On the switch it's supply in.and load out.if it's got three positions in general it's on,off,on,if it's a two position switch but a neon light it with have an extra terminal.thats to say three terminals in all,a supply in,a feed out for the load and the extra one for the neutral for the neon return (-) 🙂
- Jun 20, 2005
- 20,009
- 5,289
- 50,935
See the photos of the stripped down switch. Just a simple on off single pole
- Jun 20, 2005
- 20,009
- 5,289
- 50,935
Thanks . It is not that kind of switch. Swapping the cables makes no difference to the orientation of the switch
- Jun 20, 2005
- 20,009
- 5,289
- 50,935
Yes it is just that.
Clearly they have been incorrectly assembled at the factory. Ian explains how it can be corrected. I tried it on an old one. Unsuccessfully.
You need a watch makers vice and tools and magnifier. What if after I had “fiddled” with it it caused a fire?
- Jun 20, 2005
- 20,009
- 5,289
- 50,935
Eureka!
Prima Leisure have reacted swiftly and resolved the problem👏👏 Here’s their latest reply. It is reassuring they took this issue seriously and found a resolution.
Their positive action is to be applauded in this day and age of customer care.👍
It seems their suppliers/ switch manufacturer incorrectly assembled the switches.
Good morning
Thank you for your email.
We are currently checking the stock to see if this is an error from our supplier, in the meantime we have switched around the switch on two of them and will send these out 1950889 - due to dispatch today.
Kind regards
Elliott
Prima Leisure have reacted swiftly and resolved the problem👏👏 Here’s their latest reply. It is reassuring they took this issue seriously and found a resolution.
Their positive action is to be applauded in this day and age of customer care.👍
It seems their suppliers/ switch manufacturer incorrectly assembled the switches.
Good morning
Thank you for your email.
We are currently checking the stock to see if this is an error from our supplier, in the meantime we have switched around the switch on two of them and will send these out 1950889 - due to dispatch today.
Kind regards
Elliott
|
- Nov 11, 2009
- 24,916
- 8,988
- 50,935
Good outcome, surprised though that they switched the components around in this day and age.Eureka!
Prima Leisure have reacted swiftly and resolved the problem👏👏 Here’s their latest reply. It is reassuring they took this issue seriously and found a resolution.
Their positive action is to be applauded in this day and age of customer care.👍
It seems their suppliers/ switch manufacturer incorrectly assembled the switches.
Good morning
Thank you for your email.
We are currently checking the stock to see if this is an error from our supplier, in the meantime we have switched around the switch on two of them and will send these out 1950889 - due to dispatch today.
Kind regards
Elliott
- Jun 20, 2005
- 20,009
- 5,289
- 50,935
Now you know why so many display caravans get canaballised at dealers for workshop supplies🙀
I ‘m confident as a Major manufacturer these guys know what they are doing😉🤞
Do suppliers never check incoming products these days, even just by sampling? They could have pre-empted the problem if they had.
- Nov 11, 2009
- 24,916
- 8,988
- 50,935
Manufacturer of caravans or switches. I read it as if Prima did the change. Given neither spotted the error ……Uhm.
I’m not at all impressed by the customer service given in your post #49 they were advising the customer to swap the wires. Come on now just supply the right parts chaps.
Last edited:
- Jun 20, 2005
- 20,009
- 5,289
- 50,935
“Major Manufacturer” was Bailey who are Prima Leisure. Their staff did the changes.
The oem was probably somewhere along the Silk Road.
#49. A real worry🙀. But then Clive we are used to this as caravan owners😜
- Mar 14, 2005
- 19,101
- 4,305
- 50,935
I fully appreciate we all make mistakes from time to time and the supply of the faulty items was not a deliberate or intentional action on the part of the supplier, but it highlighted a company failing which if they had a fully operation quality management scheme in place, the chances of theis failure reaching a customer would have been almost zero.
So the company has failed in one of its primary duties of care towards its customer.
The second failure occured when you reported the fault, and it was handled by an incompetent person. Anyone with the remotest smattering of electrical knowledge would know that an SPST switch is either open or closed, and the the order of the wire connections would make no difference.
It has needed a third action by you to contact the company to escalate the issue. If they had employed a competent person to answer your first contact the problem should have been fully sorted then. Instead it has cost you extra time and effort to resolve the issue, but it has also cost the company probably another £20 or so pounds to answer and escalate your issue on components that probably cost them no more than about £1 each!
What your comment actually shows is how bad the industry is at dealing with product problems. If you are happy with needing to make two extra contacts with a business to sort a simple problem out WHat does it say about the rest of the industry.
There seems to be no will or intrest in the industry that shows the industry is really ready to comply with the CRA's requirement that customers should expect fault free products. The industry has not learned the lesson that doing right first time is a far more profitable approach, and it engenders much better customer relations which would reduce their after sales costs by a very significant margin.
Applause for the actions in this instance is simply reinforcing the present abysmal quality status quo.
If organisations were to stop trying to get "positive feedback" they could redeploy the feedback staff in actually improving customer services or even better, deploy them to man a proper quality assurance process.
Companies can learn a whole lot more from fully understanding complaints than counting positive feed back.
- Jun 20, 2005
- 20,009
- 5,289
- 50,935
Good post Prof.
But one small point . The guy dealing with the problem did follow procedure and referred it upwards only to be knocked back. He then listened to my next post and pressed on internally. He could have filed it. So imo he did make the effort. If I ’d heard no more I may well have set up a watch repair desk and had a go at Ian’s solution🙀
Roger’s point is the most important. Who is responsible for testing the efficacy of the bought in products? Gas appliances etc🙉
But one small point . The guy dealing with the problem did follow procedure and referred it upwards only to be knocked back. He then listened to my next post and pressed on internally. He could have filed it. So imo he did make the effort. If I ’d heard no more I may well have set up a watch repair desk and had a go at Ian’s solution🙀
Roger’s point is the most important. Who is responsible for testing the efficacy of the bought in products? Gas appliances etc🙉
- Mar 14, 2005
- 19,101
- 4,305
- 50,935
I appologise if the company's official you spoke to did as you say, but regardless the net effect was that your issue was not resolved during that interaction, so I stand by my comments regarding the companies approach to QA and customer handling.
The role of a supplier whether the final retailer or part of the supply chain should be to ensure products leaving their care or custody meet the agreed specification. There are several different proven ways of addressing that fundamental activity and two fo the most common are physical inspection of goods as they are received, and more complex to set up but far more effectively is to apply the concept of quality assurance where organisations employ an effective quality assurance system whereby as part of the ordering process suppliers agree to guarantee to only supply goods that have been assembled or manufactured under an externally monitored and approved Quality Management system such ISO EN 9000 series or similar systems operated in specific industries.
In some industries the organisation either opts or is legally required to only buy from suppliers with an externally approved and active accreditation for their QM system. (e.g. Aerospace, most car manufacturers, Nuclear and Mining etc)
This does not eliminate the need for goods inwards inspections but it reduces the need to a sampling process. rather than complete inspection of every item in a consignment.
Specifically for gas appliances in the UK and EU, it is legal requirement the appliance must be manufactured under an externally approved QM system and also have an CA or CE type approval for it to be fitted into a an installation.
Specifically in relation to retail sales which are backed by the CRA, sellers who sell faulty goods are considered to be guilty becasue the goods sold were faulty. Its the act of selling rather than the goods themselves. Retailer have an assumed duty to ensure the goods are free from defects. In reality most don't bother to check their goods inwards for quality just for quantity.
Last edited:
What you say above is true - in theory. In practice many companies fall short.
As an Engineering Manager I was involved in getting ISO 9000 accreditation and the first thing that struck me was that the Processes and Procedures that are put in as a result do not necessarily guarantee a good quality product or service. All the accreditation meant was that the company was following defined processes and procedures - but these in them self could be flawed because those checking the application do not understand the industry, products or services.
The company I was working for at the time was supplying equipment to other defence contractors. Our quality was so good that our customers stopped incoming inspection and the equipment went straight into service.... with commissioning of course.
Then consider Boeing and the disaster of the Max 8 series. They were allowed by the FAA to self certify and because of other internal issues quality suffered and unfortunately fatal incedents occured.
The FAA withdrew the consent for self certification and took back the responsibilty but I've read in the last couple of days that they are now letting Boeing self certify again but on alternate weeks with the FAA.
Which means I'd like to know when the aircraft I'm about to board was built
As an Engineering Manager I was involved in getting ISO 9000 accreditation and the first thing that struck me was that the Processes and Procedures that are put in as a result do not necessarily guarantee a good quality product or service. All the accreditation meant was that the company was following defined processes and procedures - but these in them self could be flawed because those checking the application do not understand the industry, products or services.
The company I was working for at the time was supplying equipment to other defence contractors. Our quality was so good that our customers stopped incoming inspection and the equipment went straight into service.... with commissioning of course.
Then consider Boeing and the disaster of the Max 8 series. They were allowed by the FAA to self certify and because of other internal issues quality suffered and unfortunately fatal incedents occured.
The FAA withdrew the consent for self certification and took back the responsibilty but I've read in the last couple of days that they are now letting Boeing self certify again but on alternate weeks with the FAA.
Which means I'd like to know when the aircraft I'm about to board was built
Facebook
Twitter