Ms. Liu's house washer leaked water. (source: interviewees)
In recent days, ms. Liu of heilongjiang reported to the signal news that she had purchased, at a cost of 3,500, an additional machine to wash the ground, which had been used several times and found to leak in a clean-up mode. After two repairs, the problem of ms. Liu's machine remains. Ms. Liu called for a change of machine, but insisted that the product was okay and that, although ms. Liu had discovered a leak in the machine, she should have rejected ms. Liu's “multi-dimensional switcher request” based on her tests。
Ms. Liu explained that her family's machine, which had been purchased in november 2025 at a local underline shop, had been used several times and that she had discovered that the machine leaked under clean-up patterns. In the video provided by ms. Liu, she was cleaning her own ground washing machine, and there was a clean-water spot at the corner of the base. Ms. Liu said that the initial leakage was not significant, nor did she care, and the problem was significantly aggravated。
On 27 june 2026, she reflected this on the official sale of the machine, which was sent to the designated maintenance site on the same day as required. When the washing machine returned, ms. Liu saw that the test sheet stated that “the machine is not abnormal and the test machine is functional”, and she was told that “there may be a screw loose”。
However, the “cracked” machine continued to leak and, on 4 july, ms. Liu again reported and returned the machine to the plant, concluding on the test list that “the detectable machine was able to perform normal functions as a result of the leaking of the filters”。
Ms. Liu found that after two repairs and after the machine had been sent back, water leaked from cleaning patterns. Ms. Liu asked the manufacturer to “dove switch”, but the other side said that it “failed to meet the criteria”. Ms. Liu is very incomprehensible that while the leak is objective on the one hand, the manufacturer always says, “no problem” and, “there's no way to go back to work just once until the insurance is out?”
In response to ms. Liu's problems, the signal news contacted him and staff indicated that all back-to-work machines were professionally tested by authorized repair sites and written reports were produced. “if the machine does fail in performance and meet the conditions for a change of aircraft or return of goods, we will deal with it.” the service stressed that if the machine had not found structural or functional defects after two tests, the replacement standard would not be met. "all is subject to the test."
According to a member of the pool of telegraphy lawyers and lawyer cao yilong of the beijing city department (aoshima) law firm, ms. Liu is legally entitled to quality security rights after buying a commodity, and if the product fails repeatedly within a reasonable time, even if each test is called “no anomaly”, it cannot simply be tested to negate the consumer's experience of actual use. According to counsel, under the relevant provisions, the goods could not be used properly after two repairs and the consumer had the right to demand the exchange or return of the goods. “the fact that ms. Liu's earthwasher has been repaired several times in a short period of time as a result of a leak from her cleaning function and the persistence of the problem has clearly affected normal use and is consistent with the fact that `two repairs are still not normally used'. Instead of providing a reasonable explanation for the failure or providing an effective solution to the problem, it is suspected that the statutory liability has been circumvented. It is recommended that consumers keep maintenance records, video evidence and communication documents, and that they can complain to market regulators or defend their rights through judicial means, if necessary.”
