Dear Rachel,
I am writing to provide a clear and factual response to the points raised in your recent correspondence.
For clarity, Princes LHS Ltd did not undertake the original installation of your air source heat pump (ASHP) system.
In 2022, you reported an E911 error (low flow rate fault). You later cancelled the scheduled engineer visit, advising that the issue had resolved itself, and no further action was taken at that time.
In October 2025, you requested a routine service. Our engineer S tested the system and found that both expansion vessels failed their pressure tests. He recommended replacement of the vessels together with a glycol top-up, and we issued a quotation for this work totalling £325.34 + VAT. You accepted the quotation and paid the requested 50% deposit of £195.20 (including VAT) to secure materials.
During the subsequent visit, engineer G re-tested the expansion vessels and determined they were holding pressure adequately. He therefore did not replace them. You were given the opportunity to pause or cancel the remaining work (glycol top-up) but authorised him to proceed.
Upon learning that the vessels had not been replaced, we immediately reviewed the invoice and deducted the cost of the unused vessels plus the associated labour. The adjusted balance of £81.20 (including VAT) reflects only the glycol actually supplied and used, which we consider fair and proportionate.
We regret that you experienced a period without heating or hot water. Engineer G confirmed the system was operating correctly before he left the property. The subsequent fault (reported the following morning, a Saturday) was promptly attended to by G, who diagnosed a recurrence of the low flow rate issue and restored normal operation. This may relate to the same underlying fault first noted in 2022.
Regarding any perceived lack of apology, regret was expressed in our colleague’s initial email following G’s visit, specifically concerning the unnecessary supply of the expansion vessels. Vessels of this age (three years or older) can fail unpredictably, as demonstrated by the differing test results between the two visits.
To summarise the financial position:
- You paid the agreed sum of £195.20 (inc. VAT) upon accepting the quotation.
- We reduced the final balance to reflect only the work actually performed.
- No sums beyond the original quotation were requested at any stage.
Engineer S has since confirmed that he did re-pressurise the vessels during the October service. Any difference in recollection is likely due to the volume of similar jobs he has completed since then. We are satisfied there was no intentional misrepresentation.
The further quotation we provided followed manufacturer guidance and was offered as a proactive proposal to address a pre-existing, long-standing issue with the system—one that predates our involvement and was not caused by any work we have carried out.
We are genuinely sorry that matters have not unfolded as either party would have wished. We believe we have acted fairly and reasonably throughout, invoicing only for work actually completed. As a gesture of goodwill, we have waived the remaining 50% balance entirely (after already deducting the cost of the vessels and associated labour) and have not charged for the out-of-hours Saturday call-out.
We are disappointed by the current position of this situation.
Yours sincerely,
Princes LHS Ltd