SPSO Individual Decisions

Mr C's company occupied two sites, one of which contained two buildings - a factory and separate offices. The bills for both sites were issued to the factory site address. The factory itself had been derelict since 2006 and was demolished in 2011. When it was demolished, Mr C paid Scottish Water to install a new supply point and a new water meter for the offices there. In November 2011, however, he received a separate bill for water usage at the site, backdated five years. Mr C complained to Business Stream that he had been incorrectly billed. He said the bill was inaccurate and showed a level of water usage that was far too high. He said that he had always paid bills promptly and that the company had not noticed they were only receiving bills for one site, instead of two. He also complained that Business Stream failed to deal with his complaint appropriately, as he repeatedly had to phone them to chase the complaint and Business Stream had taken many months to respond. He said that when Business Stream did issue the final response it was incorrect and they had to issue a revised bill. This had taken a further four months and Business Stream had not apologised for this. Our investigation found that the bill issued to Mr C was supported by meter readings. It was also lower than an estimated bill from the last full year of billing in 2006. Business Stream explained that they had been unaware of the site as the account had been closed in error in 2006 when the factory was abandoned. As, however, the water meter also served the offices on the site, which had remained in use, the account should not have been closed. This had happened before Business Stream existed, and they were not responsible for that initial mistake. We did not uphold this complaint, as we concluded that the amount was not excessive and that Business Stream were entitled to issue a bill for the water usage on the site. We did, however, find that Business Stream had failed to deal with t

Mr C was unhappy as he thought that Scottish Water had wrongly installed a water meter at his business in 2003. When he became aware of this, in 2012, he contacted Business Stream. They said that the meter was believed to have been installed correctly, and that Scottish Water would neither remove nor resite it. Mr C complained to us about this, as he believed that he had been unfairly paying for water used by the flats above his property for ten years and that he was entitled to a refund. Our investigation found that Business Stream had wrongly categorised Mr C's property as dual use, which suggested that there was a connection between his commercial property and the residential properties. We found that the residential properties had been paying for water through their council tax, and that the properties were not connected. Business Stream had told Mr C that he should contact the owners of the residential properties, and ask them to request a refund of their council tax, to then pass on to Mr C to pay for the water bill. We took the view that this was unfair - Mr C's property had been wrongly categorised, he had paid for water he had not used and Business Stream and Scottish Water had not done enough to try and resolve the situation.

Mrs C complained that Scottish Water had acted unreasonably by asking her to remove concrete blocks and fencing from her land, which they said were restricting access to a water main. We found that under the relevant statutory powers and case law, Scottish Water were entitled to ask Mrs C to remove the blocks, as they were on top of the main, but that there was some confusion about the fencing. Scottish Water's records referred to temporary fencing around the property, but Mrs C said that the fence had been in position for over 35 years, and although it had recently been replaced, it was of the same dimensions and at the same location as the previous fence. When we asked Scottish Water about this, they said they would need to investigate. However, they then failed to do so satisfactorily. Our investigation found that Scottish Water were not sufficiently clear about the position of the fence in relation to the water main before asking Mrs C to move it. We considered that they should have clarified this before they wrote asking her to do so, so we upheld this aspect of the complaint. We also found that they delayed in responding to her complaint.

When Mr C and his wife moved into their house in 2005 they started a bed and breakfast business. A water supply meter had previously been installed and Mr C told Scottish Water that he wished to retain that supply. The market in licensed water suppliers opened up in 2008, but Business Stream (the default licensed supplier) did not contact Mr C until 2011. They then did not invoice him until March 2013 when they charged him for water and waste water for the five years from 1 April 2008. The readings on which Mr C's charges were calculated were initially inaccurate and in total some 12 invoices were sent to him. Mr C was dissatisfied with how Business Stream responded to his complaint and complained to us that they had failed to provide adequate, actual meter readings throughout the five year period and had failed to act promptly in respect of his bills. We upheld both of his complaints. Our investigation found that although eleven meter readings were taken between April 2007 and January 2013, Mr C did not receive a bill until March 2013, and when he did, it was wrong. Even though Mr C had contacted them in 2012 and established that water charges were appropriate, Business Stream still did not act quickly enough to let him know how much he was due to pay.

Mr C complained that Business Stream had unreasonably invoiced him for a period when his premises had no connection to the public water or waste water network. He told us that Scottish Water had disconnected the water in the street and, as a result, he had no connection to the public network. We did not uphold his complaint. During our investigation, Business Stream explained that Mr C had not connected his property to the public water supply while carrying out renovations to his premises, although the water supply had been there. Although Mr C provided evidence that the water had been turned off in the street, there was no evidence that it was Scottish Water who had done so, and they had confirmed that they had no record of turning the water off or on in the street at Mr C's business premises. We also found that the water could be turned off by another utility provider or by someone with access to the relevant tool, which could be purchased from a DIY store. Related reading View Decision Report 201301912 as a PDF (11 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

In developing his property, Mr C wanted to build over Scottish Water pipework. Scottish Water approved this, subject to certain conditions, including a requirement that the materials to be used for part of the development could not be plastic. As the project was cost-critical and time-critical, Mr C went ahead on the basis of that decision but then expressed his dissatisfaction to Scottish Water, who reconsidered and decided that, although not their preferred option, they were prepared to offer a compromise in that some of the material in question could be plastic. Mr C complained that, by the time of the revised decision, it was too late for him to apply it and, as the revised decision was a cheaper option, he had suffered financial loss by having implemented the first decision. He considered they should have agreed this the first time. We explained to Mr C that these were decisions for Scottish Water, not for us, and that our role was limited to considering whether their decision-making had been reasonable. We concluded that it had been. For example, there were many reasons for the first decision, so it was clear that Scottish Water had considered the matter carefully. When they issued that decision, it was up to Mr C to go back to them to see if there was scope for amendment. Mr C's project was at a point where cost and time were so critical that he felt he had to go ahead with the work on the basis of the first decision, without waiting to see whether amendment might be possible, but this was not Scottish Water's responsibility. When Scottish Water were approached, they considered Mr C's points carefully and reached a prompt decision to offer a compromise solution. In other words, it was not that their first decision had been wrong: rather, it was that they were prepared to try to accommodate Mr C by thinking of an alternative, which was an example of good complaints handling. Related reading View Decision Report 201303467 as a PDF (11.45 KB) Updated:

Mr and Mrs C complained to Scottish Water about a blocked drain, but were told that the problem was theirs to resolve as the blockage was on their property. Mr and Mrs C instructed contractors, who established that the problem lay under the public footpath and was for Scottish Water to address. Scottish Water later confirmed this as correct. Mr and Mrs C requested that Scottish Water reimburse their costs, and complained about delay in completing the work. Scottish Water refused, however, to refund the costs on the grounds that they had no legal liability. They did, however, apologise for and explain the delay. Mr and Mrs C continued to pursue their complaint both with us and Scottish Water, who reviewed the circumstances and offered Mr and Mrs C 50 percent of their costs. During our investigation we took into account all the relevant documentation and made further enquiries of Scottish Water. Our investigation found that the blockage causing problems was indeed under the public footpath and was for Scottish Water to resolve. However, accessibility to the drain from Mr and Mrs C's' side was complicated by an existing shaft. In the circumstances, Scottish Water said that they had no alternative but to ask Mr and Mrs C to address this, at their own cost, to allow access. However, we found that Scottish Water could have asked to do this work themselves or installed an access chamber from the public side of the blockage which, while it would have increased the time taken, would have been at Scottish Water's cost. While Scottish Water ultimately offered to reimburse 50 percent of costs, they were entirely responsible for the blockage under the public footpath. We upheld Mr and Mrs C's complaints about the costs and the handling of the complaint, but not about delay, for which we found the explanation reasonable.

Mr C told us that, unknown to him, underground pipework had been leaking, and Business Stream had charged him for that water. He considered that the leak had been caused by incompetence on the part of Scottish Water when installing the pipework. He complained that it was unreasonable for Business Stream to charge him for the water lost through the leak. Mr C had tightened up the joints in question before Scottish Water visited to look at the alleged leak. There was, therefore, no evidence that there had been a leak, and we found that it was appropriate for Business Stream not to take it into account when invoicing him. No evidence was available one way or the other about the standard of workmanship when installing the pipework, and the fact that Mr C had been unaware of any leak for some time did not mean that Business Stream were liable to resolve this. We were, therefore, satisfied that Business Stream had acted appropriately. Related reading View Decision Report 201304161 as a PDF (11 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that in March 2012 his business unexpectedly received water bills for more than £2,000. He had understood that the business's water usage was paid for through his service contract with the landlord. However, Business Stream confirmed that in March 2011 his premises had been identified as a gap site (a site that has never been billed for water). Mr C applied for reassessment of his business's water charges so that they would be estimated based on the number of staff and facilities in the building, rather than its rateable value. His bills then reduced significantly, but he complained that Business Stream refused to backdate the reassessed rate. He felt that this should be done, saying that Business Stream's failure to contact him between March 2011 and March 2012 prevented him from applying for reassessment earlier. We found that there had been a delay of around seven months before Mr C's premises were confirmed as a gap site. At that stage, Scottish Water should have issued a letter to advise the occupant that a water account should be set up with a licensed provider so that water services could be paid for. Although we were told that a letter was sent to the premises, we were provided with no clear evidence of this. We noted that the building had multiple occupants and that the letter may not have reached Mr C's business. There was also a significant delay between Business Stream being made aware of the gap site and their taking action to start charging for water services. Mr C, however, also had a responsibility to advise a licensed provider that his business was in the premises and to commence paying for water services, but had made no such contact. Although we concluded that Mr C and Business Stream had a shared responsibility to make arrangements to set up a water account, we recognised that Mr C had clearly been prevented from applying for reassessment because of Business Stream's delay. During our investigation, Business Stream acce

Mrs C complained that Business Stream had incorrectly calculated her bills after a leak was identified. She said that, despite being given an allowance (a 'burst allowance') to write off some of the excess water use caused by this leak, her business bill was still equivalent to five years water use. Our investigation found that Business Stream had correctly calculated the bill. The leak had taken seven months to repair, but the maximum period that could be covered by the allowance was six months. Accordingly, Mrs C was liable for one month of excessive water usage, and this had increased her bill. Business Stream had acted reasonably and had challenged the burst allowance with Scottish Water (who are responsible for calculating these). However, we found that burst allowances are an entirely discretionary award, and Scottish Water, who were acting in line with their policies, had declined to change it. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201205324 as a PDF (11.01 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about a delay in Business Stream issuing his first invoice. He was also unhappy that water charges were based on his property’s rateable value, as he did not have a water meter. Our investigation found that Mr C’s property had been a ‘gap site’ (a site that has never been billed for water). As a result, Scottish Water (Business Stream’s wholesaler) had told Business Stream in August 2010 that the property was receiving water without being charged. Mr C had moved into the property in March 2011, but Business Stream did not invoice him until after they visited the site in January 2013. Although Mr C may not have known that Business Stream were the default water provider, that did not automatically mean that their charges were invalid and so, in deciding his complaint, we considered the responsibilities of both parties. We found no evidence to indicate that Business Stream took any significant steps with regard to the property before the site visit. We considered that, when viewed as a whole, Business Stream took an unreasonable length of time to issue the first invoice and we upheld Mr C’s first complaint. Business Stream explained that their charges were originally based on his property’s rateable value, but said that after Mr C submitted a reassessment application, a meter had been installed and his charges were now based on that. We found no evidence that Business Stream calculated the charges inappropriately before the meter was installed. However, there was some confusion about the reassessment process which may – at least in part - have contributed to a slight delay in the meter being installed. Although we did not uphold this complaint we made a recommendation.

Ms C complained about a delay in Business Stream issuing their first invoice. Although Ms C’s company had occupied the property for several years, Business Stream issued their first invoice in May 2013, and backdated it to October 2010. When the non-domestic water industry was opened up to competition in April 2008, Scottish Water became the wholesaler and businesses were required to purchase their water through licensed providers. Business Stream are the default licensed provider and Scottish Water passed Ms C’s details to them in October 2010. However, Business Stream did not identify Ms C as the occupant until an internal audit of April 2013, despite their representative having visited the site in December 2012. The representative had logged the site as being vacant. We noted that Ms C may not have known that Business Stream were the default provider before they contacted her. However, we also considered the responsibilities on both parties. This is because Business Stream have a legal duty to collect water charges - which they can legally backdate for up to five years - and so their delay had to be weighed up against the fact that Ms C could have contacted them. We upheld Ms C's complaint as we found that the evidence did not indicate that Business Stream had taken any significant steps in relation to her premises, despite Scottish Water giving them her details in October 2010. Although the evidence indicated that they acted promptly to identify and send their invoice to Ms C after their 2013 audit, we considered that, on balance, they took an unreasonable length of time to issue a first invoice.

Mr C complained that Business Stream unreasonably refused to award a burst allowance following a leak at a property he managed. He also complained that their handling of the complaint was inadequate, and that this had caused him an unreasonable amount of additional work and inconvenience. We did not uphold the first part of the complaint. We found that, in fact, it was Scottish Water who decided to reject the allowance (as in their view too little excess water was used to merit awarding it), which was a decision that they were entitled to make under their procedures for dealing with burst water pipes. Our investigation did, however, find that Business Stream had not investigated Mr C’s complaint for some eleven months and so we upheld his concerns about their complaints handling. Although there were a number of complex issues being investigated on the site, we found that it was unreasonable for Business Stream not to have taken any action in respect of the complaint.

Mrs C complained that Scottish Water had failed to consult the public about planned work to the water supply in her area and that since this reduction in the water pressure, equipment in her house and her central heating boiler were not working properly. She said that it was unreasonable for Scottish Water to reduce the pressure, rather than repairing or replacing pipes and upgrading the mains for which they were responsible. Our investigation found no evidence that Scottish Water had a requirement to consult their customers about this work. It had been undertaken in stages, and Scottish Water told us that the majority of their customers in the area would not have noticed any change. We did consider whether it would be appropriate to ask Scottish Water to consider consulting in future but they told us that a problem had been reported in only a handful of cases, and that they had followed these up and either taken action or provided advice to the customer where it was a matter for them to resolve. We found that Scottish Water had chosen to reduce the pressure because they considered that there were a number of benefits from this. We found nothing to suggest that there was anything wrong with their decision-making in this respect. In Mrs C's case, she had been provided with additional support, and as Scottish Water had found that the problems she was experiencing were related to water flow rather than pressure, they had installed new pipe work from the main pipe to the boundary of her property, and had reimbursed her for the costs of engaging a plumber to fix an issue with her sanitary ware. Related reading View Decision Report 201302011 as a PDF (11.35 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C leased and operated a pub that shared its water supply with a residential property. He complained that Business Stream unreasonably delayed in issuing their initial invoice – he had run the pub since 2007 and only received an invoice in 2010 – and that when it arrived it was unreasonably high. Mr C felt that this was at least partly attributable to the meter serving more than one property. Although Mr C maintained that he had notified Scottish Water of his occupancy of the premises concerned in 2007, our investigation did not find evidence to confirm this and noted that as soon as Business Stream knew of his occupancy in 2010, they began issuing bills. However, the bills were for both business and domestic premises. We did find that took too long for Business Stream to provide an appropriate meter in Mr C's premises. Because of this, the bills issued were incorrectly based and Mr C had paid twice for his domestic use (through both the metered charges and his council tax).

Ms C complained that the association had failed, over a period of three years, to investigate fully and resolve her complaint about a continuing strong smell of sewage in her home. When Ms C brought the complaint to us, she said that the association had eventually used a camera to inspect the drainage pipework, and had found a burst pipe in the bathroom which had been fixed, and had later replaced a section of piping in the kitchen, which was also found to be cracked. However, Ms C maintained that there was still a smell, and she was unhappy that the association would not agree to her request for her garden to be dug up to investigate further. Our investigation found that there was evidence that the association had done what they could to resolve the matter, and that their actions and decisions about carrying out work had been reasonable. There was, however, evidence that they had not followed up on a request they made to Scottish Water to inspect the communal public drainage system, to check for any further blockages, and so we made a recommendation about this.

Ms C owns a property, which is sub-divided into eight units that she rents out individually to small businesses. Each unit has access to a shared kitchen and bathroom, the only sources of water in the building. To take advantage of a government small business bonus relief scheme, each unit has been assessed separately by the Scottish Assessor, giving each its own rateable value. Ms C has an account with Business Stream to pay for water used at the property. She complained that each business renting her units was being charged individually for water services at a disproportionately high rate, despite there only being a single water supply. She asked for a water meter to be installed so that she could be charged for the single supply and divide the costs between her tenants, but this was refused. Due to the way that the property is divided, Scottish Water advised that a bulk meter would be required to measure the amount of water used. They said that they no longer install bulk meters. Instead, volumetric water charges were estimated for each unit based on their rateable values. As each unit had its own rateable value and no water meter, Business Stream's policy required that full fixed charges for waste water and drainage were applied to each unit. This meant that around £2,000 of fixed charges would be applied annually for the property, rather than around £275 had a meter been installed. We upheld Ms C's complaint. Although we were satisfied that Business Stream had charged the units for water in line with their policy, we found that Scottish Water were, in fact, able to install bulk meters in certain circumstances and this had not been adequately explored. We also found Business Stream's customer service to have been poor when investigating Ms C's complaints.

Mr C took over the occupancy of a property in November 2010 and told us that, at about the same time, he asked for a water meter to be installed. He said that, although Scottish Water came to the premises in December 2010, for various reasons they were unable to fit a meter. He complained that because of the delay in installing a water meter, his bills were too high. He said this was demonstrated by comparison with the invoices issued after the meter was installed. Our investigation confirmed that Mr C took entry in November 2010, but found that neither he nor Business Stream had evidence to support his contention that he had tried to have a meter installed in 2010. There was evidence that after Mr C began receiving water bills in November the following year, he contacted Business Stream who fitted a water meter in December 2011. Mr C had also disputed the rateable value (RV) on which his unmetered bill was being based as it was in the process of being appealed, and Business Stream put his account on hold. When his new RV was confirmed all the unmetered bills he had received were recalculated. On the basis of the evidence provided we found no grounds to uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201300452 as a PDF (11.16 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that Business Stream were unreasonably pursuing his business for an unusually high bill, which he did not believe he could have run up, as the premises were open only three evenings a week. Mr C thought it more likely that works carried out by Scottish Water outside his premises during the period covered by the bill were responsible. He said that the trenches they dug were full of water and that this was likely to have caused the high reading. Mr C provided us with a statement from his plumber that he had attended the property, but had not fixed a leak. He had not previously given Business Stream this information. Mr C also said that he had complained directly to the contractors, but had not contacted either Scottish Water or Business Stream. We found no evidence that Business Stream's investigation into the complaint was inadequate. The works had been inspected by a site agent, and it was clear that the area of work was on the supply side of Mr C's water meter, meaning that any water lost at this point would not have passed through the meter or affected its reading. Related reading View Decision Report 201204708 as a PDF (11.12 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

In 2007, Scottish Water carried out significant work on the infrastructure around a village. As well as replacing mains pipes, they also replaced some private supply pipework. They did this as a good will gesture. (Private pipework is in fact the responsibility of the owner of the property.) In the cold winter of 2010, many pipes around the village froze. It was discovered that some of the pipes laid by Scottish Water's contractors were laid at the wrong depth and Scottish Water undertook a further program of work to replace these. A local club did not have a water supply for some time. On investigation, they found damage to some of the pipework and repaired this in early 2011. They also contacted Business Stream. It became clear that Business Stream had not been billing the club, as they had the property listed as vacant. A bill was sent in February 2011 for the period April 2009 to October 2010. This showed unusually high usage which indicated there had been a leak, until the repair by the club had fixed the problem. The club complained about having to pay for the water that had leaked, as they felt that the cause of the leak was Scottish Water's negligence in laying the pipe at the wrong level. They also complained about the delay in getting the bill. We found that communication on the club's concerns about the alleged negligence had been inappropriate, and the issues had not been addressed clearly. Standard replies were provided to something that was not a standard situation. The club had been told that there was a policy, but this did not explain the position clearly or why this had not been dealt with as a claim for compensation. It had also not been made clear to the club that Business Stream figures showed the higher consumption was over a longer and slightly different period to the position as understood by the club. We took the view that it would be helpful for a meeting be held between the club, Business Stream and Scottish Water to proper

When Mr C's business moved into new premises, he discovered within a few days that Scottish Water had disconnected the water supply around 18 months earlier, because there had been a burst pipe during a spell of cold weather. As the pipework was privately owned, Scottish Water would not reconnect the supply pipe. Mr C was advised to arrange for his own plumber to do this, but the plumber was reluctant, as the work could disrupt the water supply to a number of neighbouring businesses. There was a delay of around three months before Mr C was able to find a plumber to do this. During this time, as the premises did not have a water meter, Mr C's business was charged by Business Stream for unmeasured water usage based on the premises' rateable value. He did not consider it fair that he should be charged for water that he was not using, given that Scottish Water had removed the pipework. Our investigation found that Scottish Water are only responsible for pipework up to the point that the public network meets the private property owner's pipework. Although we recognised that the lack of water supply was largely beyond Mr C's control, we found that Scottish Water and Business Stream had fulfilled their obligations to provide a water supply that his business could access. The responsibility lay with Mr C to make the necessary arrangements to connect to that supply. Related reading View Decision Report 201203300 as a PDF (11.26 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C owned a hotel. He found that the water bills for his business were disproportionately high and queried the amounts owed with Business Stream. It was established that there must have been a leak but due to the nature of the business it was several months before the floors could be lifted and the leak located. Mr C complained that, having located the leak and proved that his business did not use the water he had been charged for, Business Stream failed to grant a 'burst allowance' for the full duration of the leak. A burst allowance is made in cases where a leak has been caused by Scottish Water's actions or on pipework for which they are responsible or in cases where the customer can show that the leaked water did not drain into Scottish Water's sewers. We found that the grounds for this allowance were limited in Mr C's case. The leak was on his pipework and there was no suggestion that Scottish Water had caused the problem. Furthermore, there was no clear evidence as to where the water drained to. We were satisfied that Business Stream submitted a burst allowance application to Scottish Water on Mr C's behalf and that, when it was rejected, they sought further information from him to support his claim. Mr C did not provide the requested information and Business Stream offered a credit to his account as a goodwill gesture, separate from the allowance. Although we acknowledged that Mr C clearly had a leak and had anecdotal evidence to support his case, there were no apparent grounds for a burst allowance. We were satisfied that Business Stream made a generous offer that was reasonable, based on the evidence available to them. Related reading View Decision Report 201202850 as a PDF (11.35 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C opened a business in a shopping centre. Three years later, he received an invoice for £8,700 for water charges based on a rateable value of £60,000. Mr C said the rateable value was wrong and was currently £40,000. He complained to us that Business Stream had unreasonably delayed in billing his company for the charges, and unreasonably refused to base the charges on the current rateable value of the property. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints, as we found that there had been no delay by Business Stream. It was Mr C's responsibility to tell Scottish Water that his company had moved into the premises, and to choose a water service provider. After investigating, we were satisfied that there was no evidence that the company had done that, and we found that Business Stream had issued the invoice promptly when they became aware that the company was operating from the premises. We also found that Business Stream’s calculation of the charges was based on appropriate rateable values and was in line with their rateable values policy. Related reading View Decision Report 201300382 as a PDF (11.04 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C's business moved into their current premises in 2005, and Business Stream created a water account for them in December of that year. In 2013, Mr C noticed that his water bills had suddenly increased. He was advised to check for a leak, but none was found. Eventually, it was discovered that his premises' pipework was shared with a number of residential properties, and Business Stream's policies required that his premises be treated as 'dual use premises'. This meant that Mr C could not install a second water meter to separate his water usage from that used by the residential properties. Although Mr C did not own or manage any of the residential properties, he would be billed for the water for all the properties and would have to sub-charge the residential properties for their share of the water charges. As they were already paying for water through their council tax, it would be up to Mr C to arrange for them to cancel the water charges from their council tax and to have any amounts paid refunded to him. We found that, historically, Mr C's premises had been part of a larger property attached to the residential properties with a shared address and rateable value. However, at the time of Mr C's water account being created, the properties had been split and the assessor had given Mr C's property its own rateable value. As such, we did not consider that his property fitted the 'dual use premises' model. We noted that Business Stream's policies did not address circumstances such as Mr C's and there was no mechanism for customers in his position to have their water meters relocated or a secondary meter fitted. We considered it unfair that the result of this was that the customer was required to make complex arrangements with unrelated residential property owners to charge for water that was already being paid for through council tax. We upheld his complaint, as we found that Business Stream and Scottish Water did not do enough to find a common sense solutio

Mr C complained on behalf of a company who obtained planning consent from the local council to open a food processing site close to their main site, which is on a river estuary. The main site had inherited a deep water outfall from its previous use as sawmills, which was controlled by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. The company intended, as an interim measure, to transfer effluent by tanker from the secondary site to the main site while a pipeline was constructed between the two. However, this did not prove necessary and from the first day of operations, effluent between the two sites was pumped by pipeline and the trade effluent was never released to the Scottish Water waste water network. There is provision (process 27) in the arrangements between licensed providers and Scottish Water for a licensed water provider to submit a trader information and allowance form for a 'non-return to sewer' allowance in cases such as this. As Scottish Water do not grant retrospective consent, the licensed provider (in this case, Business Stream) should seek the relevant information from the customer in advance and submit it to Scottish Water for approval. This did not happen here, although the allowance was later given from April 2012. We upheld the complaint that Business Stream unreasonably delayed in advising the company to submit the form, and we made a recommendation about this.