Water

Summary

Mr C complained about Business Stream on behalf of the owner of the company he works for. Mr C complained that the company's property had experienced flooding a number of times and that Business Stream had failed to investigate. Mr C consequently felt that it was unreasonable that the company should pay for surface water drainage when he did not receive an effective drainage service. We found evidence that Business Stream had informed Scottish Water (who manage the drainage network) of the flooding, and we noted that Scottish Water had missed opportunities to investigate. We noted that the company received an effective drainage service for a large proportion of the time and we accordingly considered that it was reasonable for Business Stream to charge the company for surface water drainage. While we did not uphold the complaint, we considered that Business Stream and Scottish Water had failed to investigate the flooding issue in accordance with their policies. This meant that Scottish Water had not considered whether the company was eligible for a payment under their guaranteed service standards, or eligible for compensation for increased insurance premiums as a result of the flooding.

Mr C also complained that Business Stream failed to handle his complaint reasonably. Business Stream acknowledged that they had failed to call Mr C back on an occasion. We considered that Business Stream could have made enquiries to Scottish Water in relation to the complaint much earlier. We also found evidence that Business Stream delayed in issuing their written response to Mr C's complaint. We were critical that Business Stream did not provide an update to Mr C about the delay and we upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• take reasonable steps (along with Scottish Water) to investigate the flooding the company experienced with a view to considering payment(s) under service standard 7;
• consider (along with Scottish Water) any claim from the company in respect of increased insurance premiums as a result of the alleged flooding;
• issue a written apology for the failings identified in this investigation; and
• feed back the findings of this investigation to relevant staff with a view to ensuring that complaints are handled in accordance with the relevant procedures.

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream applied excessive water charges to his account as a result of his business suffering a water leak in a bathroom. He was concerned that they only provided a limited leak allowance and failed to address his concerns and refer him to the SPSO within a reasonable period of time.

We found that there had been failings in the way this case was dealt with and we noted that Mr C's original complaint was not identified as a complaint at the time and as a result, Business Stream delayed in providing him with details of the SPSO. We upheld these aspects of the complaint.

However, we were satisfied that the charges applied by Business Stream were reasonable, that they notified Mr C of the changes to his water usage promptly and that he was responsible for dealing with leaks within his premises. We also noted that Mr C did not qualify for a leak allowance. As a result, we did not uphold these aspects of the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• write to Mr C to apologise for the failings identified; and
• write to Mr C to apologise for failing to record his original contact as a complaint.

Summary

Ms C runs a business from premises that she rents from her landlord who occupies the neighbouring premises. These units formed a larger premises until they were subdivided by the landlord. Ms C had an arrangement where she paid water charges through her rent.

After a number of years, Business Stream contacted Ms C and confirmed that she was operating from the premises. Although water and waste water charges were being accounted for through her landlord's metered water bill, it was established that property and roads drainage charges were not covered for her premises. Business Stream issued a bill for this. Ms C complained that this was unfair as her landlord had informed Business Stream that they were sub-letting the premises previously and that they had been aware of her business. Ms C felt she should have been issued with a letter advising that she could change water supplier and that Business Stream staff had provided poor customer service.

We found that a welcome pack had been issued to Ms C which made reference to the open water market. With therefore did not uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint. We also did not uphold her complaint about customer service as we found no evidence that this was poor.

However, we found that her landlord had contacted Business Stream a number of years earlier and told them that the premises were subdivided and let out, although no specific information had been provided about the tenant. We accepted that the drainage costs were due for payment but recommended that Business Stream provide Ms C with a long-term payment plan. During our investigation, Business Stream acknowledged a delay that had occurred in confirming that water and waste water charges were being billed through her landlord's account. We therefore upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• provide Ms C with a long-term payment plan to pay off the backdated balance alongside the continuing drainage costs; and
• apologise to Ms C for the delay identified.

Summary

Mrs C complained that she had been overcharged by Business Stream. Business Stream accepted that Mrs C had been overcharged but would not pay more than five years of backdated charges. Mrs C said she had repeatedly tried to raise the issue without success and that Business Stream had ignored her correspondence.

Mrs C believed that the issue spanned a period of about 25 years. She explained that a neighbouring property had sub-meters, which deducted from the main meter reading. She used relatively little water, while the neighbouring property used a lot of water. One meter had not been read for an extended period and Mrs C had paid for water used by the neighbouring property, as well as her own water.

Business Stream had refunded Mrs C for a five-year period. A lack of records made it difficult to establish water usage before this. Business Stream stated they had rejected the first overpayment offer from Scottish Water, before achieving an offer which reflected Mrs C's overpayments during a ten-year period. This was a period longer than that for which they were legally required to pay.

We found that Business Stream had taken an excessive length of time to address Mrs C's complaint. She had had to use a firm of solicitors before Business Stream began a full investigation, which we found to be unreasonable as Mrs C had incurred unnecessary costs in order to access the complaints system. We asked Scottish Water if their refund covered a period greater than five years. Scottish Water denied this and their position was supported by their correspondence with Business Stream. We found Business Stream had unreasonably and misleadingly stated to this office and to Mrs C that their Redress and Compensation Policy had been applied, which had resulted in a payment greater than the five-year legal requirement.

We found this to be unreasonable. We found that Business Stream should have given consideration to refunding the costs incurred by Mrs C and to applying their Redress and Compensation Policy to reflect the inconvenience and loss incurred by Mrs C during the period she was being overcharged as well as the failures within Business Stream's complaints process.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• apply their Redress and Compensation Policy in a manner which is proportionate to the loss and inconvenience caused as they appear to have accepted that a discretionary payment should be paid in this case for the charges back to 2005, but Scottish Water's evidence that itemises the period covered by the refund for overpayment was solely for 2008 to 2013;
• provide evidence they have reviewed their complaint investigation, to establish why they provided misleading and inaccurate information regarding the period of time the allowance granted by Scottish Water was intended to cover; and
• refund the cost of the solicitors fees incurred by Mrs C during the complaint.

Summary

Mr C's organisation was appointed to manage a university's utility bills. Mr C queried the charges applied by Business Stream at one of the university's premises. The university's drainage charges were based on the rateable value of the premises, as determined by the local council regional assessors. Following an appeal, the assessors had greatly reduced the rateable value, leading to a reduction in the university's drainage charges. However, Mr C complained that Business Stream had backdated the lower rates to the date of the assessor's decision, rather than the 'effective date' which the assessor had stated for the changes. He considered that the lower rates should have been backdated a further 12 months.

Having reviewed relevant water industry rules, we were satisfied that Business Stream appropriately backdated the lower rates to the start of the financial year in which the appeal was upheld.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of a transport company (the company) that Business Stream had unreasonably failed to fully refund overpayments going back to 2002. Mr C said that a hybrid meter should have been installed to differentiate between the water flow required for fire fighting and the water required for normal usage. Instead, a single meter had been put in in 2003, which was much larger than the company required. It was, however, smaller than the meter it replaced, which resulted in a reduction in the company's water bills. The company had, therefore, been unaware that the wrong type of meter had been installed until 2013. Mr C was able to provide correspondence sent to the company at the time of installation, in which they were told explicitly a hybrid meter had been installed.

Business Stream stated they believed the Prescription and Limitation Act (1973) (the Act) applied, and they were, therefore, justified in restricting any refund to the company to a five-year period.

We found that it would not be appropriate for us to comment on the interpretation of the Act by Business Stream as ultimately this would be a matter for the courts. We considered, however, that Business Stream had failed to demonstrate that their redress and compensation policy had been appropriately or proportionately applied to this case. Business Stream told us that they did not believe further payment was merited, but they did not provide any explanation for this decision. Nor did they explain why this consideration was only made after Mr C's complaint had been submitted to us, rather than as part of their complaint investigation. We considered that this was unreasonable and upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• refund the cost of the original meter installation in 2003;
• provide evidence that they have reviewed the case, applying their redress and compensation policy to reflect the circumstances of the case, including both the original failings and subsequent overcharging in a manner which is proportionate to the loss suffered by the company; and
• provide evidence that they have reviewed their complaints process to ensure that due regard is given to the redress and compensation policy and that decisions relating to it are documented contemporaneously as part of the investigation.

Summary

In March 2013, Mr C requested that Business Stream, his licensed water provider, provide him with a resized meter to improve his water supply. Business Stream then contacted Scottish Water, who own and operate the water infrastructure, and they advised that Mr C would first require to provide a water impact assessment. This was completed in November 2013 and Scottish Water were contacted to progress the meter upgrade. To date the necessary work has not been undertaken. Mr C complained to us about the delay.

We found that there was much contact between Business Stream and Scottish Water but that there was evidence of long periods of delay when Scottish Water were inactive. However, quotes have now been provided to Mr C and both Business Stream and Scottish Water have acknowledged their poor service and each have agreed to make an ex gratia payment in recognition of this. We also found that after Mr C made formal complaints to Business Stream in February 2014 and October 2015, both complaints were closed despite the meter upsize not having taken place. We upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• make a formal apology for closing the complaints made to them prematurely.

Summary

Mrs C brought three complaints to us about Business Stream's commercial charging. However, she failed to respond to our contact. We therefore closed the complaint.

Summary

Mr C raised concerns about Business Stream's handling of his water charges. In particular, he complained that he was paying for a neighbouring business's water consumption. He was also unhappy with the charges for drainage and road drainage and the manner in which Business Stream responded to his complaints.

During our investigation, Business Stream accepted that Mr C was paying for another firm's water services and agreed to install a sub meter to that property to ensure that going forward Mr C would not be liable for their water services. We therefore upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. Business Stream also accepted that the matter had taken a considerable length of time to resolve and agreed, as a gesture of goodwill, to clear his outstanding balance.

We were satisfied that Business Stream had considered Mr C's position that he was not liable for waste and drainage charges, and following investigation, had confirmed that, as Mr C enjoyed the benefit of a connection to the public sewerage network, he was liable for property drainage charges and roads drainage charges. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• apologise to Mr C for their handling of this matter; and
• ensure that complainants receive a robust response which contains adequate information on the reasons for the decision reached on their complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to us that Business Stream had not followed the correct procedure for taking meter readings. He said that since opening his business in May 2010, his water bills had greatly increased although his water consumption had not. He complained about this to Business Stream in August 2014 and was told that he should check for a leak. A leak was found and was fixed in October 2014.

Business Stream applied a leak allowance to Mr C's account for the six month period immediately before the leak was fixed. Mr C felt that this was insufficient and that Business Stream had not followed their procedure for taking meter readings. He believed the leak allowance should have been backdated to the opening of his business.

Business Stream's procedure requires them to take two meter readings per year. Mr C said that he was not alerted to the possibility of a leak because of Business Stream's failure to do this. However, we found that Business Stream had taken readings over the time in question, apart from a period between August 2013 and September 2014 (and they had attempted to do so in March 2014 but the premises were closed). It was towards the end of this timeframe that Mr C raised his concerns and was advised to check for a leak.

Business Stream said that Mr C had a responsibility to regularly check his water bills and to check for possible leaks and have them repaired. Once the leak was found and repaired, a six-month leak allowance was successfully applied for and paid into Mr C's account, in accordance with policy.

We found no evidence that Business Stream had failed to follow the correct procedures and therefore did not uphold the complaint.