Hotpoint urgent tumble dryer recall

wealdroam

Zandoni wrote: »

...compensate people for their incompetence.

An interesting phrase.

You seem to be suggesting that compensation is due to all buyers of potentially dangerous machines, whether of not the purchasers have suffered any loss or not.

Does that include owners of machines that have already been 'retired' at some time within that 'eleven years'?

Are you proposing that we move into the realm of punitive damages that is much favoured in the US of A?

For clarity, punitive damages are intended to punish the defendant rather than compensate the claimant.

AJXX

Zandoni wrote: »

Well that certainly didn't start catching fire once Whirlpool took over, they would of had many reports from customers over the 11years and they probably weighed up the cost of recall against the chance of getting away with it.

How many is "many"?

Another poster already established that there is less than 1% chance (see few pages back not sure exactly where) of the machines catching fire. Out of the however million sold only a handful have actually caught fire due to this particular problem.

I'd imagine that if you're selling x thousand dryers per year and only receive y (small) amount of complaints then you wouldn't take it too seriously either - I suspect most businesses would do the same.

Zandoni wrote: »

It's relevant because they should do all they can to compensate people for their incompetence.

Sorry but why should they "compensate" people for ifs and buts? bearing in mind that this is a potential safety issue and not a full on discontinue use immediately recall.

incompetence

Incompetence is a very strong word to be throwing around - as I keep saying, most of what gets posted on here is pure speculation and a lot of the things people say such as Hotpoint aren't doing everything they can are said from people who probably have no experience whatsoever dealing with something like this.

You state they're "incompetent", but how do you form this assessment? I suspect it's based on your x amount of years dealing with product recalls/safety issues on a management level and vast experience of running a large scale operation?

Zandoni

wealdroam wrote: »

An interesting phrase.

You seem to be suggesting that compensation is due to all buyers of potentially dangerous machines, whether of not the purchasers have suffered any loss or not.

Does that include owners of machines that have already been 'retired' at some time within that 'eleven years'?

Are you proposing that we move into the realm of punitive damages that is much favoured in the US of A?

For clarity, punitive damages are intended to punish the defendant rather than compensate the claimant.

I feel it's a matter of damage limitation for them, they obviously have to try and stay in business but they also have to show that they now care.

There will be people like yourself happy to accept a repair and others who would rather have a new one.

They need to do the best they can to restore customer faith, waiting until the end of the year will not cut it.

AJXX

Zandoni wrote: »

waiting until the end of the year will not cut it.

So then what will?

Sorry to keep singling you out but, it's all well and good saying "will not cut it" but then you offer no suggestion as to what they should actually do instead... You use words like "incompetence" and "will not cut it" as if you have some sort of better idea/plan/understanding of how this could be improved.

Personally, given the amount of units affected I don't think it's that unreasonable to have dates stretching back to the end of the year - we're already nearly into March, 9 months to complete however many thousand/million repairs seems fairly good to me. Especially as initial estimates came in at 4-5 years to get around to everybody. Hotpoint have clearly stated they're employing more engineers daily, so this 9 month figure is likely to drop.

Zandoni

AJXX wrote: »

How many is "many"?

Another poster already established that there is less than 1% chance (see few pages back not sure exactly where) of the machines catching fire. Out of the however million sold only a handful have actually caught fire due to this particular problem.

I'd imagine that if you're selling x thousand dryers per year and only receive y (small) amount of complaints then you wouldn't take it too seriously either - I suspect most businesses would do the same.



Sorry but why should they "compensate" people for ifs and buts? bearing in mind that this is a potential safety issue and not a full on discontinue use immediately recall.

Incompetence is a very strong word to be throwing around - as I keep saying, most of what gets posted on here is pure speculation and a lot of the things people say such as Hotpoint aren't doing everything they can are said from people who probably have no experience whatsoever dealing with something like this.

You state they're "incompetent", but how do you form this assessment? I suspect it's based on your x amount of years dealing with product recalls/safety issues on a management level and vast experience of running a large scale operation?

The figures must be high enough for them to do the repair programme they have embarked on.

I say they are incompetent because they should of produced safer machines earlier. i do have a background in large production in the gas industry where safety is paramount.

powerful_Rogue

Zandoni wrote: »

They were fully aware for many years that their machines had more chance of catching fire than other makes and they did continue to churn them out. That is a fact, so it's a shame you consider that boring.

Zandoni wrote: »

Well that certainly didn't start catching fire once Whirlpool took over, they would of had many reports from customers over the 11years and they probably weighed up the cost of recall against the chance of getting away with it.

It's relevant because they should do all they can to compensate people for their incompetence.

Still waiting for you to provide evidence of this "fact"

Zandoni

AJXX wrote: »

So then what will?

Sorry to keep singling you out but, it's all well and good saying "will not cut it" but then you offer no suggestion as to what they should actually do instead...

Personally, given the amount of units affected I don't think it's that unreasonable to have dates stretching back to the end of the year - we're already nearly into March, 9 months to complete however many thousand/million repairs seems fairly good to me. Especially as initial estimates came in at 4-5 years to get around to everybody.

It's certainly not easy now to sort the problem out in a short timescale, this should of been started much earlier. They could give more new machines away, but this would obviously be very expensive.

They just need to attract as little bad press as possible, unfortunately this will mean treating customers differently.

AJXX

Zandoni wrote: »

The figures must be high enough for them to do the repair programme they have embarked on.

Or, perhaps, maybe.... just maybe... They're being cautious and offering a repair program despite only very few machines actually posing any real threat?

One would assume that if these machines are indeed as dangerous as the likes of ITV and fire bodies seem to enjoy making out they are, then trading standards would have gotten involved and Hotpoint would be issuing an immediate safety recall to discontinue all use?

I say they are incompetent because they should of produced safer machines earlier. i do have a background in large production in the gas industry where safety is paramount.

I suspect they don't yet have the capability to travel back in time and produce "safer machines".

The gas industry is hardly the same as consumer electronics and white goods, likewise a background in "production" is hardly experience dealing with large scale safety programs/recalls into which I suspect an awful lot of delicate planning is required such as legally, logistically, financially etc...

Again, I'm not having a go at you personally or trying to 'flame' you - but I really think "incompetence" is the wrong word to use, unless you have experience dealing with something like this on such a large scale you're not really qualified to be deeming anyone "incompetent".

Zandoni

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Still waiting for you to provide evidence of this "fact"

Do you honestly hand on heart believe they made these machines for 11 years without knowing they had a problem?

AJXX

Zandoni wrote: »

Do you honestly hand on heart believe they made these machines for 11 years without knowing they had a problem?

Doesn't this somewhat tie in to our discussion above though?

Receiving some reports of machines causing fires and "knowing there is a problem" are two entirely different things.