Water

Summary

C purchased a former business premises for conversion to domestic property. At the time of the original purchase the business was deemed to have a 'nil' value for business water charges. The law later changed, bringing that part of the property which had not yet converted, back into charge. C was not made aware of this until they received demands for payment sometime later. C complained that they were not liable for any charges as the water supply and discharge of waste water at the property was now covered by domestic council tax. They also raised concerns about the time taken to advise them of the charges and the threatening nature of the correspondence.

Business Stream did not accept that there was an error and noted the existence of a supply number as evidence for charging. C complained to this office, noting that the complaint had not been dealt with adequately and no one had been to inspect the site to establish if there was a connection.

We upheld the complaints about communication of the debt and complaint handling. However, we found that the existence of the supply number entitled Business Stream to charge under the new regulations so did not uphold that aspect of C's complaint.

C disagreed, stating there was no actual water/waste water usage for the unconverted parts of the property and requested a review of our decision. We approached Business Stream who agreed to carry out a site visit to establish the position. Following the visit, Business Stream advised that they now consider there was no charge attached to the property for business water and all water charges were covered by council tax. While they could not say precisely when the change occurred, they agreed to remove all charges from the account and remove the supply reference to ensure no future problems. Business Stream also apologised to C that they had not carried out this site visit from the outset, making an ex-gratia (voluntary) payment to reflect this. C accepted these apologies and advised us they now considered the matter was resolved. We changed our decision regarding the water charges from not upheld to resolved.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failures identified. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

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

• Business Stream should review their procedures for contacting customers when accounts are brought into charge to ensure that proactive attempts at contact are made in line with the Water Industry Commission for Scotland guidance.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Business Stream need to ensure that complaint responses explain clearly and directly the basis for their actions and that all points raised by the complainant are 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

C complained that Scottish Water had failed to respond appropriately to a number of flooding incidents in their property. C said that Scottish Water had not been open or honest about the cause of the flooding and were refusing to take the only action which would guarantee the protection of their property. C said that Scottish Water’s position had changed whenever they were presented with evidence, which suggested they were responsible for the flooding.

Scottish Water denied that they had acted unreasonably, or that they had failed to investigate the causes of the flooding experienced by C’s property. Scottish Water said that they were not responsible for damaged pipework within the property and the public sewerage network had been working properly. They said that there were likely to be different causes for the flooding incidents C had experienced, but that all of them had been investigated. Scottish Water acknowledged that this had taken time, but said there had been a need to liaise with a number of other stakeholders, including the local authority and utility companies.

We found that Scottish Water had investigated the incidents of flooding. Additionally, they had correctly informed C that they were not responsible for flooding which emanated from private pipework. C maintained that the private pipework had been damaged by the failure of the public sewer network, which Scottish Water were responsible for. We did not find evidence which supported this, and it was not the only possible cause of damage to the pipework as C had suggested. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

C also complained that Scottish Water failed to handle their complaint reasonably. We considered that Scottish Water investigated the complaint appropriately. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C has two properties registered with Castle Water (Property A and Property B). C said they were given a quote for one year of water services which they paid immediately. Castle Water used the payment for one address to cover bills on both properties. C said they were then told the amount quoted was to cover to the end of the financial year, not the calendar year, and C said this was never explained to them. C said there was no explanation why the funds which were to cover a distinct property were used for another property.

Castle Water said that C had not been overcharged and the charges were due and payable.

We found that C selected ‘monthly’ billing when they signed up Property B. C meant to select ‘annual’ billing. This caused some confusion as Castle Water were billing C for Property B in the manner they had requested, taking funds off the credit in the account. C also paid the quote for Property B before the account transferred, meaning there was some confusion about where the money should be allocated to. C's actions contributed to the confusion, however, C was told the credit would be transferred to the property once the transfer of provider completed and this did not happen. C was also given different explanations about what their payments would cover and were twice given quotes for a calendar year, which Castle Water do not provide.

We found that Castle Water failed to take ownership of the situation and resolve it properly. There had not been a clear, accurate, unchanging explanation of what had happened, why and what C ultimately owes.

As such, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for providing poor initial advice when C moved their second property to Castle Water, being unclear about how their early payment would be used and failing to resolve that confusion. Also for failing to consistently and accurately explain what had happened at each stage, and why. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• In light of the significant communication failings, Castle Water should recalculate what C owes, based on estimated charges with the applicable discount and invoice them for this. They should cancel late fees, disconnection charges and reconnect the supply if C would like this.

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

• Consider having a mechanism in place which prompts an early review of communications in the event of billing disputes, to identify inconsistency of explanation.
• Information about billing arrangements for customers should be clear.

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 incorrectly arranged for a meter to be installed at a vacant property belonging to his business, and were not entitled to charge for the provision of water and waste water services. Business Stream explained that following inspections by Scottish Water, it was established that there was a live supply to the property, that the meter which had been present was no longer there and, in the absence of evidence that a formal disconnection had been requested, they were entitled to install a meter and charge for relevant services. Mr C was not satisfied with the response and brought his complaint to us.

We saw evidence of Scottish Water undertaking inspections at the property. These established the presence of a live supply to the property, albeit the meter had been removed and the connection was not in use. There was no evidence of a formal disconnection, or one having been requested. In the circumstances, and in accordance with changes in government policy, Mr C's business was liable for charges for a live connection to the water network, regardless of whether the property was derelict. Scottish Water were entitled to install a meter and Business Stream were entitled to charge for services. We did not uphold the complaint.

Mr C also complained that Business Stream's handling of his complaint was unreasonable. We found that Business Stream carried out a reasonable investigation and provided Mr C with appropriate responses. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Whilst C was carrying out works to replace their business's boiler, they discovered that water running through their meter had been supplying two neighbouring businesses, because the meter had been incorrectly fitted years before. They complained to Business Stream (BS) and requested a refund for the amount they had been overcharged. BS accepted liability for the incorrect charging but only offered to refund five years' worth of charges, asserting that the older charges had prescribed (expired) under the five-year limit in the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 (the 1973 Act). C complained to BS that this was unfair, particularly considering that the company had been paid twice, as their neighbours were also BS customers, but BS refused this. C's said that BS had unfairly failed to consider refunding them the full amount.

We found no evidence that BS had fully considered the complexities of the 1973 Act, in order to calculate when, and if, the debt should have prescribed. Despite repeated requests from C and this office to provide an explanation of their legal position, they were unable to explain this in sufficient depth to justify their approach. In addition, their policies on prescription were suggestive of a blanket approach to applying the five-year limit in all cases, without considering potential exceptions. We considered that these factors were evidence that BS had failed to fairly consider refunding C in full. Towards the end of our investigation, BS did provide a reasonable legal rationale to suggest that the debt should be prescribed. However, we were critical of the fact that C had to resort to complaining to our office before this was forthcoming.

In addition to refunds that were legally required, BS told us it was their policy was to consider whether an ex-gratia (voluntary) payment was appropriate to extend refunds beyond the usual five years, taking account of the specific circumstances of the case. However, there was no evidence that they had considered C's specific circumstances, despite their request, insisting it was unfair for them not to pay. In addition, their policies on ex-gratia payments lacked clarity and consistency. Again, we considered these factors were evidence that BS had failed to fairly consider refunding C in full. Ultimately, we were of the view that, regardless of any legal liability, it was fundamentally unfair for a business providing a public service to refuse to refund the full amount. This was because BS recognised they were incorrectly paid twice for the services in question and so a refund would not represent a loss for them. For these reasons, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for failing to fairly consider their request for a full refund and for unfairly withholding the refund. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/informationleaflets
• Business Stream should provide C with a full refund for the amount they were overcharged. This should be calculated using historic consumption of the other properties in question, where available. Otherwise a fair and justifiable methodology, consistent with that previously used, should be employed to calculate the refundable amount.

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

• Whenever considering whether to apply a prescriptive limit to refunds, Business Stream should fully consider a customer's personal circumstances against all of the relevant legislative requirements and clearly record their rationale.

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

C owned a holiday let property and received water and waste services from Wave. C said they were paying approximately £200 per quarter for the waste and water services to the property. Months after commencing services with Wave, C received new, backdated bills increasing the amount by over £4000 for the period which C considered was incorrect. After investigations and amendments some charges were removed, however, C remained of the view that the increased charges and demands being received for the same were incorrect and submitted a complaint.

We found that there was a significant delay in a meter reading for the property being actioned. This meter reading showed usage more than six times over the anticipated amount, but bills were not issued showing this increased usage until some months later. On investigation it appeared that the most likely cause for the increased usage was a leak, however, C was not advised about the possibility of applying for a leak allowance until after the six-week period for submitting a claim had passed. This was unreasonable and we upheld this aspect of the complaint.

We also found that the communication relating to this complaint was poor. Wave did not make clear their position on C's dispute with the charges and on their complaint until months after the complaint was submitted. Then it was predominately follow-up contact from C which prompted Wave to respond to their queries. C's complaint was not finalised nor was C referred to our office until twelve months after they submitted their complaint. This was an unreasonable delay and, therefore, we upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the communication failings and billing delays. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Revise C's charges to align with what C would have paid if they had been awarded a leak allowance.
• Review the bills issued to C to ensure they are accurate. If any changes are required a cover letter should be provided explaining the changes.

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

• Have a process in place to respond to actual meter readings and notifying customers of the updated bills in a timely manner, possibly including a cover letter if there is a significant change and what steps they can take to dispute the usage.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• A clear process in place to escalate complaints/disputes, ensuring Wave makes their position clear and customers are aware of how they can escalate their complaint.

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 Clear Business Water (CBW) unreasonably charged his business premises for water on the basis of estimated meter readings. He said these estimated readings were based on the usage of the previous owner who operated a different type of business and for many more hours per week than Mr C’s business. He said the last time CBW read the meter at the premises was nearly a year before he had taken it over. He said that had CBW read the meter when they should have, they would have noted that it had been removed and he could have been charged on an ‘unmetered’ basis and his bills would have been considerably smaller.

CBW received a query from a meter reader who had attended to read the meter at Mr C’s premises for the first time since Mr C had taken over the lease. The reader thought the meter may have been removed as they were unable to locate it. There followed a lengthy dispute during which several attempts were made by Scottish Water on behalf of CBW to attend and try to locate a meter. Mr C was advised he would need to remove boxing behind a cistern to allow for inspection and would need to cover the costs of this. He was unwilling to bear the cost himself and declined to have the boxing removed.

We found that had CBW read the meter every six months as they should, in terms of the Market Code for Licensed Providers, they may have identified an issue with the meter sooner and Mr C may not have been billed for so long based on the consumption of a previous tenant. We also found that Mr C’s refusal to uncover the pipework at his own expense meant that CBW could not have carried out a full inspection. Mr C had a contractual responsibility to allow CBW access to the pipework even if that meant that he had to incur costs in doing so. However, we saw no evidence to show that CBW told Mr C of his contractual responsibilities. Had they done so, Mr C may have agreed to carry out the necessary works.

As CBW may have missed an opportunity to determine whether or not the meter was present prior to Mr C taking on the tenancy by failing to read the meter every six months as they are required to do, and as they failed to make clear to Mr C his contractual obligations to expose the pipework, at his own cost, we upheld this complaint.

While reviewing the complaint correspondence, we found aspects of the complaint handling to be poor and made a recommendation to address these failings.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise for their failure to read the meter and for the impact this may have had on Mr C. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets
• Carry out a review of Mr C’s outstanding account, taking into consideration the findings detailed in this decision, and make a reasonable offer of settlement to Mr C in order to bring this matter to a conclusion as quickly as possible.

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

• CBW should ensure that they arrange for meter readings on a six-monthly basis.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• CBW should adhere to the principles of good complaints handling. They should consider ensuring that final decisions submitted in response to complaints clearly detail the complaint which was investigated, explain the steps which have been taken to investigate the complaint and provide a full, evidenced decision clearly explaining whether or not the complaint is supported or rejected.

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 Clear Business Water (CBW) had failed to bill him appropriately. Mr C informed CBW that his restaurant had ceased trading but he occupied the premises above the restaurant which still required water. Mr C said that they were continuing to bill him as if his business was still operating and that he was receiving invoices on the basis of a large restaurant. We found that Mr C had been billed on actual meter reads and that CBW had manually recalculated his outstanding balance according to the information he had supplied. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

Mr C also complained that CBW failed to handle his complaint reasonably. We found that there was a delay in Mr C's correspondence being dealt with as a complaint. Therefore, we upheld the complaint. However, given the action taken by this office in response to an earlier complaint we did not make any further recommendations.

Summary

C complained that Clear Business Water (CBW) had failed to bill their organisation accurately. C said that consequently they could not be certain that the bills were for properties that they were responsible for. C said that previously they had only had to supply leases to CBW and they had not had to provide information on the start or end of tenancies, or contact details for the tenants.

We found that CBW had provided a list of all the accounts they held for C's organisation and they had provided the Scottish Assessor's Association which corresponded to each account. It was, therefore, possible for C's organisation to ascertain which account was for which property. In addition, it was a requirement of the relevant legislation that the owner of a property provide the licensed provider with details of occupancy. We found that CBW were acting reasonably when billing C's organisation and did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C received waste and water services from Clear Business Water (CBW). C was charged for waste and water services for two supply point identification (SPID) pairs for their rented property. C complained because they did not consider that this was reasonable, as they considered they only had one SPID pair associated with their property.

While there were elements of this complaint which stemmed from third party information provided to CBW, we found that CBW failed to bill C reasonably for their water charges. There were failings to identify the duplicate SPID pair earlier in C's contact with CBW, and when C was invoiced for the duplicate SPID, insufficient information was provided to explain the significant bill. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

We found that CBW failed to reasonably communicate with C. C was charged a significant amount of money with no explanation as to why this was being raised and what SPID or period of time this was in reference to. In addition, CBW continued to pursue C via Universal Debt Collection for payment of the account, despite the account being put on hold. This was unreasonable. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failings as identified in this complaint. The apology should meet thestandards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available atwww.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Calculate and credit C's account based on the pseudo meter rate (as applicable) and going forward (omitting the period given) until such time as a meter is installed at the premises/a further reassessment is undertaken.
• Consider whether to offer C a goodwill gesture payment for the length of time take to resolve the issue.
• Reimburse C for any overdue payment charges levied on the account.

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

• When CBW issues bills for SPIDs not previously charged to customers they should explain why they are charging them, the SPID reference and the period for which they are charging.
• When it is possible there are multiple (incorrect) Scottish Assessors Association entries for one premises CBW should take appropriate action to investigate the matter and inform the customer.
• Where a duplicate SPID is identified customers should not be disadvantaged if the SPID with the pseudo meter is de-registered and a clear explanation provided with the options available moving forward.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• CBW should have a clear understanding of why a complainant is complaining before responding to a complaint.

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.