Water

Summary

Mr C complained to us about the bills he was receiving for drainage from his business premises, when he did not believe his property received drainage. He had complained to Business Stream, and they had, on two occasions, requested a de-registration from Scottish Water. They were turned down, and Mr C brought the complaint to us.

We sought further information from Business Stream and from Scottish Water to establish what had happened, and why Mr C's requests for de-registration were being denied. We also sought advice which suggested that Mr C should not be billed for drainage as his property did not appear to be in receipt of drainage services.

During the course of our investigation it became apparent that this complaint, among others, was involved in a review of Scottish Water's drainage policy. In light of amendments to this policy, Scottish Water agreed to de-register Mr C's drainage services, and Business Stream closed his account. They also offered him a time and trouble payment. Mr C confirmed that this resolved his complaints and, consequently, we closed the case.

Summary

Mr C complained that he had been overcharged for 23 years by Business Stream. Mr C said that, since 1994, he had been aware of a difference in the water charges for two restaurants he owned of similar sizes. He said he had raised this with his supplier on numerous occasions, but had been told that he was being billed for the correct amount of units.

Business Stream had contacted Mr C subsequently and informed him that his water meter size had been incorrectly recorded and he had been paying an incorrect amount. They refunded the difference for a five-year period. Mr C said he considered this inadequate given the timescale.

Business Stream stated the Prescriptions and Limitations (Scotland) Act 1973 applied; this allowed them to restrict repayments to a five-year period. Although Business Stream could exercise discretion, they did not believe it would be appropriate in this case. Mr C disagreed and believed Business Stream should compromise and repay 15 years of charges.

We found that there were no records that Mr C had repeatedly complained about his water charges. Business Stream's application of the Prescription and Limitations (Scotland) Act 1973 was supported by legal advice. Given the absence of a history of complaints about the size of the bills, we found there were no grounds under which Business Stream could have been expected to exercise their discretion. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C ran a small business and stated that he had no mains water supply or drainage. As a result he complained that Business Stream were unreasonably pursuing him for charges for water and waste water services backdated to 2008. Scottish Water were asked to attend the property on a number of occasions and confirmed that, while Mr C had no direct water supply, he did have access to water and waste water facilities. As such he was liable for the charges applied by Business Stream for services used.

During our investigation we found that there had been errors on the part of Business Stream in relation to Mr C's liability. Mr C's account had been opened and closed on three occasions on the basis of information supplied by Mr C. We were concerned that Business Stream had taken the decision to close Mr C's account without carrying out sufficient investigations and, as a result, Mr C received an invoice covering a longer than normal period. However, while there had been errors on their part, Business Stream confirmed that Mr C was liable for the charges issued.

While we found no evidence that Business Stream were unreasonably pursuing Mr C for water and waste water services we were concerned about the errors on the part of Business Stream with regard to his liability, so we made one recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• ensure they offer Mr C a suitable payment plan to reflect that he received an invoice covering a longer than normal period.

Summary

Mr C represented a community organisation which had received an unexpectedly large bill for water use from Business Stream. Mr C said the bill had been delayed as it had been delivered to the wrong address. He felt Business Stream had acted unreasonably, since they had not responded properly to his complaint about the bill. Additionally, Mr C said Business Stream's website committed them to suspending billing and investigating the leak, which had not happened. Mr C said this delay had added a month's worth of water loss to the bill. Mr C was also aware that repairs had been carried out for free on the supply pipe for the previous owner, he considered it unfair that the same discretion was not being applied to a community organisation and believed Business Stream had an obligation to tell the organisation this when they took ownership of the property.

We found that Business Stream had failed to explain what suspension of billing meant to Mr C. They had also failed to carry out an investigation into Mr C's case. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. We found that Mr C had acknowledged difficulties in receiving mail, but that Business Stream had made reasonable efforts to inform him of the high water usage. Although Business Stream had acknowledged they had taken an unreasonable length of time to respond, Mr C still had outstanding questions, which had not been answered. We found that it was unreasonable for Business Stream to have failed to provide a full response given the length of time the complaint had been under consideration. Therefore, we upheld this part of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• review the 'Water Usage Alerts' section of Business Stream's website to ensure it accurately explains what suspension of billing means and sets out what level of investigation will be carried out;
• provide evidence that all customer service staff have been reminded of the commitments given on the 'Water Usage Alerts' section on Business Stream's website;
• review its offer of financial redress to include the failings that were not addressed in its complaint response;
• review its complaints handling process to ensure that all aspects of a complaint are identified and responded to in line with complaints handling best practice; and
• apologise in writing to Mr C for the failings identified.

Summary

Mrs C raised a complaint about Business Stream's handling of charges for water and drainage services. In particular, she was unhappy about the delay in issuing an invoice for these charges which Business Stream had backdated to 2008. She also complained that Business Stream had failed to fully investigate other possible service users who were sharing her water meter.

During our investigation we found no evidence that Business Stream had been notified prior to 2011 that Mrs C had moved into the premises and that they had failed to act on this information. However, we were concerned that once Business Stream were notified in October 2011 it then took until December 2012 for an account to be opened. Business Stream also accepted that they had failed to carry out two meter readings as required. As a result, Business Stream amended the opening of the account to October 2011 and applied an ex gratia payment amounting to 50 percent of the total water consumption as a gesture of goodwill. We upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

We were satisfied that Business Stream had carried out reasonable enquiries to establish that Mrs C was not on a shared supply and that her meter only served her property. Therefore we did not uphold this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• apologise to Mrs C for their handling of this matter.

Summary

Mr C complained to us that Business Stream had not disconnected his water supply, and that he had been charged for a water service that he did not need or use.

We reviewed the communication between Mr C and Business Stream and we found that Mr C was liable for water charges, and that this was set out in his lease. We reviewed the evidence from phone conversations Mr C had with Business Stream, and found that Mr C did ask for a disconnection, but he then decided not to pursue this.

However, we were critical of Business Stream's handling of the situation. They were not clear about what was happening with his account, and they did not provide him with the charging information he needed to make a clear decision on his water services, despite several opportunities to do so. We were also critical that they did not do more to facilitate access to Mr C's property when it would have been appropriate to do so.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• remove the second added recovery charge from Mr C's account, in addition to the existing offer to remove the recovery charge and make the ex gratia payment; and
• consider providing customers with more comprehensive information on the costs and options in relation to the disconnection of water services, including information about the charges still applicable during temporary disconnection, and how to request a disconnection.

Summary

Miss C was concerned about the high water charges in her pub, which she had taken over in 2006. She said she queried her charges in 2009 or 2010 and several times since, but Business Stream had no record of contact before 2014.

In 2014, Business Stream wrote to Miss C noting her high consumption, and she asked them to check the meter. They arranged a survey and initially told Miss C the meter was serving both the pub and the two flats above, but then explained the meter was only serving her pub, although it appeared to be faulty (the numbers were jumping back and forth). Business Stream sent the meter for testing, but this showed it was under-reading (so it did not explain the high consumption). However, since installing a new meter in a new location, Miss C's water charges reduced by about two thirds, despite her not having changed anything in the pub. Miss C asked for a refund, saying that the meter must have been faulty, but Business Stream refused on the basis that the meter test had not found an over-reading fault.

After taking independent advice from a water consultant, we upheld Miss C's complaint. We found the high readings were likely caused either by a problem with the meter or with its location on the old pipework (causing air turbulence). However, it was not possible to tell whether the over-reading was caused by the installation of the meter or by a problem with Miss C's pipework. Given the possibility that Miss C's pipework contributed to the problem, and the time taken to raise this matter with Business Stream, we did not consider a full refund was reasonable. We recommended Business Stream pay a full refund from the date they first noted the meter needed to be moved, and consider paying a partial refund for the period before this.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• refund the difference between Miss C's total water charges and her estimated actual consumption (based on her current consumption) for a specified period; and
• consider making an ex gratia payment of 20 percent of the difference between Miss C's charges and estimated consumption for a specified period.

Summary

Mrs C complained to us about Business Stream's handling of a leak at her property on the private supply pipe. She complained that while a leak was identified by Scottish Water contractors in August 2014 there was then an unreasonable delay by Scottish Water in taking action, leading to a large water bill from Business Stream.

We found that Business Stream had acted in line with their metering policy in carrying out two meter readings, one in April 2014 and one in October 2014. When the October reading suggested a significant increase in consumption, Business Stream alerted Mrs C. We therefore found that there was no evidence that there was any fault on the part of Business Stream in this regard. We also recognised that Mrs C had been charged only for normal consumption during the period of the complaint, and a leak allowance granted for the period of time from the April 2014 reading until the point at which the leak was identified in August. However, Business Stream explained that Scottish Water accepted there was a lack of communication and inaction on their part during the period of the complaint following the August site visit. As ultimately Business Stream are responsible for the service provided to Mrs C, in light of the communication failings and the delay in taking action after the leak was identified, we upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• offer a formal written apology for the failings identified.

Summary

Mr C complained to Business Stream about water charges at his business premises. For a period of time, meter readers advised Business Steam that they were unable to access the water meter at the premises. Once access was gained, a bill was issued covering the period from February 2009 to October 2013. Mr C disputed the bill as he said that the usage was far higher than normal for his business. He also complained that Business Stream had not taken reasonable steps to read the meter regularly and as such, they had failed to identify the problem at an early stage.

During our investigation of this case, Mr C's complaints were resolved by Business Stream to his satisfaction.

Summary

In September 2014, after reading his water meter, Business Stream told Mr C that he had used a high level of consumption and that he may have a leak. He was issued with a bill in excess of £4,000. Mr C phoned Business Stream about this and it was suggested that he test whether there was a leak in his supply pipe. A leak was subsequently confirmed and Mr C was advised to contact a plumber as soon as possible because water was continuing to leak.

Mr C then raised concerns that there may be others attached to the supply pipe but in November 2014, it was confirmed that his was the only connection. He also complained that the leak had not been fixed as his costs were increasing and Business Stream liaised with Scottish Water to confirm ownership of the supply pipe. Scottish Water confirmed Mr C's ownership and thus the fact that any repair was his responsibility.

In February 2015, Business Stream explained that in terms of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980, the owner of the supply pipe was responsible for its maintenance (that is, Mr C). He was urged to complete repairs as soon as possible as his bill continued to mount. Mr C complained that Business Stream had not made this situation clear to him when he first complained in September 2014.

We investigated the complaint and made enquiries of Business Stream. We found that although he was billed in September 2014 and told that repairs to the pipe were for him to carry out, it was not until February 2015 that Mr C was sent a detailed explanation for the reasons why he was responsible for the leak. We upheld his complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• provide Mr C with an appropriate apology; and
• ensure that explanations about the public's liability for payment are clearly explained to them.