SCOTTISH PUBLIC SERVICES OMBUDSMANANNUAL COMPLAINTS REPORT 2012–2013

WATER

Learningfromcomplaints

Supportingpublic serviceimprovement

Improvingcomplaintshandling

This is one of a series of reports through whichwe are aiming to put key messages, informationand analysis of complaints about individualsectors into the public domain. We anticipatethat Parliamentary committees, governmentdepartments, scrutiny bodies, regulators and localauthorities will find this an effective means ofenhancing the learning from our work andidentifying issues arising from the complaintswe see. Equally, we hope it will prove useful tomembers of the public who seek more informationabout the kinds of complaints that are escalatedto the SPSO and how we handle them.

CONTENTS

Ombudsman’s Introduction 4

Casework 6

Sharing the Learning 12

Case Studies 14

Water Cases Determined 2012/2013 18

This is our first full reporting year forcomplaints about water providers. In lastyear’s annual report, we concentrated on thetransfer of water complaints to SPSO fromWaterwatch Scotland, the complaints handlingbody that was abolished in August 2011.Water complaints are now fully integrated intoour business processes andwe are able toreflect inmore detail on these.

Anunusual jurisdictionAs anOmbudsman for public services, ourjurisdiction overwater complaints is unusual.We are solely responsible for complaints aboutScottishWater for domestic customers.The situationwith business, or non-domestic,customers ismore complicated and is uniquefor us. Services to non-domestic customers areusually provided through a licensed provider.Licensed providers are the only organisationsthat have the choice of opting in to ourcomplaints service. TheWater IndustryCommission for Scotland can take complaintsabout any licensed providers that choose not todo so. In 2012/13, two new licensed providers(ThamesWater and Veolia) opted to comeunder our jurisdiction, taking the currenttotal to five.

Despite some new entrants to themarket,the single largest licensed provider remainsBusiness Stream. Given their significantproportion of themarket (over 95%), it is notsurprising that last yearwe considered only onecomplaint about a licensed provider other thanBusiness Stream.

Key trends in our figuresWith 353 complaints received about waterproviders in 2012/13, this sectormakes up8.5%of ourworkload. The single largestsubject of complaint was billing and charging,representing 47%of all water complaintsreceived. The rate of complaints reaching us tooearly, before the organisation’s complaintsprocedure has been completed, was a subjectof concern in the first part-year inwhichweassumed responsibility for water complaints.I ampleased to report that this rate hasimproved significantly, falling from56% inthe 2011/12 period to 38% in 2012/13.I congratulate ScottishWater in particular forthis reduction, which is a result of steps theyhave taken to enhance how they deal withdissatisfied customers.

OMBUDSMAN’S INTRODUCTION

SPSO ANNUAL COMPLAINTS REPORT 2012>2013 WATER PAGE 4

I ampleased to reportthat the rate ofwatercomplaints coming to ustoo early has droppedfrom56% in 2011/12to 38% last year

SPSO ANNUAL COMPLAINTS REPORT 2012>2013 WATER PAGE 5

Although recording differencesmakecomparisons difficult, we note a generalshift in workload from domestic tonon-domestic service users. Much of thismay be related to the difficult economicclimate in which small businesses areoperating, whichmay have encouragedbusiness owners to lookmore closely attheir outgoings, as well as other factorswhich are explored in this report inmore detail. The overall uphold rate ofcomplaints in the water sector was 45%compared with 44% last year and againthere were differences in the rate betweendomestic and non-domestic providers.The water sector rate is in line with theaverage rate of upholds across all sectorsin 2012/13 which was 46%.

Outreach and engagmentIn addition to our complaints handling work,we engage with the water providers and theWater Industry Commission for Scotland toensure that we are sharing information fromcomplaints learning effectively. We are alsoinvolved with customer issues throughConsumer Futures (which represents waterconsumers) and attend their CustomerForum, at which we present caseworktrends and analysis.

One of the benefits of our process is thetransparency of our decisions. Last year wepublished 81 complaints about water on ourwebsite. Through this, water providers cananalyse trends and identify improvementsthey canmake to reduce any failings we find.Similarly, the public can see the kinds ofcomplaints that aremade to waterproviders, gain insights both where we do

not uphold complaints and where we do,and find examples of the kinds of redresswe are able to recommend. I urge waterproviders tomake themost of these toolsand to demonstrate to their customers theways in which they value complaints andhow they use them to drive improvement.

JimMartinOmbudsman

OMBUDSMAN’S INTRODUCTION

Oneof the benefitsof our process is thetransparency of ourdecisions. Publishing ourdecisionsmeanswaterproviders can analysetrends and identifyimprovements they canmake and the public cangain insights bothwherewedonot upholdcomplaints andwherewedo, andfindexamplesof the kinds of redressweare able torecommend.

CASEWORK

Number of complaints receivedanddealtwithLast yearwe received a total of 353 complaintsabout water providers of which 239were aboutBusiness Stream, 113 about ScottishWater, andone about anotherwater provider, Aimera Ltd.We dealt with a total of 347 complaints: 213about Business Stream, 133 about ScottishWater and the one about Aimera Ltd. In thatinstance, the individual turned out to simply belooking for advice about how to pursue a possiblecomplaint.

The number of complaints received and dealtwith differs because some cases received at theend of 2011/12were dealt with in 2012/13.

Whatwedowith complaintsAt the end of this report, there is a tablewith theoutcomes of all thewater complaints we dealtwith. Below, we identify some of the key pointsandwhat we do at each stage of our process.

AdviceAll complaints and enquiries come first to ouradvice team. Their role is to provide information,signposting and support. Much of this work isconducted by telephone and they not only provideadvice about ourwork but also help people findadditional support. They canmake a decision ona complaint if it is clearly amatter that we arenot legally able to consider or it has come to ustoo early. We normally are only able to deal withcomplaints when they have completed theorganisation’s complaints process. If a complaintcomes to us too early (we call these prematurecomplaints) wewill let the person knowhowbesttomake the complaint to thewater provider.Wecan also give advice about other organisationsthatmay be able to help, such as Citizens AdviceBureaux, who can support people through thecomplaints process.

All enquiries and the vastmajority of prematurecomplaints are dealt with by our advice team.In 2012/13, the teamhandled four enquiries and

209 complaints about watermatters, of which124were premature. At the next stage in ourprocess, where complaints receive furtherdetailed review, another ninewater caseswere determined as premature.

Assessing complaintsLast year,138 complaints passed on from theadvice stage to further detailed review. At thisstage, we try wherever possible to talk to thecomplainant tomake surewe understand theircomplaint andwhat outcome theywant.We aimto see if there is a resolution that would beagreeable and acceptable to all parties and in asmall number of caseswewere able to achievethis.We also have to assesswhether there arereasonswe should not take the complaintfurther.We can only investigatewherewe havethe legal power to do so.

We know it is frustrating for complainants if wecan’t resolve a complaint or take it further and sowe try to take this decision as quickly aswe can.Last year, we decided at this stage that we couldnot take 40 cases further. This was because theywere premature, out of jurisdiction, or becausethe complainant did not provide uswith enoughinformation, withdrew the complaint, or wantedan outcomewe could not achieve for them.We provide a breakdown of the decisionswemade at this stage at the end of this report.

Investigating complaintsAt the investigation stage, we decidewhetherthe complaint should or should not be upheld.In order to do so, wewill consider all theavailable evidence and in some cases, wemayrequest independent advice fromone of ouradvisers.We have twowater adviserswhoprovide advice on hydrological and technicalmatters. The SPSO remain responsible for thedecisionsmade on each complaint andwe arecareful to ensurewe test the advicewe receiveand that it is of the highest quality.

SPSO ANNUAL COMPLAINTS REPORT 2012>2013 WATER PAGE 6

SPSO ANNUAL COMPLAINTS REPORT 2012>2013 WATER PAGE 7

CASEWORK

> Wereceived353complaints and dealtwith347

> The rate of complaints coming to us too early dropped from56%

(for part of 2011/12) to38% (the rate across all sectors is 40%)

> The rate of upheld complaintswas45%, slightly up from44%last year (the rate across all sectorswas 46%)

> Peoplewho received advice, support and signposting:209

> Number of cases decided following detailed consideration

pre-investigation:40

> Complaints fully investigated98with 81* publicly reportedtoParliament

> Wemade99recommendations for redress and improvement

* Wepublicly report the decisions aminimumof sixweeks after sending the decision letter.In a small number of caseswedonot put information in the public domain, usually to preventthe possibility of someonebeing identified.

Key figures inwater complaints 2012/13

SPSO ANNUAL COMPLAINTS REPORT 2012>2013 WATER PAGE 8

CASEWORK

DecisionsWhenwe investigate, we always issue awrittendecision. This is an important record and sets outin detail what we have investigated and how. Theorganisation and the complainant will receivecopies. Thewritten recordwill be in one of twoformats. Inmost casewe issue decisions byletter. This letter remains private betweenourselves and the parties. In order to ensurelearning is shared, we publicly report a summaryof the decision to Parliament. In 2012/13weissued decisions on 98water cases.We did not publish any public interest reportsabout water providers in 2012/13. Forinformation, our criteria are laid out below.

Our public interest criteria can include:

> significant personal injustice> systemic failure> significant failures in the localcomplaints procedure

> precedent and test cases

RecommendationsWherewe find that something has gonewrong,wewill oftenmake recommendations forredress or improvement.Water is the sector inwhichwemakemost frequentlymake financialredress payments. This is because, unlikemanyof the complaints we look at in other sectors, theloss the person has suffered has beenmonetary.We oftenmake recommendations for financialredresswherewe find failings in billing andcharging.

The area of compensation claims, which differsfrom straightforward complaints that a bill iswrong, and is about alleged negligence, iscomplex.Whenwater complaints weretransferred to us in 2011, wewere very awareof the need to clearly explain our role aroundcompensation. A leaflet we produced then(available alongwith all our information leafletson ourwebsite) helps complainants understandthat wewill look at compensation claims if theyare unhappy, but that wemay be able to do soonly to a limited extent.

Across thewater sector, wemade 99recommendations in 2012/13. Both the short listthat follows and the case studies at the end ofthis report provide examples of therecommendationswemake. There are othersavailable in the cases published on ourwebsite.We track every recommendation to ensure thatthe organisation implement it within a specifiedtimescale and provide suitable evidence to showthat they have done so effectively. There aresome examples below of recommendationswemade in 2012/13.

Water recommendations

We recommended that awater company:

> repay aman’s bank charges

> emphasise to staff that customercorrespondence should be properlyreplied to

> extend aman's repayment period by afurther 12months

> waive a penalty charge that was leviedon awoman's account

> take steps to ensure their staff workin linewith their customer servicestandards

> contribute 50%of the cost of divertingawatermain fromunder aman's property

> issue awritten apology for the delay incarrying out a satisfactory clean-up aftera sewage flood

> issue a goodwill payment to aman to coverhis insurance excess

> apologise for failing to provide anexplanation.

SPSO ANNUAL COMPLAINTS REPORT 2012>2013 WATER PAGE 9

CASEWORK

What do people complain about?The single largest subject of complaint wasbilling and charging, representing 47% of allwater complaints received.

Top areas ofwater complaints received2012/13

Billing and charging 167

Water supply 51

Waste water 26

Customer service 10

Subjects of complaintBilling and chargingOf these complaints, 8 related to ScottishWater and 158 were about Business Stream,representing 66% of all complaints aboutBusiness Stream.

In the water section of our 2011/12 annualreport, we highlighted that there was still alack of awareness, particularly among smallbusinesses, of the need to inform awaterprovider when a consumer took over newpremises and to keep an eye on consumptionwhenever possible. This continues to be asource of problems and complaints. From ourcaseload, there appears to be a general lack ofawareness amongst small businesses abouttheir obligations both when it comes to payingfor water and in relation to their own pipework.We have had complaints from businesses thatdiscovered they had not been paying for waterservices at all for years and had no idea they

were not paying for this through the ratessystem. Others discovered they had been payingfor other properties’ usage as well as their ownbecause they had not appreciated the complexityof their building’s internal pipework.

Another layer of confusion can be found in thevery nature of water billing. Billing usuallyincludes standing charges, volumetric chargesand charges for road and property drainage.This can be complicated for businesses,particularly those that may not be liable for all ofthese because, for example, they have their owndrainage or sewerage arrangements. There canalso be confusion where a business cannot haveameter installed and is subject to differentmethods of assessment for their water usage.

The results of this general lack of awarenessand confusion hasmeant that some businesseshave found they have been payingmore thanthey need to, while others have received large,unexpected bills at a time when the generaleconomic climate hasmeant trading conditionsare already difficult for them.

Given these problems, we are pleased thatConsumer Futures, the body which is continuingthe role previously held by Consumer FocusScotland to represent water consumers, hasincluded work on this sector in their workplanfor 2013/14. In particular, they have aworkstream looking directly at improving theengagement of small andmedium enterprisesin the watermarket. We are pleased to supportthis work through providing case studies andanalysis of the complaints we see.

continued>

SPSO ANNUAL COMPLAINTS REPORT 2012>2013 WATER PAGE 10

CASEWORK

Customer servicePoor levels of awareness, and confusion, amongstcustomersmean that there is a need for verygood communication from the licensed provider.This has not always been in evidence, and in anumber of complaints we have found that thebilling and charging aspectswere correct but wehave upheld customer service aspects. Althoughthe number of complaints where customerservice is themain subject remains low, it is stillthe case in this, as in other areas of ourwork, thatpoor customer service and, specifically, poorcommunication, are often the real reasonswhy acomplaint escalates to us rather than beingresolved earlier in the process.

Water supplyThe next highest category of complaints relatesto the supply of water itself. Complaints in thiscategory aremore varied. Theymay, for example,relate to disruption to supply, damage caused by aburst watermain and issueswithwater pressure.Unlike billing and charging, where lack ofawareness is a central theme of complaints,there is no dominant theme in this area.

WasteWaterFlooding remains themain concern broughtto us under thewastewater subject heading.The pursuit of compensation for damagecan be a driver in this area andwe also seecomplaints about fear of the contaminationthatmay be caused after a flood. Aswe havesaid above, it is difficult to compare this year’sfigures to those issued previously (and suchcomplaints also reflect weather conditions)but the number of wastewater complaintsappears to have been lower than normal in2012/13.Wewill be able to assess better nextyearwhether this is a trend.

Issues inwater complaintsThe first thing to note from the figures is thesignificantly higher numberwe receive from thebusiness or non-domestic customer. This isdespite Business Streamhaving a significantlysmaller customer base than ScottishWater.

It is difficult tomake comparisons because ofdifferences in recording. However, it is worthnoting that in their last full year annual report(2010/11)Waterwatch Scotland highlighted along-term trend of a shift in their workload fromcomplaints about domestic to non-domesticprovision. In their 2010/11 report,WaterwatchScotland said they had, over a number of years,seen a reduction in contacts about ScottishWater, while contacts about Business Streamhad remained relatively steady. In 2006/07Waterwatch had roughly three times asmanycontacts fromdomestic customers as fromnon-domestic. By 2010/11 the numberswerealmost equal, with 56%of all contacts receivedbeing fromdomestic and the rest non-domestic.2010/11was the first year inwhich theyinvestigatedmore non-domestic than domesticcomplaints (52%and 48% respectively).

Our figures show that there are now over twiceasmany complaints coming to us fromnon-domestic as domestic customers.A significant factor in explaining this shift isthat ScottishWater have taken a number ofspecific steps to improve complaints handlingwithin their organisation, which have resultedin a reduction in the number of complaintsescalating externally. Another key factor,given that the highest subject of complaint isbilling and charging, is that in the domesticsector, water is paid for through council taxcollection, and in the non-domestic sector it ischarged directly by thewater company.

continued>

SPSO ANNUAL COMPLAINTS REPORT 2012>2013 WATER PAGE 11

CASEWORK

Wehave also noted a difference between thedomestic and non-domestic sector in the rate ofupheld complaints – in the domestic sector therate of upheld complaints was 34%and in thenon-domestic sector it was 50%. Aswe havealready highlighted, the key driver of complaintsto Business Stream is billing and charging.These have come fromsmall businesses duringa difficult period for them,whichmay haveencouraged them to lookmore closely at theiroutgoings.While we have seen some issuesaround communication between customer andlicensed provider, small businesses remainconfused about their legal obligations, aswehave also explained. Theremaywell, therefore,be a number of factorswithin the non-domesticmarket keeping business complaints high inrelation to domestic, only some of whichmay bewithin Business Stream’s gift to resolve.

We only have one full year’s worth of figures,andwe have different reportingmethods fromWaterwatch Scotland. Thismakes comparisonsdifficult. In 2013/14wewill be able to report ontwo full years of figures and that should help usto seewhether this shift is an established trendand to better understand the reasons behind it.Through our ongoing engagementwithwaterproviders, we are building up a picture of thecauses of complaints and exploringwith themways of preventing recurrence of problems.

Premature complaintsThere are twomain reasons for people contactingus too early. The first is that the complainant hasnot been told enough about the organisation’scomplaints process and does not understandhow to escalate their complaint. The second isthat, despite the complainant having the correctinformation, their complaint has got stuck in thesystem.

In 2011/12, on the limited number of complaintswe received after we became responsible forwater complaints, we noted a high rate ofpremature complaints comparedwith othersectors under our remit – 56%of all thewatercomplaints that we dealt with comparedwith anoverall rate of 43%. This figure seemed high,given therewere factors that wewould haveexpected to have kept it relatively low (such asshort complaints procedures and the accessibilityof the organisations through their call centres).We, therefore, askedwater providers to look atthis as a priority in 2012/13.We are pleased tosee that, in our first full year of figures, thepremature rate has significantly reduced andis now just over 38%.

There are, again, differences in premature ratesbetween domestic and non-domestic complaintswith domestic at 33%and non-domestic at 41%.We areworkingwith the organisations concernedto explore the reasons for this and to providesupport in reducing the number of prematurecomplaints.

SPSO ANNUAL COMPLAINTS REPORT 2012>2013 WATER PAGE 12

SHARING THE LEARNING

Publishing reportsEachmonth, we publish summary reportsof asmany cases aswe can and lay thembefore Parliament. In 2012/13we published81 decisions about thewater sector. Thesereports detail the complaint, our decisionandwhether recommendationsweremade.Wemake thempublicly available to raiseawareness and to support learningwithinand across sectors. The reports aresearchable on ourwebsite by organisation,date and outcome and they provide awealthof information for complainants andorganisations.We promote learning from thereports through the Ombudsman’smonthlye-newsletter which highlights themes andissues fromour casework. It is sent to 1,800recipients, includingMSPs, scrutiny bodies,service providers, advocacy agencies andthemedia.

To read our decisions or search by subject,organisation or case reference number, visitwww.spso.org.uk/our-findings

Workingwith othersEach year, as a tool for learning andimprovement, we send thewater providerstheir own individual statistics to consider.We publish these annual letters on ourwebsite.We also havememoranda ofunderstandingwith other organisationsthat have key roles in this sector, includingtheWater Industry Commission for Scotland,the DrinkingWater Quality Regulator andConsumer Futures. This engagementhelps us understand thewater landscapebetter and provides the regulators andcustomer representativeswith complaintsmaterial to inform their work.

Our arrangementswith professional bodies,regulators and others are set out in a series ofprotocols andmemoranda of understanding,which are published on ourwebsite atwww.spso.org.uk/freedom-information/spso-publications-list/about-spso

SPSO ANNUAL COMPLAINTS REPORT 2012>2013 WATER PAGE 13

Improving complaints standardsOur Complaints Standards Authority (CSA)was established in 2010 toworkwith publicbodies to help drive improvement in publicsector complaints handling. The overall aimis to ensure that complaints are handledmoresimply,more effectively andmore consistently,and are resolved at the first point of contact,wherever possible.

Water providers, like all organisations under ourjurisdiction, have a statutory duty to comply withthe SPSO’s Statement of Complaints HandlingPrincipleswhichwas approved by Parliament inFebruary 2011. Like other service providers theyare also obliged to adopt anymodel complaintshandling procedures (CHP) that the Ombudsmanspecifies to them. In 2013/14, our ComplaintsStandards Authority (CSA) will beworkingwithwater providers to support them in developingand implementing changes to their complaintshandlingwhichwill bring them in linewith thewider public sector but retain a focus on thewater industry’s specific characteristics.

There ismore information about this aspect of ourwork on the CSA’swebsiteatwww.valuingcomplaints.org.uk

SPSO ANNUAL COMPLAINTS REPORT 2012>2013 WATER PAGE 14

CASE STUDIES

This is a selectionof case studies from investigationswepublishedaboutwaterproviders in 2012/13. Some illustrate thedouble injustice that canhappenwhenapoorly delivered service is compoundedbypoor complaints handling.Other casestudies are included to showsomeof thepositive actions that organisations takein response to complaints. To share this goodpractice, the reports onourwebsitenormally highlightwhereanorganisationhas takensuchaction. Still other casestudies summarisedhereare includedasexamplesofwhereorganisationshavedelivereda service and investigateda complaint properly.

Water consumption in a barwas higher than other bars in the area, and the owner decided tofit water-saving taps.When his plumber switched off thewater supply, however, this alsoswitched off the supply to the flats above the barwhich, unknown to the bar-owner, weremetered through his supply. He contacted Business Stream,who told him to get the supply splitas quickly as possible, as hewas liable for the bills. He did this, but had to employ two plumbers,andBusiness Streamsaid hewas unlikely to get a refund.

The bar-owner said he had already complained to Business Streamabout thewater usage andcomplained that they failed to recognise earlier that hismeter also served the flats.We did not,however, find evidence of this, or of fault with regard to this. ScottishWater are only responsiblefor thewatermain in a street and the pipe up to and including the stopcock at the boundary of aproperty. Property owners are responsible for the pipe from there into the property and all theindoor plumbing. The bar-owner also felt that Business Streamshould have compensated himbecause his neighbours had paidwater chargeswith their council tax, and he had also paidthrough hismeter.We found, however, that domestic properties included in ametered supplyshould not pay separately for water services, becauseBusiness Streamcharges the businesscustomer for all themetered usage. The neighbours should, therefore, have had a privatearrangementwith the bar-owner to pay for their water, andBusiness Stream's policy says theycannot become involved in such disputes. However, we found that they should have explainedhowhe could pursue this with his neighbours. Althoughwe did not uphold the complaint, wemade recommendations to address this.

RecommendationsBusiness Stream provide the bar owner with further advice on recouping charges from thedomestic properties; and take steps to ensure that customers in similar situations are providedwith adequate advice about recouping these.

Charging – sharedwater supply – private arrangements for costsCase 201201438

SPSO ANNUAL COMPLAINTS REPORT 2012>2013 WATER PAGE 15

CASE STUDIES

ScottishWater identified a business premises as a gap site (a site that has been receivingwater-related serviceswithout being charged), arranged for ameter to be fitted and forBusiness Stream to set up a businesswater account. During a cold spell, themeter's fittingsburst and flooded the premises. The business owner complained that hewas not told that heneeded ameter or that it would be fitted, or that he could choose his licensedwater provider.He also said he received no information aboutmetermaintenance. Business Streamagreed thathewas not told that ameterwould be fitted, but said that ScottishWaterwould not have had hisdetails at that point. They also said that it was his responsibility tomaintain themeter andprotect it from coldweather, and that this informationwas on their website, in their terms andconditions.

Our investigation found that Business Stream’s complaints handlingwas poor, and that ScottishWater should have contacted the business in advance and given them the opportunity to choosetheir preferred licensed provider.We also thought it unreasonable to expect customers to visitterms and conditions on awebsite for information aboutmaintaining ameter, which could beprovidedwhen it was installed.

RecommendationsBusiness Stream apologise to theman and pay him the amount of his initial insurance claimplus any fees for the disconnection of his water supply, take steps to ensure that customersreceive information about watermetermaintenance either at the point of installation or whentheir account is opened; and share our decision with ScottishWater to ensure that the relevantprocedure for allocating identified gap sites is properly followed.

Meter installation: failure to allow choice of licensed provider and to provideinformation Case 201101754

The factor (manager) of an estate said that his predecessor had agreedwith ScottishWater in2007 to disconnect water to a farm trough and that, after this, ScottishWaterwould check thework and stop charging for water. He understood that thewater had been disconnected. However,the estate continued to receive bills and in 2012 the factor pursued this with Business Stream.Hewas told that disconnectionwould cost £300, and applied for this but was later told that this wasjust an application fee/deposit and that the actual workwould cost around £3,400. He complainedto us that the disconnection costswere disproportionate to thework needed, as he understoodthat his predecessor had disconnected the supply. He also complained that hewas givenmisleading information about the fee.

As part of our investigation it was confirmed that the troughwas still connected.We did not,therefore, uphold the complaint about disconnection costs as the amount quotedwas a standardcharge that was fairly and reasonably applied. However, it did appear that the factor was givenincorrect information about the initial fee. He had understood this to be the disconnection charge,and the documentationwe saw confirmed this, although in fact it was only an application fee ordeposit. We upheld this complaint and, in the circumstances, Business Streamoffered tomakean ex gratia (voluntary) payment of £300. ScottishWater also agreed towaive the costs ofdisconnecting the trough if the estate carried out thework satisfactorily themselves.

Disconnection – failure to provide accurate informationCase 201201916 Positive action taken by organisations

SPSO ANNUAL COMPLAINTS REPORT 2012>2013 WATER PAGE 16

CASE STUDIES

AScottishWater employee visited business premises to install a watermeter. As the businessowner had received no prior warning, he at first refused permission. However, after discussionswith Business Stream, duringwhich hewas told that the cost to himwould beminimal, he agreed.Hewas unhappywhen he received awater bill a year later that he considered excessive, as he usednowater at the premises. The business owner complained about themeter being installed and saidthat hewas not given enough information. He said that, had he known about the charges, hewouldhave had thewater supply disconnected, as his business does not usewater.

Our investigation found that the business had been identified as a gap site (a site that has beenreceivingwater-related serviceswithout being charged). It was appropriate for ameter to beinstalled in linewith the Scottish Government's Full BusinessMetering scheme. However, wewereconcerned by the lack of information provided about themetering process. The business ownerhad askedBusiness Streamabout charges and they had been unable to provide himwith anyinformation.We found this to be unreasonable as, although they could not predict howmuchwaterhewould use, they should have been able to tell him about any fixed charges.

RecommendationsBusiness Stream apologise to the business owner for the issues highlighted in our decision letter;and credit his account with an amount equivalent to 50 percent of the total of his first water bill.

Fixed charges afterwatermeter installation Case 201103715

A home-owner complained that it was unreasonable that herwater pressurewas low for almostsixmonths, and that ScottishWater's handling of her complaints was inappropriate. ScottishWaterhad reduced the pressure in the area after there had been several burst pipes. They said that thiswas done as a temporarymeasure until they could secure funding to upgrade thewater networkthere. Although this reduced the frequency of burst pipes and interruptions to supply, somecustomers complained about the low pressure.

Whenwemade enquiries, ScottishWater told us that theworst affected propertieswere secondfloor flats. They said that when therewas a high demand forwater, ground and first floor flatswould take away pressure from second floor flats. After receiving complaints about low pressure,they carried out further temporarywork and successfully increased the pressure.

The evidence did not show that thewoman’swater supply was constantly low during the relevantperiod, but it was intermittently low for somemonths. Our investigation also found that ScottishWater delayed in taking action to resolve this. Althoughwe upheld her complaints, we did find thatwhat ScottishWater did in response to the complaint was reasonable and proportionate. They hadapologised and offered her financial redress. They also outlinedwhat theywould do to try toprevent similar problems arising. In view of this action, we did notmake any recommendations.

Lowwater pressure Case 201102957 Positive action taken by organisation

SPSO ANNUAL COMPLAINTS REPORT 2012>2013 WATER PAGE 17

CASE STUDIES

Awoman complained that after heavy rainfall flooding prevented her fromgetting out. She saidthis had happened several times. It had ruined her garden, and ScottishWater had refused tocompensate her for the damage. Our investigation found that ScottishWater agreed that therewas a problem in the area and had been trying to resolve it. They had been unable to find asolution but now planned to appoint engineers to look at this. They had kept in contact about thecomplaint, usually by phone, and, after a fewmonths, hadwritten in detail to update residents onwhat was happening. They also told thewoman that as they had not been negligent theywouldnot pay compensation.

We explained to her that flooding could be a very difficult problem to resolve. Theremay bemore than one cause, and other organisationsmay share responsibility. Flooding is not alwaysthe fault of ScottishWater, and they could not always get funding to resolvemajor floodingproblems. Funding is part of a complex process, and ScottishWater could not simply decide tospendmore or increasewater charges to get extramoney.We also explained that it was nottheir responsibility to deal with all rainwater, and some responsibility lay with the local authority,who had separate sewers of their own.

We considered that ScottishWater had actively tried, andwere continuing to try to resolve theproblem.We found no evidence that their handling of it was unacceptable. In respect of thecompensation claim, our role is, broadly speaking, limited to consideringwhether the authorityfollowed their procedures in reaching their decision about it. The question of if, or howmuch,compensation is due is amatter for the courts.We found no evidence that the authority didanythingwrongwhen coming to their decision.

Sewer flooding Case 201103863 Positive action taken by organisation

Aman runs a business that relies solely on customers visiting his workshop. He complained thatwork by ScottishWater resulted in disruption to, and closure of, the access road. The roadworksweremeant to take twoweeks, but were extended several times. He said that thismeant he hadno customers for threemonths.

ScottishWater told us that the roadworkswere extended because the contractors hit rockwhenexcavating.Wewere satisfied that they had carried out exploratory work, but that these delayswere unforeseeable.Wewere also satisfied that ScottishWater took reasonable steps to reduceimpact on the business – they ensured some access to his property and put up 'business asusual' signs on themain road. However, we found that they did not communicatewith themanabout extending the closure, andwhen he tried to claim compensation they dismissed thiswithout passing it to their claims handlers in linewith their customer charter.

RecommendationsScottishWater pay theman £20 in line with their service standards in recognition of their failureto notify him of the delayedwork; and pass his claim to their claims handlers for consideration,in line with their customer charter.

Disruption because ofwaterworksCase 201105183

SPSO ANNUAL COMPLAINTS REPORT 2012>2013 WATER PAGE 18

Casetype

Stage

Outcome

Billing

Customer

Environm

ental

New

Other

Waste

Water

Subject

Total

andcharging

service

concerns

connections

water

supply

unknow

noroutof

jurisdiction

Enquiry

Advice&Signposting

Enquiry

20

00

10

10

4

Total

20

00

10

10

4

TotalEnquiries

20

00

10

10

4

Com

plaint

Advice

Matteroutofjurisdiction(discretionary)

20

00

00

12

5

Matteroutofjurisdiction(non-discretionary)

10

00

00

21

4

Nodecision

reached

243

00

14

537

74

Outcomenotachievable

00

00

00

11

2

Premature

473

14

37

1742

124

Total

746

14

411

2683

209

Early

Resolution1

Matteroutofjurisdiction(discretionary)

20

11

02

00

6

Matteroutofjurisdiction(non-discretionary)

30

00

11

20

7

Nodecision

reached

60

00

12

30

12

Outcomenotachievable

11

00

01

30

6

Premature

50

00

02

20

9

Total

171

11

28

100

40

Early

Resolution2

Fullyupheld

40

00

00

00

4

Partly

upheld

70

00

01

30

11

Notupheld

110

00

27

50

25

Nodecision

reached

10

00

04

00

5

Total

230

00

212

80

45

Investigation1

Fullyupheld

70

02

01

50

15

Partly

upheld

82

00

02

20

14

Notupheld

151

00

10

50

22

Nodecision

reached

10

00

01

00

2

Total

313

02

14

120

53

TotalCom

plaints

145

102

79

3556

83347

Total

Contacts

147

102

710

3557

83351

Notes:N

ode

cisi

onre

ache

dincludes

notdulymade,withdraw

nandresolved

Further information about this sector is available on ourwebsite atwww.spso.org.uk/statistics

STATISTICS

www.spso.org.uk/statistics

SPSO4 Melville StreetEdinburghEH3 7NS

Tel 0800 377 7330Fax 0800 377 7331Web www.spso.org.ukCSA www.valuingcomplaints.org.uk