Supermarket own-label champagnes have beaten offerings from the most-celebrated champagne houses in Which?’s festive taste tests this year, while the consumer champion also rated sparkling wines – with one impressive performer costing just £8.99.
Waitrose Blanc de Blancs Brut (£25.99) clinched one of this year’s Which? Best Buy titles, scoring 82 per cent and impressing the expert panellists with its balanced finish and savoury aftertaste. The experts described it as a pleasing and rewarding champagne with delicate, toasty notes and ripe fruit aromas.
Coming joint top with an 82 per cent score, and also earning a Best Buy, is Tesco Finest Premier Cru Champagne, a slightly cheaper option retailing at £23. Experts were initially surprised by the unusual golden colour, but they were impressed by the expressive aromas and flavours of brioche, roasted apples and a nutty finish.
These bottles were rated higher than the most expensive champagne the panel tasted. Popular brand Moët & Chandon Brut Imperial, costing £39.00 per bottle, did not particularly impress the experts – receiving one of the lower ratings at 68 per cent.
For those looking for a cheaper fizz this festive season, Which? also found a cheaper alternative to champagne that impressed the judges and earned a Best Buy. Aldi Specially Selected Crémant du Jura 2019, £8.99, scored an impressive 74 per cent and demonstrated that paying less does not have to mean compromising on quality.
Despite not coming top of the festive pops – other supermarket offerings delivered some delicious options. Sainsbury’s Taste the Difference Champagne Brut NV, £18.50, was flagged as a delicious – and cheaper – choice, with judges noting its smooth, complex, and well-integrated flavours.
M&S Louis Vertay Champagne Brut, £18, was also hailed by the panel for its gentle, crisp palate, nutty finish and elegant, pleasant aftertaste. The experts enjoyed the good complexity and intensity of this toasty, fruity champagne.
Natalie Hitchins, Which? Home Products and Services Editor, said: “No matter what your budget is, you can be sure that your celebrations will fizz with top-quality champagne and sparkling wine for friends and family to enjoy this festive season.
“Once again our taste tests have proven that supermarket champagnes can more than hold their own against the famous champagne houses, delivering excellent quality and great value for money.”
As the impact of the cost of living crisis hits home for millions of people, Which? shares tips to help consumers shave money off their tax bills.
There are lots of ways to reduce your tax bill legally, whether you’re an employee or self-employed, a landlord, investor or pensioner. Simple checks can boost your take-home earnings with minimal effort. There are also tax reliefs and government schemes that can help.
Check your tax code Consumers who pay tax via Pay As You Earn (PAYE) should check if they’re on the correct tax code, to be sure they’re not paying more tax than necessary. Those on the incorrect code might be entitled to pay less tax in the coming months, or receive a rebate from HMRC for previous overpayments. Someone might find themselves on the wrong tax code, or an emergency tax code if they’ve started a new job and their new employer doesn’t have a P45, if they’ve recently had a change in salary, or if they’ve started or stopped taxable state benefits. For example, basic-rate taxpayers given an emergency tax code that excludes their personal allowance could pay an extra £2,514 in the 2022-23 tax year.
Consumers should check their tax code each year, or after changing jobs, to make sure it’s correct for their situation. Find out the most common ones in Which?’s guide to understanding your tax code.
Check if you qualify for any benefits Workers on a low income with less than £16,000 collectively in any savings and investments may be able to qualify for Universal Credit, which is due to replace other legacy benefits like tax credits by 2024. Payments will vary depending on people’s circumstances. Those with children, for instance, could receive up to 85 per cent of their childcare costs, up to £646 a month for one child, or £1,108 for two children.
Every year more than £15bn goes unclaimed from the Treasury from households eligible for benefits, meaning more than seven million UK households could be missing out on benefits and other help like council tax discounts. Which? suggests checking what might be available to claim by entering details about you and anyone else in your household into the entitled to calculator.
Pay into a pension scheme Employees can contribute to their employer’s pension scheme from their gross pay, before any tax is charged. The government then tops up the pension contribution with tax relief, providing a free bonus for saving for retirement. The effect of tax relief is that a contribution of £100 that would have been taxed at 20 per cent, and therefore worth £80 net, is paid into your pension fund without any deduction – so it’s worth the full £100.
Be sure to meet the tax return deadline to avoid a £100 fine Around 12 million people need to submit a self-assessment tax return each year. Missing the claim deadline is a costly and easily avoided mistake. Those making an online submission have until 31 January 2023 to send in their 2021-2022 return, but for paper submissions the deadline is earlier, 31 October 2022. Missing the deadline incurs an automatic penalty of £100, even for those who don’t owe any tax. Use the Which? tax calculator to tot up your return and submit it directly to HMRC.
Reclaim overpaid taxes Non-taxpayers and those whose income has unexpectedly fallen during the year might have been taxed more than they should have done, as HMRC assumes your personal allowance is equally used each month. To reclaim, fill out form R40 from HMRC, or call them.
Claim tax-free childcare Under the tax-free childcare scheme, parents can claim back 25 per cent of their childcare costs up to £500 every three months. There are certain eligibility criteria, including having a child under 11 and earning less than £100,000. To get started, parents need to set up an online account, which can be used to manage payments to their childcare provider. For every £8 you deposit, the government will pay in £2, up to the value of £500 every three months, or £1,000 if a child is disabled.
Maximise your personal savings allowance In 2022-23, savers can earn £1,000 of interest on savings tax-free if they’re a basic-rate taxpayer. Higher-rate taxpayers have a tax-free allowance of £500. This means they only pay tax on savings income that exceeds this threshold. This will no longer be deducted automatically by the savings provider. If tax is due, you’ll need to pay it via self-assessment or have it deducted via PAYE. Keep in mind that you won’t have a savings allowance as an additional rate (45%) taxpayer.
Use the starter rate for savings If your income from a job or pension is below £12,570 in 2022-23, but you earn income through interest on savings, you may also qualify for the starter savings allowance. Any interest you earn up to £5,000 is tax-free. This will be in addition to your personal savings allowance, meaning you could earn as much as £18,570 before paying tax.
Benefit from lesser-known allowances Consumers can keep hold of a bigger chunk of their earnings by claiming all the tax allowances they might be entitled to. Marriage tax allowance and the Rent-a-Room scheme can save significant sums, yet relatively few people are aware of them. For example, those renting out a room in their home can take advantage of the Rent-a-Room scheme, which means they can earn up to £7,500 tax-free. Marriage allowance benefits couples where one partner earns less than the personal allowance, and the other is a basic-rate taxpayer. Married couples or those in a civil partnership can transfer a 10 per cent personal allowance from the lower-earning partner to the higher earner. In 2022-23, £1,260 can be transferred, potentially saving you up to £250.
Get a reduction on your council tax if you’re a low earner Those on low incomes may be eligible for a council tax reduction of up to 100%. Each local authority has different criteria for who is eligible to claim council tax reduction and the size of the reduction depends on income, savings and whether the claimant lives alone
Those who don’t qualify for a discount themselves, but share a property with a second adult who does (and is not their spouse or civil partner), might be able to claim a second adult rebate.
Reena Sewraz, Which? Money Expert said: “Many people are feeling financial pressure at the moment as soaring energy and food prices, as well as tax hikes, have put a huge strain on household budgets. However, there are steps you can take to save money on tax.
“It is always worth doing a quick check to make sure you’re on the right tax code – if this is incorrect you could be eligible for reduced tax or a refund from HMRC. You can also easily check if you’re eligible to claim additional allowances and benefits from the government, such as marriage tax allowance, universal credit, or a discount on your council tax.
Which? is calling for stronger safeguards to stop online shoppers from choosing Buy Now Pay Later to pay for products without knowing the risks, as new research from the consumer champion reveals many people do not think that they are taking on debt when using this payment method.
Buy Now Pay Later (BNPL) has soared in popularity in recent years as a way for consumers to pay for goods and services, with the biggest provider Klarna now boasting 13 million customers in the UK.
But Which?’s research, carrying out in-depth interviews with 30 typical BNPL users, has raised concerns that shoppers do not fully understand the risks of choosing a ‘pay later’ option at the checkout.
Many of the BNPL users interviewed by Which? did not think of BNPL schemes as a form of credit, meaning they could unwittingly be exposing themselves to serious risks of missing repayments, such as late fees, marked credit reports or referral to a debt collector.
Instead, participants described the schemes as a ‘way to pay’ or a ‘money management tool’, rather than a credit provider. One user said: “It allows payments to be spread out for budgeting. It made things possible which in one go would have been extremely difficult and I would have probably had to borrow money from elsewhere.”
Though BNPL schemes are a form of credit, they work differently to more traditional methods of borrowing such as credit cards. Not all BNPL schemes run hard credit checks, for example, and users can normally sign up to a BNPL scheme in a matter of clicks.
Which? research found it was precisely this speed and simplicity when selecting BNPL at the checkout that contributed to users’ misunderstanding. Another user said: “It seems really convenient and no hassle. It just asks a few questions so it doesn’t feel like you’re committing to a credit agreement.”
The research also revealed low engagement with BNPL providers’ terms and conditions. Most BNPL users said they either skimmed the T&Cs or simply ticked a box to say they had read them in full.
As a result, some users had a limited understanding of the consequences of missing payments, and the safeguards and checks carried out by BNPL providers. Some participants were not aware there were late payment fees at all.
Throughout the research, Which? also found that BNPL users do not consider the prospect they might struggle to make repayments. In fact, using BNPL schemes made some consumers feel less concerned about making purchases they would not otherwise view as necessary or affordable.
“It softens the blow psychologically. It almost doesn’t feel like I’m blowing £100 on shoes,” said one participant.
Concerningly, many of the participants wrongly assumed the schemes were regulated. “I am surprised, I am shocked, they should be regulated. If you have a service that is not regulated you have no protection for consumers,” one participant said.
This lack of understanding around BNPL products is particularly concerning given previous Which? research that found people are more likely to be using BNPL at stressful and challenging times in their lives.
Missing a credit repayment or bill or experiencing a major life event – such as getting married, having a baby, moving home or being made redundant – increases the odds of using BNPL by around a third (38% and 35%, respectively).
That is why Which? is calling for stronger safeguards to protect consumers, including steps in the checkout process to ensure people understand they are borrowing money when using BNPL, and warnings about the risks of using the schemes.
Key information, such as payment terms, late fees and the potential consequences of missed payments, should be communicated at the point of transaction to help consumers make informed choices. Given the immediate risk, BNPL providers should proactively make their key terms and conditions more accessible, rather than waiting for regulation.
Affordability assessment should also be carried out for all BNPL transactions ahead of regulation being introduced.
As the government’s consultation into regulation of the BNPL market closes, the consumer champion wants no delay in regulating these schemes to ensure that those who use it are properly informed and protected.
Rocio Concha, Which? Director of Policy and Advocacy, said:“Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) schemes can offer speed and convenience at the checkout, but our research shows that many users do not realise they are taking on debt or consider the prospect of missing payments.
“That is why there must be stronger safeguards to protect consumers and warn about the risks of using the schemes. Payment terms, late fees and the potential consequences of missed payments should be communicated at the point of transaction.
“There must also be no further delay to plans for BNPL regulation, which should include much greater marketing transparency, information about the risks of missed payments and credit checks before consumers are cleared to use BNPL providers.”
Popular sunscreens – including a leading children’s sun lotion – are failing to meet their SPF and UVA claims in Which? tests.
As people head out to enjoy the great outdoors this summer, it is important for everyone, especially children whose skin is more sensitive than adult skin, to protect their skin from harmful UVA and UVB rays that could lead to skin damage and cause skin cancer. But worryingly, Which? tests of high street sunscreens found some big brand products that did not live up to their claims.
The consumer champion tested 15 branded and own-label sunscreens, including 11 SPF30 adult products and four SPF50 kids sun creams, assessing their SPF and UVA performance, as well as how easy they were to apply.
While most passed Which?’s tests, two products – Garnier’s Ambre Solaire Clear Protect Spray SPF30 (£7) and Nivea’s Kids Protect & Care SPF50+ Spray (£6) – both failed at least one key protection test and have been labelled Which? “Don’t Buy” products.
Both brands have refuted Which? findings.
Sun Protection Factor (SPF), which shows how much a product protects against UVB rays, is one of the most important considerations when buying sunscreen, especially for young children who tend to have more sensitive skin compared to adults.
Shockingly, Nivea’s Kids Protect & Care SPF50+ failed Which?’s SPF test, falling far short of the SPF50 claim on the bottle. A further test on a second sample found the measured SPF was even lower.
In addition to SPF, consumers should also pay attention to the protection sunscreens provide against UVA rays, which can lead to premature ageing along with skin cancer. This is usually indicated with a UVA seal – a circle with ‘UVA’ inside it – which shows that it meets the EU recommendations for UVA sun protection, or the Boots UVA star rating system used to indicate a higher level of UVA protection.
Although it passed the SPF test, Garnier’s Ambre Solaire Clear Protect Spray SPF30 failed Which?’s UVA tests twice. While the results were close to the minimum required for it to pass, it did not quite make the grade.
Thirteen other own-label and branded sunscreen products passed all Which? tests, including Asda’s Protect Cooling Clear Sun Mist SPF 30 (£3.50) and Boots Soltan Kids Protect & Moisturise Suncare Lotion SPF50+(£4) which were among the cheapest of all the products.
Harry Rose, Which? Magazine Editor, said:“Whether you’re finally off on holiday or staying at home this summer, it’s important to stock up on sunscreen to keep your skin protected from harmful rays. But our research shows consumers cannot always trust that these essential products will provide the level of protection they expect for themselves and their children.
“It is concerning that two sunscreens from respected brands have failed Which?’s tests. We would advise consumers not to buy these products as there are alternatives available that are both cheaper and performed better when we tested them.”
A L’Oreal (makers of Garnier Ambre Solaire) spokesperson said it disputes Which?’s findings. It has run independent tests of the UVA properties of the product which show that it passes the tests, complies with all applicable standards and provides proper sun protection for consumers.
It added: “Garnier Ambre Solaire has been the expert at suncare innovation for over 85 years and is the only suncare brand with research recognised by the British Skin Foundation. We take product efficacy very seriously.
“Our UVA claims are supported by robust photoprotection testing carried out independently under ISO standard ISO 24443:2012 and meet the requirements of the European Recommendation for sun protection products.
“Given this, we are very surprised by the Which? results and have requested a meeting with the Which? researchers so our scientists can take them through our test results which confirm the efficacy of this product.”
A Beiersdorf (makers of Nivea) spokesperson said: “The safety of our products is of utmost importance. Nivea Sun prides itself on its decades of experience in sun care and is dedicated to developing products that reliably and effectively protect against sun damage.
“When this product was independently tested in 2019 it achieved an SPF of 62. When we re-checked this batch, the result was a UVA protection factor of 25.8. Based on this data and our comprehensive quality requirements, we disagree with the reported Which? findings.”
Five things you need to know about staying safe in the sun
The World Health Organization recommends using 35ml of sunscreen to cover the whole body; this is about seven teaspoons’ worth. It’s best to apply to all exposed areas 15 minutes before going outside, and reapply every two hours, especially after swimming or other outdoor physical activity.
UVA and UVB are both types of ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun and have been linked to skin cancer. UVB is the main cause of sunburn, while UVA can cause premature skin ageing. UVB rays are blocked by glass, but UVA can penetrate that and clouds.
The sun protection factor (SPF) shows how much protection sunscreen provides against UVB radiation. It indicates how much longer skin covered with the sunscreen takes to redden compared with unprotected skin.
When buying sunscreen, NHS recommends choosing a product with at least 4-star UVA protection indicated on the label.
For children, buying an SPF 50+ sun cream is important, but buying a decent sunscreen is only one part of keeping them safe in the sun. Getting kids to wear a wide-brimmed hat – to protect their neck and ears – and covering up with a T-shirt or an SPF sun suit while outdoors helps. Wearing sunglasses and avoiding the hottest part of the day are both advisable things to do. Babies should always be kept out of the sun.
It is recommended you wear sunscreen when the UV index hits three, the below map shows how often this happened around the country in 2020.
Businesses across the UK are artificially boosting their online ratings by paying firms for fake Google reviews, as a booming industry in misleading information avoids detection by the tech giant, a Which? investigation has revealed.
The consumer champion’s latest research involved setting up and buying fake reviews for its own fake business listing on Google. Following the trail of these paid-for reviewers, Which? found they were employing similar manipulative tactics for a wide range of businesses – from a stockbroker in Canary Wharf to a bakery in Edinburgh.
The findings have exposed concerning gaps in Google’s monitoring of its review platform, leaving people at risk of being misled into using local businesses that appear to have received glowing endorsements, but could in reality be substandard or in one case potentially even pose a serious financial risk to consumers.
Which? created its own fake Google business listing named ‘Five Star Reviews’. Researchers bought 20 Google reviews for £108 ($150) from one of the review sites it uncovered, easily found through a quick Google search, called Reviewr.
Reviewr says ‘buying Google reviews is undoubtedly a smart choice’ as ‘89% of consumers trust online Google reviews as much as personal recommendations’. It claims to offer ‘100% permanent reviews’ for the platform that won’t be deleted.
Which? was able to choose the star rating for each review. It requested that all were five stars and that it wanted three to five left each day. Which?’s researchers even provided the exact wording they wanted for the 20 reviews – praising how good the made-up business and its fake owner Catherine are. Over the next week they started appearing, left by a variety of Google accounts.
One of the reviews was subsequently deleted, so Which? queried it with its Reviewr account manager and was told that sometimes they see “review filtering”. If that happens, the company said it slows down the rate of posting reviews so that they “stick”.
After further digging into the profiles of these reviewers, Which? then found that many of the Google accounts used to plant its fake reviews had infiltrated Google reviews at scale – reviewing the same selection of businesses all around the country.
Which? linked together 45 businesses that had at least three ‘reviewers’ in common – including a stockbroker in Canary Wharf, a solicitors firm in Liverpool, a dentist in Greater Manchester, a London estate agent and a bakery in Edinburgh – suggesting that each of these businesses paid the same review trading company to post these glowing appraisals.
Several of the profiles had left reviews of at least 15 businesses. Of those, all had rated an SEO advisory business in Edinburgh and a psychic in London as five stars – an unlikely coincidence.
In some cases, these fake positive reviews could be masking genuine concerns about serious financial risk to consumers. The stockbroker based in Canary Wharf had, for six months in 2020, received a raft of negative reviews – many citing “shockingly poor customer service”.
Concerningly, one reviewer claimed to have lost £27,000 worth of investments because the business acted against his wishes, while another called the company ‘scammers’ and a third reviewer said it was the worst broker they had ever dealt with.
However, between two and four months prior to Which?’s investigation, 30 five-star reviews left in quick succession had boosted the company’s rating. Which? linked many of these reviewers to other businesses identified in its investigation – including one profile that had also reviewed Which?’s own fake business.
Separately, another reviewer who had left reviews across a number of these businesses had also given five stars to a Liverpool-based solicitor claiming that it had helped them to get back £45,400 from a bank after being scammed. If these reviews are based on fabricated experiences, consumers in a vulnerable financial position could end up using the service based on a false recommendation.
One reviewer had left an extremely unlikely series of ratings. He had praised a Surrey-based limo hire company, stating that he had lived in the area for five years and used them for all airport trips, and in the same month used the services of a Glasgow-based electric gate installation firm for his home – the locations that are 412 miles apart!
Over the next few months, the same profile used a dentist in Greater Manchester, a paving company in Bournemouth, and praised the services of a locksmith in Cambridgeshire for rescuing his two-year-old daughter from a locked car outside of her nursery.
During its investigation, Which? also uncovered four other review sites, AppSally, BuyServiceUSA, DripFeedReviews and Link Building Services, that appeared to offer Google reviews for sale in bulk. They were all easily found in Google search results for the search term “Buy Google reviews”.
A recent Which? survey found that, of those who had used review websites or apps to look for customer reviews on a local trade business over the previous year, almost half (46%) said that they had read Google reviews.
When Which? shared its findings with Google, it quickly shut down the fake business Which? had set up. It said deliberately inauthentic content is in breach of its policies and said: “When we find scammers trying to mislead people, we take swift action ranging from content removal to account suspension and even litigation.” Paid fake reviews is a complex, persistent threat, according to Google.
Although Google says it has clear policies that prohibit this type of activity, and mechanisms in place to analyse reviews, based on its findings, Which? has concerns that its approach is not effective enough. Online platforms that host reviews, including Google, must do more to proactively prevent fake reviews from infiltrating their sites.
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is currently investigating the problem of fake reviews. To protect consumers from being misled, the consumer champion is calling on the regulator to take strong action against sites that host reviews if it finds that they are failing to prevent fake reviews flooding their platforms.
It must also take swift and effective action that puts a stop to sites that are trading, or facilitating the trading, of fake reviews, a practice which is likely to be in breach of consumer law. If the CMA’s investigation doesn’t resolve the problem, the government must consider how it will increase websites’ legal responsibilities for fake and misleading review activity.
Natalie Hitchins, Head of Home Products and Services at Which?, said:“Businesses exploiting flaws in Google’s review system to rise up the ranks are putting honest businesses on the back foot and leaving consumers at risk of being misled.
“The regulator must stamp out this harmful behaviour and hold sites to account if they fail to protect their users, otherwise the government must urgently increase websites’ legal responsibilities for misleading content on their platforms.
“Google, and other sites, must clamp down on and prevent these manipulative practices to ensure that consumers can trust the reviews that they read.”
Shoppers now looking for a small TV are being left disappointed by sets that consistently fail to deliver the sound, picture and capabilities of bigger and more expensive rivals, with the drop in quality so significant that Which? can no longer recommend buying one.
The consumer champion tests hundreds of TVs each year, but has not given a positive review to a TV of 32 inches or less since 2014 – despite giving around 200 sets the Which? Best Buy accolade in that time.
The average Which? test score on a 32-inch TV is a measly 49 per cent. In fact, the best TV of this size recently tested only scored 55 per cent with problems ranging from poor sound quality to inadequate motion capture and a slow operating system.
Which? testing has found that while a smaller TV might capture detail, they are more likely to struggle with motion. As 32-inch televisions do not have 4K capability, manufacturers have been putting more of their efforts into making bigger TVs and home cinema set-ups.
Manufacturers also release fewer 32-inch sets now than they did several years ago. Sometimes their range will only include one, and they are always inferior to bigger televisions. The most popular size of TV with visitors to the Which? TV reviews site is now 49 inches.
Which? also found that small television sets can have a shrill and unpleasant sound quality due to a lack of bass. Operating systems also suffer, with fewer apps available and weaker processors that cause menus to be slower when channel surfing or loading TV guides.
On average, Which? found that people keep their television sets for just over six years, meaning many people who bought a decent quality small TV when they were still available in 2014 may be in for a nasty shock if they try to buy a new 32-inch of similar quality.
To get a great viewing experience, the best TV size depends on how far people sit from their TV. In a survey of Which? members, almost 9 in 10 (86%) people were not sitting at the right distance to make the most of their TV.
The problem is those sitting too far away lose detail and the picture is not as crisp as intended, while colours lose their lustre and the screen starts to look washed out. Those sitting too close will struggle to capture the whole image and the TV will be uncomfortable to watch.
Which? found a 55-inch set would provide the best viewing experience for the average-sized British living room. For those wanting smaller sets the smallest current Which? Best Buy is 48 inches and there are sets as small as 43 inches that still get a decent rating.
While a large set might not be suitable in every space, rather than resorting to buying a small (and poorer quality) TV, Which? has found that some consumers might be better served by streaming TV onto other devices that they already own, such as laptops and tablets. Good quality devices may offer a better level of detail and motion capture on a smaller screen.
For the average living room, demand for a home cinema style set up is likely to continue to grow with the pandemic accelerating this trend. The rise of 4K (and even 8K) means that while Which? experts will continue to include small sets in testing, they believe that 32-inch TVs, for now, are unlikely to make a comeback.
However, with so many people not wanting their television to dominate their space, there will always be demand for smaller sets – so Which? expects manufacturers to do a better job of producing quality products for as long as people want them.
Natalie Hitchins, Which? Head of Home Products and Services, said:“When it comes to TVs, size definitely matters – bigger models score consistently better in Which? testing but while smaller TVs are in much less demand than they used to be, there still appears to be a gap in the market for small sets that really pack a punch.
“Our advice to shoppers is to choose a larger TV that they can comfortably view, where possible. For small or occasional spaces, streaming content on a laptop or tablet may just offer a better experience than a small TV.”
The battle against plastic waste is being held back by a mountain of poorly-labelled bathroom products that could go unrecycled, Which? is warning.
Which? analysed the recycling information on the labels of 20 common toiletries, as well as the type and volume of packaging, to determine how clearly the products are labelled and how difficult they would be to recycle.
The consumer champion found that 12 out of 20 (60%) products had no recycling information on the label, despite most of them being partially or wholly recyclable.
Only six of the products (30%) that Which? looked at seemed to be getting the labelling right – advising consumers that the products should be recycled and with specific instructions on how to do so.
The consumer group is concerned that this lack of coherent labelling could cause confusion among consumers and lead to significant numbers of recyclable products being sent to landfill.
Which? found that while two-thirds (67%) of people think recyclability of packaging is important when supermarket shopping, a majority (65%) of Which? members said they were not cutting back on plastics in the bathroom.
A third (33%) explained that this was because it would be too difficult to replace bathroom products they regularly use, while a quarter (23%) hadn’t thought about it before. One in six (16%) explained that they don’t know how to cut back on bathroom plastic.
Experts at Which? found that Head and Shoulders classic clean shampoo (500ml), L’Oreal Elvive Colour Protect conditioner (400ml) and Listerine Total Care mouthwash (500ml) had no clear labelling regarding recycling, despite being made of recyclable materials.
While many brands fell short of the standards Which? expected, Carex’s Complete Original handwash (250ml) displays clear labelling about how to recycle the bottle, and encourages people to do so. Radox Feel Refreshed shower gel (250ml) gives similarly clear instructions.
Which? is concerned that many toiletry brands are not doing enough to offer consumers clear information about whether or not their bathroom products are recyclable.
The onus is now on these brands to make significant changes to the way they approach the production of plastic packaging and how they communicate with their customers.
Which? is also calling on the government to make recycling labelling simple, clear and mandatory and ensure the necessary infrastructure is in place to make it easy for everyone to recycle, regardless of where they live.
Natalie Hitchins, Which? Head of Home Products and Services, said: “Recycling and sustainability are a high priority for many consumers – so the lack of clear information on the products we looked at is inexcusable in this day and age.
“With the packaging of many recyclable bathroom toiletries going into landfill in the UK, brands must take action to ensure bottles of shampoo, conditioner and shower gel are clearly labelled and can be disposed of in an efficient way.”
Which? advice for consumers:
Items such as shampoo, conditioner and shower gel bottles can usually be recycled by emptying, rinsing and replacing the lids.
When recyclable products have pump dispensers, you usually need to remove the pump and throw it away separately.
Some retailers offer refills for certain branded toiletries so you don’t have to buy another container.
A lot of plastic-free options can actually save money, such as using a soap bar and buying refills in bulk. Other plastic-free options include:
Reusable face wipes
Solid shampoo / conditioner bars
Bamboo toothbrushes
Toothpaste and mouthwash tablets
Menstrual cups
Plastic-free deodorant
Recyclable / plastic-free toilet paper
Full table of products
Product
Packaging
Recycling information provided on label
Recyclability
Andrex: Classic Clean Toilet Paper (4 rolls)
Cardboard, plastic film
Tube – widely recycled
Cardboard collected at kerbside, plastic film not widely recycled
Small and medium-sized energy firms have cemented their place at the top of the rankings in the annual Which? customer satisfaction survey, while less impressive ratings left the biggest providers stuck among the also-rans yet again.
The consumer champion surveyed more than 8,000 people across the UK about their energy supplier and asked them to rate companies on a number of criteria including value for money, customer service, bill accuracy and digital tools.
Octopus Energy, which now supplies more than a million homes, topped the table for the second year in a row. It received an outstanding 83 per cent customer score and five-star ratings for billing accuracy, customer service and complaints handling.
Only a small margin separated the next five energy companies – Ebico, Bulb Energy, Pure Planet, People’s Energy and Powershop. They all performed exceptionally well when it came to billing accuracy.
Among the top six companies were three newcomers – People’s Energy, Powershop and Pure Planet. Despite only entering the market within the last three years, they were all rated very highly for billing accuracy, and well on bill clarity and value for money, equalling more established rivals.
The biggest six energy companies – British Gas, Eon, EDF, Npower, Scottish Power and SSE (now part of Ovo) – all finished in the lower third of the table, with Scottish Power languishing in the bottom three after achieving a lowly customer score of 51 per cent.
Customers with these six energy giants were more likely on average to have encountered problems with their provider. A third of British Gas customers, three in 10 Scottish Power customers and around a quarter of EDF Energy, Eon, Npower and SSE customers told us they had experienced a problem within the last year. In comparison, just one in 10 (11%) Octopus Energy customers said they had a problem with their provider.
SSE and Eon were the highest-scoring among the biggest energy firms and came in joint 24th with smaller firm E. SSE’s household energy business was recently purchased by Ovo, which means customers could see changes in their service in the future.
Eon is also set to take over Innogy, Npower’s parent company, in the next 12 months. These two major acquisitions could shake up the market and mean customers see changes.
Robin Hood Energy suffered the biggest fall in the rankings after it plummeted from second place last year to a mid-table ranking, tied with Boost Energy and Utilita.
While Robin Hood customers were generally positive about value for money and billing, a smaller proportion of people told us they would recommend the firm compared to last year.
Although a number of small companies dominated the top of the rankings, not all of the small and medium-sized firms performed well. Newcomer to the survey Ampower performed badly with a disappointing customer score of 53 per cent. Customers rated its billing, customer service and digital tools as poor.
Together Energy finished bottom of the table, despite having secured a mid-table position last year. It scored poor two-star ratings from customers for billing accuracy, clarity, customer service and value for money.
Last year, First Utility was rebranded as Shell Energy, and it has since dropped from a mid-table position to the bottom seven. While customers praised it for billing accuracy, its customer service was rated poorly.
Natalie Hitchins, Head of Home Products and Services at Which? said: “Consumers have dozens of energy suppliers to choose from – and it is clear that some newer challenger providers are better than their larger counterparts at keeping customers happy and delivering a better service.
“Customers shell out hundreds, sometimes thousands, of pounds a year on their gas and electricity bills so it is right that they expect good service from their energy supplier.
“If you are one of the many customers out there who feels their supplier is falling short, consider moving to one that can offer a better service as well as cheaper prices – you could save hundreds of pounds a year.”
For the full results, including how customers rank their energy supplier’s customer service, value for money, bills, complaints handling and more go to www.which.co.uk/energy-table
