Suprima - Expert Witness Statements Requested

[Gasguru]

Its a shame how the company bulls**t gradually takes its course through the employees.

Sorry but waranties down 20% is not something to crow about. I believe a pcb should give 10 years service as a minimum.

We all know in the trade the Suprima boards are rubbish and even the gas valves have had problems. Lack of servicing does not come in to it. Ok some aren't wired correctly or don't have bypasses but I've changed plenty of boards on perfect systems.

If you really think Baxi aren't the unethical crooks most of us believe please explain why the essential input filter components are left off the UK spec Performa boards. These boards are failing after sometimes only 2 or 3 years in service. Just compare Baxi boards with some of the other manufacturers. Cost cutting can be seen all over the boards. Even basic EMC ground planes are often absent.

 

[Agile]

What rubbish.

1. How on earth do you conclude that every person that didn't contact Watchdog should be assumed to be satisfied?

2. Where did I state that how often my boiler had broken down? I commented on how many PCB's had been replaced NOT how often it had broken down.

Its becoming pretty obvious that this Jeff is a rather argumentative fellow!

However his "logic" seems to be rather wanting in some cases.

Now he seems to be saying the PCBs were replaced but the boiler had NOT broken down!

Tony

 

[nickso]

What rubbish.

1. How on earth do you conclude that every person that didn't contact Watchdog should be assumed to be satisfied?

2. Where did I state that how often my boiler had broken down? I commented on how many PCB's had been replaced NOT how often it had broken down.

Its becoming pretty obvious that this Jeff is a rather argumentative fellow!

However his "logic" seems to be rather wanting in some cases.

Now he seems to be saying the PCBs were replaced but the boiler had NOT broken down!

Tony

i think you had best look at your own "logic" first tony. apart from the fact he is going to get nowhere with his claim, his argument seems fairly sound. the comment about breakdowns v's pcb's was aimed directly against your own gaffe.

 

[Agile]

If he wanted to convince us first of the strength of his case then he should have listed the full breakdown history of the boiler and asked us to compare his experiences with our wider findings as professional boiler repairers.

Instead he seems to have focussed solely on the PCB without giving us any further details or a photo of his boiler so we could see if there are any ventilation issues.

My viewpoint is that the Suprima is generally a fairly reliable boiler and the only common fault is that the PCBs will occasionally fail. Because they are otherwise so reliable its potentially misleading to assume the PCBs are unreliable just because they are usually the only fault we regularly see. The number failing have to be seen in context compared with the number installed.

Apart from the PCBs I have seen failed gas valves, an APS, a spark electrode needing adjustment, a few temp sensors and a blocked APS tube and two cracked heat exchangers.

Tony

 

[corgiman]

I must agree with tony

the suprima isnt a bad boiler and is a lot better than some (SD anyone?)

 

[doitall]

I must agree with tony

the suprima isnt a bad boiler and is a lot better than some (SD anyone?)

I agree the suprima isn't a bad boiler when compaired to some

That is probably the point, all the cheap end bean cans are rubbish and should be investigated, a big rip off industry from the manufacturer through to the RGI who changes parts for profit.

Personally I hope he wins, perhaps then potty/baxi and the other so called boiler makers may take noticed of how they have ripped off the public over the last 10 years.

Saying that Discussing an impending Court case on the internet will almost certainly get it thrown out before it starts.

Isn't it the suprima that you have to change the wiring harness and the fan when a new PCB is required

 

[nickso]

If he wanted to convince us first of the strength of his case then he should have listed the full breakdown history of the boiler and asked us to compare his experiences with our wider findings as professional boiler repairers.

Instead he seems to have focussed solely on the PCB without giving us any further details or a photo of his boiler so we could see if there are any ventilation issues.

My viewpoint is that the Suprima is generally a fairly reliable boiler and the only common fault is that the PCBs will occasionally fail. Because they are otherwise so reliable its potentially misleading to assume the PCBs are unreliable just because they are usually the only fault we regularly see. The number failing have to be seen in context compared with the number installed.

Apart from the PCBs I have seen failed gas valves, an APS, a spark electrode needing adjustment, a few temp sensors and a blocked APS tube and two cracked heat exchangers.

Tony

his entire argument seems to rest on the pcb tony. he isnt claiming for anything else. whether that is a good or bad thing isnt what was being debated. it was you who yet again jumped in with conclusions as to timesale. he also didnt say he wanted to convince us of his argument but wanted our input into the pcb problem.

did anyone ask him for a photo of his boiler for ventilation purposes?

i too have said in the past that the suprima isnt as bad a boiler as some make it out to be. generally the pcb is its only fault. but it is a big fault.

Because they are otherwise so reliable its potentially misleading to assume the PCBs are unreliable just because they are usually the only fault we regularly see. The number failing have to be seen in context compared with the number installed.

there is an air of nonsense about this statement. if the early pcb's are unreliable, which they are, it doesnt matter how reliable or unreliable the other components are. to put it bluntly, if the pcb is crap......its crap. the later ones are far better and dont seem to be much hassle. the number failing dont really matter if you have seen 3 fail in a row in your own particular appliance or indeed have replaced 150 in my own area as an RGI. the early ones seem to be inherently faulty, the later ones seem not to be.

 

[Softus]

Its becoming pretty obvious that this Jeff is a rather argumentative fellow!

You have a knack of driving any sane person into an argument, mainly because of your stunning illogic and the pompously inaccurate nonsense the pours out of your keyboard.

If he wanted to convince us first of the strength of his case then he should have listed the full breakdown history of the boiler and asked us to compare his experiences with our wider findings as professional boiler repairers.

He didn't want to, or even attempt to, convince anyone on the forum of the strength of his case. IMHO that was made very clear up front.

Instead he seems to have focussed solely on the PCB without giving us any further details or a photo of his boiler so we could see if there are any ventilation issues.

He very clearly, and politely, stated, more than once, that he didn't want advice on his boiler. However, that statement wasn't intended for the hard of reading.

My viewpoint is that the Suprima is generally a fairly reliable boiler and the only common fault is that the PCBs will occasionally fail. Because they are otherwise so reliable its potentially misleading to assume the PCBs are unreliable just because they are usually the only fault we regularly see. The number failing have to be seen in context compared with the number installed.

Apart from the PCBs I have seen failed gas valves, an APS, a spark electrode needing adjustment, a few temp sensors and a blocked APS tube and two cracked heat exchangers.

I don't think the OP will be paying you to appear as an expert witness.

 

[jeffuk]

Well .... you go to bed for a few hours! I guess I shouldn't post this on Friday 13th!

I tried hard to phrase my request to simply receive the assistance I was seeking - but you can't keep good people down! I cerainly wouldn't have come to this forum if I wanted legal advice, which I promise I do not require. And the reasons why might seem obvious to some but my question was very specific to the information I was seeking - if my OP is re-read.

To curtail some of the more wild conclusions stemming from even wilder assumptions but recognising that it will simply ignite some even further:

1. The boiler is in a second home - I did actually say so when I was asked why I had an oil boiler as well. It has been regularly routinely serviced by a Corgi engineer for roughly 1 service for each 25 to 30 days of occupation. This actually only probably means around 5-10 days of boiler usage as most days are summer days. I recognise that under-usage may place different strains on a boiler hence me having a full annual service irrespective of the fire up days! I thionk if you take repairs into account - and the fact that many of the days of occupation it was kaput - then I think it was either serviced or repaired for 1 day in each 5-10 days of actual use. I guess I can see the threads now "Ah well if you didn't use the boiler you're asking for trouble ....."

2. The PCB issue were not the only breakdowns but represented I guess around 40% of the total problems. But I'm not pursuing any type of other claim with respect to the other breakdowns. I think I could do so but on balance I expect a CH boiler to break down and for the sake of both "reasonableness" and "simplicity" and "balance" of my claim I have decided not to claim for the other breakdowns which for the sake of this exercise I will consider "normal wear and tear" even though clearly most reasonable people would think the level of breakdowns indicates an unusually faulty boiler. Some of the other breakdowns to which I refer that I'm not claiming is where the engineer removed the board, carried out some on site solder-flow repairs and when replaced it and it worked. So the PCB's failed more often than they were replaced in total. I'll never know how reliable the other components are because the boiler hasn't really worked for enough days to find out.

3. My issue with Potterton was that within the guarantee period and then afterwards they represented two things which I think now that they knew to be wrong.

Firstly they said that constantly having to reset the boiler when it tripped out was normal behaviour and what customers should expect, and told me to "go away". So being cold and then having to reset - was to them normal. Secondly they said that my problem was virtually unique and no other customers had the same problem. Whilst I do not criticise any single member of Potterton's staff because they were saying what they were told to say, with the benefit of hindsight I do believe that a competent management would have known these statements to be incorrect and I was effectivley being fobbed off and told "porkies" to. This to me was the deciding issue to pursue this.

In 10 years I have not had a single fault free week of use from this boiler.

I've had to purchase alternative electric oil-rad heating, spend a disproportionate amount of my time paying for and waiting in for repairs when my wife and I should have been enjoying our second home and I think the evidence is overwhelming that there was an inherent fault with my boiler that seemed to be shared with an unusual number of other customers, and Potterton would have continued to mistreat and mislead customers if it hadn't been from the BBC Watchdog programme. The reason why it's taken so long to bring it to court was simply I relied on what they were saying as being truthful and it was the BBC programme that alerted me to the fact that others were in the same situation.

I'd say that my chances of winning my case is around 50/50 - or perhaps better - which seems good enough to me but I think not pursuing it effectively rewards a dishonestly managed company, and therefore it is the principle to help others as well as myself that is important to me. I'm doing this because from my experience - companies only change their bad habits when their customers or a judge tells them to.

Again genuine thanks to those that offered thoughtful and balanced and intelligent replies - I very much appreciate it - and I hope that this fuller explanation - although I never asked anyone for their legal opinions about my case - at least might curtail some of the wilder misinformed posts.

 

[croydoncorgi]

Something has been overlooked here!

IF you can get Baxi Potterton to court, you will presumably have the opportunity to question THEM about certain inconvenient FACTS that will support YOUR case.

First and most important: how many Suprima PCBs of the various mod levels and versions have actually been made and sold by Baxi Potterton. Second, how many non-condensing Suprimas have been sold? A quick calculation will reveal the EXACT failure rate of the PCB per boiler. Third (pushing it a bit!), how many of the latest 'reliable' Honeywell-origin PCBs have been sold? (point being that non-condensing Suprimas NEVER had that PCB as original fit.)

Obviously, you have to make sure that on the day, the relevant Potty person is on hand to put his hand on the good book and provide answers sub poena. I think there must be a mechanism for you to tell the court that you need to ask these questions, so that Baxi will have to ensure that an informed witness is present. Just in case they try to obfuscate, you'll also need an INDEPENDENT witness who can (for example) attest to installing 200 Suprimas and then subsequently changed boards on 100 of them, in some cases, twice!

 

[jeffuk]

Something has been overlooked here!

IF you can get Baxi Potterton to court, you will presumably have the opportunity to question THEM about certain inconvenient FACTS that will support YOUR case.

First and most important: how many Suprima PCBs of the various mod levels and versions have actually been made and sold by Baxi Potterton. Second, how many non-condensing Suprimas have been sold? A quick calculation will reveal the EXACT failure rate of the PCB per boiler. Third (pushing it a bit!), how many Honeywell-origin PCBs have been sold? (point being that non-condensing Suprimas NEVER had that PCB as original fit.)

Obviously, you have to make sure that on the day, the relevant Potty person is on hand to put his hand on the good book and provide answers sub poena.

Many thanks. By a very odd coincidence, in the pre-trial paperwork I have asked for that information to be provided. In fact I have requested the number for the total Version 1 PCB's that were manufactured for repairs / replacements (these can be added to the total number of boilers as each had one fitted as original equipment) and seperately how many of the new version PCB's have been sold.

Clearly without numbers for comparable boilers this might prove difficult to position - but I think the number may be self-explanatory.

Thanks for the thought.

 

[Softus]

IF you can get Baxi Potterton to court, you will presumably have the opportunity to question THEM about certain inconvenient FACTS that will support YOUR case.

It's very unlikely ever to reach a court.

First and most important: how many Suprima PCBs of the various mod levels and versions have actually been made and sold by Baxi Potterton. Second, how many non-condensing Suprimas have been sold? A quick calculation will reveal the EXACT failure rate of the PCB per boiler.

Sadly, it won't, because of the number of boards held in stock by the all the distributors, retailers and repairers, and all the boards stolen by BG employees and sold on eBay, and all the boards repaired by either professionals or amateurs.

Obviously, you have to make sure that on the day, the relevant Potty person is on hand to put his hand on the good book and provide answers sub poena. I think there must be a mechanism for you to tell the court that you need to ask these questions, so that Baxi will have to ensure that an informed witness is present. Just in case they try to obfuscate, you'll also need an INDEPENDENT witness who can (for example) attest to installing 200 Suprimas and then subsequently changed boards on 100 of them, in some cases, twice!

I feel a touch of hysteria creeping in. The need for an independent witness is what caused jeffuk to start the topic.

jeffuk - I admire your intention to claim as a matter of principle. Go for the throat.

 

[jeffuk]

IF it goes to court Potterton will have to send an expert from their company. An expert has been listed as attending (they requested dates to be avoided for the hearing) but clearly a lawyer by himself will not be able to answer any of my questions, in which case they might lose by providing an inadequate defence.

Perhaps obtusely, In a way I'd prefer a hearing rather than a settlement. Then others who are in the same situation might be encouraged to pursue.

 

[Softus]

I tend to agree, but hearings are exceedingly expensive for any company. Pretending to be prepared to go to a hearing is much cheaper, and beats those people who run out of money and/or tenacity.

In all the claims I've made (and there have been many), none has been heard - all of them were settled, with one (through ACAS) on the morning of the hearing.

 

[jeffuk]

I tend to agree, but hearings are exceedingly expensive for any company. Pretending to be prepared to go to a hearing is much cheaper, and beats those people who run out of money and/or tenacity.

In all the claims I've made (and there have been many), none has been heard - all of them were settled, with one (through ACAS) on the morning of the hearing.

I think this brings my OP full circle and is exactly why I am specifically seeking as much background support for the PCB issue.

Clearly the original PCB, irrespective of whether it was replaced in all situations properly or whether the PCB was the true cause of every breakdown here it was used, it seems fairly obvious that there was an issue here and that it was probably (you don't need to prove it was definately just probably) designed or manufactured in a way that made it react adversely to heat and the failure rates seem to be the result. This has to be shown without any accurate measurable evidence, which can in fact only be provided by Baxi Potterton - and who are unlikely to want to provide it.

Anyway any comments from engineers who share the view - or indeed otherwise - I'd appreciate particularly if backed up with comparators.