Water

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream failed to read his meter between April 2011 and January 2012. He said that, had they done so, it would have been evident that a large amount of water was passing through the meter, indicating a leak. A leak was eventually identified, but not before Mr C received a sizeable water bill. Business Stream advised Mr C that he should read the meter himself to ensure that his readings were accurate. However, he did not feel comfortable doing so, as the meter was located next to a busy road.

We upheld the complaints about failure to read the meter, and about complaints handling. Our investigation found that Business Stream should have carried out two actual meter readings during the period in question. One of the readings for Mr C's meter was estimated, so we concluded that it might have been possible for the leak to have been identified earlier. That said, it was also possible that the leak occurred after the time the meter should have been read. We found that Mr C's meter was relocated next to the road after meter readers complained that it was contaminated in its former location (a yard inhabited by cows). We were, however, satisfied that, after Mr C raised safety concerns, Business Stream moved it to a safer location. We were critical of Business Stream for failing to provide a detailed response to Mr C's formal complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream Ltd:

• offer Mr C a credit to his account reflecting the potential impact of the failure to read his meter on his January 2012 water bill.

Summary

An employee of Scottish Water visited Mr C's business premises and advised that he was going to install a water meter. As he had received no prior warning, Mr C at first refused permission for this. However, following discussions with Business Stream, during which he was told that the cost to him would be minimal, Mr C agreed to the meter installation. He was unhappy to then receive a water bill a year later, which he considered excessive as he used no water at his business premises. Mr C complained that it was inappropriate for the water meter to be installed and that he was given insufficient information about the charges he would incur. He said that, had he known about the charges, he would have had the water supply disconnected, as his business does not use water.

We found that Mr C's business had been identified as a gap site (a site that has been receiving water-related services without being charged). It was appropriate for a meter to be installed in line with the Scottish Government's Full Business Metering scheme. However, we were concerned by the lack of information given to Mr C about the metering process. Mr C had asked Business Stream about their charges and they had been unable to provide him with any information. We found this to be unreasonable as, although they could not predict how much water Mr C would use, they should have been able to tell him about their fixed charges.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream Ltd:

• apologise to Mr C for the issues highlighted in our decision letter; and
• credit Mr C's account with an amount equivalent to 50 percent of the total of his first water bill.

Summary

Mr C’s garden was affected by a flood. Three months later there were further problems when sewage started flowing into his back garden. Mr C claimed that the latter incident caused damage to the retaining wall in his back garden. He complained that Scottish Water delayed in identifying the cause of the problem, and that he had been told by an engineer on the job that the problem had arisen because the drainage system was not being maintained. However, when Mr C complained to Scottish Water and submitted a claim for the cost of replacing the damaged wall, his claim was turned down and he was told that the damage was caused by a neighbour’s drainage system (the earlier flood) and he would have to pursue the matter with the owner of the property. Mr C disputed Scottish Water’s advice that the second incident was due to unforeseen circumstances, unrelated to the damage to his wall.

Our investigation confirmed that there had been two separate incidents, and that Scottish Water had investigated and taken action to resolve both. After the second incident they had cleaned and disinfected Mr C’s garden. They had decided that his neighbour’s lawn should be replaced, but that as Mr C’s back garden was rough ground, no offer should be made to turf it. It was confirmed that Mr C had been advised to submit a claim to replace the damaged wall, but that with this advice he was told that this was not to be taken as an acceptance by Scottish Water of liability because the matter had to be investigated. As the evidence suggested that Scottish Water had considered Mr C’s claim, and explained the reasons why it was refused, this came down to a dispute about liability, which is not a matter that we can look into. We cannot establish legal liability, nor can we award compensation. Only a court can look at legal liability between individuals and organisations.

Summary

Mr C complained that a blockage he had experienced in his home's water pipes was Scottish Water's responsibility and that flooding in his kitchen had been caused by flooding in a nearby car park.

Our investigation found, however, that Scottish Water had correctly told Mr C that the blockage was on his side of the pipe system and, therefore, not their responsibility, and also that the flooding could not have been caused by the car park flooding.

Summary

Mr C's house sustained water damage when Scottish Water carried out work to replace a valve in his area. Mr C was not notified that the water supply would be shut off, and when it was turned back on, dirty water was forced through his bathroom tap at high pressure, soaking the room and seeping through the floor to the ceiling and walls below. Mr C complained about the lack of notice that the water was to be turned off and about Scottish Water's handling of his claim for the cost of redecorating the affected areas of his house.

Scottish Water investigated Mr C's claim and concluded that a tap must have been left on in the bathroom. They accepted that he was not notified that the water was to be turned off, but explained that there had been no plan to turn the water off in his street. Arrangements had been made to set up a diversion of the water supply so that his street was not affected, but a valve was left shut in error and around 200 properties were unexpectedly left without water. Whilst no notification was given that the water would be shut off, we accepted that there should have been no reason to notify Mr C, as it was not foreseen that the valve would be left shut.

Mr C's redecoration claim was rejected based on information provided by Scottish Water to their insurers. Scottish Water told the insurers that their investigation had concluded that Mr C must have left a tap on and that this was the cause of the water flooding his property. We found Scottish Water's conclusions to be supported by the evidence available to them. That said, we considered that Scottish Water's error with the shut valve would also have contributed to the flooding, as Mr C's water supply should not have been interrupted on that day. We found that Scottish Water failed to tell their insurers about their mistake and the impact that it had, as well as other information that may have been relevant to the determination of liability.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Water:

• resubmit Mr C's claim to their insurers for consideration with full details of the circumstances surrounding the damage to his property.

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream had not notified his business of high water consumption after his meter was read. He did not learn of it until he received the bill early the following month.

The reason for the high consumption turned out to be a water leak on his side of the water pipework, and, therefore, his responsibility to repair. Mr C considered that, if Business Stream had notified him promptly, he would have learnt of the leak earlier and could have reduced the consumption by repairing the leak.

Our investigation found that Business Stream's written policy was that they would try to notify customers where usage was significantly higher than usual. In this case, we were satisfied that the consumption was not significantly above previous readings but that, even if it had been, Business Stream's policy did not give any guarantee of notification. We did not uphold the complaint, as we found that Business Stream had not acted unreasonably in not notifying Mr C of the reading earlier.

Summary

In May 2011, Ms C received a bill from a reading of a meter that did not belong to her. Business Stream apologised to her for this in October 2011 and confirmed that they had wrongly billed her for this meter. They said they were crediting her account with £20 in recognition of a failure in service standards to reply. However, Business Stream then credited the wrong account and continued to invoice her for the wrong meter. Ms C complained by email, phone and letter to Business Stream over the next year. When she brought her complaint to us, she said that the matter was unresolved and Business Stream had not responded to her recent correspondence.

Our investigation found that Business Stream had written to Ms C in July 2012, confirming that she had been wrongly invoiced and that all charges for this meter would be credited back to her account. Business Stream told us that they were now satisfied that the billing was on the correct meter and the charges were correct. However, there had been a long delay in resolving the matter, and we did not consider that Business Stream had provided Ms C with a clear explanation of how her current account balance had been calculated. Also, we found that Business Stream delayed in replying to Ms C’s correspondence, and had not compensated her in accordance with their complaints procedure for the failure to reply to correspondence.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream Ltd:

• apologise for the long delay in resolving the matter;
• set out clearly in writing how Ms C's current account balance has been calculated;
• pay £20 for the delay in responding, in line with service standards; and
• pay a further £20 for the delay in responding, again in line with service standards.

Summary

Mrs C runs a small business. She complained about the way her bills had been handled by Business Stream. Mrs C was told in June 2011 that she had not been paying enough for her water and had a backlog of debt. Since then, the amount for which she is being billed has doubled.

Until 2009, Mrs C paid for water based on the rateable value of the property. A Scottish Government decision meant that from 1 April 2009 all businesses began paying for water, based on the amount they used. To allow businesses to adapt to this, the move to the new charging system was phased, with only 30 percent of the bill in the first year being based on usage and this moved to 100 percent on 1 April 2011. As part of the new scheme, Business Stream are required to read the meters to ensure actual meter readings twice per year. Mrs C received bills from 1 April 2009 until 10 June 2011 based on estimated readings. When the first meter reading was made, it was shown that the business had used considerably more water than had been estimated. Mrs C queried this and it was found that there had been an error and this bill was reduced. However, she was still left with a debt and it became clear that due to the change from rateable value to charging by usage, Mrs C was facing considerably larger bills.

Our investigation found that Business Stream had made a mistake when they first read Mrs C's meter. However, they were now calculating bills correctly. We also considered the Scottish Government policy. The aim of the phased period was to allow businesses time to adjust and to take any action they could to reduce their water usage prior to the bills being solely charged on usage. We found, however, that Business Stream had failed to read the meter for nearly two years. This meant that Mrs C had not been able to take any action or to prepare for the increase in bills. Even although the bills were now correct, we upheld her complaint that Business Stream failed to handle the billing appropriately. However, as the water had been used, we were not able to recommend a change to the amount billed. We did consider it unfair that Mrs C had not been able to prepare for the change in the way her bills were calculated and made a recommendation about this.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream Ltd:

• apologise for the delay in reading the meter; and
• review Mrs C's account and ensure no payment charge relating to the debt from the period of 1 April 2009 to 10 June 2011 remains. Any future payment plan agreed between Mrs C and Business Stream should fully reflect that Business Stream's failing prevented Mrs C from taking any mitigating action and, in particular, should allow for an extended repayment period.

Summary

Mr C, who represents a company, complained that Business Stream had charged the company for trade effluent waste without formal consent. He also said that the charges were based on an unreasonably high daily availability figure which did not reflect the average usage.

We found that consent for the charges had been in place for a number of years. We were satisfied that the charges were based on this and were calculated in line with Business Stream’s charging statement. In the absence of a request by the company to review the consent, there was no requirement for Business Stream to do so.

Summary

Mrs C complained on behalf of a village hall committee about Business Stream. She was unhappy with the water services the committee had been given. In particular, she said that their water meter had not been read for over a year, significantly increased consumption had not been brought to their attention and that Business Stream had failed to communicate adequately with the committee. She also alleged that Business Stream took a large amount of money from the committee's bank account by direct debit, without warning, when their water account was supposed to be on hold.

In investigating the complaint we took all relevant information into account, including statements of account, details of meter readings and customer correspondence etc. We did not, however, uphold most of Mrs C's complaints. We found that the meter had not been read between December 2009 and June 2011 although Business Stream had a statutory obligation to take a meter reading at least once a year. However, we found that after the December 2009 reading, a reading was intended to be taken in December 2010. This, however, was prevented by adverse weather conditions on the day, which were well documented, and so the meter was next read on 19 June 2011. In the circumstances, we did not consider this unreasonable. During the period when the meter was not read, estimated bills were issued. After the reading in June 2011 a bill was issued based on the reading, which reflected very high comparative usage. Although Mrs C argued that their use of water had not changed, neither the committee nor Business Stream could find a problem with the meter. Business Stream explored other possible explanations for the spike in usage but found nothing. They, therefore, concluded that the apparent increase in use reflected the catch-up required after the committee had been sent a number of estimated bills.

On balance, we concluded that this was a reasonable position to take. While Mrs C complained about the way in which Business Stream communicated with the committee, and said that one of their letters had gone unanswered, we found that they had not in fact received this letter. Otherwise, our investigation showed that all correspondence and phone calls were replied to. We found that Business Stream placed the committee's account on hold pending the outcome of the investigation into the complaint but, meanwhile, more than £2000 was taken from the committee's account by direct debit. Although Business Stream confirmed that the account had been placed on hold, they had not stopped requesting the direct debit. We took the view that this would be a customer's normal expectation in the circumstances and so we upheld this

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream Ltd:

• make a formal apology reinforced by a payment of £50; and
• seek to prevent such a situation recurring. Alternatively, they repay to the customer the amount of any direct debit taken under such circumstances as soon as the situation becomes known and while a complaint is still under investigation.