Jump to content

Recommended Posts

what has happened here? this used to be sparkling clean and aesthetically pleasing with good stock albeit tres expensive but we shopped there for that reason, ie unique clothes and accessories. this week there were 3 tiny plastic ducks for a childs bath for ?1 each! on the shelf and tatty shoes and gritty dirty shelves. The quality and aesthetics have plummeted. Its all very well having high end designer clothes and shoes donated but frankly if they are over 7 years old then perhaps they should be on a vintage rail and not presented as current. And whyare there low end garments more expensive than sold in the original low end store. There are other charity shops in which to source low end clothes but not what we expect from MLAGS

stores.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/70549-save-the-children-charity-shop/
Share on other sites

I saw a pair of Jimmy Choos in there the other week!


I've donated to Save the Children recently, I donated items from the 'more expensive' end of my wardrobe, e.g. stuff from Coast and very nice dresses from Warehouse. Appreciate both these shops are high street and not designer, I still felt the quality of the items was more suitable for Save the Children than the other charity shops we have. I always enjoy a browse and am often surprised at some of the stuff people are prepared to donate when they could get a decent amount of money themselves on eBay.

I found children's clothes in there from a multipack being sold as single items for a higher price than the original shop.


One example was baby grows from Sainsburys which were selling for ?2 each when they are ?6 for five as a multipack.


Agree it's great to donate to charity but don't agree it should be more expensive than buying items from the original seller, whether they are new or secondhand. Feels dishonest to me?


And I found secondhand muslins in a bundle which were dirty... :(


Angharad

I've donated some higher end items that I could well have made money from on eBay (Nicole Farhi, Toast, Cos) but decided I'd rather make a contribution to this worthwhile charity. I recently got an email to say that so far my items have raised over ?150. That's much more than I would have donated directly. I don't have money to burn and could have put that sum to good use had I got that from eBay sales but I think Save the Children will put it to much better use.

Lynne Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> They were asking ?290 for a "vintage" mirror that

> was obviously new, which is probably against

> various trading laws.. ?290 would have been very

> expensive even if t was old. Still, if someone was

> daft enough to part with their money......



I guess that is what they are banking on.


I've only been in there once. Saw their prices and came straight out again :(

Not unreasonable when running a multi-billion ? organisation that reaches many millions of children worldwide. Pay peanuts you get monkeys.


HerneHill81 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well, they need the money. Their Chief Executive's

> salary is over ?130,000 per annum. Give

> generously, folks!

I agree....my friend holds a senior position at Save and she's the hardest working person I know, often in the office til midnight working on deadlines, at weekends too, and altho on a decent salary it doesn't compare to people I have worked with in the city who do much less.....





Not unreasonable when running a multi-billion ? organisation that reaches many millions of children worldwide. Pay peanuts you get monkeys.


HerneHill81 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well, they need the money. Their Chief Executive's

> salary is over ?130,000 per annum. Give

> generously, folks!




Not unreasonable when running a multi-billion ? organisation that reaches many millions of children worldwide. Pay peanuts you get monkeys.


HerneHill81 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well, they need the money. Their Chief Executive's

> salary is over ?130,000 per annum. Give

> generously, folks!

I guess charity shops are driven by what people donate, and there was a piece in The Guardian today mentioning this which may be relevant -


"The rise of discounters such as Aldi, Lidl and Primark has played a role in both factors. Not only have they increased competition for charity shops, but the growing popularity of cut-price clothing means the quality of the garments in people?s wardrobes is not what it was. So, when a household clears out its wardrobes, unwanted clothing is more likely to go in the bin than be taken to the charity shop. Oxfam said that donations fell by 2% last year."


Full article here - http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/aug/14/oxfam-tough-test-new-era-lidl-aldi-primark

Hi everyone,


As a volunteer of the shop mentioned here, I would like to take this opportunity to apologise if any of you are unhappy with your experience of Living & Giving. It is a really wonderful shop to work for and we all work very hard to provide quality products at great prices for our very valued customers.


We strive to only sell items that fit within the MLAG ethos, but as I'm sure you will all understand, sometimes differences of opinion on price, label and quality can sometimes (and hopefully, rarely!) occur, especially when we are introducing new volunteers into the team. Great care is taken with training to make sure this is only transitory. We are EXTREMELY picky about what goes onto the shop floor, from the huge number of donations we have each week. Anything not suitable for MLAG goes straight to a Save The Children shop, so we are really taking care to make the shop look as amazing as possible. It would be very hard for us to have a dedicated area to vintage as the shop is small and we only actually receive truly vintage clothes sporadically.


Any damaged, dirty or wrongfully priced items are swiftly dealt with and we are always happy to discuss any items you are not happy with. We're a very friendly bunch of people, so please don't be afraid to point things out to us! I personally was told about the mirror and we have rectified the error, so apologies to all who were upset by this.


We also now have a fantastic NEW manager (after a long search) that is now making sure MLAG is a wonderful place for you all to donate and shop on Lordship Lane....I hope you will all continue to support the work we try and do to raise as much money as possible for the charity.


Anyone is welcome to volunteer (only the managerial position is salaried) and you only need to give 4 hours of your time per week. Please feel free to pop by and pick up a form to join us and see for yourselves the work we do.

  • 2 weeks later...

Lynne Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> They were asking ?290 for a "vintage" mirror that

> was obviously new, which is probably against

> various trading laws.. ?290 would have been very

> expensive even if t was old. Still, if someone was

> daft enough to part with their money......



Is there supposed to be a decimal pint in there? If not they are having a laugh. I don't expect to find things that expensive in a charityshop.

  • 3 weeks later...

Jacqui5254 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I imagine it is a reflection of the donations

> received.

>

> How many people actually have donated 'high end

> designer clothes and shoes' since the shop opened?


Me, I donate to Save the Children and my wardrobe is pretty high-end. I think they were most likely my Choos that someone spotted. Ebay isn't for everyone; I don't like ebay and I don't use it. I'd much rather have a charity make money than a big corporate take a large cut of the profits. If I'm donating something that I paid ???? for then I want the charity to make as much money as possible.

SoozieW Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lynne Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > They were asking ?290 for a "vintage" mirror

> that

> > was obviously new, which is probably against

> > various trading laws.. ?290 would have been

> very

> > expensive even if t was old. Still, if someone

> was

> > daft enough to part with their money......

>

>

> Is there supposed to be a decimal pint in there?

> If not they are having a laugh. I don't expect to

> find things that expensive in a charityshop.


Good point Soozie but as a volunteer in a charity shop not a million miles away, I have to say we receive the most eclectic mix of donations it's possible to have-some items are personally pointed out by the donor as being worth a fair amount and we have to respect that and get as good a price as we can. For example-jewellery, new with tags designer items or fantastic pieces of furniture. It's a fine balance between honouring the donor, maximising money for our charity and keeping customer's happy so they'll come back!

This might be a good opportunity to remind us all to donate some of our unwanted [and decent!] things.


Or donate as an option to helping with the refugee crisis.



http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/about-us/emergencies/child-refugee-crisis-appeal?utm_campaign=refugee&utm_medium=ppc&utm_source=refugeecrisisappealppc&sissr=1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...