Consumer Council for Water (CCW)

4. Mr A complains about the Consumer Council for Water (CCW) and its decision not to thoroughly investigate a complaint he had made about a Water Company. He says its view (that this is a private matter) was overly influenced by the Water Company and did not take full account of his own evidence.

5. Mr A says he has had to pay £3000 for someone to fix the issues with his sewage and feels the CCW should have made Water Company resolve the matter by reimbursing him.

6. As an outcome of his complaint, he would like CCW to revisit his case.

18. The CCW describes itself as the voice for water consumers. It says its role is to help consumers resolve complaints against water companies while providing free advice and support.

19. If a customer wishes to complain about a water company, they must first complete the water company’s complaint process. If the complaint remains unresolved, they can go to the CCW.

20. CCW’s process for handling water company complaints is explained in the ‘Make a complaint’ page on its website (which was viewable at the time when Mr A made his complaint to the Water Company). This says it offers independent advice and help to customers who have been unable to resolve a complaint with their water company or retailer in England and Wales.

21. CCW’s website also provides guidance on who is responsible for maintaining sewer and drain systems. It says the responsibility is shared among property owners, water and sewerage companies, local authorities, and the Highways Agency, dependent on circumstances and the location of the pipe.

22. The guidance adds that, typically, pipes within an individual property’s boundary are the responsibility of the property owner for upkeep. However, it advises that, if the property owner is unsure about this, they are best to contact their water company for clarification. It says the water company can offer guidance, and after a site visit, determine if the matter is within their responsibility or direct the property owner to a drainage professional.

23. The guidance says more detailed information about pipe responsibility is available on Ofwat’s website (Ofwat is the regulator for the water sector in England and Wales).

Mr A complains about CCW’s decision to close his case without a detailed investigation

24. It is important to say from the outset that it is not part of CCW’s role to make a ruling on whether a water company has acted reasonably. Whilst it provides advice and guidance to both consumers and water companies on how best to resolve a dispute, it is not a complaints Ombudsman or a Regulator (as it made clear to Mr A). Its primary role is to look at whether the organisation concerned has given a clear, thorough and balanced response to the complaint. We therefore need to look at Mr A’s concern in this context.

25. The evidence we have seen shows the CCW categorised Mr A’s complaint as a private dispute over who should reimburse him for costs he had incurred. When we asked the CCW why this was, it explained that, based on the information provided, responsibility for what happened appeared to lie with the private contractor (for proceeding with the work without confirming liability), and with the managing agent (who arranged the service on Mr A’s behalf). The CCW advised that Mr A should raise this matter directly with them.

26. We have seen nothing to suggest the CCW’s view was unreasonable. Although we can understand Mr A’s eagerness to have the damaged pipe repaired as quickly as possible (he has told us the repair was urgent and his tenants were being affected by the blockage), the CCW’s guidance made clear that, before doing anything, he (or someone acting on his behalf) should have taken steps to establish who was responsible for that repair. Unfortunately, neither he, nor the people working on his behalf (namely the managing agent and the contractor) took this step. This meant the CCW had no reason to say the Water Company had done anything wrong.

27. We have noted Mr A’s request for the Water Company to inspect the pipe for itself to establish responsibility. However, this is not something we would have expected the CCW to have taken further. The Water Company had made clear that inspecting the pipe after the work had been carried out would not have led to it reimbursing Mr A for the money he had spent. As it explained, even if it had established it was responsible for the pipe (either before or after the repairs) it would not have authorised the contractor to carry out the work. We can see nothing to suggest the CCW could, or should, have disputed the Water Company’s position on this.

28. Under our Principles of Good Administration – getting it right, we expect organisations to act according to their duties and responsibilities. In this case, the CCW took the view that the Water Company had given a clear, thorough and balanced response to Mr A’s complaint and therefore had acted in line with its expectations. This in in accordance with both the CCW’s responsibilities and our expectations.

29. Overall, we have seen no evidence of maladministration in the way the CCW has handled Mr A’s complaint. For that reason, we have decided we will not take further action on Mr A’s complaint.

30. We are sorry to hear about Mr A’s experience with his pipe, and we can appreciate this would have been stressful for him at the time when it happened. We would echo the Water Company’s advice to contact it should a similar issue happen again. Mr A may also wish to seek independent advice on how he may be able to obtain reimbursement from his managing agent (and/or the contractor) should he feel this is appropriate. This is not something we can help him with.

31. We realise this is not the outcome Mr A was looking for when he approached us. We hope we have explained the thorough consideration we have given to our decision and clearly outlined the reasons for it. We would like to thank Mr A for bringing his concerns to our attention.

1. We are sorry to learn of the stress Mr A experienced when a pipe burst beneath his property. We can appreciate it would have been disappointing for him when CCW did not resolve this, but we cannot say it should have given him the outcome he was seeking.

2. Having looked at Mr A’s case, we have decided not to consider it further. This is because CCW’s decision to not look at the case was reasonable, and it followed its policy.

3. We appreciate why this complaint is important to Mr A and we will explain our decision in more detail below. We hope our explanation provides him with reassurance about how carefully we have considered his complaint before reaching our decision.