Dyaco UK Reviews 2

I contacted Dyaco for help with a running machine that my wife acquired. Danielle, in the support team, was fantastically helpful, providing me with technical support and instructions on how to run diagnostics and recalibrate the machine. I can't praise her highly enough for her technical knowledge and customer care.

For context Dyaco is the parent company of sweatband
I am writing to formally express my deep dissatisfaction with the service I have received following the failure of a water rowing machine purchased from Sweatband, which has resulted in over four months without functioning equipment and an exhausting chain of miscommunication and inefficiency.

The machine, purchased with a two-year warranty, failed after approximately 12 months of use. Upon contacting Sweatband, I was referred to Dyaco, their parent company, who then directed me to FitKit, the company responsible for warranty repairs. I promptly sent FitKit a video of the fault to ensure the correct parts would be brought for repair. After a two-week wait, an engineer arrived—only to discover they had brought the wrong parts. I was then informed that the required part did not exist and would need to be manufactured, a process that would take three months.

After this lengthy delay, a second engineer arrived with the newly manufactured part. However, after two hours of dismantling the machine, he informed me that the part was faulty and unusable, rendering the machine unrepairable. To add insult to injury, the engineer remarked that I should have purchased a more expensive model (Concept 2), as parts for the brand I had chosen were often of poor quality.

At this point, I contacted Bev at Dyaco to request a refund, having lost all confidence in the company’s ability to resolve the issue. Bev advised that I would need to contact Sweatband again, who would then liaise with Dyaco to authorise the refund—a process that would eventually take 20 days.

I spoke with Karol S at Sweatband customer support, who was helpful and recorded all relevant details, including my stipulation that the machine could only be collected on a Wednesday or Saturday due to work commitments. This information was passed to Maria D, who was responsible for arranging the collection. However, after a week of silence, I contacted Dyaco again, and Bev followed up with Sweatband. Maria D then booked the collection for a Tuesday, disregarding the clearly stated availability.

I contacted Karol S again, who confirmed that internal notes had been left specifying Wednesdays and Saturdays (excluding Wednesday the 15th), and that I had also sent a message reiterating that the 11th of October was not suitable. Karol’s comment—“In all fairness I have absolutely no idea why someone put the information and conveyed it to Maria to book the collection for tomorrow”—perfectly encapsulates the confusion and lack of coordination I experienced.

Eventually, the machine was collected on a Saturday by AIT Home Delivery, whose service was excellent. However, by the following Friday, I had received no acknowledgment from either Sweatband or Dyaco regarding the return. I contacted Bev once again, who confirmed the machine had been received on Tuesday. Why this information had not been communicated to me remains another mystery in this poorly managed process.

My call to Bev appeared to prompt action from the accounts department (Melia?), who left a voicemail on a secondary line—despite my having provided Bev with the correct contact number. Attempts to return the call were futile, as the number only led to an answering machine. I then contacted Sweatband to be connected to the accounts department, only to be told they were not available. The representative took my details and promised a callback, which never came.

After several hours, I called again and spoke to a helpful gentleman (whose name I unfortunately did not catch). He confirmed that it was not possible to call the accounts department directly but promised to investigate and call me back on Monday. True to his word, he did so and confirmed that the refund had been processed—18 weeks after the machine failed, 20 days after I requested a refund, and 9 days after the machine was returned.

In summary, this experience has involved:

• A faulty machine resulting in over four months without equipment
• Four separate companies and approximately twelve individuals involved
• Repeated miscommunication, delays, and lack of accountability
• A refund process that was unnecessarily convoluted and inefficient

I am extremely disappointed by the lack of professionalism and coordination throughout this ordeal. I hope this letter serves as a clear account of the unacceptable service I received and prompts a serious review of your customer service and warranty procedures