Glow Studios, Birmingham

den123_3

Ha! I've been blocked from commenting on Glow Studios wall...probably as I asked the public question 'has anyone else had a problem with getting their deposit back' which was quickly removed LOL....

It has taken 2 months to get my money back, after much wasted time on the phone and sending emails, but VISA have now credited my account, and will claim it back from Glow Studios (Cannon St Birmingham, for clarity).

:T

vikki_louise

pleasedelete wrote: »

And how nice of you to join just to tell us that.

And criticising the opposition as well.

I agree, it's very kind of them to come across a forum with thousands of posts and join just to assure people how wonderful the company is and assure people that every negative said was untrue. There are some wonderful people around, I guess there are also people who have google alerts for their own company!

ll531

**DO NOT GO THERE!! THEY TAKE HUNDREDS OF POUNDS FROM YOUR CARD WITHOUT CONSENT. ** They refuse to answer any email/calls/letters. Head Office & Studio diverts calls up and down. Zar - apparently he is in charge of refunds but no payment or contact is made. They took my deposit and hundreds of pounds from my card. They refuse to return my money - instead they offered me a CD with photos - absolute rubbish! Have waited over half a year for my money AND photos, no luck yet. They wont even let me go in to choose my photos that I have paid for. Will take legal actions and will bring them down!

eddiestac

Read a few reviews on here and after visiting the studio in December I wanted to write a review as our images arrived today. We had a pleasant day at Glow Studio and were treated very well. Makeup was very good and the girls did a fab job even though were were quite particular. The photographer was lovely and made us feel at ease. The prices were not too bad at all especially compared to other studios and were were given a half price voucher by the studio to use which made our prints very affordable. Our prints arrived today and we absolutely love them. From booking to the end result it has been effortless. Please do childrens' photoshoots and we'll be back for more!

Stacey & Karen x

Fuzzy_Duck

You know a company is bad when they have to post fake positive posts!

I haven't used Glow but I have been to Double Take, and judging by all the bad reviews I've seen they work exactly the same. These companies will lure you in with a free makeover so they can give you a hard sell later. If you think you can deal with that, you also need to be aware of their T&Cs, which are often very unfair and may result in you losing your money- as there will always be money involved- in my case it was a deposit where they would charge £50 if you didn't turn up.

And as if that wasn't bad enough, some of these places will even give you a glass or two of alcohol in the hopes you'll be more likely to hand the money over if you're tipsy. It's just not worth the hassle, no matter how much you think you can resist the hard sell.

twinmommylisa

My friends and I have recently been to Glow Studios via a Wowcher deal, they not only took £15 each deposit (x4) but also on the day we were there they took a further £110 without my consent or authorisation and then 2 days later they took another £110, I have sent a recorded delivery letter but I am not surprised to find out that they are not there to sign for it, the telephone goes to voicemail which can't take any messages as it is full (Probably from other people trying to get there money back).
They illegally record both you and your voices throughout the building - we had this confirmed by an undercover policeman who is a friend, he went on the pretence of booking a package for his girlfriend.
See my complaint letter below in next post.

twinmommylisa

THIS IS OUR OFFICIAL COMPLAINT LETTER TO GLOW
ONCE AGAIN BEWARE DO NOT USE...


I, along with three friends, visited the Birmingham branch of your chain on Saturday 15th June 2013 having purchased a voucher through ‘wowcher’
Our visit started on a bad note, as the appearance of the building was disappointing. Entry was through a markedly scruffy doorway with peeling paint leading to a poorly lit and scruffy staircase into a small office. We were however put at ease when we were greeted by a pleasant member of staff who offered us drinks and talked us through the services available.
We were told that staff would be with us within 15 minutes, but were left for over 40 minutes. At this time we were taken to have our hair and makeup done, and then to have our photo shoot. This included several wardrobe changes in what I would describe as a very small room which resembled a corridor with a door added. After our photo shoot, we were left waiting for over an hour whilst our photos were ‘edited’ I used the term edited lightly, as on viewing the images, I am of the opinion that they were of a poor, almost amateurish quality.
After waiting for over an hour, we were sat down in a room and the member of staff started a slideshow on a screen for us to watch, and left the room, telling us she’d be back “in a minute.” At no time were we asked not to take photographs.
As is normal behaviour these days, we each took a few photographs on our mobile phones. Being unaware of the workings of the copyright act, we didn’t realise the implications of doing so. With hindsight, admittedly, this would seem ill-advised, but at the time we didn’t consider the copyright act, and it seemed like a natural thing to take a photograph for our own use to remember our day. Had the member of staff, or a sign, asked us not to do so, we wouldn’t have taken any photographs, but we didn’t think low quality mobile telephone images of a low quality image on a computer monitor would pose a problem.
After approximately 10 minutes, the member of staff returned to the room, and said “you can’t take images on your phone.” We all apologised for doing so, and offered to delete the images. The member of staff confirmed that we would be obliged to delete any images we had captured.
Another member of staff then entered the room, and said “Head office have called, your viewing has been cancelled.” When we asked why it had been cancelled, we were told “you’ve been taking photos on your phones. No flash photography is allowed. I’ve been told to tell you, head office can hear your conversations, they’re listening in now. We’ve got cameras and microphones recording everywhere in the building.”
We were then asked to leave, and told that we would not be receiving our free photographs. The member of staff also advised us that we would not be refunded for our cancelled session. We asked the member of staff if we would be able to purchase any photos. The member of staff seemed indecisive, and said she would have to ask head office. She then said that we would be able to do so.
In relation to this disturbing incident, which has left us all feeling upset, robbed, and somewhat violated, I would be grateful if you could answer the following questions.


The Information Commissioners Office (ICO) CCTV codes of practise states:
“Using CCTV can be privacy intrusive, as it is capable of putting a lot of law-abiding people under surveillance and recording their movements as they go about their day to day activities. You should carefully consider whether to use it; the fact that it is possible, affordable or has public support should not be the primary motivating factor. You should take into account what benefits can be gained, whether better solutions exist, and what effect it may have on individuals.”

It goes on to state that
You must let people know that they are in an area where CCTV surveillance is being carried out. The most effective way of doing this is by using prominently placed signs at the entrance to the CCTV zone and reinforcing this with further signs inside the area. This message can also be backed up with an audio announcement, where public announcements are already used, such as in a station.

Clear and prominent signs are particularly important where the cameras themselves are very
discreet, or in locations where people might not expect to be under surveillance. As a general rule, signs should be more prominent and frequent where it would otherwise be less obvious to people that they are on CCTV.

In the exceptional circumstance that audio recording is being used, this should be stated
explicitly and prominently.

Signs should:
be clearly visible and readable;

contain details of the organisation operating the system, the purpose for using CCTV and
who to contact about the scheme
be an appropriate size depending on context, for example, whether they are viewed by
pedestrians or car drivers.
From visiting the premises after this incident, I note that a sign advising that images are being recorded is visible outside the building; however this clearly refers to the outside public area as opposed to inside the studios. It also fails to make reference to the reason for the recording.
1. May I ask why there are no signs inside the building, either notifying customers that images are being recorded, or for what purpose? I would like to draw your attention more closely to an extract from the above quote “Clear and prominent signs are particularly important where the cameras themselves are very discreet, or in locations where people might not expect to be under surveillance. As a general rule, signs should be more prominent and frequent where it would otherwise be less obvious to people that they are on CCTV.”
As they cameras which were pointed out to us were very small and hidden in the corner of a poorly lit room, and given that your premises are a place where people might not expect to be under surveillance (in part due to your ignorance of the requirement to have sufficient signage,) you have clearly neglected to fulfil this ICO requirement.

The code of practise also makes reference to the location of cameras. For this purpose I would like to remind you of comments made by your staff member that “We’ve got cameras and microphones recording everywhere in the building.”
“In areas where people have a heightened expectation of privacy, such as changing rooms or toilet areas, cameras should only be used in the most exceptional circumstances where it is necessary to deal with very serious concerns. In these cases, you should make extra effort to ensure that those under surveillance are aware.”

2. Could you please confirm for which exceptional circumstance the changing area is under surveillance, and why extra care was not taken to ensure that we, as customers were aware.
Thirdly, the code of practise states:
“CCTV must not be used to record conversations between members of the public as this is highly intrusive and unlikely to be justified. You should choose a system without this facility if possible. If your system comes equipped with a sound recording facility then you should turn this off or disable it in some other way. There are limited circumstances in which audio recording may be justified, subject to sufficient safeguards. These could include:

Audio based alert systems (such as those triggered by changes in noise patterns such as
sudden shouting). Conversations must not be recorded, and operators should not listen in.

Two-way audio feeds from ‘help points’ covered by CCTV cameras, where these are
activated by the person requiring assistance.

Conversations between staff and particular individuals where a reliable record is needed of
what was said, such as in the charging area of a police custody suite6.

Where recording is triggered due to a specific threat, e.g. a ‘panic button’ in a taxi cab.

In the limited circumstances where audio recording is justified, signs must make it very clear that audio recording is being or may be carried out.”

3. I would be grateful if you could advise me why this point in the ICO guidelines, which sets out a legal requirement for the data controller under the data protection act was not adhered to in this case, or which ‘limited circumstance’ was met. If it is the case that one or more of the limited circumstances were met, why were there no signs to “make it very clear that audio recording is being or may be carried out?”

4. The ICO also has a requirement that CCTV systems in use on business premises are registered with them. Can you confirm that the CCTV system in use at Glow Studio Birmingham is registered with the ICO, and provide details of when it was registered?

5. The data protection act enables members of the public to require a copy of any recording made of them. Please consider this a formal request for a copy of the images and audio recordings made of my party during our visit on 15/06/2013.

6. Finally, why were we required by your staff member to delete the images from our mobile phones, something which can legally only be enforced with the support of a court order, and knowledge of which was only gained with evidence obtained through a breach of the data protection act. (I.E illegally positioned CCTV cameras and audio recording.)



I am sure you, as a company, will agree that any potential breach of the ICO guidelines, or indeed the data protection act is disturbing, and I am confident that you will be keen to work with us to resolve this matter as quickly as possible.

I understand that I have made several requests which may require some research on your part. As such, I intend to give you 28 day to respond with your findings.

twinmommylisa

I too have had bad experience, see my posts below and my complaint letter which they wont even accept recorded delivery, what number do you have as I can't even leave a message on their voicemail......
I, along with three friends, visited the Birmingham branch of your chain on Saturday 15th June 2013 having purchased a voucher through ‘wowcher’
Our visit started on a bad note, as the appearance of the building was disappointing. Entry was through a markedly scruffy doorway with peeling paint leading to a poorly lit and scruffy staircase into a small office. We were however put at ease when we were greeted by a pleasant member of staff who offered us drinks and talked us through the services available.
We were told that staff would be with us within 15 minutes, but were left for over 40 minutes. At this time we were taken to have our hair and makeup done, and then to have our photo shoot. This included several wardrobe changes in what I would describe as a very small room which resembled a corridor with a door added. After our photo shoot, we were left waiting for over an hour whilst our photos were ‘edited’ I used the term edited lightly, as on viewing the images, I am of the opinion that they were of a poor, almost amateurish quality.
After waiting for over an hour, we were sat down in a room and the member of staff started a slideshow on a screen for us to watch, and left the room, telling us she’d be back “in a minute.” At no time were we asked not to take photographs.
As is normal behaviour these days, we each took a few photographs on our mobile phones. Being unaware of the workings of the copyright act, we didn’t realise the implications of doing so. With hindsight, admittedly, this would seem ill-advised, but at the time we didn’t consider the copyright act, and it seemed like a natural thing to take a photograph for our own use to remember our day. Had the member of staff, or a sign, asked us not to do so, we wouldn’t have taken any photographs, but we didn’t think low quality mobile telephone images of a low quality image on a computer monitor would pose a problem.
After approximately 10 minutes, the member of staff returned to the room, and said “you can’t take images on your phone.” We all apologised for doing so, and offered to delete the images. The member of staff confirmed that we would be obliged to delete any images we had captured.
Another member of staff then entered the room, and said “Head office have called, your viewing has been cancelled.” When we asked why it had been cancelled, we were told “you’ve been taking photos on your phones. No flash photography is allowed. I’ve been told to tell you, head office can hear your conversations, they’re listening in now. We’ve got cameras and microphones recording everywhere in the building.”
We were then asked to leave, and told that we would not be receiving our free photographs. The member of staff also advised us that we would not be refunded for our cancelled session. We asked the member of staff if we would be able to purchase any photos. The member of staff seemed indecisive, and said she would have to ask head office. She then said that we would be able to do so.
In relation to this disturbing incident, which has left us all feeling upset, robbed, and somewhat violated, I would be grateful if you could answer the following questions.


The Information Commissioners Office (ICO) CCTV codes of practise states:
“Using CCTV can be privacy intrusive, as it is capable of putting a lot of law-abiding people under surveillance and recording their movements as they go about their day to day activities. You should carefully consider whether to use it; the fact that it is possible, affordable or has public support should not be the primary motivating factor. You should take into account what benefits can be gained, whether better solutions exist, and what effect it may have on individuals.”

It goes on to state that
You must let people know that they are in an area where CCTV surveillance is being carried out. The most effective way of doing this is by using prominently placed signs at the entrance to the CCTV zone and reinforcing this with further signs inside the area. This message can also be backed up with an audio announcement, where public announcements are already used, such as in a station.

Clear and prominent signs are particularly important where the cameras themselves are very
discreet, or in locations where people might not expect to be under surveillance. As a general rule, signs should be more prominent and frequent where it would otherwise be less obvious to people that they are on CCTV.

In the exceptional circumstance that audio recording is being used, this should be stated
explicitly and prominently.

Signs should:
be clearly visible and readable;

contain details of the organisation operating the system, the purpose for using CCTV and
who to contact about the scheme
be an appropriate size depending on context, for example, whether they are viewed by
pedestrians or car drivers.
From visiting the premises after this incident, I note that a sign advising that images are being recorded is visible outside the building; however this clearly refers to the outside public area as opposed to inside the studios. It also fails to make reference to the reason for the recording.
1. May I ask why there are no signs inside the building, either notifying customers that images are being recorded, or for what purpose? I would like to draw your attention more closely to an extract from the above quote “Clear and prominent signs are particularly important where the cameras themselves are very discreet, or in locations where people might not expect to be under surveillance. As a general rule, signs should be more prominent and frequent where it would otherwise be less obvious to people that they are on CCTV.”
As they cameras which were pointed out to us were very small and hidden in the corner of a poorly lit room, and given that your premises are a place where people might not expect to be under surveillance (in part due to your ignorance of the requirement to have sufficient signage,) you have clearly neglected to fulfil this ICO requirement.

The code of practise also makes reference to the location of cameras. For this purpose I would like to remind you of comments made by your staff member that “We’ve got cameras and microphones recording everywhere in the building.”
“In areas where people have a heightened expectation of privacy, such as changing rooms or toilet areas, cameras should only be used in the most exceptional circumstances where it is necessary to deal with very serious concerns. In these cases, you should make extra effort to ensure that those under surveillance are aware.”

2. Could you please confirm for which exceptional circumstance the changing area is under surveillance, and why extra care was not taken to ensure that we, as customers were aware.
Thirdly, the code of practise states:
“CCTV must not be used to record conversations between members of the public as this is highly intrusive and unlikely to be justified. You should choose a system without this facility if possible. If your system comes equipped with a sound recording facility then you should turn this off or disable it in some other way. There are limited circumstances in which audio recording may be justified, subject to sufficient safeguards. These could include:

Audio based alert systems (such as those triggered by changes in noise patterns such as
sudden shouting). Conversations must not be recorded, and operators should not listen in.

Two-way audio feeds from ‘help points’ covered by CCTV cameras, where these are
activated by the person requiring assistance.

Conversations between staff and particular individuals where a reliable record is needed of
what was said, such as in the charging area of a police custody suite6.

Where recording is triggered due to a specific threat, e.g. a ‘panic button’ in a taxi cab.

In the limited circumstances where audio recording is justified, signs must make it very clear that audio recording is being or may be carried out.”

3. I would be grateful if you could advise me why this point in the ICO guidelines, which sets out a legal requirement for the data controller under the data protection act was not adhered to in this case, or which ‘limited circumstance’ was met. If it is the case that one or more of the limited circumstances were met, why were there no signs to “make it very clear that audio recording is being or may be carried out?”

4. The ICO also has a requirement that CCTV systems in use on business premises are registered with them. Can you confirm that the CCTV system in use at Glow Studio Birmingham is registered with the ICO, and provide details of when it was registered?

5. The data protection act enables members of the public to require a copy of any recording made of them. Please consider this a formal request for a copy of the images and audio recordings made of my party during our visit on 15/06/2013.

6. Finally, why were we required by your staff member to delete the images from our mobile phones, something which can legally only be enforced with the support of a court order, and knowledge of which was only gained with evidence obtained through a breach of the data protection act. (I.E illegally positioned CCTV cameras and audio recording.)



I am sure you, as a company, will agree that any potential breach of the ICO guidelines, or indeed the data protection act is disturbing, and I am confident that you will be keen to work with us to resolve this matter as quickly as possible.

I understand that I have made several requests which may require some research on your part. As such, I intend to give you 28 day to respond with your findings.

twinmommylisa

Good news persistance works, today my credit card company have finally refunded me the fraudulent transactions taken by Glow Studios.
Unfortunately we were unable to claw back the £15 each deposits (which are advertised as fully refundable) as it is under the compensation threshold.


Please never use this company - you will regret it!

:j:j:j:j:j:j:j:j:j:j