DRN-6232099

The complaint Mr W complains that A Shade Greener (Boilers ) LLP (ASG) failed to carry out its obligations to maintain a boiler sold to him under a conditional sale agreement. What happened In 2013 Mr W entered into a conditional sale agreement with ASG for the supply, installation and maintenance of a boiler. The amount financed under the agreement was around £8,800. Of this sum, around £4,400 was for the boiler and the rest was for maintenance and servicing. The term of the agreement was 14 years. In September 2020 Mr W contacted ASG because there was an issue with the boiler. ASG sent an engineer to inspect the boiler. The engineer found that the condensation pipe was backing up due to the waste pipe it discharged into being blocked. ASG advised Mr W that this wasn’t covered under the maintenance agreement. ASG also said that the call out was chargeable because the issue wasn’t covered under the warranty. ASG charged Mr W £120 for the engineers call out, which Mr W disputed. ASG said that Mr W would need to rectify the blocked waste pipe at his own cost as this wasn’t an issue with the boiler and wasn’t covered under the maintenance agreement. Mr W arranged for another engineer to look at the boiler. He advised ASG that this engineer had unblocked the waste pipe and had reported that it wasn’t the condensation pipe wasn’t backed up. Mr W also provided ASG with an email from the engineer which stated that the heat exchanger was faulty. ASG replied and said it hadn’t given consent for a third-party engineer to work on the boiler. It said that as a result, the warranty was voided and going forwards, Mr W would be responsible for servicing and maintenance. ASG told Mr W that all future payments made under the agreement would go towards the cost of the boiler. The first complaint Mr W wasn’t happy with the response from ASG and brought his complaint to this service. He said the third-party engineer had told him that the boiler was beyond economic repair, so he’d had a new boiler fitted. Mr W wanted ASG to cancel the agreement, reimburse him for the cost of the new boiler and refund the cost of the third-party engineer. An Ombudsman from this service looked into the complaint and found that ASG shouldn’t have charged Mr W £120 for the engineers call out. They also found that ASG should pay Mr W £175 for failing to make clear what he needed to do to resolve the issue with the boiler. They also said that because Mr W no longer had the boiler, the amount remaining due under the agreement for servicing and maintenance should be written off. Following this decision, ASG communicated with Mr W to settle the account. It sought £3,030. Mr W wanted a reduction. ASG said it would reduce the amount to £2,298 but Mr W declined this. ASG issued legal proceedings, but the claim was struck out, and Mr W’s counterclaim was dismissed.

-- 1 of 3 --

ASG continued to communicate with Mr W regarding the balance due under the agreement. It is seeking £1,359.19. The current complaint Mr W’s current complaint is that he hasn’t received statements from ASG relating to the outstanding balance. He says he’s made an offer to settle the debt, but ASG has refused to discuss this with him. ASG has told this service that it hasn’t issued any statements since 2021 because the debt was the subject of court proceedings. It says that account statements were been sent to Mr W with a default notice prior to the issue of court proceedings, and that further statements were provided to Mr W during the course of the court proceedings. ASG has told this service that Mr W hasn’t made a payment under the agreement since August 2020 and that the balance due under the agreement hasn’t altered since this date. ASG has told this service that it has communicated with Mr W and has offered to reduce the balance, but that it wasn’t willing to accept the offer that Mr W put forwards. Our investigator didn’t uphold the complaint. They said that ASG hadn’t treated Mr W unfairly. Mr W didn’t agree. He said he didn’t think ASG had complied with its obligations under the Consumer Credit Act because it had failed to provide annual statements. Because Mr W didn’t agree I’ve been asked to review the complaint. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. I know it will disappoint Mr W, but I agree with the investigator’s opinion. I’ll explain why. Mr W has referred to ASG’s obligation under the Consumer Credit Act to send annual statements. Under Section 77A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, creditors must send periodic statements for fixed sum loan agreements at least once every year, covering consecutive periods. The statements must contain total sums paid, total sums remining unpaid and future repayments. If a creditor fails to comply, the agreement cannot be enforced during the period of default, and debtors are not liable to pay interest or default sums accrued during that time. The point that Mr W raises about Section 77A goes to enforceability of the agreement. This is a legal issue and not something that this service can determine. Only a court can do this. What this service can do is consider whether ASG has treated Mr W fairly. Even if I accept that ASG haven’t sent annual statements to Mr W, I don’t think he’s been disadvantaged by the lack of statements. I say this because the balance under the agreement hasn’t changed since the Ombudsman’s decision in 2022. I’ve reviewed an email sent by ASG to Mr W dated 5 August 2025. This contains a breakdown of the debt. In the email, ASG has stated that it is only looking to recover the cost of the boiler and confirms that it has applied the payments made by Mr W towards the boiler

-- 2 of 3 --

leaving a balance of £1,359.19. I can see that Mr W replied to the email and offered 50% of the sum sought by ASG. ASG rejected Mr W’s offer. I appreciate that this matter has become protracted and that Mr W would like to conclude it. However, this service can’t require a creditor to accept an offer for less than the contractual balance. This is a commercial decision for ASG. I’m unable to say that ASG has treated Mr W unfairly simply because it has rejected his settlement offer. I appreciate that Mr W will be disappointed by my decision. However, for the reasons I’ve explained, I haven’t seen anything to suggest that ASG has treated Mr W unfairly. My final decision My final decision is that I don’t uphold the complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr W to accept or reject my decision before 14 May 2026. Emma Davy Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --