IVIS Ltd Reviews 35

their website says they don't take private clients yet I was invited to email my details to them for a finance report.
so essentially, they are saying they will only take finance company reports - which basically means they are corrupt.
report is same, payment is same - what's the difference?

IVIS called me to book a vehicle inspection and gave me an 8-hour window (8am–5pm), so I had to stay in all day. No one turned up.

I only contacted them once on the day and they couldn’t give me any update or anything useful. I’d already given them the updated address twice where my vehicle was kept to be inspected, yet they still had it wrong, so even if someone had been sent they would’ve gone to the wrong place.

Afterwards I was told they called me and left a voicemail, which just isn’t true — I had no missed calls and no voicemail.

Overall the service was really poor and there’s no excuse for wasting someone’s entire day like that. Wouldn’t recommend.

**Update: This company has acknowledged an internal address error. They stated publicly in response to my review that an engineer called me and left a voicemail. I did not receive a call or voicemail, and my phone records show no missed calls or messages. A cheap screenshot of a brief "connected" call was provided, but no evidence that contact or a voicemail was successfully received. The job has since been returned to the finance provider.**

I was abit scared as anyone would be when they get their car inspected if its going through a dispute. The person who come to view the car was very nice but also wouldnt tell me anything (guessing because theyre the middle man for a dispute) he had a look at the car and seemed the be thorough also gave me plenty of notice before he turned up. On report said the gentleman had over 20 years experience which made me feel more at ease. Just want to thankyou for being a nice friendly but also fair company. Please thanks the gentleman for his services from me. Was a fiesta he came to look at

Highly recommend! A dealer sold me a faulty car, and I filed a complaint with finance, which then contacted IVIS to inspect the vehicle. The mechanic was extremely friendly and provided outstanding service. He confirmed that the problem was present before the sale, so the dealer is now responsible for the repairs, which he is handling. Thanks again for the excellent service!

Is it permissible for me to arrange for another mechanic to examine the vehicle and ensure that the dealer completed the repairs correctly?

Previous review removed unfortunately.
The inspection by Ivis failed to highlight the issues with the vehicle exhaust that snapped and cracked 2 months after I bought the vehicle. The engineer reported that this corrosion and damage had all happened within the short time I had owned the car. A quick 10 minute walk around, 2 minute test drive and a partial photo of the snapped and cracked exhaust was all that was done in the inspection. I would strongly advise anyone whos finance company gets an inspection done by Ivis also gets their own one done by a separate company.

To start with, their customer service is rubbish. The receptionist lady and her manager were very rude on the phone just because I asked them to give an indication of what time the IVIS inspector is likely to arrive so I don't spend all day waiting at home.

The fault on my car requires an experienced person to drive the car to determine the fault as per my complaints to the finance company. But this engineer carried out all the inspections without moving the car a bit. I had issues with thermostat housing leaking, pulley not stable, hand brake issues, exhaust issues and suspension issues. These faults could only be detected whilst driving the car. But he concluded all the reports whilst the car is stationery. Even a local mechanic is way more professional than this IVIS people. I will be challenging the reports.

I had a bodywork inspection carried out by I-VIS. Great service. Hannah was particularly helpful. She made kept me updated and went out of her way to ensure my vehicle was inspected even with kickback from the main dealer. I would highly recommend.

I put my trust in an independent mechanical engineering company who were employed by the finance company I purchased a defective vehicle with. The issue is intermittent and evasive, doesn't show ups on any diagnostics checks. The issue is blatantly apparent when you're driving it for a reasonable amount of time.
the IVIS engineer turn ups at my house drove the car and was back in 10 minutes. I assumed he experienced the issue immediately hence the quick return.

I later received a report stating no defects found.
This is a company aiming to make a quick buck as quick as possible, in and out like a delivery driver. If you get appointed this company, AVOID them.
You'll get a full professional looking report claiming how amazing and experienced their engineers are. I assure they are not, my partner who knows nothing about vehicles has experienced the fault on many occasions, but Mr professional couldn't find it, which doesn't surprise me considering he only drove the car around the block.

LOOK FOR A COMPANY WITH BETTER RATINGS AND SERVICE REVIEWS.

Ref C - 66793

I was advised to obtain an independant inspection for a vehicle I had purchased, due to ongoing faults & issues that were not being rectified by the garage of purchase.
I contacted IVIS & liaised with Hannah, who was exceptionally helpful & supportive, she talked me through the process of what needed to be done & the information that was required. Hannah kept me updated throughout the whole experience both prior & post inspection, she also provided me with the name of the inspector, who called an hour before arrival.
The inspectors name was Shane, he was extremely professional,he listened to my concerns, comfirmed with me the issues I was experiencing & conducted an excellent inspection. I received the report & was exceptionally pleased with the content, explicit details of the issue & pictures to back this up.
An excellent service from 2 very exceptionally individuals who are a credit to your company. Thank you.

Had a really good experience with this company. My finance company sent them out to assess the car as part of a complaint and thankfully found to be in my favour!

Of course that’s not the reason for the review, the mechanic I had was really great. Communicated well and their customer service team are also fantastic and arranged the call out very quickly.

Will speak as I find and the engineer who come out to me was efficient, called ahead and found the fault and detailed it as expected in the report.

These feedback is purely to do with the person who come out and please do pass on the great feedback for the work he does and the support team in the contact centre.

I was sceptical to leave a 5 star review, purely because of the replies from the business, I do find it very unprofessional and although they have a right to defend accusations against them, there is a way to do it and that isn’t the way to do so.

I will also say that a lot of these reviews are from where people had expectations that they would come out and side with them, but they are an impartial company and therefore cannot just lie and state something to please the person whose car it is, but the person has a right to reflect how they feel and the business should be more professional within their replies, even if they are just defending the reports they have done.

I feel IVIS can get their point across more professionally.

by far the best engineering company we have come across, great communication and great with timeframes.

Pointless! I have an issue with my rear differential which was also flagged on the MOT before I bought the car.

The report said they had “limited access” to the rear differential to inspect it but still concluded that the damage was wear and tear on the bearings?!

What a joke!

[Reponse]

Maybe it's best to get the information before responding to a review.

The report literally said

"Access to the differential was limited, however, we were able to manipulate the driveshaft, which revealed substantial movement of the differential bearings.
No further inspection was possible."

Then below

"We can conclude that the vehicle will require replacement of the rear differential,
driveshaft and tyres.
This is due to bearing wear, and subsequent collapsing of the differential."

So you were not able to conduct further inspection on the actual component that's damaged, which was also flagged in the MOT... but you can conclude it was bearing wear?

Interesting

Quick and efficient and professional service in sorting our inspection report, highly recommended. Thankyou

Bad experience, this report had factually incorrect pictures and statements and this is why my warranty with Motor Easy was rejected. Warranty companies only look at these reports, it does not matter what factual proof the customer comes up with.

Report of oil leak from head gasket
Facts before we start
Full health report conducted by Halfords auto centre before the warranty was taken out at the request from Motor Easy. Checked for oil leaks from engine and gear box NO LEAKS. Full service history.
This was the second warranty taken out on the same car with Motor Easy so I had a warranty 1.5 years before this claim.

Lets look at the issues with this IVIS report.

The main reason my warranty claim was rejected was because of a picture called “longstanding staining” which IVIS Director JoXXXX wXXXX said this proves the issue was there before inception.
Issues with this picture
a) This picture was taken from the top right of the engine nowhere near the back rear left of the engine where the head gasket was leaking. I proved this in my complaint sent to Motor Easy with pictures showing this was from a totally different area, they did not care because IVIS would not retract this picture ( I wonder why could it be because my claim would of gone though)
b) This picture does not show any longstanding staining at all. (Another reason this picture should be rejected)
c) Why was this picture taken from the top right of the engine which has nothing to to with the oil leak, everyone can make up their mind but this was why my warranty claim was rejected.

2. Picture from lower engine area. IVIS Director JoXXXX wXXXX said that this is oil misting.
Issues with this statement
You can clearly see oil dripping from his picture even after the vehicle sat there for 7 days. Oil misting term was used purely to reject my claim but its dripping in his own pictures this term “misting” has been clearly use incorrectly. Lets look at the English dictionary “misting” water vapour condensed on and clouding the appearance of a surface. Thats not what you see in the picture its dripping oil.
Misting is not covered but dripping is thats why this statement was used to get my claim rejected.

IVIS opinion in the report.
This did appear to be minor oil leak, however, the longstanding staining is indicative the oil leak is a progressive concern.
My reply to this statement is that its factually incorrect due to the picture not being taken from the area of the oil leak and not showing any oil in the picture.
Taking into consideration the time and milage since inception, we consider the condition to have been developed prior to that point.
My reply how can you come to this conclusion when I had a full motor health check with no oil leaks before the Motor Easy warranty was taken out. Also this was the second warranty with the same company and had been running for 4 months. The picture that got my warranty rejected was of a totally different place from the claim, why would this company do this, why, please answer why?.

IVIS conclusion
We can conclude that vehicle is displaying a visible oil leakage which is minor at this stage and of a longstanding nature.
My Reply -this if factually incorrect and longstanding picture proof is from a completely different part of the engine. Why would you put this picture in the report ??. I know why!!!

The defect would have been developed prior to inception based on the staining seen.
My Reply - This is factually incorrect as the staining picture is from the wrong part of the engine and has no oil staining on it. I also had a full health check before taking this warranty out so there is NO way this leak could of been before inception.

My Conclusion.
IVIS report included pictures from a completely different area of the engine with no oil stains and said misting instead of dripping this was all factually incorrect and done to get my claim rejected when it clearly should of been a claim under warranty which I can prove in a court of LAW if required.
Now make up your own mind why have they done this as my warranty claim was rejected because of this.

To everyone who reads this review check your car warranty company out first and ask them.

I recently had an experience with IVIS's customer service and it was excellent.
The support team were great on the phones and in person.
Inspection report was very detailed and meet my needs.
I highly recommend IVIS for all your inspection needs.

Had the inspector come out to inspect my car. Booking was confirmed promptly and professionally by phone and even though they couldn't confirm a time, only a date. They showed up at the time of day they advised and carried out their inspection. The inspection was done in about 25 minutes on the gearbox fault which I thought was short but once the report was received it was very detailed and helped greatly with the repair. When the work went ahead at the garage, the report information was found to be 100% correct and it saved me £1000s having the gearbox rebuilt instead of replaced. They provide all the engineers details and their contact information on the report for if you wish you contact them and very helpful when calling them. Will 100% recommend them. Good pricing as well compared to other companies to looked at when deciding on a company to carry this inspection out.

Engineer attempted to lift my Tesla without the correct equipment, then wrote a report on the main brake caliper when they were supposed to inspecting the secondary hand brake caliper, the photos of the components in the report are of the incorrect part. This is a special level of incompetence.

I-VIS counter argument below is that I-VIS inspected part A but you provided pictures of part B "for illustration" with no images of part A this is further confirmation of incompetence.

I-VIS were not requested to inspect the bolts I-VIS were asked to inspect the caliper, the tesla engineers shredded the bolts that wasn't an issue they are worth £3, again the bolts I-VIS took images of must have "just been for reference" as they were the wrong ones, further incompetence as images of the relevant parts were not provided.

I-VIS properly train their engineers and bring the up to a acceptable level of competency.

@Responder below: I see I-VIS have a fair few negatives reviews please don't take any of this personally.

I really hope you are okay as your responses is fairly emotional. (I'm sorry you are feeling like this)

One of their inspectors was sent by the warranty to inspect the issues that my vehicles was experiencing. After a 10-min inspections, the inspector thought that he would have got all he needed to write a report, which - as engineer in the same field - resulted incomplete, incorporating expressions like "it could be that.." or "it`s probable that.." while numbers and graphs would have been the evidence, instead. Dissatisfied, I provided a comprehensive engineering report made by engineers from worldwide well-known engineering consultancy companies (AVL and Randstad), where parameters, graphs and full explanations were provided, all going in another direction. What the inspector did was just turn the engine on for a few seconds, at engine`s cold conditions, and check a few things into the bonnet. The result was a 1-page report, without robust sentences.

This company came to inspect my vehicle after I suffered a timing chain issue, resulting in catastrophic engine failure.
My finance company, who originally told me to get my own report, said despite me having the car over 6 months, they would now send this company out. Now I know why. I should have had my own report done, it would have been thorough and lasted longer than eight minutes, I’m sure.
The guy eventually managed to pop the hood of my vehicle at 11.20 and by 11.28 he had done his inspection, had a chat and was back in his van.
He did no thorough inspection of the vehicle at all.
He also claimed on his report, to have attempted to start my vehicle, he never even sat in my car and it’s a stop start engine, so not sure how he engaged the clutch to try and turn the car over. I have this on CCTV. The report he produced states false information about his actions, to assist him in coming to this conclusion.
He also claimed i had had the car a substantial amount of time, id had it 28 weeks and the car is now not fit for purpose. He also explained to me it could be how I drove the car, that caused the damage. Seriously. I did the school run and my work commute in it 🙄
On the report he also discussed my buying process and what steps I should have followed and that the fault is well documented, as if I should know this would happen.
Also, I’m not sure how 20 seconds under the car, a quick oil check and a diagnostic check reaches such big conclusions, all in under 8 minutes. Allowing the finance company to shirk their liability. I have reported this company to the ombudsman, along with my finance company and have also supplied the CCTV evidence.
You can see by the response to other comments below, just how unprofessional this company actually is. I welcome the response to be honest. Also,I leave both good and bad reviews.
Be interesting to see how professional they remain when I go as far as I can with my CCTV and their report.
I am now arranging my own independent report of the vehicle.
I believe this company supports whoever is paying them.