Water

Summary

This summary is linked to case 201810639 in relation to Scottish 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 below) and Scottish Water (see case 201810639).

Recommendations

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

• Clear Business Water should reach their own view on whether or not a customer is liable for charges and if this is contradicted by Scottish Water, they should pursue this as a dispute through the dispute resolution process detailed in the Operational Code.

Summary

Mr C complained that Clear Business Water unreasonably charged him for water services for his business. Mr C's company trades from two units (Unit 1 and Unit  2) and had been paying another water service provider for both units. A number of years later, Unit 2 was allocated by Scottish Water to Aimera as a 'gap site' (a non domestic property that is connected to the Scottish Water Network and is yet to be registered. This means that although it is connected to the water system, the site has never been billed by a provider, as there are no records held for the property). Aimera contacted Mr C several years ago with regards to billing but Mr C explained that he was already paying another provider for both sites.

Mr C heard nothing more for nearly two years, when he received correspondence from Aimera regarding unpaid water charges. Clear Business took control of Aimera later that year and continued correspondence with Mr C in relation to the water charges. We found that Mr C's invoices from his current water provider were confusing as they mentioned both units but in fact they were only providing a service for Unit 1. Although this was not the fault of Clear Business Water's, we found that their communication with Mr C had been inconsistent and confusing. Mr C did not receive any correspondence for nearly two years and he did not find out the basis of his liability for Unit 2's water charges until Clear Business responded to his complaint.

We found that Clear Business failed to provide a reasonable explanation of the liability for water charges and we upheld Mr C's complaint. However, we considered that Mr C had notice he was liable for services for Unit 2 when he was contacted by Aimera about unpaid water charges and that it was reasonable for Clear Business to invoice from this date onwards. Any sums owed before that date, we recommended be written off.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for the inconsistent and confusing communications and failure to clarify the position with respect to the liability for charges on Unit  2. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Write off the sums owed for consumption up to the date that Aimera contacted Mr C and waive any interest and payment rejection charges relating to that period. Offer a payment plan for the remaining outstanding sums.

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

• Communication with customers should be clear and easy to understand.

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 a sewer located behind his property routinely flooded, damaging his garden. Mr C said that Scottish Water had not taken reasonable steps to fix this and that they had not responded properly to his complaints.

Scottish Water said that they had responded to all the incidents of flooding but the problem was more widespread than Mr C's property and it had taken considerable investigation to identify the cause and possible solutions. Scottish Water also said that they had provided increasing levels of support to Mr C as the severity of the problem became apparent.

We found that Scottish Water had acted reasonably in investigating the flooding incidents and supporting Mr C. They had carried out extensive works to repair any damage and they had increased the level of support to Mr C as the complexity of the problem became apparent.

In relation to complaint handling, we found that Scottish Water should have referred Mr C to the complaints process earlier than they did. However, it was clear that Scottish Water had taken steps to improve their responses to him and the way they handled complaints. Therefore, we did not uphold either of Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that Scottish Water had failed to resolve the flooding issues he was experiencing and that they had not handled his complaints reasonably.

We found that Mr C was experiencing more than one type of flooding. Scottish Water had responded reasonably to his concerns, but one source of flooding to the front of his property was due to storm events overloading the sewerage network and could not be easily resolved. Scottish Water were working with the council to address this.

Mr C was also experiencing problems caused by a drain at the rear of his property. We found that this was not part of the public network and although Scottish Water had carried out work on it previously, they would not adopt it into the public network. We considered that Scottish Water's position was reasonable and that they had offered to provide assistance and support to Mr C, even though they were not obliged to. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C made a complaint about Clear Business Water (CBW) regarding charges for non-domestic water rates. Mr C was acting on behalf of a landlord who owned a building with multiple tenants. All of the tenants were paying their water rates individually and, therefore, the landlord was not liable for any charges. Mr C received an invoice for water and was told by CBW that the invoice was for a bulk meter which covered the water and waste liability for the whole property. They explained that the tenants were no longer paying this part of the bill. CBW advised that the previous meters were all deregistered from the market and the basis for the current invoices was correct. Mr C was unhappy with this response and brought his complaint to us.

We found that CBW had been approached by one of the tenants about changing the charging setup to a bulk meter. They stated that they spoke with a representative of the landlord (and colleague of Mr C) who agreed to the installation of the bulk meter.

We listened to a call between CBW and the representative of the landlord and were not of the view that consent was given to install a bulk meter, only that CBW could arrange for an initial survey into the matter. We noted that they had not notified Mr C when the account was created and this was something they were required to do under The Market Code. We also found that CBW failed to advise Mr C in initial correspondence that they were billing under The Deemed Contract Scheme where the scheme requires this to be clearly identified to customers. Overall, we found that while the charges were technically correct and liable, the communication from CBW had been poor. We found that the account did not have the authority of the landlord to be created as they did not approve the installation of the bulk meter. Therefore, we upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for their poor communication. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• CBW should waive the outstanding balance on Mr C's account in light of the failings identified.

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

• CBW should ensure that correspondence sent to customers under a deemed contract is updated to clearly highlight this, as is required in The Market Code.
• CBW should ensure that the findings of this complaint are shared with staff in a supportive manner, to ensure that the requirements of the Market Code when a gap site is allocated are adhered to.

Summary

Mr C complained that Clear Business Water provided him with inaccurate invoices and that their communication with him had been unreasonable.

We found that once a meter reading was submitted, Clear Business Water issued accurate invoices to Mr C. They also made various offers for discounts on the invoices, which they were not obliged to offer, and it was up to Mr C whether or not to accept them. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

In relation to communication, we found that Mr C had experienced delays with getting a response to his contacts. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. As Clear Business Water had already acknowledged and apologised for this failing, we did not make any further recommendations.