SPSO Individual Decisions

C complained about Business Stream's communication regarding their account. There was also disagreement between C and Business Stream over the amount owed in respect of the account. Business Stream accepted an unreasonable length of time had been taken regarding the matter and that they could have been more proactive in seeking some information from C. In seeking information from Business Stream to assist in investigating the complaints, we advised them of the amount C believed was owed in respect of the account and if Business Stream accepted this amount, that C would consider the matter resolved. Business Stream and C came to agreement over the amount owed in respect of the account. Therefore, given that resolution had been achieved and the matter resolved in C's view, there were no grounds for us to continue the investigation and discontinued it. Related reading View Decision Report 202101632 as a PDF (24.11 KB) Updated: March 22, 2023

C runs a small business and was unhappy with the way Business Stream managed their account. In particular, C was unhappy with what they believe were unreasonable changes to their contract and changes to the amount they were expected to pay for water. We found multiple failings by Business Stream in their dealings with C; including not taking reasonable steps to address the issue of the removal of the water meter for C’s premises, having no evidence that C agreed to a change of contract or agreeing to online billing only. In relation to moving C to unmetered charging, Business Stream have acknowledged that their failures led to an unacceptable delay and offered the maximum allowable payment and credit available under their Redress and Compensation Policy. However, there is no evidence that the causes of the failings have been investigated or identified. We considered that this was essential given the impact on small businesses of large and unexpected bills, particularly in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. We upheld C’s complaint.

C complained that Business Stream had not billed their business accurately. C said that they had been told by an employee of Scottish Water that their premises did not drain into the public network, but into a nearby river. Business Stream had initially not accepted this, stating that Scottish Water required further site visits to verify the situation. C also complained that Business Stream had taken too long to resolve the situation. We found that, although Scottish Water had initially considered that C was being charged for water they were not liable for, they thereafter wanted to investigate matters further. We found that Business Stream had tried to resolve matters for C and were acting in good faith on the advice that they had received from Scottish Water in this connection. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint. We also found that, although colleagues of C's had contacted Business Stream on several occasions to complain that they were not liable for drainage charges, they had not provided the information Business Stream had requested, nor had they followed up the complaints. We considered that Business Stream had explained clearly what information they required and that they had pursued the matter with Scottish Water once this had been provided. We found that they had handled C's complaint reasonably and did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201900738 as a PDF (24.29 KB) Updated: December 22, 2021

C purchased a former business premises for conversion to domestic property. At the time of the original purchase the business was deemed to have a 'nil' value for business water charges. The law later changed, bringing that part of the property which had not yet converted, back into charge. C was not made aware of this until they received demands for payment sometime later. C complained that they were not liable for any charges as the water supply and discharge of waste water at the property was now covered by domestic council tax. They also raised concerns about the time taken to advise them of the charges and the threatening nature of the correspondence. Business Stream did not accept that there was an error and noted the existence of a supply number as evidence for charging. C complained to this office, noting that the complaint had not been dealt with adequately and no one had been to inspect the site to establish if there was a connection. We upheld the complaints about communication of the debt and complaint handling. However, we found that the existence of the supply number entitled Business Stream to charge under the new regulations so did not uphold that aspect of C's complaint. C disagreed, stating there was no actual water/waste water usage for the unconverted parts of the property and requested a review of our decision. We approached Business Stream who agreed to carry out a site visit to establish the position. Following the visit, Business Stream advised that they now consider there was no charge attached to the property for business water and all water charges were covered by council tax. While they could not say precisely when the change occurred, they agreed to remove all charges from the account and remove the supply reference to ensure no future problems. Business Stream also apologised to C that they had not carried out this site visit from the outset, making an ex-gratia (voluntary) payment to reflect this. C accepted these apologies

Mr C complained that Business Stream incorrectly arranged for a meter to be installed at a vacant property belonging to his business, and were not entitled to charge for the provision of water and waste water services. Business Stream explained that following inspections by Scottish Water, it was established that there was a live supply to the property, that the meter which had been present was no longer there and, in the absence of evidence that a formal disconnection had been requested, they were entitled to install a meter and charge for relevant services. Mr C was not satisfied with the response and brought his complaint to us. We saw evidence of Scottish Water undertaking inspections at the property. These established the presence of a live supply to the property, albeit the meter had been removed and the connection was not in use. There was no evidence of a formal disconnection, or one having been requested. In the circumstances, and in accordance with changes in government policy, Mr C's business was liable for charges for a live connection to the water network, regardless of whether the property was derelict. Scottish Water were entitled to install a meter and Business Stream were entitled to charge for services. We did not uphold the complaint. Mr C also complained that Business Stream's handling of his complaint was unreasonable. We found that Business Stream carried out a reasonable investigation and provided Mr C with appropriate responses. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201808488 as a PDF (24.34 KB) Updated: November 18, 2020

Whilst C was carrying out works to replace their business's boiler, they discovered that water running through their meter had been supplying two neighbouring businesses, because the meter had been incorrectly fitted years before. They complained to Business Stream (BS) and requested a refund for the amount they had been overcharged. BS accepted liability for the incorrect charging but only offered to refund five years' worth of charges, asserting that the older charges had prescribed (expired) under the five-year limit in the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 (the 1973 Act). C complained to BS that this was unfair, particularly considering that the company had been paid twice, as their neighbours were also BS customers, but BS refused this. C's said that BS had unfairly failed to consider refunding them the full amount. We found no evidence that BS had fully considered the complexities of the 1973 Act, in order to calculate when, and if, the debt should have prescribed. Despite repeated requests from C and this office to provide an explanation of their legal position, they were unable to explain this in sufficient depth to justify their approach. In addition, their policies on prescription were suggestive of a blanket approach to applying the five-year limit in all cases, without considering potential exceptions. We considered that these factors were evidence that BS had failed to fairly consider refunding C in full. Towards the end of our investigation, BS did provide a reasonable legal rationale to suggest that the debt should be prescribed. However, we were critical of the fact that C had to resort to complaining to our office before this was forthcoming. In addition to refunds that were legally required, BS told us it was their policy was to consider whether an ex-gratia (voluntary) payment was appropriate to extend refunds beyond the usual five years, taking account of the specific circumstances of the case. However, there was no eviden

C complained on behalf of A regarding a bill for water usage at a business premises which was unusually high. After the water meter was removed and tested, it was found to be faulty, in that it was under-recording water usage. C was dissatisfied that these tests results were only representative of the meter performance at the time of it being tested and not at the time of the spike in usage. C also highlighted that the area was subject to historic flooding. We did not identify evidence that the spike in water usage was supported by historic flooding in the area. The evidence available showed that the meter was under-recording the volume of water usage and did not explain the increased usage. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201808152 as a PDF (24.03 KB) Updated: June 17, 2020

Mrs C, an MSP, complained on behalf of her constituent (Mr A) that Business Stream had unreasonably failed to provide Mr A with an accurate bill for his water usage. Mrs C also complained that the handling of her complaint by Business Stream was unreasonable. Mr A owns a farm which shares the same water supply with five other properties and historically the meter readings for the usage of all the properties were taken from the main meter sited at a neighbouring farm. Scottish Water installed a new meter at the farmhouse, however, they subsequently stated that the new meter was installed in error and could no longer be used. Billing reverted to the original meter and sub-meters were installed in the five properties. Mr A complained to Business Stream as his licensed provider. They liaised with Scottish Water who confirmed that the initial instruction to install a new meter outside the farm was the wrong action. Business Stream outlined that Mr A had two options presented, and proceeded to set up the billing based on the option to deduct the usage on the five domestic sub-meters from the readings on Mr A's meter. There were further billing issues which exacerbated Mr A's concerns and he took practical action to remove his meter from the non-domestic water market. Mr A remained unhappy that his bills had been inaccurately calculated and Mrs C brought his complaint to us. We found that Business Stream's shared supply policy set out only three options when a shared supply has been identified. These were that the pipework is altered to remove the domestic property from the supply at the cost to the customer, to remove the meter and charge unmeasured services, or that the customer is billed fully and can then recoup the charges from the domestic customers as a private arrangement under water re-sale rules. We noted the option progressed by Business Stream was not in their policy. Business Stream explained they were following a briefing note from Scottish Water is

Mr C complained that Business Stream were unreasonably double billing him for water. He said that his property had two separate units, one which was a flat originally tenanted but now separately owned, and another that was a vacant commercial unit which had been renovated. Originally there had been a single metered supply but this had now been separated, with each property supplied individually. Mr C said Business Stream were unreasonably billing him for water used by the flat, despite agreeing that it should be charged for water through its council tax bill. Mr C also complained that he was being unreasonably charged property drainage and the charge for a new water connection was too high. Related reading View Decision Report 201801389 as a PDF (10.86 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Mrs C, who is an MSP, made a complaint about Business Stream on behalf of her constituent (Mr A). Mrs C complained that plans which Business Stream prepared for a new water and sewerage connection were not accurate. Mr A said that his contractor had to undertake additional work as a result of concrete surrounding the pipework and that this resulted in an increased bill for Mr A. Mrs C considered that Business Stream should be liable for these costs. Mrs C was also unhappy about the time taken by Business Stream to respond to the complaint. Business Stream advised us that the purpose of the drawings was to allow Scottish Water to make an informed judgement as to whether a connection could be granted; it is stated on the drawings that they are created on approximate information and that no guarantee of accuracy can be given. Given this, Business Stream stated that any contractor providing a quote for prospective work should undertake an investigation prior to proposing the cost of work. Business Stream acknowledged that the layout of the pipework was different than expected but stated that, despite some additional difficulties, they understood that the contractor completed the work. They were unsure why the costs had increased but speculated that this was because the contractor opted to drill through the concrete rather than follow an approach that the inspector had suggested. We noted that Business Stream provided documentation to Mr A prior to the creation of the plans which he was charged for. This documentation stated that plans were a "best estimate of work" and that the existing location of water and sewer mains were unknown and therefore all lengths "will be assumed at this stage" Based on the above information, we considered the potential for the plans to be inaccurate was outlined to Mr A prior to the plans being drawn up and work commencing. No further charges were raised by Business Stream when it was identified that the pipework was different from

Mr C complained that Business Stream was incorrectly charging him for surface water drainage at his business premises. He said he was not liable for this as the guttering and downpipe along the building fed into a soak away in the ground. Business Stream made three requests for the supply point ID (SPID) to be de-registered by Scottish Water. Each request was refused and Business Stream requested that a verification of service visit was undertaken by Scottish Water to clarify if surface water charges should apply. A visit found that the guttering and downpipe were not connected to the main sewerage system. This report was sent back to Scottish Water, who determined that the water which landed on the car park adjacent to Mr C's business premises dispersed onto nearby roads which did connect to the main sewerage network, therefore charges remained liable. Business Stream reflected the view of Scottish Water, despite their inference that they did not agree with this view. Mr C remained unhappy and asked us to investigate. We asked Business Stream for all of the information they held regarding the complaint and their determination of Mr C's liability for charges. They provided details of the responses from Scottish Water to the three de-registration requests which indicated differing reasons for refusals on each decision. The information indicated that Business Stream did not question this further and applied the charges to Mr C. Business Stream did not begin a dispute process, which is outlined in their operational code. We were not satisfied that Business Stream had made a clear decision themselves and we considered that this had resulted in delays for Mr C and potentially incorrect charges. We took the view that Scottish Water had arranged for the premises to be inspected and this report advised that the property was not connected to the main sewer system. We found that Scottish Water then took an opposing view on this based on assumptions about the rain

Mr C complained about Business Stream. Mr C operated a mobile snack van which was located on a car park in a business park. He did not believe he should be liable for water charges as he was not connected to the main water and sewer supply. However, despite Business Stream making requests to Scottish Water for the premises to be de-registered, the premises was deemed eligible as water ran from the roof onto the car park and down the drain. Mr C complained to us that Business Stream had unreasonably billed him for water charges. We requested all of the relevant information from Business Stream. We sought their views on Mr C's liability and they requested that the case be passed back to them again to make a further de-registration request to Scottish Water. We allowed them to do this but the de-registration request was refused. Business Stream then took the decision to remove all charges on the account given the length of time the issue had been going on and the fact tht Mr C was no longer trading from the premises. They also apologised to Mr C for the inconvenience caused. As the removal of charges and an apology were the outcomes Mr C was seeking from his complaint, we closed his case. Related reading View Decision Report 201606644 as a PDF (11.15 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C made a complaint to Business Stream that he was unreasonably invoiced for backdated water charges for the commercial premises he rents. Business Stream responded to Mr C by advising that they had been billing Mr C's landlord for the period in question as they believed there to be a shared meter and therefore considered that it was a private matter between Mr C and his landlord to share costs through this period. Scottish Water had then made them aware that the pipework had been amended and that the two separate premises within the building should have been billed separately. Business Stream refunded Mr C's landlord and billed Mr C for backdated charges, beginning from the date they became aware that he had moved into the premises. Business Stream noted that, in the circumstances, The Prescriptions and Limitations (Scotland) Act 1973 allowed them to apply backdated charges for services which they had provided and Mr C had used. They also confirmed that the charges were based on the rateable value of the property which Mr C was using and the size of the meter serving the property. Following Mr C's complaint, Business Stream removed all recovery charges from his account and made credit payments as goodwill gestures. Mr C remained unhappy about the backdated charges and brought his complaint to us. He complained that Business Stream had unreasonably billed him for the water charges. We obtained all of the information relating to the complaint from Business Stream. We noted that they were correct to calculate charges based on the rateable value of the property. The decision to backdate the charges was also reasonable and Business Stream provided evidence of the steps taken to minimise the charge to Mr C where possible. They also correctly cited legislation which allowed them to do this. We, therefore, did not uphold Mr C's complaint. However, we noted that it took Business Stream almost 12 months to respond to Mr C's complaint. We therefore made a recomm

Mr C is the secretary for a business. Mr C complained that Business Stream had failed to notify the business of their increased water usage, that they had failed to properly investigate the cause of the issue and that they did not deal with his complaint in line with their procedures. We found that, once they had become aware of the high water usage, Business Stream did make appropriate contact with the business to alert them of this. We received evidence of the call that was made to the business, and we also noted that the business received invoices that illustrated high meter readings. We also found that Business Stream took appropriate action in investigating the cause of the leak, in line with their responsibilities, and that they contacted Scottish Water to investigate the issue further when it was appropriate. We did not uphold these aspects of Mr C's complaint. However, we found that Business Stream did not advise Mr C clearly of his rights to escalate his complaint to stage two of the complaints procedure. We also found that they failed to issue Mr C with a final response to his complaint. We, therefore, upheld this part of Mr C's complaint.

Ms C complained about her liability for water charges, as well as the manner in which she was billed for them by Business Stream. We contacted Business Stream to request information regarding the complaint. They responded by asking to re-open a dialogue with Ms C to attempt to bring the case to a satisfactory conclusion. Ms C listed various matters which she wished to be addressed and the organisation agreed to all of her requests. Ms C was satisfied with this outcome and we therefore closed her complaint without further investigation. Related reading View Decision Report 201608438 as a PDF (10.8 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about Business Stream's handling of his water charges, and their subsequent handling of his complaint. Mr C had an existing water account for his business premises based on a particular supply point identification number (SPID) (a reference number used to identify a water connection). A field visit was carried out by Business Stream, and a second account for Mr C was created in error based on a duplicate SPID. This resulted in a significant bill for Mr C. Business Stream recognised the error, and requested that Scottish Water remove the duplicate SPID. However, Scottish Water removed the SPID for the original account, as well as the duplicate. As a result, Business Stream requested a new SPID and account for Mr C. This was created by default as a water and waste water account, however, Mr C's original account was a water only account. He therefore, requested that the new account be amended. A significant period of time passed during which the account was assessed by Business Stream and Scottish Water. Mr C complained to us that Business Stream had: unreasonably charged him when he had no SPID unreasonably had the new account created for him following the field visit unreasonably charged him under the duplicate account had a new account created as a water and waste water account, which meant that Mr C was unreasonably charged for waste water which he was not liable for handled his complaint unreasonably Business Stream acknowledged that there had been a number of failings in the case, but noted that, following the removal of the accounts, they had effectively provided credit for approximately five years, and had made a further payment to Mr C in recognition of his experience. We took independent advice from a chartered engineer with experience in the water industry. We upheld three of Mr C's five complaints. We found that Business Stream appropriately levied charges prior to the time that the second account was opened. We also found that it

Mr C made a complaint about backdated charges regarding water rates at a business unit he rented. Mr C used this unit for storage only and did not think he should be charged water rates. The water supply was temporarily capped and Mr C was under the impression this meant he would not longer have any charges, but Business Stream advised this was not the case and subsequently billed him. Mr C was also unhappy that his bill was passed to a recovery agency while his complaint was on-going. He also complained that it took nine months for Business Stream to respond at stage two of his complaint. We began an investigation into Mr C's complaint, but were contacted by Business Stream who had reviewed their paperwork. They were of the view that the charges asked of Mr C were still correct but they did acknowledge failings in their complaints handling and gaps in the information they held on file. They therefore proposed to refund Mr C 50 percent of the bill he had paid. Mr C was satisfied with this outcome and the complaint was closed without further investigation. Related reading View Decision Report 201608651 as a PDF (11.1 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about Business Stream. Mr C runs a charity shop and had applied for water rates exemption for the premises. Mr C was unhappy about the way that Business Stream handled his request for water rates exemption (a scheme where property owners can be exempt from paying part or all of a water bill for a property, based on various criteria). In particular, he was concerned about communication between Business Stream and his organisation. He was also concerned that Business Stream did not submit the application for exemption to Scottish Water to make the final decision, as he felt this would be the usual process. Mr C also had concerns about the amount he was paying for his water and, following investigation by Business Stream, his previous meter had been removed and replaced. Mr C was unhappy with the rateable value Business Stream used for his premises when calculating the outstanding balance. Following investigation we found that Business Stream had failed to provide Mr C with a reasonable level of service in relation to his application for exemption as they had failed to respond to his correspondence in a timely manner. They had also failed to provide a clear explanation of why the information submitted was not sufficient to allow them to pass the application onto Scottish Water. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint. However, following receipt of information from Scottish Water, we established that it was not unreasonable for Business Stream not to send the application to Scottish Water when they did not have all of the information required to support the application. We also found that Business Stream had used the correct rateable value in line with their rateable value policy. We therefore did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. We did not see any evidence that Business Stream had responded to Mr C's correspondence asking them about this issue and we therefore recommended that they now respond to him about this.

Mr C considered that his water bills were excessive and he contacted Business Stream to raise his concerns. Business Stream confirmed that Mr C's water meter was also supplying the premises next door. Mr C complained that Business Stream had been aware of the meter set-up for some time. Business Stream confirmed that Scottish Water had carried out a site visit some years previously and had established that Mr C was on a shared supply with his neighbours. Both Scottish Water and Business Stream said that this was a private matter between Mr C and his neighbours. They explained that at the time of the meter installation the two properties were in one building, and that Scottish Water were under no obligation to split the supply. Business Stream told Mr C that water resale rules applied. They continued to bill Mr C, saying that he could recover charges from his neighbours. However the neighbours refused to pay Mr C any money, as they said they were also being billed by Business Stream. Scottish Water advised Mr C that he could have a new meter installed, but that he would have to bear the cost of this. Mr C complained to us that Business Stream unreasonably failed to notify him that his water meter was supplying a neighbouring property, unreasonably charged him while also charging his neighbours for the same supply and unreasonably delayed in responding to his complaint. We upheld each of these complaints. We found that Business Stream ought to have notified Mr C as soon as they became aware from Scottish Water that the water supply was shared. We found that Business Stream had been misapplying water resale rules and were unreasonably charging two parties for the same supply. We found that the delay in responding to Mr C's complaint had been unreasonable. When we told Business Stream what we intended to recommend, they agreed to arrange instalment of a new meter serving only Mr C's property, at no cost to Mr C.

Mr C complained that Business Stream had unreasonably charged his company, which owns a rail station, for property and roads drainage water charges. He also complained that there should not have been any return to sewer charges from a water meter that serviced locomotives belonging to the company. The issue of the return to sewer water charge was resolved to the satisfaction of both parties when Business Stream, based on calculations provided by Mr C, backdated a zero percent return to sewer allowance for the company. After investigations by Business Stream, who provided information about the liability for the property and roads drainage charges, it was agreed by Mr C that there was some drainage of waste and surface water from the property into the public sewerage system. As such, a resolution was achieved in establishing that his company did in fact have liability for these charges. No decisions or recommendations were made as this case was resolved after action was taken by Business Stream following our involvement. Related reading View Decision Report 201606874 as a PDF (11.05 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that Business Steam failed to act reasonably in respect of backdating his water charges. Mr C's complaint concerned two adjacent properties (property A and property B) that he rented over a period of some years. Mr C initially rented property A for approximately three and a half years. During this time, there was cyclical re-evaluation of the properties; however, as a cyclical re-evaluation, this was not reflected in billing, consistent with Business Stream's policies. Approximately 18 months later, Mr C also rented property B. He continued to rent both property A and property B for approximately three years. Mr C then ceased to occupy property A. At this point, the Scottish Assessor's Association updated the records to merge the properties retrospectively for the period Mr C occupied them both, increasing the value of the properties to account for the re-evaluation. Business Stream sought to backdate Mr C's water charges for this period. Mr C disputed Business Stream's basis for the charges. After considering the relevant Rateable Value Policy, and obtaining independent advice from a water policy consultant, we upheld Mr C's complaint. We found that Business Stream had backdated Mr C's water charges based on a later version of their Rateable Value Policy; however, the version of the policy in force at the relevant time specified that water charges would not be backdated in this manner. We recommended that Business Stream re-assess Mr C's charges, and apologise to him.

Mr C complained about Business Stream regarding a request he made for a burst allowance (an allowance made against sewerage charges when water is lost because of a burst pipe) following an increase in his water bill due to a leak. Mr C explained that the leak was outside his property boundary, on a pipe that both he and his neighbour believed had been disconnected many years ago when the property was separated. Business Stream refused Mr C's request, stating that, to be eligible for a burst allowance from Scottish Water, a customer must have a waste water connection, which Mr C's property did not. On investigation, we confirmed with Scottish Water that this was not correct. Scottish Water confirmed that burst allowances could be granted to reduce supply charges, regardless of whether a customer had a waste water connection. We found that Business Stream had failed to recognise this error despite many opportunities to do so in response to both Mr C and our enquiries. We also found that, as they did not consider the request would be successful, Business Stream chose not to submit it to Scottish Water for their consideration. We considered this to be unreasonable in the circumstances, as this was a decision for Scottish Water to make. For these reasons, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Miss C, a utilities consultant, complained about Business Stream on behalf of her clients, a trust. Miss C told us that she had recently requested that the trust's water accounts be transferred to another supplier. She said that Business Stream had initially blocked this request, as the trust had entered a contract with them until 2018. Miss C then contacted Business Stream to ask about the contract and any exit fees and was told that there was no record of a contract, so no fees would apply. She then reapplied for the transfer and the accounts were moved to another supplier. Business Stream contacted the trust shortly afterwards, once again confirming that a contract had been in place and requesting payment for exit fees incurred as a result of breaking the contract. Miss C then submitted a complaint about the miscommunication, requesting that the fees were written off. Business Stream accepted that they had failed in their communication and apologised. However, they refused to write off the fees as they had supplied the trust with copies of the contract before the accounts were transferred. On investigation, we found that Business Stream had incorrectly told Miss C that there was no contract in place on more than one occasion. The reason given to Miss C for this was that staff in the customer service team were not able to access a copy of the contract, as this was stored on a part of the system reserved for account managers. We found that all staff should still have been able to confirm the existence of the contract by referencing discounts showing on any of the trust's invoices. Despite this, we also considered that Business Stream should have done more to ensure that their systems made clear to staff when a contract was in place. For these reasons, we upheld the complaint. However, we confirmed that Business Stream had provided the trust with copies of the contract before the contract began, and after Miss C first requested that the accounts be transfer

Mr C complained about Business Stream regarding a number of charges he had received for failing to make a formal repayment agreement when his account fell into arrears. He said that he had agreed to a repayment plan with Business Stream's debt collectors and stressed that he had adhered to this until his arrears were cleared. He said that the only outstanding balance on his account was due to the charges applied, which he considered were unfair. On investigation, Business Stream accepted that it was reasonable for Mr C to expect that he had entered into a repayment agreement with them, as he had been paying regularly. They therefore agreed to write off the outstanding charges. We were satisfied that this represented a reasonable resolution to the complaint, as was Mr C. Related reading View Decision Report 201603824 as a PDF (10.93 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C, a solicitor, complained on behalf of an organisation regarding Business Stream's failure to backdate overpayments dating back to 2002. After a survey was carried out in 2014, the organisation was fitted with a new water meter, the standing charge for which was almost £6,000 a year lower than it had previously been. Mr C complained that the organisation had understood from correspondence received in 2002 that Scottish Water had committed to replacing the meter with one of correct size, and said that the organisation had assumed this to have taken place. Having reviewed the correspondence of 2002, we were satisfied that further communication between the organisation and Scottish Water would have been necessary before the survey and installation were carried out. The organisation had the opportunity to follow up but chose not to. They also enquired about a meter survey in 2009 but did not follow up on Business Stream's response. With regard to whether Business Stream had unreasonably failed to backdate payments in respect of fixed charges, we found no maladministration and Business Stream had followed their policy. Accordingly, we did not uphold that complaint. Mr C also complained about Business Stream's handling of the organisation's complaint. We found that responses were sent without delay and that Business Stream's position remained consistent throughout, and we therefore we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201601871 as a PDF (11.26 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018