Water

Summary
Mrs C was providing the catering for a dinner function, when she learned from Scottish Water that the water supply had become contaminated with aluminium. This meant that the food, which had been prepared using tap water, was unusable. Scottish Water rejected Mrs C's subsequent claim for compensation for loss of staff wages and revenue etc.

We explained to Mrs C that our role in compensation matters is restricted to considering whether the body in question handled the claim reasonably - for example, whether they took account of relevant factors. In this case, the advice from Scottish Water's legal advisers to Scottish Water was that the claim was for pure economic loss and that the law did not require them to pay compensation for that type of loss.

It was not for this office to determine whether the loss was pure economic loss or, indeed, whether the legal advice was accurate. We did not uphold the complaint because, in seeking legal advice, we considered that Scottish Water had considered the claim reasonably.
 

Summary
Mr C complained on behalf of clients (Messrs A) about Business Stream Ltd's decision not to reduce the size of their water meter. He claimed that the decision was unreasonable and that it was financially motivated.

On investigating the complaint, we made enquiries of Business Stream. We found from them that although Scottish Water had originally intended to reduce the size of Messrs A's meter, they had changed their decision after assessing it. On assessment, Scottish Water found that the current meter was the most appropriate for the property and that it complied with the water meter policy and met the British Standard. They advised Business Stream accordingly who, in turn informed Messrs A.

During the investigation, we established that when Mr C complained, Business Stream had provided Scottish Water with all the information he provided and they reconsidered the matter. Nevertheless, they maintained the decision they had originally made. Business Stream confirmed this decision to Mr C.

Having taken into account all the information, we concluded that Mr C, on behalf of Messrs A, was attempting to appeal Business Stream's final decision and not pointing to an error in the way it was reached. It is not for our office to question the merits of a decision where there is no evidence that anything went wrong in taking it, nor is it our role to act as an appeal body for decisions. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary
There was significant flooding in Mr C’s area in July 2011. Mr C considered that, on a particular day that month, the cause of the flooding was a blockage in a Scottish Water sewer. He complained that Scottish Water had not maintained their sewer system adequately. He considered that Scottish Water should be required to proactively monitor the system by inspecting their entire network of pipe work to ensure blockages did not occur. He considered that that a failure to do so led to the flooding of his local sewer on that day in July 2011, because it was blocked.

We explained to Mr C that Scottish Water do not have any obligation to monitor their sewer network in the way he suggested. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint. Nevertheless, we did consider what had caused the flooding in July. Our investigation revealed that there had been severe thunderstorms locally on the day in question, with torrential rain which caused extensive flooding in many parts of the area.

Scottish Water said that, following the flood, they had used CCTV cameras to check for any blockage but had only found the normal debris which is naturally and unavoidably present in many sewers. Although this debris was not causing a blockage, Scottish Water did clear the debris. All the evidence, therefore, pointed to the cause of the flooding as being the rain, rather than any blockage or anything that proactive monitoring could have prevented.