Rufass:

Thanks Jalexa. Some advice on the sort of questions to ask an expert would be very welcome.

So far I have:

- Why would replacing the thermisters cause the heating to fail?

- Is a faulty heat exchanger a locical conclusion to draw from the failure of both hot water and heating subsequent to replacing the thermisters?

- Is it reasonable to infer that such a failure would definitely be caused by limescale?

Be careful you don't trip yourself up with your own questions.

First of all there are two heat exchangers, the primary heat exchanger which transfers heat from the flame to the water circulating through the boiler (and radiators) and a secondary heat exchanger (usually a plate type) which transfers heat from the circulating water to a hot water outlet.

This is the "plate" you describe the "engineer" explaining you needed. There are two reasons why the secondary heat exchanger is more likely to be affected by limescale. One is the requirement for a large heat transfer in quite a small area and the other is that fresh water flows on one side, thereby in a limescale area providing a continuous limescale burden. (in comparison there is only ever one dose of "limescale" in the primary circuit)

Nowhere do I recall you reporting the "engineer" asserting the primary heat exchanger was defective. The clue that the primary heat exchanger was "serviceable" was that you report the heating was adequate before the "engineer's" first attendance.

I suggest you refocus the first question on why, if the engineer believed "the plate" to be faulty, did he replace the thermisters in the face of adequate heating performance. (Don't ask an irrelevent question, the "technical" answer to which might not help you).

You must change the second question to focus exclusively on the "plate exchanger" which has no role whatsoever in the radiator heating performance

On the third question, IMHO secondary (plate) heat exchanger affected by limescale is plausible (but not definate). Heating (prior to the "engineer's" visit) was serviceable. Limescale in the primary is less likely but the issue is the change from serviceable heating to unserviceable heating. Limescale is not a plausable explanation for such a change in the radiator heating performance.

One other thing. The Consumer Standards advice you quoted is spot on and central to your case.

I know you wanted more questions but I feel less is more. Best of luck.

Thanks Jalexa. Some advice on the sort of questions to ask an expert would be very welcome.

So far I have:

- Why would replacing the thermisters cause the heating to fail?

- Is a faulty heat exchanger a locical conclusion to draw from the failure of both hot water and heating subsequent to replacing the thermisters?

- Is it reasonable to infer that such a failure would definitely be caused by limescale?

Rufass:

Anyone got any ideas as to how I could get some sort of expert to state that the heating should not have been affected by limescale in the heat exchanger?

This looks promising...

http://www.ciphe.org.uk/Expert-Advice/

Anyone got any ideas as to how I could get some sort of expert to state that the heating should not have been affected by limescale in the heat exchanger?

Rufass:

Quick update:

The court considers my claim served from today so Southern Electric have 14 days from now to respond. I never did receive their offer in writing or hear from them again after their last call which is over a week ago now. I also got no response from the email I sent them when I submitted the claim (this was to an address they explicitly told me to respond to if I had further issues) although today I did get a read receipt for it -- 6 days to open an email.

Hey, somebody got 4,500.

Something you or others readings may be interested in. I can't comment on what the Terms & Conditions of your agreement says, (and whether in all the circumstances is was reasonable for you to have been aware of any exclusions which may or may not have been in place at point of sale) but check this out.

Southern Electric is a trading name of Scottish and Southern Energy, allegedly a top rated organisation for customer service, though that is not apparent from this thread. Nor from what I am about to reveal does it even demonstrate compentence...

I looked at the SSE Home Services website. There is a webform for signing up for boiler maintenance. Among inputs required is a Terms & Conditions scroll-box and a tick-box requireing confirmation that the T&Cs had been read and accepted. The scroll-box is tiny at about 70mm x 20mm. With some difficulty I scrolled through it looking for relevent exclusions. I failed to spot any clause excluding breakdowns due to sludge or limescale though there is an exclusion of "Powerflushing" (Para 35).

I went in search of Terms & Conditions more easily printable. I found them and they are numbered completely differently. In the "alternative" Terms & Conditions (NB - not the version as numbered and acknowledged as being read and accepted at point of sale) there is a "sludge and scale" exclusion (Para 54) and the "Powerflush" exclusion is Para 55.

This is really quite serious. It's either a blatant attempt to "dupe" customers, or it is "sheer bl**dy incompetence". I don't know what to conclude. I can't imagine such a large company not ensuring legal sign-off for its presentation of a contractual offer - other than through incompetence.

From the FAQ...

"Why are our maintenance and protection policies different from the rest?

Your agreement will be with a well established organisation that is recognised as a leader in delivering high levels of customer service"

The lack of regulation of this activity is shocking.

Quick update:

The court considers my claim served from today so Southern Electric have 14 days from now to respond. I never did receive their offer in writing or hear from them again after their last call which is over a week ago now. I also got no response from the email I sent them when I submitted the claim (this was to an address they explicitly told me to respond to if I had further issues) although today I did get a read receipt for it -- 6 days to open an email. I wish I'd put read receipts on them all now that I know they're not blocked by their email set up. Worth remembering if you have to go through something like this. Obviously you can't read anything into it unless you actually get one as the organisation you're emailing could have them blocked.

I'll keep updating while I can though I have heard of other folks having to keep quiet if offered a settlement. I think this may be unlikely in this case anyway as they seem blissfully unaware of this thread which has had over 4000 views and they take 6 days to open an email from someone who has exhausted their complaints procedure, tried two ombudsmen and hinted darkly at legal action.

This kind of amused me, from the sales blurb for the cover I paid for and foolishly invoked:

- Save forking out £370^** if something goes wrong

Though perhaps not as much as:

- Unlimited call outs, parts and labour

Cheers Jalexa, the support you've given me is really appreciated. Before I get soppy ...

I've already informed them several times what I had in mind and given their consistent lack of reasonable response I've opted to instigate proceedings.

I've used Money Claims Online to submit a claim for compensation for the replacement boiler, distress etc. That claim still has to be validated by the court so it may even be a non-starter but I'll keep updating this thread if/when things change.

I almost hope Southern Electric think this is poker because I am not bluffing here, or at least not to the extent I am scared of raising, I have the response to my Subject Access Request and, where it is complete, it tallies with my own account of events as posted here. The only significant detail being that, judging by what they have written, they decided it was limescale from the outset, yet they only only told me they were going to test for it on the 4th visit -- and they didn't. That didn't stop them quoting me £350 from the outset for a part they didn't know for certain was excluded under their own conditions.

Rufass:

Well, there has been some movement...

Indeed the post has moved back to the top of the list. Oh dearie me.

Sorry I don't have direct experience of legal action, nor poker, but that is what the case is.

Before I give my technical take, I will repeat a lesson I mentioned earlier. There appears to be little regulation of "non-insurance" based boiler maintenance such as you have experienced with Southern Electric, a trading name of Scottish and Southern Electric. Anybody with or wanting boiler cover might wish to consider an "insurance based" approach where FWIW at least there is a Financial Ombudsman Service avenue.

To return to the original issue, it seems to me that it was plausible that the hot water delivery problem resulted from limescale affecting the plate heat exchanger and that is a common exclusion from boiler maintenance contracts. The cost of the replacement is par for the course unfortunately.

It is important to realise that the plate heat exchanger does not affect the radiators and that prior to Southern Electric attention the radiator performance was acceptable. In my opinion you were entitled not to have the radiator performance affected by Southern Electric attendance nor the hot water delivery made worse.

If it was a poker game I think Southern Electric turned a winning hand on the plate heat exchanger scale issue to a losing hand in the game through sheer "incompetence at poker".

I don't advise on legal action lightly and only you can decide. Southern Electric now has such a poor hand that they would be stupid to allow their p*** poor process to be aired in court. Unfortunately I cannot say they are not stupid. You need to have a figure in mind that you would be prepared to accept as an ex-gratia payment. At some stage you will probably need to inform Southern Electric what you have in mind. Then you need to think what figure you would seek in court. Internal legal costs for the Shield manager's cost centre will be significant even before reputational damage to the organisation is considered. All in excess of what should be a reasonable offer.

Not easy for you. I hope others will see the inherent weakness in "non-insurance" boiler maintenance provided by Southern Electric (and others).

Well, there has been some movement.

Southern Electric phoned me on Wednesday and Thursday last week basically saying they were still looking into things. They did say they would call again on Friday but actually called twice today instead ... once this morning to say they were meeting to talk about my complaint and again at about half 5 as I was leaving work to say they'd reached a conclusion. The conclusion seems to be that they will not contribute to the cost of the replacement boiler as they say I did not give them enough chances to fix it, I did point out then that they had 4 attempts and were no nearer a resolution and also that this was the coldest week of the 8th coldest January since 1914. How long do you leave it when your daughter is crying at night because she's so cold? They had 7 days from when they broke it ... anyhoo they did offer to refund the the payments I'd made to the scheme and to look at recompensing me for any additional gas and electricity I might have used.

I told them to put it in writing, partly because I was stood in a car park but mostly because they seem to have an aversion to it. Since I first contacted them to complain on 17th January I've had two pieces of correspondence; one was the letter and form saying SARs had to be in writing even though mine had been and the other was a vague email last week to my work address saying they were looking into it.

The Subject Access Request is due shortly, I'll wait until I have that and their offer and then I think I have no choice but to take it to court. I can't help but feel that an arbitrator would not have let them get away with this derisory offer and the near 3 months it's taken to get it. On that basis I'm not really prepared to let it go.

If anyone has any experience of putting these sorts of claims together or any advice I'd be grateful for it. Basically they broke the boiler during an exceptionally cold spell, talked about charging me £350 to fix it, made a number of other attempts to fix it and failed. I feel that under the circumstances the time I gave them was reasonable given that they were responsible for it in the first place.

Rufass:

Thanks. That's encouraging.

Thanks to you too. I had no idea there was such a regulatory gap. Truely shocking, but if I understand the working level in a typical company, nobody will know to deal with legal action. And there is a big difference between ignoring a complaint and ignoring legal action.

Whoops, the post is back on top.

Thanks. That's encouraging.

I'm going to wait for the output from the SAR, send a final letter re-stating my case and then, if no satisfactory response received, initiate court proceedings. I don't care what it costs any more, it seems wrong that they can just ignore it.

Rufass:

I guess I'm now looking at legal proceedings, not a prospect that fills me with any great joy.

Found the thread which referred to successful legal action...

http://www.moneysupermarket.com/community/forums/post/heat-exchanger-power-flush-176904.aspx

Rufass:

The letter I wrote to Southern Electric gave them until tomorrow to reply and I have not heard anything. I'm not sure what my next move would be. I guess I'm now looking at legal proceedings, not a prospect that fills me with any great joy.

Why am I not surprised at this huge gap in regulation. The Guardian article I linked to earlier in the thread actually quoted the FOS. OK, they were talking about boiler cover insurance. Not a help to you but perhaps for others reading this...

if you want FOS protection to apply make sure your boiler is protected by a home insurance add-on, not by a utility service contract.

It might have been another recent thread on a similar subject but I recall posting the Google search to return a hit about successful legal action against British Gas Homecare. I will look it out and post again. Alternatively start a thread asking for advice about small claims. There are people here better informed than me about legal process.

If Southern Electric fails to satisfy a SAR that is a data protection offence. Follow that up with the Information Commissioner.

later edit - thanks to CMK

http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints.aspx

Bit of an update:

I responded immediately by returning the form along with a letter explaining that I had already requested this in writing, expressing my disappointment and sating that I expected that the 40 days should be from the receipt of the original request and not the form.

Today I received a letter from the Financial Ombudsman, it reads:

------
Thank you for your recent enquiry.

I am sorry to disappoint you but your complaint does not appear to be one we would deal with because we can only consider complaints about activities or services provided by firms that are regulated by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) or that have agreed voluntarily to be covered by the Financial Ombudsman Service or services provided by businesses that are licensed by the office of Fair Trading for Consumer Credit purposes.

It also appears from the details supplied in your letter that your complaint is in relation to a Service Contract on your boiler. The Financial Ombudsman Service can only investigate disputes in relation to General Insurance policies, as service contracts are not classed as insurance in 'General Law'.
------

So now I'm kind of out of ombudsmen. It doesn't appear that this sort of policy has any complaints arbiter.

The letter I wrote to Southern Electric gave them until tomorrow to reply and I have not heard anything. I'm not sure what my next move would be. I guess I'm now looking at legal proceedings, not a prospect that fills me with any great joy.