Regus - Lincoln, Cromwell Houseレビュー 

Green Key Estate Agents Experience.

This is the second attempt of a Regus Lincoln review, Regus keep trying to have my experience removed for obvious reasons... please read so you don't make the same mistake Green Key made.

I feel it’s important to clearly explain what “went wrong,” as this was not a minor service issue but a sustained and deeply damaging experience for my team.

The environment at Cromwell House caused significant distress to my staff — particularly my female team members — who were left working in persistently freezing conditions. Despite repeated requests, the heating was not adjusted. Over time, it became increasingly clear to us that this was not being treated as a facilities issue but rather as a means of control, which was deeply concerning. On one occasion, one of my team’s hands were so cold she was unable to type.

This was compounded by the wider conduct of centre management, which we — along with many other centre residents — found unprofessional, intimidating, and manipulative. We were warned by other tenants on arrival about the culture within the building, including the ostracising of clients, an uncomfortable atmosphere unless one aligned with a particular narrative, and the fostering of a toxic working environment. Unfortunately, those warnings proved accurate.

We witnessed multiple members of centre staff leave, citing management conduct as the reason, including individuals personally recruited into the role. There were also serious ethical concerns raised around conflicts of interest with contractors, which further undermined trust and professionalism.
From a business perspective, we were:

Charged additional and unexplained fees

Promised decorating work that was never completed

Forced to pay for our own decorator to make good the office

Left dealing with under-delivery from the very start of our tenancy

I raised concerns about bullying and the hostile environment directly with senior management.
Unfortunately, these warnings were not acted upon, and no meaningful steps were taken to protect my staff or improve conditions.

Ultimately, my team asked to be removed from Cromwell House. As a business owner, I have a clear duty of care to my employees. I could not continue to expose them — or family members working within the business — to that level of stress, discomfort, and mistreatment.

We would have stayed and grown our business with Regus. Instead, we were forced to vacate to safeguard our team’s wellbeing.

I was a Regus client for nearly eight years previously, beginning in 2009, during which time the standard of service and centre management was excellent. It is deeply disappointing to see how far that standard has declined. Stronger leadership oversight, ethical scrutiny, and improved management selection are clearly needed.

Regus has unfortunately failed Green Key Estate Agents Ltd. I share this experience so that other SMEs can make informed decisions.

*RESPONSE TO BELOW* (named person below)

We do not accept the accuracy of this response.

Much of what is stated below is untrue and does not reflect our lived experience during our time at the centre. Issues were raised repeatedly, both verbally and in writing, yet they were consistently minimised, dismissed, or later reframed. To suggest that concerns were never reported is misleading.

This type of response highlights the core issue. Rather than addressing the substance of the problems raised, centre management hides behind generic references to “internal reviews” and records that fail to reflect what actually occurred. That is not transparency, nor is it effective management.

The centre was poorly managed, operational issues were ongoing, and support was inconsistent. When concerns were raised (ticket has been raised...!), the priority appeared to be protecting the centre’s position rather than resolving matters properly.

Our review is an honest account of our experience. If necessary, I am more than happy to copy and paste email correspondence between myself and the centre management/team into this response as evidence of the issues raised at the time. Attempts to discredit our experience through carefully worded but inaccurate replies only reinforce our concerns about how these centres are run.

We stand by our review.