Water

Summary

Mr C made a complaint to Business Stream that he was unreasonably invoiced for backdated water charges for the commercial premises he rents.

Business Stream responded to Mr C by advising that they had been billing Mr C's landlord for the period in question as they believed there to be a shared meter and therefore considered that it was a private matter between Mr C and his landlord to share costs through this period. Scottish Water had then made them aware that the pipework had been amended and that the two separate premises within the building should have been billed separately. Business Stream refunded Mr C's landlord and billed Mr C for backdated charges, beginning from the date they became aware that he had moved into the premises. Business Stream noted that, in the circumstances, The Prescriptions and Limitations (Scotland) Act 1973 allowed them to apply backdated charges for services which they had provided and Mr C had used. They also confirmed that the charges were based on the rateable value of the property which Mr C was using and the size of the meter serving the property. Following Mr C's complaint, Business Stream removed all recovery charges from his account and made credit payments as goodwill gestures. Mr C remained unhappy about the backdated charges and brought his complaint to us. He complained that Business Stream had unreasonably billed him for the water charges.

We obtained all of the information relating to the complaint from Business Stream. We noted that they were correct to calculate charges based on the rateable value of the property. The decision to backdate the charges was also reasonable and Business Stream provided evidence of the steps taken to minimise the charge to Mr C where possible. They also correctly cited legislation which allowed them to do this. We, therefore, did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

However, we noted that it took Business Stream almost 12 months to respond to Mr C's complaint. We therefore made a recommendation that they apologise for this.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for the unreasonable delay in responding to his complaint. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology, available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C is the secretary for a business. Mr C complained that Business Stream had failed to notify the business of their increased water usage, that they had failed to properly investigate the cause of the issue and that they did not deal with his complaint in line with their procedures.

We found that, once they had become aware of the high water usage, Business Stream did make appropriate contact with the business to alert them of this. We received evidence of the call that was made to the business, and we also noted that the business received invoices that illustrated high meter readings. We also found that Business Stream took appropriate action in investigating the cause of the leak, in line with their responsibilities, and that they contacted Scottish Water to investigate the issue further when it was appropriate. We did not uphold these aspects of Mr C's complaint.

However, we found that Business Stream did not advise Mr C clearly of his rights to escalate his complaint to stage two of the complaints procedure. We also found that they failed to issue Mr C with a final response to his complaint. We, therefore, upheld this part of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Communication regarding a customer's complaint should clearly explain the stage at which the customer's complaint is being handled. Staff should also ensure that customers have received a final response to their complaint before referring them to SPSO.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Ms C complained about her liability for water charges, as well as the manner in which she was billed for them by Business Stream. We contacted Business Stream to request information regarding the complaint. They responded by asking to re-open a dialogue with Ms C to attempt to bring the case to a satisfactory conclusion. Ms C listed various matters which she wished to be addressed and the organisation agreed to all of her requests. Ms C was satisfied with this outcome and we therefore closed her complaint without further investigation.

Summary

Mr C complained about Business Stream's handling of his water charges, and their subsequent handling of his complaint.

Mr C had an existing water account for his business premises based on a particular supply point identification number (SPID) (a reference number used to identify a water connection). A field visit was carried out by Business Stream, and a second account for Mr C was created in error based on a duplicate SPID. This resulted in a significant bill for Mr C. Business Stream recognised the error, and requested that Scottish Water remove the duplicate SPID. However, Scottish Water removed the SPID for the original account, as well as the duplicate. As a result, Business Stream requested a new SPID and account for Mr C. This was created by default as a water and waste water account, however, Mr C's original account was a water only account. He therefore, requested that the new account be amended. A significant period of time passed during which the account was assessed by Business Stream and Scottish Water.

Mr C complained to us that Business Stream had:

unreasonably charged him when he had no SPID

unreasonably had the new account created for him following the field visit

unreasonably charged him under the duplicate account

had a new account created as a water and waste water account, which meant that Mr C was unreasonably charged for waste water which he was not liable for

handled his complaint unreasonably

Business Stream acknowledged that there had been a number of failings in the case, but noted that, following the removal of the accounts, they had effectively provided credit for approximately five years, and had made a further payment to Mr C in recognition of his experience.

We took independent advice from a chartered engineer with experience in the water industry. We upheld three of Mr C's five complaints. We found that Business Stream appropriately levied charges prior to the time that the second account was opened. We also found that it was reasonable for Business Stream to charge Mr C under the new account once this was created, as this was consistent with the rules under the Market Code. We did not uphold these two aspects of Mr C's complaint.

We found that Business Stream should have requested the new SPID and account as water only, given that this was to replace Mr C's previous account. We found that it was unreasonable of Business Stream to create the new account following the field visit. We also identified a number of failings in the handling of Mr C's complaint, including delay, the limited consideration of the field visit issue, and some failures to respond to correspondence. We upheld these three aspects of Mr C's complaint and made a number of recommendations to address these issues.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Business Stream should apologise to Mr C for the failings in the handling of his accounts and the failings we identified in the complaints process. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Provide Mr C with an explanation for the extent of the bill he received after the new account was opened.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Field agents should collect appropriate information and know how to correctly determine whether a property is paying charges or not so that duplicate accounts are not set up in error.
• There should be systems in place between Business Stream and Scottish Water to ensure requests to deregister SPID numbers are handled correctly.
• Where default SPID numbers are created, they should accurately reflect the services provided to the property.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaints should be handled in a timely manner, and a full response covering all of the issues raised should be provided.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Ms C moved into business premises and she received a phone call from Aimera Ltd, advising that they were the licensed water provider for the premises. Ms C provided a meter reading, but did not at that stage receive any information about her contract, terms and conditions or the charges she could expect to pay. Two months later Ms C was asked for another meter reading, which she provided. She then heard nothing further for another two months, when she received an invoice. She disputed the amount due and ultimately brought her complaints to us.

Aimera Ltd explained that there had been a discrepancy between the last meter reading and the one provided by Ms C. They said that this required further investigation, which resulted in a delay in an invoice being issued. We found that the delay was unreasonable, and we also found that Ms C should have been sent details of the deemed contract she was under, which would have given her information about the charges she could expect, as well as giving her the opportunity to consider her options with regards to alternative water suppliers.

We upheld Ms C's complaints about Aimera's failure to provide information about the account, failure to provide information about the possibility of changing supplier, failure to meet the terms of the deemed contract, and the delay in issuing the initial invoice.

Ms C also complained about Aimera Ltd's application of the wrong Rateable Value (RV) of the premises when calculating her invoice. The RV had changed, but Aimera were billing with reference to the original RV. We accepted Aimera's explanation that it was the responsibility of the proprietor or tenant to notify them of any such changes. We were satisfied that as soon as Aimera were notified of the change they had applied it and had issued a revised invoice. We did not uphold this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Provide Ms C with a formal apology for the shortcomings in the way her account was handled and the delays in providing her with an initial invoice. The apology should comply with the SPSO guidelines on making an apology, available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C, who works for an energy management company, complained on behalf of his client about their premises. Mr C complained that Thames Water had unreasonably rejected his request to amend the rateable value (RV) of his client's premises. Mr C maintained the RV should be lower than that being applied by Thames Water. Mr C stated that the RV being used was contrary to the Scottish Water wholesale scheme of charges.

We took independent advice from a water adviser. We found that while there had been errors in maintaining the RV of the premises prior to Thames Water taking over as supplier of water services, the correct RV of the premises was being used by Thames Water. We found no evidence to support Mr C's position that the RV should be set at a lower rate than it was. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C raised a number of concerns about the service he received from Scottish Water. Mr C lived in a property which is not served by a typical mains water supply, but instead involves a private pump system drawing water from a Scottish Water storage tank. Mr C experienced issues with this system and replaced his pump with a new one. When this did not resolve the supply issue, Scottish Water agreed to investigate the problem. We found that Scottish Water provided Mr C with an alternative supply of water throughout their investigation, and after almost three weeks the source of the supply issue was identified. Scottish Water replaced the pump Mr C had installed with a different kind, which restored the system to its original design. After a short delay in commissioning this pump, the supply issue was resolved.

Mr C felt that Scottish Water was responsible for his pump failing in the first place and complained that there was an unreasonable delay in Scottish Water reinstating his water supply. We took independent advice from a chartered engineer who has experience in the water industry. The adviser noted that the pump was owned by Mr C and was his responsibility. They did not find evidence that Scottish Water was responsible for the pump failing and said that Scottish Water was not obliged to replace the pump, but did so in good faith. The adviser considered that there were good reasons for the delay in investigating the cause of the supply issue and did not consider that the delay in commissioning the new pump was unreasonable. We did not uphold this complaint.

Mr C complained that Scottish Water unreasonably contaminated his water supply during their investigation of the supply issue. Scottish Water acknowledged that, during the investigation, an operative failed to follow correct water hygiene practice, which resulted in the contamination of Mr C's water supply. Scottish Water said that an apology was offered to Mr C at the time and they confirmed that the operative's training record showed that training in water hygiene and operating processes was up to date. The adviser found that once Scottish Water became aware of the incident, it followed the expected procedures and appropriately escalated the issue. The adviser noted that Scottish Water took and analysed three sets of samples, flushed the system between each sample, and provided bottled water to Mr C property in the meantime. In view of the failing, the adviser said that they would have expected the operative to have undergone further training and reassessment. On balance, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C also raised concern that Scottish Water staff failed to appropriately communicate with him regarding the supply and contamination issues. We did not find evidence of significant delays in staff returning Mr C's calls or failing to call him back when this had been agreed. Based on the evidence available, we were unable to conclude that the communication maintained was unreasonable. While we did not uphold this complaint, we considered that Scottish Water's record-keeping of phone conversations with Mr C could have been better.

We also considered how Scottish Water handled Mr C's complaint. We were critical that Scottish Water's complaint response had not addressed all of the main issues that Mr C raised in his complaint and we upheld this aspect of his complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for the contamination incident, and for the complaints handling shortcomings. This apology should comply with SPSO guidance on making an apology, available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Operatives should carry out their work in accordance with the Hygiene Code of Practice and Scottish Water Distribution, Operation and Maintenance Strategy procedures.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Staff should appropriately respond to the points of concern within customers' complaints. Staff should ensure that each aspect of the correspondence is addressed.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C made a complaint about backdated charges regarding water rates at a business unit he rented. Mr C used this unit for storage only and did not think he should be charged water rates. The water supply was temporarily capped and Mr C was under the impression this meant he would not longer have any charges, but Business Stream advised this was not the case and subsequently billed him. Mr C was also unhappy that his bill was passed to a recovery agency while his complaint was on-going. He also complained that it took nine months for Business Stream to respond at stage two of his complaint.

We began an investigation into Mr C's complaint, but were contacted by Business Stream who had reviewed their paperwork. They were of the view that the charges asked of Mr C were still correct but they did acknowledge failings in their complaints handling and gaps in the information they held on file. They therefore proposed to refund Mr C 50 percent of the bill he had paid. Mr C was satisfied with this outcome and the complaint was closed without further investigation.

Summary

Mr C complained about Business Stream. Mr C runs a charity shop and had applied for water rates exemption for the premises. Mr C was unhappy about the way that Business Stream handled his request for water rates exemption (a scheme where property owners can be exempt from paying part or all of a water bill for a property, based on various criteria). In particular, he was concerned about communication between Business Stream and his organisation. He was also concerned that Business Stream did not submit the application for exemption to Scottish Water to make the final decision, as he felt this would be the usual process. Mr C also had concerns about the amount he was paying for his water and, following investigation by Business Stream, his previous meter had been removed and replaced. Mr C was unhappy with the rateable value Business Stream used for his premises when calculating the outstanding balance.

Following investigation we found that Business Stream had failed to provide Mr C with a reasonable level of service in relation to his application for exemption as they had failed to respond to his correspondence in a timely manner. They had also failed to provide a clear explanation of why the information submitted was not sufficient to allow them to pass the application onto Scottish Water. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint. However, following receipt of information from Scottish Water, we established that it was not unreasonable for Business Stream not to send the application to Scottish Water when they did not have all of the information required to support the application.

We also found that Business Stream had used the correct rateable value in line with their rateable value policy. We therefore did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. We did not see any evidence that Business Stream had responded to Mr C's correspondence asking them about this issue and we therefore recommended that they now respond to him about this.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for failing to respond to his correspondence in a timely manner and for failing to provide a clear explanation of why they did not pass the application to Scottish Water. This apology should comply with SPSO guidelines on making an apology, available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Respond to Mr C's correspondence regarding the rateable value of the property.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Correspondence from customers about exemption applications should be responded to in a timely manner. Replies should provide clear explanations to customers if Business Stream considers that information submitted in an exemption application is incomplete.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream had unreasonably charged his company, which owns a rail station, for property and roads drainage water charges. He also complained that there should not have been any return to sewer charges from a water meter that serviced locomotives belonging to the company.

The issue of the return to sewer water charge was resolved to the satisfaction of both parties when Business Stream, based on calculations provided by Mr C, backdated a zero percent return to sewer allowance for the company.

After investigations by Business Stream, who provided information about the liability for the property and roads drainage charges, it was agreed by Mr C that there was some drainage of waste and surface water from the property into the public sewerage system. As such, a resolution was achieved in establishing that his company did in fact have liability for these charges.

No decisions or recommendations were made as this case was resolved after action was taken by Business Stream following our involvement.