/ Home & Energy

Which? launches a judicial review to push for action on Whirlpool

London Fire Brigade

Which? has commenced the formal process to judicially review Peterborough Trading Standards’ handling of the Whirlpool tumble dryer safety issue.

For those unfamiliar with this story, certain lines of Whirlpool tumble dryers sold under the Hotpoint, Indesit, Creda, Proline and Swan brands are at risk of catching fire.

Back in November, I wrote here on Which? Conversation about Whirlpool’s failings in assisting some customers who have fire-risk tumble dryers in their homes.

I emphasised that we’ve been highlighting the case in the media, meeting with key Government stakeholders and I also promised that we would continue to push hard for this issue to be resolved.

Today, we’ve done just that – by holding Peterborough Trading Standards to account for its role in the fiasco.

Trading Standards’ role

Whirlpool’s UK headquarters are located in Peterborough, so it’s Peterborough City Council’s Trading Standards department that has been dealing with the matter.

It has repeatedly told us that it’s advising Whirlpool in its capacity as Whirlpool’s ‘primary authority’. This is a voluntary arrangement, under which Trading Standards can help a business to comply with consumer protection rules.

When this system works well, it can have good outcomes for consumers and businesses alike. But being a ‘primary authority’ for a business doesn’t mean that a regulator can ignore its duty to enforce the law where this becomes necessary. And in this case, we believe the system has gone badly wrong.

Failing consumers

An investigation by the London Fire Brigade (LFB) recently concluded that a Whirlpool tumble dryer was to blame for a serious tower block fire in Shepherd’s Bush.

In light of the LFB’s report, we would expect Peterborough Trading Standards to put on its enforcement ‘hat’ and consider whether Whirlpool’s handling of the situation remained on the right side of the line.

We believe that Peterborough Trading Standards has failed consumers by not properly carrying out its role as an enforcer of product safety laws.

We’ve filed papers against Peterborough City Council, the Local Authority that the trading standards department forms part of, in the High Court to start this judicial review process.

We expect Peterborough Trading Standards to conduct a fresh, independent assessment of the risks posed to consumers by the millions of faulty Whirlpool tumble dryers that are still in people’s homes, and not shy away from enforcement action if it’s needed.

The court will now determine whether Which? should be granted permission to seek judicial review. If permission is granted, it will lead to a court hearing in 2017.

Product safety system

This case further highlights the many problems with the existing product safety system that is failing consumers and must be reconsidered by the government.

Today, I’ve also written to the Secretary of State, Greg Clark MP, and have discussed my concerns with Consumer Minister, Margot James MP. We want to see action not just in this case, but in all cases where product safety issues could put consumers at risk.

Comments
Profile photo of KennethWatt
Member

Seriously?

K.

Profile photo of duncan lucas
Member

I take this as read , if so Which has gone up several notches in my estimation and can only be complimented regardless of what you personally think . This is action, as a “man of action ” they have my complete approval, I am right with them.

Profile photo of wavechange
Member

Hammersmith MP Andy Slaughter has a petition for a recall of the affected tumble dryers, following the fire at the Shepherd’s Bush tower bock: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/169835

At present, all we have is a safety notice. The London Fire Brigade advise owners to stop using their dryers, contrary to the advice from Whirlpool.

Profile photo of Patrick Taylor
Member

Finally.

I am pleased that Which? has responded to the pressure, evidenced in Conversations, that people feel more should have been done by Europe’s largest consumer body.

It was reaching the stage where the charity was looking impotent, or unwilling, to do anything meaningful in a matter affecting millions.

It may have been that live and exhaustive testing proved that the threat that existed was slight as a percentage but important in terms of effects. And that religiously cleaning filters obviated the risk. We need to see an extended test to replicate the matter with machines run with regularly cleaned, and with dirty filters.

In this case we really have little factual information. Video is worth a thousand words when galvanising people to act to avoid a fire in their home.

The nub is here in the last paragraph of the Press release which really does seem to show PTS majorly obstructive:
” PTS has indicated to Which? that it will review the situation, but importantly it has refused to confirm that it will consider whether enforcement action should now be taken in its capacity as an enforcement authority. It has also refused to provide any details of the review, including when the review will take place, who will conduct it and on the basis of what information. This has left Which? with little choice but to ask the court to intervene.​”

Member
Elizabeth Wilkins says:
23 December 2016

I too am pleased to see this. I own a top of the range aqualtis drier. I had owned it 4 years before the recall even though I’m registered as an owner.
The modification was carried out less than 2 months ago and since then we have had to call them back 4 times , the last time was when the machine tripped the electricity supply in my property. Far from making my machine safe they made it worse and finally I insisted on a senior engineer who confirmed the engineer who did the modification had damaged the heating element causing it to overheat ! He also told us that the modification engineers are just that and not employed as full engineers. I have asked for new machine but told no as it can be repaired.
The level of customer service is appalling too . I have had appointments cancelled at short notice and not so much as a sorry . I’ve been left out of pocket and with shoddy dangerous workmanship.
Let’s hope they can finally sort the machine today .
Up untill this point I loved both my washer and drier both aqualtis and not cheap however this has left a bad taste and compounded by no response from head office where I have lodged a complaint .
I look forward to hearing the outcome !

Member
Mike Cornes says:
23 December 2016

We received notification earlier this year that our Hotpoint machine was one affected. We contacted Whirlpool using the Freephone number supplied and they offered us a free modification or a brand new machine of our choice from a range of seven different models, 5 Hotpoint and 2 Indesit, at a reduced cost as low as £59.
We actually decided to have one their better machines at £95 and this included delivery, installation and removal of the old machine. The service was excellent, though we did need to wait a month from start to finish.
At all times the call centre staff stressed that if we continued to use the machine we should not leave it unattended, but in any event we decided not to take any chances and left the machine disconnected from the power supply.
Sorry about this, but I fail to see why Which is taking this action.

Profile photo of Beryl
Member

A wake up call for Peterborough Trading Standards and any other TS that, failure to protect UK consumers from the complacency and dereliction of big business is not acceptable.

I admire the patience and perseverance of some of the contributors to this conversation for highlighting the urgency and importance of what is, no doubt, a very dangerous situation and I sincerely hope Which? are successful in their endeavours to protect consumers from what amounts to negligence on the part of a large manufacturer of white goods to fulfill their obligation to produce and/or repair machines that are clearly not only unfit for purpose but also hazardous to operate.

Profile photo of malcolm r
Member

At last something that seems like action. But we’ve had a lot of words for the last 13 months, that has not helped consumers. What we should have done is say exactly what we wanted Whirlpool to do that feasible and achievable, and no one has come up with a proposal – apart from some Convo regulars – so just what will this achieve?

I want to see an assurance that defective machines still met the requirements of the safety standard (BS EN 60335-1 and 2-11). Which?, and others including Peterborough Trading Standards, could have looked (and could still look) at this by inspection and testing. If they do not meet the EN standard, then a prosecution should ensue for putting non-compliant products on the market. If they do meet the standard then we should question whether the standard could be amended to deal with the safety problems brought to light in these appliances.

Our aims should be to adequately compensate and provide redress for those consumers who have been badly dealt with by Whirlpool and to ensure the safety of future products benefit from this experience.

Profile photo of wavechange
Member

Don’t forget that tumble dryers were causing house fires long before the Whirlpool models arrived. We need dryers and other appliances that are able to contain fire, so that a fire will go out rather than burn the house down. I am very disappointed that the current British Standards do not appear to include any requirement for appliances to contain fire and that manufacturers have moved to making extensive use of plastics in the construction of machines.

The Whirlpool issue has raised awareness and now could be a good time to look at making appliances safer. We have bemoaned the lack of responsiveness of Trading Standards over various issues on Which? Convo. Following on from the judicial review, might be an opportunity to raise awareness of the fact that as a result of continued underfunding, Trading Standards is no longer able to do the job it should be doing.

Profile photo of malcolm r
Member

Peterborough TS took on this job to deal with Whirlpool and appears to have done it less than competently. I have pushed for Trading Standards to be restored to a properly-funded consumers’ watchdog, but we also need it to have the right people, properly trained and motivated, for it to function.

Which? is also a consumers’ watchdog and does, I think, need to get a better balance between words and headlines, and real investigation and action.

Profile photo of Beryl
Member

I dont profess to know anything about engineering but common sense tells me that if a filter is blocked, a warning signal should sound and/or a red light flashing (or both to assist people with sight or hearing problems) and the machine cutting out and prevented from operating until the blockage is cleared.

In an era where robotics are the norm and driverless cars are appearing in some places, is it not feasible to produce a domestic tumble dryer that is safe to use at all times in people’s homes?

Profile photo of malcolm r
Member

These are International standards. I have repeatedly asked Which? whether they use their position, expertise and that of contributors to help in the development of improvements to these standards through BSI. No replies. So how do we, as consumers, have any effective voice if the only accessible association that is supposed to represent our interests appears to take…..no interest?

Profile photo of KennethWatt
Member

Hi Beryl,

The instructions are vey simple to follow: clean the filter before and/or after every use.

There is no need for any warning in that very easy to follow instruction.

K.

Profile photo of wavechange
Member

Thank you Beryl. It is quite incredible that we ignore common sense. To give another example, we can still buy table lamps and light pendants that allow children (and adults) to poke their fingers into the live lampholder. Safer alternatives have been available for years but there is no legislation that requires their use.

Profile photo of malcolm r
Member

In several languages, plus a picture. 🙂 Guess how many will ignore it? I don’t see how easy it would be to detect a “blocked” filter – by a pressure differential switch perhaps. Whether they would be sensitive enough , durable enough (something else to go wrong)……

Tumble dryers could still be misused by drying unsuitable material – contaminated by oil and solvents for example – and by switching off before the cooling down cycle has finished and leaving the contents in place to self ignite.

In the US they have been trying fire containment – I don’t know how extensively and they have not yet reported on how effective it might be in practice.

One method would be to use lower-temperature heaters that would not have the ability to ignite lint. That would extend the drying cycle time. Ken points out that would be unacceptable to many. So what price safety? Total safety please, so long as it causes no inconvenience?

We often use a clothes horse left in the kitchen overnight.

Profile photo of wavechange
Member

A lower temperature heater might be the way to go and would avoid most of the criticisms made of heat pump dryers other than extended drying time. According to a Miele instruction booklet there is still the danger that an over-dryed load could catch fire in a heat pump dryer. That did surprise me but maybe static electricity could start a fire. Sadly, low temperature may not be the whole solution.

I would be grateful if you can find out more about fire containment in US appliances. The problem is of course that we don’t have access to the full standards.

We have yet to explore what is happening in the rest of Europe.

Profile photo of Beryl
Member

Hi Kenneth,

Unfortunately human operators minds are not programmed quite the same way as machines! If Dyson can produce a cut out system on his vacuum cleaners when filters are blocked, is it not possible that engineers can do likewise on a more potentially hazardous piece of apparatus?

It’s simply just a matter of fail safe prevailing over occupational preconceptions.

Profile photo of KennethWatt
Member

That is true Beryl, however we’re all missing a very important point here.

There is no need to have a tumble dryer, mankind survived without such devices for millennia and there’s no right to own a tumble dryer.

As pointed out, there are other options.

Therefore people that *choose* to own one due to lifestyle or any other reason should be mindful of how that they are used and maintained and that is their responsibility and not that of any company. The user must take responsibility to care for any product correctly from my perspective.

Why should all suffer extra cost and/or hassle just because some people cannot do so?

K.

Profile photo of Beryl
Member

I agree Wavechange, I recall an occasion as a youngster changing a lightbulb and putting my fingers instead of the bulb into the live socket! I soon learnt that it is much better to check the off switch before repeating the same process.

Profile photo of Beryl
Member

Kenneth, the dryer on my dual washing machine is never used, mainly because it adds too much onto my energy bill, but if people choose to buy an electrical appliance that they consider to be fail safe at the time of purchase and it transpires it is a potential fire hazard, then Trading Standards need to investigate.

In light of all the evidence contained in some of the Which? conversation responses, this would indicate a failure of PTS to implement the necessary action required to warn manufacturers to carry out the modifications required to ensure consumers appliances are fail safe with a cut off system activated when a filter becomed blocked

The onus and initial responsibilty remains with the manufacturer to produce such an appliance.

Profile photo of KennethWatt
Member

And yet, as stated by Whirlpool, TS and independent organisations, used and maintained correctly there is not a problem.

It is a precautionary safety notification that helps with safety.

One of the biggest fears I hold on this is that, after the modification is carried out people *assume* that it is completely safe without caring about what should be done in order to maintain that safety.

And, they are safe, if maintained in accordance with instruction.

If not, they become unsafe.

Just like if I buy a car and don’t use it responsibly, maintain the tyres, brakes and a myriad of other things it also becomes unsafe. Yet is my responsibility in law to ensure that vehicle is safe before taking it onto a public road. I’m responsible, me, not the company that built the car.

This is no different.

Or are you insinuating that manufacturers should treat all like completely incompetent idiots and wrap them in cotton wool?

Even at that, you could never remove all risk, that really isn’t possible.

As one of the guys uses on the forum as his signature, this quote from Douglas Adams sums that up well, “a common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.”

K.

Profile photo of duncan lucas
Member

Wavechange-Static electricity does start fires and has done in the US ,in dryers , you couldnt get better conditions dry -hot air and an electrostatic high voltage field developed , thats why THEIR government recommends EARTHING every metal object . Thats the principle cause of lint , the forced removal of fine fibres by electrostatic attraction drawing them together to metal that is UNEARTHED . Fix that then the process is greatly reduced , if not eliminated.

Profile photo of malcolm r
Member

I agree. However some people will not have maintained their Indesit dryers with the design defect over the years and may have a significant build-up of lint in dangerous places. Too late for them to begin observing the maintenance instructions. So presumably these dryers pose a potential fire hazard until they are properly cleaned and the modification applied?

Profile photo of KennethWatt
Member

So long as lint doesn’t build up more to the point it touches the heater, there shouldn’t be an issue.

Therefore the answer is, it’s not too late to start maintaining correctly and, increases the level of safety by an order of magnitude.

K.

Profile photo of malcolm r
Member

Europe and the UK are one and the same as far as standards are concerned and are determined by the IEC. I have asked BSI if they will comment on the work done by UL in the US, and whether it is considered sensible to apply it to EN standards in future. Waiting for a response. Maybe Which? could add its weight to my request?

As far as I can see, in the US the 2017 National Electric Code requires all appliances operating at 50V or more to be listed ( listed : meets appropriate designated standards or has been tested and found suitable for a specified purpose). As states and counties in the US begin to apply the NEC electric clothes dryers will be required to be listed/certified using ANSI/UL2158 (the only applicable standard ). At present the standard is voluntary but in most cases manufacturers evaluate appliances to the standard for obvious reasons. The standard includes fire containment tests.

As I said above, evaluation of the effectiveness in practice is not yet available.

Profile photo of malcolm r
Member

The US does not, as far as I can see, recommend “earthing every metal object”. UL2158 – Electric Clothes Dryers: an overview of changes Jan 2016 includes revised installation instructions, relating to non-current carrying metal parts…..not grounded in accordance with Clause 27.1.4 – “Certain internal parts are intentionally not grounded and may present a risk of electric shock only during servicing. Service Personnel – do not contact the following parts while the appliance is energized: (list of parts)

Profile photo of duncan lucas
Member

Malcolm , cant you see through that statement that I too read ? That is a “cover ” statement removing the chance of a legal challenge in the event of a fire . Think about this — why is it not grounded ? –because its LIVE and the statement ADMITS this- risk of shock ONLY during servicing. Why is it not being questioned along the lines of- why CANT it be earthed ? -answer- because it is cheaply designed to save money , any normal electrical piece of household apparatus can be safely earthed , but this “double insulated ” no earth principle is not a principle that is INHERENTLY safe . It is there for cheapness of production NO internal components should be designed LIVE to the touch unless it was an old cathode ray tube TV , where the high voltage -EHT was encased in a metal shielding to prevent accidental touch . AS well as that most British TV,s had one end of the MAINS connected to the chassis , reverse the plug connection it would still work but the steel chassis would be at a 240V AC potential. To combat that British Standards brought out regulations like all steel control shafts must be shrouded to leave no bare metal with plastic control knobs + grub screws locking them had to have wax inside the holes , the same with transformer-less valve radios . In the US many TV,s of the period were ISOLATED by mains transformers IE- more money spent on them . Do you see the link up malcolm ? Tell me WHY the internal live parts CANT be earthed because I can come up with a whole string of alternative circuit diagrams isolating any normal voltage electronic/ electric equipment so that it can be earthed , it just costs more malcolm .

Profile photo of malcolm r
Member

duncan, you made a statement about practice in the US and I simply pointed out the statement appeared mistaken. The instruction refers to non-current carrying parts that I presume could only become hazardous under a fault condition – like a detached live wire coming into contact..

Profile photo of DerekP
Member

I agree with Duncan, that in so far as is reasonably practicable, all metal parts should be earthed, so that they cannot become hazardous to users, if they accidentally become live.

The ANSI standard quoted above does seem to give an exemption clause for internal parts that can only become exposed if the appliance is opened up for servicing. Having such a clause is probably good advice, otherwise a requirement to earth every metal part could be taken literally. For example, that would require any metal self tapping screws used to join two plastic parts to also be attached to some sort of earth wire.

Profile photo of duncan lucas
Member

Malcolm -that doesn’t change anything it doesn’t need to be live as long as it has a metal construction then the electrostatic charged atmosphere containing lint particles would be drawn to it if it was NOT earthed . A spectrometer would show up the chemical charged atmosphere and an electrostatic detection meter would show up the internal charge itself.

Profile photo of KennethWatt
Member

I don’t get what you are on about here.

All metal parts on a tumble dryer are earthed so far as I am aware. That is, so long as the home electrics are okay of course.

Case, drum, heater, motor, caps etc are all earthed.

K.

Profile photo of duncan lucas
Member

Not according to US government safety checks and that included Whirlpool group. Are you saying all UK dryers are all earthed in all the parts internally including the element casing ?

Profile photo of malcolm r
Member

2 pages of BS EN 60335-1 (Household and similar electrical appliances – Safety) covers earthing in section 27. This follows standard practice, just as the US one does. If a metal part is unlikely to become live then it does not need earthing.

Profile photo of duncan lucas
Member

Thanks for that malcolm , that explains a lot , they obviously ignore electrostatic attraction , in reality, while the US government says otherwise in its electrical safety dept.branches , maybe they dont phone each other ?

Profile photo of malcolm r
Member

If an accessible metal part is unlikely to become live then earthing is not required. This requirement does not apply to inaccessible metal parts. duncan – this is an electrical safety requirement, not to do with electrostatics.

Profile photo of malcolm r
Member

I don’t know what work might have been done to see whether tumble dryers in practice have lint build up caused electrostatically. Have you any information duncan? (I may have forgotten).

Profile photo of KennethWatt
Member

Most all dryers are sold across the EU and AUS/NZ and yes, they’re all earthed. I’ve not come across one that was not as all the items inside will be screwed via a metal screw or fixing to the cabinet that is earthed.

Electrostatic therefore is not a problem I have ever come across from appliances other than when they are on some flooring that causes it.

US dryers, as I said before, are not the same.

K.

Profile photo of duncan lucas
Member

I read a whole webpage article on the cause of lint build up in dryers on a US electrical safety website , it went into great electrical theory and practice. there was no argument against it , it was “cut+dry ” It went through the whole process on a basis I am sure you would accept malcolm , I will try to find it again i may have archived it as well. In very basic terms of physics ( the site was a lot more technical ) the whole cause of LINT build up in a dryer be it British OR American where physics transcends countries/boundaries, is the the dry/ high temperature atmosphere causes a charged atmosphere to be formed , combined with chemical reaction on the clothes minute fibres are forced by electrical attraction to remove themselves from the clothes and travel to the nearest attractive pole of metal in the dryer IF it is not earthed obviously they build up till a large amount is formed that can be ignited by the element heat radiation OR a static electricity discharge . I checked out a You Tube video on a Indisit dryer heater being replaced i was shocked to find it was not an enclosed element but the old 1920,s bar element with the bare resistance wire exposed to the air , this was banned in Britain in the 60,s, I think, as being highly dangerous in open bar electrical fires . It was replaced with glass enclosed elements , I had both , this is pure cheapskate as enclosed elements are available.

Profile photo of DerekP
Member

Duncan – it seems to me that tumble driers may, by chance, produce the sort of electrostatic effects that are deliberately used in an electrostatic precipitator. If so, then any charged lint fibres will actually tend to settle out on any earthed metal parts.

Profile photo of John Ward
Member

I am not sure where this comment is going to appear in the long thread bu it relates (a) to Beryl’s proposal that there should be a light and sound warning signal to indicate a blocked filter and a cut-out device to prevent operation until the filter has been cleaned, and (b) to Keneth Watt’s response along the lines that if people diligently follow the operating instructions there is no need for a warning.

Leaving aside the fact that many people regard the operating manual as useful guidance but not necessarily as critical safety instructions, I think the reason that Beryl’s suggestion is such a good one is that it is not just the person who presses the button to start the machine who is at risk. Any other person in the property [who might be asleep or actively engaged in some other pursuit] is also at risk and so are the next door neighbours or the people in the flat above or below in the event that a fire breaks out. Despite the obvious safety critical function of smoke detectors, not everybody tests them periodically, or replaces exhausted batteries, and some even disable them because they are so sensitive.

Like it or not functionality has to incorporate safety nets in order to reduce risks so far as is reasonably practicable. Every company says “public safety is our number one priority” but that needs qualifying in reality by the addition of “subject to economic circumstances and competitive pressures“.

There will be an engineering solution to the detection of a clogged filter so it is time it was found and installed. One possibility might be an internal vacuum system that would expel any material from the heater area at the end of each cycle or before the dryer starts its next one.

Profile photo of duncan lucas
Member

Derek-not by the laws of physics but by the law of chance. When static electricity is produced produced in a body if that body is earthed then it loses its stored charge and the attracted elements fall to the ground , a negative pole is not the same as an earth potential one. try that out with a piece of paper and nylon .

Profile photo of KennethWatt
Member

Again Duncan, I’ve seen thousands of service reports and attended hundreds of dryers in the field.

To date, not a single one has had an issue with static.

US dryers tend to be larger, mounted on top of a huge washer and so are all too often completely different in their design when compared to far more compact and mostly ground standing EU type dryers. Perhaps they have issues due to that, I don’t know as I don’t bother too much with the US only machines as they are produced to complete different standards and, not always better far as I can tell.

I’ve not heard anything in the industry about that over the pond about it so I’m guessing it’s not being regarded as a major problem as I do get news on the industry from all over the globe.

If you have evidence of problems with static in EU type dryers I’d be more than happy to look at it as, I’ve not seen anything like that at all.

K.

Profile photo of duncan lucas
Member

Kenneth I am still trying to find the website that will back me up I didn’t archive it, but meanwhile as you are so sure what is causing the fires then you must know the cure I am sure the whole of Britain will want to know and i don’t mean the “cure ” being – customers are at fault I mean what design modification can be done to ensure no more fires ?

Profile photo of wavechange
Member

I would like to make a few comments on today’s posts. I have no idea if static electricity is responsible for dryer fires but it is a well known issue in the food industry. Perhaps the best known example is dust explosions in flour mills. Conveyer belts can generate static in the same way that a Van de Graaff generator does – this device used to deliberately produce static electricity. Petrol and diesel flowing into a tank can generate static. In each case, earthing is used to prevent the risk of explosions and fire.

Turning to the dangers of mains electricity, which are not directly relevant here, I have never been happy with the standard of earth bonding in domestic equipment. Malcolm has pointed out that according to some standard: “If an accessible metal part is unlikely to become live then earthing is not required.” Unfortunately, unlikely events do happen, so I’m not impressed by that statement For example if water gets into electrical equipment and contacts live connections, this can make unearthed parts live and dangerous. Simple PAT-testing will reveal where earthing is inadequate.

Profile photo of KennethWatt
Member

As I stated below in response to Beryl, you cannot eliminate all risk completely. That applies to almost any endeavour let alone home appliances.

There will always be a circumstance, use case or whatever that as a manufacturer or designer you just cannot take account of.

Therefore Duncan, you cannot possibly with 100% certainty state categorically that any risk is completely removed and, anyone that does do that well, fool or liar, you decide.

Best you can do is to make it as safe as you possibly can given the information to hand and the resources you have available to you as well as taking into account any restraints.

K.

Profile photo of KennethWatt
Member

And again… if it’s metal or carries electricity it is earthed to the cabinet and by default earthed to the socket earth, the home electrical system.

If that home electrical earth is faulty as many often prove to be…

Generally speaking, if someone gets a shock from an appliance in the past decade or three and all the more so in the home electrical system has RCD protection then it’s a fault with the wiring in the home, not the appliance/s.

It often appears to me that some finds it easier to blame some faceless corporation.

Not that I’m defending them in any way as that’s counter to my sentiment about many but, you need hard evidence if you want to start shouting from the rooftops. Or, especially from where I sit, expect to find yourself in court defending a slander/libel action. Words must be carefully chosen. 😉

You need hard, incontrovertible evidence to do much of anything and I’m sure Which?, myself and others are all to aware of that. Mere opinion or rhetoric is not sufficient enough to do anything,

When it comes to electrical safety with appliances most repairers and reputable ones at any rate will be able to carry out an earth loop impedance test, essentially stressing the earth circuit and ensuring that is is to be blunt, beyond safe as its a 500V test to check earth bonding.

As a field service tech you do that when there is an issue or suspicion that there’s an issue. No point if all is well if you ask me but some manufacturers/brands will insist upon it as a matter of course.

Honestly, for most service calls it’s pointless. All it does is underline and cover backsides, no more.

Where there’s an issue with tripping or electrical weird stuff going on, it’s essential.

So I ask you, if the general run of things can put up with a 500 Volt test that is beyond twice the supposed voltage at the socket and that’s out the box design, how electrically unsafe do you really think appliances in the main actually are from an electrical standpoint?

Yet we still occasionally see blown components due to over-voltage. Hmm, wonder why that is!

Methinks that sometimes, people are looking at the wrong scapegoat.

K.

Profile photo of DerekP
Member

Duncan, according to KW this seems to be a somewhat academic discussion, but a isolated and charged negative pole will repel negatively charged lint and attract positively charged lint, until it acquires enough +ve charges to repel any further lint.

Unlike tubed TVs, I doubt that tumble driers will contain any exposed live electrodes are at significantly elevated DC potentials. They will however, contain some earthed metal objects, including perhaps the metal outer surfaces of heating elements (the old one I used to one certainly did, at if tended to collect dust and/or lint).

In an electrostatic precipitator (ESP), a stream of chemically uniform particles pass through. Because they are all the same material, they won’t get electrostatically charged by rubbing against each other. However, we can charge them up if by using a thin charged wire to produce a corona discharge. (Photocopiers and laser printers used to use such wires too, to get toner to stick to drums.)

So an ESP first uses corona wires to produce a stream of charged particles and then uses electrostatic forces to accelerate these towards any earthed electrodes that are downstream of the corona wires.

If we suppose the charge on each particle is +q, then there will also be a voltage or potential associated with each particle. As many electrical engineers will know, if you charge you’ll get the VC.

So the electrostatic potential, V, for a particle is equal to +q/C, where +q is its +ve charge and C is its effective capacitance.

Then if there is earthed metal a distance d away, the local electric field, E, will be approximately E = -V/d and the force on the particle will be F = qE = -qV/d. The negative sign shows that the force is attractive, i.e. it will act to reduce d by moving the particle towards the earthed metal.

I think the same principles would apply in a drier, and if clothes made from dissimilar materials are present, e.g. wool and nylon, then charging may be possible, if those materials rub together.

In tumble driers, the heater is normally just after the air intake , so if a vented drier is used with a duct, not much lint should reach the heater, but ordinary room dust will be able to do that.

Profile photo of malcolm r
Member

The danger with trying to paraphrase two pages of the BS EN’s earthing requirements is of misinterpretation. The section begins – “Accessible metal parts of….Class 1 appliances that may become live in the event of an insulation fault shall be permanently and reliably connected to an earthing terminal within the appliance or the earthing contact of the appliance inlet”.

Member
Simon B says:
2 February 2017

Hi Kenneth,

The instructions are indeed simple and easy to follow but you make a massive assumption, that regular cleaning will prevent fluff passing further inside the tumble dryer, it does not. In the case of my tumble dryer I believe the design of the fluff filter is fundamentally flawed as it allows fluff to flow deeper inside the tumble dryer during use, cleaning the filter after use is not enough. My machine was less than 12 months old, was cleaned regularly BEFORE any safety notice was issued and despite this, when I removed the vent pipe at the rear of the dryer, fluff build up was clearly visible. My machine has finally been modified by Indesit (but only after I took the retailer to the small claims court and won, but that’s another story!) and the modification was not to stop getting fluff getting further inside the dryer, it was to stop fluff getting anywhere near the heating element.

Simon

Profile photo of malcolm r
Member

Simon, that is very interesting. I have been asking Which? (or someone who is bothered) to test affected machines to see just what does happen to them in use, and even whether they meet the requirements of the safety standard. If the past 16 months had been used to do some real work on this front, instead of just writing articles, we might have something worthwhile to discuss. I have been in contact with BSI who tell me they have an active working group looking at the possibilities of fires in domestic appliances; they are the UK’s agent that contribute to the international committees that produce the safety standards that, in the EU, must be met before a product can be sold. The public can easily make comments and proposals to BSI for consideration; details are on their website if you are interested.

Profile photo of KennethWatt
Member

Hi Simon,

It often won’t. You will often see machines in the field with some fluff/lint in them even when maintained as some of it can be very fine, but…

It depends on what you dry, how often the filter is cleaned, what the loading is like… there are variables and one size does not fit all.

For example, if you overload it with towels (which often give off copious amounts of lint) then the filter will block very quickly, blocking airflow and forcing the air through the drum seal/s until it gets to the point where it overheats and cuts out on the safety.

From a technical standpoint, as there is air through the thing and that *must* flow freely for it to work, there is no way to eliminate all possibly “stuff” being carried into the dryer cavity. It’s just not possible to do.

However I don’t understand what you mean by your comment that “I believe the design of the fluff filter is fundamentally flawed as it allows fluff to flow deeper inside the tumble dryer during use”.

How so? The shape of the filter really isn’t all that important so long as the design accommodates it and there are a myriad of ways to do the same thing in effect.

K.

Profile photo of duncan lucas
Member

Your letter should be used every time somebody tries to defend Whirlpool and lay the blame on the customer . I hope now that you have WON your case and put up points that the Judge thought were legally effective in Law that all the other customers can rally to your achievement and quote your case when going for a class action or individually . Nobody has given you a “thumbs up yet ” although I can only award 1 in Which,s Law I symbolically award you 10 as someone who didn’t listen to the proponents of this company but was intelligent enough-independent of thought enough -determined enough to go it alone and WON !!! GOOD on YOU MAN!

Profile photo of wavechange
Member

Here is an example of lint getting into the works of a tumble dryer:

Credit: https://mjhservices.wordpress.com

Profile photo of KennethWatt
Member

Sadly it is all too common to see stuff like that.

And irrespective of the brand, that can prove dangerous.

K.

Profile photo of wavechange
Member

You have explained one reason why the problem can arise – failure to clean the lint filter.

An interlock would force users to clean the filter and putting the dryer in an all-metal case could contain a fire that started for any reason.

Profile photo of KennethWatt
Member

Yes, one reason is that along with some others given previously.

An interlock would only be able to hold the door closed whilst it’s energised, it won’t do anything else.

So you’d need to dream up some way of detecting that the filter needed cleaned and sure, you can use air pressure which has been tried and failed or you could use optical sensors but that means having holes in the filter and they will prove highly unreliable in a heavy dust application. Then you’d need to come up with the software, add all the electronics and so on to make it all work. In short, there’s not an easy answer.

Hence, not a single domestic manufacturer does it. Oh and it’s flaky so users get irritated as they prove so unreliable.

And yet again, it’s pretty much in an all metal case. And, again, there is not a single bit of evidence to indicate that would solve anything or make anything any better.

Give me evidence and I’ll happily look into it for myself but, knowing a lot more about appliances and the industry than most I can tell you as a straight up fact based on all the evidence available to date, that would make not one jot of difference to these instances.

K.

Profile photo of wavechange
Member

I am referring to an interlock that requires the user to remove and clean the filter, not a door interlock. I agree that a pressure differential sensor would be unlikely to be unreliable in this sort of application and said so before you joined the discussion. There are various possible interlock systems that could be devised. For example, you could have have a reset button that must be pressed before each cycle but to access it the filter needs to be removed. This sort of interlock is simple, inexpensive and reliable. There is always the possibility that the dirty filter if the user was daft enough tor replace it without cleaning, but hopefully most would have more sense.

At one time, not one car had dual-circuit brakes or seat belts but we moved on, and maybe the industry might see the value of interlocks on dryers.

The use of metal cases for containment of fire is well established even if the white goods industry has not recognised this approach.

Profile photo of KennethWatt
Member

A door safety interlock is not intended for that purpose in the industry and would require monumental change to institute as well as the reeducation of users in the use.

In order to achieve that, you’re back to altering standards and it’d need to be at best pan-European but probably global as it would affect a number of territories. They will not change just for the UK, cheaper and more efficient just to cease selling in such a small market.

And you are correct, people would just pull the filter up, plug it back in and get on. I’d bet dollars to donuts some people would do that. The daft things some people do never ceases to amaze me, there’s always another way to break things nobody thought about.

Hypothetically, possible but highly unlikely to fly even before you consider cost.

And again, they’re already in a metal case!!!

K.

Profile photo of wavechange
Member

Once again, I am not referring to a door interlock.

Have a look at the photos I have posted. They show burned or melted fascias and sometimes the lid where that is plastic too. If the machine goes on fire for any reason, the fire can spread.

Profile photo of KennethWatt
Member

You said, interlock? The only “interlock” in the appliance industry is a door safety interlock, probably as that’s about the only element you can mechanically “lock”.

I’ve seen the photos, many of them. So what that they have burnt plastics, it’s a fire for goodness sakes, of course stuff is gonna burn, kind of goes with the territory.

The lid *IS NOT PLASTIC**!!!

How many ways and how many times will I have to state that?

The trim *MAY* be plastic but the lid is not, ever that I’ve ever seen. If you say they are plastic, please provide evidence of this as I’ve not seen that.

Or maybe, the standard should be altered to make kitchen cabinets that surround them more fire retardant or perhaps ban flammable materials in a kitchen… I fear you tread into territory where “reasonable” leaves the conversation.

And in all that, still zero evidence that what you suggest is true or that the measure you suggest would make one iota of a difference.

If anyone wants change, with no evidence its won’t happen IMO as nobody will waste time or money solving a problem that doesn’t exist.

K.

Profile photo of duncan lucas
Member

How about a proximity detector ? modern electronics can mean its only an inch or two in size. A beam hits the rear of the filter when lint builds up the beam is cut ( depending on the positioning of the beam) it then lights up an LED on the front of the dryer or built into the LCD display electronics . several can be installed in different positions and warning LED -1-2-3 etc can light up or again displayed in the main display signaling to the customer that lint is in x/y/z in the dryer . Thats no big deal electronics wise .

Profile photo of KennethWatt
Member

You are again relying on an optical sensor of sorts that will get covered in fluff, lint or general debris and dust so it will prove unreliable in use.

That’s why they all dropped turbidity sensors in washer and dishwashers, they prove far too unreliable in field use. Theoretically it’s a great idea and makes perfect sense, until you give it to people to actually use.

Keep in mind that you suggest this to tackle the problem of people not cleaning the filter/s so, what do you reckon the chances are that they will clean the filter and an additional sensor?

Then when it fails and, it will fail and people are being charged even in warranty to send someone round to clean it it’ll give rise to complaints about that even if it is nothing to do with an actual fault as such. Any manufacturer will avoid that if possible.

Proximity sensors or occupancy sensors are the holy grail of home automation, a topic I do know a good deal about and, they are notoriously unreliable in any low cost simplistic form. Once you get into using cameras and a bunch of software the cost ramps up exponentially.

K.

Profile photo of duncan lucas
Member

I am not talking of washers only dryers Kenneth , if the sensors get covered in lint it tells you one thing , there is lint in your machine.

Profile photo of malcolm r
Member

Duncan, nothing to stop proposals being put to the BSI working group dealing with fire risks in domestic appliances. I have posted a link; BSI welcome public comment. I can give it again if anyone needs it.

Profile photo of wavechange
Member

Kenneth – Interlocks don’t have to be mechanical. Many are electrical. I suspect that you would have to look outside the white goods industry, but I have seen simple electrical interlocks in commercial equipment built in the 1960s.

Even if we ignore the lids there is no doubt that plastic is used for the fascia of modern tumble dryers and washing machines, meaning that they are unlikely to contain a fire that starts for any reason. A fire in a traditional metal dustbin will go out if you put on the lid and deprive the fire of oxygen. To turn a dustbin into an incinerator, all you need is to make some holes in the metal. That’s what you get when plastic burns away in an appliance fire, and the fire can spread.

There is scope to make kitchens safer. Deep fat fryers are a safer alternative to traditional chip pans. Heat alarms are commonly found in rental properties and may be a requirement. In 1980 I put out a chip pan fire when the alarm sounded in a neighbour’s flat. Fire doors are used in buildings to delay the spread of fire.

If we can save a people’s homes burning down and save a few lives with simple and fairly expensive design improvements in the design of white goods then I believe that it is worth doing. People often pay £500 or more for smartphones, so maybe there is scope for the white goods industry to make products safer, and I don’t believe that it would cost much to provide dryers etc. with all-metal cases.

Profile photo of KennethWatt
Member

wavechange, I am perfectly aware of what an interlock is, how they work and numerous iterations and format of them, I do not need lectured on the use of them and especially so with appliances.

Commonly within the appliance industry they are electro-mechanical in nature, not simply mechanical. They are designed that way and implemented to offer maximum security and safety.

If you do not understand how these devices are used within appliances I’d suggest you learn or refrain from commenting on a topic that you clearly hold a limited knowledge of.

And again, there’s a bit of plastic, so what?

Where is the evidence, any evidence whatsoever that this presents any danger or is a problem in any way?

As yet I have seen none from within or from outside the appliance industry.

I am not an idiot not need to be spoken to as one, I understand how fire works in confined spaces and don’t need to be lectured on that either. But once again, the biggest cause of kitchen fires is cooking products… **NOT** tumble dryers. I would think that a far more pressing safety concern than other appliances but, we’ve discussed that in the past.

But you’re addressing a problem, appliance fires, that is minute in reality. It is statistically bordering on insignificant and there’s again, no evidence to say otherwise.

And, once again, any change would have to be universal across multiple territories and would require a change in international standards or I would very seriously doubt any would be implemented.

I completely agree on the cost front versus safety however, were the products made more durable and reliable I believe that greater customer care and safety would follow as it’s a larger investment, therefore worth looking after.

And yes, it cracks us up all the time when you roll up to someone’s home with a <£200 washer or whatever and there's a BMW or two on the driveway, mobile phones, tablets and PCs scattered about, a big flat screen TV and so on yet the owner complains the machine is rubbish. Yeah, wonder why that is and it's often on many of the field techs to tell people that they've got their priorities all wrong.

Of course you can't do that, talking plainly to people will have the customer service police hunting you down. 🙁

K.

Profile photo of malcolm r
Member

“simple and fairly expensive design improvements”. I assume you might have meant “inexpensive”? I also agree that improvements to safety are always worthwhile. They do need to be practical, fairly foolproof , genuinely effective and deal proprtionately with a risk. With respect, while all we well-meaning amateurs can come up with what we think are good ideas, at some point we need to respect that those with real expertise in the field need to be trusted to evaluate the possibilities and reach a sensible conclusion. This is why I keep suggesting that, rather than just bouncing thoughts around in a Convo that get no further, they are addressed to those who are in a position to take action. In the case of the UK, that is BSI who have a portal for the public – any individuals or groups – to make contributions. This is in addition to the usual broad spectrum represented on technical committees and working groups.

Personally, as Which? test products, hear from Members through surveys or directly, monitor what is said in Convos, they should be in a good position to put a summary together. If their staff team does not have the necessary background to do this then they could call on Members who have such expertise – they have 1 million to ask so it is likely enough could be found (one contributes regularly here). Maybe form a technical Committee to help Which?. Then put proposals on behalf of consumers to BSI. I am waiting to hear just how Which? currently engages with BSI and standards.

Profile photo of duncan lucas
Member

Thank you malcolm , the biggest (and best ) company in control equipment in the world is Honeywell used all over the UK including hospitals , many different types including dual types -airflow-optical- magnetic- moisture-humidity – etc-etc : https://sensing.honeywell.com/sensors used in commercial dryers and multiple other equipment to big to post.

Profile photo of wavechange
Member

Kenneth – I would have assumed that you are familiar with different forms of interlocks but looking back at your posts it seemed that you did not understand the points I was making.

I am well aware that many fires are related to cooking. Smoking and drinking alcohol are other well recognised factors.

I want to see household appliances designed to be safer and I believe that this can be done at reasonable cost. Like Malcolm, I would Which? to take action on behalf of the public.

Profile photo of Beryl
Member

We also need Trading Standards to accept that their role is not just one of a deterrent to large manufacturers but one of action also. To critisize third party intervention could continue, involving a third or fourth ad infinitum, leading to too much spurious talk and no undertaking.

Profile photo of wavechange
Member

I very much hope that Which? will take up the problem of Trading Standards failing to tackle important issues, which needs to be addressed by government.

Member
Gavin Wilson says:
23 December 2016

We contacted them regarding our Indesit Tumble Dryer, around the same time as our daughter. She had the new part fitted after waiting over a year. Since the new part was fitted, she’s now had trouble with the heating element, because her items are not drying properly. On the back panel wires etc are fixed which have to be removed to fit the new part. She’s contacted them but is frustrated at the lack of follow up service.
We’re still waiting out tumble dryer being fixed. Its been over a year and a half.
I take it Whirlpool have inherited a white elephant.

Profile photo of ElizabethWilkins
Member

Hi I posted on here earlier . This is a problem that is happening a lot. I’m in a terrible situation where their modification has actually damaged my heating element and it’s took 3 visits to discover what was going on and might I add it was tripping my electricity too . They should have come today but cancelled without telling me as again they don’t have the part and I’m left high and dry again .they have lied to me twice today and I’ve contacted trading standards and they were of no help either

Profile photo of malcolm r
Member

According to consumer law, if a repair has not been effective then you are entitled to either a further repair, a reduction in price and keep the dryer (no point), or a partial refund depending upon the amount of use you have had. However, for some reason legal redress seems to have been shelved as a solution for consumers.

Member
Larry Osborne says:
23 December 2016

This is a total disgrace.

I have waited months for my modification and had to deal with extremely rude staff at call centres. They have repeatedly told me I would be called back by the planning department but never am. I bought this product in good faith just a year ago. I think there should be a recall of all the machines and monies refunded.

The fact that a major manufacturer is willing to risk customers lives means I will never buy another product from this group.

Profile photo of malcolm r
Member

Under the Consumer Rights Act, if you reported the problem of an unsafe appliance within 6 months of delivery, you should have the choice of a repair (done without undue inconvenience) or a replacement. Your choice. Why has Which? not sought to have this consumer’s legal rights invoked?

I suspect that because the machines have been declared unsafe then a pre-existing fault is admitted, so Sale of Goods Act claims for 6 years (5 years) should also be valid. Why has Which? and Peterborough Trading Standards once again not required customers’ legal rights to be observed? Nothing PTS have agreed to should over-ride the law.

Member
Simon B says:
2 February 2017

On the 28th October 2016 I had my moment before a judge in the small claims court and was awarded in my favour the sum of £175 (including costs).

My claim was against Dixons/Carphone Warehouse who I bought the dryer off. A week before the court appearance Dixons wrote to the court to say they would not be attending after spending the previous 7 months trying to bury me in the paperwork of their many legal responses to my claim.

The judgement went in my favour not for any reasons of fire safety, rather, it was based on me being a single guy living alone, occupied in a trade that can result in a build up of dirty clothes and that having to babysit a tumble dryer was an unreasonable expectation… as part of my claim I had argued that had I known about having to babysit the dryer I would not have bought it.

The bulk of my claim was based on the issue of fire safety. I asked many questions of Dixons and they were not forthcoming with some answers. They argued that the machine was safe to use provided the fluff filter was cleaned regularly and that it was not left unattended. I rhetorically asked how my presence alone could magically prevent it spontaneously combusting before stating it obviously couldn’t. Rather, my presence was needed in case of a fire so I asked the real question, in the event of a fire, what was I to do? What was the right response to an fire in my dryer and what was the appropriate fire extinguisher? I never received a response to this question. I also asked what risk assessment had Dixons made to justify their statement that the dryer was safe to use or had they had access to the risk assessment Indesit had carried out. Again, no response. Risk Asessments are somewhat derided these days but surely this is an example where one surely was needed. I would be surprised Indesit haven’t written one but they seem very reluctant for it to be made public!

I purchased a new Indesit tumble dryer in April 2015 as a replacement for my trusty Beko and was immediately taken by the design of the fluff filter compared to my Beko. The Beko was two-sided while the Indesit was one sided, I immediately thought this would mean it was not only less effective at trapping and holding fluff but that fluff might actually pass into the dryer itself during the drying cycle, regardless of how often you clean the fluff filter. I therefore decided I had to be doubly diligent in making sure it was cleaned after every drying. Despite this, 9 months later I had reason to move the dryer and so took the opportunity to remove my vent pipe and look into the back of the dryer. Guess what? Yes, loads of fluff!

Profile photo of malcolm r
Member

@patrick, I wonder if the author of this Convo (P V-S) or someone else would like to comment on Simpon B’s court experience. it does seem extremely relevant to the point mase in the past about unacceptable inconvenience caused to affected owners, and the justification for compensation perhaps? Maybe Which? could pursue this approach as well?

Profile photo of wavechange
Member

It is good to hear from someone prepared to take action, Simon. I don’t have articles to hand but I have seen advice to vacuum ducting and hoses used with vented tumble dryers. Fire statistics show there is a general problem with tumble dryers, and not just the more serious issue with the Whirlpool brands.

Profile photo of duncan lucas
Member

Simon proves my point all along there comes a time when the talk ends and action has to take place , every time I say action on Which I am marked down maybe this will get through to some. I also like to state after my problem with BG in November they admitted liability and settled with me for £90 , that was only because —-I ACTED !

Profile photo of malcolm r
Member

I continually, like yourself, propose actions. There is a time when the talking has to stop…….or at least when it is largely exhausted, do something constructive. A concerted action on behalf of all consumers might have achieved some compensation for them while Whirlpool slowly sorts their machines out. At the same time we might have uncovered the problems behind the design of these dryers to improve matters for the future. Simon’s investigation perhaps shows a cause that needs to be dealt with that an interlock would not have prevented. We can learn from real experiences.

Profile photo of Beryl
Member

The salient problem here is manufacturers failing to carry out the necessary modifications which will assist or lessen the probability of tumble dryers catching fire, which begs the question, if there was no fail safe problem, why is it necessary to implement modifications to a problem if one doesn’t exist?

Clearly the admission that modifications are necessary means there is a problem. The action and objective taken by Which? surely is to seek jurisdiction to induce PTS to implement what they are paid to do and protect consumers from manufacturers failing to modify their appliances.

For the record, the definition of fail safe: “A system or plan that comes into operation in the event of something going wrong or that is in place to prevent such an occurrence.” That in itself is grounds for governmental enforcement.

Profile photo of KennethWatt
Member

That’s an easy one to answer Beryl.

If the dryers are not maintained as they should be lint builds up and in extreme cases can be lit by the heater.

The terminology used for such things along the lines of “in rare cases” or words to that effect is corporate PR speak that in this case almost certainly translates to, “when people do the wrong or daft things” but they can hardly say that can they?

So whilst I have no love for Whirlpool I have to admit that taking the action that they have done is a bold move and I think a responsible one as, they could have after all, simply told it as it is and put it down to user error.

Instead they’ve tried to do something to help people that perhaps aren’t as fastidious as they ought to be in cleaning the filter as, that is the sole cause of this where there isn’t a front bearing collapse. And a bearing collapse, an owner would know all about only too well.

And in doing that all they seem to be getting is absolute grief, talk of claims here there an everywhere, abuse from owners, calls from all to do more and more that really isn’t possible. All the while looking at a massive black hole in the books due to the cost.

In the face of that, is it any wonder companies will do all they can to avoid carrying out such recalls?

I can just imagine other companies staring down the barrel of a similar problem in the future and thinking to themselves that perhaps they better not do the right thing as it could kill the business. Instead just try to sweep it under the carpet until it all blows over if at all possible.

Therefore you have to ask, is calling for heads on a pike really the right course of action or, should such things be encouraged and sentiments tempered with some compassion for *all* the parties involved.

Otherwise, you might make things worse, not better.

K.

Profile photo of Beryl
Member

Kenneth, first and foremost one needs to accept a problem exists. If you can’t then any discussion is sterile and time wasting.

Highly intelligent humans are quite capable of forgetting to clean a filter on occasion and it is well known the problem can worsen with age, therefore a fail safe mechanism to prevent a possible fire that can endanger other people’s property as well as your own is an essential addition to any household electrical appliance. I repeat, if Dyson has introduced this into his vacuum cleaners then why not tumble dryers?

To do nothing in this case is not really an option and will not solve any problems and so fires will continue in overheated tumble dryers, but to deny that it exists is unproductive and ineffectual.

Profile photo of KennethWatt
Member

I do accept there’s a problem for sure, that people do not clean or maintain their appliances in a manner that they should and often that is even acceptable.

To flip that around, if people are not to accept that all too often if not in virtually all cases that this is a result of user behaviour or lack thereof then the conversation is merely demands for the impossible and not a discussion.

But from what you’ve said I get the impression that regardless you will blame any company for whatever, just so long as it’s not the user at fault and some big bad company can be put to the stake it’s fine.

That will not solve the problem.

What action to you suggest companies should take against people that falsely claim that they maintained the machine correctly, go on the local news or even national telling everyone how terrible the company is but, it turns out it was their own stupidity or laziness that led to the issue?

Or how do you educate people that, if they want stuff to last, they need to look after it?

Or is are you adopting the position that none of that matters, it’s all the company’s problem and that we should live in a completely nanny state with the general public responsible for nothing at all? Because from my perspective, that’s pretty much what you’re saying.

All I am saying is that users of products, myself included, just accept that we have responsibility as well.

Dyson can do it because it’s a stream of air through a very narrow space and, same problem sort of, if you fail to clean the filters on a Dyson it burns out the motor with some almost going on fire.

The air through a dryer moves a lot slower, unless you wish your laundry almost shredded by high air throughput and you have to deal with heat in it, not a problem a vacuum cleaner has.

You also have overloading in dryers that will give the same reduced airflow. Large items could, Trapped items should… all issues that a vacuum leaner does not have.

You also have a very dense filter in a vac that resides in a relatively small sealer area, not so in a dryer, the filter is much larger.

In summary, you are comparing apples to oranges o a degree.

Some did try filter lights, Miele and Bosch if I recall. They didn’t work too well, people complained about them, they scrapped them.

Fires will always happen on dryers. Always, you’ll never stop it completely. Lessen it, maybe but never stop it.

They get hot, hot enough to dry clothing in a short time so, hot enough that under very rare circumstances they can potentially go on fire.

Just as cooler an, a toaster, a car, a computer, a boiler…. the list is endless.

K.

Profile photo of wavechange
Member

Here are some figures for fires in household electrical products: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33124925

Some people live in flats and tower blocks. They may be meticulous about cleaning their dryer filter but what if the the person downstairs is not? The tower block fire in Shepherd’s Bush could have cost lives.