Water

Summary

Mr C complained that, although his business should have had a water meter fitted in 2009, Business Stream did not fit one, which meant that his bills were higher than they would otherwise have been. He had taken the matter up with the company over the years, but they never acknowledged the fault.

When we approached Business Stream, they reviewed the complaint and realised that they had been in error in not fitting the meter. They credited Mr C's account with the sum they calculated he had overpaid over the years.

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream took two years to set up an account for his business. He also complained that he believed that he had been charged for water used by the previous occupants.

Our investigation found that the responsibility for informing Business Stream lay with Mr C. Although there was a delay between the first meter reading and the opening of the account this was a matter of months, and Mr C had in fact traded for two years without informing Business Stream that the premises were occupied. Business Stream have now restructured their organisation and have a dedicated team to ensure new accounts are set up in a timely fashion. This action addressed the failing identified and we did not uphold this complaint. We also found that, although Business Stream's letter was unclear, Mr C had not been charged for water he had not used.

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream's handling of his requests for water connections at the business park he owned had not been reasonable. He said that he had faced delays in having some of the units at the business park connected for water. In addition, he considered that Business Stream had not calculated the charges for the connections correctly.

When we discussed Mr C's complaint with him, he said that that there were two things that he wanted to achieve from it. He wanted a final connection at the business park to be completed, and confirmation that the charges made by Business Stream for the connections were correct.

Mr C subsequently confirmed that the final connection at the business park had been completed. We also discussed with him the information we had received from Business Stream about how the charges had been calculated. Mr C confirmed that he no longer wanted to pursue this matter. He confirmed that his complaint had been resolved and that he was happy for it to be closed.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of a company who obtained planning consent from the local council to open a food processing site close to their main site, which is on a river estuary. The main site had inherited a deep water outfall from its previous use as sawmills, which was controlled by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. The company intended, as an interim measure, to transfer effluent by tanker from the secondary site to the main site while a pipeline was constructed between the two. However, this did not prove necessary and from the first day of operations, effluent between the two sites was pumped by pipeline and the trade effluent was never released to the Scottish Water waste water network.

There is provision (process 27) in the arrangements between licensed providers and Scottish Water for a licensed water provider to submit a trader information and allowance form for a 'non-return to sewer' allowance in cases such as this. As Scottish Water do not grant retrospective consent, the licensed provider (in this case, Business Stream) should seek the relevant information from the customer in advance and submit it to Scottish Water for approval. This did not happen here, although the allowance was later given from April 2012. We upheld the complaint that Business Stream unreasonably delayed in advising the company to submit the form, and we made a recommendation about this.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• further consider reimbursing the company for waste water charges for the period from the commencement of their operations at the secondary site until 11 April 2012.

Summary

Mr C, who acts for an organisation in relation to their water costs, complained that following the discovery of a meter that supplied the organisation's office, Business Stream's charging had been inaccurate. The office received water from a private water supply, a water tower, which also supplied other properties. In the past, Business Stream only charged for waste water that the office discharged into the sewerage system. These charges were based on the rateable value of the property.

However, a metered water supply was then discovered. It was originally considered that this only supplied the office Mr C was representing and Business Stream started to charge for water and waste water based on this metered supply. This increased the water charges substantially. Mr C disputed the fact that this meter only supplied the office he represented. This was investigated and it was agreed that this was a back-up supply, which was in fact connected to the water tower and not the office. Business Stream's charging based on their view that the meter only supplied the office was, therefore, inaccurate.

Mr C also said that the landlord of the water tower was paying a fixed waste water charge in relation to the meter, and the organisation he represented was paying a fixed charge and volumetric charge for unmetered waste water supplied from the water tower. Business Stream's view was that it was appropriate that there were two separate fixed waste water charges; one for the back-supply for the water tower and the other for the private supply for the properties supplied by this. Business Stream had contacted Scottish Water who confirmed that there should be waste water charges for both the private supply and the metered supply. We were satisfied that Business Stream had considered the information Mr C had presented to them in relation to this and that they had consulted Scottish Water on this matter. We did not identify any maladministration in relation to Business Stream's decision on this. Where a body have discretion to make this kind of decision, we cannot question that decision if there is no evidence of maladministration.

However, the specific complaint that Mr C asked us to investigate was that, following the discovery of a meter which supplied his premises, Business Stream's charging had been inaccurate. In view of the fact that we found that the charging had been inaccurate, we upheld his complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• issue a written apology for charging the property inaccurately following the discovery of a meter.

Summary

Ms C complained that Business Stream had treated her unreasonably, in that she had been sent a bill for her property that was far too high.

Our investigation found that Ms C's treatment had been unreasonable. The high bill could have been caused by a number of factors other than the reason given and these had not been fully investigated. In particular we found that the failure to test a water meter that was acknowledged to be faulty had deprived Ms C of a legitimate opportunity to challenge the bill. Given the size of the sum disputed and its implications for Ms C's business, we took the view that it was unreasonable for Business Stream not to have carried out further investigation. We also found that Ms C's complaint was poorly handled and subject to unnecessary delay and that there had been poor internal communication between the different departments at Business Stream.

We found that it was reasonable for Scottish Water to carry out a dye test without giving advance warning of their attendance.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• provide evidence to the Ombudsman that staff in customer facing roles have been appropriately advised about Scottish Water's policies regarding visits;
• review their charges with a view to charging for water consumption estimated on previous and current usage for the period in question;
• apologise in writing for the inconvenience and distress caused by their failure to handle the complaint in a timely fashion; and
• provide evidence to the Ombudsman that they have reviewed inter-departmental communication to ensure that the customer relations and collections departments share information in a timely manner so that disputed invoices are not pursued until the complaint has been resolved.

Summary

Mr C complained about a bill he had received from Business Stream, and about their handling of his complaint. Mr C had disputed a meter reading, claiming that it was impossible for the amount of water billed to have been used. He had been told that his account would be put on hold. Despite this, Business Stream took full payment of the invoice. Business Stream then failed to investigate the matter, despite repeated requests from Mr C over two years. Neither did they investigate the complaint properly until we prompted them to do so.

We found that the passage of time meant that it was impossible for us to establish whether or not the disputed amount of water had been used. There were, however, significant failings by Business Stream in the way that they handled the complaint. Our recommendation for financial redress was calculated as a percentage of the bill, to reflect the poor service they had provided.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• apologise to Mr and Mrs C for the failings identified in our investigation; and
• pay Mr and Mrs C £450 by way of financial redress for the failings we identified.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of a neighbour (Ms A) that Scottish Water’'s actions in respect of flooding were unreasonable. He said that Scottish Water had accepted that there was water coming in under Ms A's property, but had said that there was no evidence this was caused by their sewerage network. Ms A lived beside a beach and Scottish Water said that the flooding could have been caused by seawater.

We noted that Scottish Water only have funding to deal with capacity issues (where their sewers overflow) that cause internal flooding to a property. If the cause of external flooding is a simple blockage that can be easily fixed, they will do so, but if it is a structural problem, this may be more difficult to deal with. Our investigation found that there had been external sewage flooding around Ms A's home. We took the view that if the flooding was considered to be external, and Ms A had agreed that it was, then Scottish Water's actions would have been reasonable. However, we found evidence indicating that there was enough water under the floor of Ms A's bedroom to cause damage to skirting boards and internal plasterwork. There was also a report of odour, and damp meter readings were very high. We, therefore, upheld this complaint, as we considered that Scottish Water should have looked further into the reports of internal flooding at Ms A's property. Had they then identified internal flooding, they should have taken further action.

Mr C also complained that Scottish Water's communication with him and Ms A had been unreasonable. We did not uphold this complaint, as we did not find any evidence of this.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Water:

• issue a written apology to Ms A for the failure to carry out further investigation into the reports of internal flooding at her home; and
• carry out further investigations to try to identify if the internal flooding was caused by their sewerage system. They should assess both the cause of the flooding and the risk of this occurring again in the future.

Summary

Mrs C complained about water charges. She said that, despite having told Business Stream in advance that the business for which she worked would be moving premises, there was a delay before they received the first bill for the new premises. That meant that the business was being charged for longer than would otherwise have been necessary, on a more expensive rate.

We explained to Mrs C why Business Stream could not backdate the charges in question (essentially, because of money that Business Stream themselves had paid in advance) but said that if there had been errors they might offer her an ex gratia payment. When we investigated this, Business Stream disputed that they had been told of the move in advance, and we found no evidence in their files of advance notification. However, they did acknowledge that, when they were told of the move, they did not open an account for the new premises for some months, which meant that Mrs C did not have the chance to apply earlier for charging at a more advantageous rate. In recognition of that, Business Stream offered her an ex gratia payment. We considered this to be a good outcome, and closed our file without coming to a decision on the complaint.

Summary

Mr C had tried to resolve some issues with Business Stream for several years without success. These had, however, now been resolved, and Business Stream had refunded him the amount he had overpaid. He complained to us about the time taken to deal with the matter and thought that Business Stream should pay him interest on the overcharged amount to reflect the fact that that money should have been available to him much earlier.

Although we can look at the length of time that Business Stream took to deal with this, we could not determine whether any payment was due, or how much it might be. However, after we became involved in his complaint Business Stream agreed, in the circumstances of the case, to make a payment as a goodwill gesture. Mr C accepted their offer and we closed his complaint, as we took the view that this was an appropriate solution.