SPSO Individual Decisions

Mr C complained that Business Stream had given an incorrect closing balance when he transferred to another water provider and were unreasonably pursuing him for the bill calculated. However, Business Stream said that his closing bill had been calculated appropriately and had been based on his final reading. The complaint was investigated and we found that, in accordance with Business Stream's policy, they were required to be provided with a transfer reading by the customer's new licensed provider. This was to prevent the customer being charged twice for the same period, and Mr C's new provider had provided the reading. No evidence was provided to suggest that this figure was incorrect and it was found to be in line with a previous year's meter reading. While Mr C also complained about what he described as a four-month spike in water usage, he was by then no longer a Business Stream customer. Accordingly, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201600316 as a PDF (11.02 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

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.

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.

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.

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. Related reading View Decision Report 201407008 as a PDF (10.97 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

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

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. Related reading View Decision Report 201507759 as a PDF (11.32 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

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.

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. Related reading View Decision Report 201508239 as a PDF (10.61 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

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.

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.

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. Related reading View Decision Report 201508515 as a PDF (11.06 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

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.

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. Related reading View Decision Report 201507457 as a PDF (11.25 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. Related reading View Decision Report 201500366 as a PDF (10.88 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

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.

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.

Ms C ran a business and paid for her water and waste water services through Business Stream. She felt that her water bills were disproportionately high and asked Business Stream to investigate. Scottish Water were asked to attend and their engineers concluded that Ms C's water meter was on pipework that was shared with two neighbouring residential properties. She was, therefore, being charged for water used by those properties. Ms C asked for the meter to be moved so that it only served her property, but this was refused. During our investigation further site visits were carried out. These ultimately established that the meter was not on a shared pipe and that it was correctly recording water used in Ms C's property. A faulty toilet was identified which had caused a spike in her water usage. Business Stream agreed to refund the cost of the spiked usage in recognition of the fact that Ms C had been mistakenly informed that the problem lay elsewhere. We found this to be reasonable in the circumstances. Related reading View Decision Report 201401201 as a PDF (11.1 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C's company paid for water and trade effluent through Business Stream. He found that the company's trade effluent bills, which are based partly on the metered water usage, were unexpectedly high for one quarter in 2013. He queried the high bill with Business Stream and an investigation was carried out. This found that the company's water meter was faulty. However, a meter accuracy test found that the meter was under-reading rather than over-reading. With this in mind, Business Stream advised that the charges should stand. Mr C disputed this, as the meter was faulty and, therefore, unreliable. He contended that, if the meter was under-reading, the company's bills should have been lower than normal. We found that the meter had actually stopped altogether and there was no evidence to support the claim that it was under-reading prior to the meter accuracy test. That said, we acknowledged that faulty meters normally under-read and there was evidence of the company increasing production over the period in question. Ultimately we were concerned by the lack of transparency and independence in the meter accuracy test and the fact that the wrong size of meter appeared to have been installed, increasing the likelihood of failures. We considered it fair for Business Stream to share the burden of the increased charges with the company. We made three recommendations for redress and improvement.

Mrs C, a solicitor, complained on behalf of a social club that an invoice that Business Stream had sent them for over £10,000 was inaccurate. We found that Business Stream had initially failed to read the club's water meter as required by their metering policy. They had then obtained a meter reading, but failed to issue an amended bill to the club. The club's initial water bills were based on estimates that were much lower than their actual usage at that time. A further reading was then submitted by the club and it was at that stage that Business Stream sent the club a bill for over £10,000 based on actual readings. We found that had Business Stream obtained meter readings as required under their metering policy, the club would have become aware of their water usage earlier and could have taken steps to reduce this. We were also critical that a bill was not issued after the first reading was obtained. Again, this would have highlighted how much water was being used and would have given the club an opportunity to consider reducing their water usage. That said, in response to the club's complaint, Business Stream arranged for a meter accuracy test to be carried out. This confirmed that the meter was accurate. They also explained to the club that any leak that would have affected the readings on the meter would have been on their pipework. We found that the bill that had been issued to the club for over £10,000 was based on the meter readings that had been taken. There was no evidence that the bill was inaccurate. In addition, Business Stream had made a credit of nearly £5,000 to the club's account for their delays in taking meter readings. We considered that this had been reasonable and so we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201406428 as a PDF (11.36 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained that Business Stream had charged her for water at her business premises even though it did not have any water services. She explained that Business Stream had agreed to stop their charges in the past but some time later began billing her again. This was because Business Stream felt that Mrs C had access to water facilities elsewhere in the wider building (the office she owned was a small section of a larger building) and, in their view, they should not have stopped their charges previously. Mrs C maintained that she had no water services and so Business Stream's charges remained invalid. Business Stream's records showed that a site visit had confirmed that Mrs C's property had no water supply. However, as the property was commercially rated and, in their view, had access to water, they felt Mrs C should be charged. Business Stream's subsequent records said that Mrs C had access to water behind a locked door that she chose not to use, but Mrs C said that the wider building was locked to her and she could not arrange access. In other words, she had not locked away facilities she could otherwise have used. We reviewed the evidence carefully. Business Stream's view about possible access to water was based upon the wider building, but Mrs C said she had no right of access to that and a site visit had confirmed that her property itself had no water services. Taking everything into account, we felt the evidence indicated that Business Stream had unreasonably invoiced Mrs C for water charges. We upheld her complaint and made one recommendation.