Water

Summary

Mr C, who is a business adviser, complained on behalf of his client, a customer of Business Stream. He alleged that Business Stream were incorrectly charging for water and waste water services based on the wrong effective start date, despite his client drawing this error to Business Stream's attention. Mr C further alleged that his client had been put under unreasonable stress as a consequence, and that Business Stream had not readily agreed to suspend action to recover the money they claimed was due. He maintained that his client had also been prevented from changing suppliers because of Business Stream's mistakes.

We investigated the complaint, taking all the relevant documentation into account including Business Stream's complaint file, the relevant bills, internal emails etc. We also made formal enquiries of Business Stream.

We did not, however, uphold the complaints. Mr C believed that the premises concerned were a 'gap' site (ie that the site had a live water and waste water connection but neither Scottish Water or Business Stream knew that the property existed). Our investigation established that this was not the case and, rather, the premises were determined to be 'vacant' (ie Scottish Water and Business Stream were aware that the property existed and had a water connection, but believed the premises to be vacant). There were different billing arrangements in place for each of these categories when the water industry market opened for competition. Mr C had mistakenly assumed that his client occupied a gap site rather than a vacant site, and our investigation found that the way in which his client was billed was in fact correct.

Our investigation also revealed that Mr C's client's account was suspended during Business Stream's investigation and that there was no evidence of his client being harassed or bullied. Furthermore, as it was confirmed that the company had been properly charged for its water services, we did not find that they had been unreasonably prevented from changing supplier. Business Stream had in fact provided information about this to Mr C's client, had they wished to progress the matter.

Summary

Ms C complained that Business Stream delayed in issuing her bill after Scottish Water told them that her business premises were receiving water and waste water services, for which she had not been charged. When Scottish Water identify a property like this, they notify a licensed provider such as Business Stream, who then start billing from the date they were notified. In Ms C's case, however, Business Stream took seven months to issue a bill. The bill was based on the rateable value of the property, as Ms C did not have a water meter installed at that time. During our investigation of the complaint, Business Stream told us that when they receive details of properties that are not being charged for water, they need to open a property account, discover if there is someone in the property and then confirm their details in order to begin charging. However, in Ms C's case, there was no evidence that they had taken any significant action until they issued the bill to her. This was seven months after they received the information from Scottish Water.

Ms C then applied for a water meter and her charges were reassessed from the date it was installed. However, this was four months after Business Stream sent out her bill and eleven months after Scottish Water contacted them about Ms C's premises. Ms C complained that Business Stream did not tell her how she could request a meter or apply to have her charges reassessed. Business Stream said that there were no notes on their computer system of any conversation with Ms C about reassessment, but there was information on their website about how to apply. We considered that Business Stream should send out information about reassessment when they initially contact customers who do not have a meter installed.

Ms C had benefited from free water and waste water services for six months before Scottish Water contacted Business Stream. We considered that she had some responsibility to ensure that she was paying for these services. During our investigation, Business Stream agreed to backdate Ms C's metered charges for a short period, because they had not responded to correspondence. However, in view of the fact that we upheld her complaints that Business Stream delayed in setting up her account and failed to provide her with adequate information about reassessment, we asked them to reconsider their decision about the date to which the metered charges should be backdated, taking all of the above information into account.

Ms C also complained that Business Stream had failed to respond to some of her emails. However, we did not find any evidence of this.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• issue a written apology for the failure to provide Ms C with adequate information about reassessment when they initially contacted her;
• consider how they can ensure that they provide adequate information about reassessment to new customers who do not have a meter installed;
• reconsider their decision regarding what date metered charges should be backdated to in Ms C's case; and
• issue a written apology to Ms C for the delay in issuing the initial bill.

Summary

Mrs C complained on behalf of a company that Business Stream incorrectly calculated their water charges between December 2009 and April 2012. She said that while she was in dispute with Business Stream about the matter, the company was pursued by debt collectors, although she had been told that the account was on hold.

We looked at the correspondence, statements of account and invoices, and printouts from Business Stream's billing system. Our investigation found that when Business Stream issued the company with an invoice in February 2011, they did so on the basis of information provided to them by Scottish Water. In March 2011, Business Stream learned that this information was wrong, and so were the bills they had issued. However, it took until September 2011 for the company's accounts to be closed and for a new bill to be issued. Business Stream were unable to provide us with any reasons for this. We found this to be maladministration and upheld the complaint.

Business Stream also provided dates of when the company's account was on hold but we found that a demand for payment was sent to them during this time. This should not have happened because Mrs C had been told the account would be suspended until the matter was resolved.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• apologise for the delay in regularising the situation with regard to the meter, Mrs C's water bills and address. The apology should also take into account the fact that a demand for payment was made when Mrs C's account was on hold, and should be enhanced by a payment of £200 in recognition of the inconvenience suffered as a consequence of Business Stream's actions;
• satisfy themselves that there is a process to ensure that holds on accounts are notified to companies seeking payment on their behalf; and
• advise staff concerned of the necessity of keeping correct records, particularly as failure to do so can lead to incorrect invoices.

Summary

Mr C complained to Scottish Water about the length of time they were taking to complete pipe replacement works along a stretch of road. The works affected his commute and he felt that they were taking longer than necessary as Scottish Water's contractors were not working during evenings and weekends. During his correspondence with Scottish Water, Mr C asked why work was not being carried out at these times, and was told that the local authority had placed restrictions on the hours that could be worked. However, when Mr C contacted the local authority, they told him that they had not done this.

Mr C complained that Scottish Water deliberately misled him in their letter, as there were in fact no restrictions on the hours that could be worked. Our investigation found that several departments in the local authority were involved in the pipe-replacement works. In their capacity as roads authority, the local authority had placed no restrictions on working hours for the project. Mr C's enquiries had been addressed to the roads service and they had confirmed this to him. However, in their environmental health capacity, the local authority had applied their standard working hours restrictions, which prevented work after 18:00 Monday to Friday and 13:00 on Saturdays, with no work permitted on Sundays or public holidays. We were satisfied that working hours restrictions were in fact in place and that Scottish Water did not deliberately mislead Mr C in their correspondence with him.

Summary

Mr C'’s property was flooded with sewage during heavy rain when a pipe was blocked by inappropriate items that had been flushed into it. His insurance company covered the costs of the damage to his property and Scottish Water reimbursed his insurance excess. Mr C assumed that was the end of the matter. However, when he renewed his household insurance, Mr C'’s insurers informed him that Scottish Water had denied responsibility and the claim had been held against him. He said that this resulted in the loss of his no claims discount and in his insurance premiums increasing.

We cannot establish legal liability, nor can we award compensation. Only a court can look at legal liability between individuals and organisations. However, we can consider complaints about the handling of an insurance claim if we find it was not handled properly. We might make recommendations to put things right if we find that the claim could have been handled better or a more detailed explanation should have been offered.

We upheld Mr C's complaints. Scottish Water had failed to take into account the fact that Mr C's neighbour had told them about potential flooding the day before Mr C’'s property was flooded. When they referred the insurance claim to their claims handlers, Scottish Water did not tell them about the call from Mr C’'s neighbour. Although the claims handlers said that this information would not have changed their decision, we considered that Scottish Water should have made them aware of this so that they could make a fully informed decision.

Under their Guaranteed Service Standard scheme, on occasions Scottish Water will make a payment to customers who are flooded internally from a sewer. In Mr C'’s case, Scottish Water told us that they had not made a payment, because the flooding was external to his property. We told them that Mr C’'s garage had been flooded and it formed part of an extension to his house. In view of this, Scottish Water issued a Guaranteed Service Standard payment to him.

Mr C also complained that it was three weeks before Scottish Water cleaned the area after the flooding. Although we found that Scottish Water’s contractors cleaned up the area five days after the sewage flood, it was clear from the evidence that Mr C and his wife (Mrs C) did not consider that this was done satisfactorily. In their response to us, Scottish Water said that they were unaware of any dissatisfaction with the initial clean-up until they were contacted nearly four weeks later. However, we found evidence that on the day that the initial clean-up was done Mrs C asked for the area to be cleaned again. No action was taken on this until Mr and Mrs C again reported their dissatisfaction nearly three weeks later. We found this delay unacceptable.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Water:

• issue a written apology to Mr C for failing to initially inform their claims handlers of the call his neighbour made to them the day before his property was flooded;
• issue a written apology to Mr C for the delay in carrying out a satisfactory clean-up after the sewage flood; and
• review this case in order to identify how they can prevent similar delays from occurring.

Summary

Mr C received planning permission to build two semi-detached properties in the grounds of his former home. When creating the plans for the development, he obtained plans held by Scottish Water which showed that a water main ran through the site. Mr C based the location of his development on the plans he had obtained, ensuring that his properties would not be built over the water main. However, he later found that the south east corner of his properties were built over the mains pipe. Scottish Water told him that he would have to pay for the pipe to be diverted. However, Mr C considered that this was unreasonable, given that he built the properties according to plans provided by Scottish Water, which turned out to be inaccurate.

Our investigation found that Scottish Water are legally obliged to supply plans of their water infrastructure that are reasonably accurate. Scottish Water told us that, generally, their plans should be accurate to within a two metre tolerance. However, there may be some inaccuracy. With this in mind, they issue a disclaimer with any requested plans which highlights the developer's responsibility to ensure they know the precise location of any local water mains. Scottish Water told us that the pipe was two metres out from the location shown on the plans. They considered this to be within a reasonable tolerance.

Mr C found the pipe when digging the foundations of the properties. He sought advice as to what he should do, but did not contact Scottish Water. He said that the pipe was substantially more than two metres from the location shown on the plans.

We examined the plans provided to Mr C and subsequent drawings from a Scottish Water representative who plotted the accurate location of the water main. We found that the pipe was roughly 8.5 metres out from the location suggested in the plans. The evidence presented to us also suggested that Mr C's plans did not include the disclaimer regarding accuracy.

We found that Scottish Water failed in their obligations to supply reasonably accurate information. Whilst acknowledging Mr C's responsibility as developer to check where the pipe was, we considered it reasonable for him not to do so on this occasion, given the apparent distance from his proposed site as shown on the plans. That said, Mr C had an opportunity upon finding the pipe to avoid the situation he found himself in. As such, we could not ignore his responsibilities entirely. We recommended that Scottish Water and Mr C split the cost of diverting the water main.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Water:

• contribute 50 percent of the cost of diverting the water main from under Mr C's property.

Summary

In June 2011, Business Stream told Mr C that there was a leak in his water supply. He tried to establish its source but by October 2011 had been unable to do so. He said that he thought that the leak would equate to a dripping tap. In November 2011, Business Stream told him that he was to receive a large bill and, the same day, issued a bill for more than £20,000. Mr C complained that although Business Stream were aware of the water leak in June 2011, they failed to tell him of its extent which meant that by the time of their November 2011 bill, he had accumulated a large debt.

We investigated the complaint and obtained Business Stream's complaint file, all relevant correspondence, Mr C's bills and meter readings together with copies of the applicable legislation. We found that when Mr C was told about the leak, under the applicable legislation and terms and conditions, he was responsible for finding and fixing it. He had been unable to do so and in October 2011, he told Business Stream who suggested that he seek Scottish Water's assistance.

Scottish Water found the leak and repaired it at Mr C's expense. Mr C's bill was not sent out until Business Stream established that it was correct. While Mr C was unhappy to receive such a large bill, we found that it was clearly his responsibility to find and repair the leak at his own cost. As he did not so until the end of October 2011, Business Stream could not be held responsible for the cost of the water that had leaked away. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C said that until Business Stream contacted him, he was unaware of his liability to pay water/waste charges to them. He said he had asked for a site visit but no-one came. He then received a bill backdated to May 2008 but the supply address was incorrect and he was concerned that he was being charged for the wrong premises. He said he had been in the same premises since 2007 and did not understand why it had taken Business Stream so long to realise he was there. He also said that they had given him conflicting information by assuring him that his account was on hold while his complaints were looked into, then pursuing him for payment and charges.

From 1 April 2008 all businesses with a water/waste supply are obliged to register with a licensed provider and pay for their service. The fact that Mr C was unaware of his responsibility to do so does not affect the fact that he is liable for water charges. We found no evidence that he had requested a site visit or of any undertaking from Business Stream to perform one. Business Stream said that as another street ran onto the street where Mr C’s premises are located there may have been an input error into their system. They confirmed that the water meter concerned serves only Mr C’s premises, and they amended the address on their system to ensure that the correct address appears on future bills. They also explained that they picked this up during an initiative to identify businesses that were not registered with a licensed provider (in which case Business Stream becomes the licensed provider by default). Business Stream confirmed that Mr C’s account was on hold while his complaints were investigated. We did not uphold any of Mr C's complaints as we were satisfied that Business Stream had followed the appropriate procedures.

Summary

Ms C occupied business premises in April 2004. She complained that in 2011 she received a telephone call from Business Stream telling her that she would be receiving a bill from them for water charges for the year March 2010 - 11. She complained that this was unreasonable as it was the first time Business Stream had ever contacted her.

Our investigation found that although Business Stream are the default provider as part of the water industry's regulatory regime, they were under no obligation to identify, or to identify quickly, premises where there was no licensed provider. However, in Ms C’s case it had been identified in March 2010 that Business Stream would act in default as her provider, but she was not told about this until a year later. We took the view that this was too long and upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream Ltd:

• apologise to Ms C for their initial failure to respond properly to her query about water services until June 2011
• waive the first of the penalty charges (plus VAT) that was levied on Ms C's account in May 2011

Summary

Mr C purchased a farm and then discovered there were water leaks on his property. He asked Business Stream for assistance but they did not respond to his request. One year later he discovered that Business Stream should have referred him to their solutions team who track and fix water leaks. Mr C also considered that he had been provided with poor customer service as Business Stream had not always responded to his letters and telephone calls.

We upheld Mr C’s complaint about his request for assistance as Business Stream had not referred this to their solutions team in line with their normal procedure. Business Stream offered him a goodwill payment to resolve this, which we considered to be appropriate so we made no recommendations. We also looked at their communication with Mr C. While we did identify occasions when they had not responded, and delays while awaiting action by Scottish Water for which Business Stream had apologised, on balance we found that Business Stream’s communication had been reasonable. We, therefore, did not uphold that complaint.