The Right to Repair – White Goods
Right to Repair legislation requires manufacturers to make spare parts available and design appliances so they can be repaired. While this is a positive step, it does not address the main reasons appliances are scrapped: repairs are simply too expensive relative to buying new, labour costs are prohibitive, and appliances are increasingly designed as unrepairable assemblies. Spare parts availability is the least significant barrier to repair. Until the cost of repair becomes economically viable, the legislation is unlikely to make a meaningful difference to appliance lifespans.
The EU adopted a major Right to Repair Directive in 2024 that goes well beyond the spare parts requirements the UK implemented in 2021. UK consumers currently have weaker repair rights than EU consumers, and the gap is widening. This article covers both, clearly distinguishing what applies where.
What does UK Right to Repair law actually require?
In the UK, Right to Repair requirements for white goods appliances come from the Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information Regulations 2021 (SI 2021/745), which came into force in July 2021. These regulations implemented, into domestic UK law, the EU Ecodesign requirements that were in force at the time of Brexit.
Under these UK regulations, manufacturers of washing machines, dishwashers, tumble dryers, fridges, and TVs must:
Make spare parts available for up to 10 years after a product model is placed on the market (7 years for fridges)- Design appliances so they can be repaired using readily available tools
- Supply spare parts to professional repairers, with a more limited list available to consumers directly
- Make certain technical information, including wiring diagrams and spare parts lists, available to professional repairers
These requirements apply only to new product models placed on the UK market after the regulations came into force. They do not apply retroactively to products already in use, nor to new products sold after the regulations if the model design was already on the market before them. The majority of appliances currently in UK homes are not covered.
What has the EU done that the UK has not?
Since Brexit, the EU has moved substantially further on Right to Repair. The most significant development is the adoption of the Common Rules to Promote the Repair of Goods (EU 2024/1799), known as the Right to Repair Directive, adopted in 2024 with most provisions applying from 31 July 2026.
The UK has not adopted any equivalent to this Directive. As a result, UK consumers currently have weaker repair rights than EU consumers, and from mid-2026, that gap will widen further.
| Right to Repair provision | UK law | EU law (from 31 July 2026) |
|---|---|---|
| Spare parts availability (10 years for washing machines, dishwashers, tumble dryers) | Yes, in force since 2021 | Yes, in force since 2021 |
| Repairable design (common tools, component access) | Yes, in force since 2021 | Yes, in force since 2021 |
| Manufacturers must offer out-of-guarantee repairs | No | Yes, from July 2026 |
| Spare parts must be available at a reasonable price | No | Yes, from July 2026 (definition unclear) |
| Ban on anti-repair practices (parts pairing, software blocks) | No | Yes, from July 2026 (with loopholes) |
| Guarantee extended by one year if repaired rather than replaced | No | Yes, already adopted |
| Mandatory repairability score at point of sale (smartphones) | No | Yes, from June 2025 |
| Consumer can choose repair over replacement during guarantee period | Limited | Strengthened, repair preferred |
It is worth noting that even the EU’s expanded framework has significant limitations and loopholes, which are covered below. But the direction of travel in the EU is clearly more ambitious than in the UK, and UK consumers are not benefiting from it.
What is the real problem? Why are appliances actually scrapped?
White goods appliances used to last between 10 and 20 years as a matter of course. That is no longer the typical experience. A Whitegoods Help reader poll found that 22% of respondents said their washing machine lasted 3 years or less. The current average lifespan has fallen to an estimated 6 to 7 years. Read the full analysis: how long should a washing machine last?
The environmental and financial consequences are enormous. Millions of large, heavy appliances are scrapped every year, most of which could theoretically have been repaired. But why are they being scrapped rather than repaired? The honest answer is not “because spare parts are unavailable.” That is the least significant reason.
A 2024 report by the Open Repair Alliance, analysing over 200,000 documented repairs conducted at community repair events in recent years, found that only 4% of those repairs would have been covered if all current EU Ecodesign regulations had been in place at the time. Source: Open Repair Alliance, 2024 report, cited in Right to Repair Europe policy paper, November 2024. This figure covers EU regulations only. The proportion covered by UK law is similarly small.
What are the nine real reasons appliances are scrapped?
Right to Repair legislation, in both the UK and EU, addresses only one item on this list. That is the core problem with its current form.
1. Repairs cost too much relative to buying new
The fundamental economics of appliance repair are broken. When a basic washing machine costs £250 to £350, and a repair including an engineer visit costs £150 or more before parts, the decision to scrap and replace is understandable. Making spare parts available for longer does not change this arithmetic at all.
2. The cost of sending an engineer to the home is prohibitive
Labour costs, van operating costs, and business overheads mean an engineer visit starts at around £100 before any diagnosis or repair work begins. This floor price makes even simple repairs uneconomical on budget appliances. The cost of labour has become structurally incompatible with the cost of the appliances being repaired.
3. Spare parts prices are often excessive
The price of spare parts for appliances more than a few years old frequently becomes disproportionate to the value of the appliance. A drum bearing assembly, door seal, or control board can cost more than a third of the price of a new machine. Even where parts are technically available, their price makes using them economically irrational. Research by the Right to Repair Europe coalition found that spare parts price is the most frequently cited barrier to repair among both consumers and independent engineers. In France, independent appliance repairers have reported that manufacturers mark up parts prices by three times or more over cost.
4. Appliances are increasingly designed to be unrepairable
Components that were once serviceable individually, including pumps, motors, bearings, and valves, are now supplied only as complete assemblies. The outer drum of a washing machine, which once comprised many individually replaceable parts, is now typically supplied as a single welded unit including drum, bearings, seal, and spider. This design approach dramatically increases repair costs and eliminates partial repair as an option. Right to Repair legislation requires appliances to be repairable using common tools, but it does not require modular or individually serviceable design.
5. Parts pairing and software locks prevent independent repair
Some manufacturers use a technique called parts pairing, in which replacement components are locked to a specific device via software and must be authorised by the manufacturer before the repair restores full functionality. This practice, originally highlighted in relation to smartphones but increasingly relevant across connected appliances, effectively prevents independent repair even where parts are technically available. The EU’s 2024 Right to Repair Directive bans this practice for covered products, with a significant loophole allowing it where “justified by legitimate and objective factors.” The UK has no equivalent ban.
6. Fixed-price repair models have removed the incentive for efficiency
Major manufacturers and repair companies have largely moved from time-based labour charges to fixed-price repair packages, often tied to insurance products. The result is that a minor fault attracts the same charge as a major one, typically £150 or more. This eliminates the economic case for repairing simple faults, which historically were cheap to fix.
7. Technical information is increasingly restricted
Manufacturers have progressively restricted access to technical documentation, service manuals, and diagnostic tools. Error codes are a particular example: many modern appliances use proprietary fault codes that are not made public, making it impossible for independent repairers or competent consumers to diagnose or resolve faults. Read our analysis: appliance error codes, friend or foe?
8. The local independent repair sector has largely disappeared
A once-thriving network of small, local appliance repairers, which provided affordable, accessible repair at reasonable cost, has almost entirely gone. The economics that sustained it no longer exist. Without this infrastructure, even consumers willing to pay for a repair have limited options outside expensive manufacturer service networks.
9. Spare parts become unavailable too quickly
This is the problem that Right to Repair legislation directly targets, and it is a real issue. Parts becoming unavailable after five or six years is unreasonable when appliances are supposed to last significantly longer. However, it is worth noting that by the time parts availability becomes the limiting factor, most consumers have already decided to replace rather than repair, because of the eight reasons above.
Where does the legislation fall short?
Even taken at its best, the current legislative framework on both sides of the Channel has specific weaknesses that limit its real-world effectiveness.
No effective price controls on parts (UK and EU)
Manufacturers must make parts available, but in the UK there is no restriction on what they can charge. The EU’s 2024 Directive requires “reasonable” pricing, but “reasonable” is not defined. Parts can be priced so high that using them is economically irrational, technically complying while defeating the legislation’s purpose entirely.
Limited consumer access to parts
The legislation requires parts to be available to professional repairers. Consumers have access to only a limited list of mostly external parts: doors, handles, hinges, seals, filters, detergent dispensers, and similar accessories. No key internal components are accessible to consumers as a legal right. This eliminates DIY repair as a protected route.
Anti-repair loopholes (EU)
The EU’s ban on parts pairing and software blocks includes an exception where practices are “justified by legitimate and objective factors including the protection of intellectual property rights.” This broad loophole significantly undermines the prohibition. The UK has no ban at all.
Narrow product scope
Both UK and EU Right to Repair legislation covers only a small fraction of household appliances. Ovens, microwaves, coffee machines, kettles, toasters, hairdryers, and most small appliances are entirely unregulated. The Open Repair Alliance’s finding that only 4% of community repairs would be covered illustrates how limited the scope remains in practice.
No repairability standards (UK)
Manufacturers must make appliances repairable using common tools, but there are no requirements for modular or individually serviceable design. The shift to unrepairable component assemblies continues unchallenged.
No retroactive application
Requirements apply only to new product models placed on the market after the legislation came into force. The overwhelming majority of appliances currently in UK and EU homes are not covered by any of these requirements.
If a washing machine is 12 years old and a door seal replacement costs £130 in parts and labour, and a new washing machine costs £300, most consumers will replace. Extending spare parts availability does not change this calculation. Neither does requiring manufacturers to offer a repair service, if the price of that service is not controlled. The economic structure of appliance repair in the UK is incompatible with the cost of the appliances being repaired, and legislation has not yet addressed this.
What is the EU doing that the UK could learn from?
While the EU’s approach is far from perfect, it offers several elements that would strengthen UK consumer rights if adopted here.
France introduced a mandatory repairability index in 2021, displayed on appliances at point of sale, scoring products on the availability and cost of spare parts, technical documentation, and ease of disassembly. An EU-wide repair score for smartphones is mandatory from June 2025, with similar scores for other product categories in development. Research shows 88% of consumers expect a repairability score to include spare parts prices. The UK has no equivalent scheme.
The French repairability index includes a scoring grid for spare parts price, with scores ranging from 0/10 for parts costing more than 30% of the product price, to 10/10 for parts costing no more than 10%. Research shows price is the most cited barrier to repair. The EU’s own repair scores do not yet include this criterion, and the UK has nothing comparable.
From July 2026, EU manufacturers of washing machines, dishwashers, tumble dryers, fridges, TVs, and other covered products must offer repair services for the covered parts, for the full duration of the parts availability period. This means a washing machine manufacturer must be able to repair the appliance for up to 10 years. The UK has no equivalent requirement.
Under the EU’s 2024 Directive, if a faulty appliance is repaired in response to a guarantee claim rather than replaced, the guarantee period is automatically extended by one additional year. This creates a regulatory incentive for repair over replacement. The UK has no equivalent provision.
The EU’s 2024 Directive requires every EU member state to introduce at least one financial incentive for repair. France funds consumer repair vouchers through eco-modulated producer fees. Germany and Austria have repair subsidy schemes. Sweden makes 50% of household appliance repair labour tax-deductible, deducted directly from the invoice. The UK has no national repair subsidy or financial incentive for appliance repair.
The EU’s 2024 Directive prohibits manufacturers from using hardware or software techniques that impede repair, including parts pairing. While the loopholes are significant and the prohibition is weaker than campaigners wanted, it establishes the principle in law. The UK has no equivalent ban, leaving manufacturers free to use these techniques without restriction.
What would actually make a difference in the UK?
Genuinely extending appliance lifespans would require changes that go substantially beyond current UK Right to Repair legislation. Based on industry analysis and the direction of EU policy, the most impactful measures would be:
- Mandated modular design. Requiring manufacturers to design appliances with individually serviceable components – motors, pumps, bearings, and valves – rather than irreplaceable assemblies. This is technically achievable but would increase manufacturing costs.
- Parts price controls. Without controls on parts pricing, availability requirements are easily circumvented. Genuine access requires parts to be available at proportionate prices, not at costs that make repair economically irrational. Consumer research indicates people are unwilling to pay more than 30% of the new product price for a repair.
- Open access to technical information. Requiring manufacturers to publish service manuals, wiring diagrams, and error code documentation for all appliances, accessible to repairers and consumers alike. This would dramatically increase the scope of viable independent and DIY repair.
- Consumer access to spare parts. Restricting supply to professional repairers excludes the significant number of consumers capable of carrying out their own repairs. Consumer access to internal parts is the cheapest and most accessible form of appliance repair.
- Repairability ratings at point of sale. A UK repairability index displayed at point of sale, scoring products on spare parts availability, parts cost, technical documentation, and design for repair, would give consumers the information to make informed choices and incentivise manufacturers to improve.
- A repair financial incentive. The EU now requires member states to introduce repair incentives. A UK equivalent, whether a subsidy, voucher scheme, or tax reduction on repair labour similar to Sweden’s model, would address the fundamental economics that make repair unviable for many consumers.
- Minimum lifespan requirements. Rather than only regulating what happens when things go wrong, minimum design lifespan requirements would set a baseline manufacturers must meet, creating a commercial incentive to build more durable appliances from the outset.
What can UK consumers do right now?
While legislation catches up, there are practical steps consumers can take to extend appliance life and reduce unnecessary waste.
Consider repairability when buyingResearch spare parts availability and cost before purchasing. Some brands, particularly established European manufacturers, have better parts ecosystems than others. Our washing machine buying guide covers what to look for.
Maintain your appliances regularlyClean pump filters, descale heating elements in hard water areas, and run maintenance washes. Preventative maintenance extends life significantly and prevents many of the faults that lead to premature scrappage. See our using washing machines guide.
Get a diagnosis before scrappingBefore replacing a faulty appliance, find out what is actually wrong. Many faults are minor and inexpensive to fix. Our appliance repair section and error code guides can help identify the problem.
Consider DIY repair for accessible faultsPump blockages, door seal replacements, filter cleaning, and drive belt replacements are accessible to competent home repairers. Read our DIY repair safety guide before attempting any work.
Need help with a faulty appliance?
Before replacing, it is always worth diagnosing the actual fault. Many faults are simpler and cheaper to fix than consumers expect.
Frequently asked questions about Right to Repair and white goods
Does UK Right to Repair law mean I can get my appliance repaired for free?
No. UK Right to Repair legislation does not entitle consumers to free repairs, subsidised labour, or price-controlled parts. It requires manufacturers to make spare parts available for longer, but places no obligation on the cost of those parts or the labour involved in fitting them. Your rights to a remedy for a faulty appliance come from the Consumer Rights Act, not Right to Repair legislation. See our Consumer Rights Act guide.
Do UK consumers have the same Right to Repair rights as EU consumers?
No, and the gap is growing. The UK implemented Ecodesign spare parts requirements in 2021, matching what the EU had at the time of Brexit. However, the EU adopted a major Right to Repair Directive in 2024 that the UK has not matched. From July 2026, EU consumers will have rights to out-of-guarantee repairs, stronger parts pricing protections, a ban on anti-repair software practices, and an automatic guarantee extension when products are repaired. UK consumers have none of these.
Will Right to Repair make appliances last longer?
In its current UK form, the legislation is unlikely to significantly extend average appliance lifespans. Making spare parts available for longer does not address the fundamental economics of repair. For most UK consumers, replacing an appliance remains cheaper than repairing it, and that calculation will not change because parts are available. The legislation would need to be substantially extended to tackle parts pricing, design for repairability, access to technical information, and the economics of repair labour to make a real difference.
Can I access spare parts directly as a consumer under Right to Repair?
In the UK, manufacturers must supply spare parts to professional repairers. Consumers have access only to a limited list of mostly external components: doors, handles, hinges, seals, filters, and similar accessories. Key internal components such as motors, pumps, and control boards are not legally required to be made available to consumers. Many parts remain available through third-party spare parts suppliers regardless of the legislation. See our spare parts guide.
What is parts pairing and why does it matter?
Parts pairing is a technique where replacement components are linked to a specific device via software, and must be remotely authorised by the manufacturer before the repaired device regains full functionality. This can prevent independent repair even where the physical part is available. It is most widely discussed in relation to smartphones but is increasingly relevant across connected appliances. The EU’s 2024 Right to Repair Directive prohibits this practice for covered products, with some loopholes. The UK has no equivalent ban.
Why are spare parts for older appliances so expensive?
Spare parts for appliances more than a few years old often become disproportionately expensive relative to both the cost of the appliance and the cost of a new machine. The causes include reduced production volumes, supply chain costs, and in some cases deliberate pricing decisions by manufacturers. Independent appliance repairers have reported manufacturers marking up parts prices by three times or more. In France, the mandatory repairability index scores parts pricing directly. The UK has no equivalent transparency requirement.
Is it worth repairing an older appliance rather than replacing it?
It depends on the age, cost, and nature of the fault. As a general principle, getting a diagnosis before replacing is always worthwhile. Many faults are minor and inexpensive to fix. For older appliances where a major component such as a drum assembly or motor has failed, the economics of repair become more difficult. Our appliance repair section can help you assess the options.
Will UK law eventually catch up with the EU’s 2024 Right to Repair Directive?
There is no current commitment from the UK government to introduce equivalent legislation, and post-Brexit alignment with EU consumer protection rules is a political question that depends on the priorities of the government of the day. Campaign groups including Right to Repair UK, the Restart Project, and the Open Repair Alliance have called for the UK to match or exceed the EU’s framework. Until any such commitment is made, UK consumers should expect the divergence to widen from July 2026 onwards. The most reliable way to stay current is to follow these campaign organisations directly.
Device to Replace Concrete Weights in Washing Machines
Concrete weights inside washing machines stabilise the outer drum during high-speed spin, stopping the machine walking, bouncing, or vibrating excessively. A proposal to replace them with water-filled plastic containers would cut shipping weight and carbon emissions – but faces significant engineering obstacles including the lower density of water, lack of internal space, dynamic sloshing, freezing, and the serious risk of water leaking inside a live appliance.
Washing machines are surprisingly heavy, and most of that weight is deliberate. Concrete blocks bolted to the outer drum do a critical engineering job – and a proposal to replace them with water-filled plastic containers has sparked plenty of debate. Whitegoods Help looks at why the weights are there, what the replacement idea actually involves, and whether it could ever work in practice.
Why do washing machines have concrete weights?
Opening the top or front panel of a washing machine reveals something most people are not expecting – large concrete blocks, typically around 25kg in total, bolted directly to the outer drum. To understand why they are there, it helps to know what happens during a spin cycle.
When a washing machine spins at 1,200 or 1,400 rpm, the drum and its contents become a rapidly rotating mass. Even a small imbalance – a single wet towel on one side – generates significant centrifugal force. Without stabilisation, the outer drum would move violently, banging against the cabinet and potentially walking the machine across the floor.
Counterbalancing centrifugal forceThe concrete adds mass to the drum assembly, reducing the ratio of imbalance to total weight. A 3kg imbalance on a 25kg drum assembly is far less destabilising than the same imbalance on a 5kg assembly – less movement, less vibration.
Keeping the machine groundedThe combined weight of drum, concrete blocks, bearings, and motor makes the whole assembly harder to displace. This is what stops the machine “walking” across the floor when spinning at full speed.
Positioning of the weightsModern machines typically carry one weight on top of the drum and one either underneath or wrapped around the front. The distribution balances the assembly in multiple axes, not just left to right.
Why plastic drums need more weightOlder machines used metal outer drums, aluminium back-plates, and cast-iron bearing housings – all heavy on their own. Modern plastic outer drums are much lighter, so concrete is bolted on to compensate. The shift to plastic is why current machines carry so much ballast.
What is the environmental cost of all that concrete?
Twenty-five kilograms of concrete per machine adds up to an enormous cumulative weight across an industry that ships millions of units globally every year. The environmental argument for reducing this weight is genuinely compelling.
Heavier loads burn more fuel. Reducing each machine by up to 25kg – roughly a third of the total weight – across millions of units adds up to a significant cut in transport energy.
Industry estimates have suggested that replacing concrete weights with lighter alternatives could cut CO₂ emissions by tens of thousands of tonnes a year across global appliance logistics.
Concrete production carries its own carbon footprint. Eliminating concrete from each machine would lower embodied carbon at source – a benefit that scales with global production volumes.
Lighter machines are safer and easier to handle through the supply chain, reducing injury risk for warehouse and delivery staff and potentially allowing tighter packing in shipping containers.
What is the water-filled replacement concept?
The proposed solution is elegantly simple in principle: replace the concrete blocks with empty plastic containers during manufacture and shipping. Once delivered, the containers are filled with water at the customer’s home to restore the ballast the machine needs to spin safely.
What makes the idea appealing
Water is freely available at the point of installation. Empty containers are lightweight and take up the same space as filled ones. The concept removes the need to transport 25kg of concrete per machine. It is a creative, low-tech answer to a genuine environmental problem.
The fundamental engineering problem
Water is much less dense than concrete. Concrete has a density of around 2,300 kg/m³, water just 1,000 kg/m³. A water container delivering the same mass as a concrete block needs to be more than twice the volume. Inside a machine with no spare space, that is a serious obstacle.
A typical 25kg concrete weight would need to be replaced with around 25 litres of water – roughly two and a half full washing-up bowls. Modern washing machines do not have a spare volume of this scale anywhere inside the cabinet. The outer drum already sits very close to the casing to fit larger drum capacities.
What are the engineering obstacles in detail?
Each problem on its own might be solvable. Stacked together, they explain why the concept has not made it into mass production – and why concrete remains the industry default after decades of incremental change.
1. There is no room inside modern washing machines
The trend toward larger drum capacities has pushed the outer drum progressively closer to the cabinet walls. Clearance between drum and casing is already tight – and that gap has to be preserved to let the drum move on its suspension during wash and spin without striking internal components.
Fitting water containers large enough to provide equivalent ballast would either need a bigger cabinet – cancelling some of the transport benefit – or a fundamental redesign of the internal layout. Washer-dryers are even more constrained because they share the same space with drying components.
2. Filling the weights at point of delivery is impractical
Access to the drum weights inside a fitted washing machine is extremely limited. The bottom weight sits in the tightest part of the machine and is completely inaccessible without partial disassembly. For the concept to work, the weights would need to be repositioned to the top and front where a fillable lid is reachable – which itself requires redesigning where and how they attach.
There are also practical risks. Water spilled during filling could contact electrical components. And a container that is not filled completely leaves an air pocket – allowing the water to slosh during spin and creating a shifting imbalance instead of a stable counterweight.
3. Water leakage could cause catastrophic damage
This is the most serious concern. Drum weights are subjected to enormous centrifugal forces during high-speed spin. Even current concrete weights are known to crack and work loose over time – a documented failure mode that causes vibration problems.
A plastic container holding 10-12 litres of water under those same forces would need to stay perfectly sealed and mechanically attached for the entire life of the machine. If it cracked, split, or detached, a sudden water release inside a live appliance could cause electrical shorts, corrosion, flooding, and in the worst case fire. The failure profile is much worse than a concrete weight simply cracking.
4. Sloshing water creates dynamic imbalance
A concrete weight is a static, fixed mass. A water-filled container introduces a dynamic element – the water moves inside as the drum accelerates and decelerates. Road tankers solve this with internal baffles specifically designed to break up liquid surge. Without equivalent baffling, a water-filled drum weight could actively worsen vibration rather than reducing it – the opposite of what is wanted.
5. Freezing risk in cold environments
Many UK washing machines are installed in garages, outbuildings, or unheated utility rooms. In a hard winter the water inside the ballast containers could freeze, expanding and cracking the plastic. Adding antifreeze would introduce a toxic chemical into a sealed system inside a domestic appliance, raising its own safety questions.
6. Transit packaging conflicts
New appliances ship with polystyrene or cardboard transit packaging fitted inside the machine to protect the drum during transport. Larger water containers would reduce or eliminate the space available for this packaging, potentially raising transit damage rates and adding cost elsewhere in the chain.
Washing machine vibrating, banging, or walking on spin?
A cracked or loose drum weight is one of several causes – and one our engineers see regularly. We can diagnose the fault and source the right replacement part.
Could the concept be made to work?
The obstacles above are real but not all of them are insurmountable. A few of them dissolve completely if the machine is redesigned around the new ballast concept from the ground up, rather than retrofitted onto today’s designs.
Double-skinned outer drumIf the outer drum were moulded as a hollow double-skinned structure, the cavity between the skins could itself act as the water reservoir – removing the need for separate containers entirely. This is the most structurally sound version of the idea, integrating the reservoir into the drum rather than bolting parts on.
Quick-setting compoundOne alternative suggested is filling the containers with a reactive compound – a powder or gel that absorbs water and then sets hard. This would give the installation convenience of water filling without leaving a permanent liquid reservoir under centrifugal stress. The result would effectively be a cast-in-place solid weight.
Recycled or cast metal weightsA simpler alternative is using denser materials than concrete – cast iron, recycled metal, or composite ingots. Higher density means smaller weights for the same mass, easing the space problem. Metal weights can also be designed for recovery and recycling at end of appliance life.
Build machines that last longerPerhaps the most effective long-term approach is to build machines that last 20 years instead of 8. A machine that lasts twice as long amortises its manufacturing carbon – concrete included – over twice as many wash cycles. Durability is the most eco-friendly design choice. Read our analysis of the right to repair and appliance lifespan.
Why does my washing machine vibrate so much on spin?
Understanding the role of drum weights also helps explain some common faults. Excessive vibration and noise on spin are among the most frequently reported problems – and the ballast system is often involved.
| Symptom | Likely cause | What to do |
|---|---|---|
| Loud banging on spin | Unbalanced load, or drum weight loose or cracked | Redistribute the laundry first; if banging persists, see washing machine jumps and bangs on spin |
| Machine walking across the floor | Uneven floor, worn shock absorbers, or severely unbalanced load | Level the machine; check shock absorbers and feet |
| Loud rumbling or grinding throughout spin | Worn drum bearings | Compare your noise against our guide on what noisy drum bearings sound like |
| Vibration transmitted through floor | Suspended wooden floor, inadequate isolation | Use an anti-vibration mat; avoid high spin speeds on suspended floors where possible |
| Drum weight cracked or broken | Normal wear, impact, or age – particularly common with concrete weights | Replace the drum weight – see our spare parts guide |
Disconnect the appliance from the mains and turn off the water supply before opening the cabinet. Drum weights are heavy, and the drum assembly is under spring tension – dropping a 12kg block on hands or feet during reassembly is a real risk. If you are not confident with the mechanical work, book a qualified engineer rather than risking injury or further damage. See also our wider DIY washing machine repair warnings.
Frequently asked questions
Why is my washing machine so heavy?
Most of the weight in a modern washing machine comes from concrete ballast blocks – typically around 25kg in total – bolted to the outer drum. They are needed to stabilise the drum during high-speed spin cycles. Without them, the drum would move violently, banging against the cabinet and potentially walking across the floor. The motor, drum, bearings, and casing add further weight, but the concrete is the single largest contributor in most machines.
Could water-filled weights actually work in a washing machine?
In principle yes, in practice the engineering challenges are significant. Water is less than half the density of concrete, so an equivalent water-filled container would need to be more than twice the volume – and modern machines have no spare internal space at that scale. Added risks include internal water leakage under centrifugal stress, dynamic imbalance from sloshing, and freezing in cold environments. A double-skinned drum that uses water as an integral part of the drum structure is the most technically plausible route.
Why do modern machines need more concrete than older ones?
Older washing machines had metal outer drums, heavy aluminium bearing back-plates, and cast iron components – all of which contributed significant mass to the drum assembly without needing separate ballast. The switch to lightweight plastic outer drums removed that inherent mass, and it now has to be replaced with concrete. Ironically, a return to heavier metal components would reduce the need for dedicated ballast almost entirely.
What happens if a drum weight breaks?
A cracked or broken drum weight – a known failure mode with concrete after years of vibration – causes significantly increased noise and movement during spin. In severe cases it can bang against the inner drum or casing and cause further damage. If you hear loud banging that is not resolved by redistributing the load, a broken drum weight may be the cause. Drum weights can be replaced – see our spare parts guide or book a repair engineer.
Is there a better alternative to concrete for drum weights?
Several alternatives have been proposed or trialled. Cast iron or recycled metal weights are denser than concrete, meaning smaller weights could provide the same mass and ease the space problem. Some manufacturers have experimented with composite materials. The double-skinned drum concept – using the drum structure itself as a water reservoir – remains the most elegant theoretical solution but would need a fundamental redesign. For now concrete remains the industry standard because it is cheap, dense enough to be practical, and well understood.
My washing machine vibrates badly on spin – is it the drum weight?
Excessive vibration on spin can have several causes – an unbalanced load, a worn or failed shock absorber, an unlevel machine, or a cracked drum weight. Start by redistributing the laundry and checking the machine is level on solid flooring. If the problem persists, our guides on noisy washing machines and machines that jump and bang on spin cover detailed diagnosis.
Difference between energy ratings A and A+
The highest energy rating is worth having, but only if the machine is also reliable and well-built. A cheap machine with a good energy rating that fails after three years will cost far more overall than a slightly less efficient but much longer-lasting machine. Never buy on energy rating alone.
A higher energy rating does not automatically mean lower long-term costs. Before choosing a washing machine based primarily on its energy label, it is worth understanding what the rating does – and does not – tell you.
The EU introduced a revised A-G energy label for washing machines in 2021, replacing the older A+ to A+++ system. Under the new scale, the top available rating is currently A, with most machines rating B, C, or D. Always check which scale a rating refers to when comparing appliances. See: what do energy labels on washing machines mean?
Why a Better Energy Rating Does Not Always Mean Lower Costs
A poor quality brand with a high energy rating is not necessarily a better buy than a higher quality, longer-lasting machine with a slightly lower rating. If a cheap, efficient machine fails after three or four years, the cost of replacement – plus the energy and resources used to manufacture a new appliance – easily outweighs any energy savings made during its short life.
The total cost of ownership over ten years tells a very different story from the annual running cost figure on the label. A machine that lasts ten years at moderate efficiency will almost always be cheaper overall than two machines of five years each at high efficiency.
Limitations of Energy Label Comparisons
Energy labels are a useful starting point, but they have several limitations worth understanding before using them to make a buying decision:
- Drum size and spin speed affect the rating. A machine with a larger drum or faster spin may achieve a better energy rating simply because of its specification, not because it is fundamentally more efficient. Always compare machines with the same drum size and spin speed.
- The monetary cost shown is not your cost. Energy labels quote running costs in monetary terms, but electricity tariffs change constantly and vary between households. The figure shown is unlikely to reflect actual costs.
- Labels assume four wash loads a week. Households that do more or fewer loads, or that use different wash cycles, will see different actual costs regardless of what the label states.
- Figures are typically based on eco-mode cycles. Real-world usage involves a range of cycles at different temperatures and spin speeds. The label figure is not a reliable guide to overall running costs under normal use.
How Small the Difference Can Be – An Illustrative Example
The gap between energy ratings is often smaller than it appears. As an illustration from outside the appliance world: a purchase of double glazing was made for around £8,000. When the paperwork arrived, the windows were rated C rather than A. An alternative supplier offered A-rated windows for over £1,000 more. On investigation, the projected annual energy saving difference between C-rated and A-rated double glazing was approximately £40 per year.
Paying an extra £1,000 to save £40 a year represents a payback period of 25 years – rarely a worthwhile investment. The same principle applies when comparing washing machines: always check what the actual projected saving is in pounds, not just the letter on the label, before deciding whether a premium for a higher rating makes financial sense.
What Actually Matters When Buying an Energy-Efficient Washing Machine
- Choose a machine from a brand with a good reliability track record – longevity contributes more to total cost than marginal efficiency differences.
- Compare only machines with the same drum size and spin speed when using energy labels.
- Look at the actual kWh per cycle figure rather than the letter rating alone.
- Factor in the purchase price and expected lifespan, not just the annual running cost.
Further reading
Frequently Asked Questions
Should I buy the highest energy-rated washing machine?
Not automatically. A high energy rating is one factor among many. A cheap machine with a good rating that fails early will cost more in total than a reliable mid-range machine with a slightly lower rating. Always factor in brand reliability and expected lifespan alongside the energy rating.
Can I trust the running cost figures on energy labels?
As a comparison tool between equivalent machines, yes. As a guide to actual costs, no. Label figures are based on four wash loads per week on eco-mode cycles, at a standardised electricity tariff. Actual costs depend on usage patterns, the cycles chosen, and the current electricity tariff – all of which vary.
What energy rating should I look for on a washing machine?
Under the current EU label system (introduced in 2021), most machines are rated B to D. The top rating is A, which is rare and commands a premium. A B-rated machine from a reliable brand will typically offer an excellent balance of efficiency and longevity. See: what do energy labels on washing machines mean?
How to connect a washer or dishwasher properly
Waste water from washing machines and dishwashers must drain into the sewerage system – not the surface water or storm drain system used by gutters and rainwater downpipes. Connecting to the wrong drain is illegal and environmentally harmful. This article covers how to identify correct connections and what misconnection looks like.
Washing machines and dishwashers must be connected to the correct drainage system. Misconnection to the wrong drain is a significant and widespread problem that sends soapy waste water directly into rivers and streams rather than the sewerage system where it belongs.
It may help to read Part 1: Is your washing machine or dishwasher misconnected? first for context.
Connecting a Washing Machine or Dishwasher Correctly
Connection Diagram 1 – Correct and Incorrect Connections
Diagram showing correct and incorrect plumbing connections
In the diagram above, the house on the left has all plumbing connected correctly. Water from gutters (shown in blue) runs through the storm drain system and into rivers. Waste water from the toilet, bath, sinks, and appliances (shown in red) runs into the sewerage system.
The house on the right is misconnected – two appliances are draining into the same drain that the gutter water uses, marked with red crosses. This means detergent-laden waste water flows directly into the storm drain system and from there into rivers and streams.
Connection Diagram 2 – How Connections Should Be Made
How appliance drain connections should be made
Two Real-Life Examples of Misconnected Plumbing
Real examples of appliance waste pipes incorrectly connected to rainwater drain systems
The left side of the image shows an appliance or sink waste pipe emerging from an upstairs wall and connecting into the clean rainwater drain pipe for the guttering. The right side shows the same problem occurring downstairs – most likely a washing machine plumbed in using the nearest available drain connection, which happened to be the wrong one.
This type of misconnection is easy to make accidentally, particularly when plumbing in a washing machine in a location where the nearest drain access point leads to the surface water system rather than the foul water sewer.
Part 1: Is your washing machine or dishwasher misconnected? – How to install a washing machine
Frequently Asked Questions
Which drain should a washing machine connect to?
A washing machine must connect to the foul water sewer – the same drain that takes waste from toilets, baths, and sinks. It must not connect to the surface water or storm drain system, which carries rainwater from gutters and downpipes directly to rivers and streams without treatment.
How do I know if my washing machine is misconnected?
The most reliable way is to run the machine and check which external drain the water exits from. Water leaving via a drain connected to a downpipe or surface water gulley is a sign of misconnection. See: is your washing machine or dishwasher misconnected?
Is it illegal to misconnect a washing machine drain?
Yes. Connecting appliance waste water to the surface water drain system is illegal under UK water regulations and environmental law. Detergent-laden waste water discharged to rivers causes significant environmental harm. If a misconnection is identified, it should be corrected as soon as possible.
Are all these environmental issues a money making con?
Reducing energy and water consumption in appliances is a genuine consumer benefit – lower running costs and less environmental impact are both real. The legitimate question is whether some eco improvements have come at a cost to actual performance, and whether consumers are being pressured to scrap working machines based on running cost claims that may not fully account for manufacturing impact and reduced product longevity.
Environmental performance has become a core marketing tool for appliance manufacturers over the past two decades. Energy ratings, water consumption figures, and eco programme options now feature prominently in all appliance advertising. Understanding what these claims actually mean – and what trade-offs may be involved – helps consumers make better purchasing decisions.
Where Eco Improvements Are Genuine
Modern washing machines genuinely use less energy and water than machines from 20 or 30 years ago. This delivers real, measurable benefits – lower electricity and water bills over the life of the appliance. The improvements are not simply marketing claims.
Real eco improvements in modern appliances
- Significantly lower water consumption per cycle compared to older machines
- Better motor efficiency – inverter motors in particular reduce energy use and improve reliability
- Improved thermal insulation reducing heat loss during wash cycles
- More sophisticated programme control making better use of the heat already generated
Where the Trade-Offs Are Less Obvious
The push to reduce water consumption has had consequences for wash and rinse performance that are not reflected in energy label ratings. Modern machines use so little water that some struggle to rinse detergent out of laundry effectively – particularly on shorter cycles or with heavily loaded drums. This is not a fault; it is a design consequence of aggressive water use reduction.
Performance trade-offs from reduced water use
- Poor rinsing in some cycles – detergent residue left in laundry – see our guide on why modern washing machines rinse poorly
- Eco programmes that achieve their energy rating under laboratory test conditions that may not reflect real-world use
- Energy label ratings based on specific test cycles that are not representative of how most people actually use their machines – see our guides on misleading eco labels and what the energy consumption figures actually mean
The Appliance Replacement Question
Campaigns encouraging consumers to replace working older appliances with newer, more efficient models are regularly promoted by manufacturer industry bodies. The argument is that the running cost savings of a new machine will offset the purchase price over time.
This argument has genuine merit in some cases – a 25-year-old machine using significantly more electricity and water than a current model may well be worth replacing on running cost grounds. But the calculation is often presented without accounting for the full manufacturing impact of producing a new appliance, or for the fact that a new mid-range machine may not last as long as the older machine it replaces.
The full lifecycle environmental cost of an appliance includes its manufacture, not just its energy use during operation. Replacing a working 10-year-old machine with a new one to achieve marginal running cost savings does not necessarily represent a net environmental improvement when manufacturing impact is included. The most environmentally sound approach is generally to keep a working appliance maintained and running for as long as practically possible – see our guide on how long a washing machine should last.
The Practical Consumer Position
The practical conclusion for most consumers is straightforward: energy and water savings are real and worth having. Eco programmes on modern machines can reduce running costs meaningfully. But consumers should read energy labels critically – not all programme types are as efficient in practice as in test conditions – and should not feel pressured to scrap a working machine based on running cost claims that may be overstated. See our guides on what energy labels on washing machines actually mean and our broader series on whether we really need to replace old appliances.
Related Guides
Related Guides
Are Eco Labels on Washing Machines Misleading?How energy and water ratings are measured – and why real-world performance may differ from the label.
Why Do Modern Washing Machines Rinse Poorly?How reduced water use affects rinse quality – and what can be done about it.
How Long Should a Washing Machine Last?Expected lifespan by price tier – and why longevity matters more than energy ratings when calculating whole-life cost.
Should We Replace Old Appliances to Save Energy?A closer look at the running cost vs replacement cost calculation – and whether the numbers always add up.
Frequently Asked Questions
Are energy-efficient washing machines actually better?
For running costs, yes – modern machines use meaningfully less electricity and water than older models, which translates to lower bills over time. For actual wash and rinse performance, the picture is more mixed. Some modern machines – particularly those optimised for the lowest possible water use – rinse less effectively than older higher-water-use designs. The energy label does not measure rinse quality.
Should I replace my old washing machine with a newer, more efficient one?
This depends on the age and condition of the current machine, its actual energy use compared to modern equivalents, and how long a new machine is likely to last. The running cost savings from a new machine need to be weighed against the purchase price and the manufacturing impact of replacing a working appliance. A well-maintained machine that is still working well may not be worth replacing purely on efficiency grounds until it reaches the end of its practical service life.
Are eco programmes on washing machines worth using?
They can reduce energy and water use significantly, but they typically run for much longer than standard programmes and may not achieve the same wash temperature, which can affect results on heavily soiled loads. For lightly soiled everyday laundry, eco programmes are a practical choice. For heavier soiling or hygiene washing, a standard programme at an appropriate temperature is generally more effective.
WEEE penalises quality appliances
WEEE (Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment) compliance costs are calculated primarily by weight. This means manufacturers of heavy, high-quality appliances – which last longer, end up in landfill less often, and are more recyclable due to higher metal content – pay more in compliance costs than manufacturers of lighter, lower-quality products. The system creates a perverse incentive against building durable appliances.
WEEE legislation was introduced with the goal of reducing electrical waste. A structural quirk in how compliance costs are calculated produces an outcome that works directly against this intention – penalising the manufacturers most likely to keep their appliances out of landfill.
What Is WEEE?
WEEE stands for Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment. The UK WEEE Directive requires manufacturers to take responsibility for the end-of-life disposal and recycling of the electrical products they sell. Manufacturers must register and pay compliance costs based on the volume and weight of equipment they put onto the market.
“The WEEE Directive aims to both reduce the amount of electrical and electronic equipment being produced and to encourage everyone to reuse, recycle and recover it. The WEEE Directive also aims to improve the environmental performance of businesses that manufacture, supply, use, recycle and recover electrical and electronic equipment.”
UK Government – Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) responsibilities
The Unintended Consequence
WEEE compliance costs are substantially calculated by weight – specifically the weight of equipment placed onto the market. This creates a structural problem when applied to domestic appliances where quality and durability are closely correlated with weight.
How the system currently works
- Compliance cost is based on the weight of appliances sold
- Lighter, cheaper appliances attract lower compliance costs
- Heavier, better-built appliances attract higher costs
- A manufacturer producing durable, repairable, metal-construction appliances pays more per unit than one producing lightweight, plastic-heavy, shorter-lifespan products
The environmental reality this ignores
- A heavy, high-quality appliance lasting 20 years reaches landfill once in 20 years
- A lightweight, low-quality appliance lasting 5 years reaches landfill four times in the same period
- Metal-heavy construction is generally more recyclable than plastic-heavy construction
- The total weight of waste generated by cheap appliances over their combined service life is higher than from quality appliances
“The targets for WEEE are based on weight of appliances / goods put into the market. A manufacturer’s WEEE Declaration has to state the weight of each appliance sold. So, the lighter you make them, the less that WEEE costs you… ISE and others, with even heavier and better-built machines get penalised even though they are designed to stay in use for longer. So effectively we pay more on ‘Green Tax’ even though we’re more environmentally friendly.”
Ken Watts, ISE appliances
Why This Matters for Consumers
Manufacturers of high-quality, durable appliances already face a structural disadvantage in the market. They produce heavier, more expensive machines that compete against cheaper, lighter alternatives from manufacturers who have reduced quality to keep prices down. WEEE compliance costs, calculated by weight, add to this disadvantage.
The practical effect is that a manufacturer committed to building appliances designed to last 15 to 20 years pays higher environmental compliance costs than one building appliances designed to last 5 to 7 years. This additional cost ultimately flows through to the consumer price of the higher-quality product – making it harder for durable appliances to compete on price.
The same dynamic applies to repairability. Right to Repair legislation now requires manufacturers to make spare parts available for a period after a model is discontinued – an improvement, but addressing a different aspect of the same underlying issue. See our guide on white goods Right to Repair.
Related Industry Guides
Related Guides
Why Don’t Washing Machines Last?How 50 years of price competition has reduced build quality – and what the inflation-adjusted numbers show.
White Goods Right to RepairWhat the UK Right to Repair legislation requires manufacturers to do – and what it means for consumers.
Miele Washing MachinesWhy Miele remains the benchmark for build quality and longevity in the UK washing machine market.
Should We Replace Old Appliances to Save Energy?Whether replacing working appliances actually delivers the environmental benefit claimed.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does WEEE stand for?
WEEE stands for Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment. It is a UK and EU directive that requires manufacturers to take financial responsibility for the end-of-life recycling and disposal of the electrical products they sell. Manufacturers register with a compliance scheme and pay costs based on the volume and weight of equipment they place on the market each year.
Why does WEEE penalise manufacturers of quality appliances?
WEEE compliance costs are substantially calculated by weight of product sold. Higher-quality appliances tend to be heavier – they use more metal and denser materials in their construction. Manufacturers of quality, durable appliances therefore pay more per unit in compliance costs than manufacturers of lighter, cheaper products, even though the heavier appliances reach landfill far less frequently and are generally more recyclable due to their metal content.
Does WEEE legislation actually reduce appliance waste?
WEEE legislation has contributed to improved recycling infrastructure and raised compliance expectations across the industry. However, the weight-based calculation method creates an incentive structure that does not reward longevity or repairability. A system that factored in expected service life and recyclability of materials rather than simply weight of units sold would better align financial incentives with the stated environmental goals.