Coast Marine Covers: Google Review Removal & Payment Dispute
A documented account published on LookUps based on retained communications and screenshots of Google reviews supplied by Rodis Digital Marketing. Where a statement comes from a reviewer or from one side of the commercial dispute, it is identified as such.
Transparency & sourcing
LookUps and Rodis Digital Marketing have common ownership, and Rodis is the party describing the payment dispute documented on this page. For that reason, readers should not treat this page as independent reporting. Coast Marine Covers is invited to provide a documented response or correction for publication.
The historical Google-review statements shown or summarised below are attributed to the individual reviewers. They are not presented as independently proven facts. Where Coast Marine Covers disputed a review or described it as fake, that response is included in the record.
How to read this record
This record contains three different kinds of information: communications about the requested work, historical customer-review statements, and Rodis Digital Marketing’s account of the later payment dispute. Each should be considered separately. A screenshot of a review shows the statement that was published; it does not establish that the underlying allegation was true.
The owner responses are included where visible because they provide relevant context and, in several cases, dispute the review. The commercial communications relate to the request and progress of work; they do not, on their own, settle the parties’ disagreement about payment.
Why this record exists
Rodis Digital Marketing says it was engaged by Rhett Mcintosh in connection with Coast Marine Covers to remove negative Google reviews. Retained messages show Rhett asking whether Rodis could help remove one-star Google reviews so the business could obtain a higher star rating, and later following up on the progress of the removals.
Rodis says the agreed review-removal work was ultimately completed, with the final removal completed on 28 August 2026. Rodis further states that only a partial payment of $1,000 was subsequently made and that the remaining account was disputed/refused. The total fee and outstanding balance are deliberately not published here.
This page does not ask readers to accept either party's broader position without evidence. Its purpose is to preserve the chronology and distinguish between what the screenshots show, what reviewers alleged, what Coast Marine Covers said in response, and what Rodis says occurred in the later payment dispute.
Documented chronology
May 2026: A Messenger conversation attributed to Rhett Mcintosh begins with: “Can you help me remove 1 star Google reviews so I can get higher star ratings.” Rodis asks for screenshots of the reviews.
10 June 2026: Rodis provides commercial terms for review-removal work, including payment after completed removal. The pricing itself is intentionally omitted from this publication. Rhett responds by asking when the work can be done.
June–August 2026: Rhett follows up on progress, including asking how Rodis was going with “deleting my bad reviews”.
3–4 August 2026: Rodis identifies four reviews being actively worked on. Rhett asks to be kept posted and asks about two further reviews.
28 August 2026: Rodis states that the final agreed review removal was completed. Rodis says a partial payment of $1,000 was later received, but that the remainder was not paid.
The removed Google reviews
The screenshots supplied to Rodis identify six negative reviews. Their contents are summarised below. The wording reflects what those reviewers alleged at the time; it should not be read as a finding by Rodis.
Lisa N
The screenshot shows a one-star review alleging serious problems involving a cleaning job, access to a property, communication and a missing vase. The reviewer used strong language including allegations of lying and theft and stated that supporting material was attached to the review.
Michael Marston
A one-star review described the company as “woeful” and told readers not to trust it and to stay away. No detailed factual account was included in the visible review.
Caroline Roscoe
The screenshot shows a one-star rating. Coast Marine Covers' visible owner response called it a “FAKE REVIEW” and stated that the business had never had a customer by that name.
Terrence east
The reviewer alleged problems with replacement covers, zips, workmanship and after-sales support, describing the experience as disappointing. Coast Marine Covers posted a detailed response presenting a different account and disputing the reviewer's version of events.
Wayne C
The one-star review alleged poor service and product quality, stating that a product ripped after two days and alleging that the business avoided dealing with past customers. Coast Marine Covers responded that it had never had a customer by that name and called the review fake.
Paul Lutcome
The one-star review alleged poor workmanship, stitching problems, inadequate after-sales service and an aggressive or arrogant attitude. Coast Marine Covers responded that it had never had a customer by that name and called the account fake.
Original review screenshots
Tap a screenshot to open it at full size and zoom in.
Communication evidence
The retained Messenger screenshots are significant because they document the request itself and later follow-ups. They are presented as evidence of the commercial chronology, not as proof that every allegation in a removed customer review was true.
The payment dispute
Rodis' position is that the agreed work was completed and that payment was due after successful removal. Rodis says Coast Marine Covers/Rhett Mcintosh paid $1,000 but refused to pay anything further and subsequently stopped responding to calls and messages. This is Rodis' account of the payment dispute; this page does not publish the invoice total or the claimed outstanding balance.
Coast Marine Covers is invited to provide a substantive written response or documentary correction. If verifiable information changes the factual record, this page should be updated to reflect it.
Responses, corrections and subsequent updates
A useful response would identify the statement in dispute and provide the relevant communication, payment record or other supporting material. Any response about the customer reviews should be distinguished from a response about the service provider’s invoice.
If further records establish a payment, a correction or an agreed settlement, the payment section should be updated accordingly. This record should not be treated as a finding about every customer experience or the business’s current services.