Further doubt cast on already-flawed OPSS Whirlpool review

The dryers were made by Indesit, not Whirlpool. The “remedial programme” was approved by Peterborough Trading Standards. There was (and still is) no means of achieving a full product recall because there is no compulsory registration of such products. The government did not tackle this problem from the outset.

So a number of organisations involved. One thing we need to take from this is to develop a more effective system for identifying, reporting, locating and then dealing with products found to be unsafe.

Indesit was taken over by Whirlpool in 2015 and carried on selling the problem dryers for a period until modifying the design. Whirlpool issued a safety notice and has never issued a recall, despite that term being used by Electrical Safety First and others. The safety notice stated that it was acceptable to carry on using affected dryers under supervision until they had been modified – a process that took many months for some owners. The efforts of Which? forced Whirlpool to revise this advice.

When a company takes over another they are responsible for ensuring that products are compliant with standards and safe.

Whirlpool could have dealt with modification of affected dryers within a much shorter period by taking on additional staff, making use of independent service engineers and replacing more of the dryers.

In my view, Whirlpool have demonstrated that they are unfit to be in business in the UK.

And some might say that Peterborough Trading Standards are unfit for purpose and looked the wrong way when the problems came to light.

In my view it would have been possible through a well-planned operation and good logistics to have repaired or replaced all the affected dryers in around six months. It would have cost a lot of money but if Whirlpool had carried out proper due diligence before acquiring Indesit they might have seen that coming. There is the slight consolation that Whirlpool have handled the situation better than Indesit might have done if they had not been taken over. How Whirlpool got Peterborough TS to approve their “remedial programme” remains a mystery.

I very much agree with your point about due diligence, John. If I recall correctly, Whirlpool bought a majority shareholding in Indesit and then went on to take over the entire company.

It is well established that many local Trading Standards offices work in partnership with businesses as Primary Authorities: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/primary-authority-a-guide-for-national-regulators#what-is-primary-authority We know that Peterborough TS acts as primary authority for Whirlpool.

I do not understand where National Trading Standards fits in. What is their role and why are they a private company. To quote an email I received when trying to find the Primary Authority for Currys: “National Trading Standards is a private company set up to fund national and regional issues and as such does not have any appropriately qualified staff to advise or assist you.”

I share your concerns about Peterborough TS and wonder if they are paying more attention to the wishes of the company than the protection of customers.

Peterborough TS have been removed from any further involvement with this, I believe. They certainly had a significant role in the ineffective remedy. I also suspect, much as we would like to slate Whirlpool, that the resources of people to carry out the remedial work at people’s homes was simply not available to do a quick job – millions of dryers potentially. Assuming you could remedy 4 a day then it could take 1000 technicians a year to remedy 1 million. Just as a for instance.

Which?’s only contribution in practice seemed to be to get Whirlpool to tell owners to unplug their appliance. I think they should have been far more aggressive.

We keep talking about a “recall” as if that can be done. How? When there are only about 20% of consumers who bother to register their appliances it seems to me impossible to demand a “full recall”. This problem needs addressing.

We have said elsewhere that we need local trading standards dealing with local issues and accessible to the public. We need an equivalent national trading standards to deal with national issues – like domestic appliances – that collates information and, crucially, looks at it intelligently and acts on it. We should all have easy access to faulty goods reports to help us make our buying decisions.

I wonder if Which? have any strategy to move this forward?

With a push from the government, and mobilising the trade and the supply chain, I think it would have been possible to undertake a nearly-full recall. It would have needed a military-style campaign, as was successfully done with the 2001 Foot & Mouth disease outbreak in cattle. Full page adverts in the papers, slots in commercial breaks on TV, information sent out by retailers to all customers who had bought one of the machines, washing powder manufacturers featuring it on their packaging, supermarkets putting up displays in the stores and handing out leaflets at the checkouts, and with local councils supporting it through their websites and magazines, we could have got the word out with some impact. It would have been possible to assemble on a central database a fairly complete list of addresses and house calls could have been made in cases where there had been no response. Where there’s a will there’s a way. It just takes initiative and application, which this country used to be good at.

I agree that for the future there must be a compulsory registration process for new appliance sales and a simple way for people who have disposed of their appliances, or sold or bought one second-hand, to update the central register. In order to reassure the public and promote compliance, there should be no commercial use of such a register or the acquisition of any unnecessary personal information..

John wrote: “Where there’s a will there’s a way.” Absolutely, and I agree with your suggestions for using a variety of ways of informing the public. A good start would be to cover all (mains powered) electrical equipment. White goods may be the focus of attention but small electrical products such as dodgy phone chargers need to be included as well.

“Problem” electrical products and widely used domestic appliances would be a start. I think with foot and mouth identifying owners was pretty straightforward. Certainly more could have been done to inform the public – at Whirlpool’s expense. However it would rely on the informed owners responding; many appear not to have bothered. A compulsory registration scheme would mean that in a significant safety issue the owners could be directly approached.

I wonder how many car owners don’t respond to recalls or put their car into an appropriate garage for servicing when the remedy can be carried out? Should there be some onus on owners to respond when it is other people who may be at collateral risk? Voiding their insurance may also result.

If you were selling your car, a prospective purchaser (or anyone else who knows the registration) can look up the MOT history of a car and check for outstanding recalls: https://www.gov.uk/check-mot-history Owners could be fined for failing to act in a timely fashion. A similar scheme could operate if and when a central database of registered products exists.

It could also be mandatory for retailers to register all new sales of included product categories. It could be problematic for small and portable items taken out by the customer but could work for on-line sales and store sales where delivery was provided, and even for supermarket sales where the item was ordered as part of a grocery delivery.

I wonder what the percentage of voluntary registration already is – this might not be the mountain we think it is.

I don’t see why small and portable items should be a problem – basic customer contact details just taken at the till, or sale refused at a self-service checkout until the details were entered.

Figures I’ve seen suggest little more than 20% register appliances. Quite a mountain.

Did Ian miss this “day”:
“Firefighters are urging people to register cookers, fridge-freezers, washing machines and other household appliances – even if they are not brand new – and to take care when using them.

Association members’ products include most of the UK’s top selling brands of major white goods, other large and small kitchen appliances, heating, water heating, floor care, waste disposal and ventilation equipment “

It is a very good idea, but can people know about it? I certainly haven’t heard anything.

We definitely need better ways of getting useful public information.

Perhaps Which? should promote it?

Good idea malcolm.

I agree. Their witnesses for the defence would no doubt be Peterborough Council and OPSS. Awkward.

Risk assessment is a key part of any safety standard. Thanks, DerekP, for the information from RAPEX.

I don’t think anyone involved in the Indesit dryer debacle has come out smelling of roses. I’d like to see an investigation into the part played by Indesit and the “authorities” and how the faulty dryers appear to have been “overlooked” until Whirlpool had the misfortune to inherit them.

My drier has a “lint filter blocked” light. It just impedes air flow but I don’t know if it will stop the machine until it is cleared as I do keep mine clean. If a sensor can bring a warning light on then that could also stop the machine working.

Around 670 tumble drier fires are reported a year – 0.005% of those in service. I wonder how many of those have been under the Indesit manufactured brands? That would give a good clue as to the safety of tumble dryers in general, from whatever cause – malfunction, lack of cleaning, incorrect operation, damage, abuse…. or whatever else can lead to a fire..

I’ve just had a look at my manual and it can say Please clean lint filter or Please empty condensate container on the display panel.

I have never seen the lint message but it did stop once when the condensation container was full, so maybe it would stop. I’m not going to put it to the test.

Alfa – In an earlier discussion I suggested that driers should have some sort of interlock to prevent dryers from being started until the filter has been removed and replaced. Interlocks are very common and one example is the lock that prevents washing machine doors being opened when the machine is in use.

Cleaning the fluff filter will improve the airflow and drying performance. However, any potential fire is caused by fluff getting through to the heater on dryers with a vulnerable back seal or bearing. I don’t see how cleaning the filter would affect that. But……..

When looking at addressing a problem we need to identify the cause(s) and deal with that or those, not just adopt a scattergun approach. I hope the specific causes of fires in domestic appliances have been collected in sufficient numbers to identify where improvements that are worthwhile can be made. I expect the international working group are the best people to ask about this. Which? ??

There are various ways that fluff can come in contact with heaters, depending on the design of the dryer. With condenser dryers, air is heated, and passes through the drum, where it picks up moisture and fluff. It then passes through a condenser and filter before it returns to the heater. If there is a problem with the filter (e.g. distorted or mislocated) this creates a much greater fire risk.

The reason that users are urged to clean filters is that it’s well established that the fire risk is increased if this is not done.

I’d like to see evidence of how fluff can get onto the heater in a standard design of dryer, without the sort of defect apparent in the Indesit design.

I believe what this sort of Convo / topic really needs is informed contributions from those directly involved. We can all speculate, discuss theories, make allegations that factual input would either confirm or dispel. Which? seem unable or unwilling to seek out such contributors. I believe that devalues the worth of Convos.

I cannot offer you any peer reviewed articles, Malcolm, but this might provide an insight: https://www.ukwhitegoods.co.uk/help/fix-it-yourself/tumble-dryer-self-help/3272-tumble-dryer-fire-risks

I mentioned the risk of recirculating air carrying lint onto the heater in a condenser tumble dryer. Here is a warning from an instruction manual:

“The dryer must not be used without the fluff filters in place or if the fluff filters are damaged in any way. Damaged filters can cause operational faults and blockages in the airways, condenser unit and heating elements. Fire hazard.
In the event of a damaged filter, switch the dryer off and replace the filter with a new one.”

My condenser dryer has instructions that say always let the drying cycle finish to the end to ensure the heat exchanger is automatically cleaned.

Other reasons for not stopping a dryer mid-cycle are the risk of fire and (with some models) the risk of burning out a thermal fuse, which is a safety device. A thermal fuse is inexpensive but paying someone to dismantle the dryer is not. When a dryer is stopped in the correct way the heater is turned off and air continues to pass over the load until it is cool, before the cycle ends.

To understand any safety issues with anything requires investigation and fact.

With tumble dryers, for example, I would find a statistically useful number of dryers of different makes that have been regularly used for perhaps 3 years. This could be found from registered owners, a publicised survey, for example and the owners approached for their cooperation. Then have experienced technicians examine the dryers to find if fluff, for example, posed a safety issue on the heater.

It will cost money, provided perhaps from manufacturers, the government (they find millions and this would cost maybe £1-200k for the examinations). Have someone organise this – maybe a university but please not a consultant.

It may already have been done elsewhere. However it must be remembered that out of the 13 million or so dryers in service, despite no doubt neglect and abuse, the vast majority work without a problem – 99.98%. The facts will help use with the balance.

Just as compulsory seat belts have reduced the severity of injuries in road accidents, would not kitchen sprinkler/spray systems reduce the severity of fire outcomes – fires caused by any kitchen appliance or activity?

@patrick, thanks for digging that out, Patrick. I appreciate the intent of press releases but as a Which? Member I am interested, and concerned, about what they have to say to the public. I would like releases to show what they respond to.

In this case the Whirlp[ool problem is so topical, the incident so inflammatory ( 🙁 ) that I expect many who contribute to the dryer Convos will be very interested in what government is doing to follow up the allegations.

Thanks again for the information. 🙂

I cannot remember having any problem in finding articles that Which? press releases refer to, though when I have written press releases for a charity I have provided this sort of information in the Notes for Editors.

@wavechange Where did you find the Kelly Tolhurst one?

I presume this relates to the case reported some time ago in the Daily Mail but I have yet to see any documents.

I have seen little to suggest that OPSS is going to achieve much and as has been suggested by Which? it is too close to BEIS.