Shonkys 2020 Winners Announced

If you treat the ability to play the game as a “service” then if you have paid a fee to use such service and it then fails at some point then under the ACL it is still possibly a claimable item. How much you should get back is then determined by how long you have used the service, how much you paid, and if there are ongoing fees.

The fact that as a retailer Google suggest they are only responsible for 48 hours flies in the face of ACL requirements. They provide the store, they take a cut of the price paid, so under ACL they should certainly be treated as a retailer with all the requirements that entails under ACL. I would certainly raise a complaint and include the Google response as an attachment and certainly make mention of their stance that they are only a payment processor that forwards the payment made to the developer…they don’t make mention that they actually remove part of that payment as a cost of selling the product…


I’ve had an interesting response to this matter of my case, their more to the story, then what I’ve written down so far on these forms, its like dealing with a Lemon Car or Caravan, Like any other product I would expect to last for an reasonable amount time. I’m not going to discuss it any further on this thread, I’ll start up new topic later on, again thank you Choice Letting me join this community.


A post was merged into an existing topic: Courier and Delivery Services

With regards to the comment about Australia Post slowing down the mail in order to get the parcels through quicker, the post has already been slowed down to make people think that express post is worth paying extra for, and it’s been like that since the days of Tony Abbott’s turn in the PM’s chair.

Back when Malcolm Turnbull was a lowly communications minister for Tony Abbott, not only did he slow down the NBN speeds by killing off the Fibre to the Premises model, but he also deliberately slowed down Australia Post speeds. It was in the news at the time and no one seemed to care.

So basically, if you don’t pay for an express service, all your mail gets held in Limbo for at least 2 days before it gets to go any further in its journey from point a to point b. Usually at one of the main mail sorting hubs.

Again, this was done purely so the express post would seem like it was faster. They were very transparent about it at the time. Unfortunately, it’s still in place. So now your letters are getting held back twice. Once for being lowly regular post items, and once again so the posties can deliver the parcels without having to worry about the letters every second day.


It may be a technical distinction but Auspost is on record as stating those ‘$0.50 extra priority stamped letters’ are getting the same caring service as the regular slow ones, at least until 30 June 2021, with some bulk mail special cases.

It will not be surprising if the special arrangements for COVID-19 become COVID normal, and then normal, and all letters need that extra $0.50 for ‘priority delivery’ and ‘standard delivery’ is no longer offered - going the way of international sea mail.


How about ‘TICK’ travel insurance?
We purchased a top level travel policy well before the pandemic cut-off date and customer service advised we were covered for our trip which was cancelled by the specialist trip operator due to the pandemic.
We submitted comprehensive evidence to TICK, and while waiting for a decision, managed to claim back most expenses via credit card charge-backs (thanks Choice for the tip!) and our airline refunded our flight costs. This all took around 5 months, and we notified TICK of the residual sum claimed. The very next day they advised our claim was unsuccessful because we hadn’t done enough to recover our costs (despite our claim starting at >$8k and managing to get it down to $500 ourselves). They also included details of what was obviously someone else’s claim in their response, citing the wrong airline company and destination.
We appealed the decision and requested re-assessment since we had no confidence they had assessed the correct claim, and they eventually paid up the residual amount less $400 excess, but we waited 8 months for this shonky treatment. We won’t be using them again, and I think they definitely deserve a nomination for a rubbish product.


16 posts were split to a new topic: Why does it take a long time for bank transfers or a refund to be received?

This if definitely a contender, and possibly should be seriously considered for inclusion because of the serious safety risks of their use…


Swann Security Cameras and their SwannCloud app. This was always a buggy system from the time I installed it several years ago, but it was at least usable. This app becomes less functional and user friendly with each successive software “update”. I use Swann cameras and the associated SwannCloud app to control and view my 6 home security cameras, but the latest update (made on 30 June 2020) has made the whole system virtually useless. The SwannCloud (Android) app crashes upon just about every launch, and often crashes some time after a successful launch, and also has several other intermittent little gremlins including the push notifications for events not working. Despite the latest update stating “Live streaming connection stability fixes implemented” and “Live streaming improvement fixes” it is no longer possible to live stream the cameras over the mobile network, which then in turn effects some of the app’s other functionality, including the ability to remotely pan and scan the cameras. Looking at the feedback for this app on the Google Store, I’m definitely not the only one experiencing these issues with nearly every comment reflecting these same issues and the lack of support from Swann themselves, with the app (and the security cameras that rely upon the app to function) receiving a lowly 1.6 stars.

I would consider Swann Communications to be a well-established and somewhat well regarded company, but this system and Swann’s lack of response, or slowness to resolve the issues that so many people are experiencing must be severely damaging their credibility as a reputable security camera business.


Since the outbreak of COVID our local Bunnings has been putting out one or two discretely placed bottles of hand sanitiser in the paint department well away from the entrance for customes to find and use. They also put out a spray bottle out sugar soap, though I am not sure why and what value sugar soap would have against COVID.

The Oomph sanitiser they offer has the bold claim that it kills 99.9% of Germs WITHOUT WATER* (on the back label it says *such as E. coli and S. aureus). COVID is a virus and not a germ, so that claim is irrelevant as a COVID safety product. What is relevant is the main ingredient which is alcohol, but there is no percentage provided, so we have no way of knowing if it effective against the COVID virus. The next main ingredient is the grandiosely named ‘aqua’.

I was curious so I went to their webpage ( listed with their contact information. This passes the browser straight to The hand sanitiser is not even mentioned among their products so there is no way to check the veracity of the 99.9% kill effectiveness, or more importantly what the alcohol percentage is to see it it works against COVID.

I finally found the Oomph Hand Sanitiser Safety Data Sheet, and the TWA (Total Weight Average?) shows it has 53.19% alcohol. Therefore it is ineffective against COVID, and there is no evidence it kills 99.9% of germs, so I would like to nominate it as SHONKY!


But the bottle contains aqua…or a marketing term for water. So if it works as claimed, it kills with water, not without.


:sweat_smile: Great pick-up I missed that!

Then it’s a DOUBLE SHONKY for false advertising the water aspect as well.


I can’t find that one. The product appears to be made by Pascoes the datasheet for it here is not entirely clear but says the alcohol content is greater than 50%. TWA means time weighted average and AFAIK does not refer to content but exposure standards.


I note this is the same manufacturer (Pascoe’s) who I complained about here


Still at least 10% under what is needed to be effective against COVID.


We don’t know that. The datasheet is there to record hazards and responses to hazards not quantitative analysis or value as a sanitiser. I don’t know the protocols but it may be that >50% is a category used for assessing flammability, poisoning etc, that is risks that have nothing to do with efficacy as a hand sanitiser. The sanitiser could be much more than 50% and still in the > 50% category as far as safety is concerned.

Take another example, Lifebuoy Hand Sanitiser, the Choice analysis says it is 94% alcohol. the MSDS says it is >60%

Unless somebody can come up with an analysis of the product or testing results as a sanitiser we don’t know if Oomph is shonky or not.


As Pasco also makes Scott’s hand sanitiser, it is likely to be the same product which is rebranded. Pascoe’s indicates that Scotts has an alcohol concentration of >70%. I can’t find the same FAQ for Oomph to confirm this is the case though.

1 Like

I searched through the Oomph site and couldn’t find anything about alcohol content.

I would not be confident in ascribing the alcohol concentration of >70% to Oomph without corroberating evidence. For example; Oomph may be a lower quality product range, or a range formulated just for Bunnings, and hence not have the same quality or ingredients as the Scott’s range.

1 Like

Our local Bunnings only has the Scott’s range…so they might be delivering both Oomph and Scott’s to Bunnings as the same product type.

The only way to find out is to contact Pascoe and ask the question.


No mention yet of Intrepid Travel its problematic treatment of refunds during the COVID-19 crisis? After a long flurry of e-mails, including a threat of legal action by me, I eventually got a refund of some undeliverable travel from Intrepid Travel but only after being treated like something of an outsider for not wanting to take advantage of their 120% credit, which changed rapidly to a 110% travel credit, but always with an impossible turns-into-a-pumpkin date. Terms and conditions on Intrepid’s website changed suddenly, without any reminder to clients who had already paid that the unilateral changes were illegal. Still awaiting refund on two Garuda airfares bought through Intrepid. I was advised on 12 May 2020 by Intrepid, “Airlines are advising processing times of around 12 weeks due to the increased volume of refunds but as soon as we receive monies back from Garuda, we will be in touch and will forward the refund back to your original payment.” Still waiting five months after this advice, some ten months after paying for flights that could not be delivered.