Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Re: Bosch better than Hotpoint, ‘Really’ ?????
We sell a lot of Bosch Machines and having done so over the last five years not one has given any need for concern. Two Year Warranty out of the box same as LG which we also sell in numbers, on the other hand Hotpoint, Indesit, Whirlpool, Hoover & Candy we would not sell as the failure rates are there to see on service work every day of the week.
Re: Puting a higher rated oven element in
Nearly every cooker has the same gauge wiring feeding the elements, and its not uncommon to find 1800/2000/2400w elements being fed by such wiring. The build quality of a lot of cookers in the electrical department leaves a lot to be desired and I wonder about some of the cheap makes which seem to be using flimsy Terminal Blocks, often not you have a spur via a cooker switch with 8mm Cable from the wall spur, the conductors are too large for the Terminal blocks to accommodate this gauge conductor and it seems that the terminal blocks, oven selector switch gear is only just man enough to pass the regs for import. Therefore I agree with the above that caution must be used in extending anything in the amps and watts department as there does not seem to be any significant tolerance to exceed the specs.
Re: Puting a higher rated oven element in
So are we saying that looking at say a Circa Therm Oven Element rated at 1800w that the wiring supplying the current to that element is of a different gauge to say the same sort of oven with a 2000w element fitted ??
Re: Are we liable
Thanks for the advice Jackel and also the input from the rest of you. I have spoken to this customer today now they have had time to consider matters and explained that we are all human and that we fully backed the engineers method of working and that niether of them were at fault as each were clearly operating in the customers best interest and after all said and done it was not us that installed the appliance or the flooring which compounded the repair process and that we did not feel that we were responsible for the whole floor being removed which was decided by them as the course they decided to take. The customer has mellowed since my initial encounter and I have offered to make a very small refund and I mean small as a means to an end. I will be putting this all in writing with them on Monday and this should conclude matters, additionally I will tighten the way in which communication is handled at our end to prevent such an instance in the future
Re: Are we liable
The trouble here is that putting such an explanation forward then leaves it to the customer to decide if they will accept it or decide that they want to press on trying to put some liability on us as a company. Each engineer you might have will have different ways of working and thinking and you cannot be with them every step of the way as you know full well. In the scheme of things had the original engineer returned then this would never have occurred as the appliance would have been removed and fixed the customer accepting it as is. The complication is that the second engineer has not removed the appliance effecting the repair and with hindsight yes some coms would have been useful.
I just needed to know if we were liable for the removal of the floor bearing in mind the customer acted firstly on the first engineers view but then after the first visit of the second engineer decided between that visit and the final visit that they would take the whole floor up and I cannot see we are responsible for that extent. basically it comes down to What if, what if the dishwasher goes wrong sometime soon after this repair with a completely unrelated fault and the dishwasher requires removal ? the floor would still need taking up and sooner or later it will require replacement again the floor would need taking up, Time is the second factor along with IF,
We did not install the appliance and made the call that it required removal as to have spent a lot of time for which we could not charge then only to find out that access was required again the floor would require part removal. Typical case of someone else’s cockup and now they are trying to hold us responsible for trying to work in a methodical way.
I am not sure how this will be handled I need to think about it over the weekend and I suppose I need to speak with the customer to find out exactly what they want and what expectations they might be harbouring
Re: Are we liable
No charge was made at the first visit although the engineer did spend time removing the cabinet plinths, releasing seized legs and then coming to the conclusion that in order to check the pump and hoses for blockages, test the heater and stats, check the pressure system all which required unhindered access still no charge was made. As regards testing from the facia panel that is possible depending on make, available knowledge of circuit wiring and if diagnostics can be accessed. I take onboard your views regarding the comparisons
Re: Are we liable
Well its a fact that part of the flooring required removal to indeed remove the dishwasher but they are merely looking at the fact that having removed this flooring the second engineer was able to effect the repair without removing it. Yes it was there decision to take up part of the floor and then remove the rest of it between the second two visits but they were basing the removal on the advice given the first time round.
Re: Are we liable
Their not arguing the fact it was installed badly but that the first visit provided a wrong diagnosis ! and the subsequent visit went ahead without the appliance needing to be removed Samuri and having removed the floor we are responsible
Re: 1606 Heating element required
Thanks guys, I found the one on connect but will have to keep looking
