SPSO Individual Decisions

C complained on behalf of a business, which operated out of two neighbouring premises. C complained about Castle Water Ltd's management of the business's water account. The business had been a customer of Castle Water Ltd for a prolonged period and paid a monthly direct debit for their water and waste water usage. The business began to receive invoices from Castle Water Ltd that C disputed. Over a number of months, C attempted to clarify why the invoices had been issued and what amounts were due to Castle Water Ltd. C met with a representative of Castle Water Ltd who advised that the business's account was up-to-date and that they were, in fact, in credit. However, a payment of £505.47 was subsequently taken from the business without notice. Castle Water Ltd explained that this amount had previously been overlooked and that it was owed by the business. C complained that the business was issued with numerous invoices and credits that did not add up to the amounts taken from the business's bank account. C noted that the business had always paid the monthly amounts set by Castle Water Ltd in line with their tariffs and questioned why the business was being charged additional amounts without explanation. The business remained in dispute as to the amounts owed, due to a lack of clear explanation regarding the reasons for the additional invoices. C was also dissatisfied with the way that their complaints to Castle Water Ltd were handled. Whilst we were satisfied that the provider handled C's complaints in line with their complaints procedure, and did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint, we were however concerned by a number of aspects of their handling of the business's account. We found that the provider began issuing invoices to the business, treating them as an unassigned premises, without realising that the business had already been paying the provider for water services for a number of years. When C questioned the invoices, the explanations that they w

C complained that Castle Water Ltd did not reasonably handle matters related to a water leak. C operated a bed and breakfast business from their home (the premises). Castle Water Ltd were appointed as the Licensed Provider for water and waste water services at the premises. Scottish Water fitted a water meter to the pipework supplying the premises so that water usage could be measured for commercial water charges. C subsequently received water bills that were disproportionately high for the number of residents and guests in the premises. Following a number of attempts to speak to someone at Castle Water Ltd, C was eventually able to raise their concerns around four months after the meter was fitted. A representative of Castle Water Ltd attended the premises and it was established that there was likely a leak on the pipework between the meter and the premises. C was advised that this pipework was their responsibility and that they would need to appoint a contractor to locate and repair the leak. Ultimately, C’s contractor replaced the full length of pipe from the premises to the meter at a cost of over £10,000.00. Whilst no leak was found, the water usage dropped to an acceptable level following the works. In replacing the pipework, the contractor found that a length of narrower pipe had been used to connect the meter to the premises’ pipework. C said that, had Scottish Water made them aware that the narrower pipework had been used, the contractor could have passed a similarly narrow pipe through the existing supply pipe, negating the need to excavate the ground and saving C a substantial amount of money. C attempted to recover the cost of the excavation works from Scottish Water through Castle Water Ltd. C complained that Castle Water Ltd failed to reasonably assist them to do so. C also complained that the staff failed to adequately communicate with them regarding their water account and the issues relating to the leak. We found that Castle Water Ltd took reasonabl

C has two properties registered with Castle Water (Property A and Property B). C said they were given a quote for one year of water services which they paid immediately. Castle Water used the payment for one address to cover bills on both properties. C said they were then told the amount quoted was to cover to the end of the financial year, not the calendar year, and C said this was never explained to them. C said there was no explanation why the funds which were to cover a distinct property were used for another property. Castle Water said that C had not been overcharged and the charges were due and payable. We found that C selected ‘monthly’ billing when they signed up Property B. C meant to select ‘annual’ billing. This caused some confusion as Castle Water were billing C for Property B in the manner they had requested, taking funds off the credit in the account. C also paid the quote for Property B before the account transferred, meaning there was some confusion about where the money should be allocated to. C's actions contributed to the confusion, however, C was told the credit would be transferred to the property once the transfer of provider completed and this did not happen. C was also given different explanations about what their payments would cover and were twice given quotes for a calendar year, which Castle Water do not provide. We found that Castle Water failed to take ownership of the situation and resolve it properly. There had not been a clear, accurate, unchanging explanation of what had happened, why and what C ultimately owes. As such, we upheld the complaint.