SPSO Individual Decisions

Mr C, who acts for an organisation in relation to their water costs, complained that following the discovery of a meter that supplied the organisation's office, Business Stream's charging had been inaccurate. The office received water from a private water supply, a water tower, which also supplied other properties. In the past, Business Stream only charged for waste water that the office discharged into the sewerage system. These charges were based on the rateable value of the property. However, a metered water supply was then discovered. It was originally considered that this only supplied the office Mr C was representing and Business Stream started to charge for water and waste water based on this metered supply. This increased the water charges substantially. Mr C disputed the fact that this meter only supplied the office he represented. This was investigated and it was agreed that this was a back-up supply, which was in fact connected to the water tower and not the office. Business Stream's charging based on their view that the meter only supplied the office was, therefore, inaccurate. Mr C also said that the landlord of the water tower was paying a fixed waste water charge in relation to the meter, and the organisation he represented was paying a fixed charge and volumetric charge for unmetered waste water supplied from the water tower. Business Stream's view was that it was appropriate that there were two separate fixed waste water charges; one for the back-supply for the water tower and the other for the private supply for the properties supplied by this. Business Stream had contacted Scottish Water who confirmed that there should be waste water charges for both the private supply and the metered supply. We were satisfied that Business Stream had considered the information Mr C had presented to them in relation to this and that they had consulted Scottish Water on this matter. We did not identify any maladministration in relation to Business Strea

Ms C complained that Business Stream had treated her unreasonably, in that she had been sent a bill for her property that was far too high. Our investigation found that Ms C's treatment had been unreasonable. The high bill could have been caused by a number of factors other than the reason given and these had not been fully investigated. In particular we found that the failure to test a water meter that was acknowledged to be faulty had deprived Ms C of a legitimate opportunity to challenge the bill. Given the size of the sum disputed and its implications for Ms C's business, we took the view that it was unreasonable for Business Stream not to have carried out further investigation. We also found that Ms C's complaint was poorly handled and subject to unnecessary delay and that there had been poor internal communication between the different departments at Business Stream. We found that it was reasonable for Scottish Water to carry out a dye test without giving advance warning of their attendance.

Mr C complained to us that flooding caused by a blockage on Scottish Water's water system had damaged his property, but that they would not pay compensation. We explained to Mr C that our role in complaints about compensation is very limited and so we would only be considering whether Scottish Water had handled his claim reasonably. Our investigation established that they had done so. Although the blockage was on their side of the pipework system, rather than on Mr C's side, they could not reasonably have been expected to have known about it beforehand, or to have taken action to prevent the flooding. In such cases, Scottish Water have no legal obligation to pay compensation. Related reading View Decision Report 201300374 as a PDF (10.88 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C had a water blockage at her property and called a plumber in to repair it, who charged her £135. It turned out, however, that the problem was on Scottish Water's sewer, so she tried to claim the cost of the bill from them. The position, however, is that when there is a blockage customers should first contact Scottish Water, who will find out whether the problem is on their side of the system or on the customer's side (in which case the customer should then call a plumber). On the basis that customers do not always know this, however, Scottish Water offered Mrs C a goodwill payment of a proportion of the bill. Mrs C complained to us that Scottish Water had not refunded the full cost she incurred. Our investigation found that where a customer incurs costs like this, Scottish Water have no legal obligation to refund them. Because customers pay water bills through their council tax, rather than directly to the provider, Scottish Water do not hold customer names and addresses. This means that the ways in which they can reasonably publicise messages like this are very limited. Their Code of Practice is in a booklet, in which they do advise customers to contact them first in the event of a blockage. However, as they do not have customers' details, they can only send this if requested. We took the view that Scottish Water could not reasonably have been expected to have told Mrs C this in advance. They were, therefore, not at fault and could not be held responsible for the fact that she incurred the charges. We found that it was reasonable that they did not refund the full cost of the plumber's bill. Related reading View Decision Report 201300775 as a PDF (11.37 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C's business took over new premises in December 2009. He raised concerns with Business Stream that the water meter there was serving more properties than just his own. Scottish Water investigated and confirmed this to be the case, and the meter was removed. Mr C's business was then charged for water based on the property's rateable value. He applied to have this reassessed, and his bills were reduced. Following further discussions with Business Stream and Scottish Water, Mr C was advised that he could have a new meter installed and he reverted to metered charges. Mr C complained that throughout this process, he was sent 26 water bills covering overlapping time periods and detailing various different charges. He found the bills confusing and suspected he had been charged incorrectly. Our investigation found that Mr C's water meter had been installed incorrectly. In recognition of this, he was not charged for its removal. It was appropriate for his business to then be charged according to the property's rateable value, but incorrect information from Business Stream led to a delay in his application for reassessment (which would lower his bills). Mr C's business's payment arrangements changed from metered to unmeasured (rateable value) to unmeasured (reassessed) and back to metered. These changes along with the associated recalculations of his charges led to multiple invoices being issued, which were very confusing. That said, the evidence we saw showed that Business Stream acknowledged the impact the incorrectly installed meter and inaccurate reassessment advice would have had on Mr C's water bills. They recalculated his charges to reflect what he would have been charged had the meter been installed correctly from the outset. We did not uphold the complaint, as we found this to be an appropriate gesture and were satisfied that he was ultimately charged correctly for his business's water usage. Related reading View Decision Report 201203903 as a PDF (1

Ms C owns a business. In November 2000 she had a water meter installed, by the predecessor of Scottish Water, which she believed would measure only her own water consumption. From 2005 onwards her average combined water and waste water charges were normally under £200. In late 2011, the use of the shop next door changed. At first, this had no apparent effect on Ms C’s bills, but for the quarter ending September 2012 her bill was almost £1000. Ms C contacted Scottish Water, and Business Stream (her licensed water provider). Investigations by a plumber and by Scottish Water found that the water supply was in fact shared with the shop next door, which was on unmeasured charges. Ms C complained to Business Stream and was unhappy with their response. She complained to us that Business Stream’s actions in relation to her shared water supply were unreasonable. We did not uphold Ms C's complaint. Our investigation found that Business Stream had investigated and after they realised that the supply was shared and the metered consumption was accurate, they had put recovery action for the September 2012 bill and subsequent bills on hold. They had, appropriately, encouraged Ms C to reach a private agreement with the proprietor next door. Business Stream and Scottish Water's policy was not to fit a secondary meter in such circumstances.

A number of years ago, Mr C bought a field next to a farm. The field was served by a water trough. He said that although he considered the water bills to be high, it was only in 2010 that he established that the supply was a joint one with the farm. He initially complained to Scottish Water who told him the meter number that should have applied and Mr C continued to question his bills on this basis. However, he also complained as he said that Business Stream continued to bill him incorrectly. We investigated the complaint and considered all the relevant documentation, including all the correspondence and invoices from Business Stream. We upheld the complaint because our investigation found that Scottish Water had not kept Business Stream up-to-date about the correct meter that served the trough in Mr C's field. When this was brought to their attention, they corrected the records, re-billed Mr C and made him an ex-gratia payment in recognition of the inconvenience he had suffered.

Mr C complained, on behalf of Mr A, that Business Stream would not accept that Mr A had been wrongly charged for water usage over a number of years. Mr A owned a ground floor property with eight residential properties above. Mr A maintained that the water meter was wrongly connected and that it was serving the whole building rather than just his property. During our investigation we found that Scottish Water visited the property twice to check the meter and whether there were any leaks within their pipe work. They maintained that the meter was working properly and that there was an internal leak, that Mr A was responsible for fixing. Mr A had work carried out, and this resolved the problem. We found no evidence that the meter was not working correctly or that Mr A's water meter was serving the whole building. Related reading View Decision Report 201202717 as a PDF (10.96 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C is one of several tenants in her building. She complained that Business Stream had failed to install a meter at her property, resulting in unreasonably high invoices. She believed that her invoice represented the total use for all tenants and not solely her share. Our investigation found that her bill had been calculated based on the correct rateable value for her own property. We also found that the decision about whether to install a meter was one that Scottish Water were entitied to make, and which we could not investigate. Related reading View Decision Report 201203545 as a PDF (10.82 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained on behalf of a neighbour (Ms A) that Scottish Water’'s actions in respect of flooding were unreasonable. He said that Scottish Water had accepted that there was water coming in under Ms A's property, but had said that there was no evidence this was caused by their sewerage network. Ms A lived beside a beach and Scottish Water said that the flooding could have been caused by seawater. We noted that Scottish Water only have funding to deal with capacity issues (where their sewers overflow) that cause internal flooding to a property. If the cause of external flooding is a simple blockage that can be easily fixed, they will do so, but if it is a structural problem, this may be more difficult to deal with. Our investigation found that there had been external sewage flooding around Ms A's home. We took the view that if the flooding was considered to be external, and Ms A had agreed that it was, then Scottish Water's actions would have been reasonable. However, we found evidence indicating that there was enough water under the floor of Ms A's bedroom to cause damage to skirting boards and internal plasterwork. There was also a report of odour, and damp meter readings were very high. We, therefore, upheld this complaint, as we considered that Scottish Water should have looked further into the reports of internal flooding at Ms A's property. Had they then identified internal flooding, they should have taken further action. Mr C also complained that Scottish Water's communication with him and Ms A had been unreasonable. We did not uphold this complaint, as we did not find any evidence of this.

Mr C complained that in 2010 the sewer to his factory became blocked, and was not properly cleared for eight working days. As his business was unable to function due to an inability to discharge water into the sewer, the factory had been obliged to close. Mr C's business had then incurred overtime costs while catching up with the backlog of work. Mr C had made six phone calls to Scottish Water's emergency line, and regarded their response as unreasonable. Scottish Water had refused Mr C’s application for compensation, as they said that the blockages had been caused by waste discharged by the factory. Mr C, therefore, withheld the sum he claimed in compensation from a bill payable to Business Stream. He was pursued by Business Stream for payment between August 2010 and March 2012. In March 2012 he received a letter informing him that Business Stream would no longer consider his complaint and that the SPSO was his only option for further review. We took independent advice from one of our water advisers who said that while the initial response to the blockages had been reasonable, the problem had taken too long to identify and the correct equipment had not been brought on site quickly enough. In addition, communication with the customer had been poor, with only one update to him during the period. We cannot order Business Stream to provide compensation to Mr C as we are unable to establish liability for financial loss, which is normally a matter for the courts. However, we upheld Mr C's complaint, because we found Business Stream's actions unreasonable. They had failed to make clear to Mr C within a reasonable timescale that they would not consider his complaint, allowing the matter to remain open for two years. Business Stream had not kept accurate records of meetings with Mr C and at times had requested information from him about the actions of Scottish Water’s contractors. We also found that Scottish Water’s code of practice did not appear to distinguish

Mr C complained that Business Stream did not tell him when his water meter was replaced. He said that after this the water meter was not read in accordance with the relevant service standards and for an extended period, unnoticed by him, all his water bills were estimated. Mr C said he only discovered that the meter had been replaced and that his bills had been estimated when he received a large catch up bill. Mr C told us he believed that the new meter might have been faulty for a period as his metered water usage was higher than he had expected. He said that his bill could have been updated earlier when actual meter readings were first taken, which would have alerted him to the problem earlier. Mr C was also dissatisfied with the handling of his complaint. He felt that it had taken Business Stream too long to respond and he was not offered compensatory payments in line with stated service standards. We found that the meter was the property of Scottish Water and had been replaced as part of their rolling replacement programme. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint about this as our investigation found that there was no obligation on Business Stream to tell Mr C about the exchange. They had also offered to carry out a meter accuracy test when Mr C queried the accuracy of his catch up bill. Mr C had declined this because he said he believed the meter was now recording water usage accurately and because Business Stream would levy a charge if the meter was tested and found to be accurate. We did, however, uphold Mr C's other complaints. We agreed that under the terms of their licence Business Stream should have ensured that two actual meter readings were taken each year, one of which could have been provided by Mr C. However, they failed to do so for a period of around two years. We noted that they had already offered Mr C an apology and a compensatory payment of £100 in recognition of this failing. Our investigation also found that it took around fifteen mont

Mr C has a commercial workshop in his garden. After he fitted a toilet in the workshop, Business Stream issued him with invoices for water and water services. As the premises concerned were not metered, they based the charges on rateable value. Mr C was unhappy with this, and disconnected the water to the toilet. He complained that Business Stream continued to invoice him for water services only, which he considered unreasonable. Our investigation took all the relevant information into account, including the complaints correspondence and details of Mr C's account, as well as Business Stream's internal computerised records and investigations with Scottish Water. This confirmed the situation as described by Mr C but the investigation also showed that, in terms of the relevant legislation, Business Stream were obliged to charge non-domestic premises on the basis of their rateable value, whether there was a connection or not. Business Stream were not charging for either waste water or drainage. They had, however, recognised Mr C's concerns and provided a number of options to resolve his problem. They also allowed him to pay money outstanding over a fifteen month period. Related reading View Decision Report 201203839 as a PDF (11.24 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

In 2007, Mr and Mrs C bought some old buildings and adjacent land. They intended to convert the buildings to properties for sale. When they bought the land there was a trough and a tap on it, although the meter for this supply was on land owned by a neighbour (Mr D). Mr and Mrs C believed this was Mr D's supply. Mrs C told us that they agreed with Scottish Water and Mr D that they would use this supply for water needed in their building project. They understood that at the conclusion of the project the supply would revert to Mr D. When the project was completed in 2010 Mr and Mrs C sought to have the supply disconnected. They were told this would involve a cost. They explained that the supply belonged to Mr D and that they thought he was still using water from the original supply and that the meter was his. Business Stream undertook some investigation and established that Mr D was not using the supply. After ten months of correspondence Business Stream confirmed that Mr and Mrs C were responsible, as the owners of the address supplied. Correspondence continued for almost another year when Business Stream sent a detailed, written response. This, however, contained an error which Business Stream then clarified. Throughout this period Mr and Mrs C were paying fixed charges for the supply, which would end when the supply was disconnected. Our investigation found that the location of the taps and trough was key. The owner or occupier of the land where the taps are is responsible for the supply. This meant that when the land was sold in 2007 Mr and Mrs C became responsible. We accepted they had not appreciated this at the time, but we could not uphold their complaint that they were charged for a supply that was not their responsibility. However, we found that there had been serious failings in Business Stream's response to their concerns. Mr and Mrs C raised these in July 2010 but did not receive a response until April 2011. We found that by October 2010

Ms C complained on behalf of her elderly mother, who was dissatisfied with Scottish Water's response to her complaint of low water pressure. Ms C complained that Scottish Water had failed to respond to enquiries about this, and had delayed in handling a formal complaint. She also complained that there was miscommunication about when action would be taken to improve the water pressure. We made enquiries of Scottish Water and, after considering their comments and their complaints file, explored with them whether there was a possibility of resolving this through a goodwill payment for the delay in providing advice about when and what works were being undertaken, and in not providing their customer with updates. Scottish Water declined to do so and told us that this would not be in the interests of maintaining a consistent approach to their service to all customers. We discussed with Ms C what her mother wanted as an outcome and if she wished us to investigate further. Ms C told us that she had pursued the complaint on her mother's behalf because she believed that Scottish Water's customer service was poor, and if compensation was not available for this, she did not want us to investigate further. She withdrew the complaint, so we closed our file without reaching a decision on it. Related reading View Decision Report 201202606 as a PDF (11.24 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that Business Stream failed to repair a faulty meter that was installed in his property in 2010 and that, when he told them in February 2011 that he had had to remove it because it had failed in bad weather, they did not replace it until March 2012. Mr C said when Scottish Water (who retain some responsibility for meters even when a customer of Business Stream) picked up the meter he had been told they could not be bothered installing a new one. In March 2012 Mr C was told that his bills from 2011 to 2012 would be recalculated. He was unhappy that this meant that from March 2011 to March 2012 he was being billed on an unmeasured basis, costing him much more than if he had been on a meter. The bills had previously been worked out on an estimated basis. Mr C also said that he had applied for e-billing but had problems accessing his account. We were not able to uphold Mr C's claim that Scottish Water had said at a meeting that they would replace the meter in June 2010. As there was a zero reading when it was removed in March 2011, Mr C had not paid for any water usage, and had only paid standard charges, from June 2010 until the meter was removed. Mr C was also not charged for the installation of the new meter. Business Stream were charged but did not pass this cost on. In March 2011, Scottish Water told Business Stream that Mr C had not let them install a meter. Business Stream emailed Mr C to tell him this and that he would be billed on an unmeasured basis. Mr C did not receive this email. We also found that Mr C tried to sign up for e-billing in April 2011, but this was not activated until July 2011. Despite this, he did not receive a bill that should have been sent to him by post in May 2011, given e-billing was not yet available to him. Our investigation found that within two days of physically removing the meter Scottish Water should have updated a central database with the information that it had been removed. They did not do so for

Mr C planned to build an extension to his property. A water main runs through his garden, close to the area into which he intended to extend. Scottish Water require mains pipes to be located at least five metres away from properties. As this was not possible in Mr C's case, they required him to divert the pipe and replace it with one made of ductile iron. Mr C had originally been quoted a total of £500 by his builder to move the pipe, but with reconnection charges and the requirement for different materials, the total cost escalated to the point that Mr C decided not to proceed with his extension. Mr C complained that, when corresponding with Scottish Water, he learned that ductile iron pipes are not normally used in his area. He noted that the existing water main was located within five metres of his property and was made of plastic. Furthermore, Scottish Water had commented that they 'cannot stress enough that there is no reason to suggest that this main would be in danger from bursting'. Mr C complained that Scottish Water treated him unfairly by asking him to bear the cost of relocating and upgrading the water main when there was no apparent need to do so. We considered it appropriate for Scottish Water to require that the water main was diverted from its current location and for Mr C to meet the associated charges, as the diversion was required because of his proposed extension. The initial amount quoted by Mr C's builder did not include Scottish Water's standard charges so we did not hold Scottish Water responsible for this. We found that alternative, potentially cheaper, materials could have been used rather than ductile iron. Whilst this material was initially proposed by Mr C's architect, we found that correspondence from Scottish Water also gave the impression that ductile iron was the only acceptable material. We found clear evidence that Mr C's decision to stop the extension works resulted from news of a further £1,000 charge from Scottish Wate

Mr C had run his business from shop premises since 2006. In 2012, Business Stream contacted him to say that he had not been paying for the waste and water services he was using, and issued invoices for their services from 2008 to 2012. Mr C complained that he had had no previous contact from Business Stream and they had delayed in issuing their invoices. He believed that Business Stream had failed in their duty to fit a water meter, and were at fault in not doing so in his shop. He also complained that, since receiving invoices from Business Stream, he had repeatedly asked for a water meter to be fitted and the invoices to be recalculated based on probable usage, but Business Stream had refused to agree to this. Mr C said that Business Stream's actions in demanding payment while the matter was under dispute were unreasonable, as was their action in disconnecting the supply to his shop when he had made a part payment towards the bill. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that Mr C had not contacted Scottish Water in 2006 when he moved into the shop, or sourced a service provider when the water market opened up in 2008. Business Stream had explained their charges and offered a payment plan, and told him how to go about having a meter fitted, but he had not applied to have this work done. We were satisfied that Business Stream had explained that they could not accede to his request for the recalculation of his account because they could not backdate their bills. Further, we found nothing to suggest that Business Stream had not followed due procedures to pursue payment, or in the steps taken to give notice of their intention to disconnect the supply and of the action Mr C could take if he wished to stop this happening. We found that Mr C had made a part payment but that this was too little too late because it was for a tenth of the sum owing and was only made after disconnection had taken place. Related reading View Decision Report 2012

In September 2010, Scottish Water realised that a property was wrongly listed as domestic. This meant that that any business occupiers had not been receiving bills for water and sewerage services. Scottish Water notified Business Stream. However, Business Stream were receiving a high volume of new customers at that time, and did not put the property into their system until January 2011, when they also wrongly identified it as vacant. In May 2012, Business Stream became aware there was an occupier (Ms C) and billed her. Ms C had been in the property since June 2010 and had thought water charges were collected with business rates. As she had been unaware that her company was liable for the charges, she corresponded with Business Stream by phone, email and letter over some months to try to sort this out. There was no water meter at Property A, which meant the bill was calculated on the basis of rateable value. There is a re-assessment process, by which a customer can ask for the amount of water they are using to be estimated and billed on that basis rather than rateable value. Ms C submitted a re-assessment form in October 2012. This led to a reduction in the amount she was being billed from then. When Ms C complained to us, she had received a bill for January 2011 to March 2013. The period until October 2012 was calculated at a higher rate, based on rateable value. Ms C was unhappy about the delay in billing her, the backdating of the bill and a number of customer service aspects. Business Stream had apologised for the delay in putting the property on the system and reduced the bill as a good will gesture. In the same letter, they said that they would only back date it to January 2012, however, this was a typographical error and she was unhappy when Business Stream clarified that they still intended to bill her from 2011. Our investigation found that there had been mistakes on both sides. Ms C had an obligation to let utility providers know she had entered the propert

Mr C runs a business that relies solely on customers visiting his workshop. He complained that work carried out by Scottish Water resulted in disruption to, and closure of, the road that provides access to the workshop. Mr C said that, as a result, he did not have any customers for a period of three months. The road works were originally scheduled to take two weeks, but were extended on more than one occasion. Mr C was dissatisfied with the reasons Scottish Water gave for the closure of the road and their rejection of his claim for compensation. We accepted Scottish Water's position that the road works had to be extended due to the contractors hitting rock when excavating. We were satisfied that exploratory work had been carried out to assess the ground and that the delays to the work were unforeseeable. We were also satisfied that Scottish Water took reasonable steps to minimise the impact on Mr C's business by ensuring access remained possible to his property and by erecting 'business as usual' signs on the main road. That said, we found that Scottish Water failed to communicate with Mr C about the extensions to the road closure. We also found that they dismissed his claim for compensation without passing on the details to their claims handlers in line with their customer charter.

Mr C complained about Scottish Water's response when there was sewage flooding outside his home. Our investigation found that there had been problems with a sewage pumping station that had contributed to the flooding outside Mr C's home. In response to this, Scottish Water had installed new bigger pumps, lowered the pump start level and installed an emergency overflow at the pumping station. However, there was further flooding outside Mr C's property even after this work was carried out because a temporary bung (stopper) that Scottish Water had installed was washed down the sewer. They fitted a new bung and concrete was put in to stop this from happening again. This helped to reduce the risk of flooding. We established that where Scottish Water can resolve the cause of flooding outside someone's home, either without additional investment or through operational measures (jetting, cleaning etc), they will do so. However, they are not funded for capital solutions to resolve hydraulic capacity issues that cause external flooding. In this case, we found that Scottish Water had taken reasonable steps to investigate and to try to resolve the problem. Although not all of these steps were successful, we considered that their actions had been reasonable. They had also awarded Mr C financial compensation for the problems he had faced. Mr C was also unhappy with the way that Scottish Water dealt with his complaints about the matter. We identified a number of failings in relation to their complaints handling. There was no evidence that they responded to one of his letters. Another letter they sent did not clearly explain that it was in response to a number of pieces of correspondence received from him, and they failed to respond to some of Mr C's complaints within the appropriate timescale. Mr C also complained that staff refused to provide their business cards to him. Scottish Water said that they had investigated this and that staff did offer him their contact deta

Mr C is the manager of business premises with over 100 staff, and where there is a call centre. He complained that Business Stream did not communicate clearly or provide timely advice about a planned shutdown of the water supply to the premises . The shutdown was to allow essential maintenance work to be carried out. Mr C was unhappy that, after he received notification about the shutdown, when he requested further information this was not provided until the day before the works were due to be carried out. Our investigation found that, in line with Scottish Water's code of practice, appropriate notification of the proposed works had been given. We were, however, concerned at the delay in providing further information to Mr C. We noted that this led to considerable uncertainty for him as manager of the relevant facilities, and so we upheld the complaint. Business Stream had already accepted that their customer service could have been better, and had made a goodwill payment to Mr C. They also confirmed that Scottish Water had taken action to check if any change was needed to their process, but had decided that the delay in providing information was an isolated incident.

Mr C ran a bar and was aware that his water consumption was higher than other bars in the area. He said that he contacted Scottish Water and/or Business Stream to complain, but their engineers told him that there was no problem. He then decided to fit water saving taps. When the plumber switched off the water supply to complete the job, this also switched off the water supply to the flats above the bar. Mr C then realised that the water for the flats was being metered through the bar's supply. He contacted Business Stream, who told him to get the supply split as quickly as possible, as he was liable for the bills. They also said that he was unlikely to get a refund. Mr C had to employ two local plumbers to isolate the flats from his meter, and told us that Business Stream suggested that he sue his neighbours or the local council to get back the extra charges he had paid. Mr C complained that Business Stream failed to recognise earlier that his meter also served the flats. However, our investigation found that Scottish Water is only responsible for the water main in a street and the communication pipe up to and including the stopcock at the boundary of a property. Property owners are responsible for the supply pipe from the stopcock into the property and all of the indoor plumbing. In addition, there was no evidence that Mr C contacted Business Stream or Scottish Water about his water consumption before he found that that the water for the flats was being metered through the bar's supply. Mr C was also unhappy that Business Stream did not compensate him. He felt that they should have done so as the flats paid water charges with their council tax and he also paid these through his meter. We found that where a metered supply includes domestic properties, these properties should not pay separately for water services. Business Stream instead charges their business customer, in this case Mr C, for the metered usage. Mr C's neighbours should, therefore, have had a private

Mr C owned a retail unit that was occupied by a beautician's business. He complained that the water bills for the business were disproportionately high, and compromised its viability. Mr C asked Business Stream to consider reviewing the water charges, or fitting a smaller water meter. It was agreed that a smaller meter would be appropriate. However, Mr C felt that the price quoted to exchange the meters was too much, and he was not allowed to have his own plumber carry out the work more cheaply. Business Stream asked Scottish Water to provide a quote for the work. After Mr C disputed the amount quoted, Scottish Water provided details of the work that they said was needed. Mr C disagreed that the work described was necessary, but ultimately the business agreed to proceed with the meter downsize. Once the work was completed, Mr C remained dissatisfied as he believed a simple meter swap had been carried out, rather than the excavation and pipe replacement work detailed by Scottish Water. He provided photographic evidence of the work that had been completed. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint, as after investigation we were satisfied that it was for Scottish Water, as requested by Business Stream, to decide the work required and what the cost of that work should be. The amount quoted was in line with their published schedule of rates. We recognised that this was a standard charge and may not have reflected the precise cost of the work involved, but did not find it unreasonable for a schedule of standard rates to be used. We asked an independent water industry adviser to review the 'before and after' photographs submitted by Mr C. We accepted his view that there was evidence of excavation work and of the meter chamber being replaced which we considered was in line with the work proposed by Scottish Water. Related reading View Decision Report 201200191 as a PDF (11.54 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Business Stream issued a large water bill to Ms C in 2011. Her bills were normally around one-tenth of the amount for which she was billed, so she queried the amount with Business Stream. They advised her to look for a leak on her premises, which she did, but no leak was found. Ms C's plumber later found a leak on pipework outside her business premises. Ms C felt that she was unfairly being held liable for the charges associated with the leak. She complained that she did not use the water that had caused her meter readings to run high and felt that she should not have to check and maintain Business Stream's equipment. She acknowledged that Business Stream had applied a credit to her account, but did not consider that this went far enough to reduce the amount owed. We found that the leak was located on pipework for which Scottish Water were responsible. Their leakage allowance policy says that, under such circumstances, the customer should receive a credit equal to 100 percent of the difference between their average daily usage before the leak and their average daily usage during the period of the leak. The allowance is only paid over a period of six months, which they say should be ample time to detect and repair a leak. The leakage allowance was applied to Ms C's account for the six months before the leak was identified and repaired. Business Stream also acknowledged that they failed to read her meter over a twelve month period, and offered a further credit of 50 percent of her water charges in light of this. Our investigation found that, had Ms C's meter been read in line with Business Stream's normal procedures, the leak would have been identified and the leakage allowance would have covered the entire period of the leak. We agreed that Ms C was being unfairly financially penalised by Business Stream's failure to carry out their routine meter read and upheld her complaint.