This is an independent consumer documentation project. It is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or connected to Travelio or PT Horizon Internusa Persada.
Every entry below is a published complaint or platform review, reproduced with its date and a link to the original. Nothing here is invented or paraphrased into something stronger than the source supports.
Latest warnings from readers
These arrive from people who have just been through it, and appear here as soon as they are checked. This section updates on its own — the archive below is the permanent record.
Worst customer service ever — it takes 3 days to solve any problem.
A consumer demands a refund on the grounds that the apartment unit differed significantly from the images it was advertised with, and additionally raises concerns about the handling of personal data. The most recent published Travelio complaint at the time of capture.
A reviewer reports being denied a refund because of penalty charges on an electricity bill, claimed as a late payment that arose after the tenant had already moved out.
Reviewer: "The second you pay for the place you can forget about any refund if problems arise," and reports that at check-out staff avoided confirming in writing that the apartment was in the same condition.
App-store reviewers report that Travelio declined to process a cash refund and offered a discount voucher in its place. Others describe waiting a full month for a deposit after checking out correctly.
Consumers report deposits delayed or refused on the ground that the bank account named for the refund did not match the name on the booking — a condition raised only at the refund stage, and not applied when the same payment was accepted in the first place. A related account describes a refund refused because the person who booked and the guest who arrived were different people.
A reviewer describes spending a month pursuing a refund while Travelio claimed items were missing — despite staff having signed off on the unit’s condition when they moved out.
The consumer checked out early from a unit at Tokyo Riverside Tower Dotonburi on 21 October 2025. Following Travelio’s own instructions they left the keys in the mailbox and documented it with photographs and video. Travelio staff stated the keys were not found and charged a Rp400,000 replacement fee against the deposit. This is the clearest documented case of a deduction applied against contemporaneous evidence the consumer already held.
A follow-up letter from the same consumer acknowledging that Travelio resolved the mini-refrigerator charge. Published four days after the original complaint. Recorded here because a record that omits resolutions is not a record — and because the sequence is itself the finding: the charge was reversed after the complaint became public, not before.
A tenant reports paying a deposit of IDR 6,100,000 and receiving only IDR 2,740,000 back in February 2025 — a shortfall of IDR 3,360,000 — with no itemised statement of what the difference was spent on.
A tenant reports that despite having paid, they were not given the rental management document (PSM) bearing the owner’s signature — leaving the tenancy without the documentation that would evidence its terms in a dispute.
An owner publishes a second complaint about the management of multiple units — notable because it is a repeat filing: the first complaint did not resolve the matter.
A published letter praising Travelio’s Instagram customer-service team as professional and helpful. Included because selective publication is how a documentation project loses its authority. Note the channel: the praised service came via a public social channel, not the in-app support queue where the disputes above stalled.
A consumer thanks MediaKonsumen for mediating the resolution of an earlier Travelio complaint. Published two days after the post-charge letter above. The second documented instance of a dispute resolving only once it was published.
Travelio publishes a formal response ("Tanggapan") to the unclear-charges complaint filed on 16 February 2024. Recorded because the response itself is the finding: the company engages publicly on this platform after a complaint is published, having not resolved it privately beforehand.
A consumer confirms their complaint was resolved by Travelio. The third documented resolution in this archive, and like the others it follows publication rather than a private support ticket.
The complainant reports the amount returned did not match the deposit paid, with deductions taken for water charges and for dirty walls. The deduction is described as applied unilaterally rather than agreed at inspection.
An annual-lease tenant checked out on 5 April 2023 and asked customer service for clarity on the deposit return. The complainant states the agreed term was a maximum of 14 working days after deduction of electricity and water, that 18 working days had passed without return, and that enquiries produced no answer or solution — only a repeated 'awaiting billing confirmation', despite building management issuing statements on the 5th of each month.
A published account describing customer service without empathy, a defective lease-extension feature, and damage claims the tenant characterises as invented (mengada-ada).
A long-term tenant disputes charges for furniture damage which, on their account, existed before their tenancy began. The earliest documented instance of the post-charge pattern.
A property owner reports difficulty retrieving the keys to their own apartment after terminating the management agreement — the clearest documented case of exit friction on the owner side.
A renter publishes a request that Travelio process the refund owed on a cancelled yearly lease — the complaint is that the refund had not been processed, not that it was refused.
A property owner describes feeling trapped in a cooperation agreement whose occupancy guarantees were not fulfilled. The earliest owner-side complaint in the archive.
The earliest complaint in this archive. A customer criticises Travelio’s customer service as unprofessional and its refund process as lacking transparency — the same two themes still being filed in 2026.