Pyjama brand Peter Alexander accused of charging 'fat tax'

Pyjama retailer Peter Alexander has responded to criticism it has implemented a "fat tax".

Australian sleepwear label Peter Alexander has defended the extra cost placed on its plus-sized garments, saying "fabric consumption" and difference in design is to blame.

The brand has defended the ten dollar price gap for plus-sized customers, saying there is a complicated manufacturing process to ensure the baggy sleepwear garments "maintain" design integrity as they extend in size.

However a size guide available on the Peter Alexander website says different priced garments would both fit a size 16 and 18. This means a confused consumer of a certain size could end up paying an extra 10 dollars for if they picked the "+1" size instead of the "XL" size.

Sizes XS through to XL are $10 less than plus-size options.

In a statement, the company said its range of offerings was extended about two years ago in response to consumer demand.

"To ensure comfort and that the fit is right, we use a different pattern to our regular collection while still maintaining a beautiful garment," the statement read.

Peter Alexander makes unfitted pyjamas made from cotton fabrics often emblazoned with logos or printed patterns. Its plus-size range mimics the regular-sized women's range in that the fits are not tailored design wear.

"It is these different patterns, along with the size of production run and to a lesser extent fabric consumption, that impacts the price of the styles," the statement read.

A plus-sized version of the garment with a ten dollar tax.

Shoppers have taken to social media to vent their outrage, saying the jump in price is "unfair."

"They use more material on a size 14 than a size 6, but they are the same price … and then suddenly a size 18 costs $10 more," wrote Belinda Cox on Facebook. "The difference in material costs would be minimal.

"Just because other companies also do it, doesn't make it right."

"I have to say I am one of the plus-sized customers and agree that it seems unfair to have been charged $10 more for the navy pj's," another shopper wrote.