous phone calls, 21/05/12 we were assigned Luke Godley who asked us for the same information that we had given Mr. Achmed and that the advice we had been given on the closing date  was July 1st not June. Mr. Godley requested the same information as Mr. Ahmed in January.

  • Cityvisas requested a new APRO form. When we questioned this, we were informed by cityvisas that a mistake had been made and the APRO forms should have been sent for 3 months before the date of application. We were also informed that new passports were needed for my wife and daughter.

  • We felt that we would not be able to meet the deadline of July 1st in limited time that we had been given by cityvisas.

  • Based on belief that cityvisas failed in their duty of care to provide a satisfactory service. On May 25th I asked for a refund. This was refused on the basis of the majority of work being completed. This was difficult to understand considering that cityvisas had requested the information again.

  • I have made numerous attempts to resolve the matter before making small claim at Court. In line with cityvisas procedure on customer complaints, a letter, then email was sent on 7thJune. The letter sent to cityvisa’s office in London was returned due to the offices not being at that location. The letter I highlighted my concerns about cityvisas not completing the work they had agreed to do and for a refund which took into account the limited work that cityvisas had completed.  On 13th and 19th June I had sent a second letter informing them that failure to provide a service of satisfactory quality was a breach Goods and Services Act 1982 and that I wished to have a refund. Despite receiving the letters, cityvisas did not reply to my letters.  This was in direction violation of cityvisas policy on dealing with customer complaints which stated that I would have received a written reply within 14 days.

  • On 6th July, a Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct was sent Letter again requesting a refund and court documentation.

  •  In December I took cityvisas to court. They didn’t even contest the case. Obviously I won, but have not received a penny.

  • Stay away – don’t use. A con.

  • This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 05/14/2013 03:55 AM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/cityvisas/internet/cityvisas-gurdip-aulakh-and-cityvisacom-is-a-con-dont-use-birmingham-internet-1050751. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.

    Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

    Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on cityvisas

    Search for additional reports

    If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

    Search Tips
    Report & Rebuttal
    Respond to this report!
    What's this?
    Also a victim?
    What's this?
    Repair Your Reputation!
    What's this?
    Ripoff Report Recommends
    ZipBooks Accounting Software

    Advertisers above have met our
    strict standards for business conduct.