Whirlpool’s unsafe dryers must be recalled

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?

“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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

“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.”

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.