Water

Summary

Mr C considered that his water bills were excessive and he contacted Business Stream to raise his concerns. Business Stream confirmed that Mr C's water meter was also supplying the premises next door. Mr C complained that Business Stream had been aware of the meter set-up for some time. Business Stream confirmed that Scottish Water had carried out a site visit some years previously and had established that Mr C was on a shared supply with his neighbours.

Both Scottish Water and Business Stream said that this was a private matter between Mr C and his neighbours. They explained that at the time of the meter installation the two properties were in one building, and that Scottish Water were under no obligation to split the supply. Business Stream told Mr C that water resale rules applied. They continued to bill Mr C, saying that he could recover charges from his neighbours. However the neighbours refused to pay Mr C any money, as they said they were also being billed by Business Stream.

Scottish Water advised Mr C that he could have a new meter installed, but that he would have to bear the cost of this.

Mr C complained to us that Business Stream unreasonably failed to notify him that his water meter was supplying a neighbouring property, unreasonably charged him while also charging his neighbours for the same supply and unreasonably delayed in responding to his complaint. We upheld each of these complaints.

We found that Business Stream ought to have notified Mr C as soon as they became aware from Scottish Water that the water supply was shared. We found that Business Stream had been misapplying water resale rules and were unreasonably charging two parties for the same supply. We found that the delay in responding to Mr C's complaint had been unreasonable.

When we told Business Stream what we intended to recommend, they agreed to arrange instalment of a new meter serving only Mr C's property, at no cost to Mr C.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for the failings identified in this investigation.
• Credit Mr C's account with an ex-gratia payment of £200.
• Assess Mr C's average usage once a new meter has been installed, serving only his property, and amend the previously issued usage to ensure that he is only billed for his own usage since October 2014.

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

• A policy should be put in place which would appropriately address situations similar to this, in such a way that they cannot double-charge for the same supply. Any such policy should include guidance on assisting the customer in resolving the matter, without inappropriate reference to the Water Resale Rules. They should also conduct an audit, identifying other customers they are aware of who are also supplying a neighbouring property. Any such customers should be notified and advised of the steps they can take, with Business Stream working with them to find an acceptable way forward. They should ensure that where they become aware of any customers in the future who are also supplying a neighbouring property, notification is made and advice is given, as above.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Staff should be confident in identifying and escalating complaints, and in ensuring that complaint progression is monitored closely.

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's home was flooded and the flood was reported to Scottish Water, who subsequently carried out an investigation. The investigation concluded that the flood was caused by severe rainfall and that Scottish Water were not responsible. Mr C was unhappy with the investigation and raised a number of questions, including why his neighbour's properties were not flooded. He was unhappy that Scottish Water did not offer a clean-up service and that they refused to install non return valves (NRVs), which he believed would prevent future flooding. Scottish Water advised that they would not recommend installing NRVs as they could not be certain that they would not pass the flooding onto a neighbouring property. Mr C subsequently installed NRVs at his own cost.

Mr C complained to us that Scottish Water unreasonably failed to offer a clean-up service, unreasonably failed to thoroughly investigate the cause of the flood and unreasonably refused to compensate him for the cost of the NRVs. Scottish Water said they did offer assistance when Mr C reported the flooding and that Mr C did not request a clean-up service. We found that Scottish Water should have been more explicit when asking Mr C if there was anything they could help with and therefore we upheld this aspect of the complaint. We found that Scottish Water properly investigated the flooding in line with national guidelines and that they were not required to reimburse Mr C for the cost of installing NRVs at his property. We did not uphold these two aspects of the complaint.

Recommendations

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

• All members of the Sewer Response Team should explicitly offer a clean-up service to customers when they report internal flooding.

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

Miss C, a utilities consultant, complained about Business Stream on behalf of her clients, a trust. Miss C told us that she had recently requested that the trust's water accounts be transferred to another supplier. She said that Business Stream had initially blocked this request, as the trust had entered a contract with them until 2018.

Miss C then contacted Business Stream to ask about the contract and any exit fees and was told that there was no record of a contract, so no fees would apply. She then reapplied for the transfer and the accounts were moved to another supplier.

Business Stream contacted the trust shortly afterwards, once again confirming that a contract had been in place and requesting payment for exit fees incurred as a result of breaking the contract. Miss C then submitted a complaint about the miscommunication, requesting that the fees were written off. Business Stream accepted that they had failed in their communication and apologised. However, they refused to write off the fees as they had supplied the trust with copies of the contract before the accounts were transferred.

On investigation, we found that Business Stream had incorrectly told Miss C that there was no contract in place on more than one occasion. The reason given to Miss C for this was that staff in the customer service team were not able to access a copy of the contract, as this was stored on a part of the system reserved for account managers.

We found that all staff should still have been able to confirm the existence of the contract by referencing discounts showing on any of the trust's invoices. Despite this, we also considered that Business Stream should have done more to ensure that their systems made clear to staff when a contract was in place. For these reasons, we upheld the complaint.

However, we confirmed that Business Stream had provided the trust with copies of the contract before the contract began, and after Miss C first requested that the accounts be transferred. The contract clearly explained its term and the fees that would apply if the customer exited before this period had expired. We therefore considered that it was reasonable for Business Stream to expect the trust to pay the fees.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• alter their systems or procedures to ensure that the existence of any contract is clearly indicated in a way that is immediately obvious to all staff.

Summary

Mr C complained about Business Stream regarding a request he made for a burst allowance (an allowance made against sewerage charges when water is lost because of a burst pipe) following an increase in his water bill due to a leak. Mr C explained that the leak was outside his property boundary, on a pipe that both he and his neighbour believed had been disconnected many years ago when the property was separated.

Business Stream refused Mr C's request, stating that, to be eligible for a burst allowance from Scottish Water, a customer must have a waste water connection, which Mr C's property did not.

On investigation, we confirmed with Scottish Water that this was not correct. Scottish Water confirmed that burst allowances could be granted to reduce supply charges, regardless of whether a customer had a waste water connection. We found that Business Stream had failed to recognise this error despite many opportunities to do so in response to both Mr C and our enquiries.

We also found that, as they did not consider the request would be successful, Business Stream chose not to submit it to Scottish Water for their consideration. We considered this to be unreasonable in the circumstances, as this was a decision for Scottish Water to make. For these reasons, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified;
• submit Mr C's request for a burst allowance to Scottish Water for their consideration;
• review their burst allowance policy to ensure it is clear to staff when requests should be submitted to Scottish Water; and
• audit a sample of recent allowance requests to ensure that they have been appropriately processed and evidence the outcome.

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Steam failed to act reasonably in respect of backdating his water charges. Mr C's complaint concerned two adjacent properties (property A and property B) that he rented over a period of some years. Mr C initially rented property A for approximately three and a half years. During this time, there was cyclical re-evaluation of the properties; however, as a cyclical re-evaluation, this was not reflected in billing, consistent with Business Stream's policies. Approximately 18 months later, Mr C also rented property B. He continued to rent both property A and property B for approximately three years. Mr C then ceased to occupy property A. At this point, the Scottish Assessor's Association updated the records to merge the properties retrospectively for the period Mr C occupied them both, increasing the value of the properties to account for the re-evaluation. Business Stream sought to backdate Mr C's water charges for this period. Mr C disputed Business Stream's basis for the charges.

After considering the relevant Rateable Value Policy, and obtaining independent advice from a water policy consultant, we upheld Mr C's complaint. We found that Business Stream had backdated Mr C's water charges based on a later version of their Rateable Value Policy; however, the version of the policy in force at the relevant time specified that water charges would not be backdated in this manner.

We recommended that Business Stream re-assess Mr C's charges, and apologise to him.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• evidence that they have re-assessed the backdating of charges for the relevant period, to take into account the findings of this investigation;
• evidence that they have re-assessed charges from a specific date to ensure that they take into account the appropriate rateable value; and
• apologise for the failings this investigation has identified.

Summary

Mrs C complained that Scottish Water unreasonably delayed in providing her with the results of a water sample taken at her home. She also complained that they failed to take reasonable steps to update her with the progress of their inspections.

We found that Scottish Water had gone beyond what they were required to do in assisting Mrs C with a leak. The leak was on the private supply and therefore not Scottish Water's responsibility.

However, in order to determine the source of the leak, Scottish Water carried out a water test. There was no evidence to show that the results were passed on to Mrs C. A later test failed as Scottish Water mislaid or mislabelled the sample, and the results of the final test were not provided until around three months after the original sample was taken. As a result of this, and because we felt that Mrs C had to regularly chase Scottish Water for updates, we upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Water:

• review their sampling procedures to ensure that they have a process in place to minimise the risk of failed samples;
• review their procedures to ensure that test results are passed on to the customer promptly, and that they record this contact in their records; and
• apologise to Mrs C for the failings this decision has identified.

Summary

Mr C complained about Business Stream regarding a number of charges he had received for failing to make a formal repayment agreement when his account fell into arrears. He said that he had agreed to a repayment plan with Business Stream's debt collectors and stressed that he had adhered to this until his arrears were cleared. He said that the only outstanding balance on his account was due to the charges applied, which he considered were unfair.

On investigation, Business Stream accepted that it was reasonable for Mr C to expect that he had entered into a repayment agreement with them, as he had been paying regularly. They therefore agreed to write off the outstanding charges. We were satisfied that this represented a reasonable resolution to the complaint, as was Mr C.

Summary

Mr C, a solicitor, complained on behalf of an organisation regarding Business Stream's failure to backdate overpayments dating back to 2002. After a survey was carried out in 2014, the organisation was fitted with a new water meter, the standing charge for which was almost £6,000 a year lower than it had previously been. Mr C complained that the organisation had understood from correspondence received in 2002 that Scottish Water had committed to replacing the meter with one of correct size, and said that the organisation had assumed this to have taken place.

Having reviewed the correspondence of 2002, we were satisfied that further communication between the organisation and Scottish Water would have been necessary before the survey and installation were carried out. The organisation had the opportunity to follow up but chose not to. They also enquired about a meter survey in 2009 but did not follow up on Business Stream's response.

With regard to whether Business Stream had unreasonably failed to backdate payments in respect of fixed charges, we found no maladministration and Business Stream had followed their policy. Accordingly, we did not uphold that complaint.

Mr C also complained about Business Stream's handling of the organisation's complaint. We found that responses were sent without delay and that Business Stream's position remained consistent throughout, and we therefore we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C's complaint concerned a sewage pumping station which shared a boundary with his property. Mr C said the operation of the pumping station was causing an unacceptable level of noise and vibration, which was causing disruption. He was regularly unable to sleep and at times unable to watch television or remain in his property. Mr C said Scottish Water had carried out works to reduce the noise and vibration, but that they had only done so when the local authority had served a noise abatement order. Additionally, Mr C believed Scottish Water had delayed in complying with the order, to avoid incurring additional costs. Mr C said Scottish Water had not responded appropriately to his complaints and they had not provided a permanent solution to the problems.

Scottish Water did not accept they had not responded reasonably to Mr C's complaint. They said they had been proactive when it was clear he was dissatisfied and they had noted a peak in the number of complaints. They had replaced the pumps on site, which had been at the end of their operational life, and sourced replacements which had improved performance. Scottish Water said they were monitoring noise and vibration on site, but that Mr C had placed unreasonable conditions on allowing access to his property to monitor the noise levels internally. Scottish Water said they had spent significant sums of money addressing the problems on site.

We found Scottish Water had taken an unreasonable length of time to acknowledge Mr C's complaint. Additionally, the local authority had indicated they were concerned about the longstanding nature of the noise problems Mr C was experiencing. We noted Scottish Water informed Mr C they had resolved the problems on site and that the matter was closed, before they were served with a noise abatement order by the local council. We found Scottish Water had not responded sufficiently quickly to Mr C and that their response to us had sought to minimise the concerns of the local authority. We found that Scottish Water needed to review their existing offer of compensation to Mr C to reflect this extended timescale.

We also found that the only available noise monitoring evidence showed that the pumps continued to produce a level of noise that breached the relevant national standards. A definitive determination of nuisance could not be made, however, until Mr C allowed monitoring to take place in his property. We upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Water:

• provide training to the relevant staff to ensure they are able to consistently and accurately identify complaints for escalation;
• review their offer of compensation to Mr C to ensure it covers the relevant period;
• ensure internal monitoring is carried out by an independent expert to an agreed standard at the earliest opportunity;
• ask the council to carry out the monitoring if agreement cannot be reached between Mr C and Scottish Water;
• implement in full any works recommended following the internal monitoring to further attenuate noise;
• monitor the noise levels from the pumping station for a further six months; and
• apologise for the failings identified in this investigation.

Summary

Mr C complained that the opening balance for his account when he transferred his custom to Cobalt Water Ltd for the provision of water services was incorrect. He said that the bill based on this balance was also incorrect and it was unreasonable that he was being pursued for payment. Cobalt Water Ltd maintained that the transfer reading was in line with Mr C's usage with his previous provider and that his bill was correct. While Mr C's meter subsequently recorded large amounts of water being used, no water leak had been discovered although it was noted that some of Mr C's taps and sanitaryware could allow water to continue to run unnecessarily.

We investigated the complaint and we found evidence to show that Mr C's transfer reading was in line with his previous usage. Photographic evidence was also available of his subsequent usage and his water usage had continued to climb. It was unclear whether Mr C had taken action to investigate his own equipment. We did not uphold the complaint.