SPSO Individual Decisions

Mr C complained about Business Stream's handling of his water charges, and their subsequent handling of his complaint. Mr C had an existing water account for his business premises based on a particular supply point identification number (SPID) (a reference number used to identify a water connection). A field visit was carried out by Business Stream, and a second account for Mr C was created in error based on a duplicate SPID. This resulted in a significant bill for Mr C. Business Stream recognised the error, and requested that Scottish Water remove the duplicate SPID. However, Scottish Water removed the SPID for the original account, as well as the duplicate. As a result, Business Stream requested a new SPID and account for Mr C. This was created by default as a water and waste water account, however, Mr C's original account was a water only account. He therefore, requested that the new account be amended. A significant period of time passed during which the account was assessed by Business Stream and Scottish Water. Mr C complained to us that Business Stream had: unreasonably charged him when he had no SPID unreasonably had the new account created for him following the field visit unreasonably charged him under the duplicate account had a new account created as a water and waste water account, which meant that Mr C was unreasonably charged for waste water which he was not liable for handled his complaint unreasonably Business Stream acknowledged that there had been a number of failings in the case, but noted that, following the removal of the accounts, they had effectively provided credit for approximately five years, and had made a further payment to Mr C in recognition of his experience. We took independent advice from a chartered engineer with experience in the water industry. We upheld three of Mr C's five complaints. We found that Business Stream appropriately levied charges prior to the time that the second account was opened. We also found that it

Mr C's home was flooded and the flood was reported to Scottish Water, who subsequently carried out an investigation. The investigation concluded that the flood was caused by severe rainfall and that Scottish Water were not responsible. Mr C was unhappy with the investigation and raised a number of questions, including why his neighbour's properties were not flooded. He was unhappy that Scottish Water did not offer a clean-up service and that they refused to install non return valves (NRVs), which he believed would prevent future flooding. Scottish Water advised that they would not recommend installing NRVs as they could not be certain that they would not pass the flooding onto a neighbouring property. Mr C subsequently installed NRVs at his own cost. Mr C complained to us that Scottish Water unreasonably failed to offer a clean-up service, unreasonably failed to thoroughly investigate the cause of the flood and unreasonably refused to compensate him for the cost of the NRVs. Scottish Water said they did offer assistance when Mr C reported the flooding and that Mr C did not request a clean-up service. We found that Scottish Water should have been more explicit when asking Mr C if there was anything they could help with and therefore we upheld this aspect of the complaint. We found that Scottish Water properly investigated the flooding in line with national guidelines and that they were not required to reimburse Mr C for the cost of installing NRVs at his property. We did not uphold these two aspects of the complaint.

Mr C, who works for an energy management company, complained on behalf of his client about their premises. Mr C complained that Thames Water had unreasonably rejected his request to amend the rateable value (RV) of his client's premises. Mr C maintained the RV should be lower than that being applied by Thames Water. Mr C stated that the RV being used was contrary to the Scottish Water wholesale scheme of charges. We took independent advice from a water adviser. We found that while there had been errors in maintaining the RV of the premises prior to Thames Water taking over as supplier of water services, the correct RV of the premises was being used by Thames Water. We found no evidence to support Mr C's position that the RV should be set at a lower rate than it was. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201601020 as a PDF (10.97 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C raised a number of concerns about the service he received from Scottish Water. Mr C lived in a property which is not served by a typical mains water supply, but instead involves a private pump system drawing water from a Scottish Water storage tank. Mr C experienced issues with this system and replaced his pump with a new one. When this did not resolve the supply issue, Scottish Water agreed to investigate the problem. We found that Scottish Water provided Mr C with an alternative supply of water throughout their investigation, and after almost three weeks the source of the supply issue was identified. Scottish Water replaced the pump Mr C had installed with a different kind, which restored the system to its original design. After a short delay in commissioning this pump, the supply issue was resolved. Mr C felt that Scottish Water was responsible for his pump failing in the first place and complained that there was an unreasonable delay in Scottish Water reinstating his water supply. We took independent advice from a chartered engineer who has experience in the water industry. The adviser noted that the pump was owned by Mr C and was his responsibility. They did not find evidence that Scottish Water was responsible for the pump failing and said that Scottish Water was not obliged to replace the pump, but did so in good faith. The adviser considered that there were good reasons for the delay in investigating the cause of the supply issue and did not consider that the delay in commissioning the new pump was unreasonable. We did not uphold this complaint. Mr C complained that Scottish Water unreasonably contaminated his water supply during their investigation of the supply issue. Scottish Water acknowledged that, during the investigation, an operative failed to follow correct water hygiene practice, which resulted in the contamination of Mr C's water supply. Scottish Water said that an apology was offered to Mr C at the time and they confirmed that t

Mr C complained about Business Stream. Mr C runs a charity shop and had applied for water rates exemption for the premises. Mr C was unhappy about the way that Business Stream handled his request for water rates exemption (a scheme where property owners can be exempt from paying part or all of a water bill for a property, based on various criteria). In particular, he was concerned about communication between Business Stream and his organisation. He was also concerned that Business Stream did not submit the application for exemption to Scottish Water to make the final decision, as he felt this would be the usual process. Mr C also had concerns about the amount he was paying for his water and, following investigation by Business Stream, his previous meter had been removed and replaced. Mr C was unhappy with the rateable value Business Stream used for his premises when calculating the outstanding balance. Following investigation we found that Business Stream had failed to provide Mr C with a reasonable level of service in relation to his application for exemption as they had failed to respond to his correspondence in a timely manner. They had also failed to provide a clear explanation of why the information submitted was not sufficient to allow them to pass the application onto Scottish Water. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint. However, following receipt of information from Scottish Water, we established that it was not unreasonable for Business Stream not to send the application to Scottish Water when they did not have all of the information required to support the application. We also found that Business Stream had used the correct rateable value in line with their rateable value policy. We therefore did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. We did not see any evidence that Business Stream had responded to Mr C's correspondence asking them about this issue and we therefore recommended that they now respond to him about this.

Mr C considered that his water bills were excessive and he contacted Business Stream to raise his concerns. Business Stream confirmed that Mr C's water meter was also supplying the premises next door. Mr C complained that Business Stream had been aware of the meter set-up for some time. Business Stream confirmed that Scottish Water had carried out a site visit some years previously and had established that Mr C was on a shared supply with his neighbours. Both Scottish Water and Business Stream said that this was a private matter between Mr C and his neighbours. They explained that at the time of the meter installation the two properties were in one building, and that Scottish Water were under no obligation to split the supply. Business Stream told Mr C that water resale rules applied. They continued to bill Mr C, saying that he could recover charges from his neighbours. However the neighbours refused to pay Mr C any money, as they said they were also being billed by Business Stream. Scottish Water advised Mr C that he could have a new meter installed, but that he would have to bear the cost of this. Mr C complained to us that Business Stream unreasonably failed to notify him that his water meter was supplying a neighbouring property, unreasonably charged him while also charging his neighbours for the same supply and unreasonably delayed in responding to his complaint. We upheld each of these complaints. We found that Business Stream ought to have notified Mr C as soon as they became aware from Scottish Water that the water supply was shared. We found that Business Stream had been misapplying water resale rules and were unreasonably charging two parties for the same supply. We found that the delay in responding to Mr C's complaint had been unreasonable. When we told Business Stream what we intended to recommend, they agreed to arrange instalment of a new meter serving only Mr C's property, at no cost to Mr C.

Mr C complained about Business Stream regarding a request he made for a burst allowance (an allowance made against sewerage charges when water is lost because of a burst pipe) following an increase in his water bill due to a leak. Mr C explained that the leak was outside his property boundary, on a pipe that both he and his neighbour believed had been disconnected many years ago when the property was separated. Business Stream refused Mr C's request, stating that, to be eligible for a burst allowance from Scottish Water, a customer must have a waste water connection, which Mr C's property did not. On investigation, we confirmed with Scottish Water that this was not correct. Scottish Water confirmed that burst allowances could be granted to reduce supply charges, regardless of whether a customer had a waste water connection. We found that Business Stream had failed to recognise this error despite many opportunities to do so in response to both Mr C and our enquiries. We also found that, as they did not consider the request would be successful, Business Stream chose not to submit it to Scottish Water for their consideration. We considered this to be unreasonable in the circumstances, as this was a decision for Scottish Water to make. For these reasons, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Mrs C complained that Scottish Water unreasonably delayed in providing her with the results of a water sample taken at her home. She also complained that they failed to take reasonable steps to update her with the progress of their inspections. We found that Scottish Water had gone beyond what they were required to do in assisting Mrs C with a leak. The leak was on the private supply and therefore not Scottish Water's responsibility. However, in order to determine the source of the leak, Scottish Water carried out a water test. There was no evidence to show that the results were passed on to Mrs C. A later test failed as Scottish Water mislaid or mislabelled the sample, and the results of the final test were not provided until around three months after the original sample was taken. As a result of this, and because we felt that Mrs C had to regularly chase Scottish Water for updates, we upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Mr C, a solicitor, complained on behalf of an organisation regarding Business Stream's failure to backdate overpayments dating back to 2002. After a survey was carried out in 2014, the organisation was fitted with a new water meter, the standing charge for which was almost £6,000 a year lower than it had previously been. Mr C complained that the organisation had understood from correspondence received in 2002 that Scottish Water had committed to replacing the meter with one of correct size, and said that the organisation had assumed this to have taken place. Having reviewed the correspondence of 2002, we were satisfied that further communication between the organisation and Scottish Water would have been necessary before the survey and installation were carried out. The organisation had the opportunity to follow up but chose not to. They also enquired about a meter survey in 2009 but did not follow up on Business Stream's response. With regard to whether Business Stream had unreasonably failed to backdate payments in respect of fixed charges, we found no maladministration and Business Stream had followed their policy. Accordingly, we did not uphold that complaint. Mr C also complained about Business Stream's handling of the organisation's complaint. We found that responses were sent without delay and that Business Stream's position remained consistent throughout, and we therefore we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201601871 as a PDF (11.26 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C's complaint concerned a sewage pumping station which shared a boundary with his property. Mr C said the operation of the pumping station was causing an unacceptable level of noise and vibration, which was causing disruption. He was regularly unable to sleep and at times unable to watch television or remain in his property. Mr C said Scottish Water had carried out works to reduce the noise and vibration, but that they had only done so when the local authority had served a noise abatement order. Additionally, Mr C believed Scottish Water had delayed in complying with the order, to avoid incurring additional costs. Mr C said Scottish Water had not responded appropriately to his complaints and they had not provided a permanent solution to the problems. Scottish Water did not accept they had not responded reasonably to Mr C's complaint. They said they had been proactive when it was clear he was dissatisfied and they had noted a peak in the number of complaints. They had replaced the pumps on site, which had been at the end of their operational life, and sourced replacements which had improved performance. Scottish Water said they were monitoring noise and vibration on site, but that Mr C had placed unreasonable conditions on allowing access to his property to monitor the noise levels internally. Scottish Water said they had spent significant sums of money addressing the problems on site. We found Scottish Water had taken an unreasonable length of time to acknowledge Mr C's complaint. Additionally, the local authority had indicated they were concerned about the longstanding nature of the noise problems Mr C was experiencing. We noted Scottish Water informed Mr C they had resolved the problems on site and that the matter was closed, before they were served with a noise abatement order by the local council. We found Scottish Water had not responded sufficiently quickly to Mr C and that their response to us had sought to minimise the concerns of the local au

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 complained that when his client (Mr A) had applied for a return to sewer allowance (a reduction in water charges that can be allowed when it is demonstrated that less than 95 percent of the water supplied returns to the sewer), Business Stream had only backdated the allowance for three months. Mr C considered that it should have been backdated for five years under the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973. We considered Scottish Water's Wholesale Charges Scheme for 2014/15, which had been approved by the Water Industry Commission for Scotland. This stated that return to sewer allowances apply from the date on which the water provider demonstrates to Scottish Water's satisfaction that such an allowance is justified, ie the point at which a full application, including all relevant information, is received. We also considered Business Stream's return to sewer allowance policy. This stated that the award of a return to sewer allowance does not mean that the customer has previously been incorrectly billed, but is a deviation from the standard billing, and that this will only ever be applied going forward and not backdated. The complexity of the matter had meant that it had taken Mr C some time to provide the information required for the return to sewer allowance and, in recognition of this, Business Stream had backdated the allowance for three months. There was no requirement to backdate under the policy and we considered that the decision to backdate for three months had been reasonable. We did not, therefore, uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201406577 as a PDF (11.28 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained about Business Stream's charges. She had owned a farm and had paid for its water consumption but, more recently, had sold part of the land to a third party as a residential property. Mrs C was unhappy that Business Stream had not removed water charges from her bill (for the land she still owned) that would account for the usage of the residential property. She was also unhappy that Scottish Water – the water wholesaler in Scotland - would not adopt the private water meters she had installed. Business Stream's position was that the issue would not have arisen if, before selling off a portion of her land, Mrs C had amended her private pipe work or arranged new connections. Although we recognised that she may not have known initially about the possible problem, Business Stream's records indicated that they had made Mrs C aware of it. There was no record confirming that she had been told the average consumption of the property she had sold off would be removed from her charges. As part of our investigation we contacted Scottish Water about possible options for future charges. They raised the possibility of deducting an average household's usage (as distinct from the usage of the specific type of property that was sold), or of them installing a sub-meter. Although we could not comment as to whether such steps would be practical or appropriate in the circumstances, this did not reflect Business Stream's position in their correspondence with Mrs C. However, Scottish Water were clear that the possibility of installing a sub-meter was a move from their traditional position. As we did not use the benefit of hindsight in considering Mrs C's complaint, there was nothing to indicate that Business Stream misadvised Mrs C or were inconsistent given the information available to them at the time. As a result, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaints but, as the underlying position with Scottish Water appeared to have since moved on, we made two recommendations

Mr C complained that Business Stream had unreasonably charged his bowling club a return to sewer rate (the percentage of water that is returned to the sewer) of 95 percent. Mr C had applied for this to be reduced after finding out that another bowling club in the area had been given a lower return to sewer rate, which reduced their water charges. Business Stream reduced Mr C's bowling club's return to sewer rate to 75 percent from the date on which Mr C applied for this. Mr C considered that the bowling club had been paying the wrong rate and that this should have been backdated. We considered Scottish Water's Wholesale Charges Scheme for 2014/15, which had been approved by the Water Industry Commission for Scotland. This stated that return to sewer allowances apply from the date on which the water provider had demonstrated to Scottish Water's satisfaction that such an allowance was justified. It stated that this was the point at which a full application, including all relevant information, was received. We also considered Business Stream's return to sewer allowance policy. This stated that the award of a return to sewer allowance does not mean that the customer has previously been incorrectly billed, but is a deviation from the standard billing. It says that it will only ever be applied going forward and not backdated. In view of all of this, we found Business Stream had acted in line with their policy and we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201405951 as a PDF (11.24 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about business water charges for his workshop. His workshop was located on the grounds of his domestic property, with no water services connected, and Mr C did not use water in his business. Mr C said he was already paying for the water to his domestic property through council tax, and should not be liable for separate water charges for his business, which did not use water. We discussed Mr C's complaint with Scottish Water and Business Stream, who agreed to cancel the charges. As the issue was resolved by the authority, we did not make a decision on this complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201407295 as a PDF (10.81 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C, who owns a small business, complained to us about the installation of a water meter at his business premises. The water meter was fitted in 2007. Several years later there was a leak on a pipe on land to the rear of Mr C’s property. This pipe turned out to be connected to Mr C’s supply pipe, and he was charged for the water as it had run through his meter. Mr C said that Scottish Water should have surveyed his property when his meter was installed. In their response, Business Stream said that they were not responsible for leaks in supply pipes on private property. They said that there were no records remaining in relation to any survey of the property in 2007. They had reduced Mr C’s bill in relation to the waste water that had not returned to the sewers, and also made him a goodwill payment. However, they did not consider that they had any responsibility to cover the excess water costs. While there was evidence of injustice, in that Mr C had to pay for water relating to a leak over which he had no control, we did not consider that Business Stream could be held responsible for this. On this basis, we did not uphold the complaint. However, we were concerned about the inconsistency of information held by both Business Stream and Scottish Water in relation to investigations and site visits at Mr C's property, which had led to the matter being unresolved for a number of years. We also found that both organisations had unreasonably expected Mr C to arrange access to other properties to allow them to carry out further investigations and had unreasonably sought evidence from him of repairs to the pipe when Mr C had consistently explained he did not hold this information. Given the inadequate way Mr C's complaint was dealt with, we made the following recommendations.

Mrs C complained about Business Stream's delay in sending bills to her for her business premises. She said that the first correspondence she received from Business Stream was a notice saying that her water was to be disconnected, which was issued over a year after she moved in. There was no water meter in the premises and, when the bills were issued, they were based on the rateable value. Mrs C could have applied for reassessment of her water charges, but the charges would only have been reassessed from when her application for this was received. She considered that the delay in issuing bills to her meant that her water charges were higher. Mrs C provided us with an email that the previous tenant of the property had sent to Business Stream to inform them that Mrs C had moved in. She also sent us a copy of an email that Business Stream had sent to her, in which they had requested that Scottish Water attend the premises and that she confirm that the contact details provided by the previous tenant were correct. Mrs C did not respond to this email and Business Stream had continued to issue bills for the property to the billing address provided by the previous tenant. Business Stream told us that, like other utility providers, they require customers to contact them when they take over a premises; however, they also acknowledged that, in Mrs C's case, they should have acted more proactively to close the previous account and open an account for Mrs C as soon as they were advised that she had taken over the premises. We found that Business Stream had failed to take appropriate follow-up action after they received the email from the previous tenant and we upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Mr C is the secretary of a club which rents premises from the local council. The premises are in part of a building, the larger part of which is vacant. The council had shut off the building's water supply, including the supply to the club's premises. As the club did not require a water supply, this was not a problem. In 2013, Business Stream identified the property as one that had a water connection but had not been charged for water services. An invoice was issued for water and wastewater services. Mr C complained that the club was unreasonably being asked to pay for a service it did not receive. Whilst Business Stream advised that a water connection remained in place and could be used by the club, Mr C noted that the club did not have any control over the stopcock or pipework and could not influence this. Ultimately, the club arranged for the premises to be disconnected, avoiding further charges. However, Mr C considered the earlier charges to be unjustified. Although the council had turned the water supply off, the property was not fully disconnected from the water supply. Water services could be reinstated without Business Stream or Scottish Water's involvement, and we considered it reasonable for them to guard against a situation where charges were cancelled, only for water to be used at a later date. We found the charges were applied in line with water industry rules and accepted that it was a matter for the club to arrange for a permanent disconnection. That said, we considered the club's disconnection was unreasonably delayed due to the hold-ups to the investigation into Mr C's concerns. Additional charges were accrued in the meantime which we did not consider reasonable, so we recommended that these were reimbursed to the club.