It24 Anmeldelser 

Svar fra It24

23. mars 2026

Hello,

Your statement is false.

At no point did IT24 promise you any workload. Suggesting otherwise is entirely baseless and reflects a fundamental lack of understanding of standard commercial practice. No legitimate company guarantees volume without first validating a supplier’s performance, compliance, and operational reliability.

You have, however, been paid in full for the following invoices:
9042025
11042025
7052025
07052025-1
20052025
08052025-1
08052025-2
20250606-1

This directly contradicts your claim that “they don’t pay for anything,” which is therefore false.

These payments are fully documented, traceable, and indisputable.

What is equally documented is your conduct:

Invoicing through multiple entities without prior disclosure
Duplicate and repeated billing
Irregular invoicing practices outside any acceptable commercial or regulatory standard

At IT24, we process approximately 30,000 supplier invoices annually under strict automated and manual controls. Every invoice is subject to verification against contractual, operational, tax, and regulatory requirements.

Approximately 10% of submitted invoices are rejected due to clear, objective, and verifiable issues, including manipulated data, inflated hours, inflated pricing, inflated headcount, duplicate billing, use of third-party data, invoicing through inactive or non-compliant entities, or structures that breach legal, tax, or employment regulations. In certain cases, these practices result in direct financial impact for our clients.

In certain jurisdictions, such practices may constitute serious legal violations and criminal offenses, subject to enforcement and potential prosecution.

All such issues are systematically identified, documented, and formally communicated.

Your invoices fall within this category.

They were rejected based strictly on verifiable evidence, not discretion.

Suppliers acting in good faith correct these issues. You did not.

Instead, you have chosen to publish a false and misleading public statement with no verifiable evidence. This does not alter the documented facts; it only underscores the lack of substance behind your claims.

Unsubstantiated public accusations are irrelevant. They carry no weight, no standing, and no credibility against documented evidence and audited compliance records.

Our decisions are not influenced by opinion, pressure, or narrative. They are determined exclusively by verifiable data and strict compliance standards. Where these are not met, payment is not made.

Attempting to replace facts with public noise does not alter the outcome—it only further discredits the source.

The matter is closed.

Svar fra It24

Oppdatert: 19. mars 2026

We would like to clarify that this review appears to come from a provider, not a client.

We will dedicate 20 minutes of our lives to respond with a level of forced and artificial politeness that this situation frankly does not deserve.

Trustpilot has already requested additional information from you to investigate your claim, and you have not provided it. Without clear and verifiable details, it is simply not possible to review or validate this situation, regardless of your frustration.

It24 operates 24/7. We are a small multinational built with blood, sweat, and tears. We have 8 business units and are celebrating our 10th anniversary. We handle more than 60,000 work orders per year for major clients across multiple countries. Our processes are well established and consistently applied. We are a job provider operating in an environment of trust and confidence, delivering work to approximately 5,000 highly committed vendor companies across 140 countries. Our operations support supermarket chains, fast food restaurant chains, automotive dealer networks, clothing retail chains, fitness chains, telecommunications infrastructure, and shopping centres and malls.

When invoices are not paid, it is typically due to fraud or irregularities in invoicing and proof of work documentation. Do not forget that we are dealing with money. The most common scenarios are:

- Non-compliance or issues detected during our validation process, such as overpricing, inflated material costs, excessive hours, missing proof of work documentation, incorrect documentation, or unjustified mileage;

- Fake invoices, the use of non-existent or misleading company details, or invoices that do not comply, in your case, with HMRC requirements in Scotland or the UK, indicating attempts to evade proper financial obligations. We have zero tolerance for fraudulent activity;

- Payment requests to bank accounts that fail compliance checks, are not linked to the vendor, or involve attempts to redirect payments to third-party accounts.

- In other cases, it may be because the work carried out was clearly below acceptable standards and resulted in a major complaint from our client.

Due to the volume of work we handle, there are periods of high demand where some processes may experience delays. However, we consistently put in significant effort every single day to meet the expectations of both our clients and our providers, with our teams fully committed to delivering a customer-focused service.

You can choose any of these scenarios to better understand the issue with your invoice. We always, and always means always, review and resolve legitimate claims. Making unsupported claims without providing any details only reflects poorly on the party making them, and we will not waste any more time on this. Anonymity breeds mediocrity—and mediocrity builds mediocre companies..

If you have a legitimate issue, contact us directly with complete and accurate information so we can review it properly. Otherwise, do not waste our time with nonsense or childish reviews.

Time is up. Have fun.

Svar fra It24

24. mars 2026

Your review is not only inaccurate—it is demonstrably false.

You claim that only the initial invoice was paid and that further payments were avoided. This is directly contradicted by your own payment history. You have been paid for a substantial number of invoices, including:

RE-501272, RE-501280, RE-501281, RE-501335, RE-501334, RE-501336, RE-501414, RE-501338, RE-501392, RE-501394, RE-501412, RE-501415, RE-501428, RE-501429, RE-501431, RE-501432, RE-501433, RE-501434, RE-501435, RE-501436, RE-501437, RE-501438, RE-501439, RE-501441, RE-501348, RE-501349, RE-501442, RE-501443, RE-501664, RE-501668, RE-501662, RE-501665, RE-501666, RE-501682, RE-501669, RE-501684, RE-501670, RE-501667, RE-501671, RE-501672, RE-501683, RE-501685, RE-501663, RE-501814, RE-501815, RE-501819, RE-501843, RE-501983, RE-501984, RE-501986, RE-501987, RE-501988, RE-501946, RE-501989, RE-501990, RE-501991, RE-501945, RE-501982.

These payments are fully documented, traceable, and indisputable, and were received in the designated Zuger bank account ending in 07.

What is equally documented is the nature of the invoices that were rejected. Your submissions included repeated duplicate billing and invoicing practices that fall outside accepted commercial and regulatory standards.

At IT24, we process approximately 30,000 supplier invoices annually under strict automated and manual controls. Every invoice is verified against contractual, operational, tax, and regulatory requirements. A proportion of submissions are rejected each year due to clear, objective, and verifiable issues, including manipulated data, inflated hours or pricing, duplicate billing, use of third-party data, or invoicing through non-compliant entities or structures that breach legal, tax, or employment regulations. Such practices may raise serious compliance concerns under applicable regulations.

Your rejected invoices fall into this category. They were not declined arbitrarily or by discretion, but strictly on the basis of documented non-compliance. Suppliers acting in good faith correct such issues. You chose not to.

Instead, you have published a misleading public statement without evidence, despite the existence of extensive documented records to the contrary.

This is not a matter of interpretation, but of fact. Your previous complaints were formally reviewed and dismissed due to lack of evidence and direct contradiction with verified records.

Accordingly, this matter is closed. No further correspondence will be entered into, and no action will be taken from our side.