SPSO Individual Decisions

There was a leak in a pipe which fed a field trough. This was not detected and Ms C was faced with a large, unexpected bill. The leak was in pipework that was her responsibility. However, Business Stream had failed to read the meter for three years and Ms C felt this had made the situation worse. When Ms C contacted Business Stream to complain, they apologised for the error and reduced the amount due by 50 percent. When she contacted us, we confirmed that, while we upheld her complaint that there had been a failure to read the meter, we considered that Business Stream had made an appropriate response and we did not recommend the bill be further reduced. Ms C also complained that she had initially been offered a leak allowance only to be then told that this would not be given. This is because leak allowances are only available when the customer has water and a sewerage supply, and Ms C had a water only supply. (Although called a leak allowance, it amounts to a reduction in the sewerage bill when it is clear that water has leaked and not been taken away through the sewer system. As Ms C had no sewerage bill, there was no bill to reduce.) We did not uphold this complaint but did comment to Business Stream that the explanation they gave Ms C about why she was not eligible was unclear. Related reading View Decision Report 201202733 as a PDF (11.29 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained on behalf of a golf club about Business Stream. He complained that Business Stream had sent the club an unexpected bill, after an audit identified that they had never been charged for drainage and wastewater charges. During our investigation, Business Stream told us that the charges were for services that the golf club had used, but for which they had not previously been charged. They said that the club had benefited from this, as they were not being charged for part of the period involved. However, despite Mr C's request, we found that Business Stream had not in fact provided him with a full explanation about how the problem had occurred. Part of Mr C's complaint was that that Business Stream rejected his offer to repay the money over four years. Business Stream told us that 24 months is the longest period they offer for repayment and that they were acting in line with the relevant policy on this. In order to try to resolve the matter, we asked Business Stream if they could make an exception in this case and extend the repayment period to 36 months. Business Stream responded to our request saying that they would be willing to extend the repayment period to 36 months due to the relatively small balance, and in order to assist the club. They said this although this action was outwith their normal process, they wished to resolve the issue and hoped this action went some way to achieve this.

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 failed to read his meter between April 2011 and January 2012. He said that, had they done so, it would have been evident that a large amount of water was passing through the meter, indicating a leak. A leak was eventually identified, but not before Mr C received a sizeable water bill. Business Stream advised Mr C that he should read the meter himself to ensure that his readings were accurate. However, he did not feel comfortable doing so, as the meter was located next to a busy road. We upheld the complaints about failure to read the meter, and about complaints handling. Our investigation found that Business Stream should have carried out two actual meter readings during the period in question. One of the readings for Mr C's meter was estimated, so we concluded that it might have been possible for the leak to have been identified earlier. That said, it was also possible that the leak occurred after the time the meter should have been read. We found that Mr C's meter was relocated next to the road after meter readers complained that it was contaminated in its former location (a yard inhabited by cows). We were, however, satisfied that, after Mr C raised safety concerns, Business Stream moved it to a safer location. We were critical of Business Stream for failing to provide a detailed response to Mr C's formal complaint.

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, who represents a company, complained that Business Stream had charged the company for trade effluent waste without formal consent. He also said that the charges were based on an unreasonably high daily availability figure which did not reflect the average usage. We found that consent for the charges had been in place for a number of years. We were satisfied that the charges were based on this and were calculated in line with Business Stream’s charging statement. In the absence of a request by the company to review the consent, there was no requirement for Business Stream to do so. Related reading View Decision Report 201200592 as a PDF (10.95 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C runs a small business. She complained about the way her bills had been handled by Business Stream. Mrs C was told in June 2011 that she had not been paying enough for her water and had a backlog of debt. Since then, the amount for which she is being billed has doubled. Until 2009, Mrs C paid for water based on the rateable value of the property. A Scottish Government decision meant that from 1 April 2009 all businesses began paying for water, based on the amount they used. To allow businesses to adapt to this, the move to the new charging system was phased, with only 30 percent of the bill in the first year being based on usage and this moved to 100 percent on 1 April 2011. As part of the new scheme, Business Stream are required to read the meters to ensure actual meter readings twice per year. Mrs C received bills from 1 April 2009 until 10 June 2011 based on estimated readings. When the first meter reading was made, it was shown that the business had used considerably more water than had been estimated. Mrs C queried this and it was found that there had been an error and this bill was reduced. However, she was still left with a debt and it became clear that due to the change from rateable value to charging by usage, Mrs C was facing considerably larger bills. Our investigation found that Business Stream had made a mistake when they first read Mrs C's meter. However, they were now calculating bills correctly. We also considered the Scottish Government policy. The aim of the phased period was to allow businesses time to adjust and to take any action they could to reduce their water usage prior to the bills being solely charged on usage. We found, however, that Business Stream had failed to read the meter for nearly two years. This meant that Mrs C had not been able to take any action or to prepare for the increase in bills. Even although the bills were now correct, we upheld her complaint that Business Stream failed to handle the billing approp

Mr C complained that Business Stream had not notified his business of high water consumption after his meter was read. He did not learn of it until he received the bill early the following month. The reason for the high consumption turned out to be a water leak on his side of the water pipework, and, therefore, his responsibility to repair. Mr C considered that, if Business Stream had notified him promptly, he would have learnt of the leak earlier and could have reduced the consumption by repairing the leak. Our investigation found that Business Stream's written policy was that they would try to notify customers where usage was significantly higher than usual. In this case, we were satisfied that the consumption was not significantly above previous readings but that, even if it had been, Business Stream's policy did not give any guarantee of notification. We did not uphold the complaint, as we found that Business Stream had not acted unreasonably in not notifying Mr C of the reading earlier. Related reading View Decision Report 201202015 as a PDF (11.13 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

Business Stream contacted Mr C asking for details of his business so that he could be billed for water. He was initially reluctant to provide the requested details but after further discussions, Business Stream issued his first bill. Mr C was unhappy to find that this was for a substantial sum, as it had been backdated to when his business moved into the premises. He complained about the way Business Stream went about setting up his account and about the way they pursued him for water charges dating back several years, despite the absence of previous bills. We found that the property had previously been occupied by another business, who had told Business Stream when they moved out. The property was, therefore, classed as vacant from that date and Mr C had a responsibility as the new occupant to make arrangements to pay for the water supply. We acknowledged that Mr C may not have been aware of his obligations due to changes that had been made to the water industry shortly before he moved into the property. However, we did not find that Business Stream had any obligation to actively check whether a new occupant had moved in. They had identified Mr C's business during a routine audit of vacant sites, and we found it was appropriate for them to contact him at that point. Mr C had challenged the accuracy of meter readings that were taken during the period that his property was believed to be vacant. We accepted professional advice indicating that the amount of water used was in line with what would be expected for a property of this size and type. We also noted that a single water bill had been issued, with the first and most recent readings not being in dispute. As such, whilst Business Stream were unable to provide evidence that each meter reading was accurate on the date attributed to it, we were satisfied that the correct amount had been charged for the water that was used. We were, however, critical of Business Stream for continuing to pursue Mr C for outs

Mrs C complained on behalf of a village hall committee about Business Stream. She was unhappy with the water services the committee had been given. In particular, she said that their water meter had not been read for over a year, significantly increased consumption had not been brought to their attention and that Business Stream had failed to communicate adequately with the committee. She also alleged that Business Stream took a large amount of money from the committee's bank account by direct debit, without warning, when their water account was supposed to be on hold. In investigating the complaint we took all relevant information into account, including statements of account, details of meter readings and customer correspondence etc. We did not, however, uphold most of Mrs C's complaints. We found that the meter had not been read between December 2009 and June 2011 although Business Stream had a statutory obligation to take a meter reading at least once a year. However, we found that after the December 2009 reading, a reading was intended to be taken in December 2010. This, however, was prevented by adverse weather conditions on the day, which were well documented, and so the meter was next read on 19 June 2011. In the circumstances, we did not consider this unreasonable. During the period when the meter was not read, estimated bills were issued. After the reading in June 2011 a bill was issued based on the reading, which reflected very high comparative usage. Although Mrs C argued that their use of water had not changed, neither the committee nor Business Stream could find a problem with the meter. Business Stream explored other possible explanations for the spike in usage but found nothing. They, therefore, concluded that the apparent increase in use reflected the catch-up required after the committee had been sent a number of estimated bills. On balance, we concluded that this was a reasonable position to take. While Mrs C complained about the way

In May 2011, Ms C received a bill from a reading of a meter that did not belong to her. Business Stream apologised to her for this in October 2011 and confirmed that they had wrongly billed her for this meter. They said they were crediting her account with £20 in recognition of a failure in service standards to reply. However, Business Stream then credited the wrong account and continued to invoice her for the wrong meter. Ms C complained by email, phone and letter to Business Stream over the next year. When she brought her complaint to us, she said that the matter was unresolved and Business Stream had not responded to her recent correspondence. Our investigation found that Business Stream had written to Ms C in July 2012, confirming that she had been wrongly invoiced and that all charges for this meter would be credited back to her account. Business Stream told us that they were now satisfied that the billing was on the correct meter and the charges were correct. However, there had been a long delay in resolving the matter, and we did not consider that Business Stream had provided Ms C with a clear explanation of how her current account balance had been calculated. Also, we found that Business Stream delayed in replying to Ms C’s correspondence, and had not compensated her in accordance with their complaints procedure for the failure to reply to correspondence.

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, 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

Mr C, who is a business adviser, complained on behalf of clients about Business Stream. He said that Business Stream had billed his clients for water services based on incorrect information. He maintained that although he brought these inaccuracies to Business Stream's attention, they failed to amend them or change their bill. He said that as a consequence, his clients had been put under stress by Business Stream who did not readily put the account concerned on hold until the matter had been resolved. He said that his clients had been prevented from switching suppliers and that a switch might have been to their financial advantage. We investigated the complaints, taking all the relevant information into account, including all correspondence and statements of account and invoices, internal notes and emails, together with printouts from the Central Marketing 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 showed that although Mr C maintained that Business Stream had used the incorrect start date for invoicing, the CMA information confirmed Business Stream's understanding as correct. Mr C's client's account had been put on hold for the duration of the complaint and the client's own actions, in disputing their bill, was what had prevented them from switching users. Related reading View Decision Report 201200658 as a PDF (11.36 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

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

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

Ms C operated a small business from a kiosk in a shopping centre. She had a water meter and paid her landlord for water and waste water. Business Stream sent her a bill for property and roads drainage based on the rateable value of her kiosk. She did not consider this was correct as her kiosk was entirely within the centre and had no separate roof or roads which required to be drained. She thought that Business Stream were charging more than once for drainage of the same water. We found, however, that Business Stream had charged her in line with their billing policy and on the same basis as the other tenants in the shopping centre. We did not uphold her complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201200781 as a PDF (10.97 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.

Ms C occupied business premises in April 2004. She complained that in 2011 she received a telephone call from Business Stream telling her that she would be receiving a bill from them for water charges for the year March 2010 - 11. She complained that this was unreasonable as it was the first time Business Stream had ever contacted her. Our investigation found that although Business Stream are the default provider as part of the water industry's regulatory regime, they were under no obligation to identify, or to identify quickly, premises where there was no licensed provider. However, in Ms C’s case it had been identified in March 2010 that Business Stream would act in default as her provider, but she was not told about this until a year later. We took the view that this was too long and upheld the complaint.

Mr C, a business owner, complained that Business Stream inappropriately charged him for the water services to a neighbouring domestic property. The water supply for both properties went through Mr C's meter. During our investigation, we found that where there is a metered supply that includes a domestic property, the domestic property should not pay for water services in their council tax. Business Stream instead charge their business customer, in this case Mr C, for the metered usage. Mr C's neighbours in the domestic property should, therefore, have paid him for their consumption in a private arrangement. Business Stream's relevant policy states that they cannot become involved in any disputes about this. That said, we made two recommendations to Business Stream, as we had concerns about the way they handled Mr C's complaints. We considered that Business Stream failed to take ownership of the complaints and failed to provide adequate advice about how Mr C could pursue the matter with his neighbour. They also incorrectly stated in a letter that Mr C was due a reimbursement from them.

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 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

Mr C said that until Business Stream contacted him, he was unaware of his liability to pay water/waste charges to them. He said he had asked for a site visit but no-one came. He then received a bill backdated to May 2008 but the supply address was incorrect and he was concerned that he was being charged for the wrong premises. He said he had been in the same premises since 2007 and did not understand why it had taken Business Stream so long to realise he was there. He also said that they had given him conflicting information by assuring him that his account was on hold while his complaints were looked into, then pursuing him for payment and charges. From 1 April 2008 all businesses with a water/waste supply are obliged to register with a licensed provider and pay for their service. The fact that Mr C was unaware of his responsibility to do so does not affect the fact that he is liable for water charges. We found no evidence that he had requested a site visit or of any undertaking from Business Stream to perform one. Business Stream said that as another street ran onto the street where Mr C’s premises are located there may have been an input error into their system. They confirmed that the water meter concerned serves only Mr C’s premises, and they amended the address on their system to ensure that the correct address appears on future bills. They also explained that they picked this up during an initiative to identify businesses that were not registered with a licensed provider (in which case Business Stream becomes the licensed provider by default). Business Stream confirmed that Mr C’s account was on hold while his complaints were investigated. We did not uphold any of Mr C's complaints as we were satisfied that Business Stream had followed the appropriate procedures. Related reading View Decision Report 201105291 as a PDF (11.52 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018