Are your home appliances safe?

Xopher – Your point that fridges and freezers run continuously is very important. We cannot switch them off at night, which is why it is important to have working smoke detectors in kitchens and utility rooms even if washing machines etc. are never run overnight.

John – There is also the RAPEX alert system and database run by the EC, which lists recalls on a wide variety of products, not just electrical goods. It is not easy to use.

“What would be particularly useful would be a website where you could register your appliances and receive e-mail alerts if there was a safety warning, or a recall, or a recommended modification.” That would make a good Comment of the Week. 🙂

AMDEA covers only a limited range of electrical products and it is absurd that important safety information is tied to market research and marketing,

John, this is another example of where Which? could help. I have suggested way back that they publish a collection of organisations that we can access to get factual and useful information. ESF is just one such – why would anyone normally know about it?

Have you thought of using Which?’s Trusted Traders register? I have reservations about the basis of this though – although with no experience to support that comment It is a scheme apparently paid for by the trader – £60 assessment fee then £480 a year for a small business. My concern is that it seems not to depend on any customer reviews, just on a trader business assessment and looking at their complaints procedure, for example. I’d prefer to see a scheme where random customers are routinely asked by Which? for an assessment of their experience with a trader to maintain their listing. Which? may be concerned to maintain the income since, as is pointed out in a previous conversation, they have incentives to increase turnover for the Which? group. (Cynical, I know).

Alternatively, Which? Local or some Local Authorities run good trader schemes.Something again Which? might draw attention to?

Tom, Thanks. I didn’t spot that requirement on the TT website. Endorsements are invaluable providing they are up to date.

Rather than supplying my name and address to a retailer or manufacturer I would prefer to register my purchase with an organisation that handled all recalls. If not done by government it should be done by a non-profit making organisation appointed by the government.

If each product was assigned a unique identification code this could be registered online by the owner, with some provision for those who don’t use computers. For smartphone users this information could be provided by scanning a QR code on the goods.

If the organisation is notified of a recall then that could be promptly passed on to the relevant owners.

This procedure would mean that the manufacturer would not be given contact details unless contacted by the owner following a recall. If a product changed hands, the new owner could register it. Recall the Bosch/Hotpoint dishwasher recall, which was years after the fire risk was discovered.

The present recall system is not working very well and I don’t want AMDEA or anyone else using my contact details for market research or marketing.

Simply solved by requiring manufacturers to hold your data purely for the purposes of making product safety notifications. The DVSA divulge your personal details to commercial parking operators when they want to pursue you for an extortionate civil penalty. Not good in my view.

“success is dependent on individuals taking action”. This will be the problem – getting individuals to do this. they already can through pre-paid registration cards, and most will not worry about the marketing that may result in my opinion. We see in other fields how “sticky” (unwilling) people seem to be to act for themselves.

One sure way of getting all appropriate products registered is to require the retailer to do so at the time of sale, but only taking the essential contact details. The first purchaser will then be assured of contact and, if they give an email / mobile are likely to keep contact if they move. A label on the product telling a second-hand purchaser who to contact to update records will help.

Involving the retailer brings in a new problem. I have quite a number of products that were purchased from Comet, and so do many others. Both retailers, especially online ones, can change hands and you will recall that Kenneth Watt explained the way in which brands of white goods are traded. I certainly don’t want a system that is doomed to failure.

As I have said, registration is dependent on individuals taking action. Friends and family could help there. News stories about people losing their homes because a fire could have a reminder to register products appended.

I’m looking at an invitation by Miele to ring an 0845 number to activate my free 2 year guarantee. “Calls charged at standard local rates.” 0845 numbers should have gone and local rates disappeared in 2004. Why should anyone have to register for a guarantee to be activated? Unless this is made a condition of sale by the retailer (which normally mentions just the period of cover), then it is unfair to the consumer.

I am not suggesting the retailer does any more than process the registration, to whoever is held responsible for administering it. This might be the manufacturers, a central body (hopefully not an inefficient taxpayer funded bureaucracy) or whatever. So it does not depend upon Comet staying around.

We know some individuals are not good at taking action, so let’s make it unnecessary in this case. If every relevant sale ensured the purchasers basic details were properly registered for future safety contact or recall then much of the problem is addressed.

I would not object to retailers offering to process registration but I would rather do the job myself to minimise the chance of my contact details being used for marketing. I’ve given you an example of where this has happened.

Perhaps we are progressing towards a proposal then. 🙂 It should be illegal to make marketing contact if this is not specifically requested. The only contact I have had after registering is from Domestic and General offering silly prices for extended warranties. I can deal with those using the dustbin.

I hope so, Malcolm. Make sure that you shred D&G extended warranty forms if they have your name and address printed on them. Comet used to do this.

D&G seem to have a large share of the market and presumably negotiate with manufacturers to provide extended warranties at a more sensible price than if purchased separately. I recall you mentioned buying an extended warranty for a dishwasher and it’s likely that this is provided by D&G.

I would put this literature in an indesit tumble drier (if I had one).

There are companies who give multiple-appliance cover – and most of us have more than one. Have Which? ever reviewed these? It might be useful for Which? to look at the types of warranty on offer – those offered by companies like Miele (who, as you say, no doubt have them underwritten by an insurer but possibly subsidised – mine costs effectively £15 a year), multiple appliance and single appliance ones and, of course, the range of standard guarantees initially coming with the product.

When my car reaches the end of its manufacturer’s warranty I will be looking to see whether an ongoing warranty or extension is worthwhile. Like house insurance this is both about peace of mind and perceived value. Another area worth exploring by Which? maybe.

Which? is normally quick of the mark, but he laptop battery recall was announced weeks ago. Sign up for recall information at: http://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/product-recalls/

One of today’s recalls was for the power supply for an e.on smart meter. I have inherited one with the house. I received a text message about this because I stayed with the same energy company as the previous owner. I had reported this one to Electrical Safety First, but suspect they already had this in hand.

It’s best to charge laptops etc away from flammable materials because batteries can overheat and even burn.

Sounds more like the coffee bean roaster Davy’s, the grocers, in Sheffield had in the window near their door – a lovely smell wafted into the street. Perhaps they also used it to dry their uniforms after closing time.

We have to use our common sense, judgement and reliable information, including dealing with warranties. I’m all for more durable products and try to buy those that will last. I believe they end up offering better value for money. They don’t always have to cost a lot more, just be engineered out of decent materials and well designed.

The smell of roasting coffee outside the village grocer’s shop is one of my earliest memory, though I did not like taste at the time.

You might not have bought my washing machine, Malcolm. It was the cheapest in the shop and selected on the basis of physical size and a ten year guarantee on some parts. It has had a couple of repairs in its younger days but is still working well after more than 34 years. I have replaced it because I suspect parts may no longer be available. I might find a museum for it to spend the rest of its days.

I’m disappointed that white goods manufacturers do not mention the importance of having a smoke alarm nearby. Worst still, they sometimes put in delay start features – not unlike a time bomb – disregarding the advice of fire services not to run such appliances overnight.

When smart meters arrive (at out expense) they will allow charging consumers (with money, not electricity) based on the electricity cost to the energy supplier. Energy companies buy half hourly as demand varies through the day. The rationale of smart meters will be to persuade people to save energy by using relevant equipment off-peak (middle of the night will be cheapest). So that will encourage us to use washing machines, driers, dishwashers while we are asleep.

I still want to know whether the unsafe Whirlpool (Indesit) driers comply with the European standard that allows them to be sold – BS EN 60335-2-11 2013 – particular requirements for tumble driers – Section 30 “Resistance to heat and fire”. This requires that in the event of fluff catching fire in the drier, the materials surrounding the heater do not support fire, so the machine should not burn. If they are compliant then I suggest the standard needs revising to include further preventative measure; standards do evolve naturally as experience develops. If, however, the relevant materials do not comply then the manufacturer and the test house have questions to answer. It would not be expensive for Which? to carry out this test. Will they do so? All we need is facts.

I do hope that most people take heed of advice not to run appliances overnight. Having had the benefit of having a smart meter for a few months I can see that they can give some insight into the cost of using energy for different purposes and keep an eye on daily expenditure. I would be happy if the energy companies gave smart meters to those who were struggling with their bills rather than pushing them on us all.

The standard is inadequate because it has no provision to ensure that the lint filter is inspected prior to each use.

When I was a child in the 50s, I had an ‘electric fire’ with two radiants in which spirals of nichrome wire were embedded and could be touched by small fingers. My father decided it was unsafe and bought a new fangled fan heater with inaccessible heating elements and an overheating cutout to shut off the power if it fell over or the airflow was obstructed. I still use it in my workshop. I suggest we give serious consideration to phasing out conventional tumble dryers in favour of heat pump models, where there is no high temperature heater to cause a fire.

I have seen a fair number of motor capacitors that have failed. A friend showed me the remains of his small compressor after the metal-cased capacitor had burst, presumably spraying flammable oil and starting a fire. It was a well known brand that is popular with hobbyists. The ventilated plastic cover had been set alight and fortunately there was no flammable materials nearby.

If you search for “burnt printed circuit board” there are plenty of images and no doubt some of them relate to consumer products.

There have been some improvements over the years. Wax-impregnated capacitors and transformers have been phased out, but in the 70s I had to deal with a fire in the line output transformer of my parents TV. The wax was burning fiercely. Fortunately modern TVs don’t use very high voltages.

I believe that the standards are inadequate. As I have suggested, use of metal enclosures and fibreglass circuit boards could significantly reduce risks.

The standard does specify metal (or ceramic) cased capacitors and non-flammable circuit boards, such as you say are required. My information is based on the international safety standard. I don’t know what standards apply to the products you refer to or how old they are (I’m sure you did not mean a 1970’s tv as representative); perhaps you could check?

My plea is: please don’t malign “designers” for “risking lives” as you put it when they do not, and are guided by well-researched and tested safety standards. It is a bit of a populist headline approach that misinforms. 🙁

We know that household products, even ones made by well known brands, can be a fire risk. That’s why it is common advice to switch off appliances when not in use and not leave them on overnight unless unavoidable – fridges and freezers obviously come into this category.

If designers are not working to the best standards, I don’t mind maligning them. I have not mentioned any names. Recall the Conversation about a make of self-defrosting fridge-freezers where the defrost timer was in a plastic case. I’ve not seen one, but suggest that putting the time in a metal case could have avoided the risk.

When I mentioned a 1970s TV it was in the context of improving safety standards. A metal or ceramic-cased capacitor must be provided with some means of venting internal pressure safely, without which they could explode in event of failure.

wavechange, it is fine to criticise products that fail to meet standards; I would too. However your original comment seemed to generalise and I simply pointed out this was unfair, and supported it with what international standards require of the particular components you drew attention to. Time to draw a line? 🙂