Water

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of Mr A, who owned a business. Mr C complained that Clear Business Water failed to bill the business appropriately. Mr A believed that his water bills were too high and he had extensive contact with Clear Business Water over a number of months whilst efforts were made to establish a reason for this.

After agreement with Mr A, Clear Business Water arranged for Scottish Water to conduct a site visit and the engineer identified that a valve close to the meter was the cause of the issue. This valve was fixed and meter readings were subsequently obtained in order to calculate a 'burst allowance' credit. A credit for a limited period was applied to Mr A's account, whilst non-payment charges were also cancelled. Mr A remained unhappy with Clear Business Water's response to his complaint and Mr C brought the complaint to us.

We found that, although it took a number of months to identify the issue with the water supply, Clear Business Water communicated with Mr A appropriately and they did not significantly contribute to the delay. We also noted that Clear Business Water had offered a goodwill payment to Mr A and subsequently extended the period for which the burst allowance credit was applied.

We concluded that there were no failings in the service provided to Mr A and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C complained on behalf of A regarding a bill for water usage at a business premises which was unusually high. After the water meter was removed and tested, it was found to be faulty, in that it was under-recording water usage. C was dissatisfied that these tests results were only representative of the meter performance at the time of it being tested and not at the time of the spike in usage. C also highlighted that the area was subject to historic flooding.

We did not identify evidence that the spike in water usage was supported by historic flooding in the area. The evidence available showed that the meter was under-recording the volume of water usage and did not explain the increased usage. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that Scottish Water (SW) delayed in reinstating a permanent water supply to his property and that their communication in relation to this matter was unreasonable.

Mr C requested a mains supply lead replacement. After completing works, the new pipes were attached to the water supply system. Shortly afterwards, his neighbours reported that they had no water. It was established that during the works at Mr C's property, the joint supply to his neighbours had been cut. Mr C was unhappy because he said that he had been misled by SW into believing that the water supply at this property was not a joint one. SW considered that a public health issue had arisen as the neighbours' water supply had been disrupted and they took action to install a temporary overland water supply. They also apologised for the incorrect information they had given. At the same time, they detailed the works they would carry out to renew the existing pipework to the rear of Mr C's property and to the boundary of each of his neighbours (SW are only responsible for the water main in the street and communication pipe up to and including the stop-cock. The water supply to individual premises inside a property boundary is the responsibility of the property owner).

It was SW's view that, notwithstanding any incorrect information they may have given Mr C, it was in fact his responsibility to establish the actual situation with regard to the supply pipes; they did not hold records about these nor were they part of the public supply network. Their role in this was only to remove the lead pipe belonging to them and lay a new pipe from the public water main to the boundary of Mr C's property where it connected to the private pipework. The temporary mains pipe was laid and it was not until a year later that it was removed.

We found that despite any incorrect information SW may have given, it was Mr C's responsibility to determine whether or not his water supply was shared. Delays were caused by this, but they were not of SW's making. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

In relation to communication, we found that there was a great deal of confusion by SW in the way they dealt with the correspondence and there were omissions and delays in sending replies. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for the failure to communicate in a reasonable way. 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:

• Correspondence, including complaints correspondence, should be acknowledged and responded to in accordance with stated policies.

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

Ms C complained on behalf of an organisation. She said that they were not issued with appropriate terms and conditions by Clear Business Water and that Clear Business Water failed to communicate reasonably with them about their concerns. Clear Business Water acknowledged there was a delay in issuing the relevant terms and conditions. They offered to apologise for the error, refund the charges on the account and pay them a sum of money as a goodwill gesture. Ms C confirmed she wished to withdraw her complaint, as it had been resolved to their satisfaction.

Summary

Mrs C, an MSP, complained on behalf of her constituent (Mr A) that Business Stream had unreasonably failed to provide Mr A with an accurate bill for his water usage. Mrs C also complained that the handling of her complaint by Business Stream was unreasonable.

Mr A owns a farm which shares the same water supply with five other properties and historically the meter readings for the usage of all the properties were taken from the main meter sited at a neighbouring farm. Scottish Water installed a new meter at the farmhouse, however, they subsequently stated that the new meter was installed in error and could no longer be used. Billing reverted to the original meter and sub-meters were installed in the five properties.

Mr A complained to Business Stream as his licensed provider. They liaised with Scottish Water who confirmed that the initial instruction to install a new meter outside the farm was the wrong action. Business Stream outlined that Mr A had two options presented, and proceeded to set up the billing based on the option to deduct the usage on the five domestic sub-meters from the readings on Mr A's meter. There were further billing issues which exacerbated Mr A's concerns and he took practical action to remove his meter from the non-domestic water market. Mr A remained unhappy that his bills had been inaccurately calculated and Mrs C brought his complaint to us.

We found that Business Stream's shared supply policy set out only three options when a shared supply has been identified. These were that the pipework is altered to remove the domestic property from the supply at the cost to the customer, to remove the meter and charge unmeasured services, or that the customer is billed fully and can then recoup the charges from the domestic customers as a private arrangement under water re-sale rules. We noted the option progressed by Business Stream was not in their policy. Business Stream explained they were following a briefing note from Scottish Water issued years before which included a wider range of options for customers in shared supply scenarios. They said that they were following this briefing note as it was in the best interests of the customer.

We found that Business Stream had not clearly explained to Mr A all the appropriate options available to him in order to resolve the shared supply situation. We found their communication had been unclear and, while well intentioned, the briefing note they referred to was not a policy document but described the process Scottish Water hoped to move to. We also did not see evidence that all options set out in the briefing note were fully explained to Mr A. We therefore upheld Mrs C's complaint. However, we noted that wider changes regarding shared supply meters are anticipated to be implemented across the non-domestic water industry in Scotland in 2020 and therefore, did not make any recommendations in this respect.

In relation to complaint handling, we found that Business Stream failed to properly acknowledge and investigate the complaints and that there was an unreasonable delay in responding to correspondence. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise Mrs C and Mr A for the failures identified that they did not set out options available nor did they clarify the basis of Scottish Water's actions to resolve the metering/billing issue. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Apologise to Mrs C and Mr A for failing to properly action and process Mrs C's complaint in line with their complaint handling procedures and for the resulting unreasonable delay. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

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

Ms C complained that she had been unreasonably billed for water she had not used. Ms C said that she had received an unexpectedly high bill, and that she had been charged for a visit by Scottish Water to verify if the water usage was due to a faulty water meter. Ms C said Clear Business Water (CBW) had failed to read her meter for a year and that they had not told her she would be charged for the visit by Scottish Water. Ms C said she accepted there had been a leak on her pipework, but said it had not been significant and, had she been aware of it sooner, that she could have reduced the amount that she owed.

We found CBW had acted unreasonably by failing to read Ms C's water meter, as required, every six months. We also found it was unreasonable not to have informed Ms C that she might have to pay a charge for the visit by Scottish Water and, therefore, we upheld Ms C's complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Ms C for the failings identified by this investigation. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Credit Ms C's account for the cost of the visit from Scottish Water.
• Calculate Ms C's average water usage since the meter was replaced and refund any difference between this figure and the sum sought by CBW from her final meter reading.

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

• Evidence CBW now have a process in place to ensure meter reads are taken in line with their obligations as a licensed provider.
• Ensure staff are aware of the importance of timeous apologies where failings have been identified.

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 he was unreasonably billed by Clear Business Water (CBW), despite having paid his water bills regularly. He also complained about the way CBW had pursued payment of the disputed amount.

We found that Mr C's accounts had previously been inaccurately recorded by another water provider. However, we found that CBW had explained the reason for the outstanding sum and that Mr C had used the water that payment was being requested for. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

In relation to CBW's debt collection process, we found that it was confusing and unreasonable and therefore upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for the failings identified in this case. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apologyavailable at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Review a good will gesture, showing consideration has been given to all the service failures identified in our decision.

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

• CBW need to ensure correspondence sent out by Universal Debt Collection accurately identifies the relationship between the two organisations and sets out clearly and accurately what the debt recovery process is.
• CBW need a written debt recovery procedure, which sets out clearly the timescales and actions they will take when pursuing payment. This should include a clear explanation of when an account will be passed to external agencies for recovery.

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 on behalf of a tennis club that they were unreasonably billed for water it did not use. Mr C said that Clear Business Water (CBW) had failed to read the meter as required. This meant that a leak had not been identified and an excessive amount of water had been lost. Mr C also complained about CBW's handling of his complaint. Mr C received correspondence which appeared to be from a debt collection agency. Mr C said that he had discovered this was in fact part of the same organisation as CBW, although this was not communicated clearly. Mr C felt that this was deliberate and designed to intimidate.

We found that CBW had acquired the account from another licensed provider, who had failed to read the meter as required of them. Consequently, CBW were responsible for this failure and should have identified and addressed it in their complaint investigation.

We also found that the approach taken by CBW to debt recovery was inappropriate, as the correspondence sent to Mr C had failed to explain the reason why a different organisation was pursuing payment. It also referred inaccurately to the English court system. We found that CBW had refused to suspend recovery while the sum was in dispute and had been unable, or unwilling, to allow the club to continue paying for their ongoing water usage, insisting that all payments should be put towards the disputed amount. This meant that Mr C's club was continually hit by late payment charges. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for their failure to provide an appropriate and reasonable level of service. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Calculate the average usage of the club and reimburse the difference between this and the recorded usage for the period that meter readings were not taken in line with the requirements of the operational code. The payment should be made by the date indicated. If payment is not made by that date, interest should be paid at the standard interest rate applied by the courts from that date to the date of payment.

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

• Any correspondence from Universal Debt Collections must make it clear that they are not a licensed debt collector, they must make it clear that they are an internal department of CBW's parent organisation and they must provide accurate information about CBW's debt recovery process.
• CBW should review their processes, so that automated requests for payment can be stopped if a complaint is received.

Summary

This summary is linked to case 201608499 in relation to Clear Business Water.

Mr C complained to Clear Business Water about roads drainage charges applied to his business. Mr C argued that these charges should not apply as he does not have a physical connection to the water supply. Clear Business Water said they could not deregister this aspect of the charges however, they referred the matter to Scottish Water who carried out a site inspection. Scottish Water advised Clear Business Water that the charges should still apply as Mr C's business has the benefits of facilities which drained to the public sewerage systems, implying that Mr C's employees could use the facilities of a business next door.

While SPSO's investigation was ongoing, Scottish Water identified that Mr C should never have had roads drainage charges applied to his business. Mr C was refunded appropriately. Under our powers of the SPSO Act 2002, the Ombudsman decided that we should review the actions of both Scottish Water as a listed authority and Clear Business Water. We found that Clear Business Water failed to take responsibility for reaching their own determination of Mr C's liability and to pursue any disagreement with Scottish Water through the dispute resolution process detailed in the Operational Code.

With regards to Scottish Water, we were critical that they took the view that Mr C's business should be liable for roads drainage charges but did not provide adequate evidence to justify their position. We were also critical of the length of time it took both Clear Business Water and Scottish Water to resolve this matter. We upheld the complaint and made recommendations to both Clear Business Water (see case 201608499) and Scottish Water (see below).

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for failing to identify that the roads drainage charges were inappropriately applied to his business within a reasonable timescale. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

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

• Scottish Water should understand the reasons for their failure to identify these premises as being exempt from roads drainage charges by carrying out a significant event review and ensure that steps are taken to review and amend their processes in light of their subsequent findings.
• Scottish Water should provide assurances that similar errors have not occurred in the last 12 months in cases where Scottish Water has been approached by licenced providers on behalf of end-customers, contending that charges should not be applied, in circumstances where the end customer does not have a direct connection to the public water system or public sewerage system and the customer does not have a legal right to access communal facilities which are so connected.

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.