Water

Summary
Mr C has business premises on the ground floor of a block of flats. His water and waste service is provided by Business Stream Ltd. His water meter is located in the kitchen inside his premises. He said that he had always operated the same business with the same two people but for a short period his consumption of water was abnormally high. He was concerned that his meter was wrong or that he might be on some kind of shared supply with others in the block. Checks by Scottish Water failed to establish the reason for the increased water usage or to confirm whether he was on a shared water supply. He complained to Business Stream Ltd but remained dissatisfied and complained to us.

We found that although he was still unhappy and did not agree that the water had been used, he had been offered further investigations (for which he would probably initially have had to pay) but had not pursued these with Business Stream. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints, as we found that Business Stream's responses to his concerns were reasonable.
 

Summary
Mr C runs a car sales business and uses a building to store vehicles. Scottish Water identified his premises as a gap site and made arrangements for a meter to be fitted to begin charging for water. A fitter visited the premises and installed the meter above a sink in the building. Business Stream were then contacted to set up a business account for Mr C.

During a cold spell, the meter's fittings burst and flooded the premises, causing damage. Mr C complained that he received no prior notice that he would require a water meter or that it would be fitted in his premises. He said he was not given the opportunity to choose a licensed provider for his water account. He also complained that the meter was fitted incorrectly, and that he was given no information about his responsibilities for its maintenance. Mr C submitted an insurance claim, but this was rejected on the basis that the meter was installed correctly and the problem had been caused by extreme weather.

Business Stream acknowledged that Mr C was not given notice of Scottish Water's arrival to fit the meter, but said that this was not possible as Scottish Water would not have the customer's details at that point. They explained that it was Mr C's responsibility to maintain the meter and to protect it from the cold weather. This information is held in their terms and conditions on their website.

We found that Scottish Water did not properly follow the correct process for supplying newly identified gap sites. Customers should be contacted in advance and given the opportunity to choose their preferred licensed provider. This did not happen in Mr C's case. With regard to the burst water meter, whilst it is not for this office to determine whether the unit was installed correctly, we did not consider it reasonable to expect Mr C to visit Business Stream's website in order to look up their terms and conditions for specific details as to how to maintain the meter. We felt that this information could have been provided at the point of installation. We also upheld Mr C's complaint that Business Stream's handling of his complaint was poor.

Recommendations
We recommended that Business Stream:
• apologise to Mr C for the issues highlighted in our decision letter;
• take steps to ensure that customers are provided with information regarding maintenance of water meters either at the point of installation or when their account is opened;
• share our decision with Scottish Water to ensure that the central marketing agency's procedure for allocating gap sites identified by them is properly followed; and
• pay Mr C a sum equivalent to the total of his initial insurance claim plus any fees incurred for the disconnection of his water supply.

Summary
Mrs C complained that Business Stream had become the provider of her water and waste water services without her knowledge or consent. She said that they had not entered into any contract with her and had not provided quotations (in advance or later) regarding the cost. They then started billing her, going back two years to the date when her business moved into the premises in question. She did not consider she should have to pay, given that she had not chosen them as her provider and that it had taken so long for them to contact her.

Our investigation found no evidence that Business Stream had acted wrongly. When the business moved into the premises, water services were provided but no arrangement was made to pay for them. From the correspondence that Mrs C provided, it was clear that Business Stream had acted correctly and had correctly stated the position to her in their letters. Where no provider is chosen, a default provider, in this case, Business Stream, is put in place. No contract with or agreement by the consumer is required for Business Stream to take on the supply. Business Stream are also able to charge the occupant back to when the business moved in (although they do not charge earlier than 1 April 2008). They do not provide quotations to the consumer about what those charges will be, but had correctly explained the charging basis to Mrs C. Finally, we found that it is the occupant's responsibility to find out about their water supply arrangements when they move into premises.

Summary
Mr C complained that Business Stream's bills for his business premises were inaccurate. He did not have a water meter in the business premises he rented and the original bills were calculated on what Business Stream considered to be the rateable value of the property.

Mr C queried the bills he received and Business Stream referred the matter to Scottish Water for reassessment. Scottish Water told Business Stream that a water meter could not be installed in the property, as Mr C had a shared water supply with another business. However, Scottish Water agreed that he could move to a system of charging based on the estimated consumption at the premises from the date Mr C had written to Business Stream to query the bill. Business Stream also amended the account to reflect the correct rateable value of the property when Mr C informed them that he was only on one floor of the building. This further reduced the bill.

The bills issued by Business Stream correctly reflected the information they held at that time and were in line with the appropriate legislation/guidance. We did not uphold the complaint. However, in view of Mr C's complaint and a previous agreement between him and Business Stream that the account would be put on hold, we asked Business Stream if they would remove a recovery charge of £90 that they had added to the account. Business Stream told us that they are willing to do this.

Summary
Mr C complained that Business Stream had failed to install a temporary water connection that he had applied for on a building site. He had to obtain water for the development from another site. Business Stream have to refer applications for connections for building water to Scottish Water for the connection to be made. However, in this case Business Stream were the licensed provider and were responsible for handling the application.

We upheld part of Mr C's complaint. Although it was Scottish Water who failed to install the temporary connection, we found that that Business Stream had failed to adequately monitor Mr C's application or keep him updated. There was clearly a communication failure between Business Stream and Scottish Water. Business Stream were not aware that the connection had not been installed until Mr C contacted them about this several months later.

Mr C also complained that Business Stream failed to respond appropriately to his request for a refund. If we decide that someone has suffered because of something an organisation has done wrong, we will ask that organisation to put the person in the position they would have been in had they been dealt with correctly in the first place. However, we would only do so where there is demonstrable loss or costs. Although Business Stream had not refunded all of the money that Mr C had paid, we were satisfied that they had taken steps to put him back in the position he would have been in had the failing not occurred. We considered that their response to Mr C's request for a refund had been reasonable.

Recommendation
We recommended that Business Stream:
• ensure that there is now an adequate process in place for monitoring the new connection applications that they are responsible for handling.

Summary
This complaint was made on behalf of the owners of a hotel. Business Stream Ltd identified during an audit in 2011 that the hotel was occupied and started billing them from 2008. Mr C considered Business Stream Ltd's actions were unreasonable. He said that they had taken an excessive time to contact the hotel and send a bill; that they said they had tried to contact the hotel but that was not the case; that they failed to deal with the complaint appropriately; and said they would accept a repayment plan then demanded payment in full.

Our investigation found, however, that Business Stream had appropriately followed their own policies in relation to each of these matters.

Summary
Mr C complained about the cost of the supply of water to his business. The water meter, which is on the footpath in the road outside, had been changed three times due to damage. Mr C said that, as he considered that his bills were higher than his neighbours who had similar businesses, the calculations were incorrect. He complained to Business Stream Ltd but remained dissatisfied and complained to us.

When we investigated this we found that there had been problems in the past. We also found, however, that Business Stream had dealt with Mr C's concerns appropriately, and had provided him with relevant explanations and information. 

Summary
Ms C complained, on behalf of clients, about Business Stream Ltd's decision to refuse to allow them a smaller, 20 millimetre, water meter. Ms C complained that the decision was unreasonable and claimed that a 20 millimetre water water meter would be more suitable for the site's consumption. She provided figures to support this, and evidence showing that this would reduce her client's fixed water charges by over £2,000 a year.

Water bills are affected by the size of the water meter. You can apply to have a water meter changed if you believe your water meter is larger than necessary. Scottish Water own the water meters, and where Business Stream receives a request to downsize them, they refer it to Scottish Water for consideration. The customer is asked to complete and submit a loading unit assessment sheet confirming their usage. This sheet is then reviewed by Scottish Water who will make the final decision on it. If the completed sheet concludes that a smaller meter is appropriate, the customer is asked to pay the cost to change the meter.
In this case, Scottish Water told Business Stream that meter sizing is determined based on both consumption and estimated peak demand. They said that it would be technically possible to install a 20 millimetre meter, but that the information Ms C had provided indicated that the meter would be undersized for the demand at the property. They said a 20 millimetre meter would reduce the accuracy of recorded consumption and increase wear on the meter.

We are not an appeal body for the decisions of organisations. We can check a decision is properly made and will look at the process and procedures involved. If we find that something's gone wrong, we can make recommendations. In this case, our investigation found that the decision was properly made and followed the proper procedures. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary
Mr C complained that he was paying the full sewerage charge for his property along with his Council Tax but that only one side of his property drains into the public sewer. The other side drains into a private septic tank for which he is liable for the upkeep. He considered that he should, therefore, not be liable for the full sewerage charge. He raised the issue with Scottish Water but, following a visit to his property, his claim was rejected. Mr C also considered he had been given conflicting information about his eligibility for a rebate.

Having investigated Scottish Water's basis for charging, however, we found that Mr C had been charged correctly. We also found no evidence that he had been given conflicting information and so we did not uphold his complaints.

Summary
Mr C was left without water from Christmas Day 2010 until 14 January 2011. He said that when he telephoned Scottish Water, the message he received was that as his pipes were frozen, Scottish Water would not attend. He, therefore, arranged to have the matter dealt with himself, only to be advised that the toby (a water stopcock) was also frozen, and like the pipes was set too high. The toby was the responsibility of Scottish Water and was understood to be a contributing factor.

Scottish Water took no action on the toby until 19 September 2011. In the meantime, on 8 September 2011, Mr C submitted a claim for compensation for the time he was without water but this was rejected as Scottish Water took the view that it was out of time. Mr C complained that this was unfair as he had initially been told that the problem was for him to resolve and he had since discovered that this was not the case because of the problem with the toby.

After an investigation which confirmed the facts, it was confirmed that Scottish Water missed the opportunity to alert Mr C to the possibility of making a claim when they became aware of the problem with the toby in January 2011. We found that the decision to refuse to consider Mr C’s claim was unreasonable, and we upheld the complaint.

Recommendation
We recommended that Scottish Water:
• makes the complainant a payment of a specified amount in recognition of the time he was without water.