Water

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream were unreasonably double billing him for water. He said that his property had two separate units, one which was a flat originally tenanted but now separately owned, and another that was a vacant commercial unit which had been renovated. Originally there had been a single metered supply but this had now been separated, with each property supplied individually. Mr C said Business Stream were unreasonably billing him for water used by the flat, despite agreeing that it should be charged for water through its council tax bill. Mr C also complained that he was being unreasonably charged property drainage and the charge for a new water connection was too high.

Summary

Mr C complained that Blue Business Water had failed to investigate his complaint adequately.

We found that Mr C had been given incorrect advice by Blue Business Water staff, leading to some confusion on the part of Mr C about monies he was due to pay to Scottish Water. However, we found that Blue Business Water had admitted this error and had made an offer of compensation. On balance, we considered that Blue Business Water's investigation of Mr C's complaint had been reasonable, and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C made a complaint about the charges due for water at his business premises. He was unhappy that Clear Business Water took so long to contact him and then that the charges were too high. This was mainly due to meter readings which showed a high level of consumption that were not in keeping with the small number of facilities on site.

Clear Business Water agreed that the consumption was unusually high and that this should be investigated. They checked the meter for a fault but no issues were found. They asked Scottish Water to check if there was a shared meter where someone else could have been using the same supply point but this was found not to be the case. Clear Business Water suspected a possible leak and asked Mr C if any had been identified or fixed. Mr C confirmed that this was not the case, so Clear Business Water agreed to monitor the next few invoices to see if the readings remained high. The readings returned to normal and therefore Clear Business Water concluded that there was no leak. As they had explored all potential options, they concluded the balance was due as the water had passed through the meter.

Summary

Mrs C, who is an MSP, made a complaint about Business Stream on behalf of her constituent (Mr A). Mrs C complained that plans which Business Stream prepared for a new water and sewerage connection were not accurate. Mr A said that his contractor had to undertake additional work as a result of concrete surrounding the pipework and that this resulted in an increased bill for Mr A. Mrs C considered that Business Stream should be liable for these costs. Mrs C was also unhappy about the time taken by Business Stream to respond to the complaint.

Business Stream advised us that the purpose of the drawings was to allow Scottish Water to make an informed judgement as to whether a connection could be granted; it is stated on the drawings that they are created on approximate information and that no guarantee of accuracy can be given. Given this, Business Stream stated that any contractor providing a quote for prospective work should undertake an investigation prior to proposing the cost of work. Business Stream acknowledged that the layout of the pipework was different than expected but stated that, despite some additional difficulties, they understood that the contractor completed the work. They were unsure why the costs had increased but speculated that this was because the contractor opted to drill through the concrete rather than follow an approach that the inspector had suggested.

We noted that Business Stream provided documentation to Mr A prior to the creation of the plans which he was charged for. This documentation stated that plans were a "best estimate of work" and that the existing location of water and sewer mains were unknown and therefore all lengths "will be assumed at this stage"

Based on the above information, we considered the potential for the plans to be inaccurate was outlined to Mr A prior to the plans being drawn up and work commencing. No further charges were raised by Business Stream when it was identified that the pipework was different from the plans. The only additional cost to Mr A arose from the invoice from his contractor. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Regarding complaints handling, we found that Mrs C submitted the complaint to Business Stream but did not receive a final response for many months. There was no evidence to suggest that Business Stream had identified that it was going to take longer to respond to the complaint or that they had proposed an extended deadline. We also held concerns that, in addition to the excessive delays in responding to Mrs Cs's complaint, Business Stream continued to fail to meet deadlines to respond to enquiries from this office. We also noted that complaint responses did not include reference to SPSO as the next stage available in the process. Moreover, Business Stream seemed to be under the impression that as long as they continued to update Mrs C within a 20 working day timescale then it was acceptable to continue to delay providing a substantive response to the complaint. We upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

We noted that Business Stream had apologised for the delays, but we did not consider that this was commensurate with the excessive nature of the delays. We asked Business Stream to consider their position on this further and they agreed to credit a further £100.00 credit to Mr A's outstanding balance. We also made some recommendations.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs C for the unacceptable delay in responding to her complaint. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Business Stream should ensure that all complaints handling staff are familiar with the complaints handling procedure, and identify and address any training needs. If a complaints response takes more than 20 working days, Business Stream should explain the reasons for the delay and agree a new timeframe. This should be the exception, not the norm.

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 made a complaint that Anglian Water Business unfairly made him pay a standing charge for a fourth Supply Point ID at his business premises, which was not in use. Following our initial investigation, the water provider suggested writing-off the remaining balance on the account in recognition of an ongoing charitable exemption on the account and the delays in responding to Mr C's complaint. As this was an acceptable resolution, we closed our investigation as being resolved, with no finding on the agreed complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that Clear Business Water overcharged him for water usage. He said that the meter reading showed a higher consumption of water usage than his previous readings. Mr C also complained that he was unfairly charged for a replacement water meter. Clear Business Water investigated this complaint but found no failings in terms of the charges applied.

Clear Business Water advised Mr C that higher water usage can indicate a leak. Mr C had his property checked but found no leaks and believed that his water meter was faulty. He agreed for his water meter to be removed for testing and was advised that he would have to pay for the new meter installation, if his old one was found to be in working order. An accuracy test was carried out and the results showed that there was no fault with the recording of water usage.

We found that whilst Clear Business Water had acknowledged that the increase in usage may suggest a fault, at no stage was it confirmed that the meter was faulty or that it was being replaced because of a fault. In addition, although a marked increase in water usage had been noted, this in itself was not evidence of a fault with the water meter.

In terms of the charge applied for the replacement water meter, we found that Clear Business Water had provided clear advice in that Mr C would need to pay a charge if the original water meter was tested and found to be recording accurately. We found that they acted reasonably and, therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream was incorrectly charging him for surface water drainage at his business premises. He said he was not liable for this as the guttering and downpipe along the building fed into a soak away in the ground. Business Stream made three requests for the supply point ID (SPID) to be de-registered by Scottish Water. Each request was refused and Business Stream requested that a verification of service visit was undertaken by Scottish Water to clarify if surface water charges should apply. A visit found that the guttering and downpipe were not connected to the main sewerage system. This report was sent back to Scottish Water, who determined that the water which landed on the car park adjacent to Mr C's business premises dispersed onto nearby roads which did connect to the main sewerage network, therefore charges remained liable. Business Stream reflected the view of Scottish Water, despite their inference that they did not agree with this view. Mr C remained unhappy and asked us to investigate.

We asked Business Stream for all of the information they held regarding the complaint and their determination of Mr C's liability for charges. They provided details of the responses from Scottish Water to the three de-registration requests which indicated differing reasons for refusals on each decision. The information indicated that Business Stream did not question this further and applied the charges to Mr C. Business Stream did not begin a dispute process, which is outlined in their operational code. We were not satisfied that Business Stream had made a clear decision themselves and we considered that this had resulted in delays for Mr C and potentially incorrect charges. We took the view that Scottish Water had arranged for the premises to be inspected and this report advised that the property was not connected to the main sewer system. We found that Scottish Water then took an opposing view on this based on assumptions about the rainfall flowing from the adjacent car park. We were of the view that there was not sufficient evidence that the charges should apply and we upheld the complaint. We asked Business Stream to clarify their position and justify this in terms of the legislation and operational code.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Business Stream should provide their view on Mr C's liability for property drainage and roads drainage charges. The explanation should provide a clear legal basis for any applicable charges, citing the appropriate sections of relevant legislation or operational code.

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 about Business Stream. Mr C operated a mobile snack van which was located on a car park in a business park. He did not believe he should be liable for water charges as he was not connected to the main water and sewer supply. However, despite Business Stream making requests to Scottish Water for the premises to be de-registered, the premises was deemed eligible as water ran from the roof onto the car park and down the drain.

Mr C complained to us that Business Stream had unreasonably billed him for water charges. We requested all of the relevant information from Business Stream. We sought their views on Mr C's liability and they requested that the case be passed back to them again to make a further de-registration request to Scottish Water. We allowed them to do this but the de-registration request was refused. Business Stream then took the decision to remove all charges on the account given the length of time the issue had been going on and the fact tht Mr C was no longer trading from the premises. They also apologised to Mr C for the inconvenience caused. As the removal of charges and an apology were the outcomes Mr C was seeking from his complaint, we closed his case.

Summary

Mr C made a complaint to Business Stream that he was unreasonably invoiced for backdated water charges for the commercial premises he rents.

Business Stream responded to Mr C by advising that they had been billing Mr C's landlord for the period in question as they believed there to be a shared meter and therefore considered that it was a private matter between Mr C and his landlord to share costs through this period. Scottish Water had then made them aware that the pipework had been amended and that the two separate premises within the building should have been billed separately. Business Stream refunded Mr C's landlord and billed Mr C for backdated charges, beginning from the date they became aware that he had moved into the premises. Business Stream noted that, in the circumstances, The Prescriptions and Limitations (Scotland) Act 1973 allowed them to apply backdated charges for services which they had provided and Mr C had used. They also confirmed that the charges were based on the rateable value of the property which Mr C was using and the size of the meter serving the property. Following Mr C's complaint, Business Stream removed all recovery charges from his account and made credit payments as goodwill gestures. Mr C remained unhappy about the backdated charges and brought his complaint to us. He complained that Business Stream had unreasonably billed him for the water charges.

We obtained all of the information relating to the complaint from Business Stream. We noted that they were correct to calculate charges based on the rateable value of the property. The decision to backdate the charges was also reasonable and Business Stream provided evidence of the steps taken to minimise the charge to Mr C where possible. They also correctly cited legislation which allowed them to do this. We, therefore, did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

However, we noted that it took Business Stream almost 12 months to respond to Mr C's complaint. We therefore made a recommendation that they apologise for this.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for the unreasonable delay in responding to his complaint. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology, available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

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.