SPSO Individual Decisions

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.

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 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.

Mr C complained about Business Stream's handling of his account. He was unhappy that Business Stream had not told him that they were his licensed provider, and complained that it was not until some years after moving into the property that he became aware of this. He was also aggrieved that he then received a bill backdated to when he moved into the premises. Mr C applied for a reassessment of his charges but was again unhappy when he was told that this would not be backdated to when he moved in. During our investigation we found that it was the business's responsibility to establish the position about water supply arrangements when they moved into the premises. In this case there was no evidence that the delay in issuing Mr C's invoices was due to Business Stream failing to act on information available, or that they were aware his company were in the property and had failed to act. When Business Stream were told that Mr C's company was in the property they issued an invoice the same month. Although we did not uphold Mr C's complaint, we were concerned that Business Stream failed to apply the reassessed charges to his account, and made a recommendation for action.

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, who owns a holiday cottage, complained after Business Stream contacted her by phone about an outstanding bill for the premises. At the time she was not aware that she was obliged to pay Business Stream, as she believed she paid through her council tax for the water at the cottage. After Mrs C’'s MSP wrote to Business Stream on her behalf, it was established that the account had been set up with the wrong start date, and Mrs C was issued with a corrected invoice. She was then sent an invoice showing that the balance on her account had been cleared, which lead her to close her account with Business Stream, and transfer to another water company. She was then sent a further invoice showing a large outstanding balance. She complained to the chief executive, who offered her a goodwill payment. Mrs C was still unhappy and complained to us that Business Stream had unreasonably pursued her for the amount due and that they had not dealt with her in a professional way. Our investigation found that Business Stream is legally the default supplier. This applies in all cases, including those where a business does not realise it is liable for water charges, or is operating under the belief that water charges are paid to the local authority. Mrs C had acted in good faith, but unfortunately had received inaccurate advice about water charges from her local authority, so we did not uphold this complaint. We also found, however, that the goodwill payment had not been processed. Although Business Stream did do this after we became involved, they did not apologise to Mrs C for the failure, they repeatedly issued invoices without any explanatory correspondence, and the order in which these were issued was confusing. We also found that Business Stream failed to acknowledge or apologise for the time and trouble they had caused Mrs C, and so we upheld her complaint about the way in which they dealt with her.

After Ms C's business moved into new premises in September 2009, Business Stream wrote asking her to confirm that the premises were occupied and to set up a water account. Ms C said that she completed and returned the forms, but heard nothing more. Business Stream said they did not receive the documents, and so it was not until an inspector visited her premises in December 2012 that an account was set up for her business and her first invoice issued. Ms C complained that the delay to her first invoice being issued was unreasonable. She also complained that it was not until it was issued that she realised her water consumption was unexpectedly high. Subsequent investigation found two leaks. She complained that Business Stream should have done more to help her identify and repair the leaks. We found that it was Ms C's responsibility to tell Business Stream (or another provider) that she had moved into the premises. That said, we accepted that she had tried to do so when she received Business Stream's forms. We found that Business Stream had experienced problems with forms going missing around that time. Ultimately, we considered that this contributed around 12 months to the delay in the first invoice being issued. We did not consider it Business Stream's responsibility to identify or repair internal leaking pipes. However, we felt that they should recognise that Ms C incurred additional expense as a result of her first invoice being delayed, as it was not until she received it that she realised there was a problem with her water supply.

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.

Mr C complained on behalf of a religious establishment that their charity status did not transfer with them when they moved premises. Mr C said that they were unaware of water charges because they had not been billed for eight years, and when they complained, they were told that it was the responsibility of the occupier to advise the licensed provider that they had moved. Mr C said that this did not explain the delay, and noted that an application for exemption would not be retrospective. When we put the complaint to Business Stream, they reviewed the case and told us that they had decided to remove the waste water charges that made up the majority of the bill. They later told us that, as a goodwill gesture, the balance would be cancelled, providing a satisfactory outcome for Mr C. Related reading View Decision Report 201301999 as a PDF (10.95 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about the way Business Stream had calculated a reduction from his water bill, following a pipe burst in his caravan park. In response to our enquiries and additional evidence provided by Mr C, Business Stream agreed to further reduce his bill. They also agreed to cancel a recovery charge they had applied to Mr C's account. Mr C told us that he would accept this offer and withdrew his complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201302585 as a PDF (10.75 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

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's business occupied premises in a large office building. His office did not have its own water supply, but had access to the building's communal water facilities. In January 2013, Business Stream contacted Mr C and told him that he was liable for drainage charges accrued over five years. Mr C did not feel that his business should be liable for these charges, as his occupancy was agreed under a license with the property owner rather than a tenancy agreement. He said his office was not directly connected to a water supply and the terms of his license placed full responsibility for the building's fixtures and fittings on the licensor. Mr C also raised concerns about Business Stream's handling of his complaints. Mr C had questioned whether his premises were 'eligible premises' as defined by the Water Services etc (Scotland) Act 2005. This defines premises that are eligible for water and drainage charges as those that are (or are to be) connected to the public water and sewerage systems. Although it is not for us to interpret this legislation, we investigated whether Business Stream gave proper consideration to relevant factors when reaching their decision. We found that they were obliged to set up their charges in accordance with the market code (which sets out the duties of participants in the water market, and provides technical specifications). Business Stream's treatment of Mr C's premises as an 'eligible premises' was in line with the code, which in turn was based on the legislation. Mr C felt that all water and drainage charges for his premises should be charged to the property owner (licensor) rather than him, given his status as a licensee. Again, it was not for us to determine what status Mr C's license gave him, or what difference this might make in terms of who should be liable for charges. However, we were satisfied that Business Stream made appropriate enquiries to establish who should be charged, and reached a reasonable conclusion based on

Mr C complained that for three years Business Stream had failed to read the meter for a village hall run by a committee of volunteers. As a result Mr C had been unaware that the hall had two meters and that there had been a significant increase in consumption. Once the committee were made aware of the increased consumption they took steps to reduce it. During our investigation we discovered that, during the three year period, Business Stream had taken meter readings for the hall but in the year before the high consumption occurred they had not taken two actual readings. In addition they had only issued invoices for one meter and had incorrectly identified its location. As a result Business Stream had addressed the accuracy of the location of the meter and had decided not to backdate the second meter charges to when it was installed. However, we considered that had the invoices accurately described the location of the meter Mr C would have been able to identify that there were two meters instead of one and would have had the opportunity to monitor them. Because Business Stream had not read the meters in line with their policy we were unable to identify when the increase in usage occurred, and we made a recommendation about this.

Mr C's complaint was made on behalf of a charity, who had received an unexpected bill from Business Stream for water service charges two years after they moved into their premises. Mr C complained both that the charity was being incorrectly pursued for charges because an exemption had been applied in their previous premises, and about the action taken by Business Stream to pursue payment, including threatening disconnection. He also complained of delay in issuing invoices, and confusion about the number of meters serving the premises, resulting in the wrong charges being pursued. He also said that there had been delay in resolving a separate error when invoices for other companies had been received at the charity's address. From our investigation, we established that while the charity had discussed whether exemption applied, they had not provided evidence to support this or submitted a claim for exemption. We upheld the complaint about disconnection, however, as our investigation found that Business Stream had sent a letter to the premises in which disconnection was threatened if it was found that the premises were unoccupied, despite having known for some six months that they were occupied by the charity. We also found that invoices had been issued wrongly for two meters when the premises had only one, and that Business Stream had failed to explain this when they issued an invoice for amended charges. We did not uphold the complaint about the charity receiving mail for another company, as we found that Business Stream had addressed this.

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).

Mr C complained that his water bills had been inaccurate and too confusing to follow. For example, at one point he thought his account was in credit but he then received a reminder for payment. Our investigation revealed that there had been errors on the account and a lack of good communication with Mr C about them. For example, when an error was identified and put right on a later invoice, the charges on that later invoice were not made clear to him, so he was unaware that they were caused by correcting the earlier error. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint. However, as we were satisfied that Business Stream had now put all errors right, we made no recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201302203 as a PDF (10.89 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

Mr C owns a holiday home complex, which has a main water storage tank, and individual tanks serving the accommodation. There was a leak, which was Mr C's responsibility to have repaired. However, when he was billed, Business Stream did not take into account that his premises were served with a soakaway (a gravel-filled channel or pit that helps manage surface water) and did not apply a leak allowance. After we got in touch with Business Stream, they took action to investigate, and told us that if it was confirmed that there was a soakaway, they would amend Mr C's account. Mr C was satisfied with this as a resolution to his complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201300928 as a PDF (10.89 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

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 complained that his business unexpectedly received water bills for more than £3000 in May 2012. He had thought that the water charges were his landlord's responsibility. He contacted Business Stream but found the advice he received unhelpful. Business Stream confirmed that his premises had been identified as a gap site (a property that is receiving water services without being charged) in January 2011. A month after receiving the bills, Mr C applied for reassessment of the water charges and as a result a credit was applied to his account. Our investigation found that there was a delay between Business Stream being made aware of the gap site and their taking action to start charging for water services. Mr C also had a responsibility to advise a licensed provider that his business was in the premises and to start paying for water services. We did, however, uphold his complaint as, although Mr C and Business Stream had a shared responsibility to make arrangements to set up a water account, we were concerned that the delay in issuing the initial bill meant that Mr C was not given an opportunity to apply for reassessment until June 2012.

Mr C complained to us about the level of Business Stream's invoices. He thought his initial invoice – which had been based on a water meter - was too high and claimed that Business Stream had told him that he would be better off moving to unmetered billing. Four water meters were removed from Mr C's premises and an unmetered invoice was applied in place of the original invoice. Although the unmetered invoice was slightly cheaper, Mr C felt that it was still too high. When he complained, he was advised that he might wish to apply for reassessment. This is a process where Business Stream's customers can check whether or not they would be cheaper moving from unmetered to metered charges. Given that he had recently had four meters removed, Mr C remained unhappy and complained to us. During our investigation, Business Stream confirmed that the initial invoice that Mr C had received was based on a 'bulk' meter. This meant that it served the entire building, while the other three meters removed were 'internal' meters. Although it was not clear whether another occupier's water consumption had been included in the original bulk-metered calculation, we considered that this at least cast doubt over the accuracy of the comparison with the cost of unmetered billing. Because of this, and in light of the fact that Mr C had recently had four meters removed, we took the view that it was unreasonable for them to advise Mr C to consider reassessment. We said that, in these particular circumstances, Business Stream should have taken a more proactive approach in confirming whether Mr C's water consumption could be metered accurately and we upheld Mr 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 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