Does reliability top your list of appliance ‘must haves’?

Reliability and performance are the key requirement for us, based on past experience (not reliable, because sources of manufacture change) and mainly Which? test results balanced to some degree against price. Out Miele dishwasher finally stopped working properly after 12 years daily service. We found a replacement Miele on line for £500, including 6 months consumables and removal of old machine. Unusually (actually uniquely) for us we took up a 10 year warranty for all parts and labour, or a replacement machine, for £149.

My gripe is the poor warranty period most manufacturers offer. We should be entitled to expect at least 6-7 years trouble-free working lives for “normal priced” appliances (not the cheap ones). Repairs can often be excessively expensive – to replace the circulating pump on my Miele dishwasher would have been around £400+, nearly as much as the new machine.

Why does Which not a) publish what should be reasonable lives and b) campaign for manufacturers or retailers to include better warranties at no extra cost (John Lewis do it for TVs). This might also help Sale of Goods Act claims.

I’m all for repairability to keep appliances functioning. All mine are repairable, but the issue is whether it is economic. My dishwasher repair – above – would cost nearly as much as a new machine, so no contest there. Call-out and labour costs can make it uneconomic. Do it yourself if you are competent. I’m all for dependable brands but backed up by a long warranty – if the manufacturer wants me to buy their appliance, then if its as good as they say, give me the support. car makers have been forced in to doing it.

Reliability is a factor, but only one. No point in having a device that would go on forever if it is difficult to use, or doesn’t do a good job or is a lot of trouble to set up or clean afterwards, Then reliability issue never arises, because you don’t use it very much. I like to look at reviews (Which?, Amazon etc.) but of course they often reflect people’s early impressions, or may not be available at all for new models. You also often see a f”five-star/one-star” effect – reviews divided between lovers and haters. For electronic goods I think this is often poor QA by the manufacturer – if you are lucky enough to get a unit that works well, its great, but too many are faulty.

Price is an unreliable guide of course – anyone can put up their price!

Product reliability is a continuing issue in a number of conversations. This reiterates an earlier view. Consumers (and their associations) could press for warranties more related to expected product life (as improved car warranties and TVs – John lewis). A start may be to ask manufacturers to declare their expected (design) life for a product. At present a one year warranty followed by a battle with the manufacturer, as in Kindle screens, is an unfair situation.

As I said above, the motor industry could teach appliance manufacturers a lot. Car manufacturers generally offer warranties of more than a year and dealers often make ‘goodwill’ contributions if something goes wrong after the warranty has expired – particularly if the vehicle has been serviced by a dealer. I was fortunate enough to be given a new engine for a three year old car.

Occasionally, retailers are helpful but I have seen little evidence of customers customers managing to pursue their rights under the Sale of Goods Act, and warranties longer than a year are the exception rather than the rule, unless these are paid for.

Once again, I ask Which? to mention warranty length in every product report and to include this as a factor when selecting ‘Best Buys’. Sadly, the Sale of Goods Act has proved unfit for its purpose.