SPSO Individual Decisions

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

Mr C complained to us that Business Stream had unreasonably invoiced him for charges that he was not liable for. In response to our enquiries, Business Stream said that, after considering the circumstances of the case and some additional information Mr C had provided, they were willing to close the account and withdraw all charges. Mr C confirmed that this resolved his complaint and, consequently, we closed the case. Related reading View Decision Report 201404967 as a PDF (10.74 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained to us that Business Stream failed to fully restore the water supply to his business premises after the supply was reconnected. The water supply had been disconnected because the previous occupier of the premises had not paid their water charges. Mr C contacted Business Stream to ask for the water supply to be reconnected and they arranged for their contractors to attend. However, the water supply was not reinstated to all of the facilities in Mr C's premises because of an airlock in the internal pipework. The contractors were unable to clear the airlock and said that Mr C would have to arrange for a plumber to attend to fix this. We took independent advice on Mr C's complaint from one of our water advisers. We found that Business Stream's responsibility was to reinstate the water supply to the property boundary. Internal pipework is the responsibility of the occupier of the property. Business Stream fulfilled their responsibility in reinstating the water supply to the boundary of Mr C's property and, in view of this, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201500019 as a PDF (11.02 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C was unhappy with Business Stream's handling of surface water drainage charges for his property. He received notification of the charges in 2013, backdated to 2008. Mr C said that he had informed the water wholesaler from January 2005 onwards about his occupation of the property and, as such, Business Stream were unfairly backdating the water charges from 2008. Business Stream confirmed that the property was liable for the charges that had been billed on the account. They stated that it is the responsibility of the owner/occupier to advise them of when a property was being used. They said that they could not find any record of information being sent to them confirming that the property was occupied. The property had been identified as being occupied following a routine audit in December 2013. During our investigation we found no objective evidence that Business Stream had been notified that the property was occupied and, as such, we did not uphold the complaint that they unfairly charged the surface water drainage charges. We were satisfied that, in response to Mr C's complaint, Business Stream explained why they were satisfied that the charges applied to the account were correct, due and payable. Related reading View Decision Report 201405103 as a PDF (11.12 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 about Business Stream's handling of his application for a reduction in the return to sewer (RTS) rate applied to his business. In particular, he was unhappy that the calculations submitted with his application had been rejected and that Business Stream did not clarify why the information provided was not acceptable. He also complained that Business Stream, who had advised him of the need to install sub-meters to record the volume of water used, had failed to provide adequate guidance on how to install the sub-meters. Mr C was also dissatisfied that Business Stream would not consider backdating any reduction in the RTS rate to a date before his most recent application. Finally, Mr C was unhappy with Business Stream's handling of his complaint. We found that the application for a reduction in the RTS rate had been made on Mr C's behalf by an experienced representative. We found that Business Stream had provided information on the need for sub-meters, and had explained why the information provided in the application was inadequate to award a reduced RTS rate. However, during our investigation Business Stream accepted that they could provide more general information to the public on the RTS allowance, and that they could have provided more in-depth information on the need to install sub-meters. Based on the available evidence, we were satisfied that Business Stream were acting in line with their policy about the effective date for a reduction in the RTS rate. We were also satisfied that, in general, Business Stream had responded to the representations made and had responded to the formal complaint in line with their complaints process.

Mr C is self employed, running a small business from premises next to his home. He complained that Business Stream pursued him for charges for water and waste water services, despite his business premises having no water or sewerage facilities. Related reading View Decision Report 201406132 as a PDF (10.65 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained to us that Business Stream had unreasonably billed her for water charges for a property that was vacant. Ms C had subsequently sold the property. In response to our enquiries on the complaint, Business Stream said that after considering the circumstances of the case, they would be willing to close Ms C's account and withdraw all charges. Ms C confirmed that this resolved her complaint and, consequently, we closed the case. Related reading View Decision Report 201406949 as a PDF (10.74 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 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 is self-employed, running a small business from premises next to his home. He complained that Business Stream pursued him for charges for water and waste water services, despite his business premises having no water or sewerage facilities. We did not issue a finding on this complaint as it was resolved to Mr C's satisfaction following a review of their previous position by the water authorities concerned. Related reading View Decision Report 201407367 as a PDF (10.76 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.

In 2010, Mrs C's business was identified as a vacant site (a premises where one occupant has vacated and the next has not opened a water account). Business Stream created an account and charged based on an estimated meter reading. Mrs C was told several times that meter readers had been unable to find her meter as it was under rubble. In 2012, the meter was found and replaced due to its age. The new meter was installed with a reading of zero and was read again in December 2013. Mrs C subsequently received an unexpectedly high bill. She complained about the amount she was charged, arguing that the new meter could not have been installed with a reading of zero as her small business could not have used the volume of water that had been alleged. She also complained about the lack of meter readings carried out by Business Stream and the fact that she had not been notified of the new meter’s installation. We found that, although the account had been created using an estimated reading, this was recalculated at a later date using appropriate, verifiable, information. High water usage was recorded through the old meter and continued to be recorded through the new meter with no evidence of a shared supply or a leak. Once the issue was identified, the water usage dropped dramatically. We were satisfied that Business Stream charged appropriately based on the meter information. However, we found that they failed to take two meter readings per year as required by industry rules. This meant that Mrs C was denied the opportunity to identify the high water usage and address the problem before high bills were accrued. We were satisfied that Business Stream were under no obligation to forewarn Mrs C of the meter exchange.

Mr C owns a property that he lets out as holiday accommodation. The property is classed as non-domestic and is, therefore, liable for commercial water charges. In 2010, the property was identified as a gap site (premises that are receiving water services without being charged). Details of the property were passed to Business Stream in order to set up an account. This was done in September 2013 and an invoice was issued to Mr C for water services dating back to 2010. Mr C complained that the charges had been issued without warning and were unreasonably high. He compared them to charges for a property that he owns in England which has much lower water bills. Despite a number of calls and letters to Business Stream, Mr C did not feel that they had explained their charges in a way that justified the amounts being charged. We found that industry rules required Business Stream to contact Mr C within five working days of being passed his property’s details. We were critical that it took them three and a half years to set up the account and issue the first invoice. Whilst we acknowledged that there was a large backlog of gap sites at the time and that procedures have since been changed to prevent similar delays, we recognised that Mr C was prevented from making certain decisions in terms of budgeting and choice of supplier as a result of the delay. We were satisfied that, once Mr C’s account had been set up, Business Stream took care to clearly explain the charges that were being applied.

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 complained about Business Stream’s charging. His building’s rateable value had changed but the section of their bill that was based on his rateable value still used the old value. This meant that Business Stream’s invoices were higher than they should have been. Following Mr C’s complaint, Business Stream amended and backdated their charges but said, in line with the relevant policy, they could not do this for the whole period in question. Mr C was unhappy with this and brought his complaint to us. Business Stream provided us with two versions of their policy. Both versions were clear that their initial charges were appropriate. The policies differed in terms of Mr C’s more recent charges. The old version of the policy said that Business Stream should have amended their charges for the whole period, but the more recent version limited this, and Business Stream had based their position on the more recent version of their policy. The more recent version of the policy was in force by the time they concluded their involvement in the matter, but it had not been in force when Mr C first contacted them about this. Although we considered it clear that Business Stream had taken steps to address Mr C’s concerns, it was also clear that there has been confusion about the relevant version of their policy. Given the difference between the two versions, the fact that Business Stream used the later version materially affected Mr C. We upheld his complaint and made one recommendation.

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.

Mr C complained that, although the water supply to his business premises was capped by his plumber when he took entry and, therefore, he used no water, he was still billed for water charges. He was further aggrieved that, although he invited someone to come and inspect the situation, Business Stream failed to arrange such a visit. The complaint was investigated, and all the relevant information and documentation were given careful consideration. We found that although Mr C had been at the relevant address for a number of years, it was only relatively recently that Business Stream established this, and an account was opened and backdated. It had been Mr C's responsibility to advise them. Even although the supply had been capped, there was still a live connection into the premises which could be reinstated at any time. Mr C was, therefore, responsible for all water charges back to the date of his account opening. While he also complained that Business Stream had failed to arrange for the site to be visited, it was confirmed that they had asked Scottish Water to do so. However, on the grounds that it could be seen from records that no permanent disconnection had been made, Scottish Water considered it unnecessary. Only a permanent disconnection would have removed Mr C's liability for water charges. The complaint was not upheld. However, in light of the delay Business Stream took in explaining the matter to Mr C, we made a recommendation that Business Stream extend the period in which Mr C has to repay the amount due.

Mr C complained to us about Business Stream's decision that his property was liable for measured charges for water and waste water services. Mr C maintained that he was not liable for these charges as his property had been unoccupied undergoing refurbishment works. Business Stream explained that, in line with the market code, which sets out the roles governing all market participants, such as Business Stream, his property was liable for water and waste water services while the refurbishment works were ongoing. A meter at the property had recorded consumption which indicated that water services were being used. Business Stream confirmed that they must charge for services being used. We saw no evidence of fault in their handling of this matter and did not uphold the complaint. Mr C also raised his concern about Business Stream's handling of the matter. It was clear that Mr C had been in contact with Business Stream over a long period of time and we were concerned that they had not referred him to their complaints process earlier than they did.

In 2002, Mr C purchased an outhouse behind his home. The outhouse had previously been used for commercial purposes and was rated by the Scottish Assessor's Asssociation (SAA) as a non-domestic property. In April 2013, Business Stream issued Mr C with an invoice for water used at the outhouse. The outhouse had been identified as a gap site (a property that is listed as non-domestic and, therefore, liable for water charges, but that has not been charged to date). The invoice was backdated to 2008 and covered a period of six years. Mr C complained, stating that the outhouse had no water supply of its own. Whilst he had installed a toilet in 2012, the water for this had been diverted from his domestic supply, which he paid for through his council tax. Business Stream considered the charges to be legitimate, as the outhouse was listed as a non-domestic property and Mr C had access to water via his home. They advised that the only way the charges could be cancelled was for Mr C to appeal the outhouse's non-domestic categorisation with the SAA. We found that Business Stream had failed to check what water services, if any, were in place at the outhouse before 2012. We referred to a previous ombudsman ruling that it is not reasonable to charge for water services that are not being provided, and concluded that no water charges could be applied to the outhouse prior to 2012. We also found that there had been a significant delay to Mr C's outhouse being identified as a gap site. Although Mr C had appealed the non-domestic listing with the SAA, the outhouse remained a non-domestic property and we were satisfied that it was reasonable to apply charges after 2012 in line with normal water industry practice.

Mr C’s business premises were located below a block of tenement flats. The flats’ courtyard formed the roof of his premises. His business was identified as a gap site (a business that is receiving water services, but is not being charged) and Business Stream was appointed as his licensed provider of water services. An invoice was issued based on the business’s estimated water usage. Mr C queried the amount he was charged. He explained to Business Stream that there was a water meter in place (although it was unreadable) and that his business used only a very small amount of water. He also questioned whether he should be charged for roads and property drainage given that his premises had no roof of its own. Had the meter in Mr C’s premises been installed by Scottish Water, his business should have been billed based on his metered water usage rather than an estimate. We found that, although it had been confirmed that a meter was in place, this was badly corroded and it was not possible to confirm whether this had originally been installed by Scottish Water. We were satisfied that Business Stream made reasonable efforts to confirm whether this was a Scottish Water meter, however, we accepted that there was insufficient evidence available for them to accept responsibility for the equipment. We were critical of Business Stream for a subsequent delay in replacing the meter and commencing metered charges. We found the charges for property and roads drainage to be reasonable. To avoid such charges, it is the customer's responsibility to provide evidence that water is not transported away from their premises via the public sewer network. No such claim had been made by Mr C. That said, we asked Business Stream to contact Mr C with details of what evidence would be required to pursue this matter further.

Mr C had assumed that his charitable organisation did not pay water charges as he said he was never issued with a water bill in any of the organisation's previous addresses. He said that when he received a letter from Business Stream saying that they believed his premises to be empty he phoned and advised them he had occupied the premises since January 2010. Business Stream issued a bill and directed Mr C to information about the 'Scottish Government Exemption Scheme'. However it was discovered that this scheme would not apply to him. Mr C complained and Business Stream's Chief Executive wrote to explain that Business Stream had made several attempts to make contact with him and could not have issued a bill sooner. Business Stream offered to reassess Mr C's charges backdated to January 2010 as a goodwill gesture. Mr C was unhappy with the decision and was unhappy that Business Stream had not replied to some of his letters. Business Stream told us that they had located Mr C's organisation through the Scottish Assessors Association but could not issue a bill until they had confirmed it. They provided evidence that they had tried to make contact and it was only when Mr C phoned in response to their second letter that they issued a bill. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint that the bill had been unreasonably delayed. We did uphold his complaint that Business Stream had failed to properly handle his complaint as they failed to respond to some of his letters within their procedural timescales. They had already offered compensatory payment and goodwill gestures that we felt were reasonable. We asked them to remind their staff of complaints handling timescales.

Mr C complained on behalf of his client (Mr A) that Business Stream were using the incorrect Rateable Value (RV) as a basis for the water charges applied to Mr A's property. Mr C said that they should have been using the RV assigned on 31 March 2000, but instead Business Stream were using an amended entry from 1 April 2013. We found that Business Stream must use the RV from 31 March 2000 unless there has been an amended entry on the Scottish Assessors Association website (which contains information about the current rateable values for properties in Scotland). When there is an amended entry, as there was in this case relating to Mr A's property, Business Stream must use it as the basis for calculating their charges, which they did. For this reason, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201403941 as a PDF (10.93 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained that Business Stream or Scottish Water had rejected her claim for compensation following damage to her business's property. We explained to her that our role in complaints about compensation claims was very limited. For example, it was not for our office to establish legal liability or decide whether, or how much, compensation was payable. We could solely consider whether her claim had been reasonably considered. Scottish Water were involved in the issue as they own the public water pipework network. However, Business Stream were also involved as Ms C's licensed water provider. Therefore, we considered the actions of both organisations. We concluded that both Business Stream and Scottish Water had looked carefully into the issue. For example, Business Stream had put a number of enquiries to Scottish Water about the events and the claim decision. And Scottish Water had considered the circumstances in detail before reaching their decision, which was that they had no legal liability, which meant that they had no requirement to pay compensation. In the circumstances, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201405371 as a PDF (11.09 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C owns a substantial garage, which he used for storage but that was formerly used for a business. It had no toilet or kitchen facilities but there was a stopcock at the entrance. He was charged for drainage of rainwater from the roof but not for water services. However, in 2014 Business Stream sent him a demand for payment for the provision of water there. Mr C said that after Business Stream visited to verify his information about the lack of facilities, he made enquiries about permanent disconnection of the water supply. A few days later, a contractor called and fitted a meter, although Mr C said he explained that what he wanted was disconnection. He told us that he was asked to pay a fee to proceed with disconnection, but Business Stream then sent him an invoice seeking a further, larger, payment for it. Mr C complained that Business Stream failed to give him prior notice before a water meter was fitted and that the proposed charge for disconnection was expensive for what was required. We found from our investigation that Mr C had initially applied for a reassessment of charges, which is for the installation of a water meter if possible, before he applied for disconnection of the water supply. There was no record of him changing his mind about having a meter fitted before he applied for disconnection, and we did not uphold the complaint as we did not find evidence that Business Stream were required to give prior notice. Related reading View Decision Report 201403974 as a PDF (11.22 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018