BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

Four appliance repair centres were given a faulty microwave oven to repair and the results were reported on Target broadcast by TV3 Network Services Ltd on 6 June 1999 between 7.00–7.30pm. Manukau Appliance Service Centre Ltd repaired the microwave by bypassing the variable power switch with the result that it could only operate on high power.

Mr Welch, Managing Director of Manukau Appliance Service Centre, complained to the broadcaster that the item was unfair to his company because it left the impression that his staff were incompetent in locating faults in electrical equipment. Of major concern, he said, was that TV3 had failed to include explanatory comment from the company about the work it had done.

TV3 responded that the repair test had been conducted fairly and the testing had been overseen by two independent technical experts. It noted that none of the companies featured, including Mr Welch’s company, had diagnosed and corrected the fault it had deliberately created. It did not consider that Target’s assessment of the company’s efforts in attempting to repair the oven were unfair or inaccurate. It declined to uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied with TV3’s response, Mr Welch referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed a tape of the item complained about and have read the correspondence which is listed in the Appendix. On this occasion, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

Some appliance repair centres were tested on their ability to diagnose and repair a fault in a microwave oven. The results were presented on Target broadcast on TV3 on 6 June 1999 between 7.00–7.30pm. One of the companies charged $86.00 for the repairs carried out, and when the job was completed the microwave operated only on high power. According to a technical expert on the programme, none of the companies performed adequately as they had been unable to locate the fault which had been deliberately created by the programme. He demonstrated that the fault related to a loose wire.

Gary Welch, Managing Director of Manukau Appliance Service Centre Ltd, complained to TV3 that the broadcast had not dealt fairly with his company. The programme, he said, would have left viewers with the impression that the company was incompetent. Mr Welch claimed that was unfair, and emphasised that he had been in the servicing industry for 42 years and was experienced in fault finding in electrical and electronic equipment.

Mr Welch noted that when Target’s technical adviser demonstrated the fault, it appeared that it was simply that a wire was left hanging loose. In fact, he said, the conductor inside the terminal cover sleeve had been interrupted. Microwave terminals, he explained, have a locking pin to secure them and do not suddenly jump out of position after 15 years of use unless they are tampered with. As a result there was zero voltage on the relay which, Mr Welch said, led him to believe that the fault was at the voltage supply source. He maintained that the company had not misdiagnosed the fault or come to the wrong conclusion.

Of major concern to Mr Welch was that when, after the incident was recorded, he was invited to offer an explanation to Target, he did so, but his explanation was not broadcast. As a result, he said, viewers would have been misled. He also objected to the item claiming that his company had taken 5 days to repair the faulty microwave and that his charge of $86.00 was excessive. In fact, he said, the appliance was operating the next day, and his charge was reasonable given that other servicing procedures had been undertaken at the same time. In addition, he complained that viewers would have been left with the impression that the microwave had been left in a dangerous condition, being only able to operate on high power. He observed that the customer had twice been advised that the unit now operated on high power only and that this was not hazardous. As a final point, Mr Welch noted that in the opinion of the National Service Manager of a major appliance company, his staff had done nothing wrong. In the National Manager’s view, the fault was not one which would occur in normal use.

Mr Welch asked for an immediate apology to be broadcast during a Target programme.

TV3 advised that it had assessed the complaint under standard G4 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. That standard requires broadcasters:

G4  To deal justly and fairly with any person taking part or referred to in any programme.

TV3 began by explaining the background to the item. Four appliance repair companies were given identical microwave ovens with an identical fault to repair. The programme compared the performance of each company, including the cost charged by each one, and gave each an opportunity to reply to a critique of their performance. It explained that the fault was created by the programme’s technical consultant and that each appliance was checked before and after the repairs were carried out. After the completion of the tests, another technical consultant was employed to review the reports and to comment on the responses from the companies. The experts, TV3 said, did not confer with each other. According to TV3, both consultants were adamant that the trial was fair, and that the position taken in the programme was correct.

TV3 denied the claim that the programme was biased. It noted that all four repair companies had failed to fix the fault, and that each had been given an opportunity to respond. The programme included relevant passages of the letters from each company. In the case of the Manukau Appliance Service Centre, TV3 argued that the claim of bias was particularly unjust, as the programme had pointed out a number of other positive aspects of its service and customer relations, and identified it as the best of the four companies tested.

To the complaint that viewers would have been left with an unfavourable impression of the company, TV3 responded that it had merely reported the results of the test and had made no generalisations based on that observation.

Next TV3 responded to the complaint that viewers would have been given the impression that the fault was simply a wire left hanging loose. It acknowledged that when its expert had demonstrated that the fault involved a broken connection he "may have erred [when he] was appearing to reconnect the loose wire to the control relay terminal." However, it continued, the purpose of his demonstration was not to explain how the fault was corrected, but to show what the fault was.

TV3 did not agree with Mr Welch that his company had located the fault and dismissed his objection to the programme’s conclusion that his staff had misdiagnosed it and come to the wrong conclusion. It asked why, if the company had correctly diagnosed the fault, the appliance had not been fixed.

As for Mr Welch’s explanation of how he had diagnosed the fault, TV3 responded with comments from its technical expert, who maintained that the fault would have been easily identified by logically checking the wiring system.

Turning to the claim that the programme had failed to present a balancing view, TV3 noted that each of the repair companies had been offered the opportunity to respond to the criticism of their work by the technical expert. In the case of the Manukau Appliance Service Centre, TV3 reported that very little of the company’s response to the programme related to the questions raised, but that the most relevant comments had been included in the programme.

Next TV3 dealt with the complaint that it had been incorrect to state that the repair had taken 5 working days. It acknowledged that the day after the microwave had been delivered it had been given a quote as to the cost of the repair, but said it was not until the 5^th day that it was advised that the appliance was ready.

Dealing with the complaint that the price was said to be excessive, TV3 noted that the point made by the programme was that $86.00 seemed to be excessive considering that the fault had not been corrected.

TV3 denied that the programme implied that the microwave was left in a hazardous condition. What it did say, it explained, was that a user would not necessarily understand the implications of the fact that the oven would only operate on full power. It maintained that the Target presenter had been correct in pointing out the potential hazard, and in advising that it would have been appropriate to put a marking on the panel to warn users.

TV3 emphasised that the programme had acknowledged that the fault was not among the five most common faults encountered. The fault, it said, had been carefully chosen so as to be as fair as possible to repair companies, as it was able to be fixed without specialised and expensive parts, and could be located without resort to special data and specialised test equipment.

TV3 concluded that the Manukau Appliance Service Centre had been dealt with justly and fairly, as had all four appliance companies.

When he referred the matter to the Authority for review, Mr Welch provided relevant sections from the manufacturer’s troubleshooting guide which, he said, indicated that he had come to the correct conclusion as to the source of the fault. Unfortunately, he added, the guide did not make provision for tampering or sabotage.

Mr Welch inquired about the presenter’s technical background, adding that he objected to the fact that the presenter had said that his staff lacked technical skills in diagnosing faults.

In its response to the Authority, TV3 explained that the presenter was not one of the programme’s technical consultants. It advised that the principal technical consultant had held a number of senior teaching and service management positions in both New Zealand and the United Kingdom, including the position of technical adviser to the Electronic Technology Services Association. A second consultant was present when the programme was filmed, it added, and he ensured that any unscripted comments made by the presenter were fair and accurate.

TV3 reiterated that the fault could have been located had effective diagnostic tests been carried out. It reported that its technical adviser did not agree with Mr Welch’s claim that his company had correctly identified the cause of the malfunction, noting again that the fault had not been fixed, and that the microwave was modified so that it only worked on high power.

TV3 then clarified some matters about the diagnostic procedures which would have identified the fault. It also suggested that Mr Welch had used the age of the microwave as a reason for not investigating the problem further.

Although invited to do so, Mr Welch did not comment further.

The Authority’s Findings

Target is a consumer advocacy programme which investigates the activities of various service providers and broadcasts reports on their relative competence. On this occasion, a microwave oven was taken to four different repair centres to be repaired after one of TV3’s technical consultants had severed a connection in the wiring. The transaction between the actor employed by Target to take the appliance to the repair centres was secretly filmed on each occasion. None of the repair centres was able to identify or repair the fault.

The focus of the complaint is that the test, the broadcast and the aspersions cast were unfair to the Manukau Appliance Service Centre, and in breach of standard G4.

First, the Authority deals with the complaint that the test itself was unfair. Mr Welch of Manukau Appliance Service Centre explained that the fault which had been introduced was not one which would occur in a microwave used under normal operating conditions and would not have occurred unless the appliance had been tampered with. In his view, his company had not misdiagnosed the fault or come to the wrong conclusion. He said he had correctly concluded that the fault was at the voltage supply source and had checked that area. He sought advice from a company which specialised in digital programmer circuits, and it advised that the fault was most likely the microprocessor. Because of the age of the machine and the nonavailability of the part, Mr Welch said he suspected it was therefore uneconomical to repair.

In assessing whether the test was fair, the Authority notes the programme’s consultant’s claim that the fault was a simple one and easy to repair. Nevertheless, the Authority accepts, the test was designed to be challenging. In reaching the conclusion that the test was not unfair, the Authority also notes that the company came close to identifying the fault and, in the opinion of the consultant, would have been likely to have found it had the technician pursued the matter.

Next the Authority turns to the complaint that the broadcast was unfair because the Manukau Appliance Service Centre’s response to Target was not included in full, and viewers would have been left with the impression that it was incompetent. The Authority considers that the company’s response was fairly summarised on the programme and in addition, notes that the reporter acknowledged that it had successfully localised the fault. The Authority concludes that in the context of a consumer advocacy programme which set out to test relative competencies, the summary was not unfair to the company.

Finally, the Authority deals with the matters which the company claims portrayed it in a bad light. This included that it was unable to repair the fault, that it left the oven in a hazardous condition as it was only able to operate on high power, that its charge rate was high considering the work which was done, that the repair took 5 working days, and the overall impression left with viewers that its staff lacked diagnostic and technical skills. The Authority acknowledges that an unfavourable impression could have been given about the company’s competence. However, it concludes, it was not unreasonable for TV3 to take the view that it did. A fault, which it maintained was a simple one to repair, was not correctly diagnosed or repaired. On balance, and acknowledging that the complaint raised some valid concerns about the implications of the programme for the company, the Authority concludes that no standards were breached. It therefore declines to uphold the complaint.

For the reasons set forth above, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
28 October 1999

Appendix

The following correspondence was received and considered by the Authority when it determined this complaint:

1.    Manukau Appliance Service Centre Ltd’s Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd –
      9 June 1999

2.    TV3’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 8 July 1999

3.    Manukau Appliance Service Centre Ltd’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards
       Authority – 8 July 1999

4.    Manukau Appliance Service Centre Ltd’s Further Correspondence – 15 July 1999

5.    TV3’s Response to the Authority – 13 August 1999