Water

Summary

Ms C owns a property, which is sub-divided into eight units that she rents out individually to small businesses. Each unit has access to a shared kitchen and bathroom, the only sources of water in the building. To take advantage of a government small business bonus relief scheme, each unit has been assessed separately by the Scottish Assessor, giving each its own rateable value. Ms C has an account with Business Stream to pay for water used at the property. She complained that each business renting her units was being charged individually for water services at a disproportionately high rate, despite there only being a single water supply. She asked for a water meter to be installed so that she could be charged for the single supply and divide the costs between her tenants, but this was refused.

Due to the way that the property is divided, Scottish Water advised that a bulk meter would be required to measure the amount of water used. They said that they no longer install bulk meters. Instead, volumetric water charges were estimated for each unit based on their rateable values. As each unit had its own rateable value and no water meter, Business Stream's policy required that full fixed charges for waste water and drainage were applied to each unit. This meant that around £2,000 of fixed charges would be applied annually for the property, rather than around £275 had a meter been installed.

We upheld Ms C's complaint. Although we were satisfied that Business Stream had charged the units for water in line with their policy, we found that Scottish Water were, in fact, able to install bulk meters in certain circumstances and this had not been adequately explored. We also found Business Stream's customer service to have been poor when investigating Ms C's complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• and Scottish Water jointly consider installing a bulk meter at the property;
• consider discounting the units' water accounts to show only one set of fixed charges for the water supply from the date of Scottish Water's refusal to install a bulk meter; and
• apologise to Ms C for the poor service that she received when attempting to change her billing arrangements.

Summary

Mr C complained that his business unexpectedly received water bills for more than £3000 in May 2012. He had thought that the water charges were his landlord's responsibility. He contacted Business Stream but found the advice he received unhelpful. Business Stream confirmed that his premises had been identified as a gap site (a property that is receiving water services without being charged) in January 2011. A month after receiving the bills, Mr C applied for reassessment of the water charges and as a result a credit was applied to his account.

Our investigation found that there was a delay between Business Stream being made aware of the gap site and their taking action to start charging for water services. Mr C also had a responsibility to advise a licensed provider that his business was in the premises and to start paying for water services. We did, however, uphold his complaint as, although Mr C and Business Stream had a shared responsibility to make arrangements to set up a water account, we were concerned that the delay in issuing the initial bill meant that Mr C was not given an opportunity to apply for reassessment until June 2012.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• should consider crediting Mr C's account with 50 percent of the difference between the unmeasured rateable value charges and the reassessed charges between January 2011 and June 2012; and
• apologise for the fact that written notice and an explanation were not given for the number of invoices sent.

Summary

In 2007, Scottish Water carried out significant work on the infrastructure around a village. As well as replacing mains pipes, they also replaced some private supply pipework. They did this as a good will gesture. (Private pipework is in fact the responsibility of the owner of the property.) In the cold winter of 2010, many pipes around the village froze. It was discovered that some of the pipes laid by Scottish Water's contractors were laid at the wrong depth and Scottish Water undertook a further program of work to replace these.

A local club did not have a water supply for some time. On investigation, they found damage to some of the pipework and repaired this in early 2011. They also contacted Business Stream. It became clear that Business Stream had not been billing the club, as they had the property listed as vacant. A bill was sent in February 2011 for the period April 2009 to October 2010. This showed unusually high usage which indicated there had been a leak, until the repair by the club had fixed the problem. The club complained about having to pay for the water that had leaked, as they felt that the cause of the leak was Scottish Water's negligence in laying the pipe at the wrong level. They also complained about the delay in getting the bill.

We found that communication on the club's concerns about the alleged negligence had been inappropriate, and the issues had not been addressed clearly. Standard replies were provided to something that was not a standard situation. The club had been told that there was a policy, but this did not explain the position clearly or why this had not been dealt with as a claim for compensation. It had also not been made clear to the club that Business Stream figures showed the higher consumption was over a longer and slightly different period to the position as understood by the club. We took the view that it would be helpful for a meeting be held between the club, Business Stream and Scottish Water to properly assess the position and to confirm this in writing. This subsequently led to a significant reduction of the bill.

We did not uphold the complaint that there had been a delay in opening the account. We noted that the club also had a responsibility to ensure it was properly paying for utilities and we did not uphold a complaint of delay in setting up the account. However, there was also no information available about what initial checks were made about occupation of the property, but it was clear that the club had been there for some time. We, therefore, recommended an apology be made for this.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• apologise for failing to identify that the property was not vacant in 2009;
• arrange a visit to the club by themselves and Scottish Water to discuss the position in detail, and that Business Stream writes to the club explaining the position and any further steps the club can take; and
• apologise to the club for failing to ensure they received an appropriate response to their concerns.

Summary

Mr C opened a business in a shopping centre. Three years later, he received an invoice for £8,700 for water charges based on a rateable value of £60,000. Mr C said the rateable value was wrong and was currently £40,000. He complained to us that Business Stream had unreasonably delayed in billing his company for the charges, and unreasonably refused to base the charges on the current rateable value of the property.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints, as we found that there had been no delay by Business Stream. It was Mr C's responsibility to tell Scottish Water that his company had moved into the premises, and to choose a water service provider. After investigating, we were satisfied that there was no evidence that the company had done that, and we found that Business Stream had issued the invoice promptly when they became aware that the company was operating from the premises. We also found that Business Stream’s calculation of the charges was based on appropriate rateable values and was in line with their rateable values policy.

Summary

Mr C's business moved into their current premises in 2005, and Business Stream created a water account for them in December of that year. In 2013, Mr C noticed that his water bills had suddenly increased. He was advised to check for a leak, but none was found. Eventually, it was discovered that his premises' pipework was shared with a number of residential properties, and Business Stream's policies required that his premises be treated as 'dual use premises'. This meant that Mr C could not install a second water meter to separate his water usage from that used by the residential properties. Although Mr C did not own or manage any of the residential properties, he would be billed for the water for all the properties and would have to sub-charge the residential properties for their share of the water charges. As they were already paying for water through their council tax, it would be up to Mr C to arrange for them to cancel the water charges from their council tax and to have any amounts paid refunded to him.

We found that, historically, Mr C's premises had been part of a larger property attached to the residential properties with a shared address and rateable value. However, at the time of Mr C's water account being created, the properties had been split and the assessor had given Mr C's property its own rateable value. As such, we did not consider that his property fitted the 'dual use premises' model. We noted that Business Stream's policies did not address circumstances such as Mr C's and there was no mechanism for customers in his position to have their water meters relocated or a secondary meter fitted. We considered it unfair that the result of this was that the customer was required to make complex arrangements with unrelated residential property owners to charge for water that was already being paid for through council tax. We upheld his complaint, as we found that Business Stream and Scottish Water did not do enough to find a common sense solution to the situation to ensure that Mr C's business was charged fairly for its water consumption.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• and Scottish Water jointly reconsider Mr C's case to ensure that his business's billing arrangements reflect that his premises are no longer 'dual use';
• and Scottish Water reconsider their policies to allow for situations similar to Mr C's; and
• consider backdating the revised billing arrangements for Mr C's business to December 2005.

Summary

Mr C operated an accounting business from a room in his house. This meant that the room was listed on the Scottish Assessors Association’s website and that Mr C would be eligible for certain water charges, even though the room had no direct water connections. Business Stream became aware that Mr C was eligible for water charges in March 2010 but did not issue their first invoice (with charges backdated to that date) until well over two years later.

Mr C complained about this delay and also the level of the invoice. He also told Business Stream more than once that the business had ceased more than a year before they issued the invoice. In addition, he said that Business Stream misadvised him that he would qualify for relief from their charges if he supplied proof that he received 100 percent small business rates relief.

Mr C had received a reduction in his council tax, and we had to consider whether it was reasonable to, therefore, expect him to have made enquiries about whether he should pay a commercial water supplier. However, we upheld both of his complaints as, on balance, we considered Business Stream’s delay of over two years in issuing their invoice to have been unreasonable. In addition, although they had met their timescales in responding to Mr C’s complaint, they failed to address the significant matter of Mr C’s company having been liquidated.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• apologise for the delay in issuing their invoice, revisit the liquidated company point with Mr C and waive their charge for overdue payment of the disputed balance;
• confirm the internal steps taken to ensure staff give accurate advice regarding exemption from their charges; and
• confirm the steps they will take to ensure initial invoices are issued more promptly.

Summary

Mr C owns a guest house which has a water meter fitted. He said that after taking ownership some years ago he asked for the meter to be removed and while Business Stream agreed this, they later reneged on their decision. Mr C complained that Business Stream unreasonably failed to remove the water meter and as a consequence, he was paying for the domestic element of his water twice, both to Business Stream and through his council tax.

Our investigation found that Business Stream's Part Residential (Dual Use) Premises Billing Policy applied in this case, as Mr C was sent an apportionment note with his rateable value notice and as the property had more than 12 bed spaces (private and letting). There was no evidence that the policy had been unreasonably or incorrectly applied and so Business Stream could not be criticised for not removing the meter. We noted that there had been confusion and delay in the way this was dealt with, but that Business Stream had already apologised and credited an amount to Mr C's account in recognition of this. Mr C was advised to pursue his overpayment for water provision with the local council.

Summary

Ms C complained on behalf of a charity that Business Stream did not close the relevant water account when the charity notified them that they had closed one of their shops. As a result of this, Business Stream continued to charge for the shop's water supply until the charity contacted them again, some 14 months after the shop had closed. Ms C sent us evidence that the charity had called Business Stream around the time the shop closed, and said that the call was to tell them of the closure. Business Stream said that they had no record of this. We examined their records and found that there was no evidence that Business Stream had been told that the shop had been closed at that time.

We examined the relevant legislation and Business Stream's policies. These were clear that the account should be closed from when Business Stream were told that the shop had closed, unless someone else moved into the property and started to pay the water charges, or a meter reading was due to be carried out . Business Stream told us that no one else had occupied the property during the relevant period. They also said that there was no meter in the property and that it was billed on assessed charges (based on the size of the property, the facilities and the number of staff employed).

We asked Business Stream for their comments on the evidence Ms C had sent us. They said that had no record of this call and that they could not comment further on it. They said that they had adhered to their policies in respect of closing the account from the date they were told that the charity had moved out. They said that there was insufficient evidence that they had been notified at the time the shop closed and that they would not be backdating the charge. However, they agreed to remove the debt recovery charge they had added to the account. Our role is to consider if there has been administrative error or service failure by an organisation. As there was no record that Business Stream had received notification that the charity shop had closed at that time, we did not consider that there was any evidence of administrative error or service failure on their part, and so we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

When Mr C's business moved into new premises, he discovered within a few days that Scottish Water had disconnected the water supply around 18 months earlier, because there had been a burst pipe during a spell of cold weather. As the pipework was privately owned, Scottish Water would not reconnect the supply pipe. Mr C was advised to arrange for his own plumber to do this, but the plumber was reluctant, as the work could disrupt the water supply to a number of neighbouring businesses. There was a delay of around three months before Mr C was able to find a plumber to do this. During this time, as the premises did not have a water meter, Mr C's business was charged by Business Stream for unmeasured water usage based on the premises' rateable value. He did not consider it fair that he should be charged for water that he was not using, given that Scottish Water had removed the pipework.

Our investigation found that Scottish Water are only responsible for pipework up to the point that the public network meets the private property owner's pipework. Although we recognised that the lack of water supply was largely beyond Mr C's control, we found that Scottish Water and Business Stream had fulfilled their obligations to provide a water supply that his business could access. The responsibility lay with Mr C to make the necessary arrangements to connect to that supply.

Summary

Mr C owned a hotel. He found that the water bills for his business were disproportionately high and queried the amounts owed with Business Stream. It was established that there must have been a leak but due to the nature of the business it was several months before the floors could be lifted and the leak located. Mr C complained that, having located the leak and proved that his business did not use the water he had been charged for, Business Stream failed to grant a 'burst allowance' for the full duration of the leak. A burst allowance is made in cases where a leak has been caused by Scottish Water's actions or on pipework for which they are responsible or in cases where the customer can show that the leaked water did not drain into Scottish Water's sewers.

We found that the grounds for this allowance were limited in Mr C's case. The leak was on his pipework and there was no suggestion that Scottish Water had caused the problem. Furthermore, there was no clear evidence as to where the water drained to. We were satisfied that Business Stream submitted a burst allowance application to Scottish Water on Mr C's behalf and that, when it was rejected, they sought further information from him to support his claim. Mr C did not provide the requested information and Business Stream offered a credit to his account as a goodwill gesture, separate from the allowance. Although we acknowledged that Mr C clearly had a leak and had anecdotal evidence to support his case, there were no apparent grounds for a burst allowance. We were satisfied that Business Stream made a generous offer that was reasonable, based on the evidence available to them.