Great service and easy to set up.

The SwissVoice S510 has been ideal for the purpose which was to enable a 93 year old to make and receive basic calls. The picture icon on the front is a great idea. On the downside apart from the pouch you sell I - which wasn't appropriate in this case - I was unable to fins a protective case anywhere for the phone and the only screen protector ~I could get came from Australia

Very good service phone excellent very hard to set up had to get someone else to do martin

Everything went as expected.

Bought phones for my 90 year old mum, after 3 weeks of stress thinking my mum wasn’t using the phone right we found the phone to be faulty, 3 people checked the phones, the calls would not end when pressing the red button causing it to be engaged all of the time, i had to drive to her home to check on her as i couldn’t get through to speak to her most days, I had to ring neighbours to go check the phone and ring me I informed them and they sent me a returns label and said they would test them and get back to me I have now been told the phones work perfectly and they have not been sent back in a resalable condition that the phones have scratches and dints and chips on them, they were in perfect condition! Anything that had ben used is not fit for resale anyway! they said they sent photos of these said damages but they didn't, again irrelevant, they were faulty phones, they also said one of the power point cables was missing, well I packed it in the box with everything else???? But to doublecheck i have been down to mums and searched for this lead but do not have it If they had emailed and said we cant find a fault sorry and sent them back i would have gladly tried again with them but all that negativity was unnecessary I have now had to pay £8 for them to return these phones which i will give another go, i have no option, they did however kindly offer to dispose of them if i didn't want them back!! Not the way to treat people, customers services need looking at, all this upset could have been avoided by a different approach Also have since tried a BT phone for the hard of hearing and the voice level on the phone is far superior to the one i ordered On reading reviews this seems common practice when there's a fault with with something and i do believe all this put in the email was just there as a back up incase i asked for a refund UPDATE I have now received the photos of said damaged phone These photos are not of the phone i returned, the phones are old and worn ( not 3 weeks old as mine are) the cables are still in their ties as received when new, i didn't tie them up to send back i wrapped them around the handsets, the base on the photo is completely different to the phone i bought! If the phone on the photos is the one they have tested it wont have the fault that mine does! also explains why they said i only sent 2 power leads back, i know i packed All three FURTHER UPDATE to your reply to my review- how can you say the photos of the phones you sent are the phones i returned? The base on the ones i bought are totally matt black Unfortunately i cannot upload the two images but these photos are not of the phones i returned, the photos were of a well used phone with damage and lots of wear and tare The phones i returned are 3 weeks old and only one has been used they were in perfect condition UPDATE ON FURTHER UPDATE today i received the phones back, there is not one mark, scratch or dint on these phones, they are mine as mums telephone numbers are still in there I really think there is something under hand going on here, do they send these photos out of damaged phones claiming they are what you sent back and saying are not fit for resale to confuse old vulnerable people so they dont have to refund They insisted the photos were of my returned phones The phones don't work that is the issue!! Dreadful customer service and underhand tactics Dawn Fothergill Midgley

I got these for my elderly mother who is s nightmare on the phone. What a difference. She would say that nobody phoned her when a few family members had tried throughout the day but she can now hear the phone ring and we can have a conversation with ease. I would recommend this phone yo anyone who is hard of hearing.

Very complicated to install I had to get someone else to do it for me

Avoid This Company – Refuses Refunds for Faulty Products! I purchased a Swissvoice Xtra 3355 Corded Amplified Telephone from Amplified Telephones for my 82-year-old mother-in-law, expecting it to be suitable for elderly users as advertised. Unfortunately, the product was faulty upon arrival – the additional handset would not register with the base unit, the cordless handset had terrible range, and the buttons were difficult to press. It was not fit for purpose, so I requested a refund under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Here’s where the real issue began: 1. They initially accepted my return, issued an RMA number, and I paid £25 for Special Delivery to send it back. 2. After receiving the item, they changed their stance, claiming it was outside their returns period (which is legally irrelevant for faulty goods). 3. They then claimed the item was not in resaleable condition, which is not a valid excuse under UK consumer law when returning faulty products. 4. When I pressed for my legal refund, they ignored my rights and tried to stall me with a long-winded “complaints procedure.” This company’s tactics are unethical and legally questionable. They are deliberately obstructing refunds for faulty products, forcing customers to jump through hoops in hopes they give up. I have now escalated this to Visa chargeback and Trading Standards. If you are considering purchasing from them, think twice. Their after-sales service is appalling, and they do not honour legal consumer rights. Avoid this company if you value honest service and consumer protection. RESPONSE TO TONY REPLY 12/02/2025 !!!!! Dear Tony, Your response is misleading and fails to address the key issues: 1. I reported the product as faulty within the correct timeframe (14 Nov 2024). The delay in return was due to your own returns process. You initially accepted the return and issued an RMA number—proving that my return was valid. 2. Your claim that the product was not faulty is irrelevant under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The law states that if an item is faulty upon delivery, I am legally entitled to a refund or replacement. I reported faults with both the handset and range before returning it, and my experience clearly shows that the product was not fit for purpose. 3. You are misusing the Consumer Rights Act. The law does not require a product to be “faulty” by your internal testing standards—it protects consumers who receive products that do not function as expected. If the product was unsuitable for its intended purpose, I am legally entitled to a refund. 4. You are deliberately obstructing refunds for faulty products. Instead of honouring my legal rights, you forced me through an unnecessary, costly, and time-consuming process, hoping I would give up. This situation has already been escalated to Visa chargeback and Trading Standards, and I will continue warning others about these practices. To anyone reading this: Be warned—this company refuses to honour UK consumer rights and makes returns unnecessarily difficult. Dear Tony, Your response is misleading and misrepresents UK consumer law. 1. I requested a return on 14 November, well within the timeframe allowed by the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The delay in returning the item was due to your own returns process, not mine. You approved the return and provided an RMA—so why are you now rejecting it? 2. The fact that your team claims the product was “not faulty” is irrelevant. The law protects consumers when an item is faulty at the time of delivery—which I clearly reported. The additional handset would not register, the range was poor, and the buttons were difficult to press—all of which made the product unfit for purpose. 3. You claim the “period allowed by the Consumer Rights Act” has expired. • This is completely false. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 allows customers up to six months to request a repair, replacement, or refund if a fault appears. • I reported the fault within 30 days, meaning I was legally entitled to a full refund. 4. Instead of processing a refund, you sent the faulty item back to me, forcing me to escalate via: • A Visa chargeback for “Faulty Goods – Merchant Refusing Refund.” • A complaint to Trading Standards via Citizens Advice. 🚨 WARNING TO OTHER CUSTOMERS: This company refuses refunds on faulty goods, delays returns to trap customers into “expired” periods, and misrepresents consumer law. Proceed with caution.

Everything perfect

Bought the phone for an elderly neighbour. The phone is excellent. The instruction manual is not easy to follow. It took a lot of studying and searching to find the relevant information. Would be good to keep base station instructions separate from handset information. More diagrams needed. Hence only four stars.