SPSO Individual Decisions

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

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.

Mrs C complained that Business Stream delayed in issuing their first bill to her. Mrs C had been in her property for nearly five years before she received her first water bill. During this time she thought that her water charges were covered by business rates, for which she had a small business exemption. Mrs C did not have a water meter and Business Stream calculated her bill for the five-year period based on the rateable value of her property. When she received the bill, Mrs C applied for a meter and this reduced her charges. She considered that her bill for the initial period would have been lower if she had been billed earlier, as she would have applied for a water meter earlier. It was clear from the evidence that Business Stream had not been aware that Mrs C had moved into the property, and only identified that it was no longer vacant when they carried out an audit. We found that they should have had a better process in place during this period for them to identify premises that were no longer vacant. Although we consider that there is at least some onus on the customer to notify Business Stream that they have moved into or occupy a property and that they have a duty to ensure that bills are paid, on balance, we upheld the complaint. Business Stream had apologised for the delay in contacting Mrs C and had confirmed that they now have a process in place to identify occupied properties that were previously vacant. Mrs C also complained that Business Stream refused to use average meter readings to calculate her charges for the backdated period. We were satisfied that Business Stream assessed her charges in line with their policy on this. They also told Mrs C that she could pay the arrears back over 48 months. Having carefully considered the matter, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint, although we made a related recommendation.

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

Ms C complained that Business Stream were unreasonably pursuing her for water bills in excess of the service she was receiving from them for a small art studio she was renting. She said that she did not have a water supply there, but did have shared use of a toilet and sink. Ms C also said that some tenants had only been billed for surface water and drainage and others had not been billed at all. Business Stream had told Ms C that where there are several units with their own rateable value using the same communal facilities, this can be charged in one of two ways. The first is where a bulk meter is in place serving the full property. This can be invoiced directly to the property owner if they agree to this and each tenant then pays for their own property and roads drainage, with the property owner recouping water and waste water charges from the tenants through a service charge. The second is where there is not a meter, and each tenant is charged for the full unmeasured services based on the rateable value of the unit that they occupy. In response to our enquiries, Business Stream sent us a copy of an email they had received from the property owner. This said that he did not want the water for the building to be metered. The property owner also said that they stressed to all tenants that their water rates were calculated using the rateable value of their individual studios. We found that it had been reasonable for Business Stream to calculate Ms C's bill using the rateable value for the studio. This was in line with their billing policy and the rules that govern all providers in the non-domestic water industry in Scotland. In view of this, we did not uphold the complaint. Business Stream also confirmed to us that they had not been billing tenants of the building consistently, and that they were taking action to resolve this. They had asked for the accounts of properties that were not being charged for water, waste water and drainage to be reopened, as th

Mr C complained that Business Stream failed to bill him correctly for his water use. Our investigation found that there had been a number of errors in the bills issued to him. His meter had been exchanged, but there was a delay in issuing bills based on the readings from the replacement meter. When this was corrected, Business Stream used the wrong rate for his waste water charges. This brought about a significant increase in Mr C's bills over the next two years. However, when this was corrected, a further bill was issued based on an incorrect meter reading. In view of these errors, we upheld Mr C's complaint. However, we were satisfied that Business Stream had corrected the errors before Mr C brought his complaint to us. They had written to him to apologise and explained that they used complaints to improve the service they provide. They also credited a payment to Mr C's account as a gesture of goodwill for the inconvenience that the matter had caused him. Mr C also complained that Business Stream had not handled his complaint appropriately. We found that they had responded to the issues Mr C had raised, but had delayed in issuing the response. In their update letters, they had provided timescales for responding that they were then unable to meet. However, they had apologised for the delays. Although we upheld Mr C's complaints, we did not find it necessary to make any recommendations in view of the action that Business Stream had already taken. Related reading View Decision Report 201302519 as a PDF (11.25 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C said that, without explanation, Business Stream began billing him for water and water services. He said he tried to obtain an explanation, but was met with only further demands for payment. Mr C said that he eventually began making payment and also paid towards the arrears that had accrued, but Business Stream insisted that he pay the account in full. Mr C complained that this was unreasonable as Business Stream said in their documentation that they would allow payment terms. He said that, as the owner of a small business, he had been put under extreme stress and pressure. Our investigation found that, although the first invoice sent to Mr C in April 2011 was incorrectly based on unmetered charges, it was quickly corrected after an employee phoned Business Stream about the error. The next bill, based on metered charges, was correct. Mr C did not pay anything, and over the next months Business Stream tried unsuccessfully to contact him. In late March 2012, they notified Mr C of their intention to discontinue his supply. Mr C then contacted Business Stream to say that he had not received any water bills and they sent him copies. However, Mr C paid only £250, and disputed what he should pay. He continued to do so despite further demands from Business Stream, and although they told him about the charges that would be added to his bill because of the delay in payment. Mr C then asked to pay his account over an extended period, but Business Stream refused, on the basis that he had only paid £250 since the corrected bill was issued in December 2011. We did not uphold his complaint, as we found that Business Stream had acted in accordance with their policy, which had been appropriately applied. Related reading View Decision Report 201302255 as a PDF (11.41 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

For three years, Mr C's business premises had operated without paying for water and drainage services because he had not identified a service provider and set up an account. When, after an audit, Business Stream became aware that the property was occupied, they issued Mr C with invoices for water and drainage services for the period of his occupation. Mr C asked to pay the bill in instalments. He then complained that Business Stream would not accept his offer and, when he found that he could not meet the payment plan he had agreed, unreasonably refused to agree to renegotiate it. He also complained that: Business Stream were unreasonable in not agreeing to revise their charges after he asked for a reassessment following the fitting of a water meter; that their charges did not reflect the probable usage; and that they had unreasonably refused to agree to take into account that his business premises were closed when there was a leak from an upstairs property, and a flood in his premises. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that when Mr C had not made payment as promised, Business Stream had told him that they were prepared to renegotiate his payment plan to extend the time for payment to 18 months, but he had not responded to this offer. They had told Mr C that they could not apply a retrospective reassessment of their charges, and this is consistent with our understanding of their process. Having considered their policy on what should happen when business premises are closed, we were also satisfied that Business Stream dealt with Mr C's request consistently under the relevant policy. Related reading View Decision Report 201301511 as a PDF (11.33 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C and Mr D owned a restaurant and the upstairs residential flat. They complained to Business Stream that the restaurant's water meter also measured the flat's consumption. Although Mr C and Mr D knew that they had to pay commercial rates for their restaurant's water consumption, this meant that they were paying for the water in both the restaurant and the flat at commercial rates. In response to their complaint, Business Stream explained that where a property has both a commercial and residential element (and a corresponding rateable value and council tax banding) it is classed as 'dual use'. In such cases, their policy says that all consumption (including that of the flat) is charged commercially and the restaurant can recharge the flat for its proportionate share. Business Stream also explained that Mr C and Mr D could request that the water charges be removed from the flat's council tax, and that they were satisfied that they had billed them appropriately, based on the information they had. Although our investigation showed that Business Stream had billed Mr C and Mr D in accordance with their policy, when we took all the evidence into account we did not consider that the policy applied in this case. This was because the flat and the restaurant were two separate properties (as opposed to one property with a commercial and a residential part). We, therefore, took the view that they should not be classed as a 'dual use' property. We upheld the complaint and made two recommendations.

Mr C complained about the way in which Business Stream calculated the charges for water and waste services on a small studio he rented for his business, based on the rateable value of the studio. Mr C said that it had no water supply and the only water supply in the building was in common areas, which were the responsibility of the property owner. He said that the property owner agreed with him that he had been charged incorrectly. Business Stream had told Mr C that if the property owner put a water meter in the building, they could consider removing the water and waste water elements from his charges, but this would only apply from the date the meter was installed. In response to our enquiries, Business Stream sent us a copy of an email they had later received from the property owner, saying that he did not want the water for the building to be metered. The property owner also said that they stressed to all tenants that their water rates were calculated using the rateable value of their individual studios. We found that it had been reasonable for Business Stream to calculate Mr C's bill using the rateable value for the studio. This was in line with their billing policy and the rules that govern all providers in the non-domestic water industry in Scotland. In view of this, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201301194 as a PDF (11.17 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained that Business Stream had charged her for water at her business premises. She took the view that her lease meant that water charges were her landlord's responsibility, and pointed out that her unit had no direct water supply. We found that although Mrs C may have been unaware that Business Stream were the default water supplier, this did not make the charges invalid. In addition, Business Stream had explained to her that, in line with their billing policy, although she had no direct water supply, the communal water supply (for example to the toilets) was apportioned among the tenants. During our investigation, Business Stream provided us with a copy of their billing policy, which we found they had applied correctly. They had also considered Mrs C's lease, although they had taken an alternative view of its meaning. As only a court could give a ruling on the rights and responsibilities under the lease, and as Business Stream had taken the lease into account and acted in line with their policy, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint. We did, however, make two recommendations.

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.

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 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

Mr C had complained about aspects of his billing, which Business Stream then resolved after we became involved. However, we had concerns about their handling of his complaint. Mr C explained his perspective of this in detail, and Business Stream acknowledged that their service to him was not what they would have expected. They apologised and offered him a payment. However, this outcome took almost three months to provide, needed the intervention of senior staff in SPSO to obtain, was very brief and did not indicate any intention to take action to help avoid a recurrence. Although we upheld the complaint, after careful thought we decided not to make a recommendation about complaints handling. This was because we published an investigation report in December 2013 (case 201300283), in which we upheld a complaint about Business Stream's complaints handling and made a recommendation that they arrange an independent external audit of their complaints process and how it was being applied. Business Stream accepted this, and were also at the time completing an internal review of their process. We were, therefore, satisfied that they were addressing the issue.

Mr C complained about Business Stream's handling of his account. He had wanted to change water supplier but could not as his account was not 'tradable'. (This is a particular status that a water or waste water connection must have in the market to allow a bill to be issued.) Mr C was unhappy with this and complained about subsequent delay by Business Stream in advising him that his account had been made tradable. He was also unhappy that Business Stream had applied a recovery charge, and had pursued recovery action when they had told him no action would be taken, given his circumstances. We found that the delay in Mr C's account becoming tradable had prevented him from changing supplier, and that Business Stream delayed in telling him when his account became tradable. They had, however, apologised, removed the recovery charge and placed a credit on his account in recognition of the inconvenience caused to him. Business Stream had explained that they had made an initial recovery charge because they received incomplete information, and a payment Mr C had made had not been applied to his account. They had removed the charge after Mr C sent them information. We found no evidence that they had told him they would not take normal recovery action, when later payments were not made to his account.

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, who is a solicitor, complained on behalf of his client (Mr A) about Business Stream's charges for water services at several properties for which Mr A's firm acted as landlord. We established that there had been an error on the account but that Business Stream had put this right before the complaint was submitted to us. We also noted that there had been an undercharge on part of the account. In the circumstances, we did not uphold the complaint. Mr C had also complained to us about Business Stream's complaints handling. Business Stream acknowledged that this had not always been of the standard they would have expected and offered Mr C an ex-gratia payment in recognition of this. Although we upheld Mr C's complaint, we decided to make no recommendations as we had recently been in discussions with Business Stream about complaints handling. They had agreed to arrange an independent external audit of their complaints process, and so we were satisfied that the problems were being addressed. Related reading View Decision Report 201302775 as a PDF (11.04 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that Business Stream delayed three years in invoicing him for water services. He believed that if they had contacted him at the start, he would not be facing such a large bill. Since receiving the invoice, Mr C had used Business Stream's website to assess probable usage during the period, had a water meter had been installed, and calculated that his usage was about half of what he was being charged. His complaint was, therefore, not only about delay but a missed opportunity to have the option of having a water meter fitted earlier. Mr C considered that Business Stream had been unreasonable in not being willing to reach an appropriate solution. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found no evidence that, after moving into the premises, he had contacted Business Stream or another water service provider. Business Stream accepted that significant time had passed before they issued an invoice, but said that Mr C could have made them aware earlier that he was using the premises, in which case they would have begun billing him sooner. They accepted that their system of identifying vacant sites had not been robust, but confirmed that in 2013 they put in place new processes, which should ensure that in future they bill customers in a more timely way. We also found that Business Stream had fully considered Mr C's request for a reduction in his bill, and had told him that they could not do so. This was because they had (appropriately) used the rateable value of the premises to calculate usage because a water meter was not installed and because the amount of water used could not be accurately calculated. To do anything other than this would have been inconsistent with how Business Stream treated other businesses. Related reading View Decision Report 201302778 as a PDF (11.42 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

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 has a water tap in a lock-up which is separate from his house, and he told us that the water supply to the lock-up is metered. He told us that his water usage was minimal (for washing hands and brushes and the occasional cup of tea or coffee). He complained that Business Stream had unreasonably failed to provide his company with invoiced accounts based on actual water usage; continued to seek payment from him through direct debit; and had demanded an unspecified sum to disconnect the tap. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that Business Stream had carried out the requisite number of water readings each year. We also found that, while Mr C had cancelled his direct debit for payment to Business Stream, they remained his water provider, and they had not been at fault in continuing to issue invoices to Mr C for water used. During our investigation, Business Stream found that they had not investigated his complaint and, in recognition of this, credited a payment to Mr C's account, in line with their service standards. Related reading View Decision Report 201302534 as a PDF (11.08 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C owns a business that operates from premises that were formerly used a launderette. He said that he would have preferred a smaller meter, to reflect that his business would use less water than the previous one, but had been told that it would not be replaced. Mr C then complained to Business Stream when charges doubled because of an inexplicable spike in consumption. He complained to us because Business Stream would not accept that this was due to a fault in the meter, rather than to a problem on his premises which he had engaged a plumber to fix. They had also declined his request to replace the meter without charge. Our investigation found that Business Stream had replaced the meter seven years before, and that it was the smallest meter that could be installed. Business Stream had sent out a field officer to investigate, and had advised Mr C to have the problem fixed, but they had no record that he had contacted them to confirm the work had been carried out and to ask for a leak allowance. We noted that they had given him advice about applying for a leak allowance, but we found that this advice could have been clearer, or Mr C could have been signposted to Business Stream's website. We asked Business Stream to ensure that this was done. During the investigation, Mr C said that consumption had returned to normal, which suggested that there was no need to renew the meter. However, there remained a period when he was being charged for more than his business would normally use. After we contacted Business Stream, they reviewed the case and offered as a goodwill gesture to reduce the charge for the period when the spike was shown, to reflect normal usage. As Mr C was content with this, the complaint was resolved. Related reading View Decision Report 201302073 as a PDF (11.4 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C's business occupies small premises next door to her domestic property. Her business does not have running water, sink or toilet and the water she uses for her business is obtained from her domestic property. Business Stream told Mrs C that because her business had access to water and waste water facilities in her property she was liable to pay for water services for business use. Mrs C questioned whether she was liable for charges as she did not have a direct water supply and only used a small amount of water for her business. She also said that she was previously told that in her circumstances she would not be charged. During our investigation, Business Stream told us that they had no record of Mrs C previously being told that in the circumstances there would be no charge for the water she used for her business. They said they had reviewed her situation as a result of the complaint, but that her business did have access to water services in her domestic property. Although she was paying for the domestic element of these services, she was not paying for the services she used in connection with her business. We noted that her liability to pay for water for business use had been confirmed and did not uphold this complaint. Mrs C also complained about the delay in an invoice being sent to her and said that, as a result, she received an invoice in 2013 backdated to 2010. We found that there had been a delay in the SPID (unique supply identification number) being created and her premises being set up on Business Stream's account. We also saw evidence that from 2011 Business Stream had sent Mrs C letters at her business premises, asking her to contact them. We could not, therefore, conclude that Business Stream were wholly responsible for the delay in the invoice but, on balance, we upheld the complaint as we were concerned that there was a delay of almost a year before the property was set up on Business Stream's billing system.

Mr C complained about the high level of charges on his company’s account since the installation of a water meter. He also complained that Business Stream had unreasonably invoiced his company for unmeasured charges before the meter was installed, and had added penalty charges while he was in dispute with them about the invoices. As a result of our investigation, Business Stream told us that they were satisfied that it was correct to backdate Mr C’s company’s account. However, they had found that the date it was backdated to was wrong and he had been billed for a period before the account was opened. They had also found that they had not investigated the matter previously. We upheld the complaint, but we were satisfied that Business Stream had already provided redress through a goodwill gesture that reduced the balance on Mr C’s company’s account. On the complaint that there had been an unexplained high level of usage since the meter was installed, there was no evidence to suggest that there had been a ‘spike’ in the usage, which would suggest a problem. As Business Stream offered to look further at the matter if Mr C could provide evidence to the contrary, we decided that there was no further action for us to take. The complaint about penalty charges being added was resolved as Business Stream removed the recovery charges, and, in view of the inconvenience caused to Mr C, credited his account with a payment.