Talk:Whirlpool Corporation/Archives/2018

United Kingdom Section Removal

There appears to have been an extended reversion war about this in April, but I believe this warrants discussion and a definitive conclusion. I for one, believe this section does not correspond effectively with its general notability. Its original author claimed it was "big news" in the UK, which might certainly be true, but the kind of coverage it receives here is too much for almost any controversy. As it stands, about a third of the content in this article refers to this recall, which is at odds with the representation of similar controversies on the pages of other companies. In addition, the section on the recall is riddled with Manual of Style errors.

I would propose that the section on this recall be pared down to a few sentences or removed entirely. Unity1522 (talk) 05:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I welcome paring down to a few sentences, but not total removal. I note that an inordinately long section on the deaths in the recent Grenfell Tower fire in London has been completely blanked. Again, just a few lines and a link to the main article would be appropriate. Irrespective of the considerable concern {see here) that a Whirlpool product caused nearly 80 deaths and as many injuries, this should not outweigh content about the company itself, including concerns and its responses to product safety. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

---

This section is wholly disproportionate. It appears to be the largest single section on the page and runs to 1,654 words. By comparison, the entire “history” section of the page (which is second largest) deals with global events spanning more than a century in 1,358 words.

Dedicating this much space to one product safety issue -- of a 107-year old, Global company -- relative to a single country, is entirely out of proportion, rendering the entire page as published, unbalanced. Product safety issues on the Wikipedia entries of other companies are not afforded anywhere near this much space.

The section is biased. Its account of the tumble dryer modification programme in the UK is told exclusively from the critic’s point of view with no attempt to provide balance or neutrality. It provides a skewed and incomplete account by dedicating disproportionately large blocks of text to a small number of events. It also contains disproportionately long quotes from critics, some of whose allegations are untrue or outdated. This bias of the section is unsurprising given that the user history of the page reveals that some edits have been made by individuals who have publicly criticised Whirlpool in the media, and in some cases have conflicts of interest.

Several claims made in the section are unsubstantiated. The citations reveal that some claims are based on misleading and inaccurate media reports. Others are based on outdated and/or incomplete information.

The section contains several inaccuracies, which are explained in greater detail on the following pages.

Taken as a whole, there are no reasonable grounds for the section to remain. It is recommended that the section be removed, or reduced to a few sentences that are factually correct. It is noted that this is the consensus of contributors on the “talk” section of the entry.

If such an amended section cannot be produced, it is recommended that it be removed entirely.

Please see a detailed list of inaccuracies and objections below:

1. ‘’Safety warnings about tumble dryers published on the Indesit and Hotpoint websites in 2015 advised customers that “In some rare cases, excess fluff can come into contact with the heating element and present a risk of fire.”[33] Whirlpool condensers and vented tumble dryers sold under the brands.’’

This statement provides no context for the comprehensive and voluntary launch of this campaign, the regulatory oversight of the campaign, or the unprecedented success rate of the campaign.

For clarity, following Whirlpool's acquisition of the Hotpoint/Indesit brands, the Company closely reviewed the safety of its product portfolio. As part of this review it identified a potential concern with two types of tumble dryers.

Whirlpool proactively raised the issue with the UK regulatory authority (Trading Standards), which determined that corrective action was required. As a result, Whirlpool activated an extensive consumer outreach and service action plan to provide consumers with products that are updated to higher safety and quality standards. Consumers can arrange for one of the company’s engineers to visit their home to modify their appliance free of charge.

Outreach to consumers included: · Advertising in national media · Direct correspondence with 4 million consumers thought to have owned the affected appliances through letters, emails, phone calls, text messages and social media · Dedicated safety websites for all the affected brands · Press releases and media briefings · Interviews on national TV · Notices to consumers via all appliance retailers and thousands of other third party organisations with whom the company engaged including landlords and housing associations

The dryers subject to this modification programme were manufactured between April 2004 and September 2015 under the Hotpoint, Indesit, Creda, Swan and Proline brands. Whirlpool branded tumble dryers are not affected by this safety notice.

Trading Standards confirmed, following an internal review by independent experts, that Whirlpool has acted diligently and responsibly and that the modification programme remains the most effective way of resolving this issue.

2. ‘’Whirlpool condensers and vented tumble dryers sold under the brands Hotpoint, Indesit, Creda, Swan and Proline and manufactured over an 11-year period between April 2004 and September 2015 present a fire risk.’’

This statement incorrectly suggests that all vented and condenser tumble dryers sold under these brands were affected by the safety alert. This is not the case – the modification programme only concerns certain models manufactured during this period. For clarity, Whirlpool branded tumble dryers are not affected by this safety notice.

3. ‘’An estimated 5.3 million tumble dryers were bought in the UK over the time period.’’

This is incorrect. A total of 5.3 million affected appliances were manufactured between April 2004 and September 2015. However, given the timeline involved/the age of many of these products, well over 1.5 million of these products would have been replaced or taken out of service by the time the modification programme began. Since the launch of the modification programme in November 2015 we have resolved more than 50% of the number of dryers estimated to be in the market at the time. This is more more than double the typical resolution rates achieved in the industry as indicated by a recent Government analysis.

4. ‘’Originally, and even after several fires were confirmed as being caused by faulty devices, Whirlpool advised customers that using such devices was safe provided they were not left unattended but would not issue a product recall’’.

To clarify, the advice at the outset of the modification programme was that owners could continue to use their tumble dryers whilst waiting for the modification. However, Whirlpool further advised that customers should not leave their dryers unattended during operation as an extra precaution (i.e. should not leave the house or leave the dryer on whilst asleep). Additionally, customers were advised to check and clean the filter after every cycle and ensure proper dryer venting, as directed in the original operating manual.

This advice was provided with oversight of the appropriate regulatory authority (Trading Standards).

5. ‘’Whirlpool offered to fix faulty machines or replace tumble dryers at a cost of £99.’’

This is incorrect. Under this campaign, all consumers with an affected dryer are eligible for a free-of-charge modification and can register under the programme by visiting https://safety.hotpoint.eu or https://safety.indesit.eu , or by calling the freephone hotline 0800 151 0905. Once registered, Whirlpool arranges for one of its engineers to visit their home to undertake the necessary modification, and update their dryer to a higher safety and quality standard.

Following feedback from consumers who expressed a preference to upgrade their products to a newer model, Whirlpool began offering an additional option of a brand new dryer in exchange for a small contribution to the total cost. Consumers could choose between a vented dryer at £59.00 (RRP £219.00) and a condenser dryer at £99.00 (RRP £299.00).

6.‘’(…) an offer met with derision with consumer groups and in the press.’’

This statement is subjective and based on the interpretation of a single piece of media coverage that contains factual errors and inaccuracies.

There is no citation for consumer groups criticising the scheme.

Again, this additional offer, was a direct result of consumer feedback.

7. ‘’Parliament discussed widespread difficulties with getting faulty machines fixed or replaced, including long wait times and poor service.’’

The use of adjectives in this statement is subjective. In addition, this section is of little relevance as the situation has long since moved on. Consumers contacting Whirlpool in relation to the programme have for some time been able to receive a resolution within one week. The booking process is instant and they can select a convenient time for one of Whirlpool’s engineers to visit their home free of charge to carry out the modification.

8. ‘’On Friday 19 August 2016 a fire broke out on the 7th floor of an 18-storey Shepherds Court building in Shepherd's Bush Green resulting in hundreds of residents needing to be evacuated. London Fire Brigade said 20 fire engines and 120 firefighters were sent to tackle the blaze at 3.44pm, and that it was under control by 5.30pm.[39] Shadwell fire station manager Paul Hobbs said "The fire spread from the seventh floor via the outside of the building." The blaze spread upwards to engulf 5 storeys damaging flats from the seventh to eleventh storeys.[40] The occupants were at home when smoke started pouring out of the tumble dryer and they alerted fire crews, with the fire later confirmed as being caused by a faulty Indesit branded Whirlpool tumble dryer.’’

This section is disproportionate as it covers minute details of a single event.

9. ‘’The London Fire Brigade commented that they get called out to a fire started by faulty domestic appliances nearly once every day and issued a five-point notice concerning Whirlpool's advice on faulty appliances: (…)’’

This statement is misleading as it suggests that the London Fire Brigade attends one fire every day concerning Whirlpool-owned brand appliances. This is categorically not the case.

10. “1. The safety notice was issued due to the danger of fire and any fire has the potential to endanger life and property. 2. It’s impractical for most people to remain with an appliance for the duration of a drying cycle. 3. If the dryer does catch fire while it’s attended this still presents a risk to the occupants. 4. If the owner attempts to put out a fire in an appliance they could be putting their life at risk. The Brigade’s advice is to not risk tackling the fire, always raise the alarm, get out, stay out and call 999. 5. The time a fire may break out because of a fault is unpredictable. The ignition of fluff accumulated around a heating element may cause a smouldering fire which might not be discovered until the appliance has finished being used and the owner has gone to bed.’’

This section is disproportionately long and focuses on the views of a single stakeholder.

6. ‘’In September 2016, Andy Slaughter, the MP for Hammersmith whose constituency includes Shepherd's Bush said the government had failed to stand up to the “powerful industry lobby” representing white goods manufacturers.[43] He was reported to have urged ministers to instruct Whirlpool and other companies to change their advice to customers, and insisted that faulty appliances that may cause fires be recalled and replaced.’’

The section contains false allegations which have been contested and dedicates a disproportionate amount of space to the opinions of a small group of MPs speaking at a Parliamentary debate which has long since been superseded. As such, it presents a misleading and outdated picture of the situation.

7. ‘’In a session of parliament on 13 September 2016, Slaughter revealed that he had "tracked down 750 fires caused by Whirlpool dryers and by dryers from brands owned by Whirlpool between 2004 and 2015.’’

Andy Slaughter MP did not track down 750 fires. This figure was proactively shared by Whirlpool at the start of the campaign as context to why action was being taken.

8. ‘’ (…) We know about 127 models, but Whirlpool will not publish the full list."

Throughout the tumble dryer safety campaign, Whirlpool has used an intelligent online model checker tool on a dedicated website to allow customers to identify if they own an affected appliance and register with the programme. Consumers could independently use this model checker, or call in on a free phone line to check their model number.

This has proved to be highly successful in driving registrations and far less confusing than listing individual, lengthy and often complex model numbers that consumers have to manually check.

It was established that publishing a list of models may hamper consumers getting in touch and having their dryers modified.

9. ‘’Alberto Acosta, MP for South Leicestershire, described Whirlpool's handling of the issue, adding: "I am a consumer of the said faulty tumble dryer, having bought one last year. The hon. Gentleman (Andy Slaughter MP) and I have already spoken briefly about this matter, but I should like to further inform him that I wrote to the managing director of Whirlpool UK, Maurizio Pettorino, in April this year. He took a month to respond, and his response was appalling. He did not answer the questions I had put to him. I wrote to him again on 23 May, but he has not responded to my letter. Nor has he responded to my repeated telephone calls. A public affairs company called Ketchum is involved in this matter, but it is refusing to respond to my reasonable requests. Like many consumers, I filled out the online Whirlpool form and was told I would have to wait 10 weeks before being given a date. Those 10 weeks have come and gone, but I have not received a date. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is time that Maurizio Pettorino thought about resigning from his job?" ‘’

The name of the MP is incorrect. [correct name is Alberto Costa] Whirlpool responded to the MP’s questions in writing on three separate occasions. This section dedicates a disproportionate amount of space to critics who spoke in a single parliamentary debate, which gives an unrepresentative picture of the campaign and a biased version of events. This event has long since been superseded. As such, it presents a misleading and outdated picture of the situation.

10.‘’Patricia Gibson, MP for North Ayrshire and Arran, added that regarding customers waiting for faulty dryer repairs or replacements, she had "a constituent who has been told she will have to wait at least 16 months, and she is now about halfway through that wait. There is no apparent end in sight, and this is a real evasion of responsibility." ‘’

This section dedicates a disproportionate amount of space to critics who spoke in a single parliamentary debate, which gives an unrepresentative picture of the campaign and a biased version of events. The allegations in this section are long out of date.

11.‘’Dave Brown, London fire brigade's director of operations, said, “This fire has highlighted just how dangerous faulty white goods can be... disappointingly though, Whirlpool have still not changed their advice to consumers. We are now appealing once again for them to change their advice and bring it into line with our own. Thankfully there were no serious injuries in the Shepherd’s Bush fire but we may not be so lucky if it happens again.”’’

Throughout the piece, third party comments largely come from the London Fire Brigade, with no space given to other stakeholders or the manufacturer in question, making for an unbalanced piece.

12. ‘’In October 2016, Margot James, the British government's Customer Minister, said: “Customer safety must be the number one priority for manufacturers. I acknowledge that Whirlpool are making great efforts to modify and replace at-risk machines, but I believe additional action is required to reassure customers and the public. I will be writing to the company to set out my concerns and expectations.” ‘’

The title of Customer Minister for Margot James is incorrect. The quote does not at all reflect the overall tone or content of the comments Ms James made during this debate. The author appears to have deliberately chosen a single line, well out of context, to reinforce their biased agenda.

13.‘’In December 2016, the UK's largest customer advocacy group, Which?, who had previously produced a list of the 113 models of tumble dryer at risk took the unusual step to seeking a judicial review of Peterborough Trading Standards - the agency named as responsible for handling of the faulty tumble dryers sold by Whirlpool - labelling the handling as a “fiasco” and claiming that it has failed millions of consumers across the UK by not enforcing product safety laws.’’

This section dedicates a disproportionate amount of space to the views of a single critic and contains no balancing material to ensure neutrality.

The list of 113 models produced by Which? is incomplete and therefore risks misleading consumers and undermining Whirlpool’s efforts to reach owners of the affected appliances and encourage them to register.

Whirlpool has repeatedly explained that a model checker is far more effective, as explained above. This includes explaining the details of the programme and the benefit of using this intelligent checker directly to Which? in a face to face meeting.

14.‘’Peterborough city council had been dealing with Whirlpool because its UK head office is located in the city.’’

That statement is incorrect. Peterborough Trading Standards advised Whirlpool on this corrective action because it had a statutory partnership under the national Primary Authority Partnership scheme.

15.‘’The move was considered unusual as it was the first time Which? had made a formal legal move involving trading standards "in order to assess the lawfulness of its decision to allow householders to continue to use faulty machines, despite the risk of them bursting into flames".’’

The suggestion that this was “unusual” is a subjective statement with no credible basis. The citation is a single item of media coverage which (also subjectively) makes this claim.

16.‘’Leon Livermore, Chief Executive of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute was critical of Whirlpool not recalling faulty tumble dryers, urging "Whirlpool to recall the millions of potentially faulty tumble dryers in people's homes", but came to the defence of Peterborough Trading Standards, saying, ‘The whole system has been overwhelmed by the size of this, and it’s a bit unfair on a local authority such as Peterborough to have to take responsibility for what is a national issue.’”

This section dedicates a disproportionate amount of space to the views of a single critic and contains no balancing material to ensure balance.

17.‘’The enforcement notices had been originally issued on 16 January 2017, and were rejected by Whirlpool, who filed for an appeal that was then rejected. Had the company not complied with the notices at this point, it would have been taken to court.’’

This is inaccurate. Throughout the modification campaign, Whirlpool continued its dialogue with Peterborough Trading Standards (PTS).

Between December 2016 and January 2017, PTS conducted a review of the modification campaign supported by a panel of independent experts. PTS concluded following that review that “the action taken by Whirlpool to date has been undertaken diligently and responsibly.” PTS further concluded, however, that a change in usage advice was appropriate and served a “Notice to Warn” specifying the change in usage advice. That notice indicated that the advice should be changed to: “Unplug and do not use the tumble dryer before modification or replacement has taken place.”

Whirlpool was concerned that the inclusion of the words “or replacement” would be confusing to consumers since the programme was being implemented by way of a modification programme, and the reference did not make sense (since a “replaced” dryer would not be expected to be used at all). This was raised with PTS, and it was agreed that it was appropriate to change the final advice to: “Unplug and do not use the tumble dryer before modification has taken place.”

18. ‘’According to The Guardian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian, the latest action followed “an escalation” in the number of incidents caused by affected machines.’’

This statement is incorrect and has no credible basis. The citation is a single piece of media coverage that refers to unnamed “sources” making this allegation, and therefore cannot be relied upon.

19.‘’Bernard Hender, 19, and Doug McTavish, 39, died following a fire at a flat in Llanrwst, North Wales, on October 10, 2014. Coroner Dave Lewis ruled that the cause of the fire was fire was caused “on the balance of probabilities” by an electrical fault with the door switch on the dryer. He described the evidence presented at the inquest by Whirlpool as “defensive and dismissive” and stated the company’s approach was an “obstacle” to finding steps to prevent future fires.’’

This was not the verdict of the coroner in this case. In a narrative verdict, David Lewis, Assistant Coroner for North Wales, said: “On the balance of probabilities the fire was caused by an electrical fault in the tumble dryer in the laundry room of the flat.” He specifically stated in his conclusion that: “I do not consider it necessary to establish the exact nature of the relevant fault or the precise mechanism of failure, as to which a number of theories were advanced.”

Further, as the inquest heard, this is not linked in any way to the tumble dryer modification campaign being discussed in this entry. This was an isolated incident. Craigkat (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)craigkat 13 February 2018