Water

Summary

Mrs C complained about Business Stream's charges. She had owned a farm and had paid for its water consumption but, more recently, had sold part of the land to a third party as a residential property. Mrs C was unhappy that Business Stream had not removed water charges from her bill (for the land she still owned) that would account for the usage of the residential property. She was also unhappy that Scottish Water – the water wholesaler in Scotland - would not adopt the private water meters she had installed.

Business Stream's position was that the issue would not have arisen if, before selling off a portion of her land, Mrs C had amended her private pipe work or arranged new connections. Although we recognised that she may not have known initially about the possible problem, Business Stream's records indicated that they had made Mrs C aware of it. There was no record confirming that she had been told the average consumption of the property she had sold off would be removed from her charges.

As part of our investigation we contacted Scottish Water about possible options for future charges. They raised the possibility of deducting an average household's usage (as distinct from the usage of the specific type of property that was sold), or of them installing a sub-meter. Although we could not comment as to whether such steps would be practical or appropriate in the circumstances, this did not reflect Business Stream's position in their correspondence with Mrs C. However, Scottish Water were clear that the possibility of installing a sub-meter was a move from their traditional position. As we did not use the benefit of hindsight in considering Mrs C's complaint, there was nothing to indicate that Business Stream misadvised Mrs C or were inconsistent given the information available to them at the time. As a result, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaints but, as the underlying position with Scottish Water appeared to have since moved on, we made two recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• liaise with Mrs C and Scottish Water to explore the relevant options for future charging; and
• liaise with Scottish Water about the installation of sub-meters to ensure up-to-date information is being provided.

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.

We did not issue a finding on this complaint as it was resolved to Mr C's satisfaction following a review of their previous position by the water authorities concerned.

Summary

Mr C complained about business water charges for his workshop. His workshop was located on the grounds of his domestic property, with no water services connected, and Mr C did not use water in his business. Mr C said he was already paying for the water to his domestic property through council tax, and should not be liable for separate water charges for his business, which did not use water. We discussed Mr C's complaint with Scottish Water and Business Stream, who agreed to cancel the charges. As the issue was resolved by the authority, we did not make a decision on this complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained to us that Business Stream had unreasonably billed her for water charges for a property that was vacant. Ms C had subsequently sold the property. In response to our enquiries on the complaint, Business Stream said that after considering the circumstances of the case, they would be willing to close Ms C's account and withdraw all charges. Ms C confirmed that this resolved her complaint and, consequently, we closed the case.

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream had unreasonably charged his bowling club a return to sewer rate (the percentage of water that is returned to the sewer) of 95 percent. Mr C had applied for this to be reduced after finding out that another bowling club in the area had been given a lower return to sewer rate, which reduced their water charges. Business Stream reduced Mr C's bowling club's return to sewer rate to 75 percent from the date on which Mr C applied for this. Mr C considered that the bowling club had been paying the wrong rate and that this should have been backdated.

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 had demonstrated to Scottish Water's satisfaction that such an allowance was justified. It stated that this was the point at which a full application, including all relevant information, was 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. It says that it will only ever be applied going forward and not backdated. In view of all of this, we found Business Stream had acted in line with their policy and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about Business Stream's delay in sending bills to her for her business premises. She said that the first correspondence she received from Business Stream was a notice saying that her water was to be disconnected, which was issued over a year after she moved in. There was no water meter in the premises and, when the bills were issued, they were based on the rateable value. Mrs C could have applied for reassessment of her water charges, but the charges would only have been reassessed from when her application for this was received. She considered that the delay in issuing bills to her meant that her water charges were higher.

Mrs C provided us with an email that the previous tenant of the property had sent to Business Stream to inform them that Mrs C had moved in. She also sent us a copy of an email that Business Stream had sent to her, in which they had requested that Scottish Water attend the premises and that she confirm that the contact details provided by the previous tenant were correct. Mrs C did not respond to this email and Business Stream had continued to issue bills for the property to the billing address provided by the previous tenant.

Business Stream told us that, like other utility providers, they require customers to contact them when they take over a premises; however, they also acknowledged that, in Mrs C's case, they should have acted more proactively to close the previous account and open an account for Mrs C as soon as they were advised that she had taken over the premises. We found that Business Stream had failed to take appropriate follow-up action after they received the email from the previous tenant and we upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• issue a written apology to Mrs C for the failure to take appropriate action after they received the email from the previous tenant; and
• reimburse her for 50 percent of the additional charges she incurred as a result of their failure to take appropriate action after they received this email.

Summary

Mr C complained about Business Stream’s charging. His building’s rateable value had changed but the section of their bill that was based on his rateable value still used the old value. This meant that Business Stream’s invoices were higher than they should have been. Following Mr C’s complaint, Business Stream amended and backdated their charges but said, in line with the relevant policy, they could not do this for the whole period in question. Mr C was unhappy with this and brought his complaint to us.

Business Stream provided us with two versions of their policy. Both versions were clear that their initial charges were appropriate. The policies differed in terms of Mr C’s more recent charges. The old version of the policy said that Business Stream should have amended their charges for the whole period, but the more recent version limited this, and Business Stream had based their position on the more recent version of their policy.

The more recent version of the policy was in force by the time they concluded their involvement in the matter, but it had not been in force when Mr C first contacted them about this. Although we considered it clear that Business Stream had taken steps to address Mr C’s concerns, it was also clear that there has been confusion about the relevant version of their policy. Given the difference between the two versions, the fact that Business Stream used the later version materially affected Mr C. We upheld his complaint and made one recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• consider making an ex-gratia payment in line with our findings that the lower rateable value should have been applied from an earlier date.

Summary

Mr C owns a property that he lets out as holiday accommodation. The property is classed as non-domestic and is, therefore, liable for commercial water charges. In 2010, the property was identified as a gap site (premises that are receiving water services without being charged). Details of the property were passed to Business Stream in order to set up an account. This was done in September 2013 and an invoice was issued to Mr C for water services dating back to 2010.

Mr C complained that the charges had been issued without warning and were unreasonably high. He compared them to charges for a property that he owns in England which has much lower water bills. Despite a number of calls and letters to Business Stream, Mr C did not feel that they had explained their charges in a way that justified the amounts being charged.

We found that industry rules required Business Stream to contact Mr C within five working days of being passed his property’s details. We were critical that it took them three and a half years to set up the account and issue the first invoice. Whilst we acknowledged that there was a large backlog of gap sites at the time and that procedures have since been changed to prevent similar delays, we recognised that Mr C was prevented from making certain decisions in terms of budgeting and choice of supplier as a result of the delay.

We were satisfied that, once Mr C’s account had been set up, Business Stream took care to clearly explain the charges that were being applied.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• refund ten percent of the full water and waste water charges for the property between specified dates in 2010 and 2013.

Summary

In 2010, Mrs C's business was identified as a vacant site (a premises where one occupant has vacated and the next has not opened a water account). Business Stream created an account and charged based on an estimated meter reading. Mrs C was told several times that meter readers had been unable to find her meter as it was under rubble. In 2012, the meter was found and replaced due to its age. The new meter was installed with a reading of zero and was read again in December 2013. Mrs C subsequently received an unexpectedly high bill. She complained about the amount she was charged, arguing that the new meter could not have been installed with a reading of zero as her small business could not have used the volume of water that had been alleged. She also complained about the lack of meter readings carried out by Business Stream and the fact that she had not been notified of the new meter’s installation.

We found that, although the account had been created using an estimated reading, this was recalculated at a later date using appropriate, verifiable, information. High water usage was recorded through the old meter and continued to be recorded through the new meter with no evidence of a shared supply or a leak. Once the issue was identified, the water usage dropped dramatically. We were satisfied that Business Stream charged appropriately based on the meter information. However, we found that they failed to take two meter readings per year as required by industry rules. This meant that Mrs C was denied the opportunity to identify the high water usage and address the problem before high bills were accrued. We were satisfied that Business Stream were under no obligation to forewarn Mrs C of the meter exchange.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• calculate the company's average daily consumption from the 7 January 2014 meter reading onward and retrospectively apply this to the company's account from 9 October 2010 (six months after the account was created) to 17 December 2013 (the date of the last delayed meter reading).

Summary

Mr C, who owns a small business, complained to us about the installation of a water meter at his business premises. The water meter was fitted in 2007. Several years later there was a leak on a pipe on land to the rear of Mr C’s property. This pipe turned out to be connected to Mr C’s supply pipe, and he was charged for the water as it had run through his meter. Mr C said that Scottish Water should have surveyed his property when his meter was installed.

In their response, Business Stream said that they were not responsible for leaks in supply pipes on private property. They said that there were no records remaining in relation to any survey of the property in 2007. They had reduced Mr C’s bill in relation to the waste water that had not returned to the sewers, and also made him a goodwill payment. However, they did not consider that they had any responsibility to cover the excess water costs.

While there was evidence of injustice, in that Mr C had to pay for water relating to a leak over which he had no control, we did not consider that Business Stream could be held responsible for this. On this basis, we did not uphold the complaint. However, we were concerned about the inconsistency of information held by both Business Stream and Scottish Water in relation to investigations and site visits at Mr C's property, which had led to the matter being unresolved for a number of years. We also found that both organisations had unreasonably expected Mr C to arrange access to other properties to allow them to carry out further investigations and had unreasonably sought evidence from him of repairs to the pipe when Mr C had consistently explained he did not hold this information. Given the inadequate way Mr C's complaint was dealt with, we made the following recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• waive the outstanding disputed amount on Mr C's account; and
• conduct a review of how they handled Mr C's complaint to identify service improvements for their complaints handling which can be implemented for the future.