Business
I have no regrets about regifting – What to do with unwanted presents
Richard WilsonMost of us have received at least one Christmas present that missed the mark – a jumper that doesn’t fit, a hideous ornament or a perfume you don’t like.
Not every present is greeted with delight – so instead of banishing them to the back of a cupboard, how can you get rid of them without causing offence?
1. Regift
Getty ImagesFor Dawn-Maria France from North Yorkshire, the solution to unwanted gifts is simple – pass them on to someone else. She says right after Christmas is the perfect time.
She never feels any guilt for doing so and believes it is a more sustainable way of celebrating the festive season. “One year I was given some garden seeds that I had no use for,” she says.
Rather than letting them go to waste, Dawn-Maria re-gifted them to a green-fingered friend. “It’s a budget-friendly way to manage spending, especially during the cost-of-living crisis, and it’s helped me declutter my home,” she adds.
The habit could also help tackle a much bigger problem. Each year, an estimated £42m worth of unwanted presents are thrown away in the UK, with some ending up in landfill.
Dawn-Maria re-wrapped her garden seeds adding a personalised note hinting that it was a regift. “I was given this but I knew you’d love it,” she wrote.
“It promotes sustainability,” she says. “I have no regrets about regifting”.
2. Hide the evidence
Antoinette AkanjiSo how do you regift without causing offence?
“Don’t get caught out,” warns Louise Minchin, who presents the BBC’s Rip Off Britain programme, advising regifters to remove any labels or notes that might be addressed to someone else.
Before re-wrapping she recommends inspecting the gift carefully to make sure no seals have been broken or show signs of wear.
If it’s been opened or is part of an incomplete set, it’s a clear giveaway the item isn’t new.
“I’ve been caught out,” admits BBC Radio 2’s Reverend Kate Bottley who forgot to check there wasn’t a card inside a gift she passed on. “They opened it and I said ‘Oh no, I’m so sorry,'” she recalls.
It’s enough to make both parties cringe. The BBC’s Morning Live regular Dr Oscar remembers being handed a box of chocolates with the message “Dear Mrs Smith, Thanks for being my teacher this year”. It didn’t stop him regifting though, “I just took the label off for the next one,” he says.
Etiquette expert Antoinette Akanji’s has another golden rule: regift outside your social circle.
“If your aunt has given you a jumper that you didn’t like, do not regift this to your cousin,” she says. “She may see your cousin wearing it and this could provoke an awkward conversation.”
“You need to ensure that the original giver and the new recipient aren’t likely to cross paths.”
3. Resell
Kirsty QuinnKirsty Quinn, 36 from Oxfordshire says she makes about £500 a month reselling items sourced from car boot sales and charity shops on eBay and Vinted.
“I think if you receive a gift that you’re not going to use or don’t like, and it’s likely to just sit in a drawer or even end up in landfill, then I don’t see the harm in re-gifting…or selling it online,” she says.
“Selling unwanted gifts can help someone else get something they want at a cheaper price, which feels especially relevant given how tough the economy is at the moment,” she adds.
“It also means the seller can put that money towards something they actually need, something that improves their life, or something they’ll truly use. To me, that feels more practical and sustainable than letting items go to waste.”
Vinted says the first Sunday of each year sees a spike in listings of unwanted gifts – averaging three times the normal daily rate
Last year’s top-listed items women’s toiletries and perfumes, jewellery, nightwear and make-up, according to the platform.
Fashion dominated the most-bought items after Christmas closely followed by entertainment and electronics, Vinted says.
Vinted’s tips for reselling presents without offending the person who bought them include using a username that is not easily identifiable and keeping the background of photos neutral.
“Many members will however choose to regift openly, and will include phrases like ‘unwanted gift’ in their item description,” a Vinted spokesperson says. “This often helps buyers better understand the condition of the item.”
4. Donate
Getty ImagesIf regifting doesn’t feel right there are plenty of other ways to pass on the joy, says Louise.
Donating to charity is an obvious option – and one that can make a real difference. Charity shops eagerly await the post-christmas clear-out, when unwanted gifts become someone else’s treasure.
This is also echoed by Allison Swaine-Hughes, retail director at the British Heart Foundation.
“If you have decorations that didn’t quite fit your theme, a board game you’ve been gifted twice, or a Christmas jumper that’s no longer your colour, why not let them brighten someone else’s home or wardrobe by donating them to us?”
And it’s not about just donating – shopping in charity shops over Christmas can make a difference too.
“Our stores are full of unexpected treasures – quality items just waiting to find loving new homes,” she says.
If you’re worried a relative might stumble across the item they’d bought you while they bargain hunt you can always donate to a charity shop outside of your local area.
5. Include a gift receipt
If you’re the one giving the present, you can make life easier for the recipient if you include a receipt.
“If you’re giving someone a gift and include a gift receipt, it gives them far more options,” explains Louise, especially when the item is high-value.
A gift receipt usually allows the recipient to exchange the item in-store or receive a credit note.
In some cases, a refund may be offered, but that depends on the retailer’s individual policy.
Without a receipt, things can quickly become uncomfortable, so Louise recommends an honesty first policy: “Don’t be afraid to say, ‘I’m really sorry, but I’d like to exchange this for something else do you have the original receipt?'”
Business
Water companies to face regular MOT-style checks in industry shake-up
Simon Jack,Business editorand
Jonah Fisher,Climate correspondent
Getty ImagesInspections without notice, regular MOT-style checks and compulsory water efficiency labels on appliances are among the key measures in the government’s overhaul of the water industry.
The government is describing the measures as as the biggest overhaul of the water industry in England and Wales since privatisation.
Environment Secretary Emma Reynolds said there will be “nowhere to hide” for poor performing water companies.
The proposed changes come after widespread public anger at increasing numbers of pollution incidents, leaks and water outages that have affected thousands of customers across England and Wales in recent years.
Reynolds told the BBC: “We’ve had a system whereby water companies are marking their own homework.”
“This has been a whole system failure,” she said. “A failure of regulation, a failure of regulators, of the water companies themselves.”
The Water white paper promises to set up company-specific teams to monitor, supervise and support individual firms and their particular issues rather than rely on a “desk based, one size fits all” approach.
Smart meters and mandatory water efficiency labels on appliances including dishwashers and washing machines will also help households monitor their usage and costs, the government said.
It is also creating a chief engineer role at the regulator that will be set up to replace Ofwat.
Government officials have told the BBC that the establishment of a new regulator may take a year or more and water companies say it will take time for the benefits of new investments to be felt.
The government’s reforms come after a review by Sir John Cunliffe, who issued 88 recommendations to improve the industry.
However, he was asked not to consider whether to nationalise the sector, which was privatised in the late 1980s.
Campaigners said the proposed reforms did not go far enough.
River Action chief executive James Wallace said the measures showed the government “recognises the scale of the freshwater emergency, but lacks the urgency and bold reform to tackle it”.
The new regulator must be “truly independent” and properly funded, he warned, and said major gaps remain.
“None of these reforms will make a meaningful difference unless the failed privatised model is confronted head on. Pollution for profit is the root cause of this crisis,” Wallace said.
Surfers Against Sewage chief executive Giles Bristow said the government’s proposed changes were “frankly insulting” and fall short of much needed structural reform.
“The truth is glaringly obvious to everyone except this government. As long as the industry is structured to prioritise profit, the public will keep paying the price through soaring bills and polluted water,” he said.
Sir Dieter Helm, professor of economic policy at Oxford University, said the government had not wanted to explore that because its self-imposed spending rules have already been stretched to the limits.
“In addition to that, I think there’s a very sensible view around government that the government probably isn’t competent and capable to run these businesses,” he said.
“The government should think really quite carefully about this, because if they’re supervising the companies, and something goes wrong, Whose fault is it?”
Problems in the beleaguered sector have been thrown into focus recently after tens of thousands of South East Water customers were cut off for several days both before and after Christmas.
Mike Keil, chief executive of the Consumer Council for Water (CCW), said the “miserable disruption” underlined the importance of “meaningful change” in water regulation.
A new, powerful ombudsman service would also be welcome, Keil said, given CCW has had a 50% increase in customers asking for help with complaints relating to their water provider.
“One of our key asks of the Independent Water Commission was to make our existing voluntary ombudsman service mandatory, as this is vital to giving customers robust protection,” he said.
‘Proof in the river’

The River Pang in Berkshire is regarded by some as one of the inspirations for Kenneth Grahame’s Wind in the Willows classics. It’s environmental status has deteriorated from “good” in 2015 to “poor” now – with campaigners blaming regular sewage discharges.
On the banks of the Pang, Pete Devery from the Angling Trust told the BBC he was sceptical of the government’s plans.
“I won’t hold my breath” he said.
“The proof will be in the river. Do the rivers across the country improve? That’s the end result. Doesn’t matter what you call that regulator. It doesn’t matter how many regulators there are. If the difference isn’t made in the rivers, they will have failed.”
In 2024, water companies released raw sewage into England’s rivers and seas for a record 3.61 million hours, a slight increase on 2023.
Aging infrastructure, wetter winters and drier springs and farming runoff into rivers and lakes have all contributed to poor water service and quality.
Ofwat, is currently the water industry’s economic regulator for both England and Wales. In October 2025 the Welsh government said that when Ofwat is abolished it plans to form its own stand-alone economic regulator to replace it.
In 2025, water supply interruptions across England and Wales rose by 8% and pollution incidents by 27%, while customer satisfaction fell by 9%.
Average water bills rose by 26%, or £123 a year, from last April after years of below-inflation increases that some have blamed, along with high executive pay and shareholder dividends, on under-investment in the sector.
The sharp rise in bills is meant to address that under-investment by funding spending of £104 billion over the next five years – more than 40% of which is earmarked for new infrastructure.
Business
Shadowfax raises Rs 856cr from anchors – The Times of India
BENGALURU: Logistics firm Shadowfax Technologies has raised Rs 856 crore from anchor investors, a day before its IPO opens for public subscription, according to a stock exchange filing. The company allotted 6.9 crore equity shares to 39 anchor investors at Rs 124 each, the upper end of the IPO price band.Domestic mutual funds accounted for about 53% of the anchor allocation, with shares worth Rs 455.7 crore. Nine mutual fund houses participated through 20 schemes.
Business
Kodak Had The World’s First Digital Camera But Chose Films Over Future, Went Bankrupt
Last Updated:
Kodak, once a global photography giant, missed the digital revolution despite Steve Sasson’s invention, leading to bankruptcy in 2012 and a dramatic fall from dominance
In early 2000s, film sales collapsed, photo labs shut down and the iconic yellow Kodak box began disappearing from shelves. (News18 Hindi)
If you grew up in the 1980s or 1990s, photography likely meant one thing – Kodak. From carefully loading film into cameras to waiting days for prints to arrive, the brand dominated how the world captured memories. Not just in India, but globally, Kodak was synonymous with photography.
Kodak was founded in 1888 by George Eastman, whose vision was to make photography accessible to everyone. His idea worked. With the slogan “You press the button, we do the rest”, Kodak turned a complex process into a household habit. The company’s business model was equally smart; cameras were sold cheaply, while profits flowed from film, chemicals and photo paper; the classic “razor and blade” strategy.
By the 1990s, Kodak controlled nearly 90% of the US film market, and the phrase “Kodak moment” had entered popular culture. The company had billions in cash, global dominance and a workforce running into thousands.
Then came the moment that could have changed everything. In 1975, a Kodak engineer named Steve Sasson invented the world’s first digital camera inside the company’s own lab. The prototype was bulky, wired and shot black-and-white images stored on a cassette tape, which could be viewed by connecting the device to a television. Primitive as it was, the invention was revolutionary. Sasson presented it to Kodak’s top management, expecting excitement. Instead, he was told to keep it quiet.
The reason was that digital photography did not need film. Executives feared that if the technology became mainstream, Kodak’s core business would collapse. They also believed consumers would always prefer physical photographs over images on a screen. The invention was shelved, and Kodak doubled down on film. In hindsight, rejecting digital photography was the company’s biggest mistake.
For nearly two decades, Kodak remained convinced that digital images would never match the quality or emotional value of film. While the company hesitated, rivals such as Sony, Canon and Nikon invested steadily in digital technology. By the late 1990s, digital cameras had entered the market, but Kodak was still reluctant to abandon its legacy business. Even when it launched digital products, it tried to replicate the look and feel of film, unable to accept that the era had changed.
The rise of the internet dealt the final blow. As personal computers and email became common in the early 2000s, people stopped printing photographs altogether. Images were stored, shared and viewed digitally. Film sales collapsed, photo labs shut down and the iconic yellow Kodak box began disappearing from shelves. Kodak attempted a late pivot, spending millions to enter the digital space, but by then the market was firmly controlled by competitors.
In 2012, Kodak filed for bankruptcy, stunning the global business community. Once valued in billions and employing over 1,40,000 people worldwide, the company was reduced to selling patents to survive. Thousands lost their jobs, and Kodak’s factories in New York fell silent. The empire had effectively ended.
Ironically, Kodak’s downfall unfolded even as small digital-first companies were thriving. Platforms like Instagram, with a fraction of Kodak’s resources, built massive valuations by understanding how people wanted to save and share memories in a digital age. Kodak, despite having the technology, the brand and the capital, failed to recognise that shift.
Today, Kodak still exists, but only as a shadow of its former self. It operates in areas such as printing, specialty chemicals and pharmaceuticals, and occasionally produces film for hobbyists. Steve Sasson, often mistakenly believed to have been fired, continued working at Kodak for 35 years and retired in 2009. He even helped develop the first DSLR camera in 1989, which Kodak again chose not to commercialise. Sasson was later honoured by the US President for his contribution to digital photography.
January 19, 2026, 20:50 IST
Read More
-
Tech1 week agoNew Proposed Legislation Would Let Self-Driving Cars Operate in New York State
-
Sports1 week agoClock is ticking for Frank at Spurs, with dwindling evidence he deserves extra time
-
Entertainment6 days agoX (formerly Twitter) recovers after brief global outage affects thousands
-
Fashion1 week agoSouth India cotton yarn gains but market unease over US tariff fears
-
Fashion1 week agoChina’s central bank conducts $157-bn outright reverse repo operation
-
Sports1 week agoUS figure skating power couple makes history with record breaking seventh national championship
-
Sports5 days agoPak-Australia T20 series tickets sale to begin tomorrow – SUCH TV
-
Entertainment1 week agoFive killed in road accident in Khyber


