Water

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.

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream did not give him notice that the water pressure at his business premises would be much higher when Scottish Water upgraded the pipes in his area. He said that there were a number of large underground leaks in his premises, and it took him several months to detect and fix all of them. As a result of this, his water bill rose substantially, although he was given a rebate sum for part of this.

We asked Business Stream if either they or Scottish Water should tell customers if the pressure in the network is to increase. Business Stream said that Scottish Water manage their network on a daily basis, which increases and decreases pressure. They said that Scottish Water do not advise if there are to be changes unless the change in water pressure is to be so great that it would cause an operating issue to a commercial customer. They told us that Scottish Water renewed the old pipe work in Mr C’s area, but did not increase the water pressure there, although the new pipe work increased the water pressure at Mr C’s premises due to increased efficiency and reduced water loss. However, there was no requirement in these circumstances for Business Stream or Scottish Water to give him notice about this so we did not uphold that complaint.

Mr C also complained that Business Stream failed to deal with his complaints appropriately and delayed in reading his water meter. We found that they had delayed in responding to his complaints and in obtaining his water meter readings, as well as asking him to provide information that he had already sent to them. We upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream Ltd:

• issue a written apology for the failure to deal with Mr C's complaints appropriately.

Summary

Following a leak in 2010, Mr C discovered that his business premises shared a water meter with a neighbouring property. His business had been charged for the water supply to both businesses for several years without his knowledge. Once the situation was brought to Business Stream's attention, they offered Mr C a credit amount. He complained, however, that the amount was not adequate and that he should receive a refund of 50 percent of the water charges over an eight year period. Mr C raised further concerns about Business Stream's handling of his complaint and the fact that he was charged recovery fees and pursued for outstanding payments when his account was supposed to be on hold while his complaint was investigated.

Our investigation found that, generally, it is the property owner's responsibility to familiarise themselves with the pipe and water meter infrastructure supplying their premises. However, the evidence submitted to us showed that Mr C had specifically asked in 2006 whether his meter was serving two properties. Scottish Water inspected the meter and advised that it only served his property and we considered it reasonable for Mr C to accept this advice at face value. We did not find it appropriate for Mr C to be affected financially by Scottish Water's inaccurate information.

Although the meter was serving two properties, we did not consider that it was necessarily the case that both businesses would use the same amount of water. As such, we did not consider a 50 percent refund of all water charges to be appropriate. Mr C's meter was split in 2010 and accurate readings were available to assess his typical daily usage. When calculating the credit offered to Mr C, Business Stream applied the recalculated typical daily usage back to the date his account was created. We found this to be an appropriate gesture.

We did, however, find that Business Stream inappropriately continued to issue reminder invoices and late-payment fees to Mr C when his account should have been suspended. We were also critical of them for initially misunderstanding Mr C's complaint, and contributing to a delay in the matter being resolved.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream Ltd:

• pay Mr C £40, in line with their service standards, for the delay to his complaint being resolved and the failure to issue a final response; and
• apologise to Mr C for the issues highlighted in our investigation.

Summary

Business Stream contacted Mr C asking for details of his business so that he could be billed for water. He was initially reluctant to provide the requested details but after further discussions, Business Stream issued his first bill. Mr C was unhappy to find that this was for a substantial sum, as it had been backdated to when his business moved into the premises. He complained about the way Business Stream went about setting up his account and about the way they pursued him for water charges dating back several years, despite the absence of previous bills.

We found that the property had previously been occupied by another business, who had told Business Stream when they moved out. The property was, therefore, classed as vacant from that date and Mr C had a responsibility as the new occupant to make arrangements to pay for the water supply. We acknowledged that Mr C may not have been aware of his obligations due to changes that had been made to the water industry shortly before he moved into the property. However, we did not find that Business Stream had any obligation to actively check whether a new occupant had moved in. They had identified Mr C's business during a routine audit of vacant sites, and we found it was appropriate for them to contact him at that point.

Mr C had challenged the accuracy of meter readings that were taken during the period that his property was believed to be vacant. We accepted professional advice indicating that the amount of water used was in line with what would be expected for a property of this size and type. We also noted that a single water bill had been issued, with the first and most recent readings not being in dispute. As such, whilst Business Stream were unable to provide evidence that each meter reading was accurate on the date attributed to it, we were satisfied that the correct amount had been charged for the water that was used.

We were, however, critical of Business Stream for continuing to pursue Mr C for outstanding payments whilst his complaint was being investigated and the amounts were in dispute.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream Ltd:

• apologise to Mr C for continuing to pursue him for payment whilst his dispute was being investigated;
• contact Mr C with their offer of setting up a payment plan; and
• ensure that any late payment fees applied to Mr C's account to date are removed.

Summary

Mr C had experienced a recurring problem of raw sewage being discharged into his back garden during heavy rainfall. Scottish Water had investigated and carried out some repairs, but this had not resolved the problem. Mr C believed that this was happening because the sewer was not able to cope with sudden heavy rainfall, and said that it should be replaced. Scottish Water told Mr C that they did not have the funding to do this. He considered this unacceptable, and believed that they should seek additional funding if this was what was needed to resolve the problem.

When we investigated the complaint, Scottish Water confirmed that a problem could occur during heavy rainfall, but said that they were tied by issues of funding and prioritising (internal flooding in a property has a higher priority than external flooding, and has to be addressed first) but they had, as far as they were able, taken action to address the problem. We noted that the indications were that they were trying to find a solution. On this basis and given the evidence that the problem was one of funding, rather than coming about as a result of maladministration or service failure, there was no further action that we could take.

Summary

Mr C's garden was contaminated when a blocked sewer overflowed. In the process of clearing up other gardens, further contamination was washed into Mr C's garden. Mr C said he was not properly notified of the contamination or the risk to his health. He complained that the clean-up of his own garden, which involved an operative spraying disinfectant for less than five minutes, was completely inadequate. He said that, in contrast, other properties got new topsoil, turf and stone chippings. Lastly, Mr C was unhappy that an operative suggested that he dig raw sewage into the soil.

We upheld three of Mr C's five complaints. Scottish Water accepted that some contamination was washed into Mr C's garden during the clean-up operation. We concluded that this run-off had, inappropriately, gone unnoticed. We found evidence that Mr C had not been properly issued with written information and guidance about contamination early enough. We also found that the option of a further clean-up was not discussed with or offered to Mr C, as it should have been.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaint of unfair treatment, in that his garden was not re-turfed etc. We took the view it was appropriate for Scottish Water to act proportionately, and to allocate more resources to those who were worst affected. It was not possible for us to establish what Mr C had been told by the operative and, as there was no supportable evidence, we did not uphold the complaint that Mr C had been told to dig sewage into the soil.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Water:

• apologise to Mr C for those aspects of his complaint that we upheld.

Summary

Mr C complained that Scottish Water failed to respond adequately to his complaint about damage caused by a fish pass they had built. He said that this was causing erosion to a riverbed beside his property. In response to our enquiries, Scottish Water confirmed that they had built the fish pass because their sewer pipe was stopping salmon from getting up the river. They said they had a duty under legislation not to restrict salmon movement upstream. However, they said that the fish pass was not their asset and that it had not been shown that this was causing the erosion. They told us that there had been erosion in the riverbed before the fish pass was built.

Scottish Water said that they were not liable for the problem. We cannot establish legal liability. Only a court can look at legal liability between individuals and organisations. However, we can consider complaints about how a body have handled such matters. We were satisfied that Scottish Water had investigated the matter and there was no evidence of administrative error. We also found that Scottish Water's explanation to Mr C about the matter was satisfactory.

Summary

Mr C owns the pull in area in front of his house, which has not been adopted by the council and is private property. Mr C said that Scottish Water failed to identify that this was the case before they started work on the road outside his house. Mr C said that Scottish Water's contractors then used the pull in area although they did not have his consent to do so, and it was damaged as a result. Mr C also said that Scottish Water did not respond adequately to his concerns about foreign material in his domestic water supply and failed to identify/note the location of his septic tank outlet pipe which crosses the road in this area for future reference.

Scottish Water accepted that they had initially failed to identify that the area was private property but said that when this was pointed out, their contractors had removed their vehicles and machinery. Both Scottish Water and the contractors had apologised to Mr C. We upheld Mr C's complaint about this but as the apologies were reasonable, we made no recommendations. We did not uphold the complaint about damage as there was not enough evidence of this, and did not uphold the remaining complaints as we did not find that Scottish Water had done anything wrong.

Summary

Ms C operated a small business from a kiosk in a shopping centre. She had a water meter and paid her landlord for water and waste water. Business Stream sent her a bill for property and roads drainage based on the rateable value of her kiosk. She did not consider this was correct as her kiosk was entirely within the centre and had no separate roof or roads which required to be drained. She thought that Business Stream were charging more than once for drainage of the same water. We found, however, that Business Stream had charged her in line with their billing policy and on the same basis as the other tenants in the shopping centre. We did not uphold her complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a business adviser, complained on behalf of clients about Business Stream. He said that Business Stream had billed his clients for water services based on incorrect information. He maintained that although he brought these inaccuracies to Business Stream's attention, they failed to amend them or change their bill. He said that as a consequence, his clients had been put under stress by Business Stream who did not readily put the account concerned on hold until the matter had been resolved. He said that his clients had been prevented from switching suppliers and that a switch might have been to their financial advantage.

We investigated the complaints, taking all the relevant information into account, including all correspondence and statements of account and invoices, internal notes and emails, together with printouts from the Central Marketing Agency (CMA). The CMA is the organisation that administers the market for water and waste water retail services in Scotland.

We did not uphold any of Mr C's complaints. Our investigation showed that although Mr C maintained that Business Stream had used the incorrect start date for invoicing, the CMA information confirmed Business Stream's understanding as correct. Mr C's client's account had been put on hold for the duration of the complaint and the client's own actions, in disputing their bill, was what had prevented them from switching users.