Water

Summary

Mr C's business was identified as occupying premises that were receiving water services without being charged (known in the water industry as a gap site). As the default licensed provider for commercial water services, Mr C's business's details were passed to Business Stream who created an account in July 2012 and backdated their charges to the date Mr C's business moved into the premises. Mr C complained that Business Stream issued his company with bills and aggressive reminders without any introduction or information about who they are. He also complained that he was not given any option other than to use Business Stream.

We accepted Business Stream's position that Mr C's business had occupied the premises since June 2011 and had used water, waste water and drainage services without charge. As such, we considered it appropriate for Business Stream to recover the amounts due for the period between June 2011 and July 2012. Businesses are required to arrange their water services through a licensed provider and Business Stream are the default provider for customers who have not chosen an alternative. We considered it appropriate for Mr C to be contacted by Business Stream and advised of the water charges that had accrued against his property. However, we were concerned by the nature of that contact. We did not consider it reasonable for the first contact to have been a bill for a substantial sum with no explanation enclosed. Furthermore, the market code, which all water companies are required to follow, required that Mr C be given an initial period to choose his preferred licensed provider. He was denied this opportunity.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• apologise to Mr C for the failure by them, and Scottish Water, to contact him with a proper explanation as to the need to pay water charges and the process of selecting a licensed provider.

Summary

Ms C runs a dog grooming business from home. She complained that Business Stream phoned her and asked for details of her business without giving reasons for the call, then emailed her saying that they were the licensed provider for the water and waste water services for the business element of her property. She then received demands for payment for 2011 to 2013. Ms C complained of delay in notifying her that she was liable for these services, and that the charges were inaccurate and Business Stream would not engage reasonably with her to resolve the matter. Ms C complained also about the handling of her complaint.

Our investigation found that, although there was a gap between the date the account was opened and their first contact with Ms C, there was no delay on Business Stream’s part in processing and issuing their invoices. While the unexpected bill clearly caused Ms C concern, there was nothing to suggest that the charges were incorrect, and we did not uphold her complaints about this. We did find that there were instances where Business Stream failed to handle Ms C’s complaint in accordance with their service standards, and so we upheld this aspect of her complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• apologise for the failure to respond to Ms C in accordance with their service standards; and
• reduce Ms C's account as compensation for these shortcomings.

Summary

Mr C was the owner of a trough in a field. In 2008, he had experienced an increase in water consumption. He explained that at that time some work had been undertaken locally on water mains, so it was accepted that the increase was caused by that and the amount due was reduced. Mr C experienced a second increase during 2010. He again identified that work had been undertaken nearby during the relevant period. Business Stream, however, considered a number of possible causes for this increase in consumption and decided there was no evidence that there had been any error or problems with the meter readings. Mr C could not find a leak on the short length of pipe between the public pipe and his trough.

There are a number of possible causes for an increase that occurs over a period of time and then goes back to normal without any leak being fixed. It is not always possible to identify the precise cause and some of the causes are not in the control of Business Stream but the person receiving the supply. Therefore, when a dispute occurs, we assess whether Business Stream has reasonably considered whether there is any evidence of a cause of the increase which could be in the public network. While, in Mr C's case we found they had ruled out most problems that could have been caused by the public network, there was no evidence that they followed up on a particular issue about the recent work that Mr C said had been carried out. Mr C had provided the name of a road, contractor and the location of the relevant development. On this basis, we upheld Mr C's complaint and asked Business Stream to look again at that particular information.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• clarify with Mr C the position on the work allegedly undertaken by Scottish Water before pursuing the bill.

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream had been wrongly charging his business after removing a meter from his business premises.

On consideration of Business Stream's many letters to Mr C, our investigation found that it was clear that all the policy and procedural information they had provided was accurate. For example, in the circumstances it was appropriate to remove the meter, then to charge the business on charges using the rateable value as a basis, even though such charges would probably have been higher than metered charges. They also appropriately advised Mr C how it might be possible for him reduce the charges, and they had given detailed, accurate explanations of a large number of points.

Summary

Mr C, the secretary of a bowling club, complained that it was unreasonable that Business Stream did not read the club's meter for sixteen months. The bills during that period had been based on estimates. After the meter was read, the club received a bill for £1,978.21, which was far in excess of any previous bills.

Our investigation found that Business Stream are required to submit two actual meter readings each year, one of which may be supplied by the customer. We asked them to explain why the meter was not read during the sixteen-month period. In their response, they said that there was a note on their computer system showing that the meter reader was unable to gain entry to the club grounds to take a meter reading on one occasion. However, there were no other notes on the computer system to explain why there was such a gap in reading the meter, so we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C also disputed that Business Stream had taken actual meter readings for the large bill, and considered that it was based on estimates. He said that the club had traced the area in which the meter was housed, and they had to clear foliage and debris to access it. He said that this confirmed that no access had been made for some time. However, the club had subsequently provided a meter reading that was higher than those that Business Stream had taken. Business Stream also sent us photos of their readings. Although these did not show the serial number of the meter, we were satisfied that the bill was based on actual rather than estimated readings.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• apologise to Mr C for the delays in responding to his complaints;
• consider awarding him a compensation payment in line with their service standards for the delays in responding to his complaints; and
• consider issuing a reminder to meter readers that, where possible, they should include the serial number of a meter in photos.

Summary

Mr C complained that in 2010 the sewer to his factory became blocked, and was not properly cleared for eight working days. As his business was unable to function due to an inability to discharge water into the sewer, the factory had been obliged to close. Mr C's business had then incurred overtime costs while catching up with the backlog of work. Mr C had made six phone calls to Scottish Water's emergency line, and regarded their response as unreasonable.

Scottish Water had refused Mr C’s application for compensation, as they said that the blockages had been caused by waste discharged by the factory. Mr C, therefore, withheld the sum he claimed in compensation from a bill payable to Business Stream. He was pursued by Business Stream for payment between August 2010 and March 2012. In March 2012 he received a letter informing him that Business Stream would no longer consider his complaint and that the SPSO was his only option for further review.

We took independent advice from one of our water advisers who said that while the initial response to the blockages had been reasonable, the problem had taken too long to identify and the correct equipment had not been brought on site quickly enough. In addition, communication with the customer had been poor, with only one update to him during the period.

We cannot order Business Stream to provide compensation to Mr C as we are unable to establish liability for financial loss, which is normally a matter for the courts. However, we upheld Mr C's complaint, because we found Business Stream's actions unreasonable. They had failed to make clear to Mr C within a reasonable timescale that they would not consider his complaint, allowing the matter to remain open for two years. Business Stream had not kept accurate records of meetings with Mr C and at times had requested information from him about the actions of Scottish Water’s contractors. We also found that Scottish Water’s code of practice did not appear to distinguish between domestic and commercial properties, and made a recommendation relating to this.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• apologise in writing for the poor customer service provided; and
• review the case and draw the attention of Scottish Water to the lack of differentiation within their code of practice between business and non-business customers.

Summary

Ms C complained on behalf of her elderly mother, who was dissatisfied with Scottish Water's response to her complaint of low water pressure. Ms C complained that Scottish Water had failed to respond to enquiries about this, and had delayed in handling a formal complaint. She also complained that there was miscommunication about when action would be taken to improve the water pressure.

We made enquiries of Scottish Water and, after considering their comments and their complaints file, explored with them whether there was a possibility of resolving this through a goodwill payment for the delay in providing advice about when and what works were being undertaken, and in not providing their customer with updates. Scottish Water declined to do so and told us that this would not be in the interests of maintaining a consistent approach to their service to all customers.

We discussed with Ms C what her mother wanted as an outcome and if she wished us to investigate further. Ms C told us that she had pursued the complaint on her mother's behalf because she believed that Scottish Water's customer service was poor, and if compensation was not available for this, she did not want us to investigate further. She withdrew the complaint, so we closed our file without reaching a decision on it.

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream had incorrectly billed his organisation.

As part of our investigation, we asked Business Stream to look again at the complaint, which they had previously investigated but not upheld. On doing so, they discovered an error, which when corrected reduced Mr C's debt from approximately £10,000 to approximately £400. We considered this to be an appropriate resolution for Mr C and advised him of the outcome.

Summary

Mr C has a commercial workshop in his garden. After he fitted a toilet in the workshop, Business Stream issued him with invoices for water and water services. As the premises concerned were not metered, they based the charges on rateable value. Mr C was unhappy with this, and disconnected the water to the toilet. He complained that Business Stream continued to invoice him for water services only, which he considered unreasonable.

Our investigation took all the relevant information into account, including the complaints correspondence and details of Mr C's account, as well as Business Stream's internal computerised records and investigations with Scottish Water. This confirmed the situation as described by Mr C but the investigation also showed that, in terms of the relevant legislation, Business Stream were obliged to charge non-domestic premises on the basis of their rateable value, whether there was a connection or not. Business Stream were not charging for either waste water or drainage. They had, however, recognised Mr C's concerns and provided a number of options to resolve his problem. They also allowed him to pay money outstanding over a fifteen month period.

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream delayed in reading the water meter in the business premises he rented and in submitting an account for their services. Mr C said that he had budgeted for this but when the bill arrived, he was shocked at the amount being demanded. He had occupied the premises since June 2011 but it was spring 2012 before Business Stream read the water meter, and the bill was issued in July 2012.

We upheld Mr C’s complaint, as Business Stream had already acknowledged that there had been delay in opening the account after the meter was read, and in recognition of this they had removed the recovery charge that had been applied to the account. However, Business Stream were satisfied that the charges were correct. Our investigation found that Business Stream had not been notified when Mr C took over the lease of the premises, and they had only become aware of this in December 2011. There had been delay after this, but there was no requirement or target time for Business Stream to issue an invoice after the meter was read. Business Stream were, however, able to confirm that a similar situation should not now arise because of improvements to their service.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

apologise; and

provide confirmation that the procedures were reviewed and information about any training issues or improvements that have resulted from the review.