Gardening tools using confusing branding

This ‘mis-branding’ definitely should be instantly made illegal – we are being lied to, and in more potentially dangerous areas such as food. We should be not interested in the sly prevarications of industry and commerce. If any part of anything is not made in this country then this should be made clear, as it should if not grown in this country. Packing only is obviously not a legitimate claim on ‘made in the UK’ if the product is made, grown/processed etc anywhere else – this should apply within the/a country to products not fully made by the company supplying and/or selling it. Simply putting a sticker/label on a product naming a company that has had little or no part in its munufacture is a lie. Perhaps the buying public should start purchasing these products on false debit and credit cards or with forged money – and claim it’s the genuine article. Lets see if they then get the message!

I absolutely agree with Which?’s concerns and with the comments already posted by John and Ron.

“Badge Engineering” (which I understand is the ‘official’ term for this practice) has gone on for decades but in modern times it appears to be exclusively at the peril / cost of the customer. Way back into the 60’s and 70’s Hoover made appliances that were “exclusives” for the Electricity Board and the Co-Op (and probably others). These items were identical in build quality and standards to the “standard” ranges by Hoover, and could usually be clearly told apart by a simple cosmetic changes such as a different coloured fascia or bag. In most cases the model number was suffixed by “E” (for Exclusive).

Many high-end Hi-Fi manufacturers also made products equal in quality to their “standard” ranges, but sold them under a different brand name for a lower price via chain stores and so on rather than specialist Hi-Fi dealers.

These practices were OK for the customer in terms of getting a good product at a competitive price, but now, as illustrated withe the Qualcast / Bosch / HRG and Wilkinson Sword examples above, we are being conned into paying a Premium price for inferior goods.

Sadly, because we didn’t shout and stamp our feet when earlier examples existed (presumably because they worked in our favour) we’ll be on an uphill struggle of Kilamanjaro proportions to get this practice stopped now.

My view is that this is deceit and that it should be punishable under trading standards law as being misrepresentation. Perhaps the legal team at Which? should say something in this thread.

Quite right – I don’t expect to be given a replacement blade but I do expect spares to be available. Am I supposed to bodge the machine if a part goes? Or throw it away even though it is only just over a year old?

As far as I know, there is no legal requirement for manufacturers to hold a stock of spares for a fixed length of time. If they cannot supply spares it is likely to damage their reputation. Trade associations may have a code of conduct for members.

This is not the first time that non-availability of spares has come up on Which? Conversation and I suspect that premature failure combined with lack of spares is a major contributor to our mountains of consumer waste.

The traditional solution, used by both amateurs and professionals, is to find an identical model with a different fault and make one good machine out of two. Fair enough for antiquated equipment but not reasonable for a product one year old.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Brand names are traded freely and what is a reputable name one minute can be quite worthless the next. The camera lens maker Vivitar, for example, used to make top-quality opticals often used by photography professionals. But the name was sold to another company which simply uses it to badge cheap point-and-shoot cameras from China.
Nothing illegal about that, but it’s certainly trading on past glories.
As for Qualcast, I can find no information on the current owner since Bosch disposed of it.
A reference “who owns who” website would be a start.

Hi Wavechange, thanks for that. The model is actually obsolete now and if I go to the trouble of getting an independent expert to verify it is of poor manufacture they did say I would get a refund due to the obsolescence of the item. I nearly offered to buy a much more expensive Bosch item if they gave me a full refund as part exchange so to speak but I do not really want to buy anything from them ever again. However I will probably go back with a print out of that Sale of Goods act, cheers for now, Jim.

About 2 years ago I purchased what I thought was a Qualcast strimmer from Argos. After just over a year of use the base of the spool housing stared to wear through. (This is a bump feed model so such wear is a feature.) I visited my local Qualcast agent for a replacement and was told that from the model number they knew it was an “Argos Special” and they could not supply a spare part. They suggested I try Argos. No spare part for this model is listed on the Argos Spares website. I managed to bodge a repair which enabled me to use the strimmer to the end of last summer. The spool cover has now failed completely and I have now had to purchase a new srtimmer, this time a Bosch model. This is also a bump feed design but has a metal plate to protect the spool cover from wear.
I think that this type of false branding should be made illegal. It is totally misleading to consumers.

It is disappointing that this topic has not resulted in many comments.

I see it as FRAUD to market a product under a brand name if that company does not own the brand. This practice just shows how little respect well known companies have for the consumer.

It is time for consumers to push for ten year warranties on most ‘consumer durables’. They can carry on playing their silly games and the consumer would be protected from buying second rate products. If manufacturers are responsible for the cost of repair of goods (assuming they have not been abused), product quality will have to improve to avoid them having to face the cost of repair/replacement of insufficiently durable products.

I purchased from Argos “Qualcast” strimmer. Having problems with the feed I thought I would contact Qualcast. On the web a Homebase window opens saying “Oops” something is wrong. I thought it was a fault that would be rectified but but no, it seems impossible to contact Qualcast. I cannot believe that this “passing off” can be legal because in effect my strimmer is counterfeit.

Has there been no explanation by either Argos or Homebase? Surely they should publish a warning – that the product you are buying is not “Qualcast”? I chose Qualcast on the strength of their past reputation!

I think Which is just as bad at misleading. In the recent review of lawnmowers Which states ”

“The Qualcast brand was started in 1920 and is still going strong”.

What is not mentioned is that Qualcast started out as a British company but is now Chinese owned and manufactured! And many of the other products mentioned are not British anymore. With new EEC directives requiring Country of Origin surely Which can inform us of the companies which are British owned and/or manufacturing in the UK. Japanese company Makita has a big production facility in Telford and German company Bosch make their mowers here. With the resurgence of Made in Britain at least Which should be supporting it even if our Government does not.
The Bradshaws are a British family who spent a year trying to exist on British produce. They are now trying to get support for Made in Britain. Many manufactures have signed up but the Government has not! You might like to support our manufacturing and sign up your support too, [link removed, thanks mods.]

If you want quality well built British made garden tools then the only real brand is Bulldog.

After almost 20 years the time came to buy a new lawnmower. I opted for a Qualcast and purchased one from Homebase. At the checkout I was offered a 3 year warranty for £14.99, which I declined as it stated on the side of the box that it was guaranteed for 2 years. There was nothing inside the box or in the instruction manual to verify this, so I decided to contact the phone number thereon to ask about it. Very disappointed to discover the phone number belonged to Homebase. I then discovered the article about Homebase using the Qualcast name. It should state on the box that Qualcast products are now made by Homebase. Fortunately we have a big loft to keep the box in.

Having purchased a Qualcast 1600W x 37cm Electric Rotary Mower, I discovered the Blade had been ground incorrectly reducing it’s efficiency. Trying to contact Qualcast only got me Argos, where I had made the purchase. It struck me that firm with so much experience should make such a fundamental mistake, now I know why, it is obviously a substitute, and not up to scratch, so I believe Qualcast/Bosch have made a serious error of judgement in allowing this public deception, I can’t understand why there is no law infringed here.

It is without a doubt a scandal of major proportions that there is the passing off of duff stuff.

Which? I consider has been negligent in not making this a major plank in consumer rights. The answer to the problem would appear to be publicity and actually boycotting or running a campaign against Bosch for being party to this business practice.

I am a fan of Robert Bosch and I know they had as a conglomerate financial pressures but as it stand we are being manipulated. In the US the famous name of Polaroid ended up with a Chinese firm and they used the name to dump some of the worst TV’s ever tested on the US market.