Water

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of an association that in October 2011, without warning, they received a water bill for over £19,000. He complained to Business Stream that, given the association's past history, the bill must be incorrect. Further bills followed despite Mr C's contention that the bill was incorrect but that it was not until five months later that he was told that his account had been reassessed and recalculated. While Mr C wrote and said that he wanted a more detailed explanation, he heard nothing more until July 2012 and this merely enclosed a copy of the March 2012 letter. Mr C continued to complain but a detailed reply was not sent until August 2012. Mr C was aggrieved that Business Stream had not read the association's water meter correctly between August 2008 and October 2011. He further complained that they did not adequately investigate the disputed high consumption since the association's meter was installed in August 2008.

Our investigation took the complaints correspondence, statements of account and invoices, and Business Stream's internal computerised records into account. We also made further enquiries of Business Stream. The investigation confirmed that there had been difficulty in finding the meter and that it had not been read until January 2011. It was read again in October 2011 and confirmed to be correct. A 'high consumption' letter was sent to Mr C on the day that the bill was issued. As a consequence of Mr C's insistence that his bill was incorrect, Business Stream established that the opening figure for his account was incorrect and they reassessed his bill accordingly. As there had been a problem with the initial meter reading, we upheld this complaint.

By January 2012, Business Stream had confirmed the problem with the reading and they started to implement required changes a few days later. What they did not do was to explain this clearly, in a timely manner. They did not tell Mr C this until March 2012 nor did they explain the situation clearly. They then failed to address his further letters properly until August 2012. Although we did not uphold this complaint, we made a recommendation to address this.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• formally apologise to Mr C for their error;
• reduce Mr C's bill by a further five percent; and
• apologise to Mr C for the way in which they handled his continued representations.

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream did not tell him when his water meter was replaced. He said that after this the water meter was not read in accordance with the relevant service standards and for an extended period, unnoticed by him, all his water bills were estimated. Mr C said he only discovered that the meter had been replaced and that his bills had been estimated when he received a large catch up bill. Mr C told us he believed that the new meter might have been faulty for a period as his metered water usage was higher than he had expected. He said that his bill could have been updated earlier when actual meter readings were first taken, which would have alerted him to the problem earlier. Mr C was also dissatisfied with the handling of his complaint. He felt that it had taken Business Stream too long to respond and he was not offered compensatory payments in line with stated service standards.

We found that the meter was the property of Scottish Water and had been replaced as part of their rolling replacement programme. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint about this as our investigation found that there was no obligation on Business Stream to tell Mr C about the exchange. They had also offered to carry out a meter accuracy test when Mr C queried the accuracy of his catch up bill. Mr C had declined this because he said he believed the meter was now recording water usage accurately and because Business Stream would levy a charge if the meter was tested and found to be accurate.

We did, however, uphold Mr C's other complaints. We agreed that under the terms of their licence Business Stream should have ensured that two actual meter readings were taken each year, one of which could have been provided by Mr C. However, they failed to do so for a period of around two years. We noted that they had already offered Mr C an apology and a compensatory payment of £100 in recognition of this failing.

Our investigation also found that it took around fifteen months from the date of the first reading for Mr C to receive a bill which reflected his metered usage. Business Stream told us that they had difficulties entering the actual reading because the computer system of the Central Market Agency, which it was beyond their control to update, did not accurately record Mr C's meter details and supply identification. However, they provided no evidence to suggest that on discovering this they pursued the matter with the Central Market Agency at the earliest opportunity, as they should have done. Nor did they alert Mr C to the difficulties they were having.

We found that there was an unreasonable delay in handling Mr C's complaint. Business Stream failed to acknowledge or apologise for the delay when it was brought to their attention and they took too long to apply the £20 credit that was due to Mr C in recognition of the delay (in line with their service standards). We also identified that Mr C was owed a further £20 credit.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• investigate the sequence of events that led to the errors identified in relation to the meter exchange and supply identification number, and identify any opportunities for improvements to business processes;
• make a further payment of £20 in acknowledgement of the delay in making the original £20 credit in line with Service Standards as is the complainants entitlement. Business Stream should consider in the circumstances whether the credit applied to the account should exceed their standard £20 payment; and
• apologise for delays in handling the complaint and for failing to award compensatory payments in line with service standards.

Summary

Mr C's clients occupied premises where it had been established ten years before that the premises were not connected to surface water drainage but that rainwater drainage flowed into a river. Mr C brought this to the attention of Business Stream in 2012. They reassessed the account and sent Mr C's client a refund for the last five years. Mr C complained about this, saying that the refund was not for the entire time his clients had occupied the premises. Business Stream refused further payment and said that in terms of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 (the Act) they were not obliged to go back further than five years.

We investigated the complaint and considered all the relevant documentation and customer invoices. We also took into account the Act and Business Stream's redress and compensation policy. Our investigation found that the facts of the case were not in doubt but although Mr C considered that the overpayment should be backdated to his client's date of entry, Business Stream said they were only backdating it for a maximum of five years, in accordance with their usual procedure. We found that their policy confirmed this to be the case and that Mr C appeared to be complaining about the merits of the policy rather than that Business Stream had not acted properly, for instance by not applying the policy properly.

Summary

In 2007, Mr and Mrs C bought some old buildings and adjacent land. They intended to convert the buildings to properties for sale. When they bought the land there was a trough and a tap on it, although the meter for this supply was on land owned by a neighbour (Mr D). Mr and Mrs C believed this was Mr D's supply. Mrs C told us that they agreed with Scottish Water and Mr D that they would use this supply for water needed in their building project. They understood that at the conclusion of the project the supply would revert to Mr D.

When the project was completed in 2010 Mr and Mrs C sought to have the supply disconnected. They were told this would involve a cost. They explained that the supply belonged to Mr D and that they thought he was still using water from the original supply and that the meter was his. Business Stream undertook some investigation and established that Mr D was not using the supply. After ten months of correspondence Business Stream confirmed that Mr and Mrs C were responsible, as the owners of the address supplied. Correspondence continued for almost another year when Business Stream sent a detailed, written response. This, however, contained an error which Business Stream then clarified. Throughout this period Mr and Mrs C were paying fixed charges for the supply, which would end when the supply was disconnected.

Our investigation found that the location of the taps and trough was key. The owner or occupier of the land where the taps are is responsible for the supply. This meant that when the land was sold in 2007 Mr and Mrs C became responsible. We accepted they had not appreciated this at the time, but we could not uphold their complaint that they were charged for a supply that was not their responsibility. However, we found that there had been serious failings in Business Stream's response to their concerns. Mr and Mrs C raised these in July 2010 but did not receive a response until April 2011. We found that by October 2010 Business Stream should have had all the information needed to respond. Their eventual response in April 2011 was correct but was not sufficiently clear, and had not resolved the underlying confusion. However, it had also said that Mr and Mrs C could call to discuss this. When they did so, Business Stream simply noted that there had been a phone conversation and considered that Mrs C understood the position. It appears that, despite a number of attempts by Mrs C to make contact, it was not until March 2012 that they realised a further clearer response was needed. In the circumstances, we found that Business Stream's actions had delayed Mr and Mrs C's ability to organise a disconnection, and that their response to the concerns expressed about this had been inadequate.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• reduce the fixed charges liability for this supply by 50 percent for a certain period, if they receive a disconnection request within six weeks of the date of this decision; and
• apologise to Mrs C for the failings in communication about her concerns.

Summary

Mr C planned to build an extension to his property. A water main runs through his garden, close to the area into which he intended to extend. Scottish Water require mains pipes to be located at least five metres away from properties. As this was not possible in Mr C's case, they required him to divert the pipe and replace it with one made of ductile iron. Mr C had originally been quoted a total of £500 by his builder to move the pipe, but with reconnection charges and the requirement for different materials, the total cost escalated to the point that Mr C decided not to proceed with his extension.

Mr C complained that, when corresponding with Scottish Water, he learned that ductile iron pipes are not normally used in his area. He noted that the existing water main was located within five metres of his property and was made of plastic. Furthermore, Scottish Water had commented that they 'cannot stress enough that there is no reason to suggest that this main would be in danger from bursting'. Mr C complained that Scottish Water treated him unfairly by asking him to bear the cost of relocating and upgrading the water main when there was no apparent need to do so.

We considered it appropriate for Scottish Water to require that the water main was diverted from its current location and for Mr C to meet the associated charges, as the diversion was required because of his proposed extension. The initial amount quoted by Mr C's builder did not include Scottish Water's standard charges so we did not hold Scottish Water responsible for this. We found that alternative, potentially cheaper, materials could have been used rather than ductile iron. Whilst this material was initially proposed by Mr C's architect, we found that correspondence from Scottish Water also gave the impression that ductile iron was the only acceptable material.

We found clear evidence that Mr C's decision to stop the extension works resulted from news of a further £1,000 charge from Scottish Water, intended to cover operational costs. Once this charge was identified, Scottish Water's staff correctly asked for authorisation from their Customer Connections team who quickly decided not to pass the charge on to Mr C. However, contrary to their written procedures, Scottish Water's staff advised Mr C of the charge before the Customer Connections team had made their decision. This led to Mr C cancelling his extension works.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Water:

• apologise to Mr C for the issues highlighted in this decision letter; and
• waive all reconnection and operational charges should Mr C decide to proceed with his extension in the future.

Summary

Mr C complained about the bill that Business Stream had sent his company.

After we began our investigation, however, Business Stream decided to waive part of the debt. Mr C then withdrew his complaint, and we reached no decision on it.

Summary

In December 2011, Mr C received eight invoices from Business Stream requesting significant sums of money for water and water services backdated to April 2008. Mr C disputed these, as there was no water available in his basement premises and he only had use of communal kitchen and bathroom facilities elsewhere in the building. Business Stream, however, said that Mr C had been receiving and using water services from April 2008, when the water industry opened to competition and they became default providers. They said he had used water, and was required to pay for it. They added that as there was no meter in the property, under the relevant legislation his water usage had been calculated on the rateable value of the property he occupied. Mr C was unhappy about this and complained to us.

Our investigation found that what Business Stream had said was correct, so we did not uphold his complaint. However, the investigation also showed that they had not dealt well with Mr C's representations and had failed to provide proper explanations about the amount due, or the reasons why it was due.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• apologise for the fact that Mr C was not given written notice and explanation that a significant number of invoices were to be sent;
• consider introducing explanatory letters as a matter of course; and
• apologise to Mr C for their failure to address properly his concerns and provide him with a detailed explantion of why his bill was as it was.

Summary

Mr C complained to us on behalf of his clients, Company A. Company A had been in a property since October 2008. They were not aware they should be paying for water and Business Stream first contacted them in January 2012. They then discovered that the property had not had a meter until June 2009 which meant they would be billed at a higher rate between October 2008 and June 2009. They also found out that, as their meter was installed under the Scottish Government's full metering programme, for the first few years they were billed on a phased basis, and not on a metered basis. They complained that the developers of the property had requested a meter in March 2008, and if it had been installed then they would not have been billed under this scheme but under the previous system (ie billed on a meter from October 2008). They also complained about the delay in receiving bills between October 2008 and January 2012.

The phased charging and full metering programme were Scottish Government policy and we would only be able to uphold a complaint about this if it was clear there had been a failure to install a meter under the old scheme. The developers of the property confirmed in writing they had made this request. However, there was no evidence available from 2008 to show what had happened. Nor was there any evidence that anyone followed up this request to see why no meter had been installed. In the absence of any clear evidence, we did not find there had been any failure to install the meter.

The bills had not been issued for some time. However, in August 2008 when Business Stream become the licensed provider for the property, it was noted as vacant and no bills were due, as they would only bill an occupied property. It was the responsibility of Company A to let Business Stream know when they moved in, but in October 2008 they did not do so. The metering programme then meant that a meter was installed in June 2009. However, meters were installed on all non-domestic properties, whether vacant or occupied, and there was no scheme to check the status. The main responsibility for ensuring that Company A were paying for services they were using remained with Company A themselves.

Summary

Ms C complained on behalf of the owner of a farm (Mr A), about Business Stream's refusal to reduce a high bill he had received. We obtained further information from Business Stream and established that they had previously awarded Mr A an allowance for a burst pipe under their burst allowance policy. We discussed the matter with Ms C, who then discussed it with Mr A. Following this, Mr A was satisfied and withdrew his complaint. There were no grounds for us to pursue the complaint and we closed the case.

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream failed to repair a faulty meter that was installed in his property in 2010 and that, when he told them in February 2011 that he had had to remove it because it had failed in bad weather, they did not replace it until March 2012. Mr C said when Scottish Water (who retain some responsibility for meters even when a customer of Business Stream) picked up the meter he had been told they could not be bothered installing a new one. In March 2012 Mr C was told that his bills from 2011 to 2012 would be recalculated. He was unhappy that this meant that from March 2011 to March 2012 he was being billed on an unmeasured basis, costing him much more than if he had been on a meter. The bills had previously been worked out on an estimated basis. Mr C also said that he had applied for e-billing but had problems accessing his account.

We were not able to uphold Mr C's claim that Scottish Water had said at a meeting that they would replace the meter in June 2010. As there was a zero reading when it was removed in March 2011, Mr C had not paid for any water usage, and had only paid standard charges, from June 2010 until the meter was removed. Mr C was also not charged for the installation of the new meter. Business Stream were charged but did not pass this cost on.

In March 2011, Scottish Water told Business Stream that Mr C had not let them install a meter. Business Stream emailed Mr C to tell him this and that he would be billed on an unmeasured basis. Mr C did not receive this email. We also found that Mr C tried to sign up for e-billing in April 2011, but this was not activated until July 2011. Despite this, he did not receive a bill that should have been sent to him by post in May 2011, given e-billing was not yet available to him.

Our investigation found that within two days of physically removing the meter Scottish Water should have updated a central database with the information that it had been removed. They did not do so for twelve months, which meant that all Mr C's bills for that period were calculated on the wrong basis. There is a responsibility on customers to ensure they are paying properly for the services they receive. However, this was not a case where Mr C had failed to provide information. Both Business Stream and Scottish Water were aware that the information was wrong and that Mr C was being billed on the wrong basis for twelve months. Mr C had moved very quickly to have a meter installed in 2012, when he became aware of this. We, therefore, took the view that, if he had received bills on the basis that he did not have a meter, it was likely he would have acted quickly to resolve this. While this is only a likely possibility rather than a certainty, a twelve-month failure to ensure that the bills were accurate prevented Mr C from acting to reduce them. On this basis, we upheld his complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• recalculate the bill for the period March 2011 until the meter was installed, based on an estimate of water usage using recent readings;
• apologise to Mr C for the failing identified; and
• share our decision letter with Scottish Water.
•