Water

Summary

Mr C's company occupied two sites, one of which contained two buildings - a factory and separate offices. The bills for both sites were issued to the factory site address. The factory itself had been derelict since 2006 and was demolished in 2011. When it was demolished, Mr C paid Scottish Water to install a new supply point and a new water meter for the offices there. In November 2011, however, he received a separate bill for water usage at the site, backdated five years. Mr C complained to Business Stream that he had been incorrectly billed. He said the bill was inaccurate and showed a level of water usage that was far too high. He said that he had always paid bills promptly and that the company had not noticed they were only receiving bills for one site, instead of two. He also complained that Business Stream failed to deal with his complaint appropriately, as he repeatedly had to phone them to chase the complaint and Business Stream had taken many months to respond. He said that when Business Stream did issue the final response it was incorrect and they had to issue a revised bill. This had taken a further four months and Business Stream had not apologised for this.

Our investigation found that the bill issued to Mr C was supported by meter readings. It was also lower than an estimated bill from the last full year of billing in 2006. Business Stream explained that they had been unaware of the site as the account had been closed in error in 2006 when the factory was abandoned. As, however, the water meter also served the offices on the site, which had remained in use, the account should not have been closed. This had happened before Business Stream existed, and they were not responsible for that initial mistake. We did not uphold this complaint, as we concluded that the amount was not excessive and that Business Stream were entitled to issue a bill for the water usage on the site.

We did, however, find that Business Stream had failed to deal with the complaint appropriately. Mr C had disputed the invoice as soon as he received it and had repeatedly phoned to chase this up, but had not received a written response for nine months. Business Stream had taken over a year to send their final response, which was then inaccurate. We found that Business Stream had not established the facts around the case before trying to close it and had failed to treat the matter as a complaint, prolonging the case unnecessarily.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• apologise for the failings identified in our investigation; and
• credit Mr C's account with a payment of ten percent of the outstanding bill in recognition of the time and trouble caused to him in pursuing this matter.

Summary

Mr C was unhappy as he thought that Scottish Water had wrongly installed a water meter at his business in 2003. When he became aware of this, in 2012, he contacted Business Stream. They said that the meter was believed to have been installed correctly, and that Scottish Water would neither remove nor resite it. Mr C complained to us about this, as he believed that he had been unfairly paying for water used by the flats above his property for ten years and that he was entitled to a refund.

Our investigation found that Business Stream had wrongly categorised Mr C's property as dual use, which suggested that there was a connection between his commercial property and the residential properties. We found that the residential properties had been paying for water through their council tax, and that the properties were not connected. Business Stream had told Mr C that he should contact the owners of the residential properties, and ask them to request a refund of their council tax, to then pass on to Mr C to pay for the water bill. We took the view that this was unfair - Mr C's property had been wrongly categorised, he had paid for water he had not used and Business Stream and Scottish Water had not done enough to try and resolve the situation.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified in our investigation;
• consider backdating the revised billing arrangements for Mr C's business to 2003; and
• re-install Mr C's water meter so that it only records water consumption for his business.

Summary

In developing his property, Mr C wanted to build over Scottish Water pipework. Scottish Water approved this, subject to certain conditions, including a requirement that the materials to be used for part of the development could not be plastic. As the project was cost-critical and time-critical, Mr C went ahead on the basis of that decision but then expressed his dissatisfaction to Scottish Water, who reconsidered and decided that, although not their preferred option, they were prepared to offer a compromise in that some of the material in question could be plastic. Mr C complained that, by the time of the revised decision, it was too late for him to apply it and, as the revised decision was a cheaper option, he had suffered financial loss by having implemented the first decision. He considered they should have agreed this the first time.

We explained to Mr C that these were decisions for Scottish Water, not for us, and that our role was limited to considering whether their decision-making had been reasonable. We concluded that it had been. For example, there were many reasons for the first decision, so it was clear that Scottish Water had considered the matter carefully. When they issued that decision, it was up to Mr C to go back to them to see if there was scope for amendment. Mr C's project was at a point where cost and time were so critical that he felt he had to go ahead with the work on the basis of the first decision, without waiting to see whether amendment might be possible, but this was not Scottish Water's responsibility. When Scottish Water were approached, they considered Mr C's points carefully and reached a prompt decision to offer a compromise solution. In other words, it was not that their first decision had been wrong: rather, it was that they were prepared to try to accommodate Mr C by thinking of an alternative, which was an example of good complaints handling.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained to Scottish Water about a blocked drain, but were told that the problem was theirs to resolve as the blockage was on their property. Mr and Mrs C instructed contractors, who established that the problem lay under the public footpath and was for Scottish Water to address. Scottish Water later confirmed this as correct. Mr and Mrs C requested that Scottish Water reimburse their costs, and complained about delay in completing the work. Scottish Water refused, however, to refund the costs on the grounds that they had no legal liability. They did, however, apologise for and explain the delay. Mr and Mrs C continued to pursue their complaint both with us and Scottish Water, who reviewed the circumstances and offered Mr and Mrs C 50 percent of their costs.

During our investigation we took into account all the relevant documentation and made further enquiries of Scottish Water. Our investigation found that the blockage causing problems was indeed under the public footpath and was for Scottish Water to resolve. However, accessibility to the drain from Mr and Mrs C's' side was complicated by an existing shaft. In the circumstances, Scottish Water said that they had no alternative but to ask Mr and Mrs C to address this, at their own cost, to allow access. However, we found that Scottish Water could have asked to do this work themselves or installed an access chamber from the public side of the blockage which, while it would have increased the time taken, would have been at Scottish Water's cost. While Scottish Water ultimately offered to reimburse 50 percent of costs, they were entirely responsible for the blockage under the public footpath. We upheld Mr and Mrs C's complaints about the costs and the handling of the complaint, but not about delay, for which we found the explanation reasonable.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Water:

• repay the costs incurred;
• make a formal apology for the way in which the complaint was handled; and
• consider formulating a policy to cover circumstances where an ex-gratia payment may be required.

Summary

Mr C told us that, unknown to him, underground pipework had been leaking, and Business Stream had charged him for that water. He considered that the leak had been caused by incompetence on the part of Scottish Water when installing the pipework. He complained that it was unreasonable for Business Stream to charge him for the water lost through the leak.

Mr C had tightened up the joints in question before Scottish Water visited to look at the alleged leak. There was, therefore, no evidence that there had been a leak, and we found that it was appropriate for Business Stream not to take it into account when invoicing him. No evidence was available one way or the other about the standard of workmanship when installing the pipework, and the fact that Mr C had been unaware of any leak for some time did not mean that Business Stream were liable to resolve this. We were, therefore, satisfied that Business Stream had acted appropriately.

Summary

Mr C has a water tap in a lock-up which is separate from his house, and he told us that the water supply to the lock-up is metered. He told us that his water usage was minimal (for washing hands and brushes and the occasional cup of tea or coffee). He complained that Business Stream had unreasonably failed to provide his company with invoiced accounts based on actual water usage; continued to seek payment from him through direct debit; and had demanded an unspecified sum to disconnect the tap.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that Business Stream had carried out the requisite number of water readings each year. We also found that, while Mr C had cancelled his direct debit for payment to Business Stream, they remained his water provider, and they had not been at fault in continuing to issue invoices to Mr C for water used. During our investigation, Business Stream found that they had not investigated his complaint and, in recognition of this, credited a payment to Mr C's account, in line with their service standards.

Summary

Mr C owns a business that operates from premises that were formerly used a launderette. He said that he would have preferred a smaller meter, to reflect that his business would use less water than the previous one, but had been told that it would not be replaced. Mr C then complained to Business Stream when charges doubled because of an inexplicable spike in consumption. He complained to us because Business Stream would not accept that this was due to a fault in the meter, rather than to a problem on his premises which he had engaged a plumber to fix. They had also declined his request to replace the meter without charge.

Our investigation found that Business Stream had replaced the meter seven years before, and that it was the smallest meter that could be installed. Business Stream had sent out a field officer to investigate, and had advised Mr C to have the problem fixed, but they had no record that he had contacted them to confirm the work had been carried out and to ask for a leak allowance. We noted that they had given him advice about applying for a leak allowance, but we found that this advice could have been clearer, or Mr C could have been signposted to Business Stream's website. We asked Business Stream to ensure that this was done.

During the investigation, Mr C said that consumption had returned to normal, which suggested that there was no need to renew the meter. However, there remained a period when he was being charged for more than his business would normally use. After we contacted Business Stream, they reviewed the case and offered as a goodwill gesture to reduce the charge for the period when the spike was shown, to reflect normal usage. As Mr C was content with this, the complaint was resolved.

Summary

Mrs C's business occupies small premises next door to her domestic property. Her business does not have running water, sink or toilet and the water she uses for her business is obtained from her domestic property. Business Stream told Mrs C that because her business had access to water and waste water facilities in her property she was liable to pay for water services for business use. Mrs C questioned whether she was liable for charges as she did not have a direct water supply and only used a small amount of water for her business. She also said that she was previously told that in her circumstances she would not be charged.

During our investigation, Business Stream told us that they had no record of Mrs C previously being told that in the circumstances there would be no charge for the water she used for her business. They said they had reviewed her situation as a result of the complaint, but that her business did have access to water services in her domestic property. Although she was paying for the domestic element of these services, she was not paying for the services she used in connection with her business. We noted that her liability to pay for water for business use had been confirmed and did not uphold this complaint.

Mrs C also complained about the delay in an invoice being sent to her and said that, as a result, she received an invoice in 2013 backdated to 2010. We found that there had been a delay in the SPID (unique supply identification number) being created and her premises being set up on Business Stream's account. We also saw evidence that from 2011 Business Stream had sent Mrs C letters at her business premises, asking her to contact them. We could not, therefore, conclude that Business Stream were wholly responsible for the delay in the invoice but, on balance, we upheld the complaint as we were concerned that there was a delay of almost a year before the property was set up on Business Stream's billing system.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• apologise for the initial delay in setting up Mrs C's business property on their billing system; and
• contact Mrs C to discuss the repayment options available.

Summary

Mr C complained about the high level of charges on his company’s account since the installation of a water meter. He also complained that Business Stream had unreasonably invoiced his company for unmeasured charges before the meter was installed, and had added penalty charges while he was in dispute with them about the invoices.

As a result of our investigation, Business Stream told us that they were satisfied that it was correct to backdate Mr C’s company’s account. However, they had found that the date it was backdated to was wrong and he had been billed for a period before the account was opened. They had also found that they had not investigated the matter previously. We upheld the complaint, but we were satisfied that Business Stream had already provided redress through a goodwill gesture that reduced the balance on Mr C’s company’s account.

On the complaint that there had been an unexplained high level of usage since the meter was installed, there was no evidence to suggest that there had been a ‘spike’ in the usage, which would suggest a problem. As Business Stream offered to look further at the matter if Mr C could provide evidence to the contrary, we decided that there was no further action for us to take.

The complaint about penalty charges being added was resolved as Business Stream removed the recovery charges, and, in view of the inconvenience caused to Mr C, credited his account with a payment.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• apologise to Mr C for not investigating the matter when he raised it with them as a complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of a school about Business Stream's handling of the school's water account. He said that there was unreasonable confusion about metering and billing and unreasonable delay in resolving this. Mr C also complained that Business Stream failed to identify potential cost savings or to deal with a complaint about the issues he had raised. He was also concerned that the water meter was too large for the school's needs, and that although the meter was changed after the school applied for a downsize, the reduction in charges was not appropriately backdated.

During our investigation, Business Stream accepted that there had been confusion about billing and metering since the account was opened, that there had been an error in processing the application for a meter downsize and because of this the wrong meter had been installed. Because of these failings, we upheld this part of Mr C’s complaint. As a result of their error, Business Stream offered the school redress. Based on the evidence provided, we were satisfied that Business Stream had responded to this part of the complaint and had taken action. We found no evidence that they had not followed their policy in relation to the backdating of the reduced charges.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• issue an apology to the school for their handling of these matters; and
• as a matter of urgency, make the necessary amendments to the school's account and provide in writing a full breakdown of all charges.