Come on Whirlpool, sort this mess out

@patrick, yes, thanks, saw it after I’d made this post and I have responded.

As I said in my response on the old Convo, I think Which? should act on its own account to decide the legal situation and get Whirlpool to make reasonable offers, not ones that might take 3 years. I am quite happy for part of my subscription to be used to this effect.

The above intro includes “We want the Government and the steering group to act quickly to close the loopholes that allow companies to leave consumers without the basic information and advice they need.”. I agree, but here those affected need direct action on a specific problem. How long will it take for Lynn’s group to sort that out, among their more general remit? I believe Which? has an obligation to its subscribers to apply consumer law to protect them.

Do SoGA and CRA require retailers to act in the way I suggest? Retailers would then, presumably, have to use their own rights to get redress from Whirlpool in principle, but I would assume Whirlpool have taken over the whole process legally.

Sorry, I missed out that I registered on Jan 5th

Pete’s comments prompt the thought that Whirlpool and the retailers have been very lucky that it is not exactly an easy matter to return a tumble drier, unlike, say, a kettle or a toaster.

So far none of those models show any availability of spare parts at all across all major UK spares outlets.

It may be that they are new models, often you won’t see parts info until they exit warranty or thereabouts.

If they were old models, parts would show up.

K.

Thanks Ken, with no guidance from Which, I guess I will just have to pick one of the hat then!

Exactly. We need to know what Trading Standards have agreed to, and why.

This letter to BIS is interesting. Trading Standards seem happy with Whirlpool’s actions. So that’s alright then.

https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/business-innovation-and-skills/Correspondence/2015-20-Parliament/Whirlpool-response-25022016.pdf

I’d also like to know why Which? say “consumers are likely to get the quickest solution by pursuing their claims directly with Whirlpool” having estimated that will take “up to” 3 1/2 years to get a repair.

Thanks for posting that link Malcolm. I am dismayed at the way that the trading standards function in this country has been allowed [or forced] to become more and more invisible. The appendix to Whirlpool’s letter, being a statement by ‘UK Trading Standards’, refers to the ‘local authority’ but it does not name the authority. Perhaps UKTS [if it exists in more than virtual form] sees itself as a local authority in its own right; perhaps it is a phantom cover organisation that operates clandestinely through an underground network of council officers which enjoys a cosy relationship with major companies that they do not wish to compromise. Who knows? All very opaque.

County councils, metropolitan district councils and London borough councils seem to have trading standards departments but they concentrate on their statutory weights & measures responsibilities and no longer offer a public presence for consumer protection services. For that you have to go through Citizens Advice which acts as a gatekeeper. Local trading standards do appear to deal with consumer complaints [referred through CABx] and they carry out inspection and enforcement duties but not on the scale they used to. If people are worried about how they’ve been dealt with by a car dealer they are probably better off posting it here.

We used to have a Trading Standards Officer contributing to Which? Conversation [under his own auspices, not as an official representative] but we have not heard from him for a long time now unfortunately. The consumer protection landscape has changed so much in the last few years and there is now not even a minister in the government with that exclusive portfolio. This is a creeping but deliberate deterioration of an essential public service and I think it would be a good idea if Which? carried out an investigation into what has happened, why, and what the consequences are, so we can challenge the government on its policy.

I think it would be worth taking a test case to Court.

When appliances are found to be hazardous, and in the case of Whirlpool tumble dryers they have been found to be exceptionally so, companies should not be able to insist on replacing the faulty products only with their own models and brands but should either contract with other manufacturers to replace the products for a quicker resolution, or pay the owner enough to enable them to replace the appliance with an alternative of their choice. There would need to be evidence of disposal with the latter suggestion.

Just a thought that came to me about Whirlpool actually selling machines that were faulty AFTER they were aware of the problem.

On a grander scale:
” Toyota Motor Corp (7203.T), Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV (FCHA.MI), Volkswagen AG (VOWG_p.DE) and Mitsubishi Motors Corp (7211.T) are still selling new vehicles with defective air bags that will eventually need to be recalled, according to a report by a U.S. lawmaker overseeing the agency handling the largest-ever auto safety recall.
Automakers confirmed they are continuing to sell some vehicles with ammonium-nitrate inflators without a chemical drying agent, and cited engineering and supply challenges to explain why they are still relying on the faulty airbags.
The vehicles are legal to sell but must be recalled by 2018. Legal experts said that based on previous cases, it was unclear if there could be additional legal liability for selling vehicles subject to future recalls, though if anything goes wrong with those vehicles, they could be subject to product-liability lawsuits.”
Reuters June 1st 2016

I agree John. As I stated in an email above, the only reason I purchased mine was because of a Which? best buy recommendation. That’s why I pay my subscription every year. None of the other replacement appliances being offered by Whirlpool have been tested or reviewed, so I would be in no mans lands accepting one of these. I’m totally perplexed as to whether to accept the offer, wait for a repair, or now… take whirlpool to court! Can we not as consumers (under the banner of Which?) take this forward in a more constructive way?

My opinion, Jayne, for what it’s worth, is that it would be in your interests to start legal proceedings. I am not a lawyer so cannot forecast an outcome, but I sense – partly from the tone of the letter from Whirlpool shown by a link in Malcolmr’s comments above – that the company would probably wish to avoid a trial and might be inclined to settle with you [probably on the basis of a confidentiality agreement]. A short and inexpensive consultation with a solicitor would probably indicate whether there was any mileage in this route. Of course, there remains the possibility that, having secured the complicity and agreement of Trading Standards to their proposed way out of their liabilities, Whirlpool might brook no further argument and resist you all the way.

I don’t think I could seriously consider that John. Much as I’d love the excitement, I don’t have either the money, or the stamina – I’m just a middle-aged lady from rural England wanting to dry my undies without fear of the house burning down!!!!

Jayne, do you belong to Which? Legal. If so i’d ask them. I think it is time Which? took a stand on this Whirlpool fiasco. I have asked them for their view on how consumers are protected by the Sale of Goods and Consumer Rights Acts. As far as I interpret them an unsafe appliance should be replaced, repaired or refunded without unreasonable inconvenience to the customer. The last bit seems the key issue to me. Whirlpool should be made to deal with all faulty machines promptly. it may cost them a lot of money but they bought the defective machine companies – Hotpoint, Indesit etc – no doubt to increase their profits. They also bought this problem and are legally obliged to deal with it, I believe.

Which? have not responded with their view. Their website simply says “consumers are likely to get the quickest solution by pursuing their claims directly with Whirlpool” . I am not impressed if that is the limit of their involvement.

OK, Jayne, I am not surprised, but before dropping the legal route, take at look at your household insurance policy and see if you have legal expenses cover and whether this sort of action might be eligible.

Well, you’ve Asked the Audience but you still have two lifelines left – ‘Accept the Offer’ and ‘Wait for a Repair’, so good luck.

Next week on “Who Wants to Own a Tumble Dryer?” . . . Chris from Reading.

Was this an “official” Whirlpool inspection? If not you need to involve them. If it was, and if your drier is under 6 years old (5 in Scotland) the Sale of Goods Act applies. This says (in the event of a pre-existing fault which is a failure of the retailer to meet their contract):”return the goods and rescind the contract. This would mean that the customer returns the goods and you ( retailer or manufacturer in this case ) provide a partial refund, calculated to reflect the benefit the customer has received from the product.” Providing a new drier for £99 may well reflect this – if you’ve already had several years use from the dryer. If your drier is older than 6 years I’d snap up a £99 offer as your SoGA legal protection has expired.

If offered the £99 dryer, I would accept it. However a case put to Which? is from someone who accepted a £99 drier that proved to have a fault on first use. Whirlpool are only prepared to refund the £99, whereas a view is that CRA requires them to repair, refund or replace at the choice of the purchaser. I am trying to persuade Which? to give their view on this.

These are my opinions. It would be useful if Which? provided an expert view.

If there is a burning smell there is something seriously wrong, Eleanor. If you carry on using your dryer you could have a serious fire. My suggestion is to go for a heat pump tumble dryer which is the only type that does not have a powerful electric heater and should be much safer.

I totally agree. This website is run by AMDEA – the trade association for manufacturers of domestic electrical appliances. Some object to a trade body being involved. My view is that it offers a necessary service and why should the industry not fill this gap with a much needed service. Would someone else like to do it instead?

However, the deficiency is that registration is not compulsory. We need that for a service to be properly effective and this registration is best done at the point of sale; probably the only place it can be reliably done. With a “no marketing” pledge – use the personal information only for recall and similar purposes. The sooner we get something up and running the better.

Maybe the offer of a luxury home and lifestyle prizes might suggest other motives. 🙂

Action is undoubtedly needed. The EC Rapex database provides comprehensive information about recalls and has a searchable database. I have previously explained how information could be passed on to owners of new and secondhand products via a government managed service. It works well for car recalls.

With an increasing number of products being bought online, compulsory registration is not going to work, though I have no objection to people taking up this offer. I want a comprehensive and easy to use service that is independent of companies.

AMDEA will not help with dangerous car seats, phone chargers or the vast majority of goods we buy. Maybe they could discourage their members from using plastics that melt or burn in the cases of their appliances.

The government have said they do not intend to set up the service; they want someone else to do it. AMDEA quite rightly registers the products that its members deal with. Full marks to them for helping. They are supported by the Government, RoSPA, Citizens Advice, Age UK, Electrical Safety First among others. They also belong to BSI committees that deal with product safety and performance so presumably actively engage with processes to make things better. Better perhaps if other interested parties did the same? Home electrical appliances do form, I suggest, quite a large part of what we buy that might have safety problems but certainly a scheme needs to encompass all products that could pose a safety risk.

We would be in a poor state if we just accepted the views of government (this or others). In my view, the most constructive move has been the setting up of a comprehensive EC database covering products on sale to the public.

A database is only half the problem and is of little use on its own. And having a database is of no use if people don’t visit it – and the vast majority I suspect do not. Just as we see in energy (non) switching people frequently do not take action to benefit themselves.

A compulsory registration scheme is essential if we want people properly protected. Use that with a comprehensive database and we have the basis for a constructive way forward.

I have on more than one occasion explained how information about recalls could be forwarded to the owners of products. With respect, I consider that a constructive way forward.

I really don’t see compulsory registration, for example with goods sold by Amazon and their Marketplace traders. They sell many appliances.

If you don’t know who has bought appliances how can you “forward them” information about recalls. Compulsory registration, which is what happens with cars, ensures that all who might be affected are, as far as is possible, notified. I don’t see what is a problem with that.

If you buy through Amazon they will automatically have the details of where the product will be delivered. On line purchasing already provides the necessary personal details.

Here is my suggestion:

– Consumers could register their purchases on an independent secure website. An easy way to provide details of the make, model and serial number would be to scan a QR code with a mobile phone. For those who don’t have a smartphone, they could type in the details and registration by phone or post would be other possibilities. Registration via Facebook might be another way to collect product details.

– This system would allow people to delete products they have disposed of and for people to register secondhand products, for example the mobile phone they have bought from a friend or the washing machine bought from a charity shop.

If consumers would like the option of retailers or manufacturers providing information, that’s another possibility, but not one I am keen on using.

Having an online record of products that we own could be very useful to anyone who has to make an insurance claim – after a fire, for example.

I’m not sure that I would trust Amazon to engage with product registration, especially where their Marketplace traders are involved.

Many people will simply not voluntarily do what you suggest. They are even less likely to delete registered products. Many will not have access to the internet and won’t bother to post documents. We know how “sticky” people are.

The simple solution surely that requires virtually no effort on the customers part is to deal with it automatically at the point of sale when the retailer doea all the work and subnmits the information to an independent database. The customer can refuse – their prerogative – but might have a problem with insurance if their appliance would have been recalled had they registered.

Many said they would never carry around mobile phones or use online banking but both have been fairly successful.

We have made our points and maybe others will join in.

I have been registering products with the manufacturers for decades. I have never received any marketing material that I could directly link with those registrations. I have never received any recall notices either.

I strongly support a registration system that easily captures data at the point of sale and records it in a way that the purchaser can subsequently access and edit if necessary [product disposed of, change of address, new e-mail address, telephone no., etc.].

I have a list of all our domestic appliances and equipment with their serial nos., source, purchase date, etc. but that is too administrative for most people and I wouldn’t expect them to want to do that. An easy way is to keep all the user manuals together and write the data plate details on the front cover as well as the date of purchase.

What I have in mind is a system based on QR codes. These are in widespread use now and appear on many household appliances, either for internal use or for use by service engineers. Which? has been using them occasionally in the magazine for the past few years. It as easy as taking a photo with a phone or tablet and will take you to the relevant website and hopefully deposit all the information. Barcodes became a standard way of identifying products and prices and QR codes are more versatile. The first time an individual used their own secure website page, a customer would need to enter their contact details, just as they would do when opening an online account or ordering online.

If we can agree the need for storing the details of our goods in a single secure location, then the information could be transferred by the retailer or the owner – freedom of choice. We regularly hear of organisations having security problems, and that is one reason I am reluctant to give my contact details to more organisations than necessary.

“Widespread use” does not include everyone, and possibly not most of them – particularly the elderly. A system that requires a positive action from the consumer in a safety issue is bad in that many people will not bother. A system where people are automatically registered but can opt out is far safer. Even then we must remember that a safety issue can involve fire that will affect not only the owner, but maybe their family, visitors and neighbours so choosing not to register can imperil others. That seems wrong. It may also invalidate house insurance. I think we need to treat such safety issues seriously.

I did suggest that registration could be done in other ways, but why not take advantage of technology where possible?

Companies holding our contact details could become prime targets for data, and it is well established that this is used by unscrupulous organisations that make nuisance calls and send spam. If a way can be devised of automatic registration without passing on customers’ details then I would be happy with that, but there is little chance that registration of online purchases will happen in the foreseeable future. As you have told me many times, we need to be realistic in our explanations.

Regarding the danger of fire, I was hoping that you might pass on my concerns to BSI about the use of plastics in appliance casings, on the basis that you have worked in standards and have access to the relevant documents. The number of photos online showing plastics that have been destroyed in appliance fires (thereby failing to contain the fire) is surely cause for concern that the standards are either unsatisfactory or there is a problem with compliance.

“why not take advantage of technology where possible?” .Presumably this could apply to other matters such as switching energy suppliers? However I suspect if you ask many people what a QR code is and what to do with it you would not find universal understanding. You should not need to be technically savvy to do such things. Why make it complicated and selective? It will defeat the whole purpose to ensure as many people as possible register without effort.

However, I think we’ve had our say. It is something Which? have an interest in and I’d like to hear what proposals they are making to the Govt BIS to get this out of a talking shop and into practice.

A QR code is not dissimilar to a barcode. Few of us would have engaged with the technology until supermarkets introduced barcodes and then self-service checkouts.

As I said, I envisage other ways in which details of product ownership could be recorded so that we can be notified of recalls. I have also said that provided that there is some way of preventing our contact details being passed to companies, then I am happy with registration at the point of sale. I am keen to continue discussion of the need to inform people of recalls and important safety information and how we can best achieve this. This Convo seems the most appropriate place at present.

I’m simply saying that rather than repeating the same points, we put together (perhaps Which? represents the “we”) all the suggestions so far made, keep adding new ones, discuss their pros and cons, and we might end up with a possible proposal that actually begins to get the means to achieve a recall system.

I don’t believe a system that covers everything from day one is feasible. We need to start in a way that exposes weaknesses and problems that can be made good so a more robust system can result – particularly as large-scale software solutions seem prone to problems. Personally I would start with those products that seem most at risk for the majority – maybe electrical domestic appliances.

Back to the topic – Whirlpool dryers – had all purchasers had their essential contact details taken when they bought their appliance they could have been informed of the problem promptly, and would have known whether their particular dryer was one of the affected ones. Instead many may never know if they have a potentially dangerous dryer, many have had to search to see whether theirs is affected, Whirlpool are left not having a full picture of where all affected owners are. We need to avoid this mess in future.

We (us and also other Convo members) are good at repeating the same points. Accommodating other points of view can do a lot to advance the discussion.

Domestic appliances are often identified as causes of fires in the home and perhaps we should explore some of the reasons. When looking round houses at the start of the year, I was surprised that not one had an alarm in the kitchen or utility room. Smoke alarms can be a nuisance but I can press a button to silence it or take it out of the room if cooking sets it off, and I have a heat detector which would warn of the need to evacuate. Fire services repeatedly warn not to leave appliances running overnight but some manufacturers provide a delay start feature, encouraging use overnight.

I have mentioned the use of plastic in control panels and tops of appliances on a number of occasions. I visited a local electrical retailer to investigate use of plastics in the cases of tumble dryers and washing machines. Apart from a small Indesit model, every one had a plastic top. I forgot to take a small neodymium magnet to discover if the plastic was backed with steel, which could have helped contain a fire. Would you agree that use of plastics in casings including control panels and top panels is inadvisable unless mounted on steel that could contain a fire?

Alerting people to safety issues is essential, but I believe that there are many related issues that urgently need to be investigated. I wonder if the committee that maintains the current relevant standards has investigated used tumble dryers to find out why fires occur and what can be done to reduce the number. Simply looking at unused products and simulating fault conditions is not enough, in my view.

John mentioned not having received marketing material after registering products. This does not mean that contact details are not used to market unrelated products and services via email and phone calls. It is well established that lists are sold.

It would be obvious if companies selling white goods were using contact details to market similar goods but if the marketing related to holidays, cars, etc. we would not know. The problem of marketing email can be systematically investigated by using different email addresses for different purposes.

Our small charity has been targeted by companies that sell products and services that may be useful to voluntary organisations. Most of this has been email, with follow up emails when I have not responded. One company left a message asking me to get in touch and then called again. When I asked how they had got our contact details, I was told it was because we had received a substantial grant from the Heritage Lottery Fund. The award was made to a large charitable trust that we work closely with, and our contact details were not included in the funding bid. It appears that someone must have followed one of the press reports that wrongly stated that our organisation had received the grant, looked up our contact details on the website and we have ended up on a list that has been circulated to companies that target charities.

I am strongly opposed to letting companies have contact details. A common game is to offer an extended warranty or the opportunity to win a prize as a benefit of registration.

I try to hang out washing if I can. Failing that it goes in a bathroom and airing cupboard. About the only time I used my tumble dryer was when I had visitors staying or if the weather had let me down. Of course, not everyone has a garden and drying indoors can cause condensation and more serious damp problems, so there is certainly a need for tumble dryers, especially with large families and those living in flats and apartments that lack a drying room.

Heat pump dryers or – as you suggested – conventional dryers with lower temperature heaters might make our lives safer.