SPSO Individual Decisions

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

A charity operates out of three units in a shopping centre. Mr C complained on behalf of the charity that they were being charged for surface water drainage (SWD) on the units despite the roof operating as a car park. Mr C said that the owner of the car park pays for SWD and, therefore, Business Stream were charging twice for the same services. Business Stream told us that all three units have their own rateable value, as detailed on the Scottish Assessors Association website (which contains information about the current rateable values for properties in Scotland). To be charged SWD there must be a rateable value associated with the property, as this how the bill is calculated. The shopping centre and the car park have no rateable value and so could not be charged SWD. Business Stream did tell us that the owner of the car park had been charged a small amount for SWD, but that this was a mistake and they would correct it. We found that Business Stream had followed their policy in applying SWD charges to the units and we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201402858 as a PDF (11.07 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 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 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 C, who is a solicitor, complained on behalf of his client (Mrs A) about Business Stream's handling of non-domestic water charges for her previous property. He complained that they delayed in issuing Mrs A with an invoice and that as they were not aware that a meter had been installed they had not been billing previous tenants of the property. When the meter was discovered, Mrs A was of the view that she was being held liable for all the water charges since the meter was installed. During our investigation we found no evidence that Business Stream had failed to act on information about Mrs A's property. She had not told them that she was occupying it, as she should have done, and once they discovered that she had taken over responsibility for it they sent her an invoice. We were concerned, however, that they initially charged Mrs A on unmeasured charges, as they had not realised that a meter had been installed, and so needed to make a number of changes to her account. We also discovered that, while Business Stream had not billed Mrs A for water used by previous tenants, they had opened her account on a reading of zero units rather than 40 units, so she had been billed for an incorrect amount of water usage. We considered that this had been poor customer service and upheld Mr C's complaint. We noted that Business Stream had already offered Mrs A some financial redress for their handling of her account.

Mr C's business occupies premises on the ground floor of a building. Mr C also used to own a property on the floor above. This second property was unoccupied until Mr C sold it to its current owner in 2011. The properties share a water supply and meter, which Business Stream used to bill Mr C for his current business premises. However, due to the shared supply he was also billed for the water used in the second property. Business Stream also charged the new owner of the second property for unmeasured/estimated charges, effectively charging two customers for the same water supply. Business Stream became aware of the shared supply in August 2012, and Mr C told us that in November 2012 he was advised to install a sub-meter to measure the water usage at the second property, which would be used to bill the user. Mr C installed the meter but was later advised that it would not be read and could not be used for billing purposes. Mr C complained that he had been incorrectly advised about installing the meter and that he was being unreasonably billed for water used at the second property. We found no evidence that Business Stream had advised Mr C beforehand that although he could install a private sub-meter at his own expense to measure the usage at the second property, it would not be used for billing purposes. We were critical that many of the staff he dealt with did not appear to be aware of the policy on sub-meters, and that the call logs did not accurately note what advice he was given. During our investigation we also discovered that Business Stream had applied a section of their billing policy relating to landlords and tenants. We did not consider that this applied in Mr C's case and found that they had no policy that specifically related to shared supplies for properties with different owners. We upheld his complaint and were also critical that Business Stream did not tell him how he could fix the double billing issue when they became aware of the shared

Mr C’s water consumption went up steadily over several years, and when he started to enquire why this might be, he was told that he had a shared supply. Mr C investigated which property he shared a supply with, but was unable to establish this, partly due to difficulties accessing a neighbouring vacant property. However, when Business Stream’s surveyor was shown a meter in the neighbouring property, they continued to say that Mr C had a shared supply. After seven months of investigation, Mr C started to investigate the possibility of a leak, and one was found in the pipe between his property and the meter, underneath some pavement. It took about a week to find and fix this. Mr C applied for a ‘burst allowance’ (a refund of some of the costs for the last six months of the leak). He was granted an allowance, but the calculation for the rebate was based on average water consumption during a period including when the leak was still being found and fixed. It did not, therefore, reflect the standard water consumption. Mr C complained that, had Business Stream highlighted the increased consumption earlier, and had they suggested the possibility of a leak when the issue was first raised with them, he would not have had to pay such high bills for so long. He also complained that the burst allowance was inappropriately calculated. We found that Business Stream could not have known about Mr C’s raised water consumption level until he identified this, as the increase in usage was at a level that could have reflected changes in his business. However, we decided that they should have discussed the possibility of a leak with Mr C. Had they done this, he could have investigated and fixed the leak seven months earlier. We also decided that the burst allowance was inappropriately calculated, as the baseline for Mr C’s water consumption should not have included the period when the leak was still being fixed.

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 that Business Stream's water charges were incorrect. Her business premises shared a water supply with two neighbouring businesses. She had the main water meter and the usage through the two sub-meters was deducted to calculate her water usage. Although she tried hard to use minimal amounts of water, Mrs C found that her bills were disproportionately high compared to the neighbouring businesses. She, therefore, suspected a problem with her water meter and queried her bills with Business Stream. Investigations were carried out to check for leaks and Business Stream's engineers inspected the pipework in Mrs C's premises, but found no cause for her high bills. Mrs C complained to us that Business Stream did not do enough to identify the cause of these. Based on the evidence submitted to us, there was no clear cause for Mrs C's high water usage and we upheld her complaints. We were satisfied that the sub-meters' usage was deducted correctly in all but a few cases and Business Stream agreed to review her account to ensure that her bills were accurate in this respect. There was, however, a significant spike in Mrs C's water usage at one stage, which coincided with a period where Business Stream failed to take the required two meter readings per year. Had they done so, the spike might have been identified sooner and Mrs C could have investigated and addressed this. There was no obvious evidence of a fault with Mrs C's meter, but we considered that Business Stream should have offered her a meter accuracy test, which they did not do.

Mr C's company owned several office units at one address and a series of warehouse units at another. He complained about the rateable value (RV) Business Stream used for charging his properties at the first address and also about his difficulties in resolving a separate billing query at the second. We upheld both of Mr C's complaints. The key issue about the RV was whether Business Stream should use the valuation from 2000 or 2012. Their policy said that the RV from 2000 was the default – although there were exceptions to this – but they said that, in this case, they were entitled to use the 2012 valuation. Mr C maintained that, because the properties had not been physically modified since they were built and had simply been leased to one tenant, they were wrong to use the 2012 valuation. After considering the evidence, on balance, we took the view that Business Stream's use of the 2012 RV was not in accordance with their RV policy. There had been a considerable amount of correspondence about the billing query involved in the second complaint. Mr C had been in touch with several staff members and there was a delay because of their initial view about the charges involved. Business Stream then made enquiries of their wholesaler and changed their view on this. Although the issue was resolved we found that, on balance, their administrative handling of this fell below a reasonable standard.

Ms C complained that Business Stream calculated her water charges using the historic rateable value (RV) of her premises. She explained that they had been revalued since then and the RV was now at a lower figure than that used by Business Stream. In Ms C's view, Business Stream's invoices were incorrect and too high. Our investigation found that Business Stream's policy is to use the RV from 31 March 2000 unless the property has been built or modified since then. The RV may also be adjusted if the official RV has been successfully appealed. Business Stream took the view that, as Ms C had not provided evidence that her property had been altered, the default RV was being correctly applied. We found evidence to suggest that structural modifications to Ms C's property led to an increase in the building's RV in 2005 and Business Stream were using this, as permitted by their policy. However, our investigation also established that the RV was significantly reduced in 2009 after a successful appeal by the landlord. We were critical of Business Stream for not checking and confirming this with the assessor, and for failing to amend Ms C's account so that charges were based on the lower RV.

Mrs C has a small business premises attached to her home, which she operates for six months of the year. There is no water supply in the premises and Mrs C pays for her domestic water through her council tax. The council also bill Mrs C for her non-domestic rates, for which she receives a 100 percent small business allowance. Mrs C complained that, despite this, Business Stream billed her for water services to the business premises, and that this decision was unreasonable. During our investigation we considered all the information from Mrs C and Business Stream, including Business Stream's policies about billing and the dual use of property (where a property is used for both domestic and commercial purposes). We found that Business Stream's policy said that where a property is in dual use, and each part of it has a separate rateable value listing on the Scottish Assessors Association website, the proprietor has to make payments for water on both. As the parts of Mrs C's property were separately listed, we found that Business Stream were entitled to bill her, and we did not uphold her complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201305493 as a PDF (11.1 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

Company C complained on behalf of their client (Mrs A) who was receiving bills for non-domestic water charges, although she said she had no water facilities in the outbuilding that she used for her business. Mrs A said that as she paid her domestic water through her council tax and the business premises had no water facilities she should not be charged business rates. Our investigation found that there were two entries for the premises on the Scottish Assessors Association (SAA) website (which provides information about all properties in Scotland). One entry listed the premises as domestic, and the other listed the premises as business. This meant that Business Stream were correct to charge the business rates, based on their dual-use policy. Related reading View Decision Report 201400809 as a PDF (10.91 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that Business Stream failed to properly invoice his company for outstanding water charges, unreasonably disconnected the water supply and failed to respond reasonably to his contacts with them. When we investigated this, we found that Business Stream had written to his company in February 2013 introducing themselves as the water supplier and asking him to contact them. In August they began sending him invoices, reminders and final notices, and at the end of January 2014, they sent a disconnection warning letter. About two weeks later, Mr C made his first contact with them by completing an online form, saying he was very unhappy with the charges and had contacted the SPSO. An officer from Business Stream tried to contact Mr C about his concerns but received no response and closed the case. Business Stream disconnected the supply in early March. Having reviewed all the evidence, we were satisfied that Business Stream properly invoiced Mr C for his company's water charges, and noted how many times they contacted him about these. However, with the exception of the online form, and a single phone call, Mr C did not attempt to resolve this with them or complain until after they disconnected his supply. We reviewed the disconnection process and found that it was in line with the code of conduct laid down by the Water Industry Commission for Scotland. As we found no evidence to suggest that Business Stream had not complied with their responsibilities, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201305252 as a PDF (11.29 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that Business Stream were using the wrong rateable value (RV) in their charges for his wife's business. He said that they had refused to recognise that the valuation had decreased when the unit was renovated and made smaller in 2003, and he believed they were basing their charges on out-of-date plans. Mr C said that Business Stream should be using the current RV, which was less than half of what they were using to calculate charges. Our investigation found that Business Stream had followed their policy, and acted on advice received from the relevant assessor. We checked with the assessor and it was verified that, whilst there had been a substantial reduction in the RV from the original figure, this was due to a general revaluation and not a material change to the property. In the circumstances, there was no evidence that Business Stream's decision was based on wrong information. Related reading View Decision Report 201305054 as a PDF (11.02 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that Business Stream had inaccurately measured his water consumption. He thought he had been overcharged because a neighbouring property's water supply had not been removed from his invoice. Business Stream visited the property and found that a submeter on his neighbour's ground had been bypassed. They fitted a new one, took a reading from it and deducted money from Mr C's bill. However, Mr C was not happy about how they calculated this. After Mr C complained, Business Stream had reviewed the consumption and agreed to make a further credit to Mr C's account. They also provided evidence that the credits on his account were backdated to when the problem was first reported. They confirmed that the metering was now correct, and we were satisfied that they had sorted this out. After we became involved Business Stream said they would remove a recovery charge from Mr C's account and make him an ex-gratia payment, as they recognised they had not communicated with him well, and had taken too long to fix the problem. We were, however, concerned at the length of time this had taken and the efforts Mr C had to go to in pursuing the matter, and we upheld his complaint.

Business Stream were the licensed provider for Mr C's business for six months. During that time, he questioned his water charges, as his business used only a minimal amount. Business Stream encouraged Mr C to investigate the possibility of a leak on his pipework, but nothing was found. Mr C then registered with a new provider and further investigations were carried out. These showed that his water supply also served a number of neighbouring residential properties, and that he had been charged for the water they used. Although his new provider sorted this out, Mr C said that Business Stream had overcharged him, and he complained that they did not handle his water account correctly or efficiently. He also complained that his business incurred unnecessary expense in paying for a plumber to investigate a non-existent leak. We found that Business Stream had to estimate the opening meter reading based on historic information, as they were not contacted when Mr C's business moved into the property. This led to inaccurate charges, but these were quickly recalculated when accurate meter readings were available. Given the information available to them at the time, and Mr C's concerns about the amounts being charged, we considered it reasonable for Business Stream to suggest that he ask a plumber to investigate. It was also appropriate that this was done at his business's expense. It was not until after Mr C had left Business Stream that the issue with his pipework was identified. We did think that in the circumstances Business Stream could have done more to reassess Mr C's account. During our investigation, however, they offered to reduce his bill by an amount that we considered fair, so we made no recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201301641 as a PDF (11.4 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that Business Stream charged him for two meters in his business property. Business Stream had sent Mr C his first bill six months after he moved in. He noticed that there were two meters registered, which meant that he was paying two sets of fixed charges for them. He applied to have one of the meters removed, but was unhappy that this was only done six months later. Business Stream then charged him for the full period that the second meter was in place. We found that there had been two separate water supplies to Mr C's property when he moved in and two meters were required to ensure that all of the consumption was captured. When Mr C applied to have the second meter removed, he was told that he would have to make changes to the internal pipework to ensure that all of the consumption was captured, as internal pipework is the responsibility of the property owner. Several visits were required to the property before it was agreed that the required changes had been done and the second meter could be removed. We were satisfied that two meters had been required, as there were two separate water supplies before the internal pipework was changed. It was, therefore, reasonable for Business Stream to calculate Mr C's initial charges based on two meters. However, when Mr C applied to have the second meter removed, there were delays in progressing the application, and we upheld Mr C's complaint for this reason. In response to our enquiries, Business Stream agreed to waive the fixed charges for the second meter from the date Mr C applied for it to be removed.

Mr C, who is the chair of a museum, complained that Business Stream consistently invoiced the museum incorrectly for water costs. Business Stream acknowledged that this was the case and explained that they had taken steps to correct the error and adjusted the billing to ensure that the museum were not financially penalised for their mistakes. We considered the information provided by both parties and, on the basis that Business Stream had repeatedly failed to invoice the museum correctly, we upheld the complaint. As, however, they had now corrected the billing, had acknowledged and apologised for their mistakes and had ensured that the museum had not lost out financially, we made no recommendations for further action. Related reading View Decision Report 201302765 as a PDF (10.87 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained on behalf of her father (Mr A) about a bill he received from Business Stream. Mr A owned a small chalet, which he occasionally let out. It was not used for more than a few months each year, and the water was switched off during the winter. Mr A had a water meter installed in 2008, which should have been read twice a year. At first Mr A received estimated bills, which were very low. The first actual reading was in November 2009, and confirmed the low water usage. From then until March 2013, however, no readings were taken and Mr A continued to receive low estimated bills. The March 2013 reading suggested much higher water usage than expected but, as it was not put on Business Stream's systems, Mr A was not told. The next reading was in August 2013, after which he was billed for more than £4,000. After Mr A phoned them to complain, Business Stream acknowledged that they had not read the meter for nearly four years, and reduced his bill by about £2,000. They did not, however, investigate why there was such a high reading on the meter. Mr A had checked and said that there were no obvious leaks and no leaks had been repaired. We upheld Ms C's complaints. We criticised Business Stream for not taking meter readings for so long, and that when they finally did take a reading it was not put on their systems. Had Business Stream applied their policies properly, the excess consumption should have been identified within six months, and could have been investigated and resolved within a further six months. We were also critical that Business Stream did not contact Mr A to explain what had happened, and that they did not investigate why the meter was showing such high water use. We made recommendations to address this.

Mr C's house is behind, and next to, his business premises. He pays for domestic water usage through his council tax. Although he does not have a water connection to his business, Business Stream told him that he had to pay a water charge. Mr C complained that Business Stream were acting unreasonably, and that they did not respond reasonably to his representations. We considered all the relevant information, including the complaints correspondence, a statement of Mr C's account, Business Stream's computerised records and their policy on dual use. We also made enquiries of Business Stream. Our investigation found that both Mr C's business and domestic premises are separately rated and were publicly recorded as such. We also noted that commercial premises require access to water for health and safety purposes. Business Stream's policy is that where a property has both a rateable value notice and a separate council tax banding notice it is classed as 'dual-use premises'. Council tax charges should exist for the property, but charges are still applied by Business Stream on the full rateable value. Although Mr C considered this unfair and did not accept this explanation, we confirmed that he was being treated in accordance with Business Stream's policy and did not uphold his complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201304438 as a PDF (11.2 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

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