.Fit for nothing
Would you wear a swimsuit that can’t withstand a heated swimming pool, rough surfaces or suntan lotions and becomes transparent when wet?
Are roof rails really roof rails if they can’t be used to transport loads and are installed for cosmetic purposes only? And what use exactly are see-through yoga pants?
Under Australian Consumer Law (ACL) these products could be deemed “not fit for purpose”, which means they don’t do what a reasonable person would expect.
In this report you’ll find information about:
CHOICE asked our members to write in with their examples of goods that may not have been fit for their purpose.
- Talina told us about shoes she bought to fit her 18-month-old, which stated that they were “not suitable for children under three years”.
- Em purchased swimming goggles which weren’t suitable for diving into pools.
- Jessica bought a purse with slots that were too small to fit cards into.
- Matt noticed a mountain bike sold at a department store which apparently was “not suitable for off-road use”.
- And in a league of its own, there’s the newborn baby bib dobbed in by CHOICE member Tania: it was “dry clean only”.
Other examples are plentiful.
Fancy a new swimming costume for summer? It pays to look closely, we found, when we went to Myer, David Jones, Surf Dive ’n’ Ski and Kmart to check out their ranges. We found that regardless of the price – whether a $20 Kmart basic or $270 designer number – the swimmers weren’t up to much.
A Kmart home brand one-piece had care instructions that seemed to go on and on. They warned against a host of activities: “Avoid excessive contact with suntan lotions, oils, rough surfaces, heated pools and spas treated with harsh chemicals. Some garments may be transparent when wet.”
Billabong’s $46 bikini top was equally stern in its warnings: “Never roll up when wet… avoid contact with suntan lotions, oils, rough surfaces, pools and spas treated with harsh chemicals.” And that old chestnut: “Some colours may be transparent when wet.” A Tigerlily swimsuit label stated that it shouldn’t be worn in heated pools or spas at all.
If these care instructions were followed, you’d have to cut out swimming pool and spa use, never sit on the rough edge of a pool or on grainy sand and risk revealing more of yourself than you intended – or abstain from entering any sort of water at all. In fact, CHOICE member Kerrie told us of her friend’s swimmers that became discoloured after the first wear. “She was advised [afterwards] by the sales assistant that they were designed for wearing around the pool, not in it.”
CHOICE staffer Karina Bray purchased a $55 Speedo Endurance cossie for her son’s swimming lessons. But after just a few wears, the bottom started pilling and wearing out.
“Considering this was an expensive pair of swimmers for a kid, and the fact that it is called “Endurance”, I don’t think this is good enough. Kids in swim classes are always being told to sit on the side of the pool so that they can receive instructions from their coaches, so swimmers need to be able to withstand that.”
Cosmetic roof rails?
Some items that aren’t fit for their purpose are more than just a nuisance – they can be downright dangerous!
When we awarded the Chery J1 car a Shonky in 2011, it was because a sticker inconspicuously placed on the inside of the roof rails warned: “Roof rails are for cosmetic purpose only. Do not use.” At the time, we worried about the future implication of these apparently decorative roof accessories. We wrote: “Whatever the “cosmetic purpose” for bearing this car equivalent of a toupee, we’re concerned that if the car manages to outlast the sticker and someone buys it secondhand, they won’t know not to use the rails.”
Two years on, the Chery J1 and its cosmetic roof rails have been pulled from the Australian market due to the car failing to meet new safety standards.
Sheer cheek: see-through yoga pants
Earlier this year, premium athletic clothing retailer Lululemon (which sells exercise pants in Australia for over $100 a pair) got into hot water over yoga pants that left little to the imagination, particularly when wearers bent over (which is quite likely if you were practising a downward dog yoga pose). In the company’s words the problem was with quality control, which led to “a level of sheerness in some of our women’s black Luon bottoms that falls short of our very high standards.”
The company identified the problem as affecting 17% of their black pants and issued a recall. However, despite this, there were reports of some sales assistants being overzealous in their handling of the situation.
The Consumerist, part of CHOICE’s US-based sister publication Consumer Reports, wrote: “Here’s the problem with Lululemon’s now-infamous see-through yoga pants: they look and feel pretty much the same as pants that aren’t see-through”.
“There’s really only one way to tell whether they’re truly see-through. You have to bend over and see whether anyone can see your business. Fans of the brand online report that some cashiers took this problem to its logical conclusion, and asked customers to bend over for butt inspections before they could return their pants.”
And while Lululemon says it has fixed the problem, there are continuing reports of fabric in all colours being too sheer. This time, the company is reportedly blaming consumers for ordering pants that are too small for them, and suggest ordering a size up in order to avoid sheerness.