Water

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.

Summary

Mr C complained that Scottish Water supplied water to his home at inappropriately low pressure. He was aware that they had installed pumps at the end of his street but said that they had failed to switch them on. He was unhappy with Scottish Water's handling of his complaint as they had not turned the pumps on and had not explained why they were not in operation.

Scottish Water said that they were supplying Mr C with water at above the guaranteed pressure of one bar. As Mr C was dissatisfied with this explanation, they offered to carry out an analysis of the pumps, which they did. The analysis revealed that it would not be cost-effective to bring the pumps into operation. We did not uphold his complaint as we were satisfied that Scottish Water had given the matter appropriate consideration. However, we found that they had never explained to Mr C why the pumps could not be switched on and we recommended that they apologise to Mr C for failing to deal with this aspect of his complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Water:

• apologise to Mr C for failing to provide him with an explanation.

Summary

Ms C complained that it was unreasonable that her water pressure was low for almost six months. She also complained that Scottish Water's handling of her concerns was inappropriate. Scottish Water had reduced the pressure in Ms C's area after a number of burst pipes. They said that this work was carried out as a temporary measure until they could secure funding to upgrade the water network in the area. Although this reduced the frequency of burst pipes and interruptions to supply, some customers complained about the low pressure.

When we made enquiries, Scottish Water told us that the worst affected properties were second floor flats. They said that when there was a high demand for water, the ground and first floor flats would take away pressure from the second floor flats. Scottish Water said that after receiving the complaints about low pressure, they carried out further temporary work in the area and successfully increased the water pressure.

We found that the evidence did not show that Ms C's water supply was constantly low during the relevant period. However, it was intermittently low for a number of months. We also found that Scottish Water had delayed in taking action to resolve the problem. Although we upheld Ms C's complaints, we found that the action taken by Scottish Water in response to Ms C's complaint about their handling of the matter was reasonable and proportionate. They had apologised to her and had offered her financial redress. They also outlined what action they would take to try to prevent similar problems arising. In view of this action, we did not make any recommendations.

Summary
Ms C complained that Scottish Water pipes ran across her land but that Scottish Water were not paying her for use of it. She said that an electricity company paid her in respect of cables and pylons on her land. She also complained that Scottish Water staff accessed her land without notice, which had serious implications in respect of the dogs and horses on the land.

We confirmed to Ms C that Scottish Water had correctly explained the legal situation regarding payment for use of land in these circumstances, and they were not required to pay her. We explained that regulatory and legislative requirements for the water industry are not always the same as those for the gas and electricity industries.

We also explained to Ms C that Scottish Water had the right to access her land without notice in emergency situations but that, in other cases, they had to give 24 hours' notice. However, there was no evidence that Ms C had reported any incidents of access without notice before she submitted her complaint. Scottish Water also told us that she had confirmed verbally to them that she had not made any such reports. This meant that it was not possible for either Scottish Water or this office to investigate what had happened (for example, whether anyone who had accessed her land without permission had, in fact, been a Scottish Water employee). However, we were satisfied that Scottish Water had given Ms C appropriate advice about contacting their call centre as soon as any such incident happened and that they had reminded relevant staff of the requirement to give notice.

Summary
Miss C complained that her shower and some other appliances were damaged when she turned them on one morning. Her plumber said the problem appeared to be a surge of water pressure. Scottish Water had told her they had turned off the water supply in a nearby road the day before because of a burst water main. Miss C thought that her problem must have happened because of the supply being turned off and then on again, and she submitted a claim for compensation to Scottish Water. She complained to us that they had refused to pay compensation.

Scottish Water provided information to Miss C and to us, explaining in detail how they had investigated this matter and why they did not consider that the damage had been caused by a pressure surge. For example, they said that if there had been a pressure surge strong enough to cause damage, they would have had calls about it the same day, whereas no one else had called. Additionally, Miss C's problem only started the next day. They also gave details showing that the operatives who had repaired the burst water main had followed all relevant procedures when switching the supply back on, to minimise any pressure surge.

We also explained to Miss C that our role in complaints about compensation was very limited. For example, we could not decide whether compensation should be paid. We could only consider whether Scottish Water had properly investigated her claim. In the light of all the information they provided, we considered that they had done so.

Summary
Mr C complained that Scottish Water had not offered him enough compensation after he experienced a sewage flood into his home. We explained to him that our role in compensation claims is very limited and, in particular, that it is not for us to decide whether compensation should be paid or the amount, which is normally a matter for the courts. We looked at Scottish Water's complaints file, which confirmed that the matter was not one that we could look into.

Summary
Mrs C complained that Scottish Water were doing nothing to resolve the flooding she had experienced several times. She explained that after heavy rainfall, her garden was flooded. The water was sometimes higher than the top step at her front door, although the water did not enter the house because Scottish Water had given her sandbags and a door guard. She said the flooding prevented her from getting out and had ruined her garden. She also said that Scottish Water had refused to compensate her for the damage.

Our investigation revealed that Scottish Water acknowledged that there was a flooding problem in Mrs C's neighbourhood and had been actively and continuously trying to resolve it. For various reasons, they had been unable to find a solution but now planned to appoint engineers to see what could be done. They had kept in contact with Mrs C, usually by telephone, and, after a few months, had sent a detailed letter to local residents to update them on what was happening. They also told Mrs C that as they had not been negligent they would not pay compensation.

We explained to Mrs C that flooding could be a very difficult problem to resolve. For example, there may be more than one cause, and other organisations, such as the local authority, could share responsibility in the matter. Flooding is not always the fault of Scottish Water sewers and Scottish Water could not always get funding to resolve major flooding problems. We explained to her that Scottish Water’s funding was part of a complex process, in line with government requirements. Scottish Water could not simply decide to spend extra money or increase customers' water charges to give themselves extra money. We also explained that it was not Scottish Water’s responsibility to deal with all rainwater. Some rainwater was the responsibility of the local authority, who had separate sewers of their own.

In respect of Scottish Water’s action to try to resolve Mrs C's problem, we considered that they had actively been trying, and were continuing to try, to resolve the situation and that there was no evidence that their handling of it was unacceptable. In respect of the compensation claim, our role in such complaints is, broadly speaking, limited to considering whether Scottish Water followed their procedures in reaching their decision. It is not for us to decide whether compensation should be paid or, if so, how much. We found no evidence that Scottish Water had done anything wrong when deciding not to pay compensation.

Summary
Mr C complained that Scottish Water were not supplying water to a stopcock at the boundary of his new property. He said that he was getting his water through a supply pipe that passed through his neighbours’ homes. However, we found that Scottish Water are only responsible for the water main and the communication pipe up to and including the boundary of the road. Many properties have a shared water supply and are not connected directly to the communication pipe. In such properties, the owners of the properties are responsible for the shared supply pipe.

Some of Mr C’s pipes were made of lead, which is no longer considered to be appropriate. Scottish Water told Mr C to apply to have his pipes replaced. They said that he would have to install a new supply pipe to the property boundary, and they would then connect the property to the main pipe free of charge. Mr C said that he sent the application form to Scottish Water, but they lost it. We found no evidence that Scottish Water had lost the form or that their communication with him was poor.

Mr C also said that Scottish Water told him that they would arrange for water and sewerage charges to be taken off his council tax bill. He said that he had been unable to use these services when he first moved into the property. We did not find any evidence that Scottish Water told Mr C that he would receive a refund of the charges, or that they subsequently changed their mind about this.

Summary
Mr C took over business premises in September 2009 and was advised that the water bill was paid as part of his business rate. Shortly afterwards, a water meter was fitted and he was told that he would be informed when it came into operation. Mr C heard no more until October 2011 when he received a bill from Business Stream.

Our investigation confirmed that in October 2009 Scottish Water installed a meter but failed to pass on this information to Business Stream. About two years later, as part of a routine audit, Business Stream established that a meter was in place. They read it and issued a bill for the water used. As it was clear from our investigation that the actions complained of were in fact those of Scottish Water and not of Business Stream, we did not uphold the complaint.

We did, however, make recommendations to Business Stream, and asked them to alert Scottish Water to these, given the circumstances in which the complaint arose.

Recommendations
We recommended that Business Stream:
• make Scottish Water aware of our criticism in this matter;
• satisfy themselves that the lines of communication between themselves and Scottish Water are sufficiently robust to prevent a recurrence of the problem; and
• extend Mr C's repayment period by a further 12 months.

Summary
Mr C owns a small business. He complained that Business Stream failed to investigate a leaking pipe properly and delayed in acting, which resulted in him receiving excessive bills for water use. Mr C had noted that his bills substantially increased when a water meter was installed at his premises and when he took this up with Business Stream, he says he was told that this would 'settle down'. Mr C said that there was a delay in investigating the matter properly and, when a plumber he engaged investigated, he identified the problem and laid a new pipe. After this, the bill from Business Stream reduced greatly.

We did not uphold this complaint. We looked at the evidence and the comments provided by Business Stream, and took advice from one of the Ombudsman's advisers. We found that there was a delay in checking and confirming that there was no leak on the meter installation. This established that the problem was not the responsibility of Business Stream but of the owner. However, the most significant contributing factor to such a high bill was the length of time that Mr C was aware of the high charge and high consumption before formally raising his concerns.

As part of our investigation, we also looked at the way Business Stream had handled Mr C's formal complaint. In responding to our enquiries, they confirmed that there was no evidence to show that this was dealt with in line with their service standards (ie to give a written response to a complaint within five working days). As they, therefore, credited £20 to Mr C's account, we did not make any recommendation about this.