I am not impressed by 247 Home Rescue. I've been a customer for several years and have continued my boiler maintenance plan as an insurance policy but in reality it is expensive and the service is terrible. Annual servicing takes just minutes because all they do is test the exhaust and if that it within limits, which ours has always been, they mark up the service record and go.
You need to go online book your service appointment which invariably has to be about a month in advance, however, that system is not currently working and so I was pleasantly surprised when they called me this year to fix the appointment. At first I though that is good, they are finally being pro-active, but no, it soon became clear that they were upselling trying to get me to buy an inhibitor. A bottle of inhibitor typically costs about £7 but they claimed their £80 treatment was being offered at the discounted price of £30. I declined, although you would think if inhibitor is needed it should have been part of the service because they are after all collecting £29.36 per month for this plan, but their response to my refusal to buy this added service was to cancel the appointment scheduled for today. I had to call and rearrange. It took longer to get through than it is likely to take their technician to check our boiler. It is now scheduled for the end of the month. No time specified so I'm supposed to stay in all day waiting for their 10 minute visit.
Our boiler has never broken down and is now over 5 years old. If I consider what they have been paid over the years it just about covers the cost of replacing the boiler. Add to that Bosch offer a 5 year guarantee on parts and I now see this plan was foolish.
I'd suggest that if you also have a nearly new boiler just pay to have it checked or serviced annually and you will save a lot. This plan in my opinion has been a waste of money and 247 have done nothing to inspire confidence over the years.

Update 17/05/2021 14:00
247 phoned me, but when asked to confirm details I declined. I never verify identity related questions with anyone who call me. If I call them I can understand the need for this but if they called me they know who they called and I only have their word that they are who they claim to be.
They refused to continue with the call unless I obliged. Another failing on their part!

Update 17/05/2021 17:29
As 247 have posted their reply to me in this thread I feel it appropriate to share my side of this tale. First point to note is that before placing this post a fresh appointment had been arranged for the end of May as stated above. Despite this they seem intend of arranging yet another!

The other matter they refer to is here service intervals. This is what I said to them in an earlier email:
The reason those dates you listed are widening was down to your inability to provide an appointment each January on the anniversary of the installation. It is rare to be given a date sooner than a month ahead. As you quite rightly highlight rather than an annual check it has been 14 months, 13 months and 15 months between services. When compared to the due date of the annual service you will note that to date you have been;1 month late, 5 months late, 6 months late and 9 months late. The current year is already overdue by 4 months and that is why we are having this dialogue.

In a further email I commented:
Miss xxx, you really don’t get this do you? I only have your word that you are the person from the department of the company your claim. I am willing to take that on trust. I am not asking you to reveal any of my personal details to me.

The issue is that you want to verify my identity. I claim that you have no need to do so, because you called me and more specifically on my personal mobile number. As such you already to whom you are speaking. However, if you were not who you claimed to be and I were to answer the “security questions” you plan to ask then I would be revealing information to that person and could compromise my personal data.

As stated earlier this type of check is NOT required under data protection and if you actually read the act you would understand that.

It would seem that making this public has struck a nerve and they now want to resolve. However, their total disregard to the statements I have made merely strengthens my belief that they are not a company I'd ever endorse.