Morphy Richards kettle

[cobh]

My first post re an issue for me! Aim is to vent 1. re (Morphy Richards) MR lack of interest 2. re Consumer Direct obstructive approach!

 

Kettle: Morphy Richards Opera model 43652, purchased June 2006. makers Warranty 2 years, so that aspect irrelevant.

 

On Saturday 28/3 the kettle started to make a loud roaring noise shortly after I switched it on, filled to at least 1 l. I saw arcing and smoke and I ran back to switch it off at the wall. Smoke blackened base of kettle and small area of melted plastic on the base unit.

 

I phoned Consumer Direct to mention the event: they advised re SOGA and said they would refer the issue of safety to local Trading Standards (TS).

 

On Monday 30/3 I phoned MR "helpline" to explain what had happened. I said I would deal with the retailer on the SOGA aspect, so not an issue for MR. First priority to me was the potential for a serious fire. I asked what they would wish me to do: e.g return the product for examination. They said they did not want to have it, or to investigate. I said that I was surprised at this, but the contact was adamant.

 

I called CD again, and explained my concern. I wanted to be able to speak to Trading Standards to ascertain what they advised. If they wanted to investigate the cause, I would retain the product. CD told me they acted in partnership with TS, and that they had notified the local TS. Nothing further was proposed. They would not release a contact number for TS. Having had dealings with TS in Lancashire I knew the score to some extent. After some Kafkaesque time wasting (ring TS - get referred back to the CD number) I managed to get another contact number and spoke to TS reception. Quite reasonably they explained that if CD had referred the issue to them, a TS officer might well be in touch. Give them 3 days but hold the product for them to examine if required.

 

CD seemed fixated on SOGA and could not grasp the priority was consumer safety. Possibly not scripted to deal with such matters - but the whole business seemed more to do with fending off concerns than dealing with them. Will update on anything of possible interest, but also grateful for comments of others with similar frustrations!

Edited March 31, 2009 by cobh

[gyzmo]

A bit on CD:

 

It is a "first response" number to assist with general issues, and where unable to help, to refer the matter to the appropriate body. It's what is known as a first tier advice service.

 

The idea for CD, amongst other things, is to take away the burden of "routine enquiries" from TSOs that take up so much of their time, thereby allowing TS to pursue other work. That is not to say that such complaints are below them - merely that the nature of such complaints are best suited to being routed out and dealt with by someone else.

 

Most TS authorities route their calls to CD automatically and have contracts with them. When you call CD, they will assign the complaint a priority. The ones that get an immediate response are those where there is an immediate threat - usually to health or safety (for example, doorstep crime). TS then make a decision as to what to do. When making a decision, various factors are taken into consideration including:

 

Whether the complaint is civil or criminal in nature

The likelihood of immediate detriment / danger to you and to consumers in general.

The action that can be taken.

 

Because your complaint is criminal in nature (I'm ignoring SoGA for the time being) in that it relates to product safety, it becomes and issue between the manufacturer/seller and the punishment, if any, that the state wishes to impose. TS's preliminary enquiries will involve looking at how many other complaints there are (if any) and the wider issues in general in relation to this report. As such, it is unlikely they will contact you in regards to this.

 

CD should, however, be contacting you with regards to SoGA - basically, your rights against the seller under s. 14 (satisfactory quality).

 

It may seem frustrating as many TS depts now operate an intelligence led approach to enforcement, meaning that they do not act on individual complaints, but look at the whole picture and target activities to specific areas. You can thank Lord Hutton for that.

 

I'm sure that this is not exactly what you want to hear, but it is the way the system is set up. It seems, to me, to be not quite what was intended. And in case you are wondering about the accuracy of this, it is generalised, but my dissertation was on this very subject (and I got a 2:1)!

[cobh]

I'm sure what you say is correct but an intelligence-led approach has to take into account the strength of the evidence. If TS decide not to take action, having seen the product, fair enough. But they can't take any action, or even make a sensible comment to MR, if they don't evaluate the evidence. Before seeking a refund from the retailer, I wanted to explore whether TS would want the parts to look at. The simplest way would be to speak to TS direct!I haven't yet heard from TS, but will hold off other steps re the retailer, for a while. My main issue was that CD were strangely unwilling to discuss the main issue, and to countenance that a punter might want to speak with TS on the product safety side. BTW, I have taken more than 100 prosecutions, on unconnected criminal matters. Hence SOGA advice was not needed, as I made clear.

[gyzmo]

The response timeis a few days (5 I think).

 

CD will not really discuss this as it is not for them to do so. All they are there for is to offer general advice and to redirect. Advisors there have in the past "got ideas above their station", as I heard one TSO put it, and have been dismissed.

 

Most product recalls are as a result of a company's internal checks as opposed to complaints received about products. Products that are deemed dangerous are usually due to some inherent fault that will be found in more than one item - usually by the batch. There is a duty on manufacturers (and distributors) to notify the authorities of dangerous products they are aware of. However, one off incidents need not be notified as they are not classed as being a dangerous product.

[cobh]

Maybe I chose the wrong word - "discuss" - it was just to find a contact number to avoid getting into a loop and an explanation of the process. CD must surely know the process. When I got through to TS reception were helpful about the next steps. No need to explore the merits of the issue, which is for the TS officer. It might well be a one-off, but ignoring all events stymies data collection. Maybe that is why MR didn't want to know:)

[gyzmo]

They dont generally discuss such issues. CD certainly will not as it is not within their remit.

 

TS may do when they get round to the complaint, even if it is just to say that they are taking action, or to pass on the action taken to CD to pass on to yourself. But it is not the norm to discuss it in more than general detail. Do let us know how you get on, though.

[cobh]

We seem to be misunderstanding what was requested:) I think I made it clear it was not detail I wanted from CD or TS. Just the process, a phone number and whether to keep the kettle for examination, which means a delay getting or attempting to get, a refund from the retailer. I'll post if anything develops locally.

[gyzmo]

Apologies.

The number will be automatically routed to CD so you wont be able to get through that way.

You could see if they have a drop in service - check on the website for your local authority's TS. Alternatively call CD back and make it known that you want a call back. They may have set your call to info only.

And do keep the kettle - you have already put your complaint in and TS may want to see it (but I doubt it).

[cobh]

TS got in touch today. I've sent photos of the blackened bits. TS will forward copies with a letter to the "home authority" officer who deals with Morphy Richards directly.

 

That's what I wanted. MR on toast, and something on record:)