Beko PLCIncludes reports addressed to a minister or senior office-holder acting for this organisation.

Private and voluntary organisations · Public limited company

Pin Request correction

First report 5 Nov 2014•Latest report 12 Jul 2017

Reports, concerns and published responses

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Reports
2

Naming this recipient

Published responses
0%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
0

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
0

Described in responses

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Beko PLC linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Addressed to: ████████, Managing Director, Beko plc, Beko House, Caxton Way, Watford WD18 8UF.

    Manchester South

    AI-generated summary

    John Wilson · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    John Wilson died in hospital on 9 August 2016 after suffering burns and multiple fractures while escaping a house fire caused by a faulty Beko fridge freezer. The principal concerns were that the product recall may not have reached the Wilsons and that further direct attempts to contact customers with recalled products were not made, despite a further death in 2014 and the increasing fire risk as the products aged.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Beko PLC; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Increasing fire risk from recalled products as they age

    Wider context from the report

    “3. the evidence was that as the recalled products get older the risk of each of them catching fire increases ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Beko PLC; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to ensure recalled-product customers receive effective direct notification

    Wider context from the report

    “The evidence of ████████ Quality Manager UK and Ireland, Beko plc was that ████████ were written to on 22nd July 2011 and again on 27th September 2011 to inform them of the product recall. There was no evidence that the letters had been sent or that they had not been delivered as they were sent using standard mail rather than recorded or registered post. The Wilsons did not respond. It was the evidence of the family that they did not receive any such letters and that they were unaware of the product recall pertaining to the fridge/freezer they had purchased, by now almost 6 years previously. They had a few years previously received notice of recall of a Hotpoint product and had responded to that. ████████ told the Inquest that as the Wilsons had not contacted Beko following the recall letters their details were passed to OnCall to carry out a door knocking campaign. Beko had no record of OnCall attending the Wilsons address. However, Beko produced a record of British Gas attending on 21st June 2012, which stated that a letter was left as there was no answer. It came to light during the course of the Inquest that there was a second death in 2014 from a house fire attributed to a recalled model of a Beko fridge/freezer. No further action was taken to make direct face to face contact with ████████ or any other of the customers who had purchased the estimated 80,000 remaining recalled products. I heard evidence of a number of media campaigns and targeting of specific groups through other organisations, such as for example Age Concern. These were however limited in their breadth. ████████ evidence was that the rationale of the door knocking campaign was to make direct contact with the occupants at that particular address, and that is what OnCall and/or British Gas were contracted to do. It was surprising therefore that Beko accepted failure to make contact on just one attempt and that no further attendance at the property was expected or required. There are clearly many reasons why a person may not be at home and I would have anticipated a second or even third attendance, at different times of the day and/or day, before it could be said that a reasonable door knocking campaign had been undertaken. In this particular case the evidence was that because of his poor health Mr Wilson hardly went out and spent most of his day in the downstairs front room of the house. It seems highly likely that on a second visit direct contact would have been made with Mr Wilson. 1. that more could have been done to ensure that the product recall came to the attention of ████████ and that the additional step required to do so was not an onerous one. 2. that no further direct attempts were made either by registered post or recorded delivery or a second door knocking campaign following the second death in 2014 ”
    Open source report

  2. North London

    AI-generated summary

    Santosh Benjamin Muthiah · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Santosh Benjamin Muthiah died after a fire spread through his home while he and his family were sleeping, with the medical cause recorded as cerebral anoxia due to inhalation of fire fumes. The report raised concerns about the identification and communication of appliance-fire information, risks from recalled and second-hand refrigeration appliances, product safety risk assessments, guidance and notification practices, and the construction and components of refrigeration appliances, including capacitors.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Beko PLC; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Insufficient capacitor safety requirements to prevent hazards on failure

    Wider context from the report

    “24. I heard evidence for the LFB witnesses, in particular ████████, who gave evidence about the serious concerns they hold about the ongoing risk posed by capacitor failures resulting in fires. These concerns are twofold, relating generally to capacitors and the industry standards and in relation to Beko appliances. 25. Paragraph 24.8 of British Standard BS EN 60335-1:2012 ‘Household and similar electrical appliances; Safety; Part 1 - General requirements.’ applies to the type of capacitors used in refrigeration appliances. It states that they shall not cause a hazard in the event of failure. 26. This requirement is considered to be met by one or more of the following conditions: a. The capacitors are of a class of safety protection P2 according to IEC 60252-1; b. The capacitor is housed within a metallic or ceramic enclosure that will prevent the emission of flame or molten material resulting from failure of the capacitor; c. The distance of separation of the outer surface of the capacitor to adjacent non-metallic parts exceeds 50mm; d. Adjacent non-metallic parts within 50 mm of the outer surface of the capacitor withstand the needle-flame test of Annex E; e. Adjacent non-metallic parts within 50 mm of the outer surface of the capacitor are classified as at least V-1 according to IEC 60695-11-10, provided that the test sample used for the classification was no thicker than the relevant part of the appliance. 27. I accept and agree with the concern raised by the LFB that the above requirement does not ensure that capacitors do not pose a hazard. This creates a risk to the safety of consumers. 28. The LFB FIT has experience of failures of P2 capacitors and failures leading to ignition of metal casing capacitors (contrary to a. and b. above). 29. Further, it is clear that the mechanisms of failure of a capacitor can bypass the required 50mm distance (contrary to c. above). Furthermore, in the case of a refrigeration appliance, the base of the compressor compartment is often two metal bars used for mounting components, leaving the floor surface exposed (for example a flammable carpet). 30. The LFB believes that the requirements regarding capacitors referred to in paragraph 50 above (citing paragraph 24.8 British Standard BS EN 60335-1 : 2012) are not robust enough to prevent capacitors from presenting a hazard, which creates a risk to the safety of consumers. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Beko PLC; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of requirements to isolate or protect refrigeration-appliance insulation from ignition

    Wider context from the report

    “20. I heard evidence from the LFB witnesses who gave evidence concerning the inherent risks that refrigeration appliances present due to their construction. The polyurethane insulation material used in most refrigeration appliances represents a high fuel load, is highly flammable and when on fire burns to create dangerous gases. 21. There is no legal requirement or industry standard that this insulation material is isolated from or protected from ignition by a failure in another component within the appliance, which represent a risk of ignition, such as the compressor, capacitor or ancillary components. This represents a serious risk to the safety of consumers. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Beko PLC; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to identify appliance fire causes and appliance identifiers after fire damage

    Wider context from the report

    “1. I heard evidence from various witnesses, including the LFB but also from Beko and ████████ formerly of Intertek, that there are often problems in identifying, not just the specific cause of an appliance fire, but even the manufacturer, model and serial number of the appliance in question due to the severity of the fire damage. This has a knock on effect on Fire & Rescue Services’ (“FRS’s”), Trading Standards (“TS”) and manufacturers’ ability to accurately identify a pattern or trend within fires from appliances which may evidence a specific manufacturing or component problem. 2. This creates a risk that the nature and extent of a potential problem with a particular manufacturer or particular appliance is not fully known and therefore underestimated with the consequence that the risk to the lives of consumers may also be underestimated. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Beko PLC; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of second-hand market controls for recalled or safety-notice products

    Wider context from the report

    “8. I heard evidence from the LFB witnesses who gave some evidence that defective products on the second hand market pose a continuing risk to consumers. 9. There is no clear system in place to ensure that products subject to a safety notice or recall are not sold, unmodified, on the second hand market. By way of example, the LFB has recently identified several unmodified Beko fridge freezers which are subject to the safety notice, for sale in a second hand retailer. This lack of regulation or market surveillance of the second hand market poses a risk to consumers. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Beko PLC; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to routinely pass identified domestic appliance fire information to Trading Standards or manufacturers

    Wider context from the report

    “6. This is not the case routinely elsewhere in the country. There may be a variety of reasons for this, including the difficulty in identifying the appliances due to fire damage, and the more limited resources and expertise in the investigation of the causes of fires that other FRS’s have in contrast to the fortunate position of the LFB. 7. Whatever the reasons there is a risk in existence where such information that is gathered by FRS’s in relation to fires involving domestic electrical appliances (where the appliance can be identified) is not routinely passed to the appropriate TS Home or Primary Authority or indeed to the manufacturer. TS is taking decisions on whether to take any action in relation to a particular manufacturer or a particular appliance on less than all the available information. If they were provided with more accurate information about the incidences of appliance fires they would be in a better position to take action where necessary. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Beko PLC; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Underestimation of capacitor-related fire risk in Beko fridge-freezer risk assessment

    Wider context from the report

    “31. I heard evidence from LFB witnesses who gave evidence of their concerns that serious failures in Beko Frost Free Fridge Freezers (“FFFF’s”) manufactured between 2000 and 2006 are continuing resulting in a serious risk to the safety of consumers. ████████ gave evidence of the numbers of fires which the LFB FIT have investigated to date, the appliance models and the causes of the fires. The LFB have written to Beko concerning these fires and the risk the appliances represent. This concern relates in large part to capacitor failures. 32. Although it is right to say that there was some evidence that there may be an “industry wide problem” i.e. that this risk is not specific to Beko, this alone does not address the risk which exists in Beko products and nor have the LFB been concerned enough in relation to the risk presented by other manufacturer’s products to write to any of them. 33. The LFB were provided with a risk assessment from Beko dated 26 April 2012 which states that the risk is “low” such that no action is necessary or proposed. The LFB is concerned that this underestimates the risk to the safety of consumers, particularly as Beko witnesses’ own evidence seemed to highlight that they consider the capacitor as a potential ignition source in fires. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Beko PLC; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Inconsistent guidance on product risk notification and corrective action

    Wider context from the report

    “16. I heard from Beko witnesses and also, in particular, ████████ that there are inconsistencies between the EU Commission Guidance and the UK Trade Association Guidance on corrective action and the requirement to notify an enforcement authority. 17. The AMDEA guidance says that if the outcome of the risk assessment is that there is a “moderate” risk, the manufacturer is not required to notify TS but the BIS guidance says that a “moderate” risk outcome requires notification to TS. 18. Manufacturers therefore are in difficulty in consistently applying guidance and in carrying out their notification obligations where there is the requisite level of risk to consumers. 19. I accept the LFB submissions that such inconsistency creates a risk that TS not being notified and therefore action not being taken in circumstances when it arguably should be highlighting a risk to consumers. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Beko PLC; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of awareness of the safety notice for recalled Beko fridge-freezer models

    Wider context from the report

    “10. I heard evidence from the LFB witnesses of their concerns that serious failures in Beko Frost Free Fridge Freezers (“FFFF’s”) manufactured between 2000 and 2006 are continuing resulting in a serious risk to the safety of consumers. ████████ gave evidence of the numbers of fires which the LFB FIT have investigated to date, the appliance models and the causes of the fires. 11. The LFB submits that there remains a risk in relation to the lack of or minimal awareness of the current safety notice in relation to these Beko models. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Beko PLC; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Inconsistent product safety risk assessments omitting or variably weighting serious injury factors

    Wider context from the report

    “12. I heard a great deal of evidence concerning the process of risk assessment and the factors to be taken into account when considering the potential seriousness of injury and the likelihood of a risk eventuating. 13. It is the view of the LFB that the following matters should always be taken in to account when carrying out a product safety risk assessment: a. Sleeping risk – i.e. the fact that a person is more vulnerable to the risks of fire when asleep; b. The most serious consequence of a product failure i.e. in the case of fire, serious injury or death; c. The potential long term physical impact on persons who have suffered burns injuries; d. The possible psychological impact on persons who have suffered the trauma of a fire. 14. It was clear from the evidence that there have been and continue to be different approaches to risk assessment adopted. The evidence from ████████ and the evidence from the face of the Arcelik and Intertek Risk Assessments (in documentary form) made at the material times over a period of a number of years show that some of these factors are not taken into account and some may be taken into account to a variable degree. 15. Failing to take these factors into account expressly creates a risk that the seriousness of injury, and consequently, potentially the seriousness of the overall risk is underestimated. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Beko PLC; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of requirements for less flammable or better-contained plastic materials in refrigeration appliances

    Wider context from the report

    “23. The plastic materials which are used for filling, strengthening and insulating refrigeration appliances are highly flammable and increase the fuel load of these appliances posing a continuing risk to consumers. It is possible to use alternate, non-flammable or less flammable materials. It is also possible to better contain such combustible components or insulation. There is no such requirement at present which creates a risk to the safety of consumers. ”
    Open source report
Back to top

Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026