Water

Summary

Mr C's business moved into new premises on 1 April 2011. He was unaware of his liability to pay for water and waste water services, believing that these were included in utility payments to the landlord. During a routine audit, Business Stream identified the premises as a gap site (a site which had been receiving water without being charged for it). They set up an account for Mr C's business in September 2011 and issued a backdated bill for estimated water usage. Mr C disputed the charges and his account was reassessed. Although his water usage was reassessed and his bills reduced, he complained that he was still required to pay the higher rate for the period prior to reassessment.

We were satisfied that Business Stream followed the correct procedure for reassessing water usage as set out in guidance issued by the Water Industry Commission for Scotland. This procedure requires licensed providers to backdate the reassessed rate to the date of the request for reassessment, but does not allow for further backdating. We were satisfied with Business Stream's handling of Mr C's account prior to his reassessment request and found no grounds for further backdating of the reassessed rate.

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream sent him a water bill that was much larger than usual. He established that there was a leak to his supply which he quickly remedied. He then wrote to Business Stream about the bill saying how shocked he had been to receive it; that he would have great difficulty in paying and he wished to be given an extended period over which to pay. He received no response to this and sent a second letter. Meanwhile, he received a further bill for a larger sum. Business Stream applied twice to Mr C's bank for the amount due, in accordance with a direct debit. The bills were returned unpaid and on each occasion Mr C incurred bank charges. Business Stream went on to involve a debt collection agency for recovery of the sum.

Mr C's MSP contacted Business Stream on his behalf. This resulted in an enquiry and a letter to Mr C in which Business Stream agreed that they had had an obligation to tell Mr C earlier about his apparent increased usage. As they had not done so, they credited him with an amount to represent the water used between the date they discovered the increased usage and the date they told Mr C. They also credited him with £20 as Mr C did not receive an email sent to him after he had written his first letter. Business Stream confirmed that they would allow Mr C to pay the sum owed over a period of 12 months.

Mr C remained unhappy. He continued to complain and said that his bill should be reduced further. He maintained that had Business Stream engaged with him earlier and when he first wrote to them, the involvement of debt collectors and increased anxiety could have been avoided.

When we investigated Mr C's complaint we found that Business Stream had delayed telling Mr C about his apparent increased usage. To remedy this, they reduced his bill. We also found that, apart from their email response to Mr C's letter (which was not received), Business Stream had not replied in any meaningful way to him until after his MSP became involved. We upheld Mr C's complaints.

Our investigation found that Business Stream had twice applied to Mr C's bank for the money despite his request for a special payment arrangement. As a result of their action, he incurred bank charges. We concluded that if Business Stream had engaged earlier with Mr C, they could probably have established a payment plan. We upheld this complaint and recommended that they reimburse Mr C for the bank charges.

Business Stream also involved a debt agency when Mr C did not pay his bill (there was an obligation under their terms and conditions for Mr C to pay what he thought he owed). While we did not criticise Business Stream for instructing such an agency, they failed to tell the agency when they reached agreement with Mr C for payment and he was sent a letter initiating legal action. As, however, Business Stream had apologised for this, we made no recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• apologise for their delay in responding to Mr C's letter;
• emphasise to relevant staff that customer correspondence should be properly replied to and ensure that where an explanation is required, it is given; and
• repay Mr C's bank charges.

Summary

The water on Ms C's estate was turned off for essential works by Scottish Water. When the water was turned on again, Ms C said that it burst a pipe under her bath and flooded her house. She paid an insurance excess of £200 to have the damage repaired, and was concerned that this could increase her insurance premium in future. Ms C was advised by her plumber that the damage could have been due to a pressure surge caused by Scottish Water turning the water back on too quickly. Ms C made a claim and a complaint to Scottish Water but was unhappy with their response and complained to us.

Our investigation identified that Ms C lives in an area where water pressure is managed. This management means that water pressure is not able to rise above a certain level. We checked that level against Scottish Water's standards and noted measurements taken at the time, and found that it was in line with these. It was, therefore, unlikely that the burst pipe could have happened because of a surge in water pressure. When we looked at the handling of Ms C's claim and complaint, we found that Scottish Water had had responded in line with their policy.

Summary

Mr C's car struck a large pothole. This caused damage to his car tyre, which had only recently been fitted. It needed replaced. When he telephoned the council to advise them of the road condition they said they already knew about the pothole and would send him a claim form which he completed and returned to them. They then told him, however, that the damage was due to a burst water main, and that they had passed his claim to Scottish Water. However, Scottish Water said that this had been an unforeseen incident outwith their control. They turned down his claim as they said it was not their responsibility, as they had not been told about the problem until the following day.

Mr C considered this unreasonable as the council had the information earlier. He also thought that Scottish Water should have monitored their network and become aware of the problem earlier. Our investigation showed, however, that the fault was indeed not reported to Scottish Water until the next day, and that in terms of their regulatory agreement, Scottish Water were under no obligation to monitor their mains water network. We found that they had handled the matter in line with their normal procedures.

Summary

Mr C complained to us about Scottish Water’s actions in relation to pollution in a burn (small stream) beside his home. We contacted Scottish Water for information about this. They sent us evidence showing that they had accepted that there was pollution in the burn and had taken action to resolve the problem. From the correspondence it appeared that Mr C was happy with this.

When we spoke to Mr C about it, he said that he had some additional information that he wanted us to consider. We asked him to send it to us, but he didn't provide it. We decided that we could not continue our investigation without the information and closed the case. We told Mr C that we would reopen his complaint if he provided the requested information within a reasonable period of time.

Summary

A water main runs through Mr C's garden but does not supply water to his house. In May 2011 he discovered that the water main had burst and water had flooded under his house. Mr C was concerned that this might have damaged his property's foundations and wanted Scottish Water to arrange a structural survey of his foundations to check for damage and to meet the costs of the survey and any subsequent repairs. He also asked them to re-site the water main away from his property.

Scottish Water told Mr C that they would meet the cost of the survey and any repairs if it could be established that the leak had caused damage. They took the view that it was unlikely that the foundations would have been damaged and there was no evidence to suggest that they were. As such, they said it would be up to Mr C to arrange a survey, and if this showed damage Scottish Water would refer the matter to their insurers. Mr C did not find this reasonable as he said he would not have needed to do this had the pipe not leaked. Scottish Water also declined to relocate the pipe, as it was in good condition and there was no refurbishment plan for Mr C's area.

On the advice of our adviser on water matters, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We found that it was reasonable for Scottish Water to ask for evidence that damage had occurred before involving their insurers. There was no specific requirement for a structural survey to prove that the foundations were damaged - this had been proposed by Mr C. We did not consider that Scottish Water were obliged to instruct or fund investigations into the extent of any damage before liability was determined. With regard to the relocation of the pipe, we accepted advice that this might benefit from relocation during the next planned refurbishment in the area. However, there was no immediate reason to relocate the pipe and we found the position reached by Scottish Water to be reasonable.

Summary

Mr C contacted us on behalf of his wife and her business partner, who lease commercial premises. He complained that Business Stream were charging them for water which was being supplied to the adjoining commercial premises. Mr C was unhappy because Business Stream had told him that this was a private matter between him and the landlord of both premises.

We did not uphold this complaint. Our investigation confirmed that there was only one meter serving both premises, which was located in the premises leased by Mr C's wife and her business partner. The landlord had not requested a separate meter to serve the adjoining commercial premises, and there was no responsibility on the part of Business Stream to tell Mr C about the arrangement. We agreed that the matter was one to be resolved with the landlord.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of a charitable foundation that Business Stream refused their request for relief from water charges. He said that Business Stream failed to follow its own guidance concerning eligibility. Mr C said that as the previous charity that occupied the premises were exempt, so too should the foundation he represented.

Our investigation considered all the information provided by the foundation and Business Stream. We also considered relevant guidance and policies relating to the exemption scheme. One of the criteria for exemption was that the claimant required to have been exempt from charges for the property they occupied as at 31 March 1999. As Mr C was unable to provide information to confirm that the foundation met this criteria, we found that Business Stream had properly applied their policy and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C rented business premises for six months. She said that during that time she had no water and that she eventually left the property when it was declared unfit for use by the council. Nevertheless, Business Stream sent her invoices for the use of water.

From the bills available, we found that it appeared that Ms C was properly charged, and we did not uphold her complaint. We found that there was a water meter in her premises but her landlord had severed the connection, which was not the responsibility of Business Stream.

Although Ms C used no water and was not charged for water consumption, she was still responsible for waste water and drainage payments and it was for these that she had been billed. However, Business Stream recognised that they had not dealt with her in the way they would have wished and reduced her bill by £20 to reflect this.

Summary

Mr C complained about the service he received from Business Stream, who supply water to his farm. In July 2011 Business Stream contacted Mr C to warn that his water consumption appeared to be higher than average. He then received a bill of over £2,600 for nearly 3.8 million litres of water. A week later this had increased by a further £400 after a second meter reading. It turned out that there was a leak, but there were no visible signs on the surface as the water was leaking directly on top of a field drain. Mr C later discovered that Business Stream had not read the meter since December 2009. He was unhappy and felt that, had they done so, the leak would have been discovered sooner.

Business Stream accepted that they had not read the meter in line with their licence conditions. Mr C then proposed that they prioritise readings where they are missed, and that they share the consequences of their failure to read his meter appropriately. Although we agreed that the customer must bear some responsibility we found that, had Business Stream read the meter sooner, they could have identifed the leak earlier and stopped the situation getting worse. We upheld Mr C's complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• apologise to Mr C for failing to read the meter;
• consider changing their system so that when an actual meter reading is not completed either a subsequent attempt is made or the next scheduled estimated read is changed to an actual one so that potential problems can be identified sooner; and
• reconsider Mr C's proposals in the light of their failure to read the meter.