Water

Summary

Mr C complained about the way in which Business Stream calculated the charges for water and waste services on a small studio he rented for his business, based on the rateable value of the studio. Mr C said that it had no water supply and the only water supply in the building was in common areas, which were the responsibility of the property owner. He said that the property owner agreed with him that he had been charged incorrectly.

Business Stream had told Mr C that if the property owner put a water meter in the building, they could consider removing the water and waste water elements from his charges, but this would only apply from the date the meter was installed. In response to our enquiries, Business Stream sent us a copy of an email they had later received from the property owner, saying 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 Mr 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.

Summary

Mr C and Mr D owned a restaurant and the upstairs residential flat. They complained to Business Stream that the restaurant's water meter also measured the flat's consumption. Although Mr C and Mr D knew that they had to pay commercial rates for their restaurant's water consumption, this meant that they were paying for the water in both the restaurant and the flat at commercial rates.

In response to their complaint, Business Stream explained that where a property has both a commercial and residential element (and a corresponding rateable value and council tax banding) it is classed as 'dual use'. In such cases, their policy says that all consumption (including that of the flat) is charged commercially and the restaurant can recharge the flat for its proportionate share. Business Stream also explained that Mr C and Mr D could request that the water charges be removed from the flat's council tax, and that they were satisfied that they had billed them appropriately, based on the information they had.

Although our investigation showed that Business Stream had billed Mr C and Mr D in accordance with their policy, when we took all the evidence into account we did not consider that the policy applied in this case. This was because the flat and the restaurant were two separate properties (as opposed to one property with a commercial and a residential part). We, therefore, took the view that they should not be classed as a 'dual use' property. We upheld the complaint and made two recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• contact their customers to explain their reassessment process; and
• consider, if their customers amend their pipework and apply for reassessment, backdating any reduction in their charges.

Summary

Mrs C complained that Scottish Water had acted unreasonably by asking her to remove concrete blocks and fencing from her land, which they said were restricting access to a water main. We found that under the relevant statutory powers and case law, Scottish Water were entitled to ask Mrs C to remove the blocks, as they were on top of the main, but that there was some confusion about the fencing. Scottish Water's records referred to temporary fencing around the property, but Mrs C said that the fence had been in position for over 35 years, and although it had recently been replaced, it was of the same dimensions and at the same location as the previous fence.

When we asked Scottish Water about this, they said they would need to investigate. However, they then failed to do so satisfactorily. Our investigation found that Scottish Water were not sufficiently clear about the position of the fence in relation to the water main before asking Mrs C to move it. We considered that they should have clarified this before they wrote asking her to do so, so we upheld this aspect of the complaint. We also found that they delayed in responding to her complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Water:

• issue a written apology to Mrs C for asking her to move the fence before confirming its position;
• visit Mrs C's property and carry out a satisfactory investigation into whether the fence in question is simply a replacement fence, and whether it needs to be moved in order that they can protect/access their assets;
• consider if Mrs C is entitled to financial redress under their code of practice for the delay in responding to her complaint; and,
• make the relevant staff aware of our findings.

Summary

Mrs C complained that Business Stream had charged her for water at her business premises. She took the view that her lease meant that water charges were her landlord's responsibility, and pointed out that her unit had no direct water supply.

We found that although Mrs C may have been unaware that Business Stream were the default water supplier, this did not make the charges invalid. In addition, Business Stream had explained to her that, in line with their billing policy, although she had no direct water supply, the communal water supply (for example to the toilets) was apportioned among the tenants.

During our investigation, Business Stream provided us with a copy of their billing policy, which we found they had applied correctly. They had also considered Mrs C's lease, although they had taken an alternative view of its meaning. As only a court could give a ruling on the rights and responsibilities under the lease, and as Business Stream had taken the lease into account and acted in line with their policy, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint. We did, however, make two recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• consider waiving their recovery charge; and
• take steps to ensure frontline staff provide accurate information about Business Stream's charges.

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream delayed three years in invoicing him for water services. He believed that if they had contacted him at the start, he would not be facing such a large bill. Since receiving the invoice, Mr C had used Business Stream's website to assess probable usage during the period, had a water meter had been installed, and calculated that his usage was about half of what he was being charged. His complaint was, therefore, not only about delay but a missed opportunity to have the option of having a water meter fitted earlier. Mr C considered that Business Stream had been unreasonable in not being willing to reach an appropriate solution.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found no evidence that, after moving into the premises, he had contacted Business Stream or another water service provider. Business Stream accepted that significant time had passed before they issued an invoice, but said that Mr C could have made them aware earlier that he was using the premises, in which case they would have begun billing him sooner. They accepted that their system of identifying vacant sites had not been robust, but confirmed that in 2013 they put in place new processes, which should ensure that in future they bill customers in a more timely way.

We also found that Business Stream had fully considered Mr C's request for a reduction in his bill, and had told him that they could not do so. This was because they had (appropriately) used the rateable value of the premises to calculate usage because a water meter was not installed and because the amount of water used could not be accurately calculated. To do anything other than this would have been inconsistent with how Business Stream treated other businesses.

Summary

Mr C, who is a solicitor, complained on behalf of his client (Mr A) about Business Stream's charges for water services at several properties for which Mr A's firm acted as landlord. We established that there had been an error on the account but that Business Stream had put this right before the complaint was submitted to us. We also noted that there had been an undercharge on part of the account. In the circumstances, we did not uphold the complaint.

Mr C had also complained to us about Business Stream's complaints handling. Business Stream acknowledged that this had not always been of the standard they would have expected and offered Mr C an ex-gratia payment in recognition of this. Although we upheld Mr C's complaint, we decided to make no recommendations as we had recently been in discussions with Business Stream about complaints handling. They had agreed to arrange an independent external audit of their complaints process, and so we were satisfied that the problems were being addressed.

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream had unreasonably invoiced him for a period when his premises had no connection to the public water or waste water network. He told us that Scottish Water had disconnected the water in the street and, as a result, he had no connection to the public network.

We did not uphold his complaint. During our investigation, Business Stream explained that Mr C had not connected his property to the public water supply while carrying out renovations to his premises, although the water supply had been there. Although Mr C provided evidence that the water had been turned off in the street, there was no evidence that it was Scottish Water who had done so, and they had confirmed that they had no record of turning the water off or on in the street at Mr C's business premises. We also found that the water could be turned off by another utility provider or by someone with access to the relevant tool, which could be purchased from a DIY store.

Summary

Mr C had complained about aspects of his billing, which Business Stream then resolved after we became involved. However, we had concerns about their handling of his complaint. Mr C explained his perspective of this in detail, and Business Stream acknowledged that their service to him was not what they would have expected. They apologised and offered him a payment. However, this outcome took almost three months to provide, needed the intervention of senior staff in SPSO to obtain, was very brief and did not indicate any intention to take action to help avoid a recurrence.

Although we upheld the complaint, after careful thought we decided not to make a recommendation about complaints handling. This was because we published an investigation report in December 2013 (case 201300283), in which we upheld a complaint about Business Stream's complaints handling and made a recommendation that they arrange an independent external audit of their complaints process and how it was being applied. Business Stream accepted this, and were also at the time completing an internal review of their process. We were, therefore, satisfied that they were addressing the issue.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• apologise to Mr C for their poor handling of his case.

Summary

Mr C complained about Business Stream's handling of his account. He had wanted to change water supplier but could not as his account was not 'tradable'. (This is a particular status that a water or waste water connection must have in the market to allow a bill to be issued.) Mr C was unhappy with this and complained about subsequent delay by Business Stream in advising him that his account had been made tradable. He was also unhappy that Business Stream had applied a recovery charge, and had pursued recovery action when they had told him no action would be taken, given his circumstances.

We found that the delay in Mr C's account becoming tradable had prevented him from changing supplier, and that Business Stream delayed in telling him when his account became tradable. They had, however, apologised, removed the recovery charge and placed a credit on his account in recognition of the inconvenience caused to him. Business Stream had explained that they had made an initial recovery charge because they received incomplete information, and a payment Mr C had made had not been applied to his account. They had removed the charge after Mr C sent them information. We found no evidence that they had told him they would not take normal recovery action, when later payments were not made to his account.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• reinforce the apology and financial redress already offered to Mr C by crediting his account with 50 percent of the outstanding balance on the account.

Summary

When Mr C and his wife moved into their house in 2005 they started a bed and breakfast business. A water supply meter had previously been installed and Mr C told Scottish Water that he wished to retain that supply. The market in licensed water suppliers opened up in 2008, but Business Stream (the default licensed supplier) did not contact Mr C until 2011. They then did not invoice him until March 2013 when they charged him for water and waste water for the five years from 1 April 2008. The readings on which Mr C's charges were calculated were initially inaccurate and in total some 12 invoices were sent to him.

Mr C was dissatisfied with how Business Stream responded to his complaint and complained to us that they had failed to provide adequate, actual meter readings throughout the five year period and had failed to act promptly in respect of his bills. We upheld both of his complaints. Our investigation found that although eleven meter readings were taken between April 2007 and January 2013, Mr C did not receive a bill until March 2013, and when he did, it was wrong. Even though Mr C had contacted them in 2012 and established that water charges were appropriate, Business Stream still did not act quickly enough to let him know how much he was due to pay.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• apologise to Mr C for not taking action to resolve matters in 2012 and comply with his wish to go on to e-billing and direct payments, and for not responding to the matters he raised in one of his letters; and
• agree to settle on the basis of a particular invoice less a five percent sum in respect of e-billing reductions for consumption, and a suitable allowance for waste water charges at the time of a water supply leak, in terms of the Burst Allowance Policy.