SPSO Individual Decisions

Ms C received an unusually high water bill. She checked the pipework for leaks and confirmed there had been no changes to her business practice to explain the increased use of water. Business Stream said that as the bill had returned to normal, it could not have been a problem with the meter. They also checked the meter as Ms C was having trouble gaining access to the meter. Ms C was unhappy that she still had not been told how to access the meter and that Business Stream could not explain why the usage had gone up for a short period. Our investigation found that Business Stream had undertaken most of the checks they should have done to reassure themselves the problem was not on the public network. However, they had not confirmed with Scottish Water whether there was any work being carried out on the network at the time. We found that they should have done so, and we upheld this complaint, as well as that about access, as we also found that they should have done more to help Ms C access the meter. However, we did not uphold her complaint that they should have explained why the increase had occurred, as there were matters outwith their control on the private side of the supply, about which they had no knowledge. Business Stream was only required to explain why they were satisfied that the additional usage was not caused by problems on the public side of the meter.

Mr C is the factor of an estate. He said that his predecessor had agreed with Scottish Water in 2007 to disconnect water to a farm trough, and that after this, Scottish Water would check the work and stop charging. Mr C understood that the water had been disconnected. However, the estate continued to receive water bills and in 2012 Mr C pursued this with Business Stream. He made an application for disconnection which he was told would cost £300. He was later told that this was just an application fee/deposit and that the actual work would cost in the region of £3,400. Mr C complained to us that the disconnection costs were totally disproportionate to the work required as he understood that his predecessor had disconnected the supply. He also complained that he was given misleading information about the £300 fee. As part of our investigation we made enquiries of Business Stream. Business Stream then asked Scottish Water to check the status of the trough and they confirmed that it was not disconnected. We did not find the cost quoted by Business Stream to be disproportionate, as it was a standard charge that had been fairly and reasonably applied, so we did not uphold this complaint. However, it appeared that Mr C was given incorrect information about the £300 fee. He had understood it to be a disconnection charge, and the documentation we read confirmed this. In reality, however, it was only an application fee or deposit. We upheld this complaint and, in the circumstances, Business Stream offered to make Mr C an ex gratia (voluntary) payment of £300. Scottish Water also agreed to waive the costs of disconnecting the trough if the estate themselves carried out the work satisfactorily (ie in accordance with the terms offered and in place in 2007). In the circumstances we did not find it necessary to make any recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201201916 as a PDF (11.51 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C had worked from home on a part-time basis for a number of years, using a room in his house as a surgery. He complained that Business Stream had written to him saying that an audit had shown that he was occupying a property thought to be vacant and, to continue to receive water and waste services there, he needed to set up an account. As the default provider, they billed Mr C for usage. Mr C complained to us that Business Stream was unreasonably charging him for services to his property, even though they did not provide this. He also said that Business Stream were acting against advice on a government website which said that if a person works from home, any water used would be included in the domestic bill. Our investigation found that Business Stream had explained to Mr C that they had received information from Scottish Water and the Scottish Assessors' Association that there had been no charge for services since he entered the property, and that the surgery was commercially rated. Acting in line with their dual use property policy and duty under the legislation, and in the absence of any other service provider, they had asked for payment for provision of services. As it was clear that Business Stream was acting in line with their policy, and we could only question this if it had not been applied properly, we found that they acted reasonably in charging for these services. Although we appreciated that Mr C had seen differing website advice about how the water usage would be charged, we did not find that Business Stream could be held responsible for information on another website. They had, however, said that they would take action to ask for this to be corrected, which we found appropriate. Related reading View Decision Report 201200690 as a PDF (11.47 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

In 2012, Mr C received a water bill from Business Stream that was much higher than he had expected. The bill was for the water supply to a trough on his farm which had been switched off since the summer of 2011. The meter for this supply was located in Mr C's neighbour's house, but he did not have access to it. Because of this, he was unable to monitor his water usage and was unaware that there was a leak in his pipework. Mr C complained to us that the bill was too high and that, had his meter been located in a more accessible position, and had accurate bills been issued by Business Stream rather than estimates, he could have identified the leak sooner. He did not consider that he should be liable for the full amount of the water bill. Mr C's water meter was relocated by Scottish Water on behalf of Business Stream to a more accessible position. After the work was completed, he was presented with an invoice for the relocation work which he found excessive. He was told that if he chose not to pay the invoice, the meter would be moved back to its previous location at no cost. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint. It is the customer's responsibility to check for and repair any leaks on their pipework. Where leaks are not immediately visible, the best way to monitor water usage is to examine the water meter and any bills that are issued. We accepted that the location of Mr C's water meter restricted his ability to check for leaks, but did not find evidence of any clear request from Mr C to have his meter moved to a more accessible location. However, we did not find that the delay in moving the meter impacted significantly on the water charges that Mr C incurred. We were satisfied that meter readings were taken in line with Business Stream's meter reading policy which requires two actual readings to be taken in a twelve month period. As such, we did not find that there was any specific action that Business Stream could have taken to help Mr C identify his leak any sooner. W

An employee of Scottish Water visited Mr C's business premises and advised that he was going to install a water meter. As he had received no prior warning, Mr C at first refused permission for this. However, following discussions with Business Stream, during which he was told that the cost to him would be minimal, Mr C agreed to the meter installation. He was unhappy to then receive a water bill a year later, which he considered excessive as he used no water at his business premises. Mr C complained that it was inappropriate for the water meter to be installed and that he was given insufficient information about the charges he would incur. He said that, had he known about the charges, he would have had the water supply disconnected, as his business does not use water. We found that Mr C's business had been identified as a gap site (a site that has been receiving water-related services without being charged). It was appropriate for a meter to be installed in line with the Scottish Government's Full Business Metering scheme. However, we were concerned by the lack of information given to Mr C about the metering process. Mr C had asked Business Stream about their charges and they had been unable to provide him with any information. We found this to be unreasonable as, although they could not predict how much water Mr C would use, they should have been able to tell him about their fixed charges.

Mr C complained about a lack of assistance from Business Stream when he attempted to investigate a suspected water leak at his farm. Mr C found wet ground in one of his fields in July 2011 and contacted Business Stream to ask someone to come and investigate this, as although he had already tried to do so himself, he was having problems lifting the heavy meter chamber lid. (The lid had been used deliberately to protect the meter from farm vehicles.) Business Stream passed on his request to Scottish Water, but Scottish Water did not visit. Mr C later received a large water bill, indicating that he had a leak. He did not consider that he should be liable for the full amount. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that it was Mr C's responsibility to identify and repair leaks in the pipework on his land. Mr C had already suspected there was a leak and employed a plumber to investigate. Based on their findings, however, they had incorrectly concluded that there was no leak. When Business Stream passed on Mr C's request for a visit, Scottish Water had declined to go to his farm, as they took the view that Mr C should have no cause to access the meter chamber. No-one told Mr C this, however. Although we considered that it was for Scottish Water to decide whether to visit him, we were disappointed to note that Business Stream did not tell Mr C that Scottish Water had decided not to do so. We acknowledged that, had he known this, he and his plumber might have made further efforts to investigate the potential leak or to access the meter to take readings. We did not, however, find that Business Stream's communication failure was significant in terms of the overall delay in identifying the leak and considered the goodwill gesture that they had already offered Mr C to be reasonable. Related reading View Decision Report 201200041 as a PDF (11.54 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that Business Stream did not give him notice that the water pressure at his business premises would be much higher when Scottish Water upgraded the pipes in his area. He said that there were a number of large underground leaks in his premises, and it took him several months to detect and fix all of them. As a result of this, his water bill rose substantially, although he was given a rebate sum for part of this. We asked Business Stream if either they or Scottish Water should tell customers if the pressure in the network is to increase. Business Stream said that Scottish Water manage their network on a daily basis, which increases and decreases pressure. They said that Scottish Water do not advise if there are to be changes unless the change in water pressure is to be so great that it would cause an operating issue to a commercial customer. They told us that Scottish Water renewed the old pipe work in Mr C’s area, but did not increase the water pressure there, although the new pipe work increased the water pressure at Mr C’s premises due to increased efficiency and reduced water loss. However, there was no requirement in these circumstances for Business Stream or Scottish Water to give him notice about this so we did not uphold that complaint. Mr C also complained that Business Stream failed to deal with his complaints appropriately and delayed in reading his water meter. We found that they had delayed in responding to his complaints and in obtaining his water meter readings, as well as asking him to provide information that he had already sent to them. We upheld this complaint.

Mr C’s garden was affected by a flood. Three months later there were further problems when sewage started flowing into his back garden. Mr C claimed that the latter incident caused damage to the retaining wall in his back garden. He complained that Scottish Water delayed in identifying the cause of the problem, and that he had been told by an engineer on the job that the problem had arisen because the drainage system was not being maintained. However, when Mr C complained to Scottish Water and submitted a claim for the cost of replacing the damaged wall, his claim was turned down and he was told that the damage was caused by a neighbour’s drainage system (the earlier flood) and he would have to pursue the matter with the owner of the property. Mr C disputed Scottish Water’s advice that the second incident was due to unforeseen circumstances, unrelated to the damage to his wall. Our investigation confirmed that there had been two separate incidents, and that Scottish Water had investigated and taken action to resolve both. After the second incident they had cleaned and disinfected Mr C’s garden. They had decided that his neighbour’s lawn should be replaced, but that as Mr C’s back garden was rough ground, no offer should be made to turf it. It was confirmed that Mr C had been advised to submit a claim to replace the damaged wall, but that with this advice he was told that this was not to be taken as an acceptance by Scottish Water of liability because the matter had to be investigated. As the evidence suggested that Scottish Water had considered Mr C’s claim, and explained the reasons why it was refused, this came down to a dispute about liability, which is not a matter that we can look into. We cannot establish legal liability, nor can we award compensation. Only a court can look at legal liability between individuals and organisations. Related reading View Decision Report 201202013 as a PDF (11.55 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that a blockage he had experienced in his home's water pipes was Scottish Water's responsibility and that flooding in his kitchen had been caused by flooding in a nearby car park. Our investigation found, however, that Scottish Water had correctly told Mr C that the blockage was on his side of the pipe system and, therefore, not their responsibility, and also that the flooding could not have been caused by the car park flooding. Related reading View Decision Report 201201812 as a PDF (10.85 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Following a leak in 2010, Mr C discovered that his business premises shared a water meter with a neighbouring property. His business had been charged for the water supply to both businesses for several years without his knowledge. Once the situation was brought to Business Stream's attention, they offered Mr C a credit amount. He complained, however, that the amount was not adequate and that he should receive a refund of 50 percent of the water charges over an eight year period. Mr C raised further concerns about Business Stream's handling of his complaint and the fact that he was charged recovery fees and pursued for outstanding payments when his account was supposed to be on hold while his complaint was investigated. Our investigation found that, generally, it is the property owner's responsibility to familiarise themselves with the pipe and water meter infrastructure supplying their premises. However, the evidence submitted to us showed that Mr C had specifically asked in 2006 whether his meter was serving two properties. Scottish Water inspected the meter and advised that it only served his property and we considered it reasonable for Mr C to accept this advice at face value. We did not find it appropriate for Mr C to be affected financially by Scottish Water's inaccurate information. Although the meter was serving two properties, we did not consider that it was necessarily the case that both businesses would use the same amount of water. As such, we did not consider a 50 percent refund of all water charges to be appropriate. Mr C's meter was split in 2010 and accurate readings were available to assess his typical daily usage. When calculating the credit offered to Mr C, Business Stream applied the recalculated typical daily usage back to the date his account was created. We found this to be an appropriate gesture. We did, however, find that Business Stream inappropriately continued to issue reminder invoices and late-payment fees to Mr C when his acc

Mr C's house sustained water damage when Scottish Water carried out work to replace a valve in his area. Mr C was not notified that the water supply would be shut off, and when it was turned back on, dirty water was forced through his bathroom tap at high pressure, soaking the room and seeping through the floor to the ceiling and walls below. Mr C complained about the lack of notice that the water was to be turned off and about Scottish Water's handling of his claim for the cost of redecorating the affected areas of his house. Scottish Water investigated Mr C's claim and concluded that a tap must have been left on in the bathroom. They accepted that he was not notified that the water was to be turned off, but explained that there had been no plan to turn the water off in his street. Arrangements had been made to set up a diversion of the water supply so that his street was not affected, but a valve was left shut in error and around 200 properties were unexpectedly left without water. Whilst no notification was given that the water would be shut off, we accepted that there should have been no reason to notify Mr C, as it was not foreseen that the valve would be left shut. Mr C's redecoration claim was rejected based on information provided by Scottish Water to their insurers. Scottish Water told the insurers that their investigation had concluded that Mr C must have left a tap on and that this was the cause of the water flooding his property. We found Scottish Water's conclusions to be supported by the evidence available to them. That said, we considered that Scottish Water's error with the shut valve would also have contributed to the flooding, as Mr C's water supply should not have been interrupted on that day. We found that Scottish Water failed to tell their insurers about their mistake and the impact that it had, as well as other information that may have been relevant to the determination of liability.

Mr C, who is a business adviser, complained on behalf of his client, a customer of Business Stream. He alleged that Business Stream were incorrectly charging for water and waste water services based on the wrong effective start date, despite his client drawing this error to Business Stream's attention. Mr C further alleged that his client had been put under unreasonable stress as a consequence, and that Business Stream had not readily agreed to suspend action to recover the money they claimed was due. He maintained that his client had also been prevented from changing suppliers because of Business Stream's mistakes. We investigated the complaint, taking all the relevant documentation into account including Business Stream's complaint file, the relevant bills, internal emails etc. We also made formal enquiries of Business Stream. We did not, however, uphold the complaints. Mr C believed that the premises concerned were a 'gap' site (ie that the site had a live water and waste water connection but neither Scottish Water or Business Stream knew that the property existed). Our investigation established that this was not the case and, rather, the premises were determined to be 'vacant' (ie Scottish Water and Business Stream were aware that the property existed and had a water connection, but believed the premises to be vacant). There were different billing arrangements in place for each of these categories when the water industry market opened for competition. Mr C had mistakenly assumed that his client occupied a gap site rather than a vacant site, and our investigation found that the way in which his client was billed was in fact correct. Our investigation also revealed that Mr C's client's account was suspended during Business Stream's investigation and that there was no evidence of his client being harassed or bullied. Furthermore, as it was confirmed that the company had been properly charged for its water services, we did not find that they had been unreas

Mr C's garden was contaminated when a blocked sewer overflowed. In the process of clearing up other gardens, further contamination was washed into Mr C's garden. Mr C said he was not properly notified of the contamination or the risk to his health. He complained that the clean-up of his own garden, which involved an operative spraying disinfectant for less than five minutes, was completely inadequate. He said that, in contrast, other properties got new topsoil, turf and stone chippings. Lastly, Mr C was unhappy that an operative suggested that he dig raw sewage into the soil. We upheld three of Mr C's five complaints. Scottish Water accepted that some contamination was washed into Mr C's garden during the clean-up operation. We concluded that this run-off had, inappropriately, gone unnoticed. We found evidence that Mr C had not been properly issued with written information and guidance about contamination early enough. We also found that the option of a further clean-up was not discussed with or offered to Mr C, as it should have been. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint of unfair treatment, in that his garden was not re-turfed etc. We took the view it was appropriate for Scottish Water to act proportionately, and to allocate more resources to those who were worst affected. It was not possible for us to establish what Mr C had been told by the operative and, as there was no supportable evidence, we did not uphold the complaint that Mr C had been told to dig sewage into the soil.

Ms C complained that Business Stream delayed in issuing her bill after Scottish Water told them that her business premises were receiving water and waste water services, for which she had not been charged. When Scottish Water identify a property like this, they notify a licensed provider such as Business Stream, who then start billing from the date they were notified. In Ms C's case, however, Business Stream took seven months to issue a bill. The bill was based on the rateable value of the property, as Ms C did not have a water meter installed at that time. During our investigation of the complaint, Business Stream told us that when they receive details of properties that are not being charged for water, they need to open a property account, discover if there is someone in the property and then confirm their details in order to begin charging. However, in Ms C's case, there was no evidence that they had taken any significant action until they issued the bill to her. This was seven months after they received the information from Scottish Water. Ms C then applied for a water meter and her charges were reassessed from the date it was installed. However, this was four months after Business Stream sent out her bill and eleven months after Scottish Water contacted them about Ms C's premises. Ms C complained that Business Stream did not tell her how she could request a meter or apply to have her charges reassessed. Business Stream said that there were no notes on their computer system of any conversation with Ms C about reassessment, but there was information on their website about how to apply. We considered that Business Stream should send out information about reassessment when they initially contact customers who do not have a meter installed. Ms C had benefited from free water and waste water services for six months before Scottish Water contacted Business Stream. We considered that she had some responsibility to ensure that she was paying for these service

Mr C had experienced a recurring problem of raw sewage being discharged into his back garden during heavy rainfall. Scottish Water had investigated and carried out some repairs, but this had not resolved the problem. Mr C believed that this was happening because the sewer was not able to cope with sudden heavy rainfall, and said that it should be replaced. Scottish Water told Mr C that they did not have the funding to do this. He considered this unacceptable, and believed that they should seek additional funding if this was what was needed to resolve the problem. When we investigated the complaint, Scottish Water confirmed that a problem could occur during heavy rainfall, but said that they were tied by issues of funding and prioritising (internal flooding in a property has a higher priority than external flooding, and has to be addressed first) but they had, as far as they were able, taken action to address the problem. We noted that the indications were that they were trying to find a solution. On this basis and given the evidence that the problem was one of funding, rather than coming about as a result of maladministration or service failure, there was no further action that we could take. Related reading View Decision Report 201201979 as a PDF (11.24 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C, who is a business adviser, complained on behalf of his client about Business Stream. He said that bills issued to the client were incorrect, despite Business Stream being provided with the correct information. He also said that, despite requests, Business Stream had failed to install meters at the client's premises and had put the client under undue stress by not putting their account on hold. He maintained that Business Stream's actions had denied his client the opportunity of switching water providers which would have been financially advantageous. We investigated the complaints, taking all the relevant information into account, including all correspondence and statements of account and invoices, together with relevant emails and printouts from the Central Market Agency (CMA). The CMA is the organisation that administers the market for water and waste water retail services in Scotland. We did not uphold any of Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that the information he held and upon which he had based his complaint was incorrect. We confirmed this by reference to information from the CMA. Mr C and his client had been given information about having bills reassessed, which would have allowed Scottish Water to install a meter at their cost, or alternatively for Scottish Water to make a contribution to the necessary cost. We also found that the client's account was on hold, and that Business Stream's actions had not prevented them from switching suppliers. Related reading View Decision Report 201200657 as a PDF (11.4 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained on behalf of a company that Business Stream incorrectly calculated their water charges between December 2009 and April 2012. She said that while she was in dispute with Business Stream about the matter, the company was pursued by debt collectors, although she had been told that the account was on hold. We looked at the correspondence, statements of account and invoices, and printouts from Business Stream's billing system. Our investigation found that when Business Stream issued the company with an invoice in February 2011, they did so on the basis of information provided to them by Scottish Water. In March 2011, Business Stream learned that this information was wrong, and so were the bills they had issued. However, it took until September 2011 for the company's accounts to be closed and for a new bill to be issued. Business Stream were unable to provide us with any reasons for this. We found this to be maladministration and upheld the complaint. Business Stream also provided dates of when the company's account was on hold but we found that a demand for payment was sent to them during this time. This should not have happened because Mrs C had been told the account would be suspended until the matter was resolved.

Mr C complained that Scottish Water failed to respond adequately to his complaint about damage caused by a fish pass they had built. He said that this was causing erosion to a riverbed beside his property. In response to our enquiries, Scottish Water confirmed that they had built the fish pass because their sewer pipe was stopping salmon from getting up the river. They said they had a duty under legislation not to restrict salmon movement upstream. However, they said that the fish pass was not their asset and that it had not been shown that this was causing the erosion. They told us that there had been erosion in the riverbed before the fish pass was built. Scottish Water said that they were not liable for the problem. We cannot establish legal liability. Only a court can look at legal liability between individuals and organisations. However, we can consider complaints about how a body have handled such matters. We were satisfied that Scottish Water had investigated the matter and there was no evidence of administrative error. We also found that Scottish Water's explanation to Mr C about the matter was satisfactory. Related reading View Decision Report 201200120 as a PDF (11.18 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C owns the pull in area in front of his house, which has not been adopted by the council and is private property. Mr C said that Scottish Water failed to identify that this was the case before they started work on the road outside his house. Mr C said that Scottish Water's contractors then used the pull in area although they did not have his consent to do so, and it was damaged as a result. Mr C also said that Scottish Water did not respond adequately to his concerns about foreign material in his domestic water supply and failed to identify/note the location of his septic tank outlet pipe which crosses the road in this area for future reference. Scottish Water accepted that they had initially failed to identify that the area was private property but said that when this was pointed out, their contractors had removed their vehicles and machinery. Both Scottish Water and the contractors had apologised to Mr C. We upheld Mr C's complaint about this but as the apologies were reasonable, we made no recommendations. We did not uphold the complaint about damage as there was not enough evidence of this, and did not uphold the remaining complaints as we did not find that Scottish Water had done anything wrong. Related reading View Decision Report 201105083 as a PDF (11.24 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained to Scottish Water about the length of time they were taking to complete pipe replacement works along a stretch of road. The works affected his commute and he felt that they were taking longer than necessary as Scottish Water's contractors were not working during evenings and weekends. During his correspondence with Scottish Water, Mr C asked why work was not being carried out at these times, and was told that the local authority had placed restrictions on the hours that could be worked. However, when Mr C contacted the local authority, they told him that they had not done this. Mr C complained that Scottish Water deliberately misled him in their letter, as there were in fact no restrictions on the hours that could be worked. Our investigation found that several departments in the local authority were involved in the pipe-replacement works. In their capacity as roads authority, the local authority had placed no restrictions on working hours for the project. Mr C's enquiries had been addressed to the roads service and they had confirmed this to him. However, in their environmental health capacity, the local authority had applied their standard working hours restrictions, which prevented work after 18:00 Monday to Friday and 13:00 on Saturdays, with no work permitted on Sundays or public holidays. We were satisfied that working hours restrictions were in fact in place and that Scottish Water did not deliberately mislead Mr C in their correspondence with him. Related reading View Decision Report 201200265 as a PDF () Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C received planning permission to build two semi-detached properties in the grounds of his former home. When creating the plans for the development, he obtained plans held by Scottish Water which showed that a water main ran through the site. Mr C based the location of his development on the plans he had obtained, ensuring that his properties would not be built over the water main. However, he later found that the south east corner of his properties were built over the mains pipe. Scottish Water told him that he would have to pay for the pipe to be diverted. However, Mr C considered that this was unreasonable, given that he built the properties according to plans provided by Scottish Water, which turned out to be inaccurate. Our investigation found that Scottish Water are legally obliged to supply plans of their water infrastructure that are reasonably accurate. Scottish Water told us that, generally, their plans should be accurate to within a two metre tolerance. However, there may be some inaccuracy. With this in mind, they issue a disclaimer with any requested plans which highlights the developer's responsibility to ensure they know the precise location of any local water mains. Scottish Water told us that the pipe was two metres out from the location shown on the plans. They considered this to be within a reasonable tolerance. Mr C found the pipe when digging the foundations of the properties. He sought advice as to what he should do, but did not contact Scottish Water. He said that the pipe was substantially more than two metres from the location shown on the plans. We examined the plans provided to Mr C and subsequent drawings from a Scottish Water representative who plotted the accurate location of the water main. We found that the pipe was roughly 8.5 metres out from the location suggested in the plans. The evidence presented to us also suggested that Mr C's plans did not include the disclaimer regarding accuracy. We found that Scottish Water failed in th

Mr C decided to change his licensed provider for water and waste water. Just before the change, Scottish Water replaced the water meter serving his business premises. Mr C complained to Business Stream that he received no advance notice of this, and was unable to check and verify either the final meter reading or that the new meter was set to zero. Business Stream told Mr C that Scottish Water’s actions were acceptable, but Mr C remained concerned that a mistake could have been made, and that his final bill could be incorrect. Our investigation confirmed that, under the relevant operational code, if Scottish Water wish to change a meter they are required to notify the licensed provider, and give them 20 business days notice. Business Stream confirmed that they had received the appropriate notice, and provided evidence of this. They also confirmed that, under the standard terms and conditions of their agreement with Mr C, neither they nor Scottish Water were required to contact him before the meter exchange took place. However, they were able to ask Scottish Water for access to the removed meter, as it is a requirement that these are retained for six months following an exchange of meter. This showed that the meter reading in Mr C’s final account was correct and that the exchanged meter was set at zero. As there was no requirement to notify Mr C and no evidence to suggest that the billing was incorrect, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201102212 as a PDF (11.34 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C purchased a farm and then discovered there were water leaks on his property. He asked Business Stream for assistance but they did not respond to his request. One year later he discovered that Business Stream should have referred him to their solutions team who track and fix water leaks. Mr C also considered that he had been provided with poor customer service as Business Stream had not always responded to his letters and telephone calls. We upheld Mr C’s complaint about his request for assistance as Business Stream had not referred this to their solutions team in line with their normal procedure. Business Stream offered him a goodwill payment to resolve this, which we considered to be appropriate so we made no recommendations. We also looked at their communication with Mr C. While we did identify occasions when they had not responded, and delays while awaiting action by Scottish Water for which Business Stream had apologised, on balance we found that Business Stream’s communication had been reasonable. We, therefore, did not uphold that complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201104889 as a PDF (11.18 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

In June 2011, Business Stream told Mr C that there was a leak in his water supply. He tried to establish its source but by October 2011 had been unable to do so. He said that he thought that the leak would equate to a dripping tap. In November 2011, Business Stream told him that he was to receive a large bill and, the same day, issued a bill for more than £20,000. Mr C complained that although Business Stream were aware of the water leak in June 2011, they failed to tell him of its extent which meant that by the time of their November 2011 bill, he had accumulated a large debt. We investigated the complaint and obtained Business Stream's complaint file, all relevant correspondence, Mr C's bills and meter readings together with copies of the applicable legislation. We found that when Mr C was told about the leak, under the applicable legislation and terms and conditions, he was responsible for finding and fixing it. He had been unable to do so and in October 2011, he told Business Stream who suggested that he seek Scottish Water's assistance. Scottish Water found the leak and repaired it at Mr C's expense. Mr C's bill was not sent out until Business Stream established that it was correct. While Mr C was unhappy to receive such a large bill, we found that it was clearly his responsibility to find and repair the leak at his own cost. As he did not so until the end of October 2011, Business Stream could not be held responsible for the cost of the water that had leaked away. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201200506 as a PDF (11.38 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C'’s property was flooded with sewage during heavy rain when a pipe was blocked by inappropriate items that had been flushed into it. His insurance company covered the costs of the damage to his property and Scottish Water reimbursed his insurance excess. Mr C assumed that was the end of the matter. However, when he renewed his household insurance, Mr C'’s insurers informed him that Scottish Water had denied responsibility and the claim had been held against him. He said that this resulted in the loss of his no claims discount and in his insurance premiums increasing. We cannot establish legal liability, nor can we award compensation. Only a court can look at legal liability between individuals and organisations. However, we can consider complaints about the handling of an insurance claim if we find it was not handled properly. We might make recommendations to put things right if we find that the claim could have been handled better or a more detailed explanation should have been offered. We upheld Mr C's complaints. Scottish Water had failed to take into account the fact that Mr C's neighbour had told them about potential flooding the day before Mr C’'s property was flooded. When they referred the insurance claim to their claims handlers, Scottish Water did not tell them about the call from Mr C’'s neighbour. Although the claims handlers said that this information would not have changed their decision, we considered that Scottish Water should have made them aware of this so that they could make a fully informed decision. Under their Guaranteed Service Standard scheme, on occasions Scottish Water will make a payment to customers who are flooded internally from a sewer. In Mr C'’s case, Scottish Water told us that they had not made a payment, because the flooding was external to his property. We told them that Mr C’'s garage had been flooded and it formed part of an extension to his house. In view of this, Scottish Water issued a Guaranteed Service Standard paymen