STL: most-reported complaints
Automated analysis of 247 public Trustpilot reviews published 2014-02-20 to 2026-09-01. TrustScore 4.9 from 2,517 total reviews — see the Trustpilot page. Quick answer: is STL legit? Issues below reflect what reviewers reported, not findings of wrongdoing.
Reviewers most often report issues categorized as 'Other,' accounting for 60% of the 20 identified complaints, with specific mentions of a lack of flexibility, misinformation, and disappointing service. A further 25% of complaints relate to services not being as described, such as workshops that reviewers felt were lacking in content despite their high cost. The remaining 15% of complaints cite poor core service, including instances of rude behavior. No clear trend can be established for these issues due to the limited number of reviews.
How to reach STL
These are the contact details STL publishes on its Trustpilot profile, as of our last check on 2026-09-24 — phone 02079873777, email [email protected], address 2nd Floor, CA House, 1 Northey Street, Limehouse, E14 8BT, GB.
The company claimed its Trustpilot profile on 2014-05-09, uses Trustpilot’s paid features, and last replied to a negative review on 2026-06-16. Trustpilot ranks it 5 of 31 in Business and IT Consulting Agency. We last checked this profile on 2026-09-24 and found 1 new review. These are facts Trustpilot publishes about the profile, as of our last harvest.
Forum footprint: 0 MoneySavingExpert forum discussions mention this company (browse). Roughly 0 of the top, relevance-sorted search results were posted in the last 90 days — an approximate figure by construction, not a true recency count.
TrustScore over time
4.9 → 4.9 across 12 census measurements since 2026-08-12. Our own record, independent of Trustpilot’s display.
Reply behaviour over time
Solid: % of negative reviews replied to. Dashed: typical days to reply. Both as reported on this company’s Trustpilot profile, recorded whenever our census re-checked it and a figure had changed — the gaps between points are not equal: 2026-08-12 (100%, 0.0d) · 2026-08-15 (100%, 0.0d) · 2026-08-21 (100%, 0.0d) · 2026-08-27 (100%, 0.0d) · 2026-08-30 (100%, 0.0d) · 2026-09-02 (100%, 0.0d) · 2026-09-08 (100%, 0.0d) · 2026-09-12 (100%, 0.0d) · 2026-09-15 (100%, 0.0d) · 2026-09-18 (100%, 0.0d) · 2026-09-21 (100%, 0.0d) · 2026-09-24 (100%, 0.0d).
Severity: 0% of this company’s 20 graded complaints were classified as severe (money lost, an essential service cut off, or a problem unresolved for months). See the harm index.
Measured reply time: across 28 negative reviews that received a public reply, the median wait was 0.3 days — the company profile reports an average of under a day.
Reply quality: of 28 company replies to negative reviews analysed, 68% engaged with the specific problem and 18% were generic templates.
Review provenance: 198 company-invited reviews in the recent window average 4.93★, while 22 organic (uninvited) reviews average 4.95★.
71% of its 212 recent 5★ reviews came from accounts that had written only that one review when we captured it (the median across companies is about 39%). A high share is a reason to look closer, not evidence of fake reviews.
Sector benchmark: other makes up 60% of this company’s complaints vs a 22% median across 55 ranked companies in its sector.
Review velocity: 128 of this company’s 2,517 Trustpilot reviews (5%) were written in the last 12 months.
Not enough reviews to establish a trend.
What are the most common complaints about STL?
Other
12 reports · 60% of complaints“Lack of flexibility, Misinformation, Disappointing service”
The company replied on 2022-03-30: “Hi there, we never wish to have any client compelled to register such a poor review. We will own our share of any issues and we are reaching out to you to engage in a conversation, it's a shame we…”
Our classifier read this reply as a deflection.
“the training did not meet our expectations”
The company replied on 2022-02-18: “Dear customer, we are aware of your training delivery and the concerns you have raised. Owing to the seriousness of your complaint we have escalated this to senior management who will reach out to…”
Our classifier read this reply as a substantive response.
It promised: to escalate.
“the content of the training was poor and the delivery not always good.”
The company replied on 2018-08-30: “Hi Tommaso we're sorry to see that we haven't resolved the issues we discussed yesterday. We will continue our dialogue offline with you and hope we can find a solution. Your relationship with us is…”
Our classifier read this reply as a substantive response.
It promised: to make contact.
Not as described
5 reports · 25% of complaints“the content of the workshop (Copilot training) was lacking. An expensive course that could be summed up in less than half a page”
The company replied on 2026-06-16: “Thank you for your feedback and for attending our Copilot Engage session, a 2-hour awareness session designed to highlight the strategic direction for Copilot and the personal benefits it can bring…”
Our classifier read this reply as a substantive response.
It promised: to make contact.
“The training was different from what I expected.”
The company replied on 2024-08-23: “We appreciate you taking the time to leave your review, Mankumar. We are sorry to hear that the training didn't meet your expectations, this comes as a surprised to us as your feedback is different…”
Our classifier read this reply as a substantive response.
It promised: to make contact.
“the day of training did not deliver what was advertised”
The company replied on 2022-07-14: “Dear customer, thank you for providing a detailed review. We take pride in delivering high value and quality training and take this feedback seriously. This was a Public Couse and runs to set times…”
Our classifier read this reply as a substantive response.
It promised: to escalate.
Poor core service
3 reports · 15% of complaints“he became positively rude”
The company replied on 2023-03-06: “Hi Alison, thank you for elaborating, we will reach out to you directly to discuss further. We take any dissatisfaction very seriously as it's rare that it occurs, and we want to learn from it. We'll…”
Our classifier read this reply as a substantive response.
It promised: to make contact.
“The teaching method is not good, as it's too easy to just copy what is typed into cells”
“I found the trainer sped through the sections, without making sure that everyone was at the same stage.”
The company replied on 2015-10-08: “Hi Trisha, many thanks for your feedback, we strive to deliver an excellent service and if we fall short then it's great to have your input to make it better! Your account manager Simon will be in…”
Our classifier read this reply as a substantive response.
It promised: to make contact.
Compare STL with…
Method: reviews are classified into a fixed complaint taxonomy by an automated reader; every category shown is backed by at least two verbatim quotes from distinct reviews. Trends are computed from dated review counts only. Negative reviews are deliberately over-sampled for evidence depth; headline percentages use an unbiased recent sample only. Report updated 2026-09-07.