Water

Summary

Mr C’s farm has a water meter from which there is a series of sub-meters serving additional properties. Mr C was concerned that these were not all being deducted from his bill, and that he was being overcharged. He complained that Business Stream failed to take adequate steps to ensure that his water usage was accurately invoiced.

We considered all of the relevant documentation and made further enquiries of Business Stream. Our investigation found that when Mr C bought his farm, his water meter had five sub-meters attached. The usage of three of these was deducted from his bill, but Mr C was held responsible for the costs for the others. Business Stream had told Mr C that the water meters were not installed by Scottish Water and were not in their ownership, so they were not in a position to remove consumption from his charges, which was a private matter for him to resolve. However, after we asked Business Stream more about this, they said they had since learned from Scottish Water that there had been an error and that they in fact owned all five sub-meters. They had resolved this by cancelling all Mr C's previous invoices, removing the costs of all the sub-meters backdated to when he bought his farm, and sending him a new bill.

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream delayed issuing their invoice to him and was unhappy with their charges. Business Stream originally billed Mr C for water, waste water and drainage. However, when his landlord told them that Mr C paid water charges to him they amended their invoice to drainage charges only. Mr C was unhappy that the drainage charges were based on his property’s rateable value rather than his actual usage.

In terms of the time taken to issue their invoice, Business Stream confirmed that their wholesaler, Scottish Water, had given them Mr C’s details in December 2010. However, Business Stream did not take the necessary steps on receipt of this information and Mr C’s account was not opened until November 2012, when they sent him an invoice backdated to December 2010.

Our investigation found that although Mr C might not have known that Business Stream were the default provider of water services, that did not in itself make their charges invalid. However, we saw no evidence that Business Stream took any significant action when they were given Mr C’s details in December 2010 and on balance we upheld his complaint about the delay in issuing the invoice. In terms of charges, Business Stream showed us that they had acted in accordance with their policy by invoicing Mr C on the basis of his rateable value, and we did not uphold his second complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• apologise to Mr C for the delay in issuing their initial invoice.

Summary

Mr C rents a residential cabin, which is near a number of other cabins. He complained that he was the only occupier to pay Business Stream for water, that this was unfair and that he should be repaid all the money he has paid. He said he had been overcharged and that, without prior notice, Business Stream took an unexpectedly large amount from his account.

We considered all the complaints correspondence, a statement of Mr C's account from 2003, meter readings and copies of Business Stream's computerised records. We also made formal enquiries of Business Stream.

Our investigation found that Mr C paid his bills by direct debit and that, as usual, he was notified of the larger bill at least two weeks before the money was taken from his account. He told us that he had not expected the bill to be any different from previous ones and was not concerned about it. It was not clear whether he had in fact looked at the invoice but, as we found that the information appeared to have been available to him, we did not uphold this complaint.

We found that the bill was particularly high because most of Mr C's previous bills were based on estimated readings. When actual readings were taken, this showed that previous bills had been underestimated. We found no evidence from the readings that Mr C had been overcharged, although our investigation did confirm that he was the only person being billed by Business Stream, even though others appeared to have water services. Business Stream explained to us that they were working with Scottish Water to establish whether others also had a direct supply and should also be brought into charge to regularise this. Although Mr C was unhappy that he was billed while others were not, we did not find it appropriate that he should be reimbursed.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• provide the Ombudsman with a planned programme of the work required to regularise the situation.

Summary

Mrs C complained that Business Stream delayed in issuing their first bill to her. Mrs C had been in her property for nearly five years before she received her first water bill. During this time she thought that her water charges were covered by business rates, for which she had a small business exemption. Mrs C did not have a water meter and Business Stream calculated her bill for the five-year period based on the rateable value of her property. When she received the bill, Mrs C applied for a meter and this reduced her charges. She considered that her bill for the initial period would have been lower if she had been billed earlier, as she would have applied for a water meter earlier.

It was clear from the evidence that Business Stream had not been aware that Mrs C had moved into the property, and only identified that it was no longer vacant when they carried out an audit. We found that they should have had a better process in place during this period for them to identify premises that were no longer vacant. Although we consider that there is at least some onus on the customer to notify Business Stream that they have moved into or occupy a property and that they have a duty to ensure that bills are paid, on balance, we upheld the complaint. Business Stream had apologised for the delay in contacting Mrs C and had confirmed that they now have a process in place to identify occupied properties that were previously vacant.

Mrs C also complained that Business Stream refused to use average meter readings to calculate her charges for the backdated period. We were satisfied that Business Stream assessed her charges in line with their policy on this. They also told Mrs C that she could pay the arrears back over 48 months. Having carefully considered the matter, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint, although we made a related recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• review the outstanding arrears when the new policy on backdating arrears is published.

Summary

Mrs C complained that Business Stream unreasonably imposed fixed charges on her for a period during which she had not had a water supply. Business Stream did not dispute that the property's water supply had been turned off due to a leak, but said that Mrs C was still liable for the fixed charges on the bill. Mrs C said that the valve had been faulty and the meter had been the wrong type. She said that the valve would not open to allow water through the meter and that it had been manually adjusted by a Scottish Water representative when he attended the property. Mrs C believed that the meter and valve originally supplied by Scottish Water were not fit for purpose and that as she had no connection to the network she was not liable for any fixed charges.

Our investigation found that there was no evidence in the reports from Business Stream or Scottish Water representatives to support Mrs C’s account. The meter was described as fully operational and no mention was made of any adjustment or repair to the valve. The meter had been replaced so that it was lower in the ground, which would reduce the risk of it freezing during cold weather. We found it reasonable for Business Stream to conclude that Mrs C had had a continuous connection to the water network, and for them to apply fixed charges to her account.

Summary

Mrs C complained on behalf of her mother (Mrs A), who owns a farm. She said that there had been an interruption in the water supply, yet Business Stream's charges were excessive compared with the normal usage. She said that at the time contractors were replacing the ring mains nearby. Scottish Water had given her mother no advance notice of the works, and when Mrs C approached the contractors to complain about the loss of water supply, they said they were unaware they had caused this. Further problems had arisen when the water was reconnected because an air lock was created. Mrs C said that Mrs A had to engage a plumber to fix this. When she raised the matter with Scottish Water, she was told that they believed that the high water consumption was due to an air lock, and they refused to accept responsibility for the high bill.

When we made enquiries of Business Stream, who are the service provider, it was confirmed that if planned works would cause disruption to supply, customers should receive 48 hours' notice. In this case, Business Stream said that Scottish Water had maintained that no works had been carried out in the locality. Business Stream had, however, noted that Mrs C had provided evidence that a neighbour had received notice of works at the time of the interruption to the supply, and this had not been followed up. Business Stream told us that they would investigate this further. They also offered, as a goodwill gesture, to reduce the disputed invoice to the usual charge, and to apologise to Mrs A for the upset she had experienced as a result of the complaint. We were satisfied that this provided a satisfactory resolution to Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that Business Stream were unreasonably pursuing her for water bills in excess of the service she was receiving from them for a small art studio she was renting. She said that she did not have a water supply there, but did have shared use of a toilet and sink. Ms C also said that some tenants had only been billed for surface water and drainage and others had not been billed at all.

Business Stream had told Ms C that where there are several units with their own rateable value using the same communal facilities, this can be charged in one of two ways. The first is where a bulk meter is in place serving the full property. This can be invoiced directly to the property owner if they agree to this and each tenant then pays for their own property and roads drainage, with the property owner recouping water and waste water charges from the tenants through a service charge. The second is where there is not a meter, and each tenant is charged for the full unmeasured services based on the rateable value of the unit that they occupy. In response to our enquiries, Business Stream sent us a copy of an email they had received from the property owner. This said that he did not want the water for the building to be metered. The property owner also said that they stressed to all tenants that their water rates were calculated using the rateable value of their individual studios.

We found that it had been reasonable for Business Stream to calculate Ms C's bill using the rateable value for the studio. This was in line with their billing policy and the rules that govern all providers in the non-domestic water industry in Scotland. In view of this, we did not uphold the complaint. Business Stream also confirmed to us that they had not been billing tenants of the building consistently, and that they were taking action to resolve this. They had asked for the accounts of properties that were not being charged for water, waste water and drainage to be reopened, as they had been closed incorrectly.

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream failed to bill him correctly for his water use. Our investigation found that there had been a number of errors in the bills issued to him. His meter had been exchanged, but there was a delay in issuing bills based on the readings from the replacement meter. When this was corrected, Business Stream used the wrong rate for his waste water charges. This brought about a significant increase in Mr C's bills over the next two years. However, when this was corrected, a further bill was issued based on an incorrect meter reading. In view of these errors, we upheld Mr C's complaint. However, we were satisfied that Business Stream had corrected the errors before Mr C brought his complaint to us. They had written to him to apologise and explained that they used complaints to improve the service they provide. They also credited a payment to Mr C's account as a gesture of goodwill for the inconvenience that the matter had caused him.

Mr C also complained that Business Stream had not handled his complaint appropriately. We found that they had responded to the issues Mr C had raised, but had delayed in issuing the response. In their update letters, they had provided timescales for responding that they were then unable to meet. However, they had apologised for the delays. Although we upheld Mr C's complaints, we did not find it necessary to make any recommendations in view of the action that Business Stream had already taken.

Summary

Mr C said that, without explanation, Business Stream began billing him for water and water services. He said he tried to obtain an explanation, but was met with only further demands for payment. Mr C said that he eventually began making payment and also paid towards the arrears that had accrued, but Business Stream insisted that he pay the account in full. Mr C complained that this was unreasonable as Business Stream said in their documentation that they would allow payment terms. He said that, as the owner of a small business, he had been put under extreme stress and pressure.

Our investigation found that, although the first invoice sent to Mr C in April 2011 was incorrectly based on unmetered charges, it was quickly corrected after an employee phoned Business Stream about the error. The next bill, based on metered charges, was correct. Mr C did not pay anything, and over the next months Business Stream tried unsuccessfully to contact him. In late March 2012, they notified Mr C of their intention to discontinue his supply. Mr C then contacted Business Stream to say that he had not received any water bills and they sent him copies. However, Mr C paid only £250, and disputed what he should pay. He continued to do so despite further demands from Business Stream, and although they told him about the charges that would be added to his bill because of the delay in payment. Mr C then asked to pay his account over an extended period, but Business Stream refused, on the basis that he had only paid £250 since the corrected bill was issued in December 2011. We did not uphold his complaint, as we found that Business Stream had acted in accordance with their policy, which had been appropriately applied.

Summary

For three years, Mr C's business premises had operated without paying for water and drainage services because he had not identified a service provider and set up an account. When, after an audit, Business Stream became aware that the property was occupied, they issued Mr C with invoices for water and drainage services for the period of his occupation. Mr C asked to pay the bill in instalments. He then complained that Business Stream would not accept his offer and, when he found that he could not meet the payment plan he had agreed, unreasonably refused to agree to renegotiate it. He also complained that: Business Stream were unreasonable in not agreeing to revise their charges after he asked for a reassessment following the fitting of a water meter; that their charges did not reflect the probable usage; and that they had unreasonably refused to agree to take into account that his business premises were closed when there was a leak from an upstairs property, and a flood in his premises.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that when Mr C had not made payment as promised, Business Stream had told him that they were prepared to renegotiate his payment plan to extend the time for payment to 18 months, but he had not responded to this offer. They had told Mr C that they could not apply a retrospective reassessment of their charges, and this is consistent with our understanding of their process. Having considered their policy on what should happen when business premises are closed, we were also satisfied that Business Stream dealt with Mr C's request consistently under the relevant policy.