Hi all

Just thought there might be some of you out there needing a laugh - partly
at my expense - groan.
Just come off the phone with Ideal Standard Customer services having
complained about the lack of bowl flushing in our Alto toilet.
The chirpy madam on the other end claimed that "due to water regulation
reducing the flush volume from 7 litres to 6, this is a non-self-cleaning
pan"!

Told her that at time of purchase this was not highlighted in any of the
literature.

She said that I should sprinkle talcum powder down the bowl and then flush
the toilet and ring her back with the dimension of non-cleaned pan.

How a non-self cleaning pan can pass required hygiene standards I have no
idea.
As most of the female population will tend to direct their fluid waste to
the front of the pan, I fail to see why this area should be given less
priority than any other as far as the cleaning goes!

Any comments?


Phil

"TheScullster" wrote in message
...
Hi all

Just thought there might be some of you out there needing a laugh - partly
at my expense - groan.
Just come off the phone with Ideal Standard Customer services having
complained about the lack of bowl flushing in our Alto toilet.
The chirpy madam on the other end claimed that "due to water regulation
reducing the flush volume from 7 litres to 6, this is a non-self-cleaning
pan"!

Told her that at time of purchase this was not highlighted in any of the
literature.

She said that I should sprinkle talcum powder down the bowl and then flush
the toilet and ring her back with the dimension of non-cleaned pan.

How a non-self cleaning pan can pass required hygiene standards I have no
idea.
As most of the female population will tend to direct their fluid waste to
the front of the pan, I fail to see why this area should be given less
priority than any other as far as the cleaning goes!

Any comments?


Phil


Another one of those 'enviromental' ideas that in practice means I now have
to flush my toilet twice - using far more water than the old system. Happy
days - I'll bet it was John Prescott's idea before he thought of Part P!!

Just a thought - you can just ignore Part P(ee) but you can't ignore the
fact that it didn't flush properly.

Peter