Water

Summary

Mrs C made a number of complaints about Scottish Water. Firstly, she complained that they were incorrectly treating a pipe in her garden as a combined sewer pipe (in which domestic sewage is mixed with rainwater from roofs and paved surfaces, and transported to be treated). She also complained that they had refused to remove the pipe and her neighbour's connection to it, despite having no record of when and whether the connection had been approved. We obtained independent advice on the complaints from one of our water advisers, who said that the evidence indicated that it was reasonable for Scottish Water to say that the relevant pipe was a public combined sewer. In view of this, they were entitled to decide that they would not remove the pipe or the neighbour's connection to it.

Mrs C also complained that Scottish Water allowed untreated sewage and water drainage from another neighbour's property to accumulate in an emergency drainage chamber on her land. She provided photographs showing water and sewage in the manhole chamber. Our water adviser said that Scottish Water had a duty to maintain this and to ensure that any blockages were cleared. We found that, when Mrs C raised this with Scottish Water, they had confirmed this to be their responsibility, and fixed the problem. She also told us that they had caused flooding in her garden by allowing surface water from another property to enter a soakaway (a pit into which water flows and drains away). However, we found that they had no control over this. We did not uphold either of these complaints.

Mrs C also complained that Scottish Water carried out work on her land whilst she was on holiday, without giving the required notice. We found that Scottish Water had agreed the work with her, and had given her notice that contractors had been asked to carry it out. There was no evidence that the contractors carried out additional work that had not been agreed.

Finally, Mrs C complained that Scottish Water did not respond to her complaint promptly, and we found that they had delayed in concluding their investigation, so we upheld this aspect of the complaint. However, as they had already apologised to Mrs C for this we did not make any recommendations.

Summary

Mr C’s water consumption went up steadily over several years, and when he started to enquire why this might be, he was told that he had a shared supply. Mr C investigated which property he shared a supply with, but was unable to establish this, partly due to difficulties accessing a neighbouring vacant property. However, when Business Stream’s surveyor was shown a meter in the neighbouring property, they continued to say that Mr C had a shared supply. After seven months of investigation, Mr C started to investigate the possibility of a leak, and one was found in the pipe between his property and the meter, underneath some pavement. It took about a week to find and fix this.

Mr C applied for a ‘burst allowance’ (a refund of some of the costs for the last six months of the leak). He was granted an allowance, but the calculation for the rebate was based on average water consumption during a period including when the leak was still being found and fixed. It did not, therefore, reflect the standard water consumption. Mr C complained that, had Business Stream highlighted the increased consumption earlier, and had they suggested the possibility of a leak when the issue was first raised with them, he would not have had to pay such high bills for so long. He also complained that the burst allowance was inappropriately calculated.

We found that Business Stream could not have known about Mr C’s raised water consumption level until he identified this, as the increase in usage was at a level that could have reflected changes in his business. However, we decided that they should have discussed the possibility of a leak with Mr C. Had they done this, he could have investigated and fixed the leak seven months earlier. We also decided that the burst allowance was inappropriately calculated, as the baseline for Mr C’s water consumption should not have included the period when the leak was still being fixed.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• refund Mr C the cost of the excess water consumption on his account for a specified period, based on an average water consumption relating to a period after the leak was fixed;
• refund Mr C the difference in the burst allowance, based on a lower average consumption for the period after the leak was fixed; and
• apologise to Mr C for the time and effort he incurred due to poor information and advice from Business Stream.

Summary

Mrs C owned a property, which she ran as a self-catering holiday let. In 2009 Scottish Water contacted her and explained that a water meter should be installed so that the business's water usage could be properly managed and charged. A meter was installed, but Mrs C was led to believe that her business used insufficient water to merit charges. In 2012, and again in 2013, Business Stream identified her property, through routine audits, as receiving water services without being charged (this is known as a gap site). Although Mrs C responded to their enquiries, they did not create a water account for the property until July 2013. Mrs C complained that she was firstly misled into believing there would be no water charges and that Business Stream then delayed setting up her water account, leading to a large unexpected water bill backdated to 2009.

We found that Mrs C was given appropriate information in 2009 about changes to the non-domestic water industry and the need to select a licensed provider to manage her business water usage. She missed an opportunity to select a provider at that stage, which contributed to the overall delay in the account being set up. However, when the property was identified as a gap site, we found there was then a clear delay on Business Stream's part in creating an account and starting to charge her for water. We were critical that there was also a lot of confusion about whether or not there was a meter in place, when there clearly was.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• apologise to Mrs C for the delay to setting up her water account and the confusion surrounding the amounts that should have been charged; and
• reimburse Mrs C 50 percent of the property's total water charges for the stated period.

Summary

Mrs C complained that Business Stream's water charges were incorrect. Her business premises shared a water supply with two neighbouring businesses. She had the main water meter and the usage through the two sub-meters was deducted to calculate her water usage. Although she tried hard to use minimal amounts of water, Mrs C found that her bills were disproportionately high compared to the neighbouring businesses. She, therefore, suspected a problem with her water meter and queried her bills with Business Stream. Investigations were carried out to check for leaks and Business Stream's engineers inspected the pipework in Mrs C's premises, but found no cause for her high bills. Mrs C complained to us that Business Stream did not do enough to identify the cause of these.

Based on the evidence submitted to us, there was no clear cause for Mrs C's high water usage and we upheld her complaints. We were satisfied that the sub-meters' usage was deducted correctly in all but a few cases and Business Stream agreed to review her account to ensure that her bills were accurate in this respect. There was, however, a significant spike in Mrs C's water usage at one stage, which coincided with a period where Business Stream failed to take the required two meter readings per year. Had they done so, the spike might have been identified sooner and Mrs C could have investigated and addressed this. There was no obvious evidence of a fault with Mrs C's meter, but we considered that Business Stream should have offered her a meter accuracy test, which they did not do.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• investigate the removal of one of the sub-meters from Mrs C's account and ensure that the correct deductions have been applied;
• issue a credit for an amount equivalent to 50 percent of Mrs C's volumetric water and waste water charges for the period between two specified dates; and
• provide Mrs C with details of their meter accuracy test procedure should she wish to pursue this in the future.

Summary

Mr C complained that Scottish Water failed to act promptly and carry out suitable inspections and repairs to the public sewer following flooding at a family property.

We found that Scottish Water had responded within a day of logging the report of the flooding, and carried out an initial CCTV inspection. They did not find a fault, so they had the area network checked to ensure that sewer levels allowed Mr C's supply to drain effectively. When this was confirmed to be acceptable, they carried out a more extensive CCTV inspection but still found nothing. Scottish Water concluded that the flood was caused by an overload of the sewer, possibly due to very localised and sudden heavy rain. As this was not something they could predict, they said that they could not be held responsible. Having reviewed Scottish Water's actions and considered the terms of their policies and responsibilities, we were satisfied that they acted appropriately and we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mrs C has a small business premises attached to her home, which she operates for six months of the year. There is no water supply in the premises and Mrs C pays for her domestic water through her council tax. The council also bill Mrs C for her non-domestic rates, for which she receives a 100 percent small business allowance. Mrs C complained that, despite this, Business Stream billed her for water services to the business premises, and that this decision was unreasonable.

During our investigation we considered all the information from Mrs C and Business Stream, including Business Stream's policies about billing and the dual use of property (where a property is used for both domestic and commercial purposes). We found that Business Stream's policy said that where a property is in dual use, and each part of it has a separate rateable value listing on the Scottish Assessors Association website, the proprietor has to make payments for water on both. As the parts of Mrs C's property were separately listed, we found that Business Stream were entitled to bill her, and we did not uphold her complaint.

Summary

Mrs C took a lease on a property in 2006, as she planned to open a small business. Although this had not happened, she kept the lease, hoping she would be able to start trading. Mrs C believed she had an agreement with Scottish Water that she would not pay water charges until she opened her business. She said that in early 2012, Business Stream phoned and said the agreement would be honoured but she then received an invoice backdated to 2008. Mrs C said she called them repeatedly about this and was told they would investigate and call back, but this never happened. After several months of calls, Business Stream wrote to say that as she used the property for storage she was liable for fixed water charges, whether she used water or not.

Mrs C complained that because of the agreement it was unreasonable for Business Stream to backdate charges, and that she was unhappy because they said they would honour it, then went back on the agreement. She also said they did not tell her that the council might exempt her property from rates (which has now happened) and because of this exemption, she said Business Stream should also waive their charges. Finally, she said they refused to acknowledge her complaint until she put it in writing, and when she did they did not respond to all her questions.

Business Stream said they were entitled to backdate the account as, under their policy, a customer using the property for storage is liable for fixed water charges. They had no record of any agreement with Scottish Water, or of Business Stream agreeing that she was not liable for water charges.

We did not uphold all of Mrs C's complaints. There was no written evidence of the agreement, and we found Business Stream were generally entitled to do what they had done although they had not given Mrs C any information when setting up her account. We did, however, uphold her complaints about an additional charge on the account, and about how they handled her concerns. We found that the additional charge was the cost of a disconnection survey. However, as they should have told her about this beforehand, they should not have added the charge to her account. We also found that for six months they delayed treating Mrs C's concerns as a complaint, although she repeatedly contacted them about this. As they had not dealt with this properly and their customer service records were incomplete and inaccurate, we said they should not have levied a recovery charge. We made a number of recommendations to improve service in future.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• review their procedures to ensure that a copy of their standard terms and conditions are supplied to all new customers at the point their account is opened;
• remove the survey charge from Mrs C's account;
• remove the recovery charge from Mrs C's account;
• credit a payment to Mrs C's account to reflect the distress, delay and inconvenience caused by their failure to treat the matter appropriately as a complaint;
• review their policy 'Leaving a property or Ending an Agreement' to ensure it defines clearly what actions they will take to verify a property is empty;
• visit the site to ascertain if the property is now empty; and
• apologise in writing for the failings our investigation identified.

Summary

Ms C complained that Business Stream calculated her water charges using the historic rateable value (RV) of her premises. She explained that they had been revalued since then and the RV was now at a lower figure than that used by Business Stream. In Ms C's view, Business Stream's invoices were incorrect and too high.

Our investigation found that Business Stream's policy is to use the RV from 31 March 2000 unless the property has been built or modified since then. The RV may also be adjusted if the official RV has been successfully appealed. Business Stream took the view that, as Ms C had not provided evidence that her property had been altered, the default RV was being correctly applied.

We found evidence to suggest that structural modifications to Ms C's property led to an increase in the building's RV in 2005 and Business Stream were using this, as permitted by their policy. However, our investigation also established that the RV was significantly reduced in 2009 after a successful appeal by the landlord. We were critical of Business Stream for not checking and confirming this with the assessor, and for failing to amend Ms C's account so that charges were based on the lower RV.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• apologise to Ms C for calculating the drainage charges for her business incorrectly; and
• confirm the date that the rateable value appeal was upheld with the assessor, recalculate Ms C's account using the lower rateable value from that date and issue a refund for any overpayments.

Summary

Mr C's company owned several office units at one address and a series of warehouse units at another. He complained about the rateable value (RV) Business Stream used for charging his properties at the first address and also about his difficulties in resolving a separate billing query at the second.

We upheld both of Mr C's complaints. The key issue about the RV was whether Business Stream should use the valuation from 2000 or 2012. Their policy said that the RV from 2000 was the default – although there were exceptions to this – but they said that, in this case, they were entitled to use the 2012 valuation. Mr C maintained that, because the properties had not been physically modified since they were built and had simply been leased to one tenant, they were wrong to use the 2012 valuation. After considering the evidence, on balance, we took the view that Business Stream's use of the 2012 RV was not in accordance with their RV policy.

There had been a considerable amount of correspondence about the billing query involved in the second complaint. Mr C had been in touch with several staff members and there was a delay because of their initial view about the charges involved. Business Stream then made enquiries of their wholesaler and changed their view on this. Although the issue was resolved we found that, on balance, their administrative handling of this fell below a reasonable standard.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• recalculate and backdate Mr C's account based on the appropriate rateable value in line with their rateable value policy; and
• apologise to Mr C for the unreasonable delay in resolving his complaints about their charges.

Summary

Company C complained on behalf of their client (Mrs A) who was receiving bills for non-domestic water charges, although she said she had no water facilities in the outbuilding that she used for her business. Mrs A said that as she paid her domestic water through her council tax and the business premises had no water facilities she should not be charged business rates.

Our investigation found that there were two entries for the premises on the Scottish Assessors Association (SAA) website (which provides information about all properties in Scotland). One entry listed the premises as domestic, and the other listed the premises as business. This meant that Business Stream were correct to charge the business rates, based on their dual-use policy.