Whirlpool knew its dryers caught fire — and told the UK they were 'safe' for six years

In 2015, Whirlpool UK — the British subsidiary of the American home-appliance giant — was alerted that a design flaw in its tumble dryers manufactured under the Hotpoint, Indesit, Creda and Proline brands was causing them to catch fire. A build-up of lint on the heating element, combined with inadequate thermal protection, could ignite the lint inside the machine. By the time the issue was fully acknowledged, an estimated 5.3 million dryers sold between 2004 and 2015 were affected in the UK alone.

Rather than recalling the products, Whirlpool insisted the dryers were 'safe to continue using' and offered a modification programme: technicians would visit homes and install an additional thermal fuse. The company warned owners to clear lint filters and not to run the dryers overnight but refused to issue a statutory recall. Consumer group Which? and a cross-party group of MPs accused Whirlpool of putting profits before safety, noting that the modification did not fix the root cause — the lint still accumulated on the heating element.

For six years, Whirlpool maintained the position, modifying roughly 1.5 million dryers. Meanwhile, the London Fire Brigade reported attending an average of one tumble-dryer fire per week linked to the affected brands. In 2019, a coroner recorded that a fire started by a Whirlpool Hotpoint dryer had contributed to the death of a 74-year-old man in Essex. The inquest heard that Whirlpool had known about the fire risk from consumer complaints as early as 2013, two years before it informed the public.

Pressure from MPs, the media and the newly-formed OPSS finally forced Whirlpool to issue a full recall in November 2021 — six years after the risk was identified. The recall covered about 500,000 dryers that had not yet been modified, and Whirlpool was required to offer refunds or replacements rather than modifications. The episode became the most prominent product-safety failure in UK consumer goods; the company's managing director's claim that 'the modification was enough' was called 'untenable' by a parliamentary committee.