Water

Summary

In September 2014, after reading his water meter, Business Stream told Mr C that he had used a high level of consumption and that he may have a leak. He was issued with a bill in excess of £4,000. Mr C phoned Business Stream about this and it was suggested that he test whether there was a leak in his supply pipe. A leak was subsequently confirmed and Mr C was advised to contact a plumber as soon as possible because water was continuing to leak.

Mr C then raised concerns that there may be others attached to the supply pipe but in November 2014, it was confirmed that his was the only connection. He also complained that the leak had not been fixed as his costs were increasing and Business Stream liaised with Scottish Water to confirm ownership of the supply pipe. Scottish Water confirmed Mr C's ownership and thus the fact that any repair was his responsibility.

In February 2015, Business Stream explained that in terms of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980, the owner of the supply pipe was responsible for its maintenance (that is, Mr C). He was urged to complete repairs as soon as possible as his bill continued to mount. Mr C complained that Business Stream had not made this situation clear to him when he first complained in September 2014.

We investigated the complaint and made enquiries of Business Stream. We found that although he was billed in September 2014 and told that repairs to the pipe were for him to carry out, it was not until February 2015 that Mr C was sent a detailed explanation for the reasons why he was responsible for the leak. We upheld his complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• provide Mr C with an appropriate apology; and
• ensure that explanations about the public's liability for payment are clearly explained to them.

Summary

Mrs C, a solicitor, complained on behalf of a social club that an invoice that Business Stream had sent them for over £10,000 was inaccurate. We found that Business Stream had initially failed to read the club's water meter as required by their metering policy. They had then obtained a meter reading, but failed to issue an amended bill to the club. The club's initial water bills were based on estimates that were much lower than their actual usage at that time. A further reading was then submitted by the club and it was at that stage that Business Stream sent the club a bill for over £10,000 based on actual readings.

We found that had Business Stream obtained meter readings as required under their metering policy, the club would have become aware of their water usage earlier and could have taken steps to reduce this. We were also critical that a bill was not issued after the first reading was obtained. Again, this would have highlighted how much water was being used and would have given the club an opportunity to consider reducing their water usage.

That said, in response to the club's complaint, Business Stream arranged for a meter accuracy test to be carried out. This confirmed that the meter was accurate. They also explained to the club that any leak that would have affected the readings on the meter would have been on their pipework. We found that the bill that had been issued to the club for over £10,000 was based on the meter readings that had been taken. There was no evidence that the bill was inaccurate. In addition, Business Stream had made a credit of nearly £5,000 to the club's account for their delays in taking meter readings. We considered that this had been reasonable and so we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that Business Stream had charged her for water at her business premises even though it did not have any water services. She explained that Business Stream had agreed to stop their charges in the past but some time later began billing her again. This was because Business Stream felt that Mrs C had access to water facilities elsewhere in the wider building (the office she owned was a small section of a larger building) and, in their view, they should not have stopped their charges previously. Mrs C maintained that she had no water services and so Business Stream's charges remained invalid.

Business Stream's records showed that a site visit had confirmed that Mrs C's property had no water supply. However, as the property was commercially rated and, in their view, had access to water, they felt Mrs C should be charged. Business Stream's subsequent records said that Mrs C had access to water behind a locked door that she chose not to use, but Mrs C said that the wider building was locked to her and she could not arrange access. In other words, she had not locked away facilities she could otherwise have used.

We reviewed the evidence carefully. Business Stream's view about possible access to water was based upon the wider building, but Mrs C said she had no right of access to that and a site visit had confirmed that her property itself had no water services. Taking everything into account, we felt the evidence indicated that Business Stream had unreasonably invoiced Mrs C for water charges. We upheld her complaint and made one recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• close Mrs C's account and waive all associated charges.

Summary

Ms C ran a business and paid for her water and waste water services through Business Stream. She felt that her water bills were disproportionately high and asked Business Stream to investigate. Scottish Water were asked to attend and their engineers concluded that Ms C's water meter was on pipework that was shared with two neighbouring residential properties. She was, therefore, being charged for water used by those properties. Ms C asked for the meter to be moved so that it only served her property, but this was refused.

During our investigation further site visits were carried out. These ultimately established that the meter was not on a shared pipe and that it was correctly recording water used in Ms C's property. A faulty toilet was identified which had caused a spike in her water usage. Business Stream agreed to refund the cost of the spiked usage in recognition of the fact that Ms C had been mistakenly informed that the problem lay elsewhere. We found this to be reasonable in the circumstances.

Summary

Mr C's company paid for water and trade effluent through Business Stream. He found that the company's trade effluent bills, which are based partly on the metered water usage, were unexpectedly high for one quarter in 2013. He queried the high bill with Business Stream and an investigation was carried out. This found that the company's water meter was faulty. However, a meter accuracy test found that the meter was under-reading rather than over-reading. With this in mind, Business Stream advised that the charges should stand. Mr C disputed this, as the meter was faulty and, therefore, unreliable. He contended that, if the meter was under-reading, the company's bills should have been lower than normal.

We found that the meter had actually stopped altogether and there was no evidence to support the claim that it was under-reading prior to the meter accuracy test. That said, we acknowledged that faulty meters normally under-read and there was evidence of the company increasing production over the period in question. Ultimately we were concerned by the lack of transparency and independence in the meter accuracy test and the fact that the wrong size of meter appeared to have been installed, increasing the likelihood of failures. We considered it fair for Business Stream to share the burden of the increased charges with the company.

We made three recommendations for redress and improvement.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• recalculate the trade effluent charges over a specified period based on the average daily usage for the previous billing period and credit the company's account with 50 percent of the overcharge;
• consider reviewing their procedures with a view to ensuring customers are able to obtain a truly independent meter accuracy test in disputed cases; and
• consider checking whether the new meter servicing the premises is of the appropriate size.

Summary

Mr C complained to us that Business Stream failed to fully restore the water supply to his business premises after the supply was reconnected. The water supply had been disconnected because the previous occupier of the premises had not paid their water charges. Mr C contacted Business Stream to ask for the water supply to be reconnected and they arranged for their contractors to attend. However, the water supply was not reinstated to all of the facilities in Mr C's premises because of an airlock in the internal pipework. The contractors were unable to clear the airlock and said that Mr C would have to arrange for a plumber to attend to fix this.

We took independent advice on Mr C's complaint from one of our water advisers. We found that Business Stream's responsibility was to reinstate the water supply to the property boundary. Internal pipework is the responsibility of the occupier of the property. Business Stream fulfilled their responsibility in reinstating the water supply to the boundary of Mr C's property and, in view of this, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that when his client (Mr A) had applied for a return to sewer allowance (a reduction in water charges that can be allowed when it is demonstrated that less than 95 percent of the water supplied returns to the sewer), Business Stream had only backdated the allowance for three months. Mr C considered that it should have been backdated for five years under the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973.

We considered Scottish Water's Wholesale Charges Scheme for 2014/15, which had been approved by the Water Industry Commission for Scotland. This stated that return to sewer allowances apply from the date on which the water provider demonstrates to Scottish Water's satisfaction that such an allowance is justified, ie the point at which a full application, including all relevant information, is received. We also considered Business Stream's return to sewer allowance policy. This stated that the award of a return to sewer allowance does not mean that the customer has previously been incorrectly billed, but is a deviation from the standard billing, and that this will only ever be applied going forward and not backdated.

The complexity of the matter had meant that it had taken Mr C some time to provide the information required for the return to sewer allowance and, in recognition of this, Business Stream had backdated the allowance for three months. There was no requirement to backdate under the policy and we considered that the decision to backdate for three months had been reasonable. We did not, therefore, uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C was unhappy with Business Stream's handling of surface water drainage charges for his property. He received notification of the charges in 2013, backdated to 2008. Mr C said that he had informed the water wholesaler from January 2005 onwards about his occupation of the property and, as such, Business Stream were unfairly backdating the water charges from 2008.

Business Stream confirmed that the property was liable for the charges that had been billed on the account. They stated that it is the responsibility of the owner/occupier to advise them of when a property was being used. They said that they could not find any record of information being sent to them confirming that the property was occupied. The property had been identified as being occupied following a routine audit in December 2013.

During our investigation we found no objective evidence that Business Stream had been notified that the property was occupied and, as such, we did not uphold the complaint that they unfairly charged the surface water drainage charges. We were satisfied that, in response to Mr C's complaint, Business Stream explained why they were satisfied that the charges applied to the account were correct, due and payable.

Summary

Mr C complained to us that Business Stream had unreasonably invoiced him for charges that he was not liable for. In response to our enquiries, Business Stream said that, after considering the circumstances of the case and some additional information Mr C had provided, they were willing to close the account and withdraw all charges. Mr C confirmed that this resolved his complaint and, consequently, we closed the case.

Summary

Mr C is self employed, running a small business from premises next to his home. He complained that Business Stream pursued him for charges for water and waste water services, despite his business premises having no water or sewerage facilities.