SPSO Individual Decisions

Mr C complained that Scottish Water had failed to consult appropriately before deciding to construct a new water treatment works at a site neighbouring his property. He said Scottish Water had deliberately misled his parliamentary and local council representatives about the process used to select this site and that the site selection process had lacked transparency. Scottish Water accepted that some of their responses to Mr C could have explained the site selection process more clearly. They said the construction of the treatment works was essential and that they had followed the appropriate site selection process, before consulting with the local community. They said they had followed their consultation code, which had been approved by the Scottish Government. We found that Scottish Water were not obliged under their consultation code to consult with local residents during the site selection process. Consultation had been carried out prior to the construction of the new treatment works, which had received the appropriate planning permission. Although Scottish Water had acknowledged that they could have provided fuller responses to Mr C's enquiries, there was no evidence they had deliberately misled his elected representatives. We also found that the site selection process was an internal process and the evidence available showed it had been appropriately conducted in line with these internal procedures. Related reading View Decision Report 201305510 as a PDF (11.16 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

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 on behalf of Miss A and Mr A, about the handling of a planning application and building certificates for a development close to their home. They said that the new house had tapped into their shared water supply pipe, and was causing a significant loss of water pressure and flow. They complained that the council should not have allowed this to happen, saying that it should have been evident through the planning and building standards procedures that water supply would be a significant issue. We took independent advice from one of our advisers on the requirements of planning and building standards in relation to water supply. Our adviser said that the planning process includes a consultation with Scottish Water, which had been undertaken. However, he said that the provision of water to a site was not a material issue in a planning decision, and that the consultation was a way to advise the developer of issues that might arise during the development process. He also said that building standards work to a set of regulations. These do not make any specific requirements about water provision for a development, other than in relation to access to water for fire-fighting, and requirements about lead piping. The developer is expected to consult with Scottish Water before applying for a building warrant, but again, this is on an advisory basis. We did not uphold the complaints, as we found that the council had taken appropriate account of water supply to the new development in their decisions within the planning and building standards procedures. We noted that accessing water from the shared supply pipe may be a civil, legal matter, and was not something over which the council had any control. Related reading View Decision Report 201305453 as a PDF (11.38 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

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.

Mrs C complained about Scottish Water's decision to refuse her compensation claim. We explained to her that our role in complaints about compensation was very limited - for example, it was not for us to decide whether compensation was payable or to determine the amount of any compensation. On receipt of our enquiries, Scottish Water contacted us to say they felt there was scope for a financial settlement, which they would like to explore with Mrs C. Given our very limited role in such complaints, this appeared to be the best way forward, and we closed the complaint without further investigation. We advised Mrs C to return to us if she wished to pursue the complaint after Scottish Water's further consideration of the claim. Related reading View Decision Report 201406554 as a PDF (10.89 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C works for a company providing care services to people who rented accommodation individually from a housing association. The company had use of a room on the premises, where staff could stay overnight when helping residents. The valuation assessor had categorised the premises as residential, apart from the room, which had a commercial rateable value. Ms C complained that Business Stream applied charges for water and waste water services on the basis of a care home. Her company was charged for all water passing through the shared water meter, whether it was used for domestic or non-domestic purposes. She argued that the domestic water was already covered by council tax for the residential parts of the premises, and that the company should only be charged on the small rateable value of the commercial element. Business Stream had applied their dual-use policy, used where a single property has both residential and commercial components. This requires commercial residents to ask domestic residents to cancel the water charges from their council tax and pay the company for water that they use. However, Ms C said that the residents were exempt from council tax (and, therefore, water charges). Business Stream challenged the charges with Scottish Water on Ms C's behalf, but Scottish Water said that they were correct. We upheld Ms C's complaint as we had a number of concerns about this approach. Scottish Water considered the premises to be a care home, implying that all water was used for the operation of the care home. Under such circumstances, the dual-use policy would not be applicable. The fact that they had applied this policy reflected the fact that the assessor differentiated between the domestic and non-domestic parts of the premises. The dual-use policy also made no provision for the fact that the residents were not liable for council tax. We considered it unreasonable to expect the company to ignore this and charge the residents for water (at the hig

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 operates his business from three units in a business centre. He contacted Business Stream when he moved in and, following a visit, an account was opened and he set up a direct debit to pay monthly bills. He told us that it was agreed with Business Stream that he would be billed for all three premises in one invoice. Some three years later Business Stream invoiced him separately for one of the units but then cancelled this, having been advised by Mr C that he was being billed for all three units. In 2013, Business Stream invoiced Mr C for outstanding services provided to two of his units since 2010. Mr C believed that he should not have to pay for the error in 2010 when his account was set up. He also complained of delay in the handling of his complaint. From our investigation we found that there was evidence of the account being opened for one unit, but no evidence of an agreement to pay for the three units under one account, so we did not uphold this complaint. However, we did uphold Mr C’s complaint about how his enquiries and complaint were dealt with. We found there were periods when there was no action, updates were not provided, and there was a failure to send a form to Scottish Water within a reasonable time, as well as delay in responding to the complaint.

Mr C complained about the fixed charges Business Stream applied to his client company's account, which were based upon the physical size of the water meter. He said that the company's water meter was larger than was needed for day-to-day use because their water supply also served fire hydrants. He complained that Business Stream were not allowed to charge for water used for fire-fighting and requested that the charges be adjusted. Business Stream exchanged the meter and amended the charges. However, Mr C wanted this backdated to the time of the original meter's installation. Business Stream confirmed that water used for fire-fighting should not be charged. However, the meter had been installed several years ago – before Business Stream existed - as part of a Scottish Water project to try to ensure meters were the appropriate size for customer needs (which also meant that fixed charges were appropriate). Business Stream said there were almost no records going back that far, although the company would have signed giving their agreement to the original meter when it was installed. In addition, although Business Stream said Scottish Water would have carried out surveys at that time, they also relied upon information provided by customers. Business Stream said that the company would have paid for the original meter installation (it had actually replaced an even larger meter) and neither they nor Scottish Water would know their customers' specific requirements after installation. Business Stream said the issue was not raised until Mr C recently got in touch with them, at which point Business Stream had the meter exchanged and the billing addressed. They acknowledged a slight delay in processing the request and offered a credit on the account, which Mr C rejected. Given the passage of time, there was very little evidence on which we could base our decision. Although we took Mr C's concerns into account, our role was to consider whether the evidence available ind

Mr C complained that Business Stream had failed to re-assess the invoice his company received for water used, despite this clearly being in excess of normal usage. He said that there was no evident reason for the spike in consumption. We found that Business Stream had taken all the actions they needed to investigate Mr C's report of high water consumption. Whilst the reason had not been identified, we found that Business Stream had reassured themselves that it was not due to something which they had a responsibility to attend to. They explained that as neither they nor Mr C's plumber had found a leak or reason for the high water consumption, it appeared to be related to internal issues, such as a cistern constantly flowing, or taps being left running. Although we did not uphold Mr C's complaint, Business Stream agreed that they would seek further reassurances by asking Scottish Water to check further back on whether there might have been any action on the water network which might have caused the increased reading in the meter. Related reading View Decision Report 201403167 as a PDF (11.08 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr and Mrs C have a workshop attached to their house. After receiving advice from the Central Market Agency, who hold records of the licensed water supplier of every business customer in Scotland, Business Stream became aware that there was a liability for commercial water services at the site. However, Business Stream only became aware of who occupied the property when they undertook an audit and then issued a bill to Mr and Mrs C for water charges, which they backdated to October 2010. Mr and Mrs C complained to us that Business Stream had acted unreasonably in the delay in telling them that charges were due; levied charges for water services they had never had; failed to provide consistent and clear advice about the charges; and failed to respond promptly to their complaint. We found that there was a responsibility on both Mr and Mrs C and Business Stream in relation to billing for water services. On Mr and Mrs C’s part it was to tell Business Stream that they occupied the premises, and on Business Stream's part it was to act promptly when they receive details of business premises where there have not been previous water charges. Business Stream told us that they accepted that their process could have been better, but they had taken action to make improvements. Overall we did not uphold the complaint, taking into account that Mr and Mrs C would have been billed earlier if they had approached Business Stream about providing water and waste water services. We found that Business Stream had made appropriate enquiries with Scottish Water about Mr and Mrs C's liability, and had asked for payment based on the advice they received. However, we found that there had been confusion and inconsistency in the advice given about the charges due, for which Business Stream had apologised, and agreed to credit Mr and Mrs C's account with a small payment in line with their commitment to meet a certain level of service. We also upheld the complaint about the complaints handli

Mr C experienced external flooding at his property in early 2014. This had happened before, and in 2010 Scottish Water had put a plan in place to address the problem, which included removing tree roots and regularly checking the section of sewer that was causing the flooding. Mr C felt that this plan was not working, and he wanted a permanent solution to the matter. He complained to us that Scottish Water failed to replace the sewer part that had tree roots in it. Our investigation considered the actions Scottish Water had already taken and what they proposed to do in order to permanently resolve this. We found that Scottish Water had been thorough in responding to Mr C's complaint. As well as their ongoing maintenance of the affected area over the years, they had recently replaced a section of sewer larger than that the survey had suggested. We also found that Scottish Water had been proactive in finding a long term solution, and planned to resolve the external flooding problem in Mr C's street in 2015, in conjunction with another project to resolve internal flooding issues nearby. We considered their actions to be reasonable in the circumstances and did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201305967 as a PDF (11.14 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C made a number of complaints about Scottish Water. Firstly, she complained that they were incorrectly treating a pipe in her garden as a combined sewer pipe (in which domestic sewage is mixed with rainwater from roofs and paved surfaces, and transported to be treated). She also complained that they had refused to remove the pipe and her neighbour's connection to it, despite having no record of when and whether the connection had been approved. We obtained independent advice on the complaints from one of our water advisers, who said that the evidence indicated that it was reasonable for Scottish Water to say that the relevant pipe was a public combined sewer. In view of this, they were entitled to decide that they would not remove the pipe or the neighbour's connection to it. Mrs C also complained that Scottish Water allowed untreated sewage and water drainage from another neighbour's property to accumulate in an emergency drainage chamber on her land. She provided photographs showing water and sewage in the manhole chamber. Our water adviser said that Scottish Water had a duty to maintain this and to ensure that any blockages were cleared. We found that, when Mrs C raised this with Scottish Water, they had confirmed this to be their responsibility, and fixed the problem. She also told us that they had caused flooding in her garden by allowing surface water from another property to enter a soakaway (a pit into which water flows and drains away). However, we found that they had no control over this. We did not uphold either of these complaints. Mrs C also complained that Scottish Water carried out work on her land whilst she was on holiday, without giving the required notice. We found that Scottish Water had agreed the work with her, and had given her notice that contractors had been asked to carry it out. There was no evidence that the contractors carried out additional work that had not been agreed. Finally, Mrs C complained that Scottish Water did

Mrs C owned a property, which she ran as a self-catering holiday let. In 2009 Scottish Water contacted her and explained that a water meter should be installed so that the business's water usage could be properly managed and charged. A meter was installed, but Mrs C was led to believe that her business used insufficient water to merit charges. In 2012, and again in 2013, Business Stream identified her property, through routine audits, as receiving water services without being charged (this is known as a gap site). Although Mrs C responded to their enquiries, they did not create a water account for the property until July 2013. Mrs C complained that she was firstly misled into believing there would be no water charges and that Business Stream then delayed setting up her water account, leading to a large unexpected water bill backdated to 2009. We found that Mrs C was given appropriate information in 2009 about changes to the non-domestic water industry and the need to select a licensed provider to manage her business water usage. She missed an opportunity to select a provider at that stage, which contributed to the overall delay in the account being set up. However, when the property was identified as a gap site, we found there was then a clear delay on Business Stream's part in creating an account and starting to charge her for water. We were critical that there was also a lot of confusion about whether or not there was a meter in place, when there clearly was.

Mrs C complained about how the council handled work that would possibly reroute sewerage infrastructure through her garden. The work was to be done as part of the council’s flood defence programme, which was originally the subject of public consultation. The original plans had a minimal effect on Mrs C, but in 2010 the main contractor showed her a copy of a revised plan, which indicated that a new sewer was to be laid under her and her neighbour's gardens. This was the first Mrs C or her neighbour knew of the change. She was concerned that the new sewer would have significant consequences for her property and complained to the council. The council maintained that the flood prevention scheme was empowered by the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act, which they said gave them the power to amend or deviate from (within a certain tolerance) the original plans without further consultation or provision of information to those affected. Considerable correspondence and meetings between the council, Mrs C, her neighbour, the design engineers, and the constructors ensued, ending in a meeting in March 2011. Mrs C and her neighbour considered that negotiations were ongoing at this stage as there were several action points from the meeting about further consultation or information to be provided to them. The next communication Mrs C received from the council was a formal 'Notice to Proceed' with the revised plans three weeks later. At this point Mrs C felt that she had no option but to seek legal advice. After correspondence between her solicitor, the council and Scottish Water (who did not agree with the council's view) a compromise was reached that the new sewer would not be routed through the gardens. Mrs C then asked the council to reimburse her legal fees, but they refused. Our investigation, which included taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers, focused only on consultation with and provision of information to those affected by the scheme, rather t

Mr C complained that Scottish Water failed to act promptly and carry out suitable inspections and repairs to the public sewer following flooding at a family property. We found that Scottish Water had responded within a day of logging the report of the flooding, and carried out an initial CCTV inspection. They did not find a fault, so they had the area network checked to ensure that sewer levels allowed Mr C's supply to drain effectively. When this was confirmed to be acceptable, they carried out a more extensive CCTV inspection but still found nothing. Scottish Water concluded that the flood was caused by an overload of the sewer, possibly due to very localised and sudden heavy rain. As this was not something they could predict, they said that they could not be held responsible. Having reviewed Scottish Water's actions and considered the terms of their policies and responsibilities, we were satisfied that they acted appropriately and we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201304884 as a PDF (11.05 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C took a lease on a property in 2006, as she planned to open a small business. Although this had not happened, she kept the lease, hoping she would be able to start trading. Mrs C believed she had an agreement with Scottish Water that she would not pay water charges until she opened her business. She said that in early 2012, Business Stream phoned and said the agreement would be honoured but she then received an invoice backdated to 2008. Mrs C said she called them repeatedly about this and was told they would investigate and call back, but this never happened. After several months of calls, Business Stream wrote to say that as she used the property for storage she was liable for fixed water charges, whether she used water or not. Mrs C complained that because of the agreement it was unreasonable for Business Stream to backdate charges, and that she was unhappy because they said they would honour it, then went back on the agreement. She also said they did not tell her that the council might exempt her property from rates (which has now happened) and because of this exemption, she said Business Stream should also waive their charges. Finally, she said they refused to acknowledge her complaint until she put it in writing, and when she did they did not respond to all her questions. Business Stream said they were entitled to backdate the account as, under their policy, a customer using the property for storage is liable for fixed water charges. They had no record of any agreement with Scottish Water, or of Business Stream agreeing that she was not liable for water charges. We did not uphold all of Mrs C's complaints. There was no written evidence of the agreement, and we found Business Stream were generally entitled to do what they had done although they had not given Mrs C any information when setting up her account. We did, however, uphold her complaints about an additional charge on the account, and about how they handled her concerns. We found that th

Mr C complained that the council failed to maintain an area of the road near his property. He also complained that a nearby sewer was deteriorating, meaning that it was potentially dangerous for people using the area. Mr C brought his complaint to us as he said the council had not addressed either issue, although he had been in correspondence with them for some time. We reviewed the correspondence and found that the council had explained to Mr C that it was unclear whether they had adopted that part of the road or whether it remained a nearby housing association's responsibility. They said that their solicitors were working to clarify this and provided details of another nearby area where they were carrying out maintenance work, to try to reassure Mr C that they maintained areas for which they were responsible. They also explained that they would write to the housing association and Scottish Water about the sewer, although they explained that it was not the council's responsibility to maintain it. We reviewed the correspondence and found no evidence to indicate any underlying administrative failure by the council. We did, however, consider that there had been shortcomings in the correspondence, which had caused confusion as to how matters were being progressed and so, while we did not uphold Mr C's complaints, we made a recommendation.

Mr C complained about the delay in Scottish Water providing a water connection to his property. It took almost five months from his initial application for the connection to be completed. When Scottish Water responded to Mr C's complaint – and to our investigation – they acknowledged that there had been a delay. However, they also said that providing the connection was complicated because of the physical features of the land, as well as where Mr C's property's was on it. They explained that previous enquiries about connecting the property had been declined for these reasons. In investigating Mr C's complaint, our role was to consider whether there was evidence of administrative fault, omission or failure by Scottish Water that meant the delay in providing the connection was unreasonable in the circumstances. We found that they had been in contact with him throughout the process and, taking everything into account, we did not uphold his complaint. We did, however, find that Scottish Water extended the delay by a couple of weeks because of an internal processing error about a repair to be done to their water main (although we noted that the repair was needed because of work done by Mr C's contractor). In light of this we made two recommendations.

Mrs C complained that Business Stream unreasonably imposed fixed charges on her for a period during which she had not had a water supply. Business Stream did not dispute that the property's water supply had been turned off due to a leak, but said that Mrs C was still liable for the fixed charges on the bill. Mrs C said that the valve had been faulty and the meter had been the wrong type. She said that the valve would not open to allow water through the meter and that it had been manually adjusted by a Scottish Water representative when he attended the property. Mrs C believed that the meter and valve originally supplied by Scottish Water were not fit for purpose and that as she had no connection to the network she was not liable for any fixed charges. Our investigation found that there was no evidence in the reports from Business Stream or Scottish Water representatives to support Mrs C’s account. The meter was described as fully operational and no mention was made of any adjustment or repair to the valve. The meter had been replaced so that it was lower in the ground, which would reduce the risk of it freezing during cold weather. We found it reasonable for Business Stream to conclude that Mrs C had had a continuous connection to the water network, and for them to apply fixed charges to her account. Related reading View Decision Report 201300837 as a PDF (11.17 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Miss C told us that Scottish Water did not provide clear information on their website about the responsibility when there is a problem with pipework serving a domestic property. When she experienced sewage coming up through the drain in her newly fitted shower, she checked the website and noted the advice given that ‘blockage on private land is the responsibility of the owner’. Having checked with her neighbours, who did not have a problem, she assumed the blockage was only in her property, and paid private contractors to resolve this. When, however, she looked further into this she said that she established that Scottish Water’s website was not fit for purpose as she should have reported the problem to them. She said that although she complained, the Scottish Water website continued to contain incorrect and/or misleading information in relation to ‘Pipe Responsibility’. She was also unhappy with Scottish Water’s handling of her complaint, and complained that they had only offered her partial reimbursement of her costs. She also told us that they had not confirmed assurances they had given to her that her concerns about a neighbour’s drain had been looked into. When we investigated the complaint, Scottish Water told us that, while they provided a wide range of information about pipe responsibility for waste water flooding, the information on their website about pipe responsibility might not have been as easy to locate as it could have been. A review had been carried out, and they planned to add a further weblink to ensure that information was accessible to all customers. With regard to the cost of fixing the problem, Scottish Water told us that they had acted correctly. They said that because they had not carried out the investigations they had not been able to determine the impact, cause or origin of the problem, and this was reflected in their offer to reimburse half the costs. However, as an offer of goodwill, and in recognition of the decision that the

Mr C complained that Business Stream delayed issuing their invoice to him and was unhappy with their charges. Business Stream originally billed Mr C for water, waste water and drainage. However, when his landlord told them that Mr C paid water charges to him they amended their invoice to drainage charges only. Mr C was unhappy that the drainage charges were based on his property’s rateable value rather than his actual usage. In terms of the time taken to issue their invoice, Business Stream confirmed that their wholesaler, Scottish Water, had given them Mr C’s details in December 2010. However, Business Stream did not take the necessary steps on receipt of this information and Mr C’s account was not opened until November 2012, when they sent him an invoice backdated to December 2010. Our investigation found that although Mr C might not have known that Business Stream were the default provider of water services, that did not in itself make their charges invalid. However, we saw no evidence that Business Stream took any significant action when they were given Mr C’s details in December 2010 and on balance we upheld his complaint about the delay in issuing the invoice. In terms of charges, Business Stream showed us that they had acted in accordance with their policy by invoicing Mr C on the basis of his rateable value, and we did not uphold his second complaint.

Mr C rents a residential cabin, which is near a number of other cabins. He complained that he was the only occupier to pay Business Stream for water, that this was unfair and that he should be repaid all the money he has paid. He said he had been overcharged and that, without prior notice, Business Stream took an unexpectedly large amount from his account. We considered all the complaints correspondence, a statement of Mr C's account from 2003, meter readings and copies of Business Stream's computerised records. We also made formal enquiries of Business Stream. Our investigation found that Mr C paid his bills by direct debit and that, as usual, he was notified of the larger bill at least two weeks before the money was taken from his account. He told us that he had not expected the bill to be any different from previous ones and was not concerned about it. It was not clear whether he had in fact looked at the invoice but, as we found that the information appeared to have been available to him, we did not uphold this complaint. We found that the bill was particularly high because most of Mr C's previous bills were based on estimated readings. When actual readings were taken, this showed that previous bills had been underestimated. We found no evidence from the readings that Mr C had been overcharged, although our investigation did confirm that he was the only person being billed by Business Stream, even though others appeared to have water services. Business Stream explained to us that they were working with Scottish Water to establish whether others also had a direct supply and should also be brought into charge to regularise this. Although Mr C was unhappy that he was billed while others were not, we did not find it appropriate that he should be reimbursed.

Mr C’s farm has a water meter from which there is a series of sub-meters serving additional properties. Mr C was concerned that these were not all being deducted from his bill, and that he was being overcharged. He complained that Business Stream failed to take adequate steps to ensure that his water usage was accurately invoiced. We considered all of the relevant documentation and made further enquiries of Business Stream. Our investigation found that when Mr C bought his farm, his water meter had five sub-meters attached. The usage of three of these was deducted from his bill, but Mr C was held responsible for the costs for the others. Business Stream had told Mr C that the water meters were not installed by Scottish Water and were not in their ownership, so they were not in a position to remove consumption from his charges, which was a private matter for him to resolve. However, after we asked Business Stream more about this, they said they had since learned from Scottish Water that there had been an error and that they in fact owned all five sub-meters. They had resolved this by cancelling all Mr C's previous invoices, removing the costs of all the sub-meters backdated to when he bought his farm, and sending him a new bill. Related reading View Decision Report 201302929 as a PDF (11.2 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained on behalf of her mother (Mrs A), who owns a farm. She said that there had been an interruption in the water supply, yet Business Stream's charges were excessive compared with the normal usage. She said that at the time contractors were replacing the ring mains nearby. Scottish Water had given her mother no advance notice of the works, and when Mrs C approached the contractors to complain about the loss of water supply, they said they were unaware they had caused this. Further problems had arisen when the water was reconnected because an air lock was created. Mrs C said that Mrs A had to engage a plumber to fix this. When she raised the matter with Scottish Water, she was told that they believed that the high water consumption was due to an air lock, and they refused to accept responsibility for the high bill. When we made enquiries of Business Stream, who are the service provider, it was confirmed that if planned works would cause disruption to supply, customers should receive 48 hours' notice. In this case, Business Stream said that Scottish Water had maintained that no works had been carried out in the locality. Business Stream had, however, noted that Mrs C had provided evidence that a neighbour had received notice of works at the time of the interruption to the supply, and this had not been followed up. Business Stream told us that they would investigate this further. They also offered, as a goodwill gesture, to reduce the disputed invoice to the usual charge, and to apologise to Mrs A for the upset she had experienced as a result of the complaint. We were satisfied that this provided a satisfactory resolution to Mrs C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201304731 as a PDF (11.41 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018