Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C owned a retail unit that was occupied by a beautician's business. He complained that the water bills for the business were disproportionately high, and compromised its viability. Mr C asked Business Stream to consider reviewing the water charges, or fitting a smaller water meter. It was agreed that a smaller meter would be appropriate. However, Mr C felt that the price quoted to exchange the meters was too much, and he was not allowed to have his own plumber carry out the work more cheaply.

Business Stream asked Scottish Water to provide a quote for the work. After Mr C disputed the amount quoted, Scottish Water provided details of the work that they said was needed. Mr C disagreed that the work described was necessary, but ultimately the business agreed to proceed with the meter downsize. Once the work was completed, Mr C remained dissatisfied as he believed a simple meter swap had been carried out, rather than the excavation and pipe replacement work detailed by Scottish Water. He provided photographic evidence of the work that had been completed.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaint, as after investigation we were satisfied that it was for Scottish Water, as requested by Business Stream, to decide the work required and what the cost of that work should be. The amount quoted was in line with their published schedule of rates. We recognised that this was a standard charge and may not have reflected the precise cost of the work involved, but did not find it unreasonable for a schedule of standard rates to be used. We asked an independent water industry adviser to review the 'before and after' photographs submitted by Mr C. We accepted his view that there was evidence of excavation work and of the meter chamber being replaced which we considered was in line with the work proposed by Scottish Water.

Summary

Mr C purchased a property in October 2009 which he renovated to create residential and office accommodation. In April 2011, he received a water bill from Business Stream which he found to be disproportionately high. He complained that Business Stream did not explain their terms or their charging structure and that a water account was created for his business without his knowledge. Furthermore, Mr C was unhappy about being issued a water bill backdated to October 2009, when he was not aware of the need to have an account.

We found that the previous occupiers of the premises had a water account with Business Stream but did not tell them when they left the property. Business Stream was first notified of this in March 2011 and promptly contacted Mr C. The requirement to set up a water account with a licensed provider was relatively new in 2009 and we acknowledged that business customers may not have been aware of the need to do so. However, we were satisfied that the responsibility lay with the customer to notify Business Stream when they left or moved into a property. The failure of either occupant to notify Business Stream of the change of ownership meant that the original occupier continued to be charged for water services while Mr C used the water without charge. We did not consider that there was any specific action that Business Stream could have taken to create a new account for Mr C's business any sooner.

We were satisfied that, once Mr C's business account was set up, Business Stream applied legitimate backdated charges and followed the correct procedure for supplying properties with mixed residential and commercial uses.

Summary

In 2012, Mr C received a water bill from Business Stream that was much higher than he had expected. The bill was for the water supply to a trough on his farm which had been switched off since the summer of 2011. The meter for this supply was located in Mr C's neighbour's house, but he did not have access to it. Because of this, he was unable to monitor his water usage and was unaware that there was a leak in his pipework. Mr C complained to us that the bill was too high and that, had his meter been located in a more accessible position, and had accurate bills been issued by Business Stream rather than estimates, he could have identified the leak sooner. He did not consider that he should be liable for the full amount of the water bill.

Mr C's water meter was relocated by Scottish Water on behalf of Business Stream to a more accessible position. After the work was completed, he was presented with an invoice for the relocation work which he found excessive. He was told that if he chose not to pay the invoice, the meter would be moved back to its previous location at no cost.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaint. It is the customer's responsibility to check for and repair any leaks on their pipework. Where leaks are not immediately visible, the best way to monitor water usage is to examine the water meter and any bills that are issued. We accepted that the location of Mr C's water meter restricted his ability to check for leaks, but did not find evidence of any clear request from Mr C to have his meter moved to a more accessible location. However, we did not find that the delay in moving the meter impacted significantly on the water charges that Mr C incurred.

We were satisfied that meter readings were taken in line with Business Stream's meter reading policy which requires two actual readings to be taken in a twelve month period. As such, we did not find that there was any specific action that Business Stream could have taken to help Mr C identify his leak any sooner.

We found it reasonable for Scottish Water to apply charges for relocating the meter and that these should be met by the customer. However, Mr C should have been told about the cost prior to the work being carried out. Scottish Water accepted this and agreed to leave the meter in its new location without pursuing Mr C for any costs associated with its relocation.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that prisoners in his part of the prison were treated less favourably than those in another part and that a lack of certain facilities in his part was hindering his progression to less secure prison conditions.

Our investigation found that both parts of the prison were treated in the same way, that the facilities provided were in line with the prison rules and therefore, appropriate, and that what was holding Mr C back from progression was not a lack of facilities but his own ineligibility for it. For example, he had not participated in various necessary courses in prison. We found that the prison acted appropriately in respect of the issues about which Mr C complained.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that, having been considered unsuitable several years previously for two behaviour-related courses in prison, it had now been decided that he should attend them. He considered that this might hold up his progression to more open conditions (ie to less secure prison conditions). He felt that this would not have been a concern had the decision about the need for the courses been taken some years earlier. We explained to him that decisions about participation on courses are for the Scottish Prison Service (SPS), not this office. Our role was, therefore, solely to consider whether they had followed their normal processes correctly in reaching their decision.

From similar complaints, we were aware that a new assessment process for courses (generic assessment) had been introduced throughout the SPS, and it had been decided that all prisoners should be assessed under this to establish whether any earlier decisions about the need for courses should be changed. The SPS confirmed that this was why, after some years, Mr C's decision had been reviewed and changed. In other words, they had taken action in line with their normal process and there were no grounds for us to uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that he was unable to purchase books from a supplier of his choice. We explained to Mr C that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) were entitled to make decisions such as this, and that our only role was to consider if there had been maladministration in the way they had taken this decision.

Our investigation found that the decision had been taken for security reasons, and applied to all prisoners in the prison. We were, therefore, satisfied that the decision was taken after careful consideration of relevant factors, namely the safety and security of the prison. We also noted that, since Mr C's complaint, SPS had introduced a tighter policy across all prisons for prisoners' receipt of books. This meant that, regardless of the situation at the time of his complaint, he would no longer have been able to obtain the books he wanted.

Summary

Mr C applied for a vacancy in a prison workshop. He complained that the prison unreasonably rejected his application. The prison advised Mr C that there was a risk to his safety if they allowed him to participate in the workshop due to intelligence (adverse information obtained by the Scottish Prison Service that affects an individual prisoner) they had received. Mr C told us that he was allowed to participate in other activities where there were no restrictions, such as in the exercise yard.

Our investigation found that under Rule 82 (1) of the Prisons and Young Offenders Institution (Scotland) Rules 2011, every prisoner is required to work, subject to certain provisions. Rule 82(2)(b) states that the governor of the prison also has the discretion to excuse a prisoner from work on any other ground. As there was intelligence held to support the governor's decision, we did not consider that the prison acted unreasonably in not allowing Mr C to participate in the workshop. During the course of our enquiries the prison also told us that Mr C was not allowed to participate in two other workshops. They provided evidence showing the reasons for this. We noted that while Rule 84(1) says that the governor must provide purposeful activities for prisoners, sub-section (b) says that this is so far as reasonably practicable and takes into account the requirements of the operation and maintenance of the prison.

We concluded that there was no evidence that the prison failed to follow their processes, and that the governor used his discretion in reviewing the intelligence and deciding what should happen, as he was entitled to do.

Summary

Mrs C said that her children had been subjected to bullying while travelling on the school bus as well as on one occasion in school. She complained that over several months she had contacted the school about the matter. She also said she had spoken to the head teacher, but that nothing was done to resolve this. The school said that as the incidents happened on the school bus, they were outwith their control.

Our investigation found that it is parents or carers who are responsible for the conduct of children while they are using school transport, rather than the school, and we did not uphold Mrs C’s complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that, following a storm, a neighbour's tree fell across the garden ground of a number of residents. One of the residents was a council tenant and, as a result, the council offered to arrange for contractors to remove the tree and large tree stump. However, a number of residents refused to contribute towards the costs of removal, so the council arranged for the tree to be cut into sections and for the sections which lay in their tenant's garden to be removed. While the tree was being cut up, its root ball fell back into the hole that was made when the tree fell, with the roots protruding into Mr C's garden. Mr C was unhappy that the council allowed this to happen, and felt that the root should have remained where it was.

Our investigation found that this was, essentially, a private legal matter between residents, and we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We found that the council had acted appropriately in attempting to co-ordinate the removal of the tree and its stump and, when some residents refused to contribute, appropriately arranged to remove the parts relating to their own tenant's property.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C were granted planning permission to build a property. As a pre-requisite to issue planning consent, however, the council decided that Mr and Mrs C had to make an education contribution. This is a payment developers must make to contribute to school provision if their development meets certain criteria. To determine whether a developer must make a contribution a method is used that involves a calculation. Mr and Mrs C disputed the calculation. They said that if the council had used another calculation they would not have to pay an education contribution. They were also concerned that the figure the council arrived at changed over the course of their application.

After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers, we did not uphold this complaint. The adviser confirmed that it was appropriate for the council to determine the method and calculation themselves. The adviser also said that the change to the figure was not unreasonable in attempting to reach agreement on a planning contribution.