Fisher Paykell - This new new Fisher Paykell washer was purchased to replace a model seven years older that was leaking. I have since been informed that leak could have been easily repaired so the washer was still of value. However, the new Fisher Paykel

Fisher Paykell - This new new Fisher Paykell washer was purchased to replace a model seven years older that was leaking. I have since been informed that leak could have been easily repaired so the washer was still of value. However, the new Fisher Paykel model GWL11 does have different features not previously available.

washer installation gone wrong

September 27, 2004 Western Installation

17321 Valley View Avenue

Cerritos, CA 90703 Attn: Abel S

Jerry Wright Re: Delivery Invoice 2180694 Dear Mr. Sayula and Mr. Wright; I am in receipt of your letter dated September 17, 2004 and check in the amount of $200.00. Your letter states your “records indicate that on July 7, 2004, Western Installation delivered and installed a model GWL11 washer.” The installation, Pacific Sales’ sales no 2180694, regarding which I contacted Abel Sayula, was performed by Western Installation on July 10, 2004 after the purchase date of July 9th. This new new Fisher Paykell washer was purchased to replace a model seven years older that was leaking. I have since been informed that leak could have been easily repaired so the washer was still of value. However, the new Fisher Paykel model GWL11 does have different features not previously

available. Upon delivery of the new washer, the supervising individual was preoccupied with loading the old washer onto the truck while his trainee was figuring out how to install the new washer. The installation, which they may or may not have done before, appeared to be straight-forward as the laundry area is

already set up in our townhome.

After the machine was installed and the hoses were attached to the faucets, the supervising individual checked the drain hose to see why it could not be installed with the proper U-shaped attachment. He then secured the hose to a pipe in the wall with a flexible plastic joiner. Apparently, they may both have been unaware that the hoses on the Fisher Paykel model are reversed from the usual Hot on Left and Cold on Right configuration used in the United States. In any case, they did not

connect the washer’s HOT and COLD water inlet lines to the proper faucets.

The water hook-up was not tested before the installers left. Having been without a washing machine for a week, several loads of laundry were waiting. Immediately washing these loads, on COLD as is directed on each clothing label, I did not discover their error until washing the down comforter and

then only because the Fisher Paykell instruction booklet directions are to reach into the machine and push down the comforter half-way through the cycle. When I reached in, expecting cold water, what I found was scalding hot water instead.

This is when the installation error was discovered. Upon

checking the washed items, I found shrinkage to have occurred, even on the clothing that was air-dried. I then telephoned Western Installation where Mr. Sayula asked me to assemble an inventory of damaged goods. This I did and submitted, via FAX, dated July 10, 2004, a claim for $1,700.00. On July 13, 2004 Western Installation sent a Supervisor out to check the washer installation. He had a rather gruff manner and rearranged the stack of damaged items to place a black T-shirt on top of the pile before photographing it. At the time, this seemed unusual, and I noted this on the next FAX to Mr. Sayula sent several weeks later after I telephoned to inquire as to the progress of the claim.

Of course we would like to replace the damaged items, some of which were new, and which must be purchased once again at retail cost. Mr. Sayula rather nervously asked whether I could supply receipts for the items, so I assembled what receipts I had and FAX’d copies August 21, 2004. September 17th Mr. Sayula signed a letter stating the erroneous installation date and that “the findings of our investigation do not conclusively support your claim.” As far as corroborating whether the unit was tested, you need only ask your installers. I am quite certain you hire reliable individuals.

The fact is everyone makes mistakes and, in this case, no test was made.

Of course you “did not witness the switched lines” because, as I told Mr. Sayula and the supervisor who came to my home, I unattached the lines and corrected them myself. That is not what the claim is. The claim is for replacement value of the damaged items. Your letter states, “with respect to

the crossed waterlines, we, again, did not witness the switched lines and have no absolute way of verifying this as fact.”

Any insurance claim is worthy of a competent investigation, which would include testing the machine.You further write that the washer purchased with the “Eco-smart” system is designed to alert the user to problems, such as improper water temperature. Speaking with Mr. George Fielding of Fisher Paykel in Irvine only confused the issue further, as he stated the machine would STOP if the

water lines were crossed. The service technician at Fisher Paykel in New Zealand has told me no damage to the machine would occur from crossed lines, so yesterday I again crossed the lines and set the wash cycle to COLD. The machine filled with HOT water. No alert sounded and a full cycle took place. In addition, your letter states, “our understanding is that the temperatures inside a dryer are far greater than those inside a hot-water cycle on a washer. More importantly, shrinkage from heat would apply to first time washing or drying, subsequent washings or drying would not affect the clothing in an unusual manner and certainly not to the point of ruin...”

[italics added]. My family begs to differ; their clothing is now not usable. If this, as you assert, were true, then the clothing would have been too small before I purchased the new washer because it has been my practice to wash on COLD and dry on LOW. In fact, my daughter wears a full orthopedic

corset brace to correct Lordosis, which extends to her hip. When she tried to wear her blouses after they were washed in this washer on the day of installation, she found the brace protruding from the bottom where it had not before. The same is true of her slacks and jeans. They are now too short

where they were not before, even though they had been dried in the 3-year old Fisher Paykel dryer after having been washed in the older washer. Fisher Paykel dryers have adjustments for heat so, of course, it is my practice for clothing washed on COLD to be dryed on LOW which is not as hot as the HOT water. You are invited to attend a testing session to be arranged at your convenience. We will perform the test of which I wrote and, in

addition, you may insert a thermometer into the dryer to verify the LOW setting is cooler than the HOT water on the washer. Clearly, in addition to the damaged items claim that has not been satisfactorily addressed, another problem regarding the faulty alert system has come to light and remains to be addressed. My question to you is, what is the procedure you suggest. Do I now have another new washer installed, at your cost, or do I contact Pacific Sales for service?Your attention to these matters is greatly appreciated. Sincerely,

Isabelle C. N

Irvine, CA 92603 c. Fisher Paykel

Pacific Sales

Better Business Bureau

California Department of Consumer Affairs

City of Irvine Chamber of Commerce

Isabelle N Click this link to e-mail the above consumer: //