Fahrenheit electric baseboard heaters
1 report to CPSC, the latest made May 22, 2014. A report isn’t a recall.
Watch and the shortlist are kept with a free account, on every device. Your watch list. CPSC’s own search is on saferproducts.gov.
At a glance
From SaferProducts.gov, released Oct 25, 2026.
- 1report to CPSC
- May 22, 2014the latest report was made
- May 22, 2014the earliest
- 1with the company’s comments
- Brand
- Fahrenheit
- Maker
- Marley Engineered Products LLCMakers, importers or sellers, as the reports name them
- Product
- Electric baseboard heatersCPSC’s product type: Electric Baseboard Heaters (code 312), in Home Maintenance and Structures: Heating, Ventilation & Air Conditioning
By month
The numbers, as a table
| Month | Reports |
|---|---|
| May 2014 | 1 |
How badly anyone was hurt
- No one hurt 1 CPSC: Incident, No Injury
As each report says it, in short words; CPSC’s own words are under each.
The reports, as CPSC published them
Reports people made to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. CPSC publishes each one after sending it to the company named, and doesn’t guarantee they’re accurate. A report isn’t a recall.
Each report is the words of the person who made it, as CPSC published them. The company’s comments, where CPSC published any, are set apart as the company’s own.
CPSC, SaferProducts.gov public database export. Released Oct 25, 2026. Updated daily.
-
No one hurt Made May 22, 2014, sent to the company Jul 23, 2014, published by CPSC Jul 22, 2014
The product, in the report: Electric hard wired hydronic baseboard heater Serial number: not listed or otherwise not clearly identified.
03/29/2014- The consumer stated that the heater was located in her bathroom. Her husband set the heater in setting number 5 or 6 prior to taking a shower. Approximately, 10 minutes later the consumer’s husband heard a popping sound, he noticed a 3/4 inch wide 4 inch high flame emanating from the right side of the heater. Immediately, he turned it off and blew air towards the flame to extinguish it. After the flame was extinguished, the consumers shut the circuit breaker off, he contacted the contractor. The contractor indicated that the heater did not turn off by itself when the fire started. The contractor removed the heater from the wall. No other injuries or property damage was reported.
3/31/2014- The consumer contacted the manufacturer by phone.The consumer informed them of what happened. [REDACTED], engineering manager for product safety, requested the consumer to send pictures of this product. The consumer sent the pictures by email.
4/01/2014- [REDACTED] replied to her email. He stated that even though he is not sure what caused the element failure, he indicated that the fire was caused by the heater elements failure that “shorted to the outer element tube”. He asked if they had any other heat boards with the same date code (of 04/09). Also he recommended the consumer to return the heat board to the manufacturer for a more detailed evaluation. The consumer informed the manufacturer that she owned two other similar heaters but not with the same date code. She agreed to return the heater.
4/11/2014- The consumer returned the heater via [REDACTED] to the manufacturer. The delivery confirmation stated that it was received by the manufacturer 4/15/2014.
4/28/14- The consumer sent an email to the manufacturer to verify the status of the investigation.
The consumer has not yet responded to the offer.
The consumer is concerned that this model &/or date code could pose future fire hazards.
To update you, while Marley agreed to replace the heater; the consumer preferred reimbursement for the heater as she is just not sure if she want to purchase this again even though the consumer was happy with the heater before the incident. They understood the consumer’s feelings and on June 10, 2014 agreed to reimburse the consumer if she provided a copy of the receipt to them----which she did. The consumer did not request reimbursement of the costs that she had to pay to mail the heater back to them and they did not offer to reimburse her for that. So the consumer is out that money. As of this date the consumer has not received reimbursement as of yet. The consumer believe she has sent you probably more than you want but she would like to mention that Marley seemed sincere in their efforts to find out what happened. The following documents and pictures are attached: 1. [REDACTED] Report-CSPC 2014 2. Memo to CSPC (date 6/26/14) 3. First email sent to [REDACTED] 3/31/14 with pictures 4. Sent 3/31/14 to [REDACTED] of Marley (this included another picture) 5. 4/1/14 Correspondence with Marley 6. Final Explanation of what happened but not why (email dated 5/14/14) 7. Conversation on Reimbursement 8. Elec HydrBBIMG_0366.jpg (picture) 9. Elec HydrBBIMG_0364.jpg (picture) 10. Elec HydrBBIMG_0379 (picture) 11. Elec HydrBBIMG_0372.jpg (picture) 12. Tracking Detail (regarding delivery of the heat box back to Marley)
- Model
- PLF754D
- Bought from
- Lowes, New York
- Bought
- Dec 5, 2009
- Where
- Nassau, New York: Home/
Apartment/ Condominium - Who was involved
- Male
- The reporter’s relation to them
- My Spouse
- As this report names them
- Brand Fahrenheit, made or sold by Marley Engineered Products LLC
- How badly, in CPSC’s words
- Incident, No Injury
CPSC’s disclaimer
Disclaimer: CPSC does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the contents of the Publicly Available Consumer Product Safety Information Database on SaferProducts.gov, particularly with respect to information submitted by people outside of CPSC.
Word for word, from the disclaimer in CPSC’s export.
Sources
Sources
-
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, SaferProducts.gov public database export.
Released Oct 25, 2026 and checked Oct 25, 2026. Updated daily. Public domain (U.S. Government work). CPSC asks to be credited, and that no endorsement be implied.
Reports of harm are from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), on SaferProducts.gov. CPSC does not endorse Hearth Record.