wrote:
On Apr 4, 4:18 pm, stevelup wrote:
On Apr 4, 2:18 pm, wrote:

Thanks. I think I conclude that induction hobs are probably a bad
idea per se, though I wonder why they can't be made of toughened
glass.
Edward
We've got an induction hob and it has had all manners of abuse and
nothing has happened to it yet. I have lost count of the number of
heavy pointy things that have been dropped on it.

Just out of interest, how thick is the glass on yours? Ours (a
DeDeitrich one) is about 8mm thick and the edges have a 2mm radius on
them.

Ours is much the same.

I think you were either extremely unlucky in the way your pepper pot
contacted it, or it was flawed to start with.

Both going to be difficult to prove.

Put the replacement on an optics bench. If there is an extremely high
stress concentration on the edge where the pot struck - there is a good
argument for it being an inherent fault. An accident waiting to happen.

--
Sue

On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 16:51:44 GMT, Palindrome wrote:

All too late. The glass has been replaced and any forensic evidence that
could do so is long gone.

It may have been bad luck and a previous heating cycle had left a
concentration of stress lines just where the edge was tapped. Anywhere
else could have been fine.It is more than likely that the stress was
frozen in during manufacture, though.

It would be interesting to tap the replacement in exactly the same
place. But shoving it on an optical bench might be more illuminating.

A scratch can also cause a stress concentration that will fracture
under a small blow - after all, that's how glass cutters work.

IMO the most likely is that it was an unlucky blow that managed to
"catch it just right". A combination of hitting the glass top in a
place where the normal stress lines were the most unfavourable with a
part of the pot where the force was concentrated in the smallest area
at the worst possible angle. The OP could probably do a similar thing
100 times without being able to reproduce the result (not that I would
recommend trying).

Brittle stuff is unpredictable IME. It can withstand all sorts of
heavy abuse but then crack with an apparently minor tap. Glass,
ceramics, cast iron - horrible stuff to work with ...

--
Cynic

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 17:56:05 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

If the repair fixed the design fault - reclaim the cost from the
company. They have conceded that it required re-design.

The company being the retailer.

Who conceded that a redesign was necessary?

The retailer would have done if they did a repair that fixed a design
fault - i.e. doing something more than simply replacing the broken
component in order to modify the design. Perhaps fitting a thicker
glass, or installing a rubber bumper around the edge etc.

They would have done, but there's nothing to say that anything like
this took place or that ither the retailer or the mnufacturer has
suggested such.

Which ITYF was rather the point that Sue was making :-)

--
Cynic

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-04-04 16:38:52 +0100, Cynic said:

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 12:56:00 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

If the repair fixed the design fault - reclaim the cost from the
company. They have conceded that it required re-design.

The company being the retailer.

Who conceded that a redesign was necessary?

The retailer would have done if they did a repair that fixed a design
fault - i.e. doing something more than simply replacing the broken
component in order to modify the design. Perhaps fitting a thicker
glass, or installing a rubber bumper around the edge etc.

They would have done, but there's nothing to say that anything like this
took place or that ither the retailer or the mnufacturer has suggested
such.


Hence the "If" -

*If* the repair fixed the design fault - (then one situation exists)

*If* the repair reinstated the original state - (then a different
situation exists)

There is no indication by the OP as to which situation applies. Either
is possible.

--
Sue

"Cynic" wrote in message
...

Brittle stuff is unpredictable IME. It can withstand all sorts of
heavy abuse but then crack with an apparently minor tap. Glass,
ceramics, cast iron - horrible stuff to work with ...

Then it's unsuitable, ab initio, for a cooker top that will, even in the
most careful of households, be subjected to the occasional tap.

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 18:41:38 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

Brittle stuff is unpredictable IME. It can withstand all sorts of
heavy abuse but then crack with an apparently minor tap. Glass,
ceramics, cast iron - horrible stuff to work with ...

Then it's unsuitable, ab initio, for a cooker top that will, even in the
most careful of households, be subjected to the occasional tap.

Absolutely. It is also unsuitable for making windows from, as they
too will be subjected to the occasional tap, even in the most careful
of households.

--
Cynic

On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 03:29:24 -0700, teddysnips wrote:

We bought various Siemens kitchen appliances from a local supplier
called Champs which were delivered in December 2007 prior to
installation. On unwrapping, the induction hob was proved to be cracked
so a replacement was called for. The 2 ovens were installed.

10 days after this, the microwave combination oven went kaput.

This was on December 16th.

I rang Champs immediately who said that they would arrange for an
engineer to come out, but whatever happened they would ensure that this
oven was working for me for Christmas - we were catering for 12 people.
We had been living in the chaos of house renovation since April 2006 and
it was important for us To Do Christmas.

The engineer duly arrived on Thursday 20th, located the fault, produced
a spare part, which was faulty. They would be unable to provide a new
spare part before Christmas. I offered to drive wherever I had to
collect the
wretched thing from whatever factory, but of course this was not an
option.

I rang Champs.

They rummaged around and then said chirpily that they could get me a
replacement oven. My relief was immense.

"28th December do you?" they said.

Relief short lived.

I pointed out that Christmas fell before then.

Eventually they were pleased to offer a compromise whereby to secure an
oven, I would get an upgrade. This included features I didn't care
about (like a grill, which I didn't want, the other oven had a grill)
but that was fine until they bashed on their calculator and said it
would cost us a further £158. Apparently this was a bargain. I pointed
out that I had spent about £3,500 with them (fridge, camera, hoover,
hob, ovens). Still, they had me over a barrel and knew it.

I gritted my teeth and bore the pain. These things happen, I resolved
to forget about it.

But then a few weeks ago, I placed a pepper pot to the left of the hob,
and just caught the very edge of the glass. The hob broke. The pepper
pot (small, glass) needless to say was fine, just dandy. The hob needed
replacing for safety sake and aesthetics. But apparently despite the
item clearly not being Fit For Purpose if its integrity was so very
fragile, this was not covered under their guarantees. I said that
clearly there was a weakness if the first one arrived cracked and then
this went after a couple of months after nothing more brutal than the
marginally erroneous placing of a pepper pot. Induction hobs require
heavier pans than normal hobs and so one would assume that if they were
braced for the task of taking Le Creuset, for example, then a little
pepper pot would be child's play.

I was told it would be about £300.

That the engineer's first half hour would cost £67.50.

I went into hysterical free fall prompted not only by the prospect of
penury by hob but by the aggressive attitude of the soi-disant area
manager.

Our bill is £191.98 which, although less than orignally mooted, we have
still had to pay and which I don't feel we should have had to pay.

Do we have a case agains either Champs or Siemens, and if so which one?

Thanks

Edward

The oven is a totally seperate issue unless in some way the functioning
of the one is dependent on the other (I doubt it), the fact that the oven
saga ****ed you off, (which BTW seems easy enough), is irrelevant to your
claim for a fit for purpose hob.

This is time for a polite (is that a problem?) but firm letter explaining
the situation about the HOB not the oven (it is irrelevant). Followed if
needed by a small claim court action for the cost of the hob. You will
probably not recover the unfitting/fitting charges for the HOB.

If you have already paid the 191.98 or the shop can in anyway make out
that the bill was for the replacement of the manufacturers supplied
replacement unit you just need to move on and learn

1) Don't make your impatience a hostage to fortune, Christmas is a
regular event.
2) Know where you stand and keep being polite.


--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html
Choosing a Boiler FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/BoilerChoice.html

wrote in message
...
We bought various Siemens kitchen appliances from a local supplier
called Champs which were delivered in December 2007 prior to
installation. On unwrapping, the induction hob was proved to be
cracked so a replacement was called for. The 2 ovens were installed.

10 days after this, the microwave combination oven went kaput.

This was on December 16th.

I rang Champs immediately who said that they would arrange for an
engineer to come out, but whatever happened they would ensure that
this oven was working for me for Christmas - we were catering for 12
people. We had been living in the chaos of house renovation since
April 2006 and it was important for us To Do Christmas.

The engineer duly arrived on Thursday 20th, located the fault,
produced a spare part, which was faulty. They would be unable to
provide a new spare part before Christmas. I offered to drive
wherever I had to collect the
wretched thing from whatever factory, but of course this was not an
option.

I rang Champs.

They rummaged around and then said chirpily that they could get me a
replacement oven. My relief was immense.

"28th December do you?" they said.

Relief short lived.

I pointed out that Christmas fell before then.

Eventually they were pleased to offer a compromise whereby to secure
an oven, I would get an upgrade. This included features I didn't care
about (like a grill, which I didn't want, the other oven had a grill)
but that was fine until they bashed on their calculator and said it
would cost us a further £158. Apparently this was a bargain. I
pointed out that I had spent about £3,500 with them (fridge, camera,
hoover, hob, ovens). Still, they had me over a barrel and knew it.

I gritted my teeth and bore the pain. These things happen, I resolved
to forget about it.

But then a few weeks ago, I placed a pepper pot to the left of the
hob, and just caught the very edge of the glass. The hob broke. The
pepper pot (small, glass) needless to say was fine, just dandy. The
hob needed replacing for safety sake and aesthetics. But apparently
despite the item clearly not being Fit For Purpose if its integrity
was so very fragile, this was not covered under their guarantees. I
said that clearly there was a weakness if the first one arrived
cracked and then this went after a couple of months after nothing more
brutal than the marginally erroneous placing of a pepper pot.
Induction hobs require heavier pans than normal hobs and so one would
assume that if they were braced for the task of taking Le Creuset, for
example, then a little pepper pot would be child's play.

I was told it would be about £300.

That the engineer's first half hour would cost £67.50.

I went into hysterical free fall prompted not only by the prospect of
penury by hob but by the aggressive attitude of the soi-disant area
manager.

Our bill is £191.98 which, although less than orignally mooted, we
have still had to pay and which I don't feel we should have had to
pay.

So why didn't you tell the company that ?
*YOU* are the one that agreed to it. Some people do realise their mistake
and try to damage
things in order to get something for nothing. Not everyone is honest.

Do we have a case agains either Champs or Siemens, and if so which
one?

Why would you have a case against either company for *YOU* upgrading a
product, then
breaking it as you admitted?

Thanks

Edward

wrote in message
...
On 4 Apr, 12:14, "steve robinson"
wrote:
wrote:
On 4 Apr, 11:29, wrote:

Do we have a case agains either Champs or Siemens, and if so which
one?

The retailer. Goods unfit for purpose. Reject the lot. You are
damaging
your own case titting around like this.

She /he has allowed a repair so unless the oven has further related
problems then she has little grounds for rejection , by paying for the
repair she/he has also admitted that the repair was nessasary because
the damage caused was not due to faulty workmanship or components.

The retailer seems to have tried to resolve the issues , its not the
retailer fault that a new item fails , these things happen , it also
seems the retailer tried to sought the issues by offering an upgrade

No, the retailer sought to sort a different issue (broken oven) by
offering a different oven on which we had to pay the difference.

NO! You demanded a replacement by a date that they said wasn't possible, so
they
offered you an upgrade and you agreed to it.

They had us over a barrel - we were committed to feeding people at
Christmas, and needed an oven.

Oh stop being so childish! That is the worst excuse I have heard.

Its not the retailers fault that the op is so clumsy

F*** off and read the original post. Oh, and learn to spell and
punctuate. T***.

Now we're getting a real picture of the sort of person you must be. No
wonder the company
will not help you. Good on them for not giving in to what sounds like a
trick to get something for nothing. How do we know you didn't deliberately
damage the first item in order to get a cheap upgrade by complaining. It's
a classic con trick a lot of people use.

Pay for what your ordered and stop your moaning and crying.

wrote:


But then a few weeks ago, I placed a pepper pot to the left of the
hob, and just caught the very edge of the glass. The hob broke. The
pepper pot (small, glass) needless to say was fine, just dandy. The
hob needed replacing for safety sake and aesthetics. But apparently
despite the item clearly not being Fit For Purpose if its integrity
was so very fragile, this was not covered under their guarantees. I
said that clearly there was a weakness if the first one arrived
cracked and then this went after a couple of months after nothing more
brutal than the marginally erroneous placing of a pepper pot.
Induction hobs require heavier pans than normal hobs and so one would
assume that if they were braced for the task of taking Le Creuset, for
example, then a little pepper pot would be child's play.


Toughened glass is particularly susceptible to edge damage as the
toughening process sets up internal tensions that can cause minor
defects to propagate through the whole sheet. It's not clear from your
desription whether the glass was toughened, but it may explain why it
cracked so easily when the initial impact was so small.

If the design was such that the edge was vulnerable (not protected by
edging strips for example), it could be argued that the design was not
fit for the task. However it's not straightforward.

On 2008-04-04 18:39:52 +0100, Palindrome said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-04-04 16:38:52 +0100, Cynic said:

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 12:56:00 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

If the repair fixed the design fault - reclaim the cost from the
company. They have conceded that it required re-design.

The company being the retailer.

Who conceded that a redesign was necessary?

The retailer would have done if they did a repair that fixed a design
fault - i.e. doing something more than simply replacing the broken
component in order to modify the design. Perhaps fitting a thicker
glass, or installing a rubber bumper around the edge etc.

They would have done, but there's nothing to say that anything like
this took place or that ither the retailer or the mnufacturer has
suggested such.


Hence the "If" -

*If* the repair fixed the design fault - (then one situation exists)

*If* the repair reinstated the original state - (then a different
situation exists)

There is no indication by the OP as to which situation applies. Either
is possible.

or even neither.

wrote:
On 4 Apr, 12:14, "steve robinson"
wrote:
wrote:
On 4 Apr, 11:29, wrote:


**** off and read the original post. Oh, and learn to spell and
punctuate. ****.

At last, a welcome note of levity and subtlety on this matter.
--
Moving things in still pictures!

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 06:18:32 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Thanks. I think I conclude that induction hobs are probably a bad
idea per se, though I wonder why they can't be made of toughened
glass.

They are made of toughened material, but that still leaves them
vulnerable to edge impacts. The glass-ceramic surface is usually
Ceran by Schott or Kera by Corning/Saint-Gobain. Both are very strong
materials but the force of a glass edge striking them on edge is
large and beyond what they can stand.

On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 14:09:54 GMT, "steve robinson"
wrote:


Toughened glass granulates when broken , most cookers that have glass
components use toughened glass

It isn't glass but a glass-ceramic.

Peter Parry wrote:

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 06:18:32 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Thanks. I think I conclude that induction hobs are probably a bad
idea per se, though I wonder why they can't be made of toughened
glass.

They are made of toughened material, but that still leaves them
vulnerable to edge impacts. The glass-ceramic surface is usually
Ceran by Schott or Kera by Corning/Saint-Gobain. Both are very strong
materials but the force of a glass edge striking them on edge is
large and beyond what they can stand.

The op stated that the glass wasnt toughened and the impact caused it
to crack not shatter

--

On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 20:06:39 +0100, Steve Dorman
wrote:


Toughened glass is particularly susceptible to edge damage as the
toughening process sets up internal tensions that can cause minor
defects to propagate through the whole sheet. It's not clear from your
desription whether the glass was toughened, but it may explain why it
cracked so easily when the initial impact was so small.

It isn't glass but a glass-ceramic. It has a very low coefficient of
expansion which makes it very tolerant of rapid temperature change. It
is however a brittle material. Its a bit like cast iron - apply the
stresses in the right place and it is very strong. Apply it in the
wrong place and it can fail. This isn't an inherent fault - its
simply a characteristic of the material.

On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 22:59:13 GMT, "steve robinson"
wrote:

They are made of toughened material, but that still leaves them
vulnerable to edge impacts. The glass-ceramic surface is usually
Ceran by Schott or Kera by Corning/Saint-Gobain. Both are very strong
materials but the force of a glass edge striking them on edge is
large and beyond what they can stand.

The op stated that the glass wasnt toughened and the impact caused it
to crack not shatter

That's how a glass-ceramic will fail. It isn't toughened in the same
way glass is so won't break into particles. It is still a toughened
material.

Peter Parry wrote:

On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 14:09:54 GMT, "steve robinson"
wrote:


Toughened glass granulates when broken , most cookers that have
glass components use toughened glass

It isn't glass but a glass-ceramic.

It will still shatter as apposed to cracking though if its toughened



--

On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 23:06:59 GMT, "steve robinson"
wrote:


It isn't glass but a glass-ceramic.

It will still shatter as apposed to cracking though if its toughened

No it won't. One way glass is toughened makes it break into small
pieces when it fails. Not all toughened material fail in the same way
and glass-ceramics will fail by cracking rather than shattering.

Peter Parry wrote:

On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 20:06:39 +0100, Steve Dorman
wrote:


Toughened glass is particularly susceptible to edge damage as the
toughening process sets up internal tensions that can cause minor
defects to propagate through the whole sheet. It's not clear from
your desription whether the glass was toughened, but it may explain
why it cracked so easily when the initial impact was so small.

It isn't glass but a glass-ceramic. It has a very low coefficient of
expansion which makes it very tolerant of rapid temperature change. It
is however a brittle material. Its a bit like cast iron - apply the
stresses in the right place and it is very strong. Apply it in the
wrong place and it can fail. This isn't an inherent fault - its
simply a characteristic of the material.

Peter i think the ops cooker was an induction unit they are cold to the
touch , i know mine is

--

Peter Parry wrote:

On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 22:59:13 GMT, "steve robinson"
wrote:

They are made of toughened material, but that still leaves them
vulnerable to edge impacts. The glass-ceramic surface is usually
Ceran by Schott or Kera by Corning/Saint-Gobain. Both are very
strong materials but the force of a glass edge striking them on
edge is large and beyond what they can stand.

The op stated that the glass wasnt toughened and the impact caused
it to crack not shatter

That's how a glass-ceramic will fail. It isn't toughened in the same
way glass is so won't break into particles. It is still a toughened
material.

thats certianly not my experience i have seen several shatter over the
years

--

On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 23:09:18 GMT, "steve robinson"
wrote:

It isn't glass but a glass-ceramic. It has a very low coefficient of
expansion which makes it very tolerant of rapid temperature change. It
is however a brittle material. Its a bit like cast iron - apply the
stresses in the right place and it is very strong. Apply it in the
wrong place and it can fail. This isn't an inherent fault - its
simply a characteristic of the material.

Peter i think the ops cooker was an induction unit they are cold to the
touch , i know mine is

They have a hot pan on top of them. Although the glass-ceramic is
about 80-90% transparent at infra red they still have to cope with hot
pans and cold spills. Because the coefficient of expansion of
glass-ceramic is very low you can take a red hot sheet and plunge it
into ice water without any damage. That's why they are used. Their
failure mode, of cracking rather than shattering, also makes them very
safe - a pan of boiling water isn't going to cascade over you as the
hob shatters.

On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 23:11:44 GMT, "steve robinson"
wrote:

That's how a glass-ceramic will fail. It isn't toughened in the same
way glass is so won't break into particles. It is still a toughened
material.

thats certianly not my experience i have seen several shatter over the
years

Glass-ceramic cannot shatter as toughened glass can. It has a wholly
different and unstressed structure. It can break into pieces like
normal soda glass but it cannot shatter like toughened glass.

Peter Parry wrote:

On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 23:11:44 GMT, "steve robinson"
wrote:

That's how a glass-ceramic will fail. It isn't toughened in the
same way glass is so won't break into particles. It is still a
toughened material.

thats certianly not my experience i have seen several shatter over
the years

Glass-ceramic cannot shatter as toughened glass can. It has a wholly
different and unstressed structure. It can break into pieces like
normal soda glass but it cannot shatter like toughened glass.

--

wrote in message
...

snip

Do we have a case agains either Champs or Siemens, and if so which
one?

You *might* have a case against Champs, as they are the people with whom you
have a Contract.

You have no case against Siemens.

Do you have a household contents Insurance Policy which provides cover for
accidental damage to appliances ? you could consider claiming for the cost
of replacement under that. although you may need to show the old hob & might
have an excess on the Policy.

Have you done an online search to see whether that particular model of hob
might be known to have a design or manufacturing fault - are other people
complaining / talking about it ?

I would also be inclined to contact Siemens at their UK Head Office, make
them aware of the problems & see whether they might wish to become involved
& provide a remedy to ensure that you are satisfied with the quality &
service you might expect when buying Siemens products.

--
Joe Lee

On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 23:09:18 GMT, "steve robinson"
wrote:

It isn't glass but a glass-ceramic. It has a very low coefficient of
expansion which makes it very tolerant of rapid temperature change. It
is however a brittle material. Its a bit like cast iron - apply the
stresses in the right place and it is very strong. Apply it in the
wrong place and it can fail. This isn't an inherent fault - its
simply a characteristic of the material.

Peter i think the ops cooker was an induction unit they are cold to the
touch , i know mine is

Not at the places where the pans are in contact with the top.

--
Cynic

On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 00:12:14 +0100, Peter Parry
wrote:

They have a hot pan on top of them. Although the glass-ceramic is
about 80-90% transparent at infra red

IIUC the induction hobs do not work by using infra red. The
"hotplates" are units that generate a powerful alternating magnetic
field. This causes eddy-current heating in any metal object placed in
the field.

I've not used one myself so I may be incorrect. ISTM that one danger
is that a "hotplate" that is switched on will be cold to the touch.
This could lead to a false sense of security should you place your
hand over the plate whilst wearing a metal watch strap or bracelet.

As I said though, I've no practical experience with them so I may well
be talking ********.

--
Cynic

Cynic wrote:

On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 00:12:14 +0100, Peter Parry
wrote:

They have a hot pan on top of them. Although the glass-ceramic is
about 80-90% transparent at infra red

IIUC the induction hobs do not work by using infra red. The
"hotplates" are units that generate a powerful alternating magnetic
field. This causes eddy-current heating in any metal object placed in
the field.

I've not used one myself so I may be incorrect. ISTM that one danger
is that a "hotplate" that is switched on will be cold to the touch.
This could lead to a false sense of security should you place your
hand over the plate whilst wearing a metal watch strap or bracelet.

As I said though, I've no practical experience with them so I may well
be talking ********.

No your correct it does point this out in the manual that comes with
the cooker

--

On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 13:52:54 +0100, Cynic
wrote:

They have a hot pan on top of them. Although the glass-ceramic is
about 80-90% transparent at infra red

IIUC the induction hobs do not work by using infra red. The
"hotplates" are units that generate a powerful alternating magnetic
field. This causes eddy-current heating in any metal object placed in
the field.

You are correct, the same glass-ceramic is also used for gas through
glass and radiant hobs though. Because it has a very low expansion
ratio it stands wide temperature variations well.

On Apr 4, 5:23*pm, "steve robinson"
wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:
On Apr 4, 4:32*pm, "steve robinson"
wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:
On Apr 4, 3:16*pm, "steve robinson"
wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:
On Apr 4, 12:14*pm, "steve robinson"
wrote:
wrote:
On 4 Apr, 11:29, wrote:

Do we have a case agains either Champs or Siemens, and
if so which one?

The retailer. Goods unfit for purpose. Reject the lot.
You are damaging
your own case titting around like this.

She /he has allowed a repair so unless the oven has further
related problems then she has little grounds for rejection
, by paying for the repair she/he has also admitted that
the repair was nessasary because the damage caused was not
due to faulty workmanship *or components.

The retailer seems to have tried to resolve the issues , its
not the retailer fault that a new item fails

It is, nonetheless, their liability in law, on an item so new,
unless it can be shown that the broken hob was entirely the
OPs fault.

MBQ

The op has already admitted that he/she hit the hob on the edge
of the glass top with a pepperpot ,

No they haven't. Placing something down is not the same as hitting
something with it.

accidental damage is not a warranty issue

We're not 100% it was entirely due to accidental damage and not
some fundamental weakness of the product.

MBQ

If you re read the op post it states that *he struck the edge with a
pepperpot ,

FFS, how many times. YOU read the OP "I placed a pepper pot to the
left of the hob, and just caught the very edge of the glass. *The hob
broke."

Which bit of "placed" are you (and Cynic) confusing with "struck"?

MBQ

well if the pepperpot didnt hit the hob it wouldnt have broken it would
it


Sorry guys. I really must learn to read properly.

MBQ