Take fire-risk appliances off the shelves immediately

My experience of serving on BSI standards committees suggests that we can either choose to align British Standards with other international standards or produce our own UK specific versions.

The product must meet the requirements of the relevant international or national safety standard. “Quality” is different – how long the product lasts, whether it functions correctly for example, whether bits continue working. BSI generally adopt the European standards, which are usually based on international standards; these are published as BS ENs and these “harmonised standards” allow trade throughout the EU.

Reputable companies will have an extensive audited quality systems complying with ISO 9001 that not only looks at quality control of the product in manufacture but all the processes that go behind it, including sales, design, laboratory, drawings and documentation, complaints etc etc.

Safety standards specify tests that must be applied in the factory to every product before it is released.

Thinking about the post by Russ, how do we know if this mains adaptor is a safe or a dangerous design?

This example was supplied with an illuminated bedside clock, a present from a child and of unknown origin. It works, just like most dangerous small electrical goods do. It may continue to work but if something goes wrong, will it fail in a safe way or might it go on fire or cause an electric shock. That depends on whether it includes appropriate safety features. One of these is a fuse that will cut off the power if in event of a short-circuit or other failure. If that has been omitted, then the only protection is the 32 amp circuit breaker or 30 amp fuse in the consumer unit, meaning that a failure can result in fire. Exactly the same applies to phone chargers and all small electrical goods that do not use a conventional three pin UK plug, which contains a mains fuse that will afford more protection.

In my opinion, power supplies and chargers without a conventional fuse should never have been permitted in the UK. When I leave tree lights on at Christmas I plug the mains adapter into a short extension lead with a 1 amp BS1362 fuse in the plug, simply because I don’t know whether the adapter contains an internal fuse.

I wonder how many mains adapters and chargers do not contain internal protection and are in daily use?

From what I see we have the standards and regulations in place to cover the safety of products, but not the policing necessary to ensure these standards are enforced and that products comply.

Much of what we find failing safety is fake or inadequately designed and controlled products from far away lands over which we have no jurisdiction. These products are generally imported by distributors, or sold through “market places”. When imported, the importer/distributor has responsibility for the integrity of the product; when the product is clearly defective and the importer has not exercised due care, they should be prosecuted and heavily penalised as a deterrent to them and others. Where they are promoted under a “market place” banner such as Amazon, the market place sponsor should be required to take responsibility for the vetting of products and, again, be penalised when they fail to protect the consumer.

To achieve this more successfully we need to fund Trading Standards properly – it is their statutory role to police the consumer product safety system.

I’m certainly surprised and disappointed that we do not make greater use of the HASW 1974 act for the protection of the public from unsafe working practices, including the manicure or supply of unsafe equipment.

I think the matter is covered by these regulations ( in the case of electrical equipment). As far as I know these are the EU regulations transposed into UK law as a result of our (assumed) departure from the EU.
It is explicit about penalties and I’d question whether “market places” do not come into the category of “distributor” and should also be held responsible (““distributor” means any person in the supply chain, other than the manufacturer or the importer,who makes electrical equipment available on the market;“).

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/1101/made/data.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/640829/nlf-electrical-equipment-regulations-2016-guidance.pdf

Great point. With the huge profits and impotent taxation of the likes of Amazon they could invest some of their huge profits in carrying out their own quality control on batches of products to ensure their customers safety from rogue suppliers and manufacturers. They charge over the odds in any case so having a robust quality control facility would make customers feel safer paying their higher pricing.

Bill, I agree with that. The problem is that “many people” buy these cheap products through market places or directly from unknown overseas suppliers outside the EU where regulations are disregarded. We should be able to buy products that are put properly on the market in the EU with confidence; if not, then prosecution should follow. Maybe we should be educating people on where they should be able to buy safely?

I’d like to see the role of market places, like Amazon, properly investigated and controlled.

As Bill says, the cost of original products is high. Whether this is mainly because companies are making generous profits or whether these prices reflect the real cost of making products that reliably meet or exceed the current standards is not clear. Either way, there is not much that can be done to reduce these prices.

Recent research for Which? highlights the dangers of using online ‘marketplaces’: https://www.which.co.uk/news/2019/09/killer-chargers-travel-adaptors-and-power-banks-rife-on-online-marketplaces/ Maybe Amazon and the others should sell products under their own name and take responsibility for product safety. I suggest that the sale of unbranded electrical goods is banned, irrespective of source.

The Electrical Equipment Regulations I referenced above spell out the information that must accompany a product for it to be legally put on the UK market. Anything not in compliance is “illegal” and thus “banned”. But, that only works if we have an effective organisation that keeps such products off the market.

Trying to deal with those manufacturers, importers and sellers of potentially dangerous products via Trading Standards is not going to be a cost effective solution, and the problems are increasing.

I suggest that mains-powered electrical products and other categories that frequently feature in safety recalls (e.g. children’s toys) are sold only by licensed traders that have demonstrated the ability to ensure that potentially dangerous products are not offered for sale. That will still provide the opportunity of choice and competition.

There are numerous analogies. We don’t let anyone service gas boilers, do major electrical work in homes or practise as GPs. That does not always work but it’s much better than our current system for ensuring that products on sale are safe.

I don’t see any evidence that using “Trading Standards” will, or will not, be “cost effective”. Perhaps you would provide the basis for your point? I do not see that we should in any way evaluate protecting consumer safety as a “cost effective” issue, but a basic expectation. We need an organisation that is properly resourced to look after consumer safety and, in law, that is Trading Standards. But it has not been properly funded for years and that needs to change, or another competent and properly-resourced organisation put in its place.

We cannot stop or penalise individuals who buy direct from overseas for their own use. However the vast majority of products put on sale in the UK come through importers, distributors and via “market places”. The law deals with the responsibilities of the former two, with fines and imprisonment as the sanctions. If we used those sanctions properly we could make a real impact. What we do need to address is the “market places” like Amazon and penalise them when they promote or take part on the sale of unsafe products.

Nicholas, that is the law. The problem is we do not properly police it and appear to be hesitant in prosecuting and imposing deterrent penalties.

John, the safety standards we use are EuroNorms, (ENs) based upon international standards and issued in the UK by BSI as BS ENs. We have done this for very many years. This “harmonisation” of standards allows international trade. It is not, in general, the quality of the standards that is the problem but the way we police the products that are meant to comply. Trading Standards should do this but we do not fund them adequately.

John, to clear any confusion I’m talking of product safety standards, not workplace H&S.”Disregard”, if that is the case, is presumably down to the lack of “policing”. As far as products are concerned each country in the EU has to appoint a Market Surveillance Authority whose job is to see that products meet safety standards and other EU regulations. In the UK this is Trading Standards. If they fail to do that job properly we cannot blame the standards and regulations. I worked in an industry that had stringent product safety standards that we observed, and were required to do by law.

malcolm r is correct. I also work in the product quality standards sector. Whenever Trading Standards are asked to help in identifying and quarantining a non-compliant product, the reaction is usually “cutbacks, we don’t have the staff to do much beyond basic food safety in cafes”.
British Standards Institute have elected to remain members of CEN (the EU’s centre for product standards) so Brexit won’t affect what is being done. Uprated product safety standards will eventually be adopted by the UK, sometimes with a local Annexe. As drafters of Standards, we try to avoid the need for an Annexe, but with a product being ‘Standardised’ from Finland to Greece, it is sometimes necessary to accept them. Whether they will be adequately policed is another, local matter.
For years now, the comment in our business community has been that any law passed in Brussels / Standard issued in the EU, Britain alone is the one to adopt it and quickly ram it down the throats of industry, with all the costs and penalties involved. The other Member states take a much more relaxed view, deciding (although they were part of the law making process) whether they will bother adopting something or other and then if they will enforce use.

Anya – the safety standards will not plummet after Brexit but compliance with them could. That is why we must continue to demand that the enforcement authorities for trading standards and consumer protection are enhanced in order to exercise control over potentially dangerous and non-compliant products.

This includes the major local authorities that have statutory responsibilities, National Trading Standards, the OPSS, the Dept for Business Enterprise & Industrial Strategy [BEIS], the HSE, Fire & Rescue services, and other institutions and organisations that have relevant regulatory powers or responsibilities.

Anya, all relevant products put on the UK market must, by law, meet the appropriate safety standards and regulations, whatever their price. Which? shows the huge range of prices of products that are available to us that will meet these standards. That does not mean they are high quality – but that is quite different to meeting safety requirements.

Products that companies manufacture outside the EU (and the UK) that are then placed on the EU market must meet EU safety standards and regulations.

Components must also meet EU safety standards and regulations to be incorporated in a product that is to be legally placed on the EU market. It is the manufacturer’s responsibility to ensure such components are compliant and properly documented. Using non-compliant components would make the product ineligible for CE marking, it would not pass compliance testing so, as I see it, is an illegal practice if the product were then sold in the EU. We need to sanction any producer that attempts to circumvent the system designed to protect consumers from harm.

Each EU state, including the UK, has to have a Market Surveillance Authority that takes responsibility for checking products are marketed legally – i.e. in accordance with the EU regulations that include safety standards and appropriate product certification and marking. In the UK that is Trading Standards but as it has seen its funding drastically reduced it seems incapable of properly fulfilling that role.

I believe that, as part of its avowed aim to protect consumers, Which? should make strenuous efforts to restore Trading Standards to a state where it can do this job.

Even if Trading Standards was properly funded it would be unlikely to stop dangerous products being put on sale. Which? produced a recent report about phone chargers and power banks: https://www.which.co.uk/news/2019/09/killer-chargers-travel-adaptors-and-power-banks-rife-on-online-marketplaces/ This gets a mention in the October issue of the Which? magazine. Even if Trading Standards could remove every potentially dangerous product on sale, someone could have a fire in their home or receive an electric shock before action is taken.

Not everyone is aware that a product that is potentially unsafe can function perfectly well until an internal component fails.

As Curmudgeon says, there needs to be a way of checking compliance before goods are put on sale.

You might remember my Russell Hobbs kettle that burst into flames a couple of years ago.

It was bought from Amazon and the same model as our previous kettle.

When I tried to replace the filter in a local shop it did not have the standard filter and I had a slight argument with the shop owner over it who insisted I was giving him the wrong model number. An online search for the model filter also showed it was the wrong filter.

I believe the only explanation was that the kettle was not a genuine Russell Hobbs.

Having seen fake batteries on eBay that almost look genuine, I can’t see how Trading Standards could put a stop to these products being offered for sale.

I remember that you dismantled the damaged kettle and posted photos here. 🙁

Trading Standards sometimes manages to seize large consignments of dangerous and counterfeit goods but the Which? article I provided a link to provides damning evidence that the present system is unsatisfactory. Our present system for product safety is no longer adequate. If products had to be independently tested before being put on sale that might do a lot to get rid of the cheap, dangerous electrical goods – often unbranded and of unknown origin.

“Independent testing” has been discussed before. Many reputable manufacturers do. However, I do not consider the general problem is solvable by independent testing. – quite apart from the huge resource required. Reputable companies generally do not knowingly put unsafe products on the market. It is the disreputable companies that deliberately flout the regulations and, for example, will fake documents (and testing, independent or otherwise). Even if they produce a product and have it “independently tested” they can go on to manufacture the product differently, or with poor quality control, so that it is non-compliant under the shelter of “independent results”. We are dealing with people who evade regulations.

It is also irresponsible, negligent and criminal distributors in the EU (including the UK) who import and sell these products. Independent testing will not stop such behaviour. Punitive and deterrent sanctions against these distributors could make it not worth their while. A job for Trading Standards or an equivalent.

“Even if Trading Standards was properly funded it would be unlikely to stop dangerous products being put on sale.“. As with many activities we need an effective “authority” to help enforce rules and regulations. To maintain product safety and standards we should have an organisation that collates reported problems, preferably directly from consumers and consumer organisations, that identifies non-compliant products, their sources and distributors and acts swiftly to remove them from sale, informs the public and takes effective action against those who knowingly or negligently distribute or market those products. Action should be severe enough to act as a deterrent.

This role was officially given to Trading Standards as the UK’s Market Surveillance Authority. We should, if we want proper consumer protection, establish it on a proper basis, fund it and resource it adequately. How else might we do it?

How can Trading Standards be aware that – for example – a phone charger or power bank does not contain a fuse or other safety component without examining one or more samples? It’s not good enough to wait until someone has one fail and sets their house on fire. Look at all the examples that Which? discovered recently.

Let us agree to differ, Malcolm.

They cannot, without examining them, doing spot checks on imports, responding to complaints.,…… My point is that it is the legal responsibility of importers and distributors to ensure the products they handle are compliant. They are obliged legally to make all the necessary checks including the validity of testing and supporting documentation such as the Technical construction Files in the case of CE marked products. Avoid producers who are dodgy. If they do are found not to carry out this responsibly then they should be deterred from trading by suitable sanctions.

“Independent testing” will not solve these problems. People simply get round such matters. Stop them coming in to the UK by doing our best to eliminate the rogue, negligent and irresponsible distributors.

This is not about whether or not we differ but using Convos to explore topics, offer different views, look for possible solutions, for anyone interested. Maybe there are better ways but re-establishing Trading Standards properly can only help – in my opinion.

It already is, see:-https://www.gov.uk/guidance/product-safety-advice-for-businesses

Arrangements for Brexit also cover these regulations.