Water

Summary

C complained that Everflow failed to bill them accurately for their water consumption and failed to communicate reasonably with them about their account. C believed that Everflow had breached their contract with C. Everflow did not accept this, noting that the bill increase was primarily due to increases in wholesale costs.They also said that C’s water usage fluctuated across the year resulting in uneven charges.

We found that there was evidence meter readings were being recorded on C’s account in line with Everflow’s obligations as a Licensed Provider. However, the rateable value for C’s property appeared to be inaccurate. This should have been resolved or explained during the complaints process. Therefore, we upheld this part of C's complaint.

In relation to Everflow's communication with C, we found that C was sent letters about Everflow’s debt collection process. These letters were unclear and inaccurately reflected the legal process in Scotland. They also did not reflect the fact that C was making payments on their account and emailing Everflow about it. Therefore, we upheld this part of C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failure to accurately reflect their property’s rateable value and the failure to communicate with them reasonably. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Correspondence about the actions being taken to pursue outstanding payments should be clear, easily understood and accurately reflect the powers of Everflow.
• Everflow must ensure the correct rateable value is used when calculating C's bill.
• Customers should be provided with a copy of their contract.
• Customers should be provided with a specific explanation of the advance billing process.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C complained about Business Stream's communication regarding their account. There was also disagreement between C and Business Stream over the amount owed in respect of the account.

Business Stream accepted an unreasonable length of time had been taken regarding the matter and that they could have been more proactive in seeking some information from C. In seeking information from Business Stream to assist in investigating the complaints, we advised them of the amount C believed was owed in respect of the account and if Business Stream accepted this amount, that C would consider the matter resolved. Business Stream and C came to agreement over the amount owed in respect of the account. Therefore, given that resolution had been achieved and the matter resolved in C's view, there were no grounds for us to continue the investigation and discontinued it.

Summary

C operates a restaurant who contracted with Clear Business Water (CBW) for their water supply. C complained that prices charged by CBW increased which was in contrast to what had been agreed. C also complained that CBW unreasonably charged a termination fee when they changed supplier for a better deal.

CBW said that they agreed a contract with C for the supply for a fixed term of 3 years at a discounted rate. They told C that the price being charged increased because of a number of factors but that the discount applied to the account always remained the same. As C left CBW for another supplier, CBW were satisfied that a termination fee was correctly applied in line with the terms and conditions of the contract. C was dissatisfied with the response and brought their complaint to our office.

We reviewed the relevant call recording together with supporting materials CBW said were issued to C following the call. We also considered CBW’s own processes and procedures with respect to the handling of such calls. We found that the communications with C were unreasonable as it was clear during the call that there was a barrier to C and the CBW adviser’s ability to understand each other. The information provided to C after the call did not provide confirmation of certain key aspects of the contract, nor was there confirmation that prices may be subject to variation. Therefore, we upheld the complaint that CBW failed to communicate with C in a reasonable manner. We also found failings with respect to CBW’s handling of C’s complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for not communicating in a clear manner and failing to appreciate there was the potential for misunderstanding during the call. The apology should also acknowledge that the complaints investigation should have identified issues with respect to the quality of communication with C. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Clear failings should be identified by complaints investigations, with appropriate actions being taken to remedy these.
• Relevant managers and advisers should have a clear understanding on the difference between ‘price’ and ‘discounts’ and the importance of clear communication in this regard. Staff should receive appropriate training on communication with customers and be provided with supporting materials, including call scripts, which provide sufficient clarity and guidance during a call.
• Relevant staff should have an awareness of potential barriers to communication and be able to identify what these are and how these may be addressed and overcome.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C runs a small business and was unhappy with the way Business Stream managed their account. In particular, C was unhappy with what they believe were unreasonable changes to their contract and changes to the amount they were expected to pay for water.

We found multiple failings by Business Stream in their dealings with C; including not taking reasonable steps to address the issue of the removal of the water meter for C’s premises, having no evidence that C agreed to a change of contract or agreeing to online billing only. In relation to moving C to unmetered charging, Business Stream have acknowledged that their failures led to an unacceptable delay and offered the maximum allowable payment and credit available under their Redress and Compensation Policy. However, there is no evidence that the causes of the failings have been investigated or identified. We considered that this was essential given the impact on small businesses of large and unexpected bills, particularly in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. We upheld C’s complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Contact C to provide a clear explanation of their options for paying for water usage moving forward, including a site visit with C present to discuss water meter installation if requested.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• A review of C’s case identifying where Business Stream’s procedures failed to work appropriately and assessing whether changes are required to prevent a recurrence.
• A review of the process for agreeing ‘signatureless’ contracts to ensure that the customer’s agreement is obtained and formally recorded in a retrievable format.
• All staff involved in moving customers onto new contracts to be reminded that it is essential evidence is retained showing the customer’s agreement.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C complained to their water provider that they had failed to reasonably bill them for their water services and that they failed to reasonably handle their subsequent complaints on this matter. Since receiving C's complaint, the SPSO have published two public reports about Water Plus. C and Water Plus have managed to reach agreement on the final payment due. The complaint has been closed on the grounds of it being resolved to the satisfaction of C.

Summary

C complained on behalf of a business, which operated out of two neighbouring premises. C complained about Castle Water Ltd's management of the business's water account. The business had been a customer of Castle Water Ltd for a prolonged period and paid a monthly direct debit for their water and waste water usage. The business began to receive invoices from Castle Water Ltd that C disputed. Over a number of months, C attempted to clarify why the invoices had been issued and what amounts were due to Castle Water Ltd. C met with a representative of Castle Water Ltd who advised that the business's account was up-to-date and that they were, in fact, in credit. However, a payment of £505.47 was subsequently taken from the business without notice. Castle Water Ltd explained that this amount had previously been overlooked and that it was owed by the business.

C complained that the business was issued with numerous invoices and credits that did not add up to the amounts taken from the business's bank account. C noted that the business had always paid the monthly amounts set by Castle Water Ltd in line with their tariffs and questioned why the business was being charged additional amounts without explanation. The business remained in dispute as to the amounts owed, due to a lack of clear explanation regarding the reasons for the additional invoices. C was also dissatisfied with the way that their complaints to Castle Water Ltd were handled.

Whilst we were satisfied that the provider handled C's complaints in line with their complaints procedure, and did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint, we were however concerned by a number of aspects of their handling of the business's account. We found that the provider began issuing invoices to the business, treating them as an unassigned premises, without realising that the business had already been paying the provider for water services for a number of years.

When C questioned the invoices, the explanations that they were given caused additional confusion rather than providing clear information as to what the charges were for. The billing situation was complex due to there being multiple premises and a mixture of annual and monthly billing schedules. We were critical of Castle Water Ltd for failing to set out their charges in a clear and understandable way. The invoices that were issued bore no relation to the amounts that the business was being charged. Whilst Castle Water Ltd's internal records of the account were accurate and the business was ultimately billed correctly, this was not evident from what was sent to their customer.

We recognised that Castle Water Ltd ultimately acknowledged and apologised for the errors in communication and the lack of clarity in their invoices. They also took steps to improve their services for future customers. However, we were critical of the fact that C had to spend a significant amount of time and effort seeking clarification of the charges that the business owed and the fact that the information provided repeatedly made the situation less clear. Therefore, we upheld the aspect of the complaint that the business's billing account was unreasonably handled.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Consideration to be given to making a further good will payment.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C complained that Business Stream had not billed their business accurately. C said that they had been told by an employee of Scottish Water that their premises did not drain into the public network, but into a nearby river. Business Stream had initially not accepted this, stating that Scottish Water required further site visits to verify the situation. C also complained that Business Stream had taken too long to resolve the situation.

We found that, although Scottish Water had initially considered that C was being charged for water they were not liable for, they thereafter wanted to investigate matters further. We found that Business Stream had tried to resolve matters for C and were acting in good faith on the advice that they had received from Scottish Water in this connection. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint.

We also found that, although colleagues of C's had contacted Business Stream on several occasions to complain that they were not liable for drainage charges, they had not provided the information Business Stream had requested, nor had they followed up the complaints. We considered that Business Stream had explained clearly what information they required and that they had pursued the matter with Scottish Water once this had been provided. We found that they had handled C's complaint reasonably and did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Summary

C operated a bed and breakfast business from their home (the premises) and a number of years ago was identified as a gap site (a property where commercial activity is being conducted and should, therefore, be liable for commercial water charges, but that has not yet been registered for commercial water services). Scottish Water installed a water meter on pipework outside the premises so that C’s water consumption could be measured for commercial water charges. As they had not chosen one, a licensed provider was appointed to manage C’s water account.

Following installation of the meter, C began to receive water bills that were disproportionately high for the number of residents and guests in the premises. Investigations by their licensed provider established that there was likely a leak between the meter and the premises. The location of the presumed leak meant that it was C’s responsibility to locate and repair it. C appointed a contractor to undertake this work. The contractor ultimately decided to lay a new supply pipe from the premises to the meter at a cost to C of more than £10,000.00. In doing so, they did not encounter the original supply pipe and no leaks were identified. However, following the work, C’s water consumption fell to a normal level.

C subsequently learned that a lot of the work carried out by the contractor had been unnecessary. Scottish Water had previously replaced their communication pipe with a narrower pipe, which was connected to C’s original larger supply pipe. C contended that the work carried out by Scottish Water had caused the leak. C also considered that, had Scottish Water informed them that they had installed a narrower pipe, the contractor would have been able to slide a similarly sized pipe through the original larger pipe, negating the need to excavate the ground and saving a substantial amount of money.

C complained that they had incurred substantial financial losses as a result of Scottish Water’s work and lack of communication. They considered that Scottish Water should, therefore, make a significant contribution towards the costs they incurred.

We found that Scottish Water communicated reasonably with C regarding the gap site process and the installation of the meter. We did not consider there to be a particular need for Scottish Water to advise C that they had used a narrower pipe when they changed the communication pipe some years previously. We were also satisfied that Scottish Water reasonably investigated C’s concerns regarding the leak. We found that their conclusions and decision not to cover C’s costs were demonstrably based on information gathered during their investigation. A full leak allowance was paid and we found this to be reasonable in the circumstances. We did not uphold C's complaints.