HearWell - April 2026

In January last year, the government updated its guidance on hearing aids stating that for mild to moderate hearing loss, a prescription was no longer required. We have been hearing from customers who have been using the online-only company HearWell which promotes hearing aids for £150 rather than the thousands often charged by alternative retailers. HearWell states that all of its products are subject to a 45-day trial with the promise of "hear better within that time - or get a refund."

However, Watchdog viewers have contacted us to say that this has not been their experience.

First, we met Gailyn who decided to order a pair of hearing aids from HearWell. She quickly discovered, however, that the hearing aids didn't fit, so she requested a full refund. HearWell refused because the problem was the fit, not the performance - something that was in the terms of its guarantee. Gailyn was offered a 30% goodwill gesture which she believed was inadequate.

We also meet Robert who required a hearing aid as he has tinnitus and hearing loss. He was convinced to buy from HearWell as their website stated that its products eliminate background noise. Robert's experience, however, was different as he says that the feedback was unbearable. He requested a refund but it was rejected as HearWell said the aids weren't faulty and he hadn't tried them for long enough.

And it's not just customers who have been affected. Matt meets Clive who runs the long-established Hereford business HearWell, which is nothing to do with the online-only company. He and his receptionist Hayley say they have had to face a barrage of misplaced complaints all intended for the other HearWell.

In response to our allegations, HearWell told us that it was built on one straightforward idea: that quality hearing support should not be the exclusive preserve of people who can afford private audiology, or who can wait twelve months or more for NHS provision.

We were told the company sells UKCA-marked Class II medical hearing aids directly to consumers, provides extensive fitting and support guidance, and offers a 45-day home trial because it genuinely believes in its product and wants customers to experience it properly before making a final decision.

HearWell told us that it has helped thousands of customers hear better, and that it has hundreds of independently verified positive reviews on Trustpilot. It told us that it isn’t a scam operation, and it isn’t in the business of deceiving vulnerable people. It said it recognises that some customers have had difficult experiences, and it takes those seriously.

When we asked why the company had a false UKCA certificate on its website, HearWell told us that the Certificate of Conformity contained an error in the name of the manufacturer as displayed publicly. We were told that when this was identified, it removed it from the website immediately. HearWell told us that this does not mean its product is uncertified or non-compliant: it said its hearing aids are UKCA-marked Class II medical devices, manufactured and certified under ISO 13485 standards. We were told that the presence of the incorrect certificate doesn’t mean that the company fabricated any certification. The company reiterated its position that the product is certified, but the public display of that certification required updating.

HearWell told us that Watchdog’s suggestion that the certificate is 'false' because the company that’s listed – Hearwell Hearing Limited in Herefordshire – does not produce the product reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how medical device certification works. It clarified that it isn’t the HearWell company based in Hereford and has no connection to that business. It told us that the UKCA conformity mark applies to the product, assessed against the manufacturer who produces it, not to every downstream distributor or retailer in the supply chain, which is how every major consumer medical device brand in the UK operates. HearWell told us that products sold under UK brand names by UK companies are routinely manufactured by Original Equipment Manufacturer facilities elsewhere. We were told that the brand does not manufacture the device; it holds the commercial and regulatory relationship with the manufacturer. This, we were told, is standard, lawful, and entirely normal.

Watchdog has since spoken to Hereford Trading Standards. It concluded that the certificate listed on HearWell’s website, which lists Hearwell Hearing Limited as the manufacturer, is fake.

When we put to HearWell that its 45-day trial might mislead customers, the company told us that it takes this feedback seriously, and it is already acting on it. It said that this view relates to the presentation of terms, not to any fundamental illegality.

It told us that its guarantee is called the 45-Day Better Hearing Guarantee, and that its name describes its purpose: it is a hearing improvement guarantee, not an unconditional satisfaction guarantee. HearWell told us that the full terms are published on its website and have been since it launched. It added that those terms, which are available in the footer of the website on every page, make clear that the guarantee applies where a customer has genuinely trialled the product and experienced no hearing improvement compared to wearing no hearing aids, and that returns based on comfort preference, handling difficulty, or personal anatomical considerations fall outside its scope. HearWell said that this distinction matters enormously because a guarantee that covered every possible form of dissatisfaction, including customers who tried a product for two hours, did not insert it correctly, and demanded a full refund, would be commercially unsustainable and would ultimately result in higher prices or reduced access for the customers who genuinely benefit. We were told that HearWell calibrates its policy to protect genuine cases while maintaining a business that can serve thousands of people affordably.

HearWell told us it also wants to address a point that appears to underpin some of the complaint cases: the confusion between UK consumer law and its own commercial policy. It said that these are two distinct things, and conflating them leads to incorrect conclusions. HearWell told us that under UK consumer law – specifically Regulation 28(3)(a) of the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013 – in-ear medical devices that have been opened and used are exempt from the standard 14-day right of cancellation. HearWell told us that this is the hygiene exemption, and it applies across all retailers and all in-ear products in the UK market, adding that once an in-ear device has been used, the law does not require the retailer to accept a return or issue a refund. It said that its 45-Day Better Hearing Guarantee is a voluntary commercial policy it offers on top of that statutory position. HearWell said that it is more generous than the law requires, but because the company created it, it defines its conditions, which are published.

When we questioned HearWell about its claims to eliminate background noise, it told us that it respects the credentials of our expert – Rajpreet Achall – and welcomes her input. HearWell said it does not claim to eliminate background noise entirely, adding that its products include a noise reduction mode, which reduces the amplification of background sounds relative to speech. This, we were told, is a standard feature of modern digital hearing aids and is described accurately in its materials. HearWell told us that if a specific phrase on its website has been read as claiming total elimination, it will review and correct the wording.

In relation to Gailyn, HearWell told us that she contacted the company, stating she could not insert the right hearing aid due to shape of her ear. It told us that her issue was an anatomical fit concern from the outset and not a complaint about product malfunction or sound quality. According to HearWell, it asked relevant diagnostic questions to determine whether the issue related to dome size, insertion technique, or a genuine device fault. We were told that Gailyn didn’t cooperate and declined to continue troubleshooting, adding that no functional defect was ever demonstrated. We were told that HearWell made goodwill offers that increased progressively to 80% of the purchase price, which Gailyn declined.

In Robert’s case, HearWell told us thathe reported constant feedback and an unstable fit. We were told that Robert confirmed to the company that he wore the aids for approximately four days at around one hour per day. We were told that HearWell’s assessment was that the issues described – persistent feedback even at Volume 1, loose and unstable fit despite dome size changes – were consistent with anatomical fit and seal incompatibility rather than a device fault. According to HearWell, Robert didn’t cooperate, but a goodwill offer was still made that increased progressively to 60% of the purchase price plus return postage reimbursement, which Robert declined.

In relation to HearWell in Hereford, we were told that confusion between the two businesses has occurred, but the online-only HearWell has never claimed to be Clive’s business. We were told that the company has already taken practical steps to increase separation by moving to a new domain and trading name: Hear It Well.

In light of the Watchdog investigation we were told the company has acted on several things: It is improving the clarity of its guarantee terms at the point of purchase, including more prominent pre-payment links to full policy documentation; It has corrected and updated its certification documentation on its public-facing website; It has moved to a new domain (hearit-well.com) specifically to reduce consumer confusion with the Hereford business; It is reviewing its marketing claims to ensure they are precise and cannot be misread; It is reviewing what additional technical specifications it can publish to assist customers in pre-purchase suitability assessment.

We also put to the newly formed Hear It Well that Hereford Trading Standards worked with the eCrime team at National Trading Standards to suspend the company’s previous website, rather than the company proactively taking it down as it has claimed. Hereford Trading Standards cited serious concerns about the company including the unauthorised use of a registered trademark, the use of a fake certificate on its website, and a returns policy that didn’t comply with UK consumer protection regulations. Hear It Well said that it understood the website was suspended because of the trademark issue, and nothing to do with product safety or certification.

You can watch the VT here for 28 days - https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m002vdxv/the-one-show-22042026