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 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 operated a bed and breakfast business from their home (the premises) and a number of years ago was identified as a gap site (a property where commercial activity is being conducted and should, therefore, be liable for commercial water charges, but that has not yet been registered for commercial water services). Scottish Water installed a water meter on pipework outside the premises so that C’s water consumption could be measured for commercial water charges. As they had not chosen one, a licensed provider was appointed to manage C’s water account. Following installation of the meter, C began to receive water bills that were disproportionately high for the number of residents and guests in the premises. Investigations by their licensed provider established that there was likely a leak between the meter and the premises. The location of the presumed leak meant that it was C’s responsibility to locate and repair it. C appointed a contractor to undertake this work. The contractor ultimately decided to lay a new supply pipe from the premises to the meter at a cost to C of more than £10,000.00. In doing so, they did not encounter the original supply pipe and no leaks were identified. However, following the work, C’s water consumption fell to a normal level. C subsequently learned that a lot of the work carried out by the contractor had been unnecessary. Scottish Water had previously replaced their communication pipe with a narrower pipe, which was connected to C’s original larger supply pipe. C contended that the work carried out by Scottish Water had caused the leak. C also considered that, had Scottish Water informed them that they had installed a narrower pipe, the contractor would have been able to slide a similarly sized pipe through the original larger pipe, negating the need to excavate the ground and saving a substantial amount of money. C complained that they had incurred substantial financial losses as a result of Scottish Water’s work and lack of communicatio

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 complained that the council, as the building control and planning authority, failed to take reasonable action to address an alleged non-compliance with building control standards legislation and an ongoing breach of a planning condition in relation to the discharge of wastewater at the development site where they resided. C's own property had been built a number of years previously. An issue arose regarding the discharge of wastewater from new houses which were being built at the development site. We took independent advice from a building control adviser and a planning adviser. We found that the developer initially planned to connect the properties at the development site to the sewer network and that building warrants were approved based on their proposals in this respect. When it became apparent that the sewer network required upgrading works before the new houses could be connected to it, we considered that the council undertook reasonable steps to ensure that the revised plan of using a septic tank as a temporary measure was acceptable in building standards terms. We were satisfied that the council sought comments from relevant authorities (Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Scottish Water), both of whom were satisfied with the proposed temporary solution. We were also satisfied that provisions were made in later building warrant approvals to ensure that the developer took responsibility for decommissioning the temporary system and connecting to the sewer network once the upgrading works were completed. In relation to C's complaint that the council failed to take reasonable action in relation to an ongoing breach of a planning condition attached to the development, we were satisfied that, whilst the council had a range of enforcement powers available to them, it was a matter for their discretion as to whether or not to take formal action, to allow the breach to remain, or to take less formal action with a view to reaching a resolution. We found

C complained that Scottish Water had failed to respond appropriately to a number of flooding incidents in their property. C said that Scottish Water had not been open or honest about the cause of the flooding and were refusing to take the only action which would guarantee the protection of their property. C said that Scottish Water’s position had changed whenever they were presented with evidence, which suggested they were responsible for the flooding. Scottish Water denied that they had acted unreasonably, or that they had failed to investigate the causes of the flooding experienced by C’s property. Scottish Water said that they were not responsible for damaged pipework within the property and the public sewerage network had been working properly. They said that there were likely to be different causes for the flooding incidents C had experienced, but that all of them had been investigated. Scottish Water acknowledged that this had taken time, but said there had been a need to liaise with a number of other stakeholders, including the local authority and utility companies. We found that Scottish Water had investigated the incidents of flooding. Additionally, they had correctly informed C that they were not responsible for flooding which emanated from private pipework. C maintained that the private pipework had been damaged by the failure of the public sewer network, which Scottish Water were responsible for. We did not find evidence which supported this, and it was not the only possible cause of damage to the pipework as C had suggested. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint. C also complained that Scottish Water failed to handle their complaint reasonably. We considered that Scottish Water investigated the complaint appropriately. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201907203 as a PDF (24.45 KB) Updated: February 17, 2021

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

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

Ms C complained about the service provided by the council after her property sustained water ingress from a nearby mains water pipe. The pipe was located under a council owned footpath and fed a nearby property. Scottish Water was unable to assist in the circumstances and so the council undertook to investigate the leak. Subsequently, a contractor appointed by the council excavated the footpath and fixed the leaking pipe. Initially, the water ingress into Ms C's property ceased. However, a short time later Ms C contacted the council to advise of a reoccurrence of the water ingress. The council did not accept Ms C's position that the work carried out by their contractor had caused the further ingress and decided not to undertake further work on the pipe. Ms C was unhappy with the way the council had dealt with the leaking pipe. We found no evidence that these repairs were inspected by the council prior to or at completion to ensure that they were carried out to a satisfactory standard. We concluded that there was a lack of appropriate oversight over the works and we upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint. Ms C also had concerns about the way the council handled her correspondence and complaints. The council acknowledged to Ms C that they had not responded to a number of her letters, yet we found that they did not adequately establish the reasons as to why this happened. While other aspects of the council's complaint handling were satisfactory, we upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

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

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 Scottish Water (SW) delayed in reinstating a permanent water supply to his property and that their communication in relation to this matter was unreasonable. Mr C requested a mains supply lead replacement. After completing works, the new pipes were attached to the water supply system. Shortly afterwards, his neighbours reported that they had no water. It was established that during the works at Mr C's property, the joint supply to his neighbours had been cut. Mr C was unhappy because he said that he had been misled by SW into believing that the water supply at this property was not a joint one. SW considered that a public health issue had arisen as the neighbours' water supply had been disrupted and they took action to install a temporary overland water supply. They also apologised for the incorrect information they had given. At the same time, they detailed the works they would carry out to renew the existing pipework to the rear of Mr C's property and to the boundary of each of his neighbours (SW are only responsible for the water main in the street and communication pipe up to and including the stop-cock. The water supply to individual premises inside a property boundary is the responsibility of the property owner). It was SW's view that, notwithstanding any incorrect information they may have given Mr C, it was in fact his responsibility to establish the actual situation with regard to the supply pipes; they did not hold records about these nor were they part of the public supply network. Their role in this was only to remove the lead pipe belonging to them and lay a new pipe from the public water main to the boundary of Mr C's property where it connected to the private pipework. The temporary mains pipe was laid and it was not until a year later that it was removed. We found that despite any incorrect information SW may have given, it was Mr C's responsibility to determine whether or not his water supply was shared. Delays were c

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.

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).

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).

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 complained that a sewer located behind his property routinely flooded, damaging his garden. Mr C said that Scottish Water had not taken reasonable steps to fix this and that they had not responded properly to his complaints. Scottish Water said that they had responded to all the incidents of flooding but the problem was more widespread than Mr C's property and it had taken considerable investigation to identify the cause and possible solutions. Scottish Water also said that they had provided increasing levels of support to Mr C as the severity of the problem became apparent. We found that Scottish Water had acted reasonably in investigating the flooding incidents and supporting Mr C. They had carried out extensive works to repair any damage and they had increased the level of support to Mr C as the complexity of the problem became apparent. In relation to complaint handling, we found that Scottish Water should have referred Mr C to the complaints process earlier than they did. However, it was clear that Scottish Water had taken steps to improve their responses to him and the way they handled complaints. Therefore, we did not uphold either of Mr C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201801684 as a PDF (23.83 KB) Updated: March 20, 2019

Mr C complained that Scottish Water had failed to resolve the flooding issues he was experiencing and that they had not handled his complaints reasonably. We found that Mr C was experiencing more than one type of flooding. Scottish Water had responded reasonably to his concerns, but one source of flooding to the front of his property was due to storm events overloading the sewerage network and could not be easily resolved. Scottish Water were working with the council to address this. Mr C was also experiencing problems caused by a drain at the rear of his property. We found that this was not part of the public network and although Scottish Water had carried out work on it previously, they would not adopt it into the public network. We considered that Scottish Water's position was reasonable and that they had offered to provide assistance and support to Mr C, even though they were not obliged to. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201801415 as a PDF (23.72 KB) Updated: March 20, 2019

Mr C complained that Blue Business Water had failed to investigate his complaint adequately. We found that Mr C had been given incorrect advice by Blue Business Water staff, leading to some confusion on the part of Mr C about monies he was due to pay to Scottish Water. However, we found that Blue Business Water had admitted this error and had made an offer of compensation. On balance, we considered that Blue Business Water's investigation of Mr C's complaint had been reasonable, and we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201706120 as a PDF (10.78 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 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 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.