Water

Summary

Mr C is the secretary of a club which rents premises from the local council. The premises are in part of a building, the larger part of which is vacant. The council had shut off the building's water supply, including the supply to the club's premises. As the club did not require a water supply, this was not a problem. In 2013, Business Stream identified the property as one that had a water connection but had not been charged for water services. An invoice was issued for water and wastewater services. Mr C complained that the club was unreasonably being asked to pay for a service it did not receive. Whilst Business Stream advised that a water connection remained in place and could be used by the club, Mr C noted that the club did not have any control over the stopcock or pipework and could not influence this. Ultimately, the club arranged for the premises to be disconnected, avoiding further charges. However, Mr C considered the earlier charges to be unjustified.

Although the council had turned the water supply off, the property was not fully disconnected from the water supply. Water services could be reinstated without Business Stream or Scottish Water's involvement, and we considered it reasonable for them to guard against a situation where charges were cancelled, only for water to be used at a later date. We found the charges were applied in line with water industry rules and accepted that it was a matter for the club to arrange for a permanent disconnection. That said, we considered the club's disconnection was unreasonably delayed due to the hold-ups to the investigation into Mr C's concerns. Additional charges were accrued in the meantime which we did not consider reasonable, so we recommended that these were reimbursed to the club.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• calculate and refund the difference in charges had the club disconnected the water supply on 1 January 2014.

Summary

Mr C complained that Scottish Water had failed to consult appropriately before deciding to construct a new water treatment works at a site neighbouring his property. He said Scottish Water had deliberately misled his parliamentary and local council representatives about the process used to select this site and that the site selection process had lacked transparency.

Scottish Water accepted that some of their responses to Mr C could have explained the site selection process more clearly. They said the construction of the treatment works was essential and that they had followed the appropriate site selection process, before consulting with the local community. They said they had followed their consultation code, which had been approved by the Scottish Government.

We found that Scottish Water were not obliged under their consultation code to consult with local residents during the site selection process. Consultation had been carried out prior to the construction of the new treatment works, which had received the appropriate planning permission. Although Scottish Water had acknowledged that they could have provided fuller responses to Mr C's enquiries, there was no evidence they had deliberately misled his elected representatives. We also found that the site selection process was an internal process and the evidence available showed it had been appropriately conducted in line with these internal procedures.

Summary

Mr C complained that, although the water supply to his business premises was capped by his plumber when he took entry and, therefore, he used no water, he was still billed for water charges. He was further aggrieved that, although he invited someone to come and inspect the situation, Business Stream failed to arrange such a visit.

The complaint was investigated, and all the relevant information and documentation were given careful consideration. We found that although Mr C had been at the relevant address for a number of years, it was only relatively recently that Business Stream established this, and an account was opened and backdated. It had been Mr C's responsibility to advise them. Even although the supply had been capped, there was still a live connection into the premises which could be reinstated at any time. Mr C was, therefore, responsible for all water charges back to the date of his account opening. While he also complained that Business Stream had failed to arrange for the site to be visited, it was confirmed that they had asked Scottish Water to do so. However, on the grounds that it could be seen from records that no permanent disconnection had been made, Scottish Water considered it unnecessary. Only a permanent disconnection would have removed Mr C's liability for water charges. The complaint was not upheld.

However, in light of the delay Business Stream took in explaining the matter to Mr C, we made a recommendation that Business Stream extend the period in which Mr C has to repay the amount due.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• give sympathetic consideration to extend the period in which to repay the amount due.

Summary

Mr C complained to us about Business Stream's decision that his property was liable for measured charges for water and waste water services. Mr C maintained that he was not liable for these charges as his property had been unoccupied undergoing refurbishment works. Business Stream explained that, in line with the market code, which sets out the roles governing all market participants, such as Business Stream, his property was liable for water and waste water services while the refurbishment works were ongoing. A meter at the property had recorded consumption which indicated that water services were being used. Business Stream confirmed that they must charge for services being used. We saw no evidence of fault in their handling of this matter and did not uphold the complaint.

Mr C also raised his concern about Business Stream's handling of the matter. It was clear that Mr C had been in contact with Business Stream over a long period of time and we were concerned that they had not referred him to their complaints process earlier than they did.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• apologise for the failings we identified.

Summary

Mr C’s business premises were located below a block of tenement flats. The flats’ courtyard formed the roof of his premises. His business was identified as a gap site (a business that is receiving water services, but is not being charged) and Business Stream was appointed as his licensed provider of water services. An invoice was issued based on the business’s estimated water usage. Mr C queried the amount he was charged. He explained to Business Stream that there was a water meter in place (although it was unreadable) and that his business used only a very small amount of water. He also questioned whether he should be charged for roads and property drainage given that his premises had no roof of its own.

Had the meter in Mr C’s premises been installed by Scottish Water, his business should have been billed based on his metered water usage rather than an estimate. We found that, although it had been confirmed that a meter was in place, this was badly corroded and it was not possible to confirm whether this had originally been installed by Scottish Water. We were satisfied that Business Stream made reasonable efforts to confirm whether this was a Scottish Water meter, however, we accepted that there was insufficient evidence available for them to accept responsibility for the equipment. We were critical of Business Stream for a subsequent delay in replacing the meter and commencing metered charges.

We found the charges for property and roads drainage to be reasonable. To avoid such charges, it is the customer's responsibility to provide evidence that water is not transported away from their premises via the public sewer network. No such claim had been made by Mr C. That said, we asked Business Stream to contact Mr C with details of what evidence would be required to pursue this matter further.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• apologise to Mr C for the delay to installing a new meter at his business's premises;
• recalculate Mr C's water charges for the period in question based on his metered average daily usage rate and refund any overpayments on his account; and
• write to Mr C explaining fully the reasons for their property and roads drainage charges and the type of evidence that would be required from him should he still feel that the charges are incorrect.

Summary

In 2002, Mr C purchased an outhouse behind his home. The outhouse had previously been used for commercial purposes and was rated by the Scottish Assessor's Asssociation (SAA) as a non-domestic property. In April 2013, Business Stream issued Mr C with an invoice for water used at the outhouse. The outhouse had been identified as a gap site (a property that is listed as non-domestic and, therefore, liable for water charges, but that has not been charged to date). The invoice was backdated to 2008 and covered a period of six years. Mr C complained, stating that the outhouse had no water supply of its own. Whilst he had installed a toilet in 2012, the water for this had been diverted from his domestic supply, which he paid for through his council tax.

Business Stream considered the charges to be legitimate, as the outhouse was listed as a non-domestic property and Mr C had access to water via his home. They advised that the only way the charges could be cancelled was for Mr C to appeal the outhouse's non-domestic categorisation with the SAA.

We found that Business Stream had failed to check what water services, if any, were in place at the outhouse before 2012. We referred to a previous ombudsman ruling that it is not reasonable to charge for water services that are not being provided, and concluded that no water charges could be applied to the outhouse prior to 2012. We also found that there had been a significant delay to Mr C's outhouse being identified as a gap site. Although Mr C had appealed the non-domestic listing with the SAA, the outhouse remained a non-domestic property and we were satisfied that it was reasonable to apply charges after 2012 in line with normal water industry practice.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• cancel all charges on Mr C's account prior to 1 January 2012;
• apply a ten percent discount to all charges on Mr C's account between 1 January 2012 and 31 March 2014; and
• apologise to Mr C for the incorrect calculation of charges for the outhouse.

Summary

Mr C had assumed that his charitable organisation did not pay water charges as he said he was never issued with a water bill in any of the organisation's previous addresses. He said that when he received a letter from Business Stream saying that they believed his premises to be empty he phoned and advised them he had occupied the premises since January 2010. Business Stream issued a bill and directed Mr C to information about the 'Scottish Government Exemption Scheme'. However it was discovered that this scheme would not apply to him. Mr C complained and Business Stream's Chief Executive wrote to explain that Business Stream had made several attempts to make contact with him and could not have issued a bill sooner. Business Stream offered to reassess Mr C's charges backdated to January 2010 as a goodwill gesture. Mr C was unhappy with the decision and was unhappy that Business Stream had not replied to some of his letters.

Business Stream told us that they had located Mr C's organisation through the Scottish Assessors Association but could not issue a bill until they had confirmed it. They provided evidence that they had tried to make contact and it was only when Mr C phoned in response to their second letter that they issued a bill. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint that the bill had been unreasonably delayed. We did uphold his complaint that Business Stream had failed to properly handle his complaint as they failed to respond to some of his letters within their procedural timescales. They had already offered compensatory payment and goodwill gestures that we felt were reasonable. We asked them to remind their staff of complaints handling timescales.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• ensure that all relevant staff are reminded of complaints handling timescales; and
• share the outcome of this investigation with all relevant complaints handling staff.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his client (Mr A) that Business Stream were using the incorrect Rateable Value (RV) as a basis for the water charges applied to Mr A's property. Mr C said that they should have been using the RV assigned on 31 March 2000, but instead Business Stream were using an amended entry from 1 April 2013.

We found that Business Stream must use the RV from 31 March 2000 unless there has been an amended entry on the Scottish Assessors Association website (which contains information about the current rateable values for properties in Scotland). When there is an amended entry, as there was in this case relating to Mr A's property, Business Stream must use it as the basis for calculating their charges, which they did. For this reason, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about Scottish Water's decision to refuse her compensation claim. We explained to her that our role in complaints about compensation was very limited - for example, it was not for us to decide whether compensation was payable or to determine the amount of any compensation.

On receipt of our enquiries, Scottish Water contacted us to say they felt there was scope for a financial settlement, which they would like to explore with Mrs C. Given our very limited role in such complaints, this appeared to be the best way forward, and we closed the complaint without further investigation. We advised Mrs C to return to us if she wished to pursue the complaint after Scottish Water's further consideration of the claim.

Summary

Ms C complained that Business Stream or Scottish Water had rejected her claim for compensation following damage to her business's property. We explained to her that our role in complaints about compensation claims was very limited. For example, it was not for our office to establish legal liability or decide whether, or how much, compensation was payable. We could solely consider whether her claim had been reasonably considered.

Scottish Water were involved in the issue as they own the public water pipework network. However, Business Stream were also involved as Ms C's licensed water provider. Therefore, we considered the actions of both organisations.

We concluded that both Business Stream and Scottish Water had looked carefully into the issue. For example, Business Stream had put a number of enquiries to Scottish Water about the events and the claim decision. And Scottish Water had considered the circumstances in detail before reaching their decision, which was that they had no legal liability, which meant that they had no requirement to pay compensation. In the circumstances, we did not uphold the complaint.