[ben–nevis]

Re: OFT DEGS Review

Hi Lawrence,

Many thanks for your post.

If I may, I would like to clarify my point of view. As we already give the information freely I have no real opinion on the OFT review, other than it will help the trade in general and may make it easier to get an independent technician to take on more advanced / less common brands.

As Far as the WTA is concerned I beleive that it is only right that the OFT has included the WTA and DASA in their review. Where my issues arose were in the context of the letter not the questions asked.

I understand the need to send a generic letter and the need for a consistent approach to correspondents. But please do not confuse, no reply, with a “no”, no matter how frustraiting it may be . The only loser in this would be the WTA as this would look foolish under any scruitany from the OFT if this letter was produced by other manufacturers to argue their case.

Hope this clears up the issue and thank you again for your response.

Regards

[ben–nevis]

Re: OFT DEGS Review

Hi Ken,

I agree that you could well be right in the case of some respondees that no response could be taken as a “no”.

If you were asked to confirm the questions answered as a result of this letter and how your data shows that there is a resounding “no” from manufacturers if in fact is nothing more than a count of no replies, you will find this case hard to proove and difficult to be taken seriously.

I agree that all manufacturers should be contacted but there could be a number of reasons for no reply. Not leased that all manufacturers have been contacted for comment by the OFT directly making reply to the WTA pointless other than not being used incorrectly in WTA data as a NO.

[ben–nevis]

Re: OFT DEGS Review

Hi Ade,
I would like to reply to a letter received from a member of the WTA board in his official capacity within the WTA (I have no idea what this “capacity” is as it is not stated!)dated 10/12/2010.
We have replied to the letter on the UKWG site not to cause any offence to the membership of the WTA far from it, we try wherever possible to help any member of the trade regardless of an affiliation to a trade body or not. The simple fact is (if you are a member of WTA) this was sent in your name.
This letter relates to the WEEE Directive and also the OFT “Investigation” into Domestic Electrical Goods. Which I presume is the; Market review of white and brown domestic electrical goods. This review is as I understand it two-fold:
Firstly looking at competition from a consumer’s prospective and the review of a monopoly Order which has been in place for some time.
Secondly a potential market study on aftermarkets for Domestic Electrical Goods including extended warrantees and Servicing and repair.
The first section of the letter states that “several of our members” have written to you in recent months concerning the release of tech info spare parts information. While I am aware of the issue within the trade and the distribution of the addresses of manufacturers on this site we have had no such request from anybody regardless of their capacity. Hopefully, because we have never refused any request for information. As with service agents, all manufacturers are not same.
The letter goes on to state that; as no response has been received to these requests by the WTA members, hence the need to contact us in an “Official Capacity”.
If we have had any request for technical information either from a WTA member a Connect Agent or an Independent repairer the information has been issued Free of Charge. In fact, I will go one step further and state that all of the latest training material and fault code information on our products was given to Ken from UKWG on our recent meeting with the only proviso given that nobody would profit from this freely given information.
The letter goes on to state that as “we must officially respond to the OFT inquiry prior to 12th Jan. I would “formally” request that you please respond with your company’s position so that we may report back to the OFT and DEFRA. While this is a nice offer, you are not in a position to formally request anything. I can assure you that if any official requests for information are made , we are more than capable of doing so for ourselves and this will be given as freely as we have the technical information mentioned previously.
The letter then goes on to say “we shall accept no response as a position of “no comment” on the matter and a refusal to make this information and equipment available to trade members in general and, specifically, to our members.”
If we had received such a letter, which we did not, no comment would be exactly that, NO COMMENT, while you can take this to be a refusal if you wish, I for one am glad you are not in any official capacity as at best this comment is amateur and at worst would make the entire argument put forward to the OFT by the WTA worthless upon investigation.
Firstly It would be wrong to report that any manufacturer has told you information is not available merely by not responding to a letter that has not in fact been received.
Secondly if the information were to be available to only WTA members surely this would merely be replacing one monopoly with another, forcing independent technicians to become members of your association in order to obtain information.
In response to the crux of the letter, specific information requests
1 Is information available
Yes it has been freely given to Ken of UKWG and any other agent regardless of affiliation to any trade association or service company and will continue to be so.
2 Where are spares available at a trade discount
Spares are available from spare parts distributors who open accounts with our European spares centre such as our service provider.
3 Are any specialist diagnostic equipment / tools required
No
4 Are there costs involved
We do not charge and have never charged for technical information other than a historic Premium rate number which was introduced at the time to ensure the service could continue this has long since been removed.

The letter finishes with “your comments would be appreciated in a timely manner to allow you to report back to the various government bodies that are interested in these matters”. the WTA is not as I am aware in a position to report anything other than its comments to anybody Government or not. And as mentioned earlier it should be careful not to taint the comments it does give with a biased opinion. It will be interesting to see if this letter will be given to the OFT together with the WTA findings.

Please take these comments in the spirit they were intended, I am not knocking the sentiment or ideals of the WTA, just the method. I work for a manufacturer that uses and supports independent agents for service and have done so for many years. We have and will continue to freely give any information we have to the trade as I am sure Ken will confirm.

[ben–nevis]

Re: Brandt VF300-JU1

Hi Tim,

My first port of call would still be the door switch. the heater is fitted with a TOC and limiter but they are not a common fainure on this type of heater. As with all machines the PCB can be at fault but i suspect not in this case.

I will email a wiring diagram for you to check.

hope this helps

[ben–nevis]

Re: Brandt VF300-JU1

Hi Tim,

the machine is fitted with 2 door microswitches, one to confirm the door is closed to the PCB the other is in series with the heater. Thisis worth checking first. (left hand door lock viewed from front)

If you require any more info please let me know.

[ben–nevis]

Re: fagor firdge freezer

Hi

The fan is purely to improve the air flow inside the unit and keep a more even temperature. there is a defrost heater in the back wall which could be on continuously, could also be the door switch leaving the lamp on. I assume the system is ok?

if you let me have a contact email I will send a wiring diagram if this helps.

Hope this helps

[ben–nevis]

Re: De Dietrich D/W

Hi S1mon,

It may be worth checking the left hand door safety switch. This machine has 2 switches, one for the electronics and one in the heater circuit. the machine will start and run but no heat. If you post me a contact email I will supply the training manual.

Hope this helps

[ben–nevis]

Re: brandt dishwasher vf400ju1

Hi,

The rating for the NTC is 47K Ohm at 25 C

Hope this helps

[ben–nevis]

Re: De Dietrich Oven UME 414E2/1

Hi Mike,

could be one of the limiters. One is for the cooling fan and one the overheat. I cannot tell from the exploded view which is which, will need to check the values. part number 92X6023 for the front one and 75X1509 for the rear might also be the cooling fan. the display sounds unrelated but part number 78X2289

hope this helps

[ben–nevis]

Re: De Dietrich FW4448E12

Hi Dave,

Error 0 Temperature sensor break down or connection problem
Error 1 Temperature control breakdown
Error 2 Door lock fault
Error 3 Temperature control or relay

Hope this is of use

[ben–nevis]

Re: De Dietrich DOD 348

Hi Dave,
Not a complete strip down, have to remove the top cover, upper and lower back, and upper and lower right hand side panel. The lock is held in with2 Torx 20 screws and you will need to undo the bracket that holds the 2 cavities at the back and prise them apart a little to remove.

[ben–nevis]

Re: De Dietrich DOD 348

Hi Dave,

If the main oven fan and element are not working try the conventional oven if this heats check the door lock. This will normally result in the internal light staying on. The element is permanent live and neutral switched so will show mains voltage.
The door lock will result in the internal light staying on but due to the age may have gone and not been replaced.

Regards

[ben–nevis]

Re: FAGOR DISHWASHER LFU-073IT

Hi,
this is a heating fault

if the temperature has increased by less than 5ºC in 10 minutes, it will beep as follows:
6 beeps pause 4” 6 beeps pause 4”………and so on
This means error code F6.
This can obviously happen at the start of a heating stage (does not heat) or during the heating stage.

Could be the NTC, Heater, loom in the door, ETC

Hope this helps

[ben–nevis]

Re: Trade Honesty

As I said the original post I have no comment on the point I was trying to make but appear to have failed is this:

Comments like
“If they keep up that practice, then surely hacked off repairers will book out a motor or something to mitigate the loss.” and the practise of doing this on a trade site open to WP’s, manufacturers and techicians, is plain b***** stupid!

Advicating this theft is irresponsible and gives the wrong impression of our trade.
I hope this clears things up

As for “Please don’t for a moment suggest that the agents/repairers at the sharp end of ‘the system’ are in any way guilty of any misgivings….. ” If you read the thread, that suggestion was not made by me, I merely responded to it!

[ben–nevis]

Re: Trade Honesty

I fully agree with the posts made. As I said NO company should have the right to agree compensation on your behalf and in my opinion RC are wrong to do so! as simple as that.

I also agree that the honesty and more importantly trust between all parties in the industry is vital. Without which we generate the “us and them” which may have led to some comments.

As I said I have no first hand knowledge of the RC case and as such posted my comments as a new topic to reflect this.

As I said this is “all of our ” industry not just technicians but manufacturers, insurers, and work providers and all need to play fair.

[Author]

Posts