Hydro - Electric obviously have an associated cost they incur in maintaining and servicing your boiler. Unfortunately logically speaking the older the boiler the harder it will be to obtain parts, the harder it is to obtain parts the more they cost. When that cost exceeds the income they recieve for providing this service, they are now making a loss. I'm sure you can understand what will happen if a company runs at a loss for too long.

Your provider is only doing the sensible thing, albeit not in the best way. They are using a loophole to help extricate themselves from this contract. But i'm sure looking through your T&C's there'll be any number of other conditions on which your contract can be terminated and some of these may also apply.

They are also giving you quite good advice. A new boiler will not only be easier to maintain, it'll also be cheaper for you overall. Older boilers regarxless of maintenance are less efficient than the newer models - infact they're doing themselves out of business by advising you replace your boiler. As for 2/3/5 years it'll be covered by the manufacturers warranty meaning that you'll have no need of their cover in the meantime, (so long as your boiler manufacturer is also serviing it annualy to maintain the warranty).

My boiler is 23 years old, it is an ideal mexico and the manufacturer confirmed it does not have asbestos (there are 3 series of this boiler). Ideal mexico stopped boilers containing asbestos in 1980, my house was built in 1986 which was 6 years after they stopped. Also, as far as i can tell it was illegal to install boilers containing asbestos from 1985. My point is Hydro Electric have only decided to stop working on the offending boilers since April 2009 and are telling customers that is due to a new national safety alert whch has just been announced. It is totally untrue and customers are being lied to and have not been informed. Having checked various sources on the internet you are right this issue is old news but not to me and Hydro customers, many are unaware of Hydro's decision. If engineers are not trained to work on asbestos, how can hydro expect engineers to carry out repairs. My boiler is in perfect working order and i was with the gas board for 13 years before the hydro. I do realise i will at some point have to replace my boiler but as yet it is great. I don't want a combination boiler if i can avoid it i will. All the time with gas board i got letters telling me parts were either going to be difficult or impossible to source but at least i was informed, i also got hard sell from the engineers who called. The hard sell started about 10 years ago and 10 years later my boiler is still going strong.

batmansspider:

My boiler is on the list but it does NOT contain asbestos. My boiler is old and i suspect Hydro have made a decision to remove as many old boilers as possible from their plans by any means possible

Not really clear what is the exact point you are wanting to make. In fact between the lines I think you are saying that the service contract is not being renewed but this happens all the time for "non-asbestos" reasons.

The maintainer says your boiler contains asbestos. You say the boiler "is on the list" but "does NOT contain asbestos". You could be right, you could be wrong. If your boiler is less than 25 years old you are probably right. If your boiler is older than 25 years old you could be wrong.

But if your boiler is that old I say it's time to replace it for other reasons.

So what is your boiler model, how old is it and how can you be sure it doesn't contain asbestos?

There is a scandal of maintainers walking away from systems that they can't (or don't want to) repair. In the case of the current Hydro-Electric contract, a boiler 7 or less years old would be replaced but they could walk away from a older boiler.

You are right to highlight that scandal but not the "asbestos issue" which is no longer that common.

Hi, thanks for the reply, Hydro Electric are insisting that they only knew about this from April 2009. The list they have is massive and they decided not to write to customers who had boilers on the list as not to create a panic. There policy is that they would provide cover until the annual service, then on the visit they would inform the customer. This way they are not obliged to continue another contract. Their reason for doing so is they will not put their engineers at risk! What the puzzle is they would put them at risk to do repairs until the contract comes to an end. They also do not have trained engineers to deal with asbestos and are not willing to pay for a training course for them. I insisted they send a trained engineer to repair 2 faulty radiators which just happened 2 week before my service (I chose to wait as my service was booked and save them a call out) they gave me his name and he had to come from another area as he was the only engineer with asbestos qualification. I then explained to the Hydro i was going to check on his qualifications with the gas safety register. Ten minutes later the hydro called me back and admitted that the engineer was NOT asbestos trained but he would call and fix my radiators but not touch the boiler. He did indeed call and couldn't fix the radiators as he insisted my radiators were too close to the water tanks hence causing them to heat up even when the haeting was off. The radiators have been in the same position since 1986 when the house was built and i have know had an independent engineer in who found that a suitcase was resting on a valve. The Hydro is rubbish and so is their ability to fix problems even when they send "one of their best" I am continuing to raise awarness about this issue as it is comming into the winter and many elderly people and others are in for a nasty shock. I am confident many boilers on the list DO NOT contain asbestos and i have proved mine doesn't but to no avail.

batmansspider:

This clause is in the current Terms & Conditions....

37. We reserve the right to charge for work required to rectify blockages, removal of airlocks or the removal of asbestos.

I don't think a reasonable interpretation of that is that they can immediately withdraw cover, rather the reverse, though there are also clauses which seem to indicate a decision to continue cover may be made during or after the annual inspection.

As suggested in my previous post in this thread, this issue has been known about since at least 2004. As suggested in my reply to your other post, go through your Terms and Conditions with a fine tooth comb to see if you have been fairly treated.

Up to you to challenge Hydro-Electric to substantiate which clause in the Terms & Conditions they have envoked. If they can't, demand compensation. A full refund all all fees paid plus distress and inconvenience (D&I) might be appropriate, as their actions indicate they haven't actually been providing any cover.

Hi, this has just happened to me 2 weeks ago by Hydro Electric! The engineer came for my annual service and informed me that a G.C. number on my boiler matched a number on his booklet of boilers containing asbestos! He said it was a national alert list only announced 2 weeks previously. I was suspicious, he left telling me i was not getting my service and i would be immediately removed from the plan. I have done many checks and it is NOT a national alert and Hydro Electric made the list themselves back in April 2009. I have contacted the gas safety register, british gas, the Health & safety executive and my manufacturer. All companies were accused of compiling the said list and giving it to the Hydro, all which is down right lies. My boiler is on the list but it does NOT contain asbestos. My boiler is old and i suspect Hydro have made a decision to remove as many old boilers as possible from their plans by any means possible, also i am sure they would have contacted me advising of a new boiler but i never gave them a chance as i instantly investigated what i had been told. If any of you want to help me stamp out this practice please go on to Watchdog website tell them all about asbestos in your boiler as they are investigating this for me. Also i am sure they will be interested in any complaints regarding heating cover. Keep me posted

Note: Personal details posted. Please read the Terms of Service and Community Standards before posting. Many thanks.

that is my opinion mind, and if i was you, try bg or local company

why not try BG then. the asbestos in a NETAHEAT IS A SEAL never had to touch or remove it when servicing the netaheat boilers. reember GAS SAFE NOW TOO NOT CORGI CHECK THE BADGE.

I'm very grateful to you and Dave for your support and encouragement. I'll certainly look up the CORGI Bulletin you mention - it looks as though SSE have been negligent as well as arrogant. I'm on holiday in France from this evening until Good Friday, but I shall send a final demand to SSE before I go, and if there is no response waiting for me on my return I shall go for the small claims route. Meanwhile, it's good to have friends; thank you both very much

Greensrow:

I would find this unbelievable, except that I have had a very similar experience with SSE and the Shield protection contract.

Something that might be of interest. If you Google for CORGI Technical Bulletin 140 you might find something of relevence. The point is the document is dated 2004 so how come the SSE engineer cleared your boiler? You are absolutely right that the date that SSE introduced their no-asbestos policy is relevent but so is the failure to address TB140 when they accepted your boiler on contract which might have put you at risk due to their incompetence.

Hi

Just wanted to let you know I'm with you all the way. Why should these big company get away with this disgusting service. Kepp me posted how the small claims go,

I've been in touch with ConsumerDirect and they've have advised me to write one last letter to Ideal to get our boiler fixed( now not been working for 2 weeks) within the next 14 days and if not to get it repaired privately and claim back the cost at small claims.

Good luck to you!!!!!!!!!!

I would find this unbelievable, except that I have had a very similar experience with SSE and the Shield protection contract.

In December 2007, I applied for Shield protection. It took several reminders before SSE responded, but eventually they accepted the application, subject to an initial inspection. In January 2006, an engineer inspected my Potterton Netaheat boiler, commented that it was in excellent condition for its age, and issued a certificate confirming that the boiler met the necessary conditions and that it and the central heating system were now covered "by the Shield maintenance contract".

After I had paid the premiums of £15.50 (later increased to £16.50) a month for a year, another engineer attended to carry out the annual service. He took one look at the boiler, said that that model contained asbestos, and that under SSE's current policy he was not allowed to carry out any work on it. SSE would be in touch to cancel the contract.

Two days later, I received what was described as a "courtesy call" from SSE confirming that the contract had been cancelled with immediate effect (though the contract requires 14 days written notice of cancellation, which I have never received). I pointed out that the original contract was for breakdown cover and an annual service, and that if through no fault of my own SSE were unwilling to provide either or both, they should refund the money I had paid for what now turned out to be a non-existent service. I was told casually that that "was not going to happen"; SSE had introduced a zero tolerance asbestos policy and that was that as far as they were concerned. They could not say when that had happened, or why my boiler had passed its initial inspection with flying colours, but they were perfectly entitled under clause 52 of the contract to change the conditions of service without notice, and without informing the customers affected.

I do not believe that SSE's position is sustainable in law, and I immediately wrote a long letter to Ian Marchant, the Chief Executive of SSE, setting out the reasons why I believed SSE to be in breach of their contract, and suggesting that the company should have given the customers concerned the options of terminating the contract, with a refund of premiums, from the date on which the new asbestos policy came into effect; keeping the cover, but paying SSE for the safe removal of the offending asbestos, as envisaged by clause 37 of the contract; or replacing the boiler in accordance with clauses 30 and 31 of the contract.

A month passed with neither a substantive reply nor an acknowledgment of this letter. I sent a reminder, and in return received another telephone call from one of SSE's comically named customer service representatives, claiming that the letter had never been received. I immediately wrote again to Ian Marchant, this time by recorded delivery, enclosing a copy of the original letter. A further month has passed with no response whatever. I telephoned SSE's Head Office this morning, and was promised that the person responsible would ring me back. Not entirely to my surprise this has not happened.

Given a constructive response from the Chief Executive, it should have been possible to reach a reasonable compromise solution. I am not, however, prepared to let SSE get away with their cavalier and discourteous policy of simply ignoring all correspondence, presumably in the hope that their apparent belief that they can do what they like under the terms of their contract is unchallengeable, and that the aggrieved customer will eventually give up. Unless they have a change of heart within the next two weeks, therefore, I shall begin a County Court action against them under the small claims procedure for the recovery, with costs, of the year's premiums I have paid for a service they knew they could not or would not supply. I certainly do not relish the prospect of the work and expense involved, but, as Edmund Burke remarked in the eighteenth century, for evil to triumph it is necessary only for good men to do nothing.

Watch this space!

Hi TAR469

I have a similar problem. I took out an Instant Cover policy with an additional Central Heating Breakdown Policy with Warmsure( part of Ideal Boilers) but managed by Homeserve. We have had 4 visits in 4 weeks so far.

It gets fixed and works for about 4-5 days before another breakdown.

Now we have had no water or heating for 6 days (even though their response time is 1-48 hours).

They were supposed to come yesterday (23rd March) between 2-4pm but no one turned up and no one rang to inform us!!!.

We also have 3 kids , one only 3 months old!!!!"

We are at the end of our tether with the engineers but they just keep coming out with all sort of excuses like it's up to IDEAL......no it's up to Homeserve............there is sludge...........................no there isn't sludge etc etc.

We want to complain to an outside body and was told by Homeserve to try the Financial Odbusman. Is this true???

can you advise how I should take this forward seeing that you had a similar problem.

Thanks

david

We also took an SSE home contract out at the end of 2007. In October this year we called them out to repair a boiler. We were told the Heat Exchanger was damaged by scale and we would have to pay £400 to replace as it wasn't covered. There were no such exclusions in our contract so we ended up making numerous calls to SSE to try and get them to pay for the repair. We eventually had the boiler repaired by Worcester for just under £250 and have tried to recover the cost from SSE.

SSE told me at various times that they wouldn't cover the call because 1. They couldn't powerflush the system. This wasn't true as Worcester confirmed it could be. 2. That the boiler had a design flaw that they discovered last year and that they didn't cover design flaws. Again Worcester confirmed no design flaw had been identified. 3. That they do not cover scale damage in the South of England. All this took part over a number of calls for a couple of months.

Eventuall the reason SSE gave us for refusing to pay is that they changed their contract in June 2008 to exclude scale damaged components. Needless to say they did not write and tell us this. Neither did they provide us with an updated set of contract terms at the renewal date. So from their perspective it is perfectly acceptable to change a contract and then not tell you that they have introduced new exclusions until such a time as you need to make a claim. They have literally just provided me with a copy of these new terms that carry the exclusion.

The financial ombudsmen will not consider the complaint as a service contract is not an insurance product. They have confirmed this to me in writing.

Can you imagine if this had been your car insurance policy. I think Slough has just been announced as the most dangerous place for car accidents. What if all the car insurance companies decided to exclude cover for cars driving in Slough and by the way not tell any of their policyholders, even at renewal.

During one phonecall to SSE I voiced my theory that maybe their attitude was that if they decide a repair is too expensive they refuse to pay out under an exclusion clause, the rep I was speaking to just went quiet and gave no response.

I would strongly advise that if you have an SSE contract that at your next renewal you consider the risk of SSE using one of their exclusion clauses or introducing a new one without telling you. Only if you believe that is an acceptable risk should you renew.

Hi Tara

It's sad when huge corporations do hard sells like this and then things don't go according to plan when things break. (Had similar with RAC/AA which cost us £1000 *grrrr* ) ... anywhow, just interested to hear what the outcome was to your problem there.

Cheers... T