Fischer Storage Heaters

macman

Post 151: first post, just registered. So why choose 'fischer worker' as a username if you no longer work for them? I'm getting strong whiffs of a canned pork-based meat product..and I'm sure I'm not alone.
Given what Fischer are charging, I'd expect the fitters to be 'polite and well mannered'! That won't make their products any more efficient than a £20 convector from Aldi though.

JayRo

I can't post links but found a whole web page full of complaints from people who have bought the Fischer Future Heat radiators. (MSE: The site I mention is in the public domain, and not copied on here so it's not libelous!)

Somesenseforyou, which heating company do you represent and why is it that no prices can be given until the visit has happened?

Richie-from-the-Boro

macman wrote: »

Post 151: first post, just registered. So why choose 'fischer worker' as a username if you no longer work for them? I'm getting strong whiffs of a canned pork-based meat product..and I'm sure I'm not alone.
Given what Fischer are charging, I'd expect the fitters to be 'polite and well mannered'! That won't make their products any more efficient than a £20 convector from Aldi though.

The poster has been here twice before, the last time as peacock17. If you look up the last few posts relating to peacock17 you will see s/he used precisely the same content / grammar and punctuation as this occasion.

lstar337

JayRo wrote: »

The Fischer Future Heat website says "Officially the most efficient heaters in the UK" Who scientifically compared them to every model in the country? Anyway unless they are 101% efficient they can't actually be more efficient than others?

If true, that should be reported to the ASA.

Jimstamatic

I got a brochure through the post and arranged a visit from their surveyor.
Got really interested in the claims of 'new technology' and 'energy saving' and asked for a quote.
Was quoted £2,600 for supply and 'Install' (no real installation required as they would just be replacing two existing storage heaters - yes I said two!)
The Surveyor scribbled the quotation on his book but refused to confirm the price in writing or show us his estimate. - first warning.
From memory I recalled that the price was made up of £1,000 for the two heaters and £1600 for the installation (what installation?) - second warning.
Ignoring the surveyors 'buy now or lose out on discount' advice I said I wanted time to consider and left it at that. -third warning.
A few weeks later I got a telephone call from the 'Director' of the company following up on the visit and after voicing my concerns about the pricing the price dropped to £1550! - Bargain you may think but it's still twice the price of replacing my radiators with new existing brand product.
Thankfully, still curious about the 'new technology' I was considering ordering but (cautious about the early warnings) decided to check the forums.
A pattern in the forums is obvious, no robust evidence with regards to the technology or efficiency and little practical evidence, other than negative as it goes, so thanks to you guys I've decided not to waste my money.

'when something sounds too good to be true....it usually is'...I don't know who said that.

cheers again to the forum posse!

lstar337

Lucky that you found the information, since Fischer keeping getting MSE to delete any posts which contain negative or factual content.

Jimstamatic

That's good to know....explains why there's pretty much no actual tried and tested reports posted:beer:

Richie-from-the-Boro

Jimstamatic wrote: »

I got a brochure through the post and arranged a visit from their surveyor.
Got really interested in the claims of 'new technology' and 'energy saving' and asked for a quote.
Was quoted £2,600 for supply and 'Install' (no real installation required as they would just be replacing two existing storage heaters - yes I said two!)
The Surveyor scribbled the quotation on his book but refused to confirm the price in writing or show us his estimate. - first warning.
From memory I recalled that the price was made up of £1,000 for the two heaters and £1600 for the installation (what installation?) - second warning.
Ignoring the surveyors 'buy now or lose out on discount' advice I said I wanted time to consider and left it at that. -third warning.
A few weeks later I got a telephone call from the 'Director' of the company following up on the visit and after voicing my concerns about the pricing the price dropped to £1550! - Bargain you may think but it's still twice the price of replacing my radiators with new existing brand product.
Thankfully, still curious about the 'new technology' I was considering ordering but (cautious about the early warnings) decided to check the forums.
A pattern in the forums is obvious, no robust evidence with regards to the technology or efficiency and little practical evidence, other than negative as it goes, so thanks to you guys I've decided not to waste my money.

'when something sounds too good to be true....it usually is'...I don't know who said that.

cheers again to the forum posse!

Thanks for your input Jimstamatic it helps people make better decisions, you time is appreciated by the group.

GrahamHampshire says here that the Aeroflow brand :

- heat up the room much quicker
- maintain the temperature more evenly during the day
- are cheaper to run
- like for like Aeroflow use about one third less electricity for a better heating performance
- my first post it is supported by detailed paperwork and is posted as a warning to try before you buy
- I have no connection to either company.

Battling_Bertie

It is not difficult to report a company to the Advertising Standards Authority, the Competition and Markets Authority, or the Serious Fraud Office.

Under criminal law there is...

The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008
max 2 years imprisonment
Covers:
(a) misleading action regulation 5;
(b) misleading omissions - regulation 6;
(c) aggressive commercial practices, regulation 7

The Fraud Act 2006 Section 2 Fraud by False Representation
The penalties are a fine/up to 12 months imprisonment on summary conviction and a fine/up to 10 years imprisonment on conviction on indictment

If you think you or a friend or relative have been the victim of a fraud, it is in all our interests that you should report this, to the police and to the trading standards office, let your MP know too.


PS coming in on 13 June is
The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013
Which covers things like minimum notice periods for "off-premises sales". This may help future purchasers.

Richie-from-the-Boro

Battling_Bertie wrote: »

It is not difficult to report a company to the Advertising Standards Authority, the Competition and Markets Authority, or the Serious Fraud Office.

Under criminal law there is...

The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008
max 2 years imprisonment
Covers:
(a) misleading action regulation 5;
(b) misleading omissions - regulation 6;
(c) aggressive commercial practices, regulation 7

The Fraud Act 2006 Section 2 Fraud by False Representation
The penalties are a fine/up to 12 months imprisonment on summary conviction and a fine/up to 10 years imprisonment on conviction on indictment

If you think you or a friend or relative have been the victim of a fraud, it is in all our interests that you should report this, to the police and to the trading standards office, let your MP know too.


PS coming in on 13 June is
The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013
Which covers things like minimum notice periods for "off-premises sales". This may help future purchasers.

- thanks for that Battling Bertie

Here is one on the 3 April 2013 on Fischer UK

Because we had not seen evidence to support the listed unit prices and electricity rates, or to support the equivalence between a 1.5 kW Fischer radiator and a 3.5 kW night storage heater from another manufacturer, we concluded that the cost comparison claims were likely to mislead.

On that point, ad (c) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.38 (Other comparisons).

---

Here is one on the 18 July 2012 Sunflow

The tables supplied by Sunflow referred to electric radiators, not fan heaters and did not provide a direct comparison between storage heaters, including Sunflow's own type of storage heater, with fan heaters. It was not possible, therefore, to ascertain comparative energy efficiency for Sunflow's products. The tables also referred to the "Annual cost of space & water heating for average size houses" which did not make it possible to separate out space from water heating costs or take into account smaller or larger homes. Although the tables provided data for various UK regions, electricity suppliers varied between each area, which would not allow direct comparisons to be made.

The ASA considered that consumers would understand that some heaters might operate at different energy consumption levels than others, and efficiency could be calculated using a number of factors. However, no reference to this information was provided in the ad, and Energy Efficiency Rating labelling information was not supplied. We considered that a theoretical comparison was insufficient to substantiate the claim made.

Because we had not seen evidence directly comparing Sunflow's product with fan heaters, we concluded that the ad was misleading.

On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.11 (Exaggeration) and 3.38 (Other comparisons).

---

Here is one on the 20 June 2012 on Rionte

Upheld

The ASA acknowledged Rointe had removed the claim from their advertising. We noted, however, the results of the independently conducted performance test indicated that the average power a Rointe heater needed to reach the desired temperature of 21 degrees Celsius was 560 watts, which Rointe calculated represented 40% of the nominal power and therefore a 60% saving in power and therefore running cost. We considered, however, that, in the context of an ad that compared four different types of heating system and gave running costs for each of the systems in relation to different room sizes, the claim "you can save up to 60% of the Rointe running cost …" was likely to be interpreted as suggesting Rointe systems would save users up to 60% compared with the costs associated with the panel heater, boiler system and storage heater featured, rather than as suggesting Rointe users could use the system at 40% of the nominal power and therefore make a 60% saving on its potential running cost.

We understood the result of the performance test was used as the basis of the claims related to nominal and effective power, and the related running costs, for the six other room sizes, and the Rointe heaters required for those room sizes, featured in the ad. We noted the performance test results Rointe submitted related to only the 1,430 watt heater and took into account only one 24-hour period, which we considered was not a sufficient basis for claims that related to a year's heating use and to other room sizes and heaters to that tested. Similarly, although we acknowledged that the trial in the hotel took place over almost three months, we were concerned that it involved only one Rointe heater and one panel heater (rather than relating to each type of heater referred to in the ad) and that the results were extrapolated from the two hotel rooms to the entire hotel, and estate, as well as to the remaining nine months of the year.

We also noted that data related to the panel and storage heaters that were compared in the ad was obtained from one manufacturer's brochure rather than by directly comparing the performance of such heaters across the market to Rointe's in the same circumstances. We noted we had not seen data related to the power and running costs associated with the boiler system and that the ad compared Rointe's effective power with the nominal power of the comparison systems. We noted that Rointe said they had been unable to locate details of the effective power of their competitors' systems, but that information published on a competitor's website stated that it was not possible to publish detailed information on running costs because there were so many variables to consider, and therefore considered they should not have made a claim that did not allow for a like-for-like comparison.

In relation to the costs per kilowatt that were used as the basis of the comparison in the ad, we noted the electricity cost appeared to have been based on the average variable night price for direct debit customers but that the gas cost was based on the average variable unit price for either credit or pre-payment customers. We were concerned that also did not allow for a like-for-like comparison. For the reasons given, we considered the claim "you can save up to 60% of the Rointe running cost …" had not been substantiated. We therefore concluded that the ad was misleading.

The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.38 (Other comparisons).