The boring letter is the one that works.
Dates in order. Amounts. Reference numbers. One thing asked for, stated once. It reads like an invoice and that is precisely why it gets dealt with.
Anger is the thing that gets a letter filed.
Not because the person reading it is unsympathetic. Because of who they are. A complaint arriving at a company is opened by someone in a queue with a target, working from a script, with authority to fix a defined set of things. An emotional letter takes ten minutes to extract three facts from. A structured one takes ninety seconds and can be actioned in the same sitting.
That is the whole reason to draft it carefully rather than writing it at eleven at night. Not to be polite for the sake of it — to make yourself cheap to help.
Three things do most of the work. A timeline with dates, so nobody has to reconstruct it. Reference numbers for every call and email you have already made, so it is obvious this is the fourth attempt rather than the first. And one clearly stated outcome — a refund, a repair, a replacement — instead of a list of five options that invites them to choose the cheapest.
What it will not do, and why that is the point.
It will not invent anything. Not a date, not an order number, not an amount, not a name, not a phone call you did not tell it about. Every one of those comes back as a gap for you to fill before you send it.
That matters more here than anywhere else Unfussed writes. A complaint letter is a document you are asserting is true, to a business that has its own records. One invented reference number, one date that is a week out, and the reply is about the discrepancy rather than about your problem — and you have handed them a reason to treat you as unreliable.
It is also drafting rather than advice. It is not a solicitor, it will not tell you that you are entitled to something, and it will not promise an outcome, a timescale or an amount of compensation. It will name the usual route for where you are — the business's own complaints process, then the relevant ombudsman or dispute scheme, then the small claims route — and it will say that rules and time limits change and need confirming. Where a deadline matters and it is not certain of the current one, it says to check rather than stating a number, because a confidently wrong deadline is worse than an admitted gap.
Same complaint, two letters.
I am absolutely disgusted with the service I have received. I have been a loyal customer for 12 years and this is how you treat people. Nobody has bothered to get back to me despite numerous calls and I have been passed from pillar to post. The sofa was faulty from day one and frankly the whole thing has been a nightmare. I want this sorted immediately or I will be taking this further and posting about it everywhere.
I am writing about order [ADD FACT: order number], a three-seater sofa delivered on [ADD FACT: delivery date] at a cost of £[ADD FACT: amount paid], paid by [ADD FACT: payment method].
The frame was uneven on delivery and the seat cushion collapsed within [ADD FACT: how long]. I reported this by phone on [ADD FACT: date], reference [ADD FACT: reference], and was told an inspection would be arranged. I called again on [ADD FACT: date] and by email on [ADD FACT: date]. No inspection has been arranged and I have had no substantive reply.
I am asking for a full refund and collection of the sofa. I have attached photographs of the frame and the cushion, the delivery note and my card statement.
Please reply within [CHECK: the response period in the trader's own complaints policy]. If I do not hear from you I will refer this to [ADD FACT: the relevant scheme for this trade].
The second letter is shorter and it never once says how the writer feels. "I have been passed from pillar to post" became three dated contacts with reference numbers, which is the same complaint expressed as evidence.
Notice also what is absent: no threat to post about it everywhere. That sentence changes who handles the letter and rarely for the better. And no demand for compensation of a specific amount, because that is a number the job will not put in your mouth.
The steps.
- Answer seven questions. Who you are complaining to, what you bought and when, what went wrong in order with dates, what you have already tried, what evidence you hold, what you want them to do, and where you are. Stick to what you can evidence — the ones you cannot come back as gaps rather than as guesses.
- £7 for 7,000 points. This job holds a ceiling of 2,000 and typically spends around 1,500, so the remainder stays on your balance. Three revisions are included, which is the right number: the usual pattern is a first draft, then filling the gaps, then a firmer or softer tone.
- Back comes a letter you can send. A plain summary of the case, the full letter, the evidence still to gather, the escalation route step by step with what triggers each one, and the dates and time limits to confirm and put in your diary.
A generation that fails spends nothing.
Fit.
Worth it if
- You have complained twice already and got nowhere.
- You know what happened and cannot get it into an order that reads clearly.
- You are too angry to write it yourself and know it.
- You need to escalate and do not know what the next step is called.
- Writing formally is not something you do, and this one matters.
Not for you if
- You want legal advice or to know whether you would win. It drafts; it does not advise, and it will not tell you what you are entitled to.
- You want a compensation figure named. It will not invent one.
- You want it to threaten them. No threats, no accusations of criminality — those change how the letter is handled.
- Your evidence does not exist. A letter cannot substitute for a receipt, and the report will tell you what to find rather than writing around the gap.
Draft the letter.
Have your dates, reference numbers and the amount in front of you. Everything you cannot supply comes back as a gap, and gaps are what weaken a complaint.
One payment, no subscription. 7,000 points; this job's ceiling is 2,000 and it typically uses about 1,500. Three revisions included.