THE CONSUMER WATCHDOG has written to schools telling them to avoid “restrictive and costly” uniform policies when parents are readying their children for the return to the classroom later this year.

Among the examples highlighted by the CCPC are exclusive suppliers, bespoke ‘crested’ uniform items and a “lack of opportunities” for families to shop around.

The Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (CCPC) has reminded schools that their school uniform arrangements could put “unnecessary financial” stress on families, while also doing “harm” to competition in the market.

Last year, the CCPC made recommendations on back-to-school costs, advising schools to use generic uniform items and ensure a competitive process underpins the appointment of any exclusive suppliers for school uniforms and tech devices.

However, despite last year’s warning, the CCPC said it is “still receiving complaints” through its consumer helpline from families who feel they have limited choice when purchasing uniforms”.

With the current school year drawing to a close, the regulator wants schools to again review their uniform policies and consider the previous recommendations.

Grainne Griffin, director of communications, consumer information and financial education, said that too many families are forced to pay “over the odds” for branded uniforms.

“We want consumers to be able to shop around and get better value for money. Even small changes in school policies can make a huge difference in easing that financial burden,” Griffin said.

While a number of schools have taken “positive steps” in this area, Griffin said, the CCPC there are many “frustrated families who feel limited in their choices” when dealing with back-to-school costs.

“Introducing changes such allowing generic uniform items, reducing bespoke pieces, or allowing iron-on or stitch-on crests can go a long way in helping families,” Griffin added.

Good and bad practices

In its press statement, the CPPC highlighted a number of examples of what it called bad practices by schools concerning uniforms.

These included one parent’s complaint that their daughter’s school has only one provider but is “extremely expensive”, despite cheaper options available elsewhere.

“However, they do state explicitly on their website the uniform must be bought from their official (only one!) supplier,” the parent told the CCPC.

The CCPC also cited a case where a school was claimed to have insisted on a newly crested PE uniform, but with “no alternative ‘non-crested’ alternatives to purchase at reduced prices”.

Another complained that their child’s school had “forced parents into an uncompetitive sole source supply arrangement without running any tender process” for the supply of more expensive uniforms.

Meanwhile, a case study of good practice noted that children were free to wear either a tracksuit or a more traditional uniform option in one school.

Parents have the option of buying crested jumpers from our suppliers, but ‘iron-on’ crests are also available for a token fee. Similarly, there are no penalties for not wearing the uniform in this school highlighted by the CCPC.