Water

Summary

Mr C complained about the way Business Stream had calculated a reduction from his water bill, following a pipe burst in his caravan park.

In response to our enquiries and additional evidence provided by Mr C, Business Stream agreed to further reduce his bill. They also agreed to cancel a recovery charge they had applied to Mr C's account. Mr C told us that he would accept this offer and withdrew his complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of a religious establishment that their charity status did not transfer with them when they moved premises. Mr C said that they were unaware of water charges because they had not been billed for eight years, and when they complained, they were told that it was the responsibility of the occupier to advise the licensed provider that they had moved. Mr C said that this did not explain the delay, and noted that an application for exemption would not be retrospective.

When we put the complaint to Business Stream, they reviewed the case and told us that they had decided to remove the waste water charges that made up the majority of the bill. They later told us that, as a goodwill gesture, the balance would be cancelled, providing a satisfactory outcome for Mr C.

Summary

Ms C complained about a delay in Business Stream issuing their first invoice. Although Ms C’s company had occupied the property for several years, Business Stream issued their first invoice in May 2013, and backdated it to October 2010.

When the non-domestic water industry was opened up to competition in April 2008, Scottish Water became the wholesaler and businesses were required to purchase their water through licensed providers. Business Stream are the default licensed provider and Scottish Water passed Ms C’s details to them in October 2010. However, Business Stream did not identify Ms C as the occupant until an internal audit of April 2013, despite their representative having visited the site in December 2012. The representative had logged the site as being vacant.

We noted that Ms C may not have known that Business Stream were the default provider before they contacted her. However, we also considered the responsibilities on both parties. This is because Business Stream have a legal duty to collect water charges - which they can legally backdate for up to five years - and so their delay had to be weighed up against the fact that Ms C could have contacted them.

We upheld Ms C's complaint as we found that the evidence did not indicate that Business Stream had taken any significant steps in relation to her premises, despite Scottish Water giving them her details in October 2010. Although the evidence indicated that they acted promptly to identify and send their invoice to Ms C after their 2013 audit, we considered that, on balance, they took an unreasonable length of time to issue a first invoice.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• apologise to Ms C for the delay in issuing their initial invoice; and
• confirm that steps will be taken to ensure that, when their staff contact customers who are yet to be invoiced, they explain that invoices will be backdated (where relevant).

Summary

Mr C complained about a delay in Business Stream issuing his first invoice. He was also unhappy that water charges were based on his property’s rateable value, as he did not have a water meter.

Our investigation found that Mr C’s property had been a ‘gap site’ (a site that has never been billed for water). As a result, Scottish Water (Business Stream’s wholesaler) had told Business Stream in August 2010 that the property was receiving water without being charged. Mr C had moved into the property in March 2011, but Business Stream did not invoice him until after they visited the site in January 2013. Although Mr C may not have known that Business Stream were the default water provider, that did not automatically mean that their charges were invalid and so, in deciding his complaint, we considered the responsibilities of both parties. We found no evidence to indicate that Business Stream took any significant steps with regard to the property before the site visit. We considered that, when viewed as a whole, Business Stream took an unreasonable length of time to issue the first invoice and we upheld Mr C’s first complaint.

Business Stream explained that their charges were originally based on his property’s rateable value, but said that after Mr C submitted a reassessment application, a meter had been installed and his charges were now based on that. We found no evidence that Business Stream calculated the charges inappropriately before the meter was installed. However, there was some confusion about the reassessment process which may – at least in part - have contributed to a slight delay in the meter being installed. Although we did not uphold this complaint we made a recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• consider whether an adjustment to the unmetered balance would be appropriate, in light of the confusion over the reassessment process.

Summary

Mrs C complained that Business Stream had incorrectly calculated her bills after a leak was identified. She said that, despite being given an allowance (a 'burst allowance') to write off some of the excess water use caused by this leak, her business bill was still equivalent to five years water use.

Our investigation found that Business Stream had correctly calculated the bill. The leak had taken seven months to repair, but the maximum period that could be covered by the allowance was six months. Accordingly, Mrs C was liable for one month of excessive water usage, and this had increased her bill. Business Stream had acted reasonably and had challenged the burst allowance with Scottish Water (who are responsible for calculating these). However, we found that burst allowances are an entirely discretionary award, and Scottish Water, who were acting in line with their policies, had declined to change it. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

After Ms C's business moved into new premises in September 2009, Business Stream wrote asking her to confirm that the premises were occupied and to set up a water account. Ms C said that she completed and returned the forms, but heard nothing more. Business Stream said they did not receive the documents, and so it was not until an inspector visited her premises in December 2012 that an account was set up for her business and her first invoice issued. Ms C complained that the delay to her first invoice being issued was unreasonable. She also complained that it was not until it was issued that she realised her water consumption was unexpectedly high. Subsequent investigation found two leaks. She complained that Business Stream should have done more to help her identify and repair the leaks.

We found that it was Ms C's responsibility to tell Business Stream (or another provider) that she had moved into the premises. That said, we accepted that she had tried to do so when she received Business Stream's forms. We found that Business Stream had experienced problems with forms going missing around that time. Ultimately, we considered that this contributed around 12 months to the delay in the first invoice being issued. We did not consider it Business Stream's responsibility to identify or repair internal leaking pipes. However, we felt that they should recognise that Ms C incurred additional expense as a result of her first invoice being delayed, as it was not until she received it that she realised there was a problem with her water supply.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• offer Ms C an ex-gratia payment equivalent to ten percent of her water bills for the period in question, in recognition of the delay to her initial bill and its impact on her ability to identify problems with her pipework.

Summary

Mrs C, who owns a holiday cottage, complained after Business Stream contacted her by phone about an outstanding bill for the premises. At the time she was not aware that she was obliged to pay Business Stream, as she believed she paid through her council tax for the water at the cottage. After Mrs C’'s MSP wrote to Business Stream on her behalf, it was established that the account had been set up with the wrong start date, and Mrs C was issued with a corrected invoice. She was then sent an invoice showing that the balance on her account had been cleared, which lead her to close her account with Business Stream, and transfer to another water company. She was then sent a further invoice showing a large outstanding balance. She complained to the chief executive, who offered her a goodwill payment.

Mrs C was still unhappy and complained to us that Business Stream had unreasonably pursued her for the amount due and that they had not dealt with her in a professional way.

Our investigation found that Business Stream is legally the default supplier. This applies in all cases, including those where a business does not realise it is liable for water charges, or is operating under the belief that water charges are paid to the local authority. Mrs C had acted in good faith, but unfortunately had received inaccurate advice about water charges from her local authority, so we did not uphold this complaint. We also found, however, that the goodwill payment had not been processed. Although Business Stream did do this after we became involved, they did not apologise to Mrs C for the failure, they repeatedly issued invoices without any explanatory correspondence, and the order in which these were issued was confusing. We also found that Business Stream failed to acknowledge or apologise for the time and trouble they had caused Mrs C, and so we upheld her complaint about the way in which they dealt with her.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• apologise for the failings identified in our investigation;
• make a time and trouble payment; and
• ensure that, when corrections are made to customer accounts, invoices are issued with explanatory correspondence.

Summary

Mr C complained that in March 2012 his business unexpectedly received water bills for more than £2,000. He had understood that the business's water usage was paid for through his service contract with the landlord. However, Business Stream confirmed that in March 2011 his premises had been identified as a gap site (a site that has never been billed for water). Mr C applied for reassessment of his business's water charges so that they would be estimated based on the number of staff and facilities in the building, rather than its rateable value. His bills then reduced significantly, but he complained that Business Stream refused to backdate the reassessed rate. He felt that this should be done, saying that Business Stream's failure to contact him between March 2011 and March 2012 prevented him from applying for reassessment earlier.

We found that there had been a delay of around seven months before Mr C's premises were confirmed as a gap site. At that stage, Scottish Water should have issued a letter to advise the occupant that a water account should be set up with a licensed provider so that water services could be paid for. Although we were told that a letter was sent to the premises, we were provided with no clear evidence of this. We noted that the building had multiple occupants and that the letter may not have reached Mr C's business.

There was also a significant delay between Business Stream being made aware of the gap site and their taking action to start charging for water services. Mr C, however, also had a responsibility to advise a licensed provider that his business was in the premises and to commence paying for water services, but had made no such contact. Although we concluded that Mr C and Business Stream had a shared responsibility to make arrangements to set up a water account, we recognised that Mr C had clearly been prevented from applying for reassessment because of Business Stream's delay. During our investigation, Business Stream accepted this and offered Mr C an ex-gratia credit to his account, which we considered to be reasonable.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• apologise to Mr C for the delay in setting up his account and notifying him of the water charges accrued by his business.

Summary

Mr C complained about Business Stream's handling of his account. He was unhappy that Business Stream had not told him that they were his licensed provider, and complained that it was not until some years after moving into the property that he became aware of this. He was also aggrieved that he then received a bill backdated to when he moved into the premises. Mr C applied for a reassessment of his charges but was again unhappy when he was told that this would not be backdated to when he moved in.

During our investigation we found that it was the business's responsibility to establish the position about water supply arrangements when they moved into the premises. In this case there was no evidence that the delay in issuing Mr C's invoices was due to Business Stream failing to act on information available, or that they were aware his company were in the property and had failed to act. When Business Stream were told that Mr C's company was in the property they issued an invoice the same month. Although we did not uphold Mr C's complaint, we were concerned that Business Stream failed to apply the reassessed charges to his account, and made a recommendation for action.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• take action to process the banding offer and apply it to Mr C's account.

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream unreasonably refused to award a burst allowance following a leak at a property he managed. He also complained that their handling of the complaint was inadequate, and that this had caused him an unreasonable amount of additional work and inconvenience.

We did not uphold the first part of the complaint. We found that, in fact, it was Scottish Water who decided to reject the allowance (as in their view too little excess water was used to merit awarding it), which was a decision that they were entitled to make under their procedures for dealing with burst water pipes.

Our investigation did, however, find that Business Stream had not investigated Mr C’s complaint for some eleven months and so we upheld his concerns about their complaints handling. Although there were a number of complex issues being investigated on the site, we found that it was unreasonable for Business Stream not to have taken any action in respect of the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• apologise in writing for the failings identified in our report; and
• cancel the recovery charges that were applied to Mr C's account while he was awaiting a response to his complaint.