You and Yours
Official company statement
Sensory Education’s response to BBC Radio 4’s You and Yours
Our overriding concern is the safety of our employees and their families. We also care about resolving customer concerns. Anyone with an unresolved issue should contact us so we can put matters right.
We welcome legitimate scrutiny. However, we cannot leave disputed claims unchallenged, particularly when inaccurate reporting risks intensifying threats and targeted harassment.
Read our response ↓The BBC was warned before broadcast
Producer Catherine Earlam was explicitly warned that previous BBC coverage had been followed by substantial threats to life and targeted harassment affecting employees and their families. These matters were reported to the police. Supporting evidence, including a police report, was offered.
Despite those warnings, the BBC proceeded.
The correspondence confirms that the BBC obtained legal and senior editorial clearance. It does not explain how the specific safety risks we raised were assessed or addressed. Referring to information being publicly available does not answer why amplifying an individual’s identity was necessary after those risks had been reported.
We ask the BBC to include our safety concerns in any broadcast or published extract of our response. Employees and their families should not have to face threats because a business is subject to consumer reporting.
The customer’s refund: five attempts preceded repayment
Our customer care team triggered a refund on five occasions. Our refund process is configured to issue an email notification when a refund is processed.
Those attempts did not result in the money reaching the customer’s account. Our understanding is that the customer had changed their card details without notifying us. After the customer contacted us again and explained the issue, we communicated directly by email and WhatsApp to arrange a full refund by BACS, which reached their account shortly afterwards.
We can provide records of the five refund attempts and the completed repayment. We dispute any account suggesting that no refund was attempted.
The BBC acknowledged before broadcast that the customer had been refunded and said this would be reflected in its coverage. We also specifically asked whether the five preceding attempts would be included. Acknowledging the eventual refund does not resolve that separate question.
We recognise the frustration caused by a refund that did not arrive. The customer deserved resolution, and the public deserves an accurate account of what happened.
The advertised delivery timeframe
We dispute the programme’s account that the product in this case was advertised for delivery within two to four working days. Our position is that the item carried an extended delivery timeframe of six weeks.
The relevant product wording and order records should determine that question. A general delivery estimate should not be substituted for the timeframe advertised for the particular item.
Our website reviews are not Trustpilot reviews
We directly challenge any claim, presented as fact, that our website reviews are Trustpilot reviews or have been represented as such.
They are collected through independently operated review platforms and have never been presented as Trustpilot reviews. We ask the BBC to substantiate its claims or correct the record.
These are distinct sources of customer feedback. Accurate reporting should explain that distinction, particularly given the substantial threats and targeted harassment we have reported.
Trustpilot scores require context
Trustpilot profile screenshots captured on 9 October 2026. The comparison figures have been updated to match those captures. Select an image to open it at full size, or follow the profile link for the latest information.
We dispute any suggestion that a Trustpilot score of 2.8, by itself, establishes fraudulent behaviour.
Customer reviews can raise legitimate concerns that businesses should address. A review score does not establish the facts of every complaint or prove a specific allegation of fraud.
For context, the following major retailers’ profiles showed lower scores when checked on 9 October 2026:
Zara
1.3/5
H&M
1.4/5
IKEA
1.4/5
ASOS
1.6/5
UNIQLO
1.6/5
These are the named domain profiles, which may include experiences from multiple countries.
The comparison also extends to businesses selling sensory toys, children’s play equipment and educational resources. These profiles were checked on 9 October 2026:
Smyths Toys Superstores
2.2/5
General toy retailer with a sensory-toy range
Little Nation UK
2.4/5
Children’s play equipment, including sensory products
KiddyMoon
2.7/5
Ball pits and children’s play equipment
Sensory Solution Wholesale
2.6/5
Sensory-product wholesaler; seven reviews
Sensory Toys4U Ltd
1.9/5
Sensory-toy supplier; profile marked “No Longer Trading”
There are also examples among suppliers of school resources and learning materials:
YPO
2.3/5
Public sector buying organisation supplying educational resources; 37 reviews on the main profile checked
Consortium Education
1.5/5
Historical educational-supplier profile; 91 reviews
The Works
2.1/5
Broader retailer selling books, stationery, crafts and learning materials; 1,414 reviews
YPO is wholly owned by 13 local authorities. It supplies products and services to schools, councils, nurseries and other organisations, and returns profits to the public sector. Its inclusion illustrates why a low review score alone cannot reasonably establish fraudulent behaviour.
These examples have different review volumes, product ranges and trading histories. They are not a representative survey of the sector, and scores can change.
Consortium stopped accepting orders in December 2023, so its profile is a historical comparison. Its score must not be attributed to TTS Group, whose separate main profile showed 4.1/5 when checked.
These comparisons do not excuse shortcomings in our service. They demonstrate why scores require context and why allegations require evidence. That responsibility matters especially when reporting may intensify threats against identifiable employees and their families.
County court claims must be attributed accurately
We believe the reporting incorrectly conflates two separate legal entities when discussing county court judgments.
Our position is that we presented evidence establishing the distinction and asked the BBC to correct the attribution, but it declined to make the adjustment we requested.
Any judgment should be attributed to the precise legal entity against which it was entered. The BBC should identify the relevant company and explain the evidential basis for connecting that judgment to the business discussed in its coverage.
Claims about police and Trading Standards
We have never been contacted by West Midlands Police regarding the matters discussed. We are not aware of an active police investigation.
If the BBC reports that an investigation exists, it should substantiate that claim and describe its nature and status accurately. The absence of contact with us does not itself establish whether an investigation exists, but an investigation should not be presented as confirmed without a sound evidential basis.
The last contact we received from Trading Standards was approximately five years ago, by email. The matter was handled and, to our understanding, closed. We have received no recent contact from the relevant authorities concerning these matters.
We have since approached Trading Standards ourselves to seek clarity. We will cooperate fully with any authority that contacts us.
Negative reviews and legal action
We dispute the claim that we threaten legal action simply because someone leaves a negative review.
Customers are entitled to describe their experiences and criticise our service. Our position is that any contemplated legal claim would concern statements we consider defamatory, rather than criticism merely being negative. Whether a statement is defamatory depends on its content and circumstances.
Reporting should preserve that distinction.
Expert commentary and transparency
Gary Rycroft has an established relationship with BBC consumer programmes, including his longstanding role on Rip Off Britain.
A BBC “resident” expert: how was impartiality assessed?
Gary Rycroft’s published professional biography describes him as a resident legal expert on Rip Off Britain and BBC Morning Live.
In a 2016 interview with Legal Cheek, he said the producers wanted him to look “friendly and approachable”. A friendly presentation does not establish whether the evidence in this particular case was independently examined.
Given this established BBC relationship, we ask how impartiality was assessed in this case, which of our records were reviewed, and whether our explanations were put to him before broadcast.
That professional relationship does not, by itself, establish bias or invalidate his opinions. However, audiences should be given sufficient context to understand whether a contributor is offering general legal commentary or has independently examined the evidence in this particular case.
Descriptions suggesting that an expert has been closely monitoring our business should explain what was examined, which records were reviewed and whether our explanations were considered.
We ask why we were not offered an opportunity to provide the relevant evidence for an independent assessment. Commentary should be tested against the refund records, advertised delivery timeframe and precise company identities.
The questions that remain unanswered
Our correspondence raised specific issues requiring clear answers:
- Would the BBC report the five refund attempts, alongside the completed repayment?
- Would it distinguish our website reviews from Trustpilot reviews?
- Would county court judgments be attributed to the correct legal entity?
- What evidence supported any claim of an active police investigation?
- How were the reported threats and risks to employees and their families assessed?
- Would our safety concerns appear in the broadcast or published extracts of our response?
Acknowledging receipt of our statement did not resolve these questions. We ask the BBC to answer them and correct any material inaccuracies.
Our commitment to customers and employees
Sensory Education has served hundreds of thousands of customers over more than a decade. We recognise that individual unresolved complaints matter, regardless of how many other customers we have served.
If you have an outstanding issue, please contact us so we can investigate and put it right. Our employees must be able to carry out that work safely.
The BBC was warned of substantial threats to life and targeted harassment, and supporting evidence was offered before broadcast. We dispute material aspects of the reporting and ask that our evidence and explanations receive proper consideration.
Customer concerns deserve resolution. Allegations require evidence. Employees and their families deserve safety. The BBC’s responsibility is to scrutinise fairly, report accurately and account for the risks brought to its attention.
Supporting correspondence and evidence will be published on our website, with private identifying information removed.
Sensory Education
Published by Sensory Education. BBC Radio 4 and Trustpilot branding identifies the programme and review sources discussed in this statement.