Water

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream failed to properly invoice his company for outstanding water charges, unreasonably disconnected the water supply and failed to respond reasonably to his contacts with them.

When we investigated this, we found that Business Stream had written to his company in February 2013 introducing themselves as the water supplier and asking him to contact them. In August they began sending him invoices, reminders and final notices, and at the end of January 2014, they sent a disconnection warning letter. About two weeks later, Mr C made his first contact with them by completing an online form, saying he was very unhappy with the charges and had contacted the SPSO. An officer from Business Stream tried to contact Mr C about his concerns but received no response and closed the case. Business Stream disconnected the supply in early March.

Having reviewed all the evidence, we were satisfied that Business Stream properly invoiced Mr C for his company's water charges, and noted how many times they contacted him about these. However, with the exception of the online form, and a single phone call, Mr C did not attempt to resolve this with them or complain until after they disconnected his supply. We reviewed the disconnection process and found that it was in line with the code of conduct laid down by the Water Industry Commission for Scotland. As we found no evidence to suggest that Business Stream had not complied with their responsibilities, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream were using the wrong rateable value (RV) in their charges for his wife's business. He said that they had refused to recognise that the valuation had decreased when the unit was renovated and made smaller in 2003, and he believed they were basing their charges on out-of-date plans. Mr C said that Business Stream should be using the current RV, which was less than half of what they were using to calculate charges.

Our investigation found that Business Stream had followed their policy, and acted on advice received from the relevant assessor. We checked with the assessor and it was verified that, whilst there had been a substantial reduction in the RV from the original figure, this was due to a general revaluation and not a material change to the property. In the circumstances, there was no evidence that Business Stream's decision was based on wrong information.

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream had inaccurately measured his water consumption. He thought he had been overcharged because a neighbouring property's water supply had not been removed from his invoice. Business Stream visited the property and found that a submeter on his neighbour's ground had been bypassed. They fitted a new one, took a reading from it and deducted money from Mr C's bill. However, Mr C was not happy about how they calculated this.

After Mr C complained, Business Stream had reviewed the consumption and agreed to make a further credit to Mr C's account. They also provided evidence that the credits on his account were backdated to when the problem was first reported. They confirmed that the metering was now correct, and we were satisfied that they had sorted this out. After we became involved Business Stream said they would remove a recovery charge from Mr C's account and make him an ex-gratia payment, as they recognised they had not communicated with him well, and had taken too long to fix the problem. We were, however, concerned at the length of time this had taken and the efforts Mr C had to go to in pursuing the matter, and we upheld his complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• apologise to Mr C for their handling of the matter.

Summary

Mr C complained about the delay in Scottish Water providing a water connection to his property. It took almost five months from his initial application for the connection to be completed. When Scottish Water responded to Mr C's complaint – and to our investigation – they acknowledged that there had been a delay. However, they also said that providing the connection was complicated because of the physical features of the land, as well as where Mr C's property's was on it. They explained that previous enquiries about connecting the property had been declined for these reasons.

In investigating Mr C's complaint, our role was to consider whether there was evidence of administrative fault, omission or failure by Scottish Water that meant the delay in providing the connection was unreasonable in the circumstances. We found that they had been in contact with him throughout the process and, taking everything into account, we did not uphold his complaint. We did, however, find that Scottish Water extended the delay by a couple of weeks because of an internal processing error about a repair to be done to their water main (although we noted that the repair was needed because of work done by Mr C's contractor). In light of this we made two recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Water:

• confirm the steps they have taken to address internal communications, as detailed in their response to the Ombudsman; and
• consider refunding a portion of their connection fee to Mr C in light of their failure to raise a service request for the work on the water main.

Summary

Mr C's house is behind, and next to, his business premises. He pays for domestic water usage through his council tax. Although he does not have a water connection to his business, Business Stream told him that he had to pay a water charge. Mr C complained that Business Stream were acting unreasonably, and that they did not respond reasonably to his representations.

We considered all the relevant information, including the complaints correspondence, a statement of Mr C's account, Business Stream's computerised records and their policy on dual use. We also made enquiries of Business Stream.

Our investigation found that both Mr C's business and domestic premises are separately rated and were publicly recorded as such. We also noted that commercial premises require access to water for health and safety purposes. Business Stream's policy is that where a property has both a rateable value notice and a separate council tax banding notice it is classed as 'dual-use premises'. Council tax charges should exist for the property, but charges are still applied by Business Stream on the full rateable value. Although Mr C considered this unfair and did not accept this explanation, we confirmed that he was being treated in accordance with Business Stream's policy and did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream charged him for two meters in his business property. Business Stream had sent Mr C his first bill six months after he moved in. He noticed that there were two meters registered, which meant that he was paying two sets of fixed charges for them. He applied to have one of the meters removed, but was unhappy that this was only done six months later. Business Stream then charged him for the full period that the second meter was in place.

We found that there had been two separate water supplies to Mr C's property when he moved in and two meters were required to ensure that all of the consumption was captured. When Mr C applied to have the second meter removed, he was told that he would have to make changes to the internal pipework to ensure that all of the consumption was captured, as internal pipework is the responsibility of the property owner. Several visits were required to the property before it was agreed that the required changes had been done and the second meter could be removed.

We were satisfied that two meters had been required, as there were two separate water supplies before the internal pipework was changed. It was, therefore, reasonable for Business Stream to calculate Mr C's initial charges based on two meters. However, when Mr C applied to have the second meter removed, there were delays in progressing the application, and we upheld Mr C's complaint for this reason. In response to our enquiries, Business Stream agreed to waive the fixed charges for the second meter from the date Mr C applied for it to be removed.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• waive the fixed charges for the second meter from the date Mr C applied for this to be removed; and
• issue a written apology to him for the delays in taking action to have the second meter removed.

Summary

Ms C complained on behalf of her father (Mr A) about a bill he received from Business Stream. Mr A owned a small chalet, which he occasionally let out. It was not used for more than a few months each year, and the water was switched off during the winter. Mr A had a water meter installed in 2008, which should have been read twice a year.

At first Mr A received estimated bills, which were very low. The first actual reading was in November 2009, and confirmed the low water usage. From then until March 2013, however, no readings were taken and Mr A continued to receive low estimated bills. The March 2013 reading suggested much higher water usage than expected but, as it was not put on Business Stream's systems, Mr A was not told. The next reading was in August 2013, after which he was billed for more than £4,000. After Mr A phoned them to complain, Business Stream acknowledged that they had not read the meter for nearly four years, and reduced his bill by about £2,000. They did not, however, investigate why there was such a high reading on the meter. Mr A had checked and said that there were no obvious leaks and no leaks had been repaired.

We upheld Ms C's complaints. We criticised Business Stream for not taking meter readings for so long, and that when they finally did take a reading it was not put on their systems. Had Business Stream applied their policies properly, the excess consumption should have been identified within six months, and could have been investigated and resolved within a further six months. We were also critical that Business Stream did not contact Mr A to explain what had happened, and that they did not investigate why the meter was showing such high water use. We made recommendations to address this.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• take steps to ensure that all meter readings are submitted onto their systems within four days, as stipulated in their metering policy;
• check the accuracy of Mr A's meter, cover all costs related to this check, and based on the findings of the check, apply either recommendation A or B below;
• (A) if the meter is found to be inaccurate, credit Mr A's account for the full cost of excess water consumption across the period from November 2009 to the present, and provide evidence of this; or (B) if the meter is found to be accurate, credit Mr A's account for the excess water consumption between November 2010 and August 2013, based on average consumption from November 2009 to August 2013, and provide evidence of this;
• review the clarity of their bills to ensure that it is clear when a bill is based on two estimated readings; and
• apologise to Mr A for the failings identified in our investigation.

Summary

Mr C, who is the chair of a museum, complained that Business Stream consistently invoiced the museum incorrectly for water costs. Business Stream acknowledged that this was the case and explained that they had taken steps to correct the error and adjusted the billing to ensure that the museum were not financially penalised for their mistakes.

We considered the information provided by both parties and, on the basis that Business Stream had repeatedly failed to invoice the museum correctly, we upheld the complaint. As, however, they had now corrected the billing, had acknowledged and apologised for their mistakes and had ensured that the museum had not lost out financially, we made no recommendations for further action.

Summary

Business Stream were the licensed provider for Mr C's business for six months. During that time, he questioned his water charges, as his business used only a minimal amount. Business Stream encouraged Mr C to investigate the possibility of a leak on his pipework, but nothing was found. Mr C then registered with a new provider and further investigations were carried out. These showed that his water supply also served a number of neighbouring residential properties, and that he had been charged for the water they used. Although his new provider sorted this out, Mr C said that Business Stream had overcharged him, and he complained that they did not handle his water account correctly or efficiently. He also complained that his business incurred unnecessary expense in paying for a plumber to investigate a non-existent leak.

We found that Business Stream had to estimate the opening meter reading based on historic information, as they were not contacted when Mr C's business moved into the property. This led to inaccurate charges, but these were quickly recalculated when accurate meter readings were available. Given the information available to them at the time, and Mr C's concerns about the amounts being charged, we considered it reasonable for Business Stream to suggest that he ask a plumber to investigate. It was also appropriate that this was done at his business's expense. It was not until after Mr C had left Business Stream that the issue with his pipework was identified.

We did think that in the circumstances Business Stream could have done more to reassess Mr C's account. During our investigation, however, they offered to reduce his bill by an amount that we considered fair, so we made no recommendations.

Summary

Miss C told us that Scottish Water did not provide clear information on their website about the responsibility when there is a problem with pipework serving a domestic property. When she experienced sewage coming up through the drain in her newly fitted shower, she checked the website and noted the advice given that ‘blockage on private land is the responsibility of the owner’. Having checked with her neighbours, who did not have a problem, she assumed the blockage was only in her property, and paid private contractors to resolve this. When, however, she looked further into this she said that she established that Scottish Water’s website was not fit for purpose as she should have reported the problem to them. She said that although she complained, the Scottish Water website continued to contain incorrect and/or misleading information in relation to ‘Pipe Responsibility’. She was also unhappy with Scottish Water’s handling of her complaint, and complained that they had only offered her partial reimbursement of her costs. She also told us that they had not confirmed assurances they had given to her that her concerns about a neighbour’s drain had been looked into.

When we investigated the complaint, Scottish Water told us that, while they provided a wide range of information about pipe responsibility for waste water flooding, the information on their website about pipe responsibility might not have been as easy to locate as it could have been. A review had been carried out, and they planned to add a further weblink to ensure that information was accessible to all customers. With regard to the cost of fixing the problem, Scottish Water told us that they had acted correctly. They said that because they had not carried out the investigations they had not been able to determine the impact, cause or origin of the problem, and this was reflected in their offer to reimburse half the costs. However, as an offer of goodwill, and in recognition of the decision that the webpage should be reviewed, they said they would now cover the full costs of the work. Scottish Water accepted that they had not followed up the assurances they had given Miss C about a neighbour’s drain, and confirmed that a site visit had since been undertaken, which confirmed that there were no issues needing attention. We agreed that these actions provided a resolution to Miss C's complaint.