‘Catfishing': Dodgy tradies' insane rip off tactics exposed
Frustrating issues normally seen in the dating world have rocked Australia's home repairs and renovations industry, with homeowners warned about a concerning rise in 'catfish tradies'.
These smooth talking operators have been reported to be luring unsuspecting clients with too-good-to-be-true quotes, only to spring them with extra charges once works begin.
Catfish tradies also include companies who misrepresent their previous jobs with fake imagery or qualifications and then deliver shonky projects that fall well short of what clients were promised.
MORE: 'Crippling': Tradies in turmoil over meltdown
It comes as hipages research showed Australians' confidence in tradies has eroded over time, with 66 per cent of those surveyed in a recent poll saying they struggled to find one they could trust.
This lack of trust, coupled with a widespread ignorance about proper qualifications and pricing, is creating perfect waters for these Catfish Tradies to thrive, according to hipages.
Homeowners caught in the web of catfishing tradies were losing thousands of dollars on projects that were substandard or didn't deliver on specifications.
Relationship expert Sera Bozza said it was homeowners' lack of understanding of how to select a tradie that was creating a particularly favourable environment for catfishing behaviours.
Many people still relied on gut feeling, handshakes and false recommendations for sourcing tradies, which made it easier for them to be exploited, Ms Bozza said.
MORE: 40yo 'disappointed' he only has 300 homes
'Sometimes tradies can be really charming and the homeowner will get swept up by it all,' she said.
'Often what happens is there is a lump sum quote that's given in the beginning but once they get to the job it becomes itemised. It's all added up to a total and it's a lot higher.
'(Catfishing) tradies misrepresent their experience, qualifications and past work to win jobs … they offer quotes that seem too good to be true and often use misrepresented photos to seal the deal.'
Ms Bozza added that a lack of knowledge about pricing exacerbated the issue.
About two thirds of those polled by hipages said they were in the dark about how much hiring a tradie should cost, leaving them vulnerable to inflated invoices and hidden fees.
'About 2 million Aussies have hired the wrong tradie at some point,' Ms Bozza said,
'Platforms like hipages let tradies show reviews, but there are other ways people find tradies and without these verifications it's easy to go by just a handshake or a feeling.
'Many people don't know what they are looking for. It's essentially guesswork. And that makes it rife for catfishing.'
Ms Bozza highlighted some key red flags homeowners should watch out for – many of which were similar to certain types of dating trends. These behaviours were categorised as:
> Mr Unreliable: A tradie who promises to call but never does. 'Trust comes from consistency,' Ms Bozza warned. 'If they're hard to reach before the job starts, imagine how they'll handle your timeline.'
> The Pick-Me Tradie: Someone who trashes other tradies to win your job. 'If they need to bag out the competition to look good, they're not the better choice,' Ms Bozza said.
> The Zero Footprint: An operator with no reviews, license, or verified history. 'If you can't find anything about them online, there's a likely reason,' Ms Bozza said.
> Lying About Their Height (and Their Quotes): Quoting one price and invoicing another.
> The Catfish Carpenter: Photoshopped pics and work that looks nothing like promised. 'Being catfished by an unqualified tradie can leave you feeling betrayed and duped with dodgy results.'
Signs of a good tradie were that they confirmed quotes and actually showed up, Ms Bozza added. They also had legitimate photos and something of an online presence with substantive reviews.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
31 minutes ago
- News.com.au
Experts back NSW Premier Chris Minns' plea for cigarette tax cut despite opposition
NSW Premier Chris Minns says law-abiding citizens are being 'dragged into the black market' by the federal government's tobacco tax – and he wants that to change. Mr Minns threw down the gauntlet this week when he called for a re-evaluation of the tobacco excise, kicking-off political rows in both Sydney and Canberra. Twice yearly, the federal government sets the excise for tobacco products but in this year's budget recorded a $5.2bn decline in revenue since 2022-23. The NSW Premier has pointed the finger at illicit sales at tobacconists, some 5000 of which have opened up across NSW over the past few years. 'There's a whole bunch of law-abiding people who wouldn't break the law in a million years,' Mr Minns said. 'But, they're being dragged into a black market where they go to the store and they can either buy a $17 packet of illegal cigarettes or a $60 packet of cigarettes. 'It's a no-brainer.' Despite pushback, Mr Minns said every tax change started with 'an idea from someone who calls out a policy that's no longer fit for purpose'. 'So, let's get the ball rolling here because these illegal tobacco stores are pushing out hot bread shops, small businesses and restaurants. 'Because the sales from illegal tobacco are so lucrative, they can just pay the rent at a higher price. 'Something's gone amiss here and we need to have a crack at fixing it alongside our federal colleagues.' Mr Minns earlier signalled that police resources may have to be moved from domestic violence and organised crime to combat illicit tobacco. Mr Minns said the situation was 'intolerable', with 'every to-let shop in every high street in Sydney taken over by a tobacconist'. 'The biggest supporters of a massive excise on tobacco sales in NSW are probably organised criminals,' he said. 'It's a giant black market and major display on every street in every suburb in NSW.' No easy answers On Wednesday, federal Treasurer Jim Chalmers ruled out any change to the excise, saying making cigarettes cheaper wouldn't solve the issue of the booming illegal tobacco trade. In NSW, there are about 19,500 tobacco stores across the state – up from 14,500 a few years earlier – that are overseen by only about 30 health inspectors. A parliamentary inquiry into illicit tobacco sales, pushed for by the NSW opposition, will later this year examine which agency is best suited to the task. Until now, Liberal leader Mark Speakman has remained mum on whether NSW Police should takeover illicit tobacco enforcement from NSW Health. On Thursday, Mr Speakman said illicit tobacco had exploded under Mr Minns and organised criminal gangs were 'raking in big money'. 'They know NSW has minimal enforcement and some of the weakest penalties in the country,' Mr Speakman said. 'While other states have acted to drastically increase penalties and improve enforcement, Chris Minns has been missing in action. 'Now that the federal Treasurer has ruled out changes to the federal excise, Chris Minns needs to tell people how he is going to tackle this issue.' Under law, an individual found to be selling a prohibited tobacco product faces a maximum fine of $55,000 for a first offence. Those laws will change on July 1 when a new tobacco licensing scheme is introduced, requiring businesses to obtain a tobacco retailing licence. Businesses found to be selling tobacco products without a licence will face fines of up to $220,000 and $44,000 for an individual. Nonetheless, the issue sparked a fierce debate in NSW parliament on Wednesday between Mr Speakman and Police Minister Yasmin Catley. Asked about whether anti-gang Taskforce Falcon will expand its remit to illicit tobacco, Ms Catley struck out. 'The leader of the opposition knows that it is Health that enforce illicit tobacco. He knows that,' she said. 'And, he has come in here and has the audacity to come in here and say the police are not doing their job. Well, shame on you. Shame on you. 'NSW Police are doing absolutely everything they can and I am disgusted that the leader of the opposition could come to the NSW parliament and suggest otherwise.' For his part, NSW Health Minister Ryan Park has pointed the finger at the former Coalition government for not earlier introducing a licensing scheme. What do the experts say? Over the past six years, the duty price put on a 20-pack of cigarettes has gone up by about 75 per cent – from $16 to $28. As a result, the price of a packet at the counter sits about $40-50, with the cheapest little more than $30. Illicit cigarettes, meanwhile, cost about $13-15 per 20-pack and up to $20 for premium brands. University of Sydney School of Public Health researcher Edward Jegasothy supported Mr Minns' comments on the tobacco excise. He said there was no solution to the prevalence of illicit tobacco without a re-examination of the 'punitive' policy. 'There's really no ethical basis for the policy because it's essentially just a punitive policy attack on the poor,' he said. Mr Jegasothy said the policy had failed to demonstrate any 'meaningful health benefits and certainly no equitable health benefits'. 'I can't see a solution that doesn't have involve bringing down the tax,' he said. 'It has to be part of the solution … because it is essentially putting more holes in the bottom of the boat.' Mr Jegasothy said the belief that the excise, in increasing the cost of cigarettes, would reduce rates of smoking 'didn't hold water'. With rates of smoking higher among poor and marginalised groups, he instead encouraged solutions that addressed the root causes, 'which is largely poverty'. He urged for a review of the excise as a public health policy, including up until the explosion of black market sales in the early 2020s. That explosion, Mr Jegasothy suggested, came as a result of a combination of factors, including the cumulative impact of the excise and a tightening on loose leaf tobacco. The Australian Association of Convenience Stores has also backed Mr Minns' call for a rethink of the tobacco excise. Chief executive Theo Foukkare said it was 'extraordinary that it's gotten to this point'. 'Tobacco is a price-sensitive consumer product,' he said. 'If you put a price on it that is manifestly higher than what people can afford, they'll find a cheaper alternative and that's where this incredibly dangerous black market is cashing in – and even worse, they're using that money to fund the most atrocious crimes.' What about other states? NSW is far from the only state or territory in Australia where the issue of illicit tobacco has become a hot-button topic in recent years. In Victoria, police have continuingly battled the so-called tobacco wars, conflict between organised crime groups during which stores have been burned. According to Victoria Police, there were about 1300 stand-alone tobacco stores in the state – of these, 1000 sell some kind of illicit tobacco. From July 1, business caught possessing or selling an illicit tobacco product in Victoria face fines of up to $1.7m. For an individual, that penalty is about $830,000 or 15 years in prison. Further north, Queensland Health seized more than 15.2 million illicit cigarettes worth $12.2m across the state between July 1, 2024 and February 28, 2025. Mr Jegasothy said outside of NSW and Victoria, there was little publicly available information about the prevalence of illicit tobacco.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Aldi is known for drawing inspiration from big brands. Here's how experts say the retailer does it
It's no secret that Aldi, the supermarket chain that once had the slogan "like brands, only cheaper", sells products visually similar to well-established competitors. In the cereal aisle of each store, brown boxes of Power Grain are reminiscent of their Kellogg's counterpart, and in the snack aisle packets of Blackstone chips appear to draw inspiration from Red Rock Deli. In the US, blue boxes of Aldi-brand cream-filled biscuits are so similar to Oreos that the company behind the snack giant is suing the supermarket for "blatant copying". It's not the first time the chain has landed in legal trouble over its cheaper, duplicated private-label brands. In Australia, there have been several legal cases against Aldi. But intellectual property and consumer experts are not worried about this case creating legal implications for Australian consumers, who they say are largely unphased by Aldi's "phantom labels". "Ultimately the key reason they [Aldi] do this is about visual congruence," retail expert Gary Mortimer said. "So, when we're shopping in a supermarket, it's historically a mundane, habitual, low-involvement decision-making context. 'You walk down an aisle and you think Cadbury is purple. They [consumers] are influenced by pack colour, brand name or packaging shape." Professor Mortimer said when a consumer saw a product similar to another brand's, they might infer it was the same. "What the danger is, is a customer goes, 'Well, actually, their cereal is just as good as the Kellogg's version,'" he said. "Brands themselves spend a lot of money ensuring their brand is high quality. "Then a new player enters with a private label that looks very similar and, therefore, all of that positioning you've done with that product, the private label takes advantage of that position. "Brands would be concerned about that." Professor Mortimer said the private Aldi label was perceived as higher value than, say, the Coles or Woolworths generic-brands. "You won't get Aldi-brand biscuits, you'll get Belmont." In fact, they are so popular, other chains are taking a leaf out of the Aldi playbook, creating their own, cheaper, private brands. He said Woolworths and Coles had created private labels that sold cleaning products and pet food. "To some point, supermarkets understand we won't feed our dog Woolworths pet food but we might feed them a cheaper brand like Baxter's, which is actually Woolworths owned." With Choice ranking Aldi as the cheapest supermarket in Australia in its past five surveys, legal experts say the occasional legal challenges Aldi faces for sailing "close to the wind" with its packaging and branding are largely justified. While Aldi has faced legal challenges in Australia in the past over its packaging and the likeness of its products to rivals, the University of Sydney's Fady Aoun says it is far more challenging to take Aldi to court here. The senior lecturer in intellectual property law said this was because Australia's legal systems were vastly different to those in the US, for instance. "In the realm of trademark law and other forms of forms of policing commercial practices, American law is vastly different to Australian law," he said. "And, in addition to trademark infringement, they have something called unfair competition, which Australian law doesn't adopt "Their trademark law is far more protective of arguably trading interests and goes further than the Australian law in this respect." But there are several ways legal action can be pursued. Last year in Australia the company Hampden Holdings and Lacorium Health Australia successfully sued Aldi Foods for breach of copyright in relation to children's food products. Hampden licenses intellectual property to Every Bite Counts, which sells children's food products under Baby Bellies, Little Bellies and Mighty Bellies, which are sold in Australia. In 2018 and 2019, Aldi engaged the company Motor Design to re-design the packaging for its baby food and product range. The case found that in April 2019, Aldi instructed Motor Design to reuse the Little Bellies brand as the "benchmark" for the re-design of the packaging for its Mamia dry food range. The packaging and labelling were put side by side in court documents to highlight how similar each looked. "Aldi, they sail close to the wind," Dr Aoun said. "They sometimes overstep the mark. Other times they're just short of what is impermissible. "I suspect there is a strong legal department there and that's their business mode." The court found Hampden and Lacorium's owned the packaging designs. Aldi is currently appealing against the court decision. It was approached for comment. "The typical claims in Australia here are trademark infringement, misleading and deceptive conduct and — much more difficult — the common law action of 'passing off'," Dr Aoun said. "Hampden is just a company that holds IP rights and they are the holder of the copyright," Jane Rawlings, an intellectual property barrister said. "So they weren't suing on the trademark; they were suing on the look of the packaging, how it presents itself to consumers. "That was successful because the court had found Aldi had deliberately modelled their snacks on the Baby Bellies." Separately, Aldi won a federal court appeal in 2018 against a deceptive conduct ruling over hair care products brought against the supermarket chain by Moroccanoil Israel. Dr Rawlings said this was harder to prove. "You have to show there is reputational goodwill in the brand, and in this purpose it is by using a similar name, brand or look that misleads consumers and that damages the goodwill of the brand because they're being diverted to a cheaper alternative or because the brand owner is losing sales," she said. "You have to still prove the conduct has been deceptive and what Aldi do is tread a fine line where they've got a lookalike brand but it's not enough to argue consumers are being misled." In the UK in 2023, Cider producer Thatcher's successfully won a legal battle against Aldi, claiming it "copycatted" its Cloudy Lemon Cider in "taste and appearance". This was a lookalike trademark case that argued Aldi's Taurus drink had been "deliberately riding on the coat-tails" of the cider company's reputation as a brand. Dr Rawlings said she believed registering a brand as a trademark was one of the best ways to protect it. "To be honest, and if I were a brand owner trying to protect the look of packaging, I'd be looking very seriously at trademarking registration because it's relatively cheap and then you can basically sue on the trademark registration." Ultimately, experts agree the impact on consumers is relatively low. "What Aldi will typically say is our consumers are not confused [and that] while they may draw inspiration from leading brands there's no confusion people know what they're getting," Dr Aoun said.
SBS Australia
an hour ago
- SBS Australia
'I shouldn't have lied to them': Accused mushroom cook's week on the witness stand
Mushroom cook Erin Patterson has admitted to lies, spoken of past shames and apologised while testifying at her triple murder trial. The 50-year-old has pleaded not guilty over the deaths of her former in-laws Don and Gail Patterson, 70, and Gail's sister Heather Wilkinson, 66, following a July 2023 lunch. Patterson also denies the attempted murder of the only survivor of the meal, Heather's husband Ian Wilkinson. The church pastor has attended most days of the trial after giving evidence himself and this week sat quietly at the back of court watching Patterson in the witness box. She maintains the poisonings were not deliberate. The Supreme Court trial in Victoria's regional town of Morwell has run into its sixth week, with curious spectators queuing before dawn to grab a coveted seat from where they could witness the accused give evidence. Sitting behind a varnished timber stand, Patterson told the jury about having low self-esteem as an adult and wanting to do something about her weight and poor eating habits. She also admitted lying to her lunch guests about it. "I was planning to have gastric bypass surgery, and so I remember thinking, 'I didn't want to tell anybody what I was going to have done'," she told the court. "I thought perhaps letting them believe I had some serious issue that needed treatment might mean they'd be able to help me with the logistics around the kids." She told the jury she had also invited her estranged husband Simon Patterson for lunch that day to talk about "some health stuff" but he did not attend. Patterson said she mentioned at the table an issue she had "a year or two earlier where I thought I had ovarian cancer and had various scans about and related to that". "I'm not proud of this but I led them to believe that I might be needing some treatment in regards to that in the next few weeks or months." "Did you lie to them?" Defence barrister Colin Mandy SC asked. "I did lie to them," she replied. Asked why, Patterson said: "I was really embarrassed. I was ashamed of the fact that I didn't have control over my body or what I ate ... I didn't want to tell anybody but I shouldn't have lied to them." Crown prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC asked about that conversation but Patterson denied she told her lunch guests she had been diagnosed with cancer and needed advice on how to break this news to her children. "I suggest you never thought you'd have to account for this lie about having cancer because you thought the lunch guests would die," Rogers said. "That's not true," Patterson replied. "What I was trying to communicate was … that I was undergoing investigations around ovarian cancer and might need treatment in that regard in the future." Mandy cited the accused's police interview on 5 August 2023, where she told them she had never dehydrated food and denied owning a dehydrator. "Were those lies?" Mandy asked. "Yes," Patterson replied. Asked why she lied to detectives about the dehydrator, Patterson said: "I had disposed of it a few days earlier in the context of thinking that maybe mushrooms that I'd foraged for the meal I prepared was responsible for making people sick." After police told her Gail and Heather had died during a search of her home before the interview, Patterson said she had a "stupid knee-jerk reaction to just dig deeper and keep lying". "I was just scared but I shouldn't have done it," Patterson said. He asked Patterson if her answer to police that she had "never" foraged for mushrooms was also a lie. "Yes, they were both lies," she replied. Months before the fatal lunch, Patterson revealed she had apologised for sending Facebook messages to her online friends about her relatives after a dispute between her and Simon about child support and schooling. She said she did not mean the messages, "this family, I swear to f***ing god" and "I'm sick of this shit, I want nothing to do with them", insisting it was her "venting" frustration. "It wasn't Don and Gail's fault. It wasn't the family's fault. It wasn't even entirely Simon's fault. I played a part in the issue too," she told the court. After returning from a family holiday to New Zealand, Patterson said she apologised to her in-laws. "What were you apologising for?" Mandy asked. "For trying to involve them in something that they didn't need to be worried about," she said. "I wasn't asking them to take sides but, in effect, I was. "I wanted them to agree with me that I was right and Simon was wrong, and that wasn't fair." She denied Rogers assertion she was angry with them for taking Simon's side in the dispute or that those comments were her true feelings towards her in-laws.
