How long do you expect your kitchen appliances to last?

As with all things costs must have a bearing on what can be achieved and I do have concerns about the testing regime. Very interesting point on hard and soft water testing though and as for the Bosch designed to fail quite gob-smacking . One thing, unlike pills is that washing machines are assembled from many bought in parts and the quality control on these parts can vary or at a later stage be sourced from a cheaper supplier. So even early full testing can be misleading, that caveat aside still seems a good idea.

The news on the washing machines and the 60c wash quite shocked me. And the main part of that was the fact that Which? was not testing fully.

I believe Which? has contracted out testing for some years and my concern is that non-technical people are commissioning tests – probably cost shared with EU consumer associations – without necessarily having a grasp of the whole. As has been revealed in the EU clothing at medical establishments is washed on site so the fact that most British nurses are having to clean their uniforms means that in the UK washers doing hygienic washing is actually much more important.

Stain removal is but one reason for washing but we also have viruses, bacteria, insects, pollens to be considered let alone ease of use and wash cycles.

One interesting line of inquiry not yet pursued is why the wash cycle profiles differ so much with the Beko’s being substantially more reassuring to my untechnical eye. Which? might usefully explore this area. For instance we are told that bed mites die at 60c after 20 minutes but I am slightly loathe to believe that bed mites are so obliging to die at round amount minutes and degrees. Perhaps they actually also die at 30 minutes if at 55 degrees. Possibly the Panasonics brief incursion to 67c actually kills them very quickly.

However whatever that reveals the idea that a 43c wash is an acceptable attempt as 60c wash is laughable and should have been spotted immediately. When are we going to see a full review of washing machines showing all their wash profiles and whether the different profiles have any appreciable effects.

Michael

When testing appliances, what is practical often needs to take priority over what is desirable. There is no point in reporting that a machine is durable if the model tested has been discontinued by the time that tests have been completed. The best that can be achieved with a washing machine, for example, is to use the machine heavily over a short time period, even though this is not representative of household use. That might make little difference when testing kettles but could be much more important with washing machines and dishwashers, where there are mechanical parts that can become stuck or blocked. It would be good to take apart every item and look for design weaknesses but that involves a lot more work and means that staff in a test lab can test fewer appliances.

Testing protocols are adapted with time. Nowadays, a significant number of washing machines are suffering from contamination by bugs – biofilms containing bacteria and/or moulds. The likely reasons are changes in detergent formulation (especially absence of bleaching chemicals), the popularity of washing at lower temperature (to save money and because low temperature washing is effective with modern detergents), and possibly less efficient rinsing. In the past, measuring cleaning performance and energy use were the top priorities, but since washing at higher temperatures helps keep machines clean, it becomes important to test the maximum temperature achieved in a wash cycle and how long this temperature is maintained for. I’m glad that Which? has reported the tests showing poor temperature control, even if this issue has not been highlighted in the past.

I am not sure how many will be aware of the procedures for testing pharmaceuticals. There is also a well established procedure for reporting problems in their use, and that has been extended to allow the public to make reports. I don’t really trust manufacturers to report problems with their own appliances and feel that there should be handled independently.

I had a look at the website for the brand of kettle that scored highest for reliability in the Which? reliability survey. I could not find any reference to guarantee or warranty, only how to register a product. In the absence of information, I assume that a product carries only a one year guarantee.

My first two kettles lasted a total about 30 years and were still working when I disposed of them (one became tatty and the other had very minor leak). Number three lasted a matter of months and its replacement announced its demise with a bang about a couple of years later.

If kettles can be reliable, I don’t see why we have to put up with lack of durability. My latest kettle has a three year warranty and the receipt is in a safe place, just in case.

Malcolm asks how we should persuade manufacturers and retailers that we are looking for a decent warranty (at no extra cost). Perhaps we have to ask. When I replaced my car, the top priority was to get one with a spare wheel.

John Lewis is to be commended for giving a 2 year guarantee on all electrical products and stating where longer cover is provided. Only a couple of their kettles are covered for five years, but hopefully that will change if consumers make it clear that there is a demand.

If John Lewis can tell us about longer warranties, Which? should do the same in its product reviews.

Malcolm has also given us an example of how a simple repair can prolong the life of a kettle. When cheaper products break down, they are often not economical to repair, but there is nothing to lose by trying.

Which?’s reliability does not seem very helpful. Unless i have missed the information – quire possible! – a few stars are used, but no information as to how long a product / brand has generally lasted without breakdown. Reliability needs quantifying. I cannot believe with all the European testing and consumer surveys that go on that some such data does not exist. Please point me towards it.

I expect that it is possible to quantify the reliability of basic electric kettles. Even though some people may use them far more frequently than others do, that might average out.

The reliability of washing machines would be very difficult to quantify because they are reliable and some components will wear out. The number of operating cycles needs to be taken into account.

Fridges and freezers could be easier to compare because they are in constant use.

A big problem that was mentioned earlier is that any product may contain different components from one of the same make and brand. This is very obvious with laptops because you can check which brand of hard drive, battery and other components the manufacturer has used. Many manufacturers use parts made by other companies, depending on price and availability. I have seen two extreme examples of a particular brand of component failure. One was 100% failure of a batch of Sony hard drives in and the other was Microsoft-branded keyboards, where most of a batch of 80 had been replaced at least once after little use. Recalls often relate to some examples of a product, and this can relate to the source of a particular component.

The big problem with reliability assessment is that long term testing is no use if the product is going to be discontinued before the results are available.

Oops, that should read: “The reliability of washing machines would be very difficult to quantify because they are MECHANICAL and some components will wear out.”

Life in terms of cycles in some appliances seems an approriate measure, like mileage in cars.

In many cases of early failure this can be down to a single component, that production should rectify.

There is no reason why because a product is discontinued its replacement should not be rated for durability. A decent manufacturer will build on knowledge of products and not totally redesign a new version. My guess is that real manufacturers (as opposed to those who import and rebrand others products) can produce products of consistent durability from experience. Certainly that was my experience in manufacture. So we should be able to build a picture of reliability – or durability as I’d prefer.

As we learned in another Convo, some machines record the number of washing cycles but the manufacturers don’t make this available to the user. 🙁

I agree that it’s useful to know about reliability even if a product is discontinued. That could help anyone who wants to pursue a claim under the Sale of Goods Act.

Brand durability may be a useful indicator of durability but obviously it is only one factor to consider in choosing a product.

I have never been keen on brand loyalty as a way of deciding on a purchase. When Which? started nominating ‘Don’t Buys’ we learned that different models from the best known brands could be ‘Best Buys’ and ‘Don’t Buys’. The introduction to the Don’t Buys information makes interesting reading.

Thanks for this Dieseltaylor. The fact that France is going to bring in what is effectively a two year guarantee is the best evidence that consumers in some European countries are going to be better served in future.

We have the Sale of Goods Act which appears to give the consumer protection but in practice rarely achieves anything unless we fight for our rights.

It would be good if Which? could do an article on forthcoming consumer protection in Europe.

Prompted by your recent posts, perhaps we should look at protection afforded to consumers in the EU. This article has been in my reading list for months:
europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/shopping/shopping-abroad/guarantees/index_en.htm

What I remain uncertain about is the legal situation in the UK, with both the European legislation and the Sale of Goods Act.

I cannot find any mention of EU protection on the Which? website.

My priority remains to look for products with a long warranty provided by the manufacturer or retailer. That should remove much of the hassle if something goes wrong.

I think there may be confusion over the EU legislation. As I understand it, it is not a compulsory manufacturers guarantee but a trader’s (retailer’s) obligation under law. The UK equivalent is the Sale of Goods Act. If this is so, then the UK has better protection – 6 years (5 Scotland) then the EU 2 year version. Please tell me if I am wrong.

The EU legislation says:
“The two-year guarantee period starts as soon as you receive your goods. In some EU countries you must inform the seller of the fault within two months of discovering it otherwise you may lose your right to the guarantee.

Within six months from receipt of the goods, you just need to show the trader that they are faulty or not as advertised. But, after six months in most EU countries you also need to prove yourself that the defect already existed on receipt of the goods, for example, by showing that the defect is due to the poor quality of materials used.”

Consumer protection through the law or by commercial warranty seems to me to be a key responsibility of Which? to keep us informed about and to campaign for improvements. It would be useful if Which? gave a clear statement of the current situation, progress on extended warranties, effective use of the Sale of Goods Act and the ramifications of revisions to consumer law.

Not so many years it was easy to replace the element of a kettle but now these are generally in the base, so failure means buying a new kettle. I have a couple of Russell Hobbs kettles that came with a three year guarantee (two years plus an extra year’s cover when registered).

We need Which? to tell us about guarantee periods when they test products. It incredible that there are kettles costing over £100 with only a one or two year guarantee.

The Consumer Rights Act provides legal redress for 6 years (5 in Scotland) if a product, considering its price for example, does not last as long as is reasonable. We should put effort in to using this law, until we get products protected by better guarantees. Which? should (well. in my opinion) be helping consumers by seeing the act is properly observed by retailers. Just because it might be a little difficult is no excuse to turn your back on it.