"Excellent Service/Products/Delivery"

The ordering process was very user friendly. Delivery was on time and everything was very well packaged.

The items I purchased were all of excellent quality and at a very competitive price. Would definitely use BHMA again and would recommend.

"A really good company"

A really good company. They made my wooden barn fobs really quickly and they approached me very quickly as I had said (by mistake) I wanted a logo. Will always use them now going forward.

"Very happy with my purchase"

Very happy with my purchase

"Very quick service"

Very quick service. Thanks

"First class service and delivery on time"

First class service and delivery on time

"Well packed and speedy delivery by 1st…"

Well packed and speedy delivery by 1st class Royal Mail. Great.

"Recommended"

We have ordered from BHMA several times in the past and have always received items quickly and as described. We will definitely be back for more.

"These A-frames are really superb"

These A-frames are really superb, I’ve been on the lookout for something similar for a while - good quality yet let me swap my own designs in and out..I have A1 aluminium panels in which can easily be replaced. Webbing straps and sandbags are a welcome extra which I think we will find very useful.

"The right product"

The right product. Delivery was very prompt.

"Acted dishonourably"

We placed an order for a sign in which we specifically set out the required font 'Signika Bold' (inc. Google link: can be found in Google Fonts) for use in the 'add your font' section of the order placed.

Following the order, the company requested that we send them the .ttff font file. They said they could not access the google website for security reasons. We sent them the 'Signika-VariableFont_wght.ttf' file and added a specific reminder as per our order "Please note the Bold type is the one used on the design."

On receiving, it was clear to us that the sign "does not appear to have been made in Signika Bold as requested in the original order and the follow-up." The lettering is thin and differs in appearance; it takes on a wholly different 'look' as a result.

Important note: For those not in the industry and/or not possessing knowledge of font files, the file which they had been sent was a 'variable font' which simply means the font file contains many different weights of the same font within the .ttff file format.

The initial response of the company was to obfuscate and deny improper use of the font file, claiming essentially that we had provided the font file, and they suggested the lettering was cut somewhat arbitrarily despite our specific prior requests.

We responded to state clearly the order was not cut as requested with specific references, making clear that 'Signika Bold' is one of the many font styles contained within the font file provided.

The company again obfuscated by suggesting simply we had supplied the file, and they ignored its improper use and application. Tellingly, they admitted that they had not used the font file correctly by stating that they could see multiple pages, but the font appeared the same. Despite their words having "no frame of reference", they proceeded to manufacture without verifying design.

It became alarming that as a company, they not only appeared to lack technological understanding but also didn't seek to verify what they were placing into the manufacturing process and sending out.

In the email that followed, we reminded them that the file was not a 'static file' as the name of the file supplied was specifically "variable font-weight". We asked why they did not see the style adjustments correctly and manufactured without a frame of reference.

We provided all order references and attached an image (using Adobe Illustrator) of the proper use of the same file installed showing the various styles of the font, underling the bold and highlighting the variable font icon in the AI character panel.

It was clear to us after extensive and firm but polite email communication that the company had not carried out the requested specification and utilised the file supplied in the correct manner.

We were required to send over several days two further reminders to the email of the 28th April on the 30th April and 4th of May. In the latter, the company were reminded of their duties and responsibilities under the distance selling regulations.

On May 5th, the company finally responded but again attempted to obfuscate argumentatively; we'd provided an example of the font file correct use in Adobe Illustrator (we didn't know which software they used), and they were using a version of Corel Draw.

Further, they 'offered' for us to pay a further 50% for us to pay a total of 150% of the order value for them to fulfil the original specification. This is an unacceptable additional cost to levy on the consumer for the failure to supply the requested specification.

Reading their email, it was clear they were not using the file correctly with an outdated version of Corel Draw. Subsequently, by return, they were told, "Corel Draw uses it in the same way, but your team are clearly using an older version of Corel Draw."

We included a screenshot from the Corel Draw website, which illustrates the variable font icon and highlights, in this instance, the Bahnschift font; the link can be found by searching 'Working with Variable Fonts CorelDraw' in Google.

In the email, we stated that each time we had received an email, they were reinforcing that the file was not used appropriately or the work carried out correctly according to specification; in turn, that the emails were appearing argumentative.

Asking for us to outlay a further sum, in essence, to make a further purchase for an error the team has made (unconsciously or otherwise; it's not personal) is unacceptable. For clarity, the file itself is a variable font file, and if you require exclusively static font files, you should make it clear to your customers.

We politely asked them to confirm they were not using up-to-date software (May 5th) and sent follow up (May 12th) and have received no response which is dishonourable behaviour.

Short term thinking company.