Water

Summary

Mr C ran a bar and was aware that his water consumption was higher than other bars in the area. He said that he contacted Scottish Water and/or Business Stream to complain, but their engineers told him that there was no problem. He then decided to fit water saving taps. When the plumber switched off the water supply to complete the job, this also switched off the water supply to the flats above the bar. Mr C then realised that the water for the flats was being metered through the bar's supply. He contacted Business Stream, who told him to get the supply split as quickly as possible, as he was liable for the bills. They also said that he was unlikely to get a refund. Mr C had to employ two local plumbers to isolate the flats from his meter, and told us that Business Stream suggested that he sue his neighbours or the local council to get back the extra charges he had paid.

Mr C complained that Business Stream failed to recognise earlier that his meter also served the flats. However, our investigation found that Scottish Water is only responsible for the water main in a street and the communication pipe up to and including the stopcock at the boundary of a property. Property owners are responsible for the supply pipe from the stopcock into the property and all of the indoor plumbing. In addition, there was no evidence that Mr C contacted Business Stream or Scottish Water about his water consumption before he found that that the water for the flats was being metered through the bar's supply.

Mr C was also unhappy that Business Stream did not compensate him. He felt that they should have done so as the flats paid water charges with their council tax and he also paid these through his meter. We found that where a metered supply includes domestic properties, these properties should not pay separately for water services. Business Stream instead charges their business customer, in this case Mr C, for the metered usage. Mr C's neighbours should, therefore, have had a private arrangement with him to pay for their consumption. We noted that Business Stream's policy says that they cannot become involved in such disputes. However, we found that they should have provided Mr C with further advice about how he could pursue this with his neighbours and, although we did not uphold the complaint, we made recommendations to address this.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• provide Mr C with further advice on recouping charges from the domestic properties; and
• take steps to ensure that customers in similar situations are provided with adequate advice about recouping charges from domestic properties.

Summary

Mr C had worked from home on a part-time basis for a number of years, using a room in his house as a surgery. He complained that Business Stream had written to him saying that an audit had shown that he was occupying a property thought to be vacant and, to continue to receive water and waste services there, he needed to set up an account. As the default provider, they billed Mr C for usage. Mr C complained to us that Business Stream was unreasonably charging him for services to his property, even though they did not provide this. He also said that Business Stream were acting against advice on a government website which said that if a person works from home, any water used would be included in the domestic bill.

Our investigation found that Business Stream had explained to Mr C that they had received information from Scottish Water and the Scottish Assessors' Association that there had been no charge for services since he entered the property, and that the surgery was commercially rated. Acting in line with their dual use property policy and duty under the legislation, and in the absence of any other service provider, they had asked for payment for provision of services. As it was clear that Business Stream was acting in line with their policy, and we could only question this if it had not been applied properly, we found that they acted reasonably in charging for these services. Although we appreciated that Mr C had seen differing website advice about how the water usage would be charged, we did not find that Business Stream could be held responsible for information on another website. They had, however, said that they would take action to ask for this to be corrected, which we found appropriate.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained that Business Stream failed to read a water meter at their farm over a two year period. They said that this meant that there was a delay in informing them that the meter was giving false readings, and they said this meant they were overcharged.

Our investigation found that Business Stream had not read the meter during the period of time specified in the complaint, which was not in line with their licence. However, the meter readings available did not indicate that the meter was faulty and, indeed, it appeared that water was being used in significant quantities. Mr and Mrs C had said this was not the case but as Business Stream could not find fault with the meter, they had charged for the usage.

After we got in touch about the complaint, Business Stream made further enquiries and confirmed that a spike in usage had occurred during the period concerned, although this had now returned more or less to normal. A new meter had been installed but the change to normal usage had begun before that. The enquiries also showed that at some point in the past, the account to a sub meter had been closed and Business Stream speculated that a leak from this supply could have been registering with the complainants' meter. However, with the passage of time, it was not possible to determine this. Because of the inconvenience caused to Mr and Mrs C, Business Stream offered them an ex-gratia (voluntary) payment.

We upheld the complaint. Business Stream had clearly failed to read the meter, which meant that Mr and Mrs C were not aware of the high water usage and were then put to great inconvenience and stress to try to remedy matters. We recommended that Business Stream apologise to Mr and Mrs C, but as they had already offered the ex gratia payment we made no other recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• apologise to Mr and Mrs C for the stress and inconvenience caused.

Summary

Mr C owned a retail unit that was occupied by a beautician's business. He complained that the water bills for the business were disproportionately high, and compromised its viability. Mr C asked Business Stream to consider reviewing the water charges, or fitting a smaller water meter. It was agreed that a smaller meter would be appropriate. However, Mr C felt that the price quoted to exchange the meters was too much, and he was not allowed to have his own plumber carry out the work more cheaply.

Business Stream asked Scottish Water to provide a quote for the work. After Mr C disputed the amount quoted, Scottish Water provided details of the work that they said was needed. Mr C disagreed that the work described was necessary, but ultimately the business agreed to proceed with the meter downsize. Once the work was completed, Mr C remained dissatisfied as he believed a simple meter swap had been carried out, rather than the excavation and pipe replacement work detailed by Scottish Water. He provided photographic evidence of the work that had been completed.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaint, as after investigation we were satisfied that it was for Scottish Water, as requested by Business Stream, to decide the work required and what the cost of that work should be. The amount quoted was in line with their published schedule of rates. We recognised that this was a standard charge and may not have reflected the precise cost of the work involved, but did not find it unreasonable for a schedule of standard rates to be used. We asked an independent water industry adviser to review the 'before and after' photographs submitted by Mr C. We accepted his view that there was evidence of excavation work and of the meter chamber being replaced which we considered was in line with the work proposed by Scottish Water.

Summary

Business Stream issued a large water bill to Ms C in 2011. Her bills were normally around one-tenth of the amount for which she was billed, so she queried the amount with Business Stream. They advised her to look for a leak on her premises, which she did, but no leak was found. Ms C's plumber later found a leak on pipework outside her business premises.

Ms C felt that she was unfairly being held liable for the charges associated with the leak. She complained that she did not use the water that had caused her meter readings to run high and felt that she should not have to check and maintain Business Stream's equipment. She acknowledged that Business Stream had applied a credit to her account, but did not consider that this went far enough to reduce the amount owed.

We found that the leak was located on pipework for which Scottish Water were responsible. Their leakage allowance policy says that, under such circumstances, the customer should receive a credit equal to 100 percent of the difference between their average daily usage before the leak and their average daily usage during the period of the leak. The allowance is only paid over a period of six months, which they say should be ample time to detect and repair a leak.

The leakage allowance was applied to Ms C's account for the six months before the leak was identified and repaired. Business Stream also acknowledged that they failed to read her meter over a twelve month period, and offered a further credit of 50 percent of her water charges in light of this.

Our investigation found that, had Ms C's meter been read in line with Business Stream's normal procedures, the leak would have been identified and the leakage allowance would have covered the entire period of the leak. We agreed that Ms C was being unfairly financially penalised by Business Stream's failure to carry out their routine meter read and upheld her complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• review Ms C's case with a view to applying an extended leakage allowance to reflect the impact of their failure to read her meter.

Summary

Mr C purchased a property in October 2009 which he renovated to create residential and office accommodation. In April 2011, he received a water bill from Business Stream which he found to be disproportionately high. He complained that Business Stream did not explain their terms or their charging structure and that a water account was created for his business without his knowledge. Furthermore, Mr C was unhappy about being issued a water bill backdated to October 2009, when he was not aware of the need to have an account.

We found that the previous occupiers of the premises had a water account with Business Stream but did not tell them when they left the property. Business Stream was first notified of this in March 2011 and promptly contacted Mr C. The requirement to set up a water account with a licensed provider was relatively new in 2009 and we acknowledged that business customers may not have been aware of the need to do so. However, we were satisfied that the responsibility lay with the customer to notify Business Stream when they left or moved into a property. The failure of either occupant to notify Business Stream of the change of ownership meant that the original occupier continued to be charged for water services while Mr C used the water without charge. We did not consider that there was any specific action that Business Stream could have taken to create a new account for Mr C's business any sooner.

We were satisfied that, once Mr C's business account was set up, Business Stream applied legitimate backdated charges and followed the correct procedure for supplying properties with mixed residential and commercial uses.

Summary

In 2012, Mr C received a water bill from Business Stream that was much higher than he had expected. The bill was for the water supply to a trough on his farm which had been switched off since the summer of 2011. The meter for this supply was located in Mr C's neighbour's house, but he did not have access to it. Because of this, he was unable to monitor his water usage and was unaware that there was a leak in his pipework. Mr C complained to us that the bill was too high and that, had his meter been located in a more accessible position, and had accurate bills been issued by Business Stream rather than estimates, he could have identified the leak sooner. He did not consider that he should be liable for the full amount of the water bill.

Mr C's water meter was relocated by Scottish Water on behalf of Business Stream to a more accessible position. After the work was completed, he was presented with an invoice for the relocation work which he found excessive. He was told that if he chose not to pay the invoice, the meter would be moved back to its previous location at no cost.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaint. It is the customer's responsibility to check for and repair any leaks on their pipework. Where leaks are not immediately visible, the best way to monitor water usage is to examine the water meter and any bills that are issued. We accepted that the location of Mr C's water meter restricted his ability to check for leaks, but did not find evidence of any clear request from Mr C to have his meter moved to a more accessible location. However, we did not find that the delay in moving the meter impacted significantly on the water charges that Mr C incurred.

We were satisfied that meter readings were taken in line with Business Stream's meter reading policy which requires two actual readings to be taken in a twelve month period. As such, we did not find that there was any specific action that Business Stream could have taken to help Mr C identify his leak any sooner.

We found it reasonable for Scottish Water to apply charges for relocating the meter and that these should be met by the customer. However, Mr C should have been told about the cost prior to the work being carried out. Scottish Water accepted this and agreed to leave the meter in its new location without pursuing Mr C for any costs associated with its relocation.

Summary

There was a leak in a pipe which fed a field trough. This was not detected and Ms C was faced with a large, unexpected bill. The leak was in pipework that was her responsibility. However, Business Stream had failed to read the meter for three years and Ms C felt this had made the situation worse.

When Ms C contacted Business Stream to complain, they apologised for the error and reduced the amount due by 50 percent. When she contacted us, we confirmed that, while we upheld her complaint that there had been a failure to read the meter, we considered that Business Stream had made an appropriate response and we did not recommend the bill be further reduced.

Ms C also complained that she had initially been offered a leak allowance only to be then told that this would not be given. This is because leak allowances are only available when the customer has water and a sewerage supply, and Ms C had a water only supply. (Although called a leak allowance, it amounts to a reduction in the sewerage bill when it is clear that water has leaked and not been taken away through the sewer system. As Ms C had no sewerage bill, there was no bill to reduce.) We did not uphold this complaint but did comment to Business Stream that the explanation they gave Ms C about why she was not eligible was unclear.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of a golf club about Business Stream. He complained that Business Stream had sent the club an unexpected bill, after an audit identified that they had never been charged for drainage and wastewater charges.

During our investigation, Business Stream told us that the charges were for services that the golf club had used, but for which they had not previously been charged. They said that the club had benefited from this, as they were not being charged for part of the period involved. However, despite Mr C's request, we found that Business Stream had not in fact provided him with a full explanation about how the problem had occurred.

Part of Mr C's complaint was that that Business Stream rejected his offer to repay the money over four years. Business Stream told us that 24 months is the longest period they offer for repayment and that they were acting in line with the relevant policy on this.

In order to try to resolve the matter, we asked Business Stream if they could make an exception in this case and extend the repayment period to 36 months. Business Stream responded to our request saying that they would be willing to extend the repayment period to 36 months due to the relatively small balance, and in order to assist the club. They said this although this action was outwith their normal process, they wished to resolve the issue and hoped this action went some way to achieve this.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream Ltd:

• remind staff that they should provide customers with satisfactory explanations about why their bills have increased when such information is requested; and
• apologise to Mr C for their failure to provide him with sufficient detail about how the problem occurred, in their response to his complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about a lack of assistance from Business Stream when he attempted to investigate a suspected water leak at his farm. Mr C found wet ground in one of his fields in July 2011 and contacted Business Stream to ask someone to come and investigate this, as although he had already tried to do so himself, he was having problems lifting the heavy meter chamber lid. (The lid had been used deliberately to protect the meter from farm vehicles.) Business Stream passed on his request to Scottish Water, but Scottish Water did not visit. Mr C later received a large water bill, indicating that he had a leak. He did not consider that he should be liable for the full amount.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that it was Mr C's responsibility to identify and repair leaks in the pipework on his land. Mr C had already suspected there was a leak and employed a plumber to investigate. Based on their findings, however, they had incorrectly concluded that there was no leak.

When Business Stream passed on Mr C's request for a visit, Scottish Water had declined to go to his farm, as they took the view that Mr C should have no cause to access the meter chamber. No-one told Mr C this, however. Although we considered that it was for Scottish Water to decide whether to visit him, we were disappointed to note that Business Stream did not tell Mr C that Scottish Water had decided not to do so. We acknowledged that, had he known this, he and his plumber might have made further efforts to investigate the potential leak or to access the meter to take readings. We did not, however, find that Business Stream's communication failure was significant in terms of the overall delay in identifying the leak and considered the goodwill gesture that they had already offered Mr C to be reasonable.