SPSO Individual Decisions

C complained that the disconnection date of their water supply was not accurately reflected in their billing. C owned a dog grooming studio that had ceased trading. C said that the original supply to this building was from their home. C had always paid correctly for any water usage. When the business closed, the building was being converted for domestic use. The water supply had been physically disconnected and the building was uninhabitable. C and Clear Business Water (CBW) were in dispute over fixed water charges for the premises. CBW’s position was that a property could not be disconnected until Scottish Water registered it as such. C believed that they had been clear at the outset that this was what they required but CBW had not responded reasonably to C's request, meaning that they had been subject to fixed charges over an extended period. We found that CBW did not make it clear to C that they had the option of de-registering their water connection or applying for permanent disconnection. Had this been done at the earliest opportunity, the responsibility would have lain with C to decide what action to take. We also found that CBW failed to challenge Scottish Water’s refusal to back date charges sufficiently, given that C as their customer was unable to raise a dispute directly with Scottish Water. We upheld C's complaint.

C operates a restaurant who contracted with Clear Business Water (CBW) for their water supply. C complained that prices charged by CBW increased which was in contrast to what had been agreed. C also complained that CBW unreasonably charged a termination fee when they changed supplier for a better deal. CBW said that they agreed a contract with C for the supply for a fixed term of 3 years at a discounted rate. They told C that the price being charged increased because of a number of factors but that the discount applied to the account always remained the same. As C left CBW for another supplier, CBW were satisfied that a termination fee was correctly applied in line with the terms and conditions of the contract. C was dissatisfied with the response and brought their complaint to our office. We reviewed the relevant call recording together with supporting materials CBW said were issued to C following the call. We also considered CBW’s own processes and procedures with respect to the handling of such calls. We found that the communications with C were unreasonable as it was clear during the call that there was a barrier to C and the CBW adviser’s ability to understand each other. The information provided to C after the call did not provide confirmation of certain key aspects of the contract, nor was there confirmation that prices may be subject to variation. Therefore, we upheld the complaint that CBW failed to communicate with C in a reasonable manner. We also found failings with respect to CBW’s handling of C’s complaint.

Mr C complained that Clear Business Water (CBW) unreasonably charged his business premises for water on the basis of estimated meter readings. He said these estimated readings were based on the usage of the previous owner who operated a different type of business and for many more hours per week than Mr C’s business. He said the last time CBW read the meter at the premises was nearly a year before he had taken it over. He said that had CBW read the meter when they should have, they would have noted that it had been removed and he could have been charged on an ‘unmetered’ basis and his bills would have been considerably smaller. CBW received a query from a meter reader who had attended to read the meter at Mr C’s premises for the first time since Mr C had taken over the lease. The reader thought the meter may have been removed as they were unable to locate it. There followed a lengthy dispute during which several attempts were made by Scottish Water on behalf of CBW to attend and try to locate a meter. Mr C was advised he would need to remove boxing behind a cistern to allow for inspection and would need to cover the costs of this. He was unwilling to bear the cost himself and declined to have the boxing removed. We found that had CBW read the meter every six months as they should, in terms of the Market Code for Licensed Providers, they may have identified an issue with the meter sooner and Mr C may not have been billed for so long based on the consumption of a previous tenant. We also found that Mr C’s refusal to uncover the pipework at his own expense meant that CBW could not have carried out a full inspection. Mr C had a contractual responsibility to allow CBW access to the pipework even if that meant that he had to incur costs in doing so. However, we saw no evidence to show that CBW told Mr C of his contractual responsibilities. Had they done so, Mr C may have agreed to carry out the necessary works. As CBW may have missed an opportunity to determine

C complained that Clear Business Water (CBW) had failed to bill their organisation accurately. C said that consequently they could not be certain that the bills were for properties that they were responsible for. C said that previously they had only had to supply leases to CBW and they had not had to provide information on the start or end of tenancies, or contact details for the tenants. We found that CBW had provided a list of all the accounts they held for C's organisation and they had provided the Scottish Assessor's Association which corresponded to each account. It was, therefore, possible for C's organisation to ascertain which account was for which property. In addition, it was a requirement of the relevant legislation that the owner of a property provide the licensed provider with details of occupancy. We found that CBW were acting reasonably when billing C's organisation and did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201806550 as a PDF (24.11 KB) Updated: July 22, 2020

Mr C complained that Clear Business Water (CBW) had failed to bill him appropriately. Mr C informed CBW that his restaurant had ceased trading but he occupied the premises above the restaurant which still required water. Mr C said that they were continuing to bill him as if his business was still operating and that he was receiving invoices on the basis of a large restaurant. We found that Mr C had been billed on actual meter reads and that CBW had manually recalculated his outstanding balance according to the information he had supplied. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint. Mr C also complained that CBW failed to handle his complaint reasonably. We found that there was a delay in Mr C's correspondence being dealt with as a complaint. Therefore, we upheld the complaint. However, given the action taken by this office in response to an earlier complaint we did not make any further recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201810094 as a PDF (24.12 KB) Updated: July 22, 2020

Mr C complained on behalf of Mr A, who owned a business. Mr C complained that Clear Business Water failed to bill the business appropriately. Mr A believed that his water bills were too high and he had extensive contact with Clear Business Water over a number of months whilst efforts were made to establish a reason for this. After agreement with Mr A, Clear Business Water arranged for Scottish Water to conduct a site visit and the engineer identified that a valve close to the meter was the cause of the issue. This valve was fixed and meter readings were subsequently obtained in order to calculate a 'burst allowance' credit. A credit for a limited period was applied to Mr A's account, whilst non-payment charges were also cancelled. Mr A remained unhappy with Clear Business Water's response to his complaint and Mr C brought the complaint to us. We found that, although it took a number of months to identify the issue with the water supply, Clear Business Water communicated with Mr A appropriately and they did not significantly contribute to the delay. We also noted that Clear Business Water had offered a goodwill payment to Mr A and subsequently extended the period for which the burst allowance credit was applied. We concluded that there were no failings in the service provided to Mr A and we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201808639 as a PDF (24.33 KB) Updated: June 17, 2020

C received waste and water services from Clear Business Water (CBW). C was charged for waste and water services for two supply point identification (SPID) pairs for their rented property. C complained because they did not consider that this was reasonable, as they considered they only had one SPID pair associated with their property. While there were elements of this complaint which stemmed from third party information provided to CBW, we found that CBW failed to bill C reasonably for their water charges. There were failings to identify the duplicate SPID pair earlier in C's contact with CBW, and when C was invoiced for the duplicate SPID, insufficient information was provided to explain the significant bill. We upheld this aspect of the complaint. We found that CBW failed to reasonably communicate with C. C was charged a significant amount of money with no explanation as to why this was being raised and what SPID or period of time this was in reference to. In addition, CBW continued to pursue C via Universal Debt Collection for payment of the account, despite the account being put on hold. This was unreasonable. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of C's complaint.

Ms C complained on behalf of an organisation. She said that they were not issued with appropriate terms and conditions by Clear Business Water and that Clear Business Water failed to communicate reasonably with them about their concerns. Clear Business Water acknowledged there was a delay in issuing the relevant terms and conditions. They offered to apologise for the error, refund the charges on the account and pay them a sum of money as a goodwill gesture. Ms C confirmed she wished to withdraw her complaint, as it had been resolved to their satisfaction. Related reading View Decision Report 201807360 as a PDF (23.55 KB) Updated: September 18, 2019

Ms C complained that she had been unreasonably billed for water she had not used. Ms C said that she had received an unexpectedly high bill, and that she had been charged for a visit by Scottish Water to verify if the water usage was due to a faulty water meter. Ms C said Clear Business Water (CBW) had failed to read her meter for a year and that they had not told her she would be charged for the visit by Scottish Water. Ms C said she accepted there had been a leak on her pipework, but said it had not been significant and, had she been aware of it sooner, that she could have reduced the amount that she owed. We found CBW had acted unreasonably by failing to read Ms C's water meter, as required, every six months. We also found it was unreasonable not to have informed Ms C that she might have to pay a charge for the visit by Scottish Water and, therefore, we upheld Ms C's complaints.

Mr C complained that he was unreasonably billed by Clear Business Water (CBW), despite having paid his water bills regularly. He also complained about the way CBW had pursued payment of the disputed amount. We found that Mr C's accounts had previously been inaccurately recorded by another water provider. However, we found that CBW had explained the reason for the outstanding sum and that Mr C had used the water that payment was being requested for. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. In relation to CBW's debt collection process, we found that it was confusing and unreasonable and therefore upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Mr C complained on behalf of a tennis club that they were unreasonably billed for water it did not use. Mr C said that Clear Business Water (CBW) had failed to read the meter as required. This meant that a leak had not been identified and an excessive amount of water had been lost. Mr C also complained about CBW's handling of his complaint. Mr C received correspondence which appeared to be from a debt collection agency. Mr C said that he had discovered this was in fact part of the same organisation as CBW, although this was not communicated clearly. Mr C felt that this was deliberate and designed to intimidate. We found that CBW had acquired the account from another licensed provider, who had failed to read the meter as required of them. Consequently, CBW were responsible for this failure and should have identified and addressed it in their complaint investigation. We also found that the approach taken by CBW to debt recovery was inappropriate, as the correspondence sent to Mr C had failed to explain the reason why a different organisation was pursuing payment. It also referred inaccurately to the English court system. We found that CBW had refused to suspend recovery while the sum was in dispute and had been unable, or unwilling, to allow the club to continue paying for their ongoing water usage, insisting that all payments should be put towards the disputed amount. This meant that Mr C's club was continually hit by late payment charges. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaints.

This summary is linked to case 201608499 in relation to Clear Business Water. Mr C complained to Clear Business Water about roads drainage charges applied to his business. Mr C argued that these charges should not apply as he does not have a physical connection to the water supply. Clear Business Water said they could not deregister this aspect of the charges however, they referred the matter to Scottish Water who carried out a site inspection. Scottish Water advised Clear Business Water that the charges should still apply as Mr C's business has the benefits of facilities which drained to the public sewerage systems, implying that Mr C's employees could use the facilities of a business next door. While SPSO's investigation was ongoing, Scottish Water identified that Mr C should never have had roads drainage charges applied to his business. Mr C was refunded appropriately. Under our powers of the SPSO Act 2002, the Ombudsman decided that we should review the actions of both Scottish Water as a listed authority and Clear Business Water. We found that Clear Business Water failed to take responsibility for reaching their own determination of Mr C's liability and to pursue any disagreement with Scottish Water through the dispute resolution process detailed in the Operational Code. With regards to Scottish Water, we were critical that they took the view that Mr C's business should be liable for roads drainage charges but did not provide adequate evidence to justify their position. We were also critical of the length of time it took both Clear Business Water and Scottish Water to resolve this matter. We upheld the complaint and made recommendations to both Clear Business Water (see case 201608499) and Scottish Water (see below).

This summary is linked to case 201810639 in relation to Scottish Water. Mr C complained to Clear Business Water about roads drainage charges applied to his business. Mr C argued that these charges should not apply as he does not have a physical connection to the water supply. Clear Business Water said they could not deregister this aspect of the charges however, they referred the matter to Scottish Water who carried out a site inspection. Scottish Water advised Clear Business Water that the charges should still apply as Mr C's business has the benefits of facilities which drained to the public sewerage systems, implying that Mr C's employees could use the facilities of a business next door. While SPSO's investigation was ongoing, Scottish Water identified that Mr C should never have had roads drainage charges applied to his business. Mr C was refunded appropriately. Under our powers of the SPSO Act 2002, the Ombudsman decided that we should review the actions of both Scottish Water as a listed authority and Clear Business Water. We found that Clear Business Water failed to take responsibility for reaching their own determination of Mr C's liability and to pursue any disagreement with Scottish Water through the dispute resolution process detailed in the Operational Code. With regards to Scottish Water, we were critical that they took the view that Mr C's business should be liable for roads drainage charges but did not provide adequate evidence to justify their position. We were also critical of the length of time it took both Clear Business Water and Scottish Water to resolve this matter. We upheld the complaint and made recommendations to both Clear Business Water (see below) and Scottish Water (see case 201810639).

Mr C complained that Clear Business Water unreasonably charged him for water services for his business. Mr C's company trades from two units (Unit 1 and Unit  2) and had been paying another water service provider for both units. A number of years later, Unit 2 was allocated by Scottish Water to Aimera as a 'gap site' (a non domestic property that is connected to the Scottish Water Network and is yet to be registered. This means that although it is connected to the water system, the site has never been billed by a provider, as there are no records held for the property). Aimera contacted Mr C several years ago with regards to billing but Mr C explained that he was already paying another provider for both sites. Mr C heard nothing more for nearly two years, when he received correspondence from Aimera regarding unpaid water charges. Clear Business took control of Aimera later that year and continued correspondence with Mr C in relation to the water charges. We found that Mr C's invoices from his current water provider were confusing as they mentioned both units but in fact they were only providing a service for Unit 1. Although this was not the fault of Clear Business Water's, we found that their communication with Mr C had been inconsistent and confusing. Mr C did not receive any correspondence for nearly two years and he did not find out the basis of his liability for Unit 2's water charges until Clear Business responded to his complaint. We found that Clear Business failed to provide a reasonable explanation of the liability for water charges and we upheld Mr C's complaint. However, we considered that Mr C had notice he was liable for services for Unit 2 when he was contacted by Aimera about unpaid water charges and that it was reasonable for Clear Business to invoice from this date onwards. Any sums owed before that date, we recommended be written off.

Mr C made a complaint about Clear Business Water (CBW) regarding charges for non-domestic water rates. Mr C was acting on behalf of a landlord who owned a building with multiple tenants. All of the tenants were paying their water rates individually and, therefore, the landlord was not liable for any charges. Mr C received an invoice for water and was told by CBW that the invoice was for a bulk meter which covered the water and waste liability for the whole property. They explained that the tenants were no longer paying this part of the bill. CBW advised that the previous meters were all deregistered from the market and the basis for the current invoices was correct. Mr C was unhappy with this response and brought his complaint to us. We found that CBW had been approached by one of the tenants about changing the charging setup to a bulk meter. They stated that they spoke with a representative of the landlord (and colleague of Mr C) who agreed to the installation of the bulk meter. We listened to a call between CBW and the representative of the landlord and were not of the view that consent was given to install a bulk meter, only that CBW could arrange for an initial survey into the matter. We noted that they had not notified Mr C when the account was created and this was something they were required to do under The Market Code. We also found that CBW failed to advise Mr C in initial correspondence that they were billing under The Deemed Contract Scheme where the scheme requires this to be clearly identified to customers. Overall, we found that while the charges were technically correct and liable, the communication from CBW had been poor. We found that the account did not have the authority of the landlord to be created as they did not approve the installation of the bulk meter. Therefore, we upheld this complaint.

Mr C complained that Clear Business Water provided him with inaccurate invoices and that their communication with him had been unreasonable. We found that once a meter reading was submitted, Clear Business Water issued accurate invoices to Mr C. They also made various offers for discounts on the invoices, which they were not obliged to offer, and it was up to Mr C whether or not to accept them. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. In relation to communication, we found that Mr C had experienced delays with getting a response to his contacts. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. As Clear Business Water had already acknowledged and apologised for this failing, we did not make any further recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201803753 as a PDF (23.64 KB) Updated: February 20, 2019

Mr C made a complaint about the charges due for water at his business premises. He was unhappy that Clear Business Water took so long to contact him and then that the charges were too high. This was mainly due to meter readings which showed a high level of consumption that were not in keeping with the small number of facilities on site. Clear Business Water agreed that the consumption was unusually high and that this should be investigated. They checked the meter for a fault but no issues were found. They asked Scottish Water to check if there was a shared meter where someone else could have been using the same supply point but this was found not to be the case. Clear Business Water suspected a possible leak and asked Mr C if any had been identified or fixed. Mr C confirmed that this was not the case, so Clear Business Water agreed to monitor the next few invoices to see if the readings remained high. The readings returned to normal and therefore Clear Business Water concluded that there was no leak. As they had explored all potential options, they concluded the balance was due as the water had passed through the meter. Related reading View Decision Report 201708387 as a PDF (11.12 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Mr C complained that Clear Business Water overcharged him for water usage. He said that the meter reading showed a higher consumption of water usage than his previous readings. Mr C also complained that he was unfairly charged for a replacement water meter. Clear Business Water investigated this complaint but found no failings in terms of the charges applied. Clear Business Water advised Mr C that higher water usage can indicate a leak. Mr C had his property checked but found no leaks and believed that his water meter was faulty. He agreed for his water meter to be removed for testing and was advised that he would have to pay for the new meter installation, if his old one was found to be in working order. An accuracy test was carried out and the results showed that there was no fault with the recording of water usage. We found that whilst Clear Business Water had acknowledged that the increase in usage may suggest a fault, at no stage was it confirmed that the meter was faulty or that it was being replaced because of a fault. In addition, although a marked increase in water usage had been noted, this in itself was not evidence of a fault with the water meter. In terms of the charge applied for the replacement water meter, we found that Clear Business Water had provided clear advice in that Mr C would need to pay a charge if the original water meter was tested and found to be recording accurately. We found that they acted reasonably and, therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201609351 as a PDF (11.24 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018