Water

Summary

Mr C, a business owner, complained that Business Stream inappropriately charged him for the water services to a neighbouring domestic property. The water supply for both properties went through Mr C's meter. During our investigation, we found that where there is a metered supply that includes a domestic property, the domestic property should not pay for water services in their council tax. Business Stream instead charge their business customer, in this case Mr C, for the metered usage. Mr C's neighbours in the domestic property should, therefore, have paid him for their consumption in a private arrangement. Business Stream's relevant policy states that they cannot become involved in any disputes about this.

That said, we made two recommendations to Business Stream, as we had concerns about the way they handled Mr C's complaints. We considered that Business Stream failed to take ownership of the complaints and failed to provide adequate advice about how Mr C could pursue the matter with his neighbour. They also incorrectly stated in a letter that Mr C was due a reimbursement from them.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream Ltd:

• issue a written apology to Mr C for failing to provide adequate advice about how he could pursue the matter in their responses to an MSP; and incorrectly stating in a letter that he was due a reimbursement from them; and
• provide Mr C with further advice on recouping water charges from the neighbouring domestic property.

Summary

Mr C decided to change his licensed provider for water and waste water. Just before the change, Scottish Water replaced the water meter serving his business premises. Mr C complained to Business Stream that he received no advance notice of this, and was unable to check and verify either the final meter reading or that the new meter was set to zero. Business Stream told Mr C that Scottish Water’s actions were acceptable, but Mr C remained concerned that a mistake could have been made, and that his final bill could be incorrect.

Our investigation confirmed that, under the relevant operational code, if Scottish Water wish to change a meter they are required to notify the licensed provider, and give them 20 business days notice. Business Stream confirmed that they had received the appropriate notice, and provided evidence of this. They also confirmed that, under the standard terms and conditions of their agreement with Mr C, neither they nor Scottish Water were required to contact him before the meter exchange took place. However, they were able to ask Scottish Water for access to the removed meter, as it is a requirement that these are retained for six months following an exchange of meter. This showed that the meter reading in Mr C’s final account was correct and that the exchanged meter was set at zero. As there was no requirement to notify Mr C and no evidence to suggest that the billing was incorrect, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that, following flooding in his garden, Scottish Water would not pay him compensation. We explained to him that our role in compensation claims was very limited. We could not consider whether their claim decision was correct, although we could look into whether Scottish Water had reached that decision in line with their normal processes. Our investigation showed that they had done so and we did not uphold the complaint. We also noted that, although not obliged to do so, they had offered Mr C a payment as a gesture of goodwill.

Summary

Ms C complained about long-term flooding in her area and that Scottish Water had failed to resolve the matter. Our investigation revealed that Scottish Water were not at fault. Although their water pipes did not have sufficient capacity, their funding regime does not provide for the circumstances in question, where a major upgrade of the local pipe network is needed. We explained the situation in detail to Ms C and also passed on information from Scottish Water that they were working with other organisations, in the hope that some form of joint project, with funding coming from elsewhere, might be possible in a few years' time. We acknowledged that Ms C would be likely to find this disappointing but concluded that, as there had been no failings by Scottish Water, there were no grounds to uphold her complaint.

Summary

Mr C's home was flooded with sewage and his insurance company arranged for him to stay in a nearby hotel. That evening, his home was again flooded with sewage. He complained to us that Scottish Water delayed in responding effectively to the sewage flooding. Scottish Water's code of practice states that they will usually attend within four hours if internal sewage flooding is reported. We found that an officer had attended the flood within four hours. A clean-up squad attended on the following morning and Scottish Water's contractors attended on the next day to try to resolve the problem in the sewer. We did not, therefore, consider that Scottish Water delayed unreasonably in responding to the sewage flooding.

Mr C also complained that Scottish Water failed to routinely inspect the sewer as part of their maintenance programme. There is no requirement for Scottish Water to proactively monitor and inspect the whole of their sewage system and it is not within our power to recommend that they adopt such a policy.

Finally, Mr C complained that Scottish Water failed to deal with his claim for compensation appropriately. We upheld this complaint. We found that Scottish Water had referred Mr C's claim for compensation to their insurers. However, they failed to tell them that a half brick had been found in the sewage system. We considered that they should have done so in order that the insurers could reach a sound decision based on all of the relevant evidence.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Water:

• issue a goodwill payment of £200 to Mr C to cover his insurance excess; and
• apologise to him for failing to initially inform their insurers that a half brick had been found in the sewage system when they referred his insurance claim to them.

Summary

Ms C owns a property that she rents to a tenant. In December 2010, the tenant complained of intermittent water supply and low water pressure. During an initial telephone conversation with the tenant, Scottish Water found that the water pressure had returned. However, the problem recurred in January 2011. Scottish Water attended the property and found that the water pressure met the minimum standard of one bar of pressure. As such, they took no further action. Ms C continued to raise concerns about the issue as her tenant continued to complain of loss of water and low pressure.

In March 2011, Scottish Water arranged for a pressure flow test to be carried out, to assess the water pressure over a 24 hour period. Further investigations and complaints from other residents in the street led to the conclusion that there was a burst on the water main. In July 2011 a temporary solution was found pending refurbishment of the water main. Ms C complained that Scottish Water delayed in dealing with the problem, resulting in her losing rental income and other expenses. She also said that their communication was poor throughout her dealings with them.

Our investigation found that locating the source of the problem was not straightforward. However, Scottish Water did not respond to Ms C's reports of low water pressure in line with their general service standards, and a number of short delays contributed to a significant overall delay. We accepted independent advice from our adviser on water matters that water pressure can vary throughout the day depending on demand, and as such, a reading of one bar of pressure may be lower at peak times. It took ten weeks for Scottish Water to order the pressure flow test, despite numerous contacts from Ms C explaining that the low pressure problem persisted. We considered this should have been done sooner. We were also critical of Scottish Water's communication, which was often delayed and contained little useful information about what was being done to resolve the problem.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Water:

• apologise to Ms C for the issues highlighted in our investigation;
• make a payment to Ms C of £120 in line with their general service standards;
• consider making a further payment to Ms C in recognition of the time and trouble and expense incurred as a result of the low water pressure problem; and
• take steps to ensure their staff work in line with their customer service standards - Pressure Reference Map, which sets out the process that should be followed to achieve the 5 day service standard.

Summary

Mrs C formerly owned shop premises and was a customer of Business Stream. In July 2011 she closed her account and said that Business Stream told her that she would receive a refund. A few months later, she received a cheque for £496.35. Six months later Business Stream wrote to Mrs C asking her to repay this. Mrs C complained that when she phoned for an explanation, she was told that the payment had been made in error, and it was her fault because she had asked for a refund.

Our investigation confirmed that Business Stream closed Mrs C's account when she asked them to and that the next invoice sent to her was to make a payment to her account. A week later, a payment which should have gone to another customer's account was wrongly paid into Mrs C's account, and she was sent a cheque for the balance on her water account. When Business Stream discovered the error, they sent a reminder to Mrs C asking her for a refund. However, they did not explain the reasons for this, or why they did not issue an invoice before sending a reminder. They also started debt recovery procedures without notice.

We upheld Mrs C's complaint that they had mismanaged her account because we found that Business Stream sent Mrs C money in error. Because, however, they had accepted their mistake and apologised, credited her account with £20 and confirmed that steps had been taken to avoid this happening again, we did not make any recommendations.

We did not find that Business Stream delayed in contacting Mrs C about the error or that they acted unreasonably in demanding repayment from her because they did, after the initial letter, send a detailed explanation of how they calculated the amount they wanted back. We did recommend that Business Stream apologise to Mrs C for their poor communication as there were mistakes in the correspondence with her, which they accepted could have been confusing.

However, we upheld Mrs C's complaint that it was unreasonable to start debt recovery proceedings without notice. Business Stream told us that debt recovery begins when an outstanding balance on an account has not been paid for 14 days, and no formal payment plan or promise to pay exists. They accepted that they should have contacted Mrs C first to confirm the error, explain what happened and why a refund was being sought. As, however, Business Stream had already made a goodwill payment to Mrs C in line with their service standards, we made no further recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• formally apologise for the mistakes in their letter.

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream had charged his business back to a date earlier than when he moved into the property. Our investigation revealed that Business Stream had asked him to provide evidence of the date he moved in but that he had not done so.

We established that, on the basis of the information held by Business Stream, they were correct to bill Mr C back to the date they had used. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that Business Stream failed to let her know when there was an excessive increase in the amount of water they had recorded that she was using on her farm. She said that her complaint about this was not dealt with sympathetically because, although she had queried her bill, a reminder with an additional charge was sent. Mrs C also complained about the charge that she was quoted upfront for the disconnection of one of two meters serving her property.

We did not uphold her complaints. From our investigation we found that, while the statement of account did record that there was a sharp increase in water usage from the bill issued in the previous quarter, Business Stream had carried out an actual once-a-year meter reading three days before the contested bill was issued. They explained that it was open to customers to carry out their own checks on usage by taking and submitting their meter readings.

Further, it was evident that Busines Stream had provided Mrs C with the correct information about the circumstances in which a rebate could be given under their 'burst allowance policy' and why this did not apply in her case. They had responded to her complaint about the issue of a reminder for payment, and had not applied an additional charge.

With regard to the disconnection charges, from checking Business Stream's website it appeared possible that the amount that Mrs C said that she had been quoted for the upfront charges would have been for disconnection of both her meters. In responding to her complaint, they had directed Mrs C to the website. There was no evidence that Business Stream had given Mrs C misinformation about the cost of the deposit, and they have no discretion about the charges as these are based on the cost of providing this service. We directed Mrs C to the website to help her decide whether she wished to proceed with having one of her meters disconnected.

Summary

Ms C complained that Business Stream had wrongly assessed her property as a business and that she was billed according to this. We investigated the complaint and considered all the available information, including Business Stream's complaints file and the bills issued to Ms C. We consulted the appropriate section of the Scottish Assessors Association website (which provides information about properties and rateable values) and Business Stream's billing policy for such properties.

We found that Ms C's property was referred to as a guest house and that its rateable value had been apportioned accordingly (the business element being the greater part). In the circumstances, Business Stream's policy required them to charge appropriately, based on this information. We found that Business Stream were acting in accordance with their policy by charging Ms C, and did not uphold the complaint.