As a continuation of my previous
Dear Customer Relations Manager,
I am writing to raise a formal grievance regarding the conduct of your employee, Nabil, during my visit to MG East London, located at:
MG East London
1021 Romford Road
Manor Park
East London
Greater London
E12 5LH
United Kingdom
on the morning of 3 June 2026. (Glyn Hopkin)
The interaction left me with the clear impression that I was treated less favourably because I am a woman. I consider the behaviour I experienced to be discriminatory, unprofessional, and inconsistent with the standards that customers are entitled to expect.
My husband and I attended the dealership together to discuss a vehicle. Throughout the conversation, Nabil engaged respectfully with my husband, listening to him without interruption and allowing him to express his views fully. However, when I attempted to contribute to the discussion, I was abruptly told:
“Don’t interrupt me when I’m talking, I wasn’t interrupting you when you were talking.”
This statement was both unwarranted and inappropriate. I had not interrupted him. What made the remark particularly concerning was that no similar comment had been directed at my husband at any point during the discussion. The contrast in treatment was immediate and striking: my husband was permitted to speak freely, whereas I was reprimanded as soon as I attempted to participate in the conversation.
The situation escalated further when Nabil requested a driving licence. I provided my own licence in response to his request. After receiving it, he looked at my husband with a visibly confused expression and asked, “Who is the primary driver of the car?”
Given that I had handed him my driving licence and was actively participating in the discussion, there was no obvious reason for him to direct this question to my husband rather than to me. In the context of the wider interaction, the question appeared to be based on an assumption that the male customer was the principal driver and decision-maker, despite the information directly in front of him indicating otherwise.
Taken together, these incidents created a clear pattern of behaviour in which my contributions were dismissed, my role was questioned, and assumptions appeared to be made on the basis of my gender. I left the dealership feeling belittled, excluded from the conversation, and treated as though my views and decisions carried less weight than those of my husband.
Businesses providing goods and services to the public have obligations under the Equality Act 2010 not to discriminate against customers because of a protected characteristic, including sex. While I appreciate that discrimination is often subtle rather than explicit, the cumulative effect of the conduct I experienced gave rise to a reasonable perception that I was treated less favourably because I am a woman.
Accordingly, I request that MG East London and Glyn Hopkin:
- Conduct a formal investigation into this incident.
- Review any relevant CCTV footage, customer records, notes and any other evidence relating to our visit on the morning of 3 June 2026.
- Obtain a written statement from Nabil regarding the incident.
- Provide me with a written explanation of your findings and whether you conclude that your standards of customer service and equality obligations were met.
- Confirm what remedial action, if any, will be taken, including equality and diversity training for staff.
Please treat this letter as a formal complaint under your customer complaints procedure. I would appreciate written acknowledgement of this complaint and a full written response within your published complaints timescale.
Should your investigation conclude that my complaint is not upheld, I ask that you clearly explain the factual and legal basis for that conclusion.
I hope Glyn Hopkin will treat this matter with the seriousness it deserves and take appropriate steps to ensure that no other customer experiences similar treatment.
Yours faithfully,
Olga Szynkarczuk
I have since received a call from the manager of Glyn Hopkin MG reassuring me they “take these things very seriously” and informing me that “Nabil doesn’t work here anymore” which I know is most probably a lie and I am not sure if my email had any impact on the situation whatsoever but at least it made me feel a little bit less silent. That said, I wish I could have heard an apology from Nabil himself rather than his supervisor