Whirlpool’s unsafe dryers must be recalled

wavechange, you list a number of items as to why you are “not happy about registering products”. Would you now like to add to the proposals already made about how effective registering “could be done”?

We’ve seen 18 months of words complaining about Whirlpool; what we need are constructive proposals for sorting Whirlpool out but, more important, ensuring problem products can be fully recalled in the future. We need a “can do” approach rather than “why we can’t” and Which? need to address this. They seem to be the only vehicle we can use. Let’s get the “Consumers’ Association” back.

Sarah, exactly what do you expect from a parliamentary debate. This issue has already been in front of a select committee, the chairman has twice written to the CEO of Whirlpool and we are still no further forward (except more dryers will have been rectified). In 18 months words have achieved little. Action is needed; consumer law is designed to do this.

Can dryers be recalled? How do you know who owns them?

Should SoGA have been used? I think so.

Surely we need to address the core problem of registering appliances so in future recalls can be effective. Wouldn’t that be the better debate to instigate? Perhaps Which? need to campaign for that. But hopefully based on some constructive and practical foundations that they have thought through.

Absolutely right. A Parliamentary debate is in the long grass anyway now.

I would like to see a debate in Parliament. It’s time to discuss what measures should be taken against companies that fail to act in the interest of the public. Initially, Whirlpool said that owners of the affected dryers could continue to use them provided they were not left unattended, despite advice to the contrary. Even where owners were aware of the problem and had made contact with the company, many were kept waiting for over a year before action was taken.

My understanding is that there is sufficient evidence to issue a recall, and the company should have been ordered to do so without delay. In the circumstances, my view is that Whirlpool should not be allowed to sell dryers until they have addressed the current problems.

How do you recall dryers form people who have not registered and don’t respond to publicity?

The hot air that will be generated in Parliament – if under the circumstances it should ever reach the floor – would be much better used in drying the clothes of people with unsafe and unusable dryers – if only it could be bottled. We need action based on sound proposals, not another 18 months of talk.

Let’s establish a proper recall system – should have been started years ago.

I suggest TV and social media, and ask people to pass on the information to their neighbours, friends and family. That could have been done long ago.

I have already said that we need a central registration service.

The problem is that people seem not to respond to this kind of approach – otherwise many more would have contacted Whirlpool. Just like choosing energy tariffs, people seem reluctant to do anything. Hence, if we really do want a proper recall system (that not only protects the owner but possibly their neighbours) we need it to cover everyone automatically. So registration at the point of purchase seems one good way.

I think we should also be debating the role of Trading Standards – and Peterborough in particular – in the Whirlpool fiasco. Why they have been involved in a “plan” that has not only failed, but is allowed to continue to fail. Why have they not used legal powers to get consumers prompt and effective redress? Perhaps using the Trading Standards organisation in the same locality as a major employer being taken to task is not the best solution. As this is a national problem, why do National Trading Standards deal with such major cases?

Maybe sometime Which? might put proposals to us?

Malcolm, I ask myself if you are directly affected by this issue & have personal experience of what effect it has on someone. I, like Wavechange, want to see & I quote ‘what measures should be taken against companies that fail to act in the interest of the public’. I want the Business Select Committee to do a FULL investigation into Whirlpool & Consumer Rights, this is something they have not done to date and for them to fully endorse & call on the Government to implement the Lynn Faulds Wood report.
Of course dryers can be recalled, I find this a silly question… Look at when the Mars bars were recalled not so long ago, people hadn’t registered when they had purchased those! It is the consumers responsibility to look out for the recall. But saying this the company, Whirlpool in this case, need to implement what they say they will do such as Maurizio Pettorino stating he would do adverts in the main tabloids which never happened hence we have so many consumers still unaware of the situation. However, saying this, you would be surprised at the amount of consumers that have been contacted but have never registered, so how does this happen? Whirlpool must get this information from somewhere other than when the appliance is registered.
As for SoGA & CRA, depending on the time when the appliance was purchased, of course it should be used! This is one area we do agree on. In my group we recommend using these to your benefit after all they are there to protect the consumer.
As for dealing with the ‘core of the problem’ I have dealt with this earlier on when mentioning the Lynn Faulds Wood report. I agree that a campaign for this should also be done.

“Of course dryers can be recalled, I find this a silly question”. Thanks Sarah. This kind of response is hardly constructive. If you read my contributions over the last couple of years you will find I have been constructive in my approach, both on recalls and addressing the Whirlpool issue. Which? have got nowhere, Trading Standards have hardly achieved anything. We are 18 months on with consumers still faced with dryers they are told are unsafe and are advised not to use. Campaigns, petitions, Convos, talking has got us not very far.

Why have customers not been advised to use SoGA?

The Lynn Faulds Wood report was short on thought-through proposals, and that was two years ago. We need a group with the right knowledge and experience to put together a proper, workable method of recording the essential details of who purchases appliances and other potentially problem products so a recall, when necessary, can be effective. Get it up and running with the most risky products so we don’t wait years for “perfection”.

A Parliamentary Debate under the present circumstances seems unlikely I would suggest, and I still would like to know just what it is expected to achieve for Whirlpool owners who need action now – well 18 months ago.

Interested bodies would perhaps do well to sit down with Which? and start working out a strategy for both getting redress for Whirlpool owners – by legal means if necessary – and for devising a registration system that is practical.

I endorse Malcolm’s comments. Some of us who have been contributing to this Conversation and its predecessors for two years now are not necessarily affected by the fire-risk dryer problems but have nevertheless put forward many suggestions and recommended actions to move the situation forward. I recall submitting a three-step rectification plan that could have resolved the crisis by now. I am not claiming it’s the perfect solution although it would have been a start, but Which? took no notice and [with the exception of Peterborough] trading standards authorities and the national body have ignored it. Peterborough have not ignored it but they have not done anything effective and it was not until Which? belatedly started a judicial review process that the City Council made another move.

My ‘rectification plan’ was set out in a comment in October 2016. See : https://conversation.which.co.uk/home-energy/whirlpool-fire-risk-rip-off-britain-pete-moorey/#comment-1461401

We must have a workable registration system for appliances, working forwards on a risk assessment basis. But let’s not forget that Whirlpool haven’t even dealt with all the customers that they are already aware of let alone the number who have not yet contacted them. It’s not the lack of customer data that’s holding things up but a lack of determination.

I am not against a Parliamentary debate taking place so long as we understand it cannot be before Parliament reconvenes and will not make any decisions. I support any moves to have this fiasco raised to the highest level but until the responsible authority applies the law and enforces consumers’ rights it seems nothing much will change and progress will remain slow and inadequate.

Malcolm, I am not here to argue… You have picked out ONE sentence of my reply that you feel was detrimental to you when it was not. You haven’t picked up on anything I have agreed with you over.
You are actually wrong in the fact that Which? have got nowhere, after filing for a judicial review Whirlpool have issued a second safety notice for all consumers to unplug their appliances which is a better state of affairs than using something with an inherent fault.
Rome was not built in a day, it’s a long process as I am sure you appreciate in getting subjects to Parliament or even debated! Surely the scenario of getting Andy Slaughter MP’s petition is attractive as a form of getting the recall issues highlighted. Yes, it may have taken 18 months & believe me I have walked every step with a lot of affected consumers.
Who has advised consumers not to use SoGA? This obviously is only until Sept 2015 then the CRA came into play but this does not help those whose appliances were older than 6 years (5 in Scotland).
I look forward to seeing you at the debate in Parliament when it takes place 🙂

“Interested bodies would perhaps do well to sit down with Which? and start working out a strategy for both getting redress for Whirlpool owners ……”

Malcolm – given what Which? failed to do, and the positive actions of Sarah Jayne Lyden-Burke, and her campaign group ‘Hotpoint Dryer Fire Risk’; plus the chap who did a 5 minute video taking a machine apart in April 2016; I am not sure of the benefit to other parties discussing this with Which? The legal side is solid the machines are unsafe by design or poor manufacture.

Which? could have asked for a judicial review in November 2015 given it was prepared to say they should not be used at that time. They did not.

They could have taken some machines apart and demonstrated what goes on whether you clean them and not and put it on the Web with the other 1800 videos it has done. But it didn’t.

To my mind the leadership of Which? in this matter seems to be content with Conversation after Conversation. Other than being goaded into action from here and the outright call of the London Fire Brigade in August for a ban I am not sure if this body would have taken any substantive action.

Full respect to those activists who get off their hands and did something.

John, where did you submit your ‘rectification plan’ to? Business Department would have been the place to go 🙂

Sarah – It was in the comment to Which? Conversation for which I provided a link above.

There have been several Which? Conversations bemoaning the lack of action by Whirlpool and the responsible authorities so I assumed Which? would welcome such suggestions and might include it in their submission to the government. Which? has a lot more clout than I do so I expect Which? to do the campaigning! I seem to recall that at the time the Business etc Department did not have any functions or a minister listed under Consumer Affairs.

I have read all the posts you have submitted over the last three months [which for some reason were all I could find on this site] and in many of them you have reported that the modifications undertaken by Whirlpool were not satisfactory with the result that some of your supporters have experienced subsequent fire outbreaks [presumably, in some cases, involving machines that had not previously caught fire]. It would seem that – apart from deleting parts of your comments for purportedly promoting your campaign group – Which? has not taken any notice of your comments or included any reference to that problem in more recent articles. I am very disappointed that this further dimension to the problem has remained unexplored because a defective modification is just as serious as the original fault.

Sarah, this is not an argument, but I do not see condemning a question as “silly” is helpful.

Which? advised that using SoGA was not likely to be helpful (although very late they have suggested it might be used). I have a letter that states “……we are reluctant to recommend to consumers that they approach their retailer with an argument under SoGA….as the evidence clearly suggests they are likely to be rebuffed”. Surely a situation a consumer’s association – one that I fund – was set up to put right.

A “success” for Which? in getting Whirlpool to tell owners they should no longer use their machines? It is of little help to those affected and waiting……………….

I don’t know whether you have looked at these Convos over the last 18 months but as John says a lot of constructive proposals have been made. For example;
– Have any affected machines been tested to ensure they comply with the safety standard? If they don’t, there is a serious issue.
– Why did Which? not use consumer law to help consumers once the TS plan seemed to be far too slow?
– a number of contributors put forward proposals that might improve dryer safety in future. it does not seem that Which? did anything to promote these, nor engage with the BSI committee involved to discuss them.
– Why, when it was clear that Whirlpool’s remedial / replacement programme was so inadequate did Peterborough TS not impose a condition that anyone who did not receive a repair within – let’s be generous – 3 months should receive adequate compensation?
– proposal were made by a number of contributors as to how the remedial process could be better dealt with.
– why has no proposal been put together for a recall system? ho must we wait for?

So many constructive proposals have been made, but not responded to. What would a parliamentary debate achieve, and if anything, quickly enough to help all those who still have defective dryers?

I wrote through my MP to the Business Innovation and Skills Committee with concerns about sidelining customers’ legal rights (SoGA), Peterborough Trading Standards ineffective role, compliance of faulty dryers with standards, and the general issue of a workable product recall system. Essentially the reply I received said “It may assure you to know that my officials are in contact with Peterborough Trading Standards with respect to progress in the Whirlpool case. The Trading Standards have assured us they are satisfied that the company is proactively taking all possible action”.

Would we agree with that?

I was asked by Which? to share my story which I have done & I would suggest that if you want to know what a parliamentary debate would achieve contact Andy Slaughter MP, he’s the best man for the job, I back him all the way. If one does not attempt to make a difference then nobody would ever get anywhere.
Have a lovely day 🙂

A number of people in these Convos have made constructive proposals in the expectation their consumers association would take proper note and do some ground work. Some have also made direct representations to Trading Standards and Government. They have attempted to “make a difference” as well as others. I wish you well in your campaign. I have little faith in the quick result we need through Parliament but hope I’m wrong.

It seems to me that we need a properly coordinated effort to address the Whirlpool issue more quickly in favour of affected owners, but equally importantly to address the introduction of a workable recall system. As these are consumer issues, I would hope that Which? (Consumers’ Association) could form an umbrella group to bring together those of like mind, formulate workable proposals, and using existing law and through Parliament get something moving. I suspect Parliament would welcome a thought-through scheme that they can develop; they are not very good at doing this for themselves without using very expensive consultants.

Perhaps we should ask BSI whether the affected dryers are non-compliant with the relevant standards or whether the standards are inadequate – or both.

Someone would need to provide BSI test laboratories with a dryer that is defective if they were to be involved. However Which? could do this through their “own” laboratories; only part of the test standard would need to be checked. I’ve asked Which? 18 months ago whether it would do this; no response. It may be that they already have the answer.

We’ve discussed the safety standard, possible improvements, the role of Which? in helping develop standards directly through BSI committees, and I’ve pointed out that BSI have already a working group looking at the fire hazards posed by domestic appliances, along with international standards bodies. Standards can always be improved.

I wonder exactly why Trading standards have done little, Parliament has done little and Which? (by all reports) has done little. I guess the pertinent question is why?

Surely BSI does not need the help of Which? to find some of the affected driers to examine. The committee members may have examples in their own homes. Carrying out tests on appliances that have been used is likely to reveal information that could not be established from testing unused appliances.

It’s high time that we had an inquiry into the failings of Trading Standards, Ian. I suspect that it would establish that it is simply not coping because of lack of resources.

I would agree that TS have a lack of resources but also anything to do with the Hotpoint issue that is sent to your local TS gets forwarded to Peterborough TS to be dealt with. TS have failed the consumer dreadfully 😕

BSI’s role does not include policing the market and checking all the potentially non-compliant products that are being sold. That is one of the jobs of appointed organisations such as Trading Standards. Which? tests products for consumers and it seems sensible for it to have taken a defective dryer or two from its affected members and examined it. I would have also thought if dryers were suspect then Peterborough Trading Standards should have done this as part of its remit. Perhaps they both know there is not an issue of non-compliance with the safety standard.

Which? has both expertise in consumer products, uses test facilities to evaluate them, and hopefully interacts with its members on products, their problems, and constructive suggestions on improvements. They would seem well placed to take their knowledge to the relevant BSI committee to help develop improvements to standards. Many on these Convo’s have different degrees of knowledge and expertise to help Which? in this respect; it would be a shame if they were not put to good use.

I would like to see action taken to restore the resources of Trading Standards and to see national issues dealt with by National Trading Standards and not at local level. I’d also like to see a proper Consumers’ Minister, not a part-timer with many other duties.

That’s revealing, Sarah. Peterborough City Council have too strong a vested interest in keeping the company happy so they have used a cotton-wool fist in a velvet glove. If PCC were short of resources they could either have asked one of the metropolitan trading standards authorities to help out or asked the government to assist. I wonder if they did either of those things. When resources are short, organisations have to look at their priorities and perhaps shuffle people around a bit; it happens in the private sector but public authorities have very strong demarcation lines and try to make the problem fit the structure.

Malcolm – Do you know if BSI tests compliance of products that have been used? The affected dryers now owned by Whirlpool seem to be at greater risk of accumulating flammable lint close to the heater than other dryers. It’s not much use just checking unused dryers, is it?

As far as I am aware the main role of BSI testing is essentially for compliance with standards that takes place on new products and when auditing production. Standards are developed to include the effects of use in a consistent way. However their test laboratories are as far as I know available for any one to request tests for investigatory purposes, as are the other independent test laboratories. I would also expect other manufacturers to look at competitors products, and I do expect Which? to investigate known problems to help protect consumers – as well as Trading Standards. It is important to look at products during their life cycle to determine any deficiencies.

BSI committees are hosted by BSI but comprise members from a wide variety of backgrounds whose experience and expertise guide standards. I’ve listed the composition of the committee dealing with domestic appliances before to illustrate this.

What needs to be tested are those that are post modification appliances & those that have had the issue corrected at source. There would be nothing to investigate on an unused dryer.
In terms of TS John, it’s hardly revealing as this is information out in the public domain 😊

BS EN 60335-2-11 is the UK implementation of the international standard covering the safety of domestic tumble driers. Section 30, for example, “Resistance to heat and fire”says that “non-metallic materials in close proximity to heating elements and on which lint could accumulate shall be resistant to the spread of fire”. A test is specified to determine this resistance. So as one example from the standard this is something to investigate in an unused drier. As are other safety requirements – just in case driers have either been designed or manufactured that did not comply with the standard.

I am not sure what tests would be done on a used dryer. What should be done is to examine where lint accumulates and deduce how it has found its way there. Whether the basic design is defective and allows this, whether components designed to prevent this have deteriorated, as examples.

Whirlpool are applying a remedy to many affected dryers. It is reasonable to assume therefore that they think they know the cause of the problem and the remedy. I do not know if this has been made public – not in these Convos to the best of my knowledge despite requests. What should be scrutinised is whether their assumed cause is definitely correct, whether their remedy is a complete cure, and then most importantly whether the remedy is being properly applied to customers machines. The danger of doing this “in the field” as opposed to in the controlled conditions of a factory is the lack of supervision and quality control. Others have made this point.

Finally we should learn from this problem and, if appropriate, look at how this can be dealt with in future safety standards.

Who is really scrutinising what Whirlpool have decided to implement, why, and how well it is being done? And why are some offered replacement machines (at a cost when I believe they should be free) rather than a “fix”. I believe this is where we should be directing effort.

“And why are some offered replacement machines (at a cost when I believe they should be free) rather than a “fix”. I believe this is where we should be directing effort.”
Agreed Malcolm! This is what we encourage consumers to fight for everyday on the group! 😊

Sarah – It was a revelation to me that any referral to a local trading standards service about a Whirlpool product would be automatically forwarded to Peterborough City Council. I knew PCC was the ‘home’ authority for Whirlpool, as its HQ is within the city boundary, but it has become apparent during this saga that the Council’s position is compromised. If thousands of complaints have indeed been forwarded to Peterborough trading standards then their lack of action is even more deplorable. The fact that something is technically in the public domain does not mean that everyone is aware of it so I am grateful to you for bringing it to our attention.

Malcolm – With regards to your third paragraph above, Sarah in her earlier comments has referred to cases in her campaign group where owners have had the modifications carried out but the risks persist and some fires have broken out [presumably even in machines where no fires had occurred before the mods]. This is disturbing. Major public safety concerns are raised here – it’s not just battles involving a particular manufacturer and individual owners. It seems to be only a matter of luck that there have not been more serious fires causing injury and harm to people outside the specific property affected.

Thank you John, I agree that it is disgusting I bought it up in conversation with Leon Livermore, when I spoke to him about it. Though he is not able to do anything about it but encourages the public to boycott Whirlpool, something I strongly endorse 😊

People will not boycott Whirlpool. Although I share your feelings if Whirlpool have made ineffective repairs we should both condemn Whirpool – whatever that might achieve – but also those overseeing the implementation of Whirlpool’s “master plan”. My letter from Gregg Clark, i’ll repeat, says “……..the company is taking all possible action”, and “My Department will continue to monitor the situation with Trading Standards”. That’s all right then.

I am therefore, somewhat sceptical about another debate when nothing has been achieved – and very slowly – so far.

I support any efforts to resolve this problem for affected owners, but because all the talk over the last 18 months has still left a lot of owners without safe dryers, we need to do more than just instigate more talking. I wonder whether the whole situation has been compromised by Peterborough Trading Standards agreement to an open-ended Whirlpool proposal?

I’d suggest now is the time to take legal action against Whirlpool to get closure for those owners who have registered and still await a remedy – maybe appropriate compensation so they can buy a replacement machine, compensation for being without a safe machine to use for 18 months – and to force them to publicise as widely as possible affected machines to try to get more unfortunate owners to come forward for immediate redress.

What positive and useful actions might be taken to clear this problem up once and for all?

I’m sure that Which? could support several members who are keen to take legal action against Whirlpool.

I have no intention of buying brands owned by Whirlpool and I suspect that others would do the same if they were aware of the behaviour of the company over the dryer issue. I suggest that public awareness is raised via social media, and we might get more people boycotting Whirlpool – and other companies that treat the public shamefully.

Legal action for a few token cases might set a precedent that others could use? I really think Which?, or others, should have started this a year ago. I wonder whether Peterborough TS’s acquiescence to the Whirlpool plan has prejudiced a legal outcome, however.

Legal action is not as straight forward as one would think, not suggesting you don’t know this already, I doubt a ‘few token cases’ would rattle Whirlpool’s cage… a multi million £ company with (good?) lawyers & deep pockets.
I do not believe that Peterborough TS are monitoring this as responsibly they should be. Why would they have assisted Which? in issuing the enforcement notices? Is this not an admission of faulty appliances in reality without actually saying it or diversely an effort to delay going to court? Mmmm…

I’ve pulled out some extracts from the Sale of Goods Act explained for retailers (it is the retailer with whom your contract was made and therefore against whom the claim should be initially directed – but I assume the manufacturer can take over all such claims).

It seems to me that as Whirlpool admitted specified dryers were potentially unsafe very early on, the failure to conform to contract under SoGA was conceded. Redress should therefore have followed without “too much inconvenience”. So why was legal action avoided? Was it because Peterborough TS intervened? Which? do now suggest it might be best for remaining owners to make a claim under SoGA.

I’d be glad if someone with legal knowledge could clear this up.

“Customers do have a legal right to a refund, repair or
replacement if an item they purchased
• is not of satisfactory quality
• is not fit for purpose.
Each of these circumstances would mean that the item does
not conform to contract and therefore it can be described as faulty.

Any refund, repair or replacement you arrange with your
customer relating to faulty goods must not cause them too
much inconvenience and you will have to pay for other costs,
for example, collection or delivery.”

There’s lots to take into account when dealing with Whirlpool @malcolm-r it really is not that straight forward & I am not trying to be difficult here…
To get a refund on a faulty item bought on or before 30 September 2015, you need to reject it and return it within a reasonable time after purchase. What is a ‘reasonable time’ will depend on the specific circumstances, considering this Safety Alert Campaign spanning over 11 years Whirlpool play heavily on this. They wriggle out of anything they can. Then we have to take into account CRA for anything bought 1 October 2015 & after.
Dealing with the retailer is all well & good, though they just point you back to Hotpoint/Whirlpool & what if you had bought your appliance from Comet as we had?

“To get a refund on a faulty item bought on or before 30 September 2015, you need to reject it and return it within a reasonable time after purchase.”. Not if the item is shown to be faulty within 6 years – as many of these are. “Unsafe” is the key – it is a defect inherent in of the product. That is my view. You can find the full details in SoGA, and CRA.

There is no question who initially is legally responsible – the vendor, whether that is you local shop or a major retailer, online or otherwise. Your contract was made with them when you made the purchase. It is against the law for them to try to pass off their responsibility as in continually pointed out by Which?

“Customers’ rights last for six years
The law says that a customer can approach you with a
claim about an item they purchased from you for up to six years
from the date of sale (five years after discovery of the problem
in Scotland).
Complying with the law
You cannot remove a customer’s legal rights, for example by
displaying a notice saying ‘we do not give refunds under any
circumstances’ or ‘credit notes only in the case of faulty items’.
It is also against the law to mislead consumers about their
legal rights – this could lead to a criminal prosecution under the
Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.”

Trading Standards have had their numbers reduced, their powers hamstrung and have been castigated for interfering too much with businesses. The whole Primary Authority scheme has become a way for businesses to buy weak enforcement. 5

I wouldn’t argue with that Arbiter , all part of a political programme carried out in the past decades , at least they didn’t try to hide it ( i knew about it a long time ago ). Its spread in all directions now and called ” the Liberation of Business “

It actually came about under an ‘initiative’ by Vince Cable when Secretary of State for Business Industry & Skills in the Coalition government which created National Trading Standards. No attempt has been made to reverse it, of course, or remedy its deficiencies.

I absolutely agree Paul – but the government doesn’t, it is either introducing/thinking of introducing/ or has introduced legislation BANNING the British public from boycotting . It is already law in some parts of the USA , and ,as usual, what the US does , the UK copies .

That’s a new one to me. Can you post a link on the UK government’s position, please, Duncan?

I think you’re a bit confused on that, Duncan. The US does have an Office of Antiboycott Compliance (OAC), established in the mid ’70s, but the laws in that regard are to prevent US companies joining with Arab boycotts on Israel. No law has been introduced (or is being considered) to try to stop the public boycotting anything, simply because apart from being plain daft such a law would be utterly unenforceable.

John I said -thinking of implementing it among the options I provided and yes even university student debates on the subject have been called off in relation to another country due to “pressure ” . Its the principle I am against -Freedom of Speech and action in the choices we make in life are a major item with me. If you end up jailed for a difference of opinion then you have to ask Voltaire,s statement – if you want to know who rules over you find out who you cant criticise and because I said this just wait to see reaction.

I will get the States that have introduced legislation blocking Freedom of Speech to campaign for boycott, Ian. Education Dept National WW 11 Museum -exploring personal +collective responsibility in WW11 -Pastor Martin NIemoller – when they came for me , there was no one left to speak up –and guess what that was in relation to ?

Yes, I picked up your vagueness, Duncan, but I don’t think there has been any thought whatsoever given by the government to a boycott of companies by the public – it’s just another idle supposition dressed up as a fallacious proposition with not an ounce of substance to it. As Ian has said, in any case it wouldn’t work. There is no reason why any consumer cannot declare that they will never again buy a product made by a certain manufacturer as Mr Manners has done.

It could be that someone has extrapolated the notion from the government’s decision earlier this year by which local authorities [as part of their procurement policies] are not allowed to boycott countries or companies unless restrictions have already been put in place by the Government.

Boycotting has been a significant aspect of public protest in the USA for a very long time and continues to have a healthy existence there.

Your second paragraph is very relevant John. -re- the governments decision not to allow local councils the right to boycott (with the backing of the local voters ) the right to do business with a company or country of their choice . You do know, being a very intelligent person, that it “kills two birds with one stone ” As TTIP is still in the offing (or its re-negotiated equivalent ) +the Canadian version which is USA by the back-door -check out US companies in Canada , then it effectively blocks local councils from giving contracts to local firms or British only firms -strike-#1 -for removal of democracy and – effectively blocking a “Country ” strike #2- it looks like Britain -open-house to the world-anything goes even if the public dont like the policies of that country , while the USA implements legislation to the opposite effect (latest news from “the Donald ” to me ) I am not decrying the US,s actions as it is sticking up for its own hence I understand Donald,s policy . Do we have to sell our souls to a foreign country ?, and make no mistake the UK in USA,s eyes and Law is a foreign country so I have never bought this-“hands across the pond ” propaganda.

The relevance of the Govt.s action in the context of NHS or similar is an interesting example of how bodies like the WTO and probably TTIP etc impinge on democracy at a low level.

Personally I would like Council’s to have powers that stir their voters.

Whereas I, personally, wouldn’t trust them with fixing holes in the road…

I think your interpretation is wrong, Duncan. There is nothing in the government’s measure that prevents a local authority placing contracts with UK or local companies so long as the proper tendering and procurement procedures have been followed. What is wrong is introducing unnecessary boycotts the effect of which could be to push up the cost of goods and services. Foreign policy is the domain of the UK government and it is not for town halls to set up their own international trade policies. Boycotts provoke reciprocal actions so they are not a good thing anyway.

In practice very few local authorities need to place large contracts with foreign countries but they frequently need to source supplies and materials from foreign-owned companies or procure foreign-made goods through intermediary suppliers. Local authorities have a fiduciary duty to obtain the best value for money for their taxpayers and for the services they provide. For very large contracts [for example, for tramcars, buses, computer systems, infrastructure components] they are also required – for the time being – to comply with EU rules by publicly issuing invitations-to-tender through the Official Journal of the European Union. Councils are entitled to take into account a range of economic factors in drawing up a list of tenderers and through judicious specifications can attract local contractors but discriminatory provisions are not permitted.

In terms of democracy, voters in local elections are not empowered to vote on international trading as that is reserved to Westminster so they cannot exercise a mandate at council level.

Tell me John what right has American big business to dictate the internal policy of United Kingdom councils voted on by British citizens ? Councils can , if backed by the voters who voted them in , have/should the right to say to their councilors we do not like the internal/external methods of – x/y/z country and we dont want our Councillors buying their produce , I can name several countries with despicable internal and external policies that this country is “glad -handing ” – you know the ones I am talking about . If we are talking or taking a high moral standing when dealing with Russia/Iran etc by sanctioning them why isn’t the same being applied to countries much worse when it comes to democracy ? its pure hypocrisy. Who pays the Councillors wages– the local tax payers not HMG .

Yes, Duncan, but as I said it would be ultra vires for a local council to impose a boycott unless the government had already put restrictions in place. If one loony council took action against a particular company or country without justification it could jeopardise efforts by the government to deal with that firm or state and compromise the ability of other councils to obtain best value. Electors in council elections don’t have a vote on such matters because they are outwith the competence of local authorities. There are perfectly good ways for local authorities to procure all they need without doing business with rogue nations; since this is largely academic – as there are very few contracts where a boycott would make any difference – it seems to be a case of grandstanding by certain local authorities. I do not know which ones are troubled by this ruling and expect it has been blown up out of all proportion to its significance.

So far as American big businesses having any influence over local councils’ buying decisions is concerned, they shouldn’t and they don’t. I should be surprised if the UK government entered into a trade deal with the USA which allowed such interference and I am sure Parliament would quash such an attempt. As to other countries to which you allude, I don’t know which ones you are referring to and what goods UK local authorities are buying from them.

Most local authority income comes from the Exchequer in the form of grants and subsidies, so the local taxpayers are not paying more than a portion of the councillors’ allowances.

Shall we get back to Whirlpool, which is an American company which has inconvenienced the lives of millions of appliance owners in the UK? I see absolutely no reason why UK consumers should not vow never to buy any of their products again. Since there are alternative manufacturers, local authorities can easily avoid buying Whirlpool products without contravening any legislation. I would criticise Peterborough City Council for showing exceptional and unjustified leniency towards Whirlpool which is a fault in the other direction. An astute government would have intervened but we don’t need to rehearse that all over again.

[This comment has been tweaked to align with our Community Guidelines. Thanks, mods]

On your first point, Duncan (what right has American big business to dictate the internal policy of United Kingdom councils voted on by British citizens ?) the answer is none, of course. But Capitalism is the structure under which we operate and successive governments have implemented various restrictions on Businesses so that a balance between profit for the shareholders and and rights for the consumer can be maintained.

The flip side of all this is that some councils have in the past, chosen to operate their own boycotts on purely ideological grounds and, for me, anyway, that’s unacceptable. Councils are supposed to be ‘public servants’ but in my experience they all too easily can become agenda-driven caucuses of narrow-minded and frequently inept individuals who see opportunities to gain publicity by disadvantaging those who pay for their services. In those instances legislation is necessary.

I thought I should mention that I have also submitted a comment in response to Duncan’s post but it has been in the moderation queue for ten hours. I endorse what Ian has said above.

My comment [see above] has now been released. Thanks, Moderators.

https://conversation.which.co.uk/home-energy/whirlpool-hotpoint-indesit-tumble-dryer-fire/#comment-1483878 refers.

The reason I want people to become involved is that if Councils have little power other than what London allows then there is little point to local politics. I quite understand the need for Councils to provide best value etc but even a cursory glance at recent Council scandals reveals that under the disengaged electorate all manner of naughtiness is thriving.

That the BBC or somebody does not have a regular programme aimed at maladministration is somewhat amazing. There is certainly enough fodder from the Planning Portal and Ombudsman and Regulators to fill a weekly spot. If the population have the truth hidden from them then they believe everything is OK-ish. There have been numerous long running scandals as highlighted in Private Eye and some that have not even featured there.

Charter schools are already providing fertile ground for disturbing events. In the US whistleblowers can receive substantial awards and if that is what it takes to break corruption and mediocrity then lets get on with it.

Patrick Taylor , your answer is the underlying driving force of a lot of my posts on various subjects that power is being divested from the public and “Centralized ” this obviously upset many who-poo-poo the idea and refuse to accept it . At one time local Councillors in this country acted on behalf of the local voters, not so now , instead of acting with an “Independent air ” they take their lead from Central politics , usually Headquarters in London who have a “set policy ” which used to be limited but now covers all walks of life just like “Big Brother ” politics and and dont even think of stepping out of line with “Central Office ” or “Big Whip ” will scourge you . As regards Whistle -Blowers I am sure you know what has happened to those NHS workers who “blew the whistle ” which I posted about a year or two ago which our ex friend in NI agreed with whose wife works in the NHS (or did ) . When I worked in the NHS I knew about several scandals that were covered up but this did not go down well for me on Which,s website with some disagreeing with me + our friend which ended up with him “walking out ” . Does this stance still apply ?

Reference http://www.gov.uk – Consumer Safety Regulations

“Goods imported into the UK must comply with domestic safety regulations and standards. For example, imported household electrical products must comply with three sets of consumer safety regulations which are enforced by Trading Standards.

Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1994
Plugs and Sockets etc (Safety) Regulations 1994
Gas Appliances (Safety) Regulations 1995

While Standards are not compulsory for many goods, the industry CE marking is a legal requirement for some equipment, eg. most types of consumer electronics, ‘phones, computers and medical devices.”

I would assume the same regulatory standards apply to electronic white goods produced in this country irrespective of whether they are British or foreign owned companies and that the onus is on TS to ensure UK legislation is enforceable in the event of hazardous and dangerous goods being marketed for sale here under the Consumer Rights Act.

You are right to be worried about the Standards -CE markings which are compulsory in the EU Alfa- especially on electrical goods /gas burners/radio/fridges/freezers /mechanical toys /machinery etc etc where the manufacturer is liable to display a CE label . BUT – many goods are imported/made in China now where its NOT the manufacturer who labels them but the importer /supplier, non-EU based products are not legally required to have a CE label but many do as it shows a certain ;level of compliance . I have received International security groups emails over the years showing many products with labels from abroad but not conforming to EU practice , this is kept quiet , I have said in the past , to criticism and denial that second hand goods ( returnable due to fault ) are not allowed back into China because of Chinese government refusal to allow it. so what happens is that goods imported from China CANNOT be made the responsibility of the CHINESE manufacturer but the IMPORTER is legally considered to be the “manufacturer ” – ie- by proxy. The Chinese arent stupid . Whereas “good old Britain ” upholds regulations to the last dotted letter. Try that kind of thing in the USA where “the Donald ” has just written into US law big changes in imported items from China . Now I wonder if those Nuclear power stations about to be built here have big CE stickers on them when China has a disclaimer like that ? BY the way guess where I got most of this info?? straight from -chinaimportal.com. info for UK business users.

Something for Margot James MP to ponder and legislate on during forthcoming Brexit negotiations Duncan?

I do hope that Which? will push for consumer issues to be on the agenda at the next election. It’s high time that Which? helped raise awareness of the failings of Trading Standards.

I’m not sure what point is being made, duncan. Any product covered by legislation that requires compliance with a safety standard that is sold in the EU (UK) must show a CE mark, be supported by extensive testing and quality documentation, for it to be put on sale. Fraudulent products inevitably are marketed – how can you stop this? It is Trading Standards job to police the system and we should penalise heavily any importer who participates in such fraud All the more reason to properly fund trading standards.

To clarify (or revise) the role of Trading Standards, log onto http://www.nationaltradingstandards.uk – About National Trading Standards. Funded by the Dept of Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) and The Food Standards Agency (FSA) to support the work of National Trading Standards.

Looking at the situation from a political perspective, it seems rather odd when an official govt appointed body fails to recognise the legislative procedures laid down by the same govt that implemented them, or that particular govt fails to supply sufficient funding to enable them to effectively prioritise and operate in matters of health and safety issues.

With a general election on the immediate horizon, the electorate can (a) whenever possible, raise this issue with party political candidates and (b) choose to vote for the party that they consider can effectively put consumer concerns before their own party interests.

My point malcolm is that for centuries this country has upheld “Standards ” with a capital “C” for centuries in every department of life and other countries have taken our standard as what most of life is judged on. With Globalization this has changed , as witnessed by the complaints to Which on many subjects relating to bought products from overseas /overseas companies no matter how many excuses are made the reality is that trading standards are changing .Its all very well saying -with a stiff upper lip -WE ! will not change but along come foreign companies who dont “go by the book ” and ( quite rightly) it upsets British consumers , as Beryl says , its time TM took the gloves off and thought of BRITAIN FIRST so that we can make more money just like the rest of the world acts . But you are up against the City who dont want that as their interests arent naturally British interests but overseas “investments ” shall we say and dont want that to change . TM HAS to make up her mind bring this country into even more poverty OR stand up for Britain —and MEAN it . £14.3 Billion in overseas aid and you get Which filled with posters living in rural locations complaining of 1Mbps broadband -or less . I make no apologies for sticking up for this country to anyone , I am British not American/Canadian/German/French etc. This wave of “help the overseas masses , when British citizens are dying from hunger/homelessness /poverty doesn’t just stick in my throat but chokes me .

With reference to your last paragraph, Beryl, we have Vince Cable and the LibDem elements of the 2010-15 Coalition Government to thank for the dismemberment of local authority trading standards/consumer protection services, the creation of the superfluous National Trading Standards organisation, the imposition of Citizen’s Advice as the gateway, and the consequent reduction in funding and support, so we can exclude them from any future solution to the problems.

I don’t understand what you are saying here, or how it relates to product standards duncan. Most Standards are harmonised across the EU, and many other countries, so we all work on a level playing field in that respect.

These, and other possible “improvements”, have been suggested many times and could well both influence manufacturers but primarily improvements to safety standards. I have written to BSI about some and received a helpful response; as I have said earlier there is an active working group in the UK and internationally considering fire safety in domestic electrical appliances – materials, fire containment, interlocks, will no doubt be among those items considered by experts. Only by engaging with such bodies that influence these matters will anything be achieved. I have pushed for Which? to take a much more active part with BSI and am hopeful this will produce results. If so, we can make proposals to Which? who, with their knowledge, expertise, customer feedback and testing should be in a position to contribute constructively.

Incidentally I have several times pointed out the standards give the requirements for non-metallic materials, and the tests used to determine their resistance to fire. Plastics included, of course.

The one thing nobody likes doing is cleaning a filter, so some users will just take it out, look at it, put it back again, and the machine will start running. Just wondering – how about some form of cyclonic ejector that would whoosh out the fluff at the end of each cycle [but not into the drains, of course]?

Malcolm – We have criticised Whirlpool, Trading Standards and the Government for procrastinating but perhaps we should turn our attention to BSI. In addition to my previous concerns, why are they not looking at the safety of used dryers that may have accumulated flammable lint?

I believe that BSI should be required to respond to Freedom of Information requests from the public.

I like the idea of a cyclonic ejector. It could work in much the same way as a vacuum cleaner and refuse to work until the ejector container was emptied.

The BSI Kitemark, although regularly audited and widely trusted is not a legal requirement. Read more @ http://www.en.m.wikipedia.org – Kitemark

I think finding the right balance between a fervent desire to promote British business interests and health and safety issues is a necessary requirement and for this reason I would question why the BSI Kitemark does not yet hold legal status.

It is not necessary for the Kitemark to have separate legal status, Beryl. All the specifications that it covers in the categories of product or service that it applies to are fully described in official British Standards [or relevant international Standards] that are incorporated as appropriate in primary or subordinate legislation [that is, either in Acts of Parliament or in Regulations or Directions made under Acts of Parliament]. The Kitemark is a consumer shortcut to aid recognition, and give assurance, of a compliant product.

It is not BSI’s job, to my knowledge. It is for others to police the system. However I have already said that standards improvements are built on experience as well as new technologies. If you have evidence that BSI’s remit is to investigate any product on the market that has shown safety problems in use then please keep us informed.

As far as dryers are concerned, I have said BSI have an active working group looking at fire safety in domestic appliances. I would imagine those involved might be looking at used products with problems. If Which? are involved perhaps they can tell us.

I have contacted BSI in the past and received information and useful replies without any need to invoke FOI. Have you asked them for anything and been refused?

However I have asked Which? a number of times for information through Convos with no responses, despite chasing. Perhaps we should put our own house in order?

Will the Kitemark recognition suffice post Brexit? If we lose “Conformite Europeene” (CE) legal certification, we will need something tangible and legitimate to replace it in order to protect consumers from the likes of Whirlpool and its associates.

No reason for anything to change Beryl. The Kitemark is simply the BSI certification mark; there are many other “marks” used throughout the EU to show that tests have been officially successfully done a products certified as compliant. The CE mark is used to publicise compliance. Any manufacturer anywhere can use the mark providing they meet all the standards requirements.