Category: Uncategorized

Close Brothers has announced it will allocate up to £165 million in its first-half accounts to cover potential legal and compensation costs linked to the growing car finance commission scandal.
The FTSE 250 lender disclosed the provision in an unscheduled update, warning that the final costs could be “materially higher or lower” depending on the outcome of legal appeals and a review by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).
The scandal centres on hidden commissions in motor finance deals, with industry-wide implications. Lloyds Banking Group, which offers car loans through its Black Horse brand, has already set aside £450 million for potential compensation, while Santander UK has made a £295 million provision. Analysts estimate Lloyds’ total exposure could reach £1.3 billion when it updates investors next week.
Close Brothers’ share price fell 6.4% to 341¾p following the announcement, while Lloyds’ shares rose 1.75% to nearly 64p as analysts suggested the provision could provide some reassurance to other lenders.
The controversy stems from an October Court of Appeal ruling that found it unlawful for car dealers to receive commission from lenders without a customer’s informed consent. This decision opened the door to a wave of compensation claims from consumers who may have been mis-sold car finance agreements.
However, the industry received a potential reprieve after the Treasury applied to give evidence to the Supreme Court, which will review the ruling in April. Close Brothers, which is contesting the ruling, has been shoring up its financial position in anticipation of a possible compensation bill, including selling its wealth management arm for £200 million last September.
Despite the provision, Close Brothers stated that it remains above regulatory capital requirements and is “well placed to absorb the impact.” The bank is also evaluating further measures to optimise risk-weighted assets and reduce exposure.
Analysts had previously estimated a motor finance provision of £155 million this year, followed by £188 million in 2025 and £145 million in 2027. Some, such as Shore Capital, have issued higher forecasts, with a top-end projection of £450 million in total provisions.
In its latest trading update for the six months to the end of January, Close Brothers expects adjusted operating profit to drop to £75 million, down from £94.4 million a year ago.
The Supreme Court’s verdict in April will be pivotal in determining the scale of the industry’s financial exposure, with billions potentially at stake.
Read more:
Close Brothers sets aside £165m amid car loan commission scandal

Inflation in the United States rose unexpectedly to 3% in January, fuelling speculation that the Federal Reserve may keep interest rates higher for longer.
Data from the Bureau of Labour Statistics showed inflation increasing from 2.9% the previous month, defying analysts’ expectations that it would remain unchanged. On a monthly basis, prices rose by 0.5%, up from 0.4% in December. Core inflation, which the Fed closely monitors, also jumped to 0.4% in January from 0.2% in December, with annual core inflation rising to 3.3% from 3.2%.
The figures cast fresh doubt on whether the Fed will cut interest rates in 2024. Fed chair Jerome Powell told the Senate banking committee that there was “no need to rush” into lowering borrowing costs, reinforcing growing scepticism among economists.
The central bank left its key interest rate on hold at 4.25% to 4.5% in January, having cut it by a percentage point last year. President Donald Trump has repeatedly called for rate reductions, arguing that lower borrowing costs would complement his latest wave of tariffs on imports. However, Powell has resisted political pressure, with analysts suggesting that inflationary risks, exacerbated by Trump’s trade policies, could keep rates elevated.
Financial markets reacted with volatility. The S&P 500 fell 0.3% to 6,051.97, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average slipped 0.5% to 44,368.56. The Nasdaq, which had been down nearly 1%, recovered to close marginally higher at 19,649.95. The US dollar strengthened on the news, with the dollar index rising 0.32%, while the pound fell 0.34% against the greenback to $1.240.
Bond markets also saw a reaction, with the yield on the benchmark 10-year US Treasury note climbing 11 basis points to 4.651%. UK gilts followed suit, with the yield on 10-year government bonds increasing by 6 basis points to 4.567%.
Economists believe the Fed could now hold interest rates steady for the rest of the year. Paul Ashworth, chief North America economist at Capital Economics, said: “With tariffs likely to keep core inflation at or above 3% in 2024, the Fed will stand pat for at least the next 12 months.” Fund manager Janus Henderson echoed this sentiment, stating: “The bottom line is clear: the Fed should not be cutting.”
Since returning to office, Trump has introduced a 10% tariff on Chinese imports, announced but then postponed a 25% levy on Canadian and Mexican goods, and confirmed that a 25% tariff on imported steel and aluminium will take effect in March. Economists warn that these protectionist policies could keep inflation high, constrain economic growth, and delay interest rate cuts—despite Trump’s campaign pledge to reduce the cost of living.
Meanwhile, inflation in the UK is expected to peak at 3.7% this summer, up from its current 2.5%, according to the Bank of England. The eurozone’s inflation rate has also edged up to 2.5%. However, both the Bank of England and the European Central Bank are still expected to pursue gradual rate cuts this year.
Read more:
US inflation climbs to 3%, raising doubts over Federal Reserve rate cuts

Charlie Javice, once celebrated as a rising star of the tech world, is set to stand trial this week in New York, accused of orchestrating a multimillion-dollar fraud that saw her sell her student finance startup, Frank, to JP Morgan Chase for $175 million (£141 million).
Javice, 31, joins the growing ranks of high-profile entrepreneurs tainted by what some have dubbed the “Forbes 30 Under 30 curse”—a list of once-promising figures, including Martin Shkreli, Sam Bankman-Fried, and Caroline Ellison, who have faced legal troubles after achieving early acclaim.
The case, which carries echoes of Elizabeth Holmes and the Theranos scandal, centres on allegations that Javice massively inflated the number of Frank’s student users to convince JP Morgan to acquire the business. Prosecutors claim she misrepresented data, claiming the platform had 4.25 million users when it had fewer than 300,000.
The alleged deception unravelled when JP Morgan attempted to contact Frank’s customers, only to receive a fraction of the expected responses. The bank fired Javice, shut down Frank in early 2023, and sued her for fraud. She countered by suing JP Morgan for legal costs and for terminating her before she could receive a $20 million retention bonus.
A trial that could reshape startup due diligence
Javice, who founded Frank at 24 to simplify student loan applications, reportedly sought the help of her co-defendant, Olivier Amar, to fabricate user data. According to the indictment, when Frank’s director of engineering raised concerns about the legality of generating synthetic user data, Amar reassured them: “Yes, it’s legal. We don’t want to end up in orange jumpsuits.”
JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon later admitted that acquiring Frank was a “huge mistake,” highlighting the bank’s failure to conduct adequate due diligence before signing off on the deal. Legal and governance experts argue that the trial will raise uncomfortable questions about whether financial giants are too eager to acquire fast-growing startups without thorough vetting.
Javice’s trial draws comparisons not only to Holmes, now serving an 11-year prison sentence, but also to the case of British tech tycoon Mike Lynch, who was accused of fraud following Hewlett-Packard’s $11.1 billion acquisition of his company, Autonomy. Like those cases, this trial will explore whether the deception was deliberate or if the buyer ignored red flags in pursuit of a lucrative deal.
Prosecutors have already scored a key advantage, with Amar agreeing to testify against Javice. His testimony could be pivotal in proving that she knowingly misled JP Morgan. Meanwhile, the defence argues that the case is one of “buyer’s remorse,” insisting that JP Morgan was well aware of the risks and failed to conduct proper due diligence.
Beyond the legal proceedings, the trial is set to shine a light on the aggressive growth tactics and culture of hype that have long fuelled the startup ecosystem. Investors, including Apollo Global Management’s Marc Rowan and female-focused investment firm Gingerbread Capital, poured $20 million into Frank, seemingly without detecting any signs of fraud.
Before her downfall, Javice was the poster child for young entrepreneurship, splitting her time between Miami and New York, starting her days with pilates and ending them with sunset yoga. In a 2021 interview, she advised aspiring entrepreneurs: “If you see an opportunity, don’t be afraid to jump.”
By November 2022, she was on Forbes’ prestigious ‘30 Under 30’ list. A year later, the magazine had placed her in its ‘Hall of Shame’.
Read more:
Fraud trial of Forbes ‘30 Under 30’ star to expose startup culture’s dark side

The UK and US have declined to sign an international declaration on artificial intelligence (AI) at a global summit in Paris, putting them at odds with countries such as France, China, and India, which have pledged a collaborative and ethical approach to AI development.
The agreement, endorsed by 60 nations, commits to ensuring AI is “transparent,” “safe,” and “secure and trustworthy,” while also addressing digital divides and the environmental impact of AI. The UK government defended its decision not to sign, stating it “hadn’t been able to agree all parts of the leaders’ declaration” and would only back initiatives aligned with national interests.
US pushes ‘pro-growth’ AI policies over regulation
US Vice President JD Vance told delegates that excessive AI regulation could “kill a transformative industry just as it’s taking off” and vowed that the Trump administration would prioritise “pro-growth AI policies” over stringent safeguards.
“Rather than strangle AI with regulation, we should foster its development,” Vance said, urging European leaders to adopt a more optimistic stance. His comments contrasted sharply with French President Emmanuel Macron, who defended regulatory measures, stating: “We need these rules for AI to move forward.”
UK stance sparks concerns over AI credibility
The UK, which previously led global discussions on AI safety—hosting the world’s first AI Safety Summit in November 2023—now risks undermining its credibility in this area, according to industry experts.
Andrew Dudfield, Head of AI at fact-checking organisation Full Fact, warned that refusing to sign the declaration could weaken the UK’s position as a leader in ethical AI.
“By refusing to sign today’s international AI Action Statement, the UK Government risks undercutting its hard-won credibility as a world leader for safe, ethical, and trustworthy AI innovation,” he said.
Downing Street, however, downplayed concerns, with a spokesperson stating that discussions on AI governance remain “pretty live” and emphasising the UK’s close cooperation with France on AI policy.
Trade tensions and AI regulation debates continue
The summit, which saw European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen push for a collaborative and open-source AI future, also highlighted growing transatlantic tensions. As the US moves to impose tariffs on steel and aluminium imports, affecting both the UK and EU, Britain faces a diplomatic balancing act—maintaining relations with the Trump administration while strengthening ties with Europe.
The refusal of the UK and US to sign the AI declaration underscores broader policy differences on how best to manage the rapid expansion of artificial intelligence while reaping its economic benefits.
Read more:
UK and US refuse to sign global AI declaration, citing national interests

The UK government has refused to criticise Donald Trump’s decision to impose 25 per cent tariffs on British steel exports, despite mounting concerns from industry leaders that the move will severely damage the sector.
Trump’s executive order, which removes exemptions for the UK and all other nations, will see all steel and aluminium imports into the US subject to tariffs from 12 March. Defending the policy, Trump declared from the Oval Office: “This is a big deal, the beginning of making America rich again. Our nation requires steel and aluminium to be made in America, not in foreign lands.”
Trade adviser Peter Navarro insisted the measures were essential to “secure our steel and aluminium industries as the backbone and pillar industries of America’s economic and national security”.
UK Steel director-general Gareth Stace condemned the decision, warning that Trump had “taken a sledgehammer to free trade” with potentially devastating consequences for the UK steel industry.
“This will not only hinder UK exports to the US, but it will also have hugely distortive effects on international trade flows, adding further import pressure to our own market,” Stace said. He argued that UK steel posed “no threat” to US national security, adding that many American industries rely on high-quality British steel that is not available domestically.
Stace urged the UK government to act decisively, calling for “stronger action” and immediate negotiations to prevent further economic damage. “This is clearly a new era for global trade. We are confident the UK government recognises the impact on our industry and will explore all available options,” he said.
Despite industry concerns, No 10 refused to directly challenge the White House’s decision. When asked whether Trump was wrong to impose the tariffs, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman stated: “We will take a considered approach to this. We will engage with the US on the detail, but the government is clear we will work in our national interest.”
The UK government also refused to confirm whether it was asking the US to exclude Britain from the tariffs or if financial support would be introduced for the domestic steel sector. Officials instead pointed to existing measures, highlighting £2.5 billion in investment and plans to reduce electricity costs for steel firms through the British Industry Supercharger initiative.
Lord Peter Mandelson, the UK’s newly appointed ambassador to Washington, appeared to take a diplomatic approach, stating that Trump’s mandate “must be respected”.
The tariffs have also sparked a broader trade dispute, with European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen warning that “firm and proportionate countermeasures” will be taken in response. “The EU will act to safeguard its economic interests… tariffs are taxes – bad for business, worse for consumers,” she said.
Chris Southworth, secretary general of the International Chamber of Commerce UK, warned that the tariffs’ impact would stretch far beyond the steel industry, affecting key sectors such as aerospace, automotive manufacturing, and construction.
“The UK has an incredibly important role to play in the global response,” Southworth said, urging world leaders to “pull together and respond collectively”.
The US is the UK steel industry’s second-largest export market after the EU, accounting for five per cent of exports in 2023. UK Steel data shows that 166,433 tonnes were exported to the US in 2023, with 162,716 tonnes sent in 2024 so far, excluding December’s figures.
As the UK government treads carefully in its response, industry leaders fear that without decisive action, British steelmakers could suffer long-term damage from the latest escalation in global trade tensions.
Read more:
UK steel industry warns Trump’s tariffs are a ‘sledgehammer to free trade’

Shein has scrapped plans to open a UK warehouse, further clouding its prospects for a blockbuster £50bn listing on the London Stock Exchange.
The fast fashion giant had been scouting large-scale warehouse sites in the East Midlands, including Derby, Daventry, Coventry, and Castle Donington, but has now confirmed it has “no plans” to proceed.
The move comes amid mounting regulatory pressures in the UK, US, and EU, as well as intensified scrutiny over Shein’s supply chain transparency and ESG credentials.
Shein’s direct-to-consumer model relies on shipping small tax-exempt packages from China, taking advantage of the US de minimis exemption, which allows packages under $800 (£645) to enter duty-free. However, former US President Donald Trump recently announced plans to close this loophole, a decision that—if implemented—could significantly impact Shein’s operations.
Meanwhile, the EU is reportedly planning similar tax reforms, further threatening Shein’s ability to circumvent import duties.
Shein’s London IPO ambitions have also been overshadowed by allegations of forced labour. Last week, campaign group Stop Uyghur Genocide launched a judicial review process aimed at blocking the listing, citing alleged links to forced labour in China—claims Shein strongly denies, stating it “strictly prohibits forced labour in its supply chain globally.”
Additionally, UK MPs have stepped up their scrutiny of Shein, calling company executives before the Business and Trade Committee last month to answer questions about their sourcing practices. When officials refused to confirm whether Shein sources cotton from China, MPs accused the company of “wilful ignorance.”
Shein had originally planned to list on the London Stock Exchange in the first half of this year, in what would have been one of the UK’s biggest IPOs. However, the company is now reportedly considering cutting its valuation to £40bn, down from an earlier £50bn estimate.
Meanwhile, property industry insiders suggest Shein’s ESG concerns are deterring UK warehouse landlords, further complicating its expansion plans.
Despite the challenges, a Shein spokesperson played down the warehouse U-turn, stating: “To support the growth of the business, Shein constantly explores warehousing locations worldwide. However, as Shein has no immediate need for a warehouse in the UK, there are no plans to have one.”
As regulatory, ethical, and operational pressures mount, Shein’s ability to secure a London stock market debut and expand its UK footprint remains in serious doubt.
Read more:
Shein drops UK warehouse plans as doubts grow over London stock market listing

The Chancellor and the Treasury must reallocate funds to support employment and recruitment market reforms, according to the Association of Professional Staffing Companies (APSCo).
In its Spending Review submission, APSCo has urged the Government to focus investment on targeted employment reforms that will drive economic growth, improve regulatory frameworks, and address critical skills shortages across key industries.
The organisation is calling for a reconsideration of the Employment Rights Bill, particularly the zero-hours contract reforms, to ensure they do not adversely impact the highly skilled contingent workforce. APSCo has also highlighted the urgent need for visa system improvements, urging the Government to allocate greater resources to the Home Office so that critical visa reforms can be delivered efficiently.
Beyond immigration, APSCo is advocating for enhanced regulatory oversight within employment, including reforms to self-employment status, continuous review of Off-Payroll rules, and the proper regulation of umbrella companies to prevent exploitation in the labour market. It is also calling for modernisation of the Agency Worker Regulations 2010 (AWR), specifically excluding highly paid contractors from rules originally designed for lower-paid agency workers.
Concerns over supply chain payment transparency have also been raised, with APSCo urging the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) to take stronger action on reasonable payment terms, make the Prompt Payment Code mandatory for large businesses, and amend relevant regulations to improve fairness in supply chain payments.
Recognising the UK’s most critical workforce shortages, APSCo is further calling for sector-specific employment reform funding, particularly in industries such as health and social care, where recruitment challenges continue to impact service delivery.
Tania Bowers, Global Public Policy Director at APSCo, stressed that targeted employment reforms are essential to strengthening the UK’s economy and ensuring a skilled and competitive workforce: “The recruitment sector is a UK success story – delivering innovation and opportunity to the UK workforce – and will be critical to delivering sustained economic growth into the future.
“We share the Government’s mission-led focus on sustainable development within the Treasury’s fiscal constraints. However, regulatory reforms in employment are essential to underpin this growth by strengthening the UK’s skills base.”
Bowers also warned that recent policy changes within the Employment Rights Bill have already negatively impacted hiring, urging the Government to carefully consider the long-term consequences during the Spending Review.
With businesses and recruitment agencies facing increasing challenges in sourcing skilled talent, APSCo is calling for a balanced package of reforms to enhance employment regulations, improve visa accessibility, and strengthen the UK’s labour market for highly skilled professionals.
Read more:
Spending Review must prioritise employment reform and recruitment investment, says APSCo

A surge in interest in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) resources has been reported in the UK following the decision by former US President Donald Trump to withdraw federal support for DEI initiatives, prompting many global corporations to scale back or reverse their diversity commitments.
Compliance and diversity training provider Skillcast has recorded a 92% increase in engagement with its Protected Characteristics at Work guide—a resource outlining legally mandated DEI standards under the UK Equality Act 2010. The guide, which provides clarity on discrimination laws and protected characteristics such as race, gender, and disability, has seen both a sharp rise in page views and a notable increase in the average time spent on the page, now at five minutes per user.
Unlike in the US, where companies are reassessing their DEI commitments, UK businesses remain legally bound to uphold diversity and inclusion standards under the Equality Act 2010. The UK Worker Protection Act, introduced last year, has further strengthened workplace protections by imposing new obligations on employers to take “reasonable steps” to prevent sexual harassment.
This increased attention to DEI also coincides with Sexual Abuse & Sexual Violence Awareness Week, a timely reminder of the role that strong workplace policies play in safeguarding employees.
Despite legal protections, recent research indicates gaps in workplace DEI practices:
• Only 48% of women believe their employer has a clear policy against sexual harassment.
• One in 10 women have left their jobs due to insufficient menopause support, despite menopause-related discrimination falling under gender, age, and disability protections.
Vivek Dodd, CEO of Skillcast, warned that US businesses deprioritising DEI could have far-reaching consequences: “By setting a precedent for companies to deprioritise DEI, this shift has risked stalling and reversing decades of progress in cultivating inclusive workplaces, potentially leading to decreases in employee morale, productivity, and retention—particularly among underrepresented groups.”
Dodd emphasised that, while DEI policies are being challenged in the US, UK companies must remain compliant with legal frameworks and ethical responsibilities:
“While some U.S. businesses are moving away from DEI, UK companies remain legally required to uphold and safeguard diversity and inclusion standards under the Equality Act 2010—emphasising the importance of ethical and legal compliance, regardless of the current political landscape.”
Beyond compliance, he highlighted the business case for strong DEI policies, linking them to improved employee engagement, retention, and employer branding.
As UK businesses witness heightened demand for DEI resources, the debate around diversity in the workplace is set to continue. However, with legal obligations firmly in place, UK employers are expected to reinforce and strengthen DEI initiatives, ensuring workplaces remain inclusive, supportive, and legally compliant.
Read more:
UK businesses see 92% surge in demand for DEI resources as US corporations scale back initiatives

I remember once stepping off a transatlantic flight, still reeling from the rictus grins and endless refills of lukewarm coffee offered to me by the BA cabin crew, only to be greeted by a sea of disapproving faces at Heathrow.
My sin? Possibly existing, or maybe just trying to queue for passport control in the wrong lane. The moral of the story? There’s no shortage of ways the British can make you feel you shouldn’t have bothered, especially when you’re accustomed to the almost comical “Have a great day!” one gets in the States.
But here’s the rub: customer service matters. It really, really does. It matters not just because it gives your clients an immediate sense of whether you actually care about their custom, but because in a world where companies are jostling like punch-drunk boxers in a ring, being that little bit friendlier might be the difference between an uppercut that floors the competitor or being left, dazed and drooling, as your prospective customer wanders off to the chap next door.
Of course, we British like to say we’re polite. We queue, we mutter “thank you” when receiving short change from a bus driver, and we gush “so sorry” when a stranger treads on our foot. But politeness and customer service aren’t identical twins. One’s a formal courtesy – that benign acceptance of a neighbour’s savage new hedge sculpture, or a dull relative’s account of their bunions – whereas the other is a more deliberate, structured approach to treating customers well. Actual, genuine, helpful niceness. This is where we struggle.
Let’s be honest about it: American businesses, from the smallest diner in Boise, Idaho, to the glitzy mega-stores of Manhattan, generally do it better. They have a method – a downright formula. You enter a shop and someone greets you. They smile broadly (all teeth, no cynicism), ask you how you’re doing, and inquire if they can assist you. Sometimes it’s syrupy, sometimes a bit forced, but by and large, you walk out feeling a tad better, or at least not guilty that you darkened their door. Contrast that with the classic British “You all right there?” half-delivered from behind a stack of paperwork, while the assistant pointedly ignores the existential pain creeping across your face because you just want to find a size 10 in that jacket.
That’s not to say the entire British retail sector is manned by glowering gargoyles. There are stellar examples of marvellous customer service in the UK – the independent bookshop with staff who’ll recommend exactly the novel you didn’t know you wanted; the wine merchant who’ll steer you away from the half-priced Aussie plonk and gift you with a gem for the weekend dinner party. But these shining examples too often feel like delightful anomalies, rather than the norm. And that’s a problem. Why? Because in a globalised marketplace, people notice. They talk. They tweet. They Instagram. They do everything short of hiring an aircraft trailing a banner that says “Sally’s Shoe Shop in Sloane Square is dire,” and that can seriously hurt your bottom line.
So, why is it so important to improve customer service in British business? For one, consistency builds trust. If you know that every time you pop into a particular café you’ll be treated like an actual human being – with a smile, a dash of warmth, and a readiness to fix things if they go awry – you’re far more likely to come back. Then there’s loyalty. People want to spend their money where they feel valued. Who knew it would be so radical to make customers feel appreciated for shelling out their hard-earned wages?
Another reason is brand image. Slick marketing campaigns and glossy brochures might lure people in once, but it’s the in-store or on-the-phone interactions that cement their lasting impression. In an era when everything’s just a quick Google search away, you can be sure that if someone’s had a rotten experience, they’ll brandish their smartphone and pen a scathing review before you can say, “I’m sorry, how can I make it right?” Reputation, as the old cliché goes, is everything.
Now, let’s talk about the practical side. Is it really that hard to be nice to people who want to give you money? Is it that exhausting, that soul-destroying, to say, “Good morning, how can I help?” or “Have a lovely day”? Maybe the fear lies in the perceived American-ness of it all – that ultra-chirpy, grinning-from-ear-to-ear approach that can, admittedly, grate on British nerves. Yet there’s no need to go full Disneyland – no one’s suggesting you fling confetti at customers as they walk in. But a baseline of genuine pleasantness? That shouldn’t be such an ordeal.
Training is crucial. Invest in it. Proper induction for new staff, where they learn not just product knowledge but how to engage with customers in a friendly, attentive way, paying attention to detail and following up promptly. Teach them to listen – really listen – because there’s nothing more infuriating than explaining your predicament in meticulous detail, only to be met with a blank stare that says, “I stopped listening ten minutes ago.”
And here’s a radical notion: empower staff. Give them permission to fix problems on the spot without needing to consult seven different managers or, worse, a call centre in a different time zone. Customers love a quick resolution; it proves you value their time and want to make things right. And guess what? When employees feel valued and trusted themselves, they tend to pass that good energy along to the customers.
In short, British businesses could learn a thing or two from the Yanks about consistency and cheer. We have it in us to be the best hosts in the world – we’re the land of charming tea shops and faultless B&Bs, after all. So perhaps it’s time we channel that famed hospitality into mainstream business culture. Let’s banish the scowl behind the counter, the resigned sigh on the phone, and raise a swift cup of (perfectly brewed) tea to the notion that being pleasant pays dividends. It’s not that hard. So let’s do it. And let’s enjoy the benefits that come with delivering quality service: repeat business, sparkling reviews, and the distinctly satisfying knowledge that we might just be giving our American cousins a run for their money. Cheers to that.
Read more:
Cheer up, Britain! Why customer service really matters—and it’s not that hard to get right