Update: it’s unacceptable that Whirlpool is still failing consumers

This comment was removed at the request of the user

Of course I am reading it, Duncan. 🙂 Someone else made a similar point about distorted filters and and someone else has criticised the design of filters on this page. One of our other ‘regulars’ has professed to having little knowledge or interest in technical matters but has made some useful input into technical discussions. Here is an anecdote. I took my turn to join our safety officer on the regular safety walks round our labs and offices, looking for potential safety issues. I wondered why they asked a secretary to wander round labs but when she picked up problems that the supposed experts had missed the reason became obvious.

In a condenser dryer the moist air is cooled and dried before being meeting up with a heater operating at high enough temperature to start a fire. I presume that there must be more than one filter in the system to guard against this happening if fluff gets past the first one.

I used to have a tumble dryer but only used it a few times a year. The plastic support for the filter had started to disintegrate, so I scrapped the machine. I remember thinking that a metal support might have been more durable.

Our plastic filter in the dryer fits perfectly. not a feature necessarily of the material. It’s about competent design, as is the rest of an appliance.

I am still waiting to hear exactly what causes the problem with Indesit et al dryers and how the modification(s) is (are) intended to work and banish the problem. I do wish someone like Which? would put the facts down (have I missed them?)

Frances, a question that I have asked and that has never been answered. Right at the start i asked Which if they would see “defective” machines were tested to the European safety standard (published in the UK as BS EN 60335-2-11) to see if they complied, and also to see what the actual safety problem was. I have repeated the request several times but with no reply.

I doubt that the affected machines would have been sold unless it had been thought that they fully met all the applicable safety requirements.

I suspect that subsequent operating experience then showed that these particular machines did not actually do a good enough job of meeting those requirements.

It also sounds as though Whirlpool are now arguing that the actual gap or safety shortfall is relatively minor, so that the use of unmodified machines is tolerably safe, as long as appropriate user cautions are followed, e.g. regular filter cleaning and no unattended operation. Hence, Whirlpool seem to have justified their “roundtuit” approach to rolling out the upgrades (at least to their own standards of proof).

Ultimately however, it is down to householders to take responsibility for fire safety in their homes. Thence, given the uncertainty surrounding this issue, some might well choose to err on the side of caution by replacing any affected dryers with replacement ones, of a known safe pattern.

Derek P, safety standards must be passed by representative products before they can be certified for release onto the European market. The standards give tests with specific criteria for pass or fail to give a clear answer. So the Indesit machines should not “show a gap in a safety shortfall”. Ir they did they would (should) not have been placed on the market until they fully met the standard.

I am assuming they met the standard but their has to be doubt, however small. That can be easily resolved by taking a defective dryer and submitting it to the safety standard tests that might be applicable to a potential fire incident. One would be to check whether any non-metallic materials in the stated vicinity of the heating element pass the required burning test.

Malcolm, most of us will be familiar with the MoT test for cars. That sets out a safety standard that cars must meet for at least one day each year.

I don’t imagine that appliance certification is much different. Any sort of full compliance tests can only be carried out on a small sample of machines. Then the reality of retailed machines, as actually built, and after a few years of use, including wear and tear, may differ.

I assume that the current tests are carried out on new machines. The problem is that tumble dryers can accumulate lint, particularly if the filter has not been clean regularly. The flammable material in the vicinity of the heater is lint. The Whirlpool brands are, I believe, more prone to accumulating lint than other dryers and the purpose of the modification is to correct this problem.

If the dryers had an all-metal casing the fire would be contained. But we use plastic parts, which can burn or melt before the fire goes out due to lack of oxygen.

Certainly initial sample machines are required for certification tests, and the licensing authority can make spot checks on later production to ensure the products are still compliant. However, to have licensed production also means the manufacturer complies with the ISO 9001 quality standards, against which they are regularly audited to ensure there is consistency in business practice and manufacture. Should products be found in the market that are then unsafe it is the job of a national authority – in the UK’s case Trading Standards still, I believe – to investigate and report. Other bodies like Which?, or individuals, can also raise problems. I am not sure how much more, in principle, we can expect to do. One weak link may be in our case with Trading Standards who do not seem to have the resources. However for products sold throughout Europe each country is doing the same job, hopefully better. So we have a network of potential protection.

I am disappointed that Which? seem to have set themselves apart from the standards process.