Will your tumble dryer catch fire?

In November last year, the American company Whirlpool announced a major recall of tumble dryers, after it emerged that hundreds of them have caught fire.  The dryers which caught fire were apparently manufactured by either Indesit or Hotpoint, both of which are subsidiaries of Whirlpool.

The affected dryers were apparently all manufactured between 2004 and 2015, and so it seems that for around eleven years a large multinational company was selling large firebombs without apparently realising it.  I can't help but wonder how many overpaid muppets were on the payroll of Indesit and Hotpoint during those years.

People who report owning one of these dangerous tumble dryers are being put on a waiting list to be visited by a repair man (described as an engineer) who will supposedly make the appliance safe.  To speed things along, some people have been given a free replacement, while others have taken advantage of an offer to buy a new dryer at a discounted price.

While it might seem at a glance that Whirlpool are taking this seriously, the truth would appear to be very different.  Consider the following points:

• At least one national newspaper has reported that it may take more than three years for Whirlpool to fix every faulty tumble dryer in the country.  How many houses will burn down in the meantime?
• People who are disabled or who care for disabled people are rarely given any priority.
• A Hotpoint tumble dryer owned by Dennis Marinakis caught fire even after it had been modified and supposedly made safe.
• Modification work is prioritised by date order, which hardly makes sense in rural areas.  Once an engineer has driven a long distance to a remote town or village, it would make sense to modify all the dryers in that location on the same day.

Reading the comments posted in the national press about the ongoing recall, some people are saying that Whirlpool should be made to reimburse the Fire Brigade for all of the tumble dryer fires they have to attend.  At least one person has argued that someone should to to prison over this debacle.

I find it curious how - so far as I am aware - not one of Britain's elected politicians has dared to speak out on this matter.  Surely it would not be hard for either David Cameron or Jeremy Corbyn to make a public statement urging Whirlpool to move a bit faster.

Update: a national newspaper has recently observed that:

Leon Livermore, the chief executive of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute has ... told the Observer: ‘Central government itself does have back-up powers to force companies into recalls and to take action. So we would call on the government, in particular the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, to take action before someone dies.’

Another update: Whirlpool has now given in to pressure from Trading Standards, and is now advising customers to disconnect their faulty tumble dryers until the modification work has taken place.

It appears that this in turn resulted from Trading Standards giving in to pressure from Which Magazine and from London Fire Brigade, who believe that a faulty tumble dryer caused a fire in a tower block in Shepherd's Bush in August 2016.  I wonder if anyone in either Whirlpool's head office or in the British government is going to resign over this fiasco.

Court victory on bank charges

I am impressed by this recent item in the national press:

Oliver Foster-Burnell from Taunton, Somerset, went a few pounds over his £500 limit with Lloyds while he was in between jobs in 2008. 

Within weeks, the 28-year-old received a letter saying for that every day since he had been charged £20 by the bank. 

The fees spiralled to £750 before Mr Foster-Burnell was able to find a way out of his financial mess. 

But, after settling his debts, he took his case to county court where a judge ordered the bank to pay back the fees with interest. 

His victory could pave the way for billions to be returned to customers in similar situations if Mr Foster-Burnell is able to convince a High Court Judge that his case could apply to others. 

First, I am very pleased that Mr Foster-Burnell won his lawsuit.  It is very unfair of the banks to exploit people in genuine poverty.

It is questionable however to what extent his case is relevant to other similar cases, given that it is based on a law which bans companies from changing a contract without an explanation.

The last Labour government bailed out the banks using taxpayers' money.  Is it too much to argue that the government should also protect the general public from exploitation by the banks?

I would like bank charges to be regulated by statute law, and I would also like banks to be required by law to waive bank charges altogether in cases of genuine hardship.

In the meantime, we have to be grateful for small victories.
 

Related previous posts include:

A small victory in Barnet

Jet2 at the High Court

A frustrated traveller has taken Jet2 to court for failing to pay compensation for a delayed flight.  The ruling in his favour is now being contested at the High Court.

First of all, he appears to have the law on his side.  The law requires that compensation be paid for cancelled flights or for flights which are delayed by more than three hours.  There is a get-out clause for exceptional circumstances, which Jet2 believes covers the technical fault which delayed the flight in question.  The claimant however argues that exceptional circumstances refer to events outside the control of the airline, such as severe weather conditions.

Second, the outcome of the case will set a binding legal precedent.  Unless it is overturned at a higher court, then all lower courts will be required to determine similar cases in the light of the ruling in this case.

Third, this lawsuit is based upon European Union law, and so the ruling in this case could be disregarded in future if Britain were to leave the European Union - which is not to say that it necessarily would be.

Fourth, the comments on the Mail Online website are mixed.  Some are praising the lawsuit, while others complain that the ruling, if upheld, will force airlines to increase their prices to cover the cost of paying compensation.  This is probably true, and the ruling could prove to be a particular burden to smaller airlines.

No amount of debate is likely to influence the eventual ruling of the High Court, however.  It is possible that it will be easier in future for airline passengers to claim compensation for cancelled flights, and it is also possible that fares will increase.  It is also possible, but less likely, that we will continue to pay relatively low prices for air travel, but risk being delayed without compensation.

My final point is that litigation can be expensive, and the claimant could end up having to pay a huge legal bill.  I was once told by a law lecturer that the first rule of the law is to keep away from it.

Related previous posts
Angry customers of HSBC
School uniforms: think before complaining

Angry customers of HSBC

Readers of this blog may be aware that HSBC has recently introduced new rules about cash withdrawals.  Basically it appears that customers wishing to make large cash withdrawals are being required to prove what the money is for.  I am not a customer of HSBC, but if I were I doubt very much if the new rules would upset me.

Nevertheless a lot of people have been complaining, and tabloid columnist Richard Littlejohn shares their frustration.  Regarding the case of a man who was obstructed from withdrawing £10,000 in cash, he comments that even if he’d wanted to blow the lot on cocaine and hookers, that’s entirely his own affair.

Pardon my impudence, but no it is not entirely his own affair.  Littlejohn is condoning substance abuse and possibly also human trafficking, both of which are quite reasonably circumscribed by law.

Littlejohn's attitude is typical of the selfishness and hypocrisy of far too many people in this country.

Do you aspire to live in a crime-free country?  I will assume that the answer is yes.  Is it then too much to ask that you play your part?

Cash payments are one of the ways in which crime flourishes in this country, and any bank which obstructs  people from making large cash transactions is arguably obstructing crime.

Of course you can argue that you are not a criminal, but anyone else can argue the same thing, and yet the fact remains that some people are criminals.  How is your bank supposed to know for a fact that you are not a criminal?  Even if you have been a customer of the bank for many years or decades, that does not prove that you are not involved in crime. 

I have never in my life withdrawn more than £500 in cash from a bank or building society account in a single transaction, and I fail to see why anyone who is not a criminal should obsess about large cash transactions.

If anyone reading this blog can think of a good reason why anyone other than a criminal should want to make large cash transactions - as opposed to using documented means such as cheques or bank drafts - then please leave a comment.

As an aside, Littlejohn concludes his comment with these words:

Two ‘British jihadists’ who went off to wage holy war in Syria have been killed.
Good.

One of them is reported to be a London estate agent, which counts double.

Britain does not as yet have a law prohibiting incitement to occupational hatred.  If it did, then presumably Littlejohn would be facing a prison sentence.

Relevant previous post:
Money laundering: a cautionary tale

A small victory in Barnet

There are a lot of items in the news today which I could comment on.  An immigrant called Desmond Brooks has been arrested for one count of murder and two counts of attempted murder; a 12yo girl has been raped by two immigrant teenagers in Walthamstow; a church near to Marble Arch has put railings around its font to stop homeless immigrants from using it as a wash basin; more than six thousand households in Slough have people (possibly immigrants) living in sheds in their back gardens.

In 1937, Sir John Betjeman wrote: Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough!  I merely observe the fact.

Anyway, which news item to comment on?  How about this one - a lawyer in Barnet has won a legal battle against his local council about the price of parking permits.  What annoys me in particular about this matter is the fact that it is nowadays commonplace for local authorities across Britain to employ senior staff on hugely inflated salaries.

Presumably the decision by Barnet Council to hike the price of parking permits was taken at a high level, and presumably was cleared by at least one high ranking council officer.  How much was that high ranking officer paid?  Did that high ranking officer know that the council was acting illegally?

If councils are going to pay huge salaries, then maybe they should restrict those huge salaries to those officers who are actually competent.  Maybe Barnet Council should reduce the salaries of its senior personnel with immediate effect.