Reported cases

The user states they travelled abroad after being quoted a significantly lower price. Upon arrival, the cost allegedly increased to approximately $25,000, which the patient reports feeling pressured to accept. According to the report, 18 teeth described as healthy were extracted during treatment. The user further claims that elements of the agreed package — including aftercare, medication, translation support, and follow-up — were not delivered as expected. After returning home, the patient reportedly experienced serious complications requiring additional corrective surgery.

The case remains unresolved. The patient reports ongoing financial burden and continuing medical treatment requirements.

The former employee states they worked as a translator communicating with UK patients via WhatsApp for approximately one year. According to the account, patients experiencing problems were initially told the clinic would fix their work for free. However, when patients returned, the clinic allegedly either demanded additional payment or attributed issues to miscommunication. The account further states that patients who posted negative reviews were contacted and pressured to remove them — sometimes offered partial free treatment in exchange for deletion. When the former employee raised concerns about the volume of complaints, the clinic owner reportedly became hostile and made intimidating remarks.

The former employee states they left the position and are currently assisting at least one affected patient in pursuing legal action against the clinic.

The patient was referred to a dentist through a medical tourism company after completing a hair transplant at the same facility. The agreed treatment plan specified individual zirconium crowns. However, at the final fitting, the user noticed all six upper front crowns were connected like a bridge rather than placed individually. When the patient asked to see the material data sheet, the clinic allegedly refused. The dentist reportedly became agitated when questioned about why the crowns were ceramic rather than zirconium as agreed. An independent dentist later confirmed that no bridge was necessary for the patient's dental structure and that the preparation method used was a faster, cheaper approach that often results in pain and gum irritation.

The patient had the work completely redone by another dentist. A credit card chargeback for the original $4,500 is currently in progress.

According to national media reports, a British tourist died from complications arising during or after a hair transplant procedure in Turkey. The incident prompted authorities to launch a formal investigation into the clinic, including questions about practitioner licensing and supervision protocols. The case received widespread media coverage and renewed public debate about the safety of medical tourism, particularly regarding procedures performed by technicians rather than qualified physicians.

A formal investigation was launched. The case remains a matter of public record and ongoing scrutiny.

The patient reports travelling to Turkey for veneers, with the clinic covering hotel costs while the patient paid for flights. According to the report, the veneers were too large, visually blotchy, and caused constant pain from exposed shaved tooth underneath. The user states they cannot eat hard foods such as apples, cannot drink hot or cold beverages, and the situation is severely affecting their daily life and mental health. When the patient returned for corrections, the clinic allegedly attempted to use a cheaper grade of material. The clinic owner reportedly became intimidating and dismissive when the patient raised objections.

Unresolved. The patient reports ongoing inability to eat or drink normally, with significant impact on quality of life and mental health. UK corrective treatment remains unaffordable.

The tenant states the apartment was returned in the same condition in which they received it. However, the landlord refused to return the security deposit. No written damage assessment, photographic evidence of damage, or formal justification was provided. The tenant reports not having taken photos at move-in, which weakened their position. As a foreigner renting in Turkey, the tenant was unsure of the applicable legal protections.

Unresolved at time of reporting.

Three tenants each paid $1,200 per month to a fourth person who was the sole leaseholder. The total collected was $3,600/month. Following an official letter from the city, the tenants discovered the actual rent-controlled lease was $2,400/month — meaning the leaseholder was allegedly pocketing $1,200 every month. The scheme reportedly continued for approximately two years before being uncovered.

In progress. Tenants are seeking legal advice on recovering excess payments.

The user booked through a third-party travel platform and rented the vehicle in Turkey. According to the report, the car was returned in perfect condition with no damage noted at drop-off. However, the $763 deposit was never returned. When the user contacted the rental company, they were reportedly redirected to the booking platform. The platform in turn stated the deposit was still pending with the rental company. Crucially, no signed rental agreement was ever provided to the user, which weakened the chargeback claim.

Unresolved. The user is seeking alternative dispute resolution channels.

The user rented a car for one week in Antalya. Upon return, the rental company identified a scratch on the rear bumper and presented a damage claim of €1,100. The user alleges the scratch was already present when the vehicle was collected but acknowledges they did not photograph the car at pickup. The rental company reportedly charged the credit card without the user's explicit authorisation for the specific amount and refused to engage in any dispute process.

A credit card chargeback is currently in progress.

The seller told the tourist the jacket was 100% genuine Turkish leather, hand-crafted. The initial asking price was €900, which was negotiated down to €400 — a process that created a psychological sense of having secured a deal. Upon returning home, the tourist had the material professionally tested. The analysis confirmed synthetic polyurethane (PU) leather with an estimated retail value of approximately €30. The receipt provided at the time of purchase contained no verifiable business name, address, or tax identification number — making a formal complaint through consumer protection channels extremely difficult.

Unresolved. Without a verifiable business name or tax number, the user has limited options for formal complaint or recovery.

The family booked the hotel through an online platform and received a confirmation displaying a total price. Upon check-in, the hotel front desk demanded an additional €350 for what was described as a 'resort fee' and a 'tourism tax.' When the family pointed out that these charges were not disclosed during booking nor visible on their confirmation, the hotel reportedly stated these were standard charges and threatened to cancel the reservation if payment was not made immediately. Facing the prospect of losing their accommodation upon arrival with children, the family paid.

Unresolved. The family is considering a dispute through the booking platform.

The investor purchased an off-plan apartment in Alanya after being presented with marketing materials promising guaranteed annual rental returns of 8%, managed by a local company. For approximately three months after handover, rental income was received as promised. The management company then ceased all communication. When the investor visited the property, they discovered significant construction defects including water damage and finishing issues. The management company had reportedly dissolved as a legal entity, and the developer denied any responsibility for the rental guarantee — stating it was a separate arrangement with the management company.

Unresolved. The investor is unable to sell the property due to construction defects and has received no rental income for an extended period.