Water - Scottish Public Services Ombudsman [PDF]

SCOTTISH PUBLIC SERVICES OMBUDSMAN ANNUAL COMPLAINTS REPORT 2012–2013

Learning from complaints

Improving complaints handling

Supporting public service improvement

WATER

This is one of a series of reports through which we are aiming to put key messages, information and analysis of complaints about individual sectors into the public domain. We anticipate that Parliamentary committees, government departments, scrutiny bodies, regulators and local authorities will find this an effective means of enhancing the learning from our work and identifying issues arising from the complaints we see. Equally, we hope it will prove useful to members of the public who seek more information about the kinds of complaints that are escalated to 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

OMBUDSMAN’S INTRODUCTION

I am pleased to report that the rate of water complaints coming to us too early has dropped from 56% in 2011/12 to 38% last year

This is our first full reporting year for complaints about water providers. In last year’s annual report, we concentrated on the transfer of water complaints to SPSO from Waterwatch Scotland, the complaints handling body that was abolished in August 2011. Water complaints are now fully integrated into our business processes and we are able to reflect in more detail on these.

An unusual jurisdiction As an Ombudsman for public services, our jurisdiction over water complaints is unusual. We are solely responsible for complaints about Scottish Water for domestic customers. The situation with business, or non-domestic, customers is more complicated and is unique for us. Services to non-domestic customers are usually provided through a licensed provider. Licensed providers are the only organisations that have the choice of opting in to our complaints service. The Water Industry Commission for Scotland can take complaints about any licensed providers that choose not to do so. In 2012/13, two new licensed providers (Thames Water and Veolia) opted to come under our jurisdiction, taking the current total to five.

SPSO ANNUAL COMPLAINTS REPORT 2012 > 2013 WATER PAGE 4

Despite some new entrants to the market, the single largest licensed provider remains Business Stream. Given their significant proportion of the market (over 95%), it is not surprising that last year we considered only one complaint about a licensed provider other than Business Stream.

Key trends in our figures With 353 complaints received about water providers in 2012/13, this sector makes up 8.5% of our workload. The single largest subject of complaint was billing and charging, representing 47% of all water complaints received. The rate of complaints reaching us too early, before the organisation’s complaints procedure has been completed, was a subject of concern in the first part-year in which we assumed responsibility for water complaints. I am pleased to report that this rate has improved significantly, falling from 56% in the 2011/12 period to 38% in 2012/13. I congratulate Scottish Water in particular for this reduction, which is a result of steps they have taken to enhance how they deal with dissatisfied customers.

OMBUDSMAN’S INTRODUCTION

Although recording differences make comparisons difficult, we note a general shift in workload from domestic to non-domestic service users. Much of this may be related to the difficult economic climate in which small businesses are operating, which may have encouraged business owners to look more closely at their outgoings, as well as other factors which are explored in this report in more detail. The overall uphold rate of complaints in the water sector was 45% compared with 44% last year and again there were differences in the rate between domestic and non-domestic providers. The water sector rate is in line with the average rate of upholds across all sectors in 2012/13 which was 46%.

Outreach and engagment In addition to our complaints handling work, we engage with the water providers and the Water Industry Commission for Scotland to ensure that we are sharing information from complaints learning effectively. We are also involved with customer issues through Consumer Futures (which represents water consumers) and attend their Customer Forum, at which we present casework trends and analysis. One of the benefits of our process is the transparency of our decisions. Last year we published 81 complaints about water on our website. Through this, water providers can analyse trends and identify improvements they can make to reduce any failings we find. Similarly, the public can see the kinds of complaints that are made to water providers, gain insights both where we do

not uphold complaints and where we do, and find examples of the kinds of redress we are able to recommend. I urge water providers to make the most of these tools and to demonstrate to their customers the ways in which they value complaints and how they use them to drive improvement.

Jim Martin Ombudsman

One of the benefits of our process is the transparency of our decisions. Publishing our decisions means water providers can analyse trends and identify improvements they can make and the public can gain insights both where we do not uphold complaints and where we do, and find examples of the kinds of redress we are able to recommend.


CASEWORK Number of complaints received and dealt with Last year we received a total of 353 complaints about water providers of which 239 were about Business Stream, 113 about Scottish Water, and one about another water provider, Aimera Ltd. We dealt with a total of 347 complaints: 213 about Business Stream, 133 about Scottish Water and the one about Aimera Ltd. In that instance, the individual turned out to simply be looking for advice about how to pursue a possible complaint. The number of complaints received and dealt with differs because some cases received at the end of 2011/12 were dealt with in 2012/13.

What we do with complaints At the end of this report, there is a table with the outcomes of all the water complaints we dealt with. Below, we identify some of the key points and what we do at each stage of our process.

Advice All complaints and enquiries come first to our advice team. Their role is to provide information, signposting and support. Much of this work is conducted by telephone and they not only provide advice about our work but also help people find additional support. They can make a decision on a complaint if it is clearly a matter that we are not legally able to consider or it has come to us too early. We normally are only able to deal with complaints when they have completed the organisation’s complaints process. If a complaint comes to us too early (we call these premature complaints) we will let the person know how best to make the complaint to the water provider. We can also give advice about other organisations that may be able to help, such as Citizens Advice Bureaux, who can support people through the complaints process. All enquiries and the vast majority of premature complaints are dealt with by our advice team. In 2012/13, the team handled four enquiries and


209 complaints about water matters, of which 124 were premature. At the next stage in our process, where complaints receive further detailed review, another nine water cases were determined as premature.

Assessing complaints Last year,138 complaints passed on from the advice stage to further detailed review. At this stage, we try wherever possible to talk to the complainant to make sure we understand their complaint and what outcome they want. We aim to see if there is a resolution that would be agreeable and acceptable to all parties and in a small number of cases we were able to achieve this. We also have to assess whether there are reasons we should not take the complaint further. We can only investigate where we have the legal power to do so. We know it is frustrating for complainants if we can’t resolve a complaint or take it further and so we try to take this decision as quickly as we can. Last year, we decided at this stage that we could not take 40 cases further. This was because they were premature, out of jurisdiction, or because the complainant did not provide us with enough information, withdrew the complaint, or wanted an outcome we could not achieve for them. We provide a breakdown of the decisions we made at this stage at the end of this report.

Investigating complaints At the investigation stage, we decide whether the complaint should or should not be upheld. In order to do so, we will consider all the available evidence and in some cases, we may request independent advice from one of our advisers. We have two water advisers who provide advice on hydrological and technical matters. The SPSO remain responsible for the decisions made on each complaint and we are careful to ensure we test the advice we receive and that it is of the highest quality.

CASEWORK

Key figures in water complaints 2012/13 > We received

353 complaints and dealt with 347

> The rate of complaints coming to us too early dropped from 56% (for part of 2011/12) to

38% (the rate across all sectors is 40%)

> The rate of upheld complaints was

45%, slightly up from 44%

last year (the rate across all sectors was 46%)

> People who received advice, support and signposting:

209

> Number of cases decided following detailed consideration pre-investigation:

40

> Complaints fully investigated

98 with 81* publicly reported

to Parliament

> We made

*

99 recommendations for redress and improvement

We publicly report the decisions a minimum of six weeks after sending the decision letter. In a small number of cases we do not put information in the public domain, usually to prevent the possibility of someone being identified.


CASEWORK

Decisions When we investigate, we always issue a written decision. This is an important record and sets out in detail what we have investigated and how. The organisation and the complainant will receive copies. The written record will be in one of two formats. In most case we issue decisions by letter. This letter remains private between ourselves and the parties. In order to ensure learning is shared, we publicly report a summary of the decision to Parliament. In 2012/13 we issued decisions on 98 water cases. We did not publish any public interest reports about water providers in 2012/13. For information, our criteria are laid out below. Our public interest criteria can include: > significant personal injustice > systemic failure > significant failures in the local complaints procedure > precedent and test cases

Recommendations Where we find that something has gone wrong, we will often make recommendations for redress or improvement. Water is the sector in which we make most frequently make financial redress payments. This is because, unlike many of the complaints we look at in other sectors, the loss the person has suffered has been monetary. We often make recommendations for financial redress where we find failings in billing and charging. The area of compensation claims, which differs from straightforward complaints that a bill is wrong, and is about alleged negligence, is complex. When water complaints were transferred to us in 2011, we were very aware of the need to clearly explain our role around compensation. A leaflet we produced then (available along with all our information leaflets on our website) helps complainants understand that we will look at compensation claims if they are unhappy, but that we may be able to do so only to a limited extent.


Across the water sector, we made 99 recommendations in 2012/13. Both the short list that follows and the case studies at the end of this report provide examples of the recommendations we make. There are others available in the cases published on our website. We track every recommendation to ensure that the organisation implement it within a specified timescale and provide suitable evidence to show that they have done so effectively. There are some examples below of recommendations we made in 2012/13.

Water recommendations We recommended that a water company: > repay a man’s bank charges > emphasise to staff that customer correspondence should be properly replied to > extend a man's repayment period by a further 12 months > waive a penalty charge that was levied on a woman's account > take steps to ensure their staff work in line with their customer service standards > contribute 50% of the cost of diverting a water main from under a man's property > issue a written apology for the delay in carrying out a satisfactory clean-up after a sewage flood > issue a goodwill payment to a man to cover his insurance excess > apologise for failing to provide an explanation.

CASEWORK

What do people complain about?

were not paying for this through the rates system. Others discovered they had been paying for other properties’ usage as well as their own because they had not appreciated the complexity of their building’s internal pipework.

The single largest subject of complaint was billing and charging, representing 47% of all water complaints received.

Another layer of confusion can be found in the very nature of water billing. Billing usually includes standing charges, volumetric charges and charges for road and property drainage. This can be complicated for businesses, particularly those that may not be liable for all of these because, for example, they have their own drainage or sewerage arrangements. There can also be confusion where a business cannot have a meter installed and is subject to different methods of assessment for their water usage.

Top areas of water complaints received 2012/13 Billing and charging

167

Water supply

51

Waste water

26

Customer service

10

Subjects of complaint Billing and charging Of these complaints, 8 related to Scottish Water and 158 were about Business Stream, representing 66% of all complaints about Business Stream. In the water section of our 2011/12 annual report, we highlighted that there was still a lack of awareness, particularly among small businesses, of the need to inform a water provider when a consumer took over new premises and to keep an eye on consumption whenever possible. This continues to be a source of problems and complaints. From our caseload, there appears to be a general lack of awareness amongst small businesses about their obligations both when it comes to paying for water and in relation to their own pipework. We have had complaints from businesses that discovered they had not been paying for water services at all for years and had no idea they

The results of this general lack of awareness and confusion has meant that some businesses have found they have been paying more than they need to, while others have received large, unexpected bills at a time when the general economic climate has meant trading conditions are already difficult for them. Given these problems, we are pleased that Consumer Futures, the body which is continuing the role previously held by Consumer Focus Scotland to represent water consumers, has included work on this sector in their workplan for 2013/14. In particular, they have a workstream looking directly at improving the engagement of small and medium enterprises in the water market. We are pleased to support this work through providing case studies and analysis of the complaints we see.

continued > SPSO ANNUAL COMPLAINTS REPORT 2012 > 2013 WATER PAGE 9

CASEWORK

Customer service

Issues in water complaints

Poor levels of awareness, and confusion, amongst customers mean that there is a need for very good communication from the licensed provider. This has not always been in evidence, and in a number of complaints we have found that the billing and charging aspects were correct but we have upheld customer service aspects. Although the number of complaints where customer service is the main subject remains low, it is still the case in this, as in other areas of our work, that poor customer service and, specifically, poor communication, are often the real reasons why a complaint escalates to us rather than being resolved earlier in the process.

The first thing to note from the figures is the significantly higher number we receive from the business or non-domestic customer. This is despite Business Stream having a significantly smaller customer base than Scottish Water.

Water supply The next highest category of complaints relates to the supply of water itself. Complaints in this category are more varied. They may, for example, relate to disruption to supply, damage caused by a burst water main and issues with water pressure. Unlike billing and charging, where lack of awareness is a central theme of complaints, there is no dominant theme in this area.

Waste Water Flooding remains the main concern brought to us under the waste water subject heading. The pursuit of compensation for damage can be a driver in this area and we also see complaints about fear of the contamination that may be caused after a flood. As we have said above, it is difficult to compare this year’s figures to those issued previously (and such complaints also reflect weather conditions) but the number of waste water complaints appears to have been lower than normal in 2012/13. We will be able to assess better next year whether this is a trend.

It is difficult to make comparisons because of differences in recording. However, it is worth noting that in their last full year annual report (2010/11) Waterwatch Scotland highlighted a long-term trend of a shift in their workload from complaints about domestic to non-domestic provision. In their 2010/11 report, Waterwatch Scotland said they had, over a number of years, seen a reduction in contacts about Scottish Water, while contacts about Business Stream had remained relatively steady. In 2006/07 Waterwatch had roughly three times as many contacts from domestic customers as from non-domestic. By 2010/11 the numbers were almost equal, with 56% of all contacts received being from domestic and the rest non-domestic. 2010/11 was the first year in which they investigated more non-domestic than domestic complaints (52% and 48% respectively). Our figures show that there are now over twice as many complaints coming to us from non-domestic as domestic customers. A significant factor in explaining this shift is that Scottish Water have taken a number of specific steps to improve complaints handling within their organisation, which have resulted in a reduction in the number of complaints escalating externally. Another key factor, given that the highest subject of complaint is billing and charging, is that in the domestic sector, water is paid for through council tax collection, and in the non-domestic sector it is charged directly by the water company.

continued > SPSO ANNUAL COMPLAINTS REPORT 2012 > 2013 WATER PAGE 10

CASEWORK

We have also noted a difference between the domestic and non-domestic sector in the rate of upheld complaints – in the domestic sector the rate of upheld complaints was 34% and in the non-domestic sector it was 50%. As we have already highlighted, the key driver of complaints to Business Stream is billing and charging. These have come from small businesses during a difficult period for them, which may have encouraged them to look more closely at their outgoings. While we have seen some issues around communication between customer and licensed provider, small businesses remain confused about their legal obligations, as we have also explained. There may well, therefore, be a number of factors within the non-domestic market keeping business complaints high in relation to domestic, only some of which may be within Business Stream’s gift to resolve. We only have one full year’s worth of figures, and we have different reporting methods from Waterwatch Scotland. This makes comparisons difficult. In 2013/14 we will be able to report on two full years of figures and that should help us to see whether this shift is an established trend and to better understand the reasons behind it. Through our ongoing engagement with water providers, we are building up a picture of the causes of complaints and exploring with them ways of preventing recurrence of problems.

Premature complaints There are two main reasons for people contacting us too early. The first is that the complainant has not been told enough about the organisation’s complaints process and does not understand how to escalate their complaint. The second is that, despite the complainant having the correct information, their complaint has got stuck in the system. In 2011/12, on the limited number of complaints we received after we became responsible for water complaints, we noted a high rate of premature complaints compared with other sectors under our remit – 56% of all the water complaints that we dealt with compared with an overall rate of 43%. This figure seemed high, given there were factors that we would have expected to have kept it relatively low (such as short complaints procedures and the accessibility of the organisations through their call centres). We, therefore, asked water providers to look at this as a priority in 2012/13. We are pleased to see that, in our first full year of figures, the premature rate has significantly reduced and is now just over 38%. There are, again, differences in premature rates between domestic and non-domestic complaints with domestic at 33% and non-domestic at 41%. We are working with the organisations concerned to explore the reasons for this and to provide support in reducing the number of premature complaints.


SHARING THE LEARNING

Publishing reports

Working with others

Each month, we publish summary reports of as many cases as we can and lay them before Parliament. In 2012/13 we published 81 decisions about the water sector. These reports detail the complaint, our decision and whether recommendations were made. We make them publicly available to raise awareness and to support learning within and across sectors. The reports are searchable on our website by organisation, date and outcome and they provide a wealth of information for complainants and organisations. We promote learning from the reports through the Ombudsman’s monthly e-newsletter which highlights themes and issues from our casework. It is sent to 1,800 recipients, including MSPs, scrutiny bodies, service providers, advocacy agencies and the media.

Each year, as a tool for learning and improvement, we send the water providers their own individual statistics to consider. We publish these annual letters on our website. We also have memoranda of understanding with other organisations that have key roles in this sector, including the Water Industry Commission for Scotland, the Drinking Water Quality Regulator and Consumer Futures. This engagement helps us understand the water landscape better and provides the regulators and customer representatives with complaints material to inform their work.

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


Our arrangements with professional bodies, regulators and others are set out in a series of protocols and memoranda of understanding, which are published on our website at www.spso.org.uk/freedom-information/spsopublications-list/about-spso

Improving complaints standards Our Complaints Standards Authority (CSA) was established in 2010 to work with public bodies to help drive improvement in public sector complaints handling. The overall aim is to ensure that complaints are handled more simply, more effectively and more consistently, and are resolved at the first point of contact, wherever possible.

Water providers, like all organisations under our jurisdiction, have a statutory duty to comply with the SPSO’s Statement of Complaints Handling Principles which was approved by Parliament in February 2011. Like other service providers they are also obliged to adopt any model complaints handling procedures (CHP) that the Ombudsman specifies to them. In 2013/14, our Complaints Standards Authority (CSA) will be working with water providers to support them in developing and implementing changes to their complaints handling which will bring them in line with the wider public sector but retain a focus on the water industry’s specific characteristics.

There is more information about this aspect of our work on the CSA’s website at www.valuingcomplaints.org.uk


CASE STUDIES This is a selection of case studies from investigations we published about water providers in 2012/13. Some illustrate the double injustice that can happen when a poorly delivered service is compounded by poor complaints handling. Other case studies are included to show some of the positive actions that organisations take in response to complaints. To share this good practice, the reports on our website normally highlight where an organisation has taken such action. Still other case studies summarised here are included as examples of where organisations have delivered a service and investigated a complaint properly.

Charging – shared water supply – private arrangements for costs Case 201201438 Water consumption in a bar was higher than other bars in the area, and the owner decided to fit water-saving taps. When his plumber switched off the water supply, however, this also switched off the supply to the flats above the bar which, unknown to the bar-owner, were metered through his supply. He contacted Business Stream, who told him to get the supply split as quickly as possible, as he was liable for the bills. He did this, but had to employ two plumbers, and Business Stream said he was unlikely to get a refund. The bar-owner said he had already complained to Business Stream about the water usage and complained that they failed to recognise earlier that his meter also served the flats. We did not, however, find evidence of this, or of fault with regard to this. Scottish Water are only responsible for the water main in a street and the pipe up to and including the stopcock at the boundary of a property. Property owners are responsible for the pipe from there into the property and all the indoor plumbing. The bar-owner also felt that Business Stream should have compensated him because his neighbours had paid water charges with their council tax, and he had also paid through his meter. We found, however, that domestic properties included in a metered supply should not pay separately for water services, because Business Stream charges the business customer for all the metered usage. The neighbours should, therefore, have had a private arrangement with the bar-owner to pay for their water, and Business Stream's policy says they cannot become involved in such disputes. However, we found that they should have explained how he could pursue this with his neighbours. Although we did not uphold the complaint, we made recommendations to address this.

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


CASE STUDIES

Meter installation: failure to allow choice of licensed provider and to provide information Case 201101754 Scottish Water identified a business premises as a gap site (a site that has been receiving water-related services without being charged), arranged for a meter to be fitted and for Business Stream to set up a business water account. During a cold spell, the meter's fittings burst and flooded the premises. The business owner complained that he was not told that he needed a meter or that it would be fitted, or that he could choose his licensed water provider. He also said he received no information about meter maintenance. Business Stream agreed that he was not told that a meter would be fitted, but said that Scottish Water would not have had his details at that point. They also said that it was his responsibility to maintain the meter and protect it from cold weather, and that this information was on their website, in their terms and conditions. Our investigation found that Business Stream’s complaints handling was poor, and that Scottish Water should have contacted the business in advance and given them the opportunity to choose their preferred licensed provider. We also thought it unreasonable to expect customers to visit terms and conditions on a website for information about maintaining a meter, which could be provided when it was installed.

Recommendations Business Stream apologise to the man and pay him the amount of his initial insurance claim plus any fees for the disconnection of his water supply, take steps to ensure that customers receive information about water meter maintenance either at the point of installation or when their account is opened; and share our decision with Scottish Water to ensure that the relevant procedure for allocating identified gap sites is properly followed.

Disconnection – failure to provide accurate information Case 201201916 Positive action taken by organisations The factor (manager) of an estate said that his predecessor had agreed with Scottish Water in 2007 to disconnect water to a farm trough and that, after this, Scottish Water would check the work and stop charging for water. He understood that the water had been disconnected. However, the estate continued to receive bills and in 2012 the factor pursued this with Business Stream. He was told that disconnection would cost £300, and applied for this but was later told that this was just an application fee/deposit and that the actual work would cost around £3,400. He complained to us that the disconnection costs were disproportionate to the work needed, as he understood that his predecessor had disconnected the supply. He also complained that he was given misleading information about the fee. As part of our investigation it was confirmed that the trough was still connected. We did not, therefore, uphold the complaint about disconnection costs as the amount quoted was a standard charge that was fairly and reasonably applied. However, it did appear that the factor was given incorrect information about the initial fee. He had understood this to be the disconnection charge, and the documentation we saw confirmed this, although in fact it was only an application fee or deposit. We upheld this complaint and, in the circumstances, Business Stream offered to make an ex gratia (voluntary) payment of £300. Scottish Water also agreed to waive the costs of disconnecting the trough if the estate carried out the work satisfactorily themselves.


CASE STUDIES

Fixed charges after water meter installation Case 201103715 A Scottish Water employee visited business premises to install a water meter. As the business owner had received no prior warning, he at first refused permission. However, after discussions with Business Stream, during which he was told that the cost to him would be minimal, he agreed. He was unhappy when he received a water bill a year later that he considered excessive, as he used no water at the premises. The business owner complained about the meter being installed and said that he was not given enough information. He said that, had he known about the charges, he would have had the water supply disconnected, as his business does not use water. Our investigation found that the business had been identified as a gap site (a site that has been receiving water-related services without being charged). It was appropriate for a meter to be installed in line with the Scottish Government's Full Business Metering scheme. However, we were concerned by the lack of information provided about the metering process. The business owner had asked Business Stream about charges and they had been unable to provide him with any information. We found this to be unreasonable as, although they could not predict how much water he would use, they should have been able to tell him about any fixed charges.

Recommendations Business 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.

Low water pressure Case 201102957 Positive action taken by organisation A home-owner complained that it was unreasonable that her water pressure was low for almost six months, and that Scottish Water's handling of her complaints was inappropriate. Scottish Water had reduced the pressure in the area after there had been several burst pipes. They said that this was done as a temporary measure until they could secure funding to upgrade the water network there. Although this reduced the frequency of burst pipes and interruptions to supply, some customers complained about the low pressure. When we made enquiries, Scottish Water told us that the worst affected properties were second floor flats. They said that when there was a high demand for water, ground and first floor flats would take away pressure from second floor flats. After receiving complaints about low pressure, they carried out further temporary work and successfully increased the pressure. The evidence did not show that the woman’s water supply was constantly low during the relevant period, but it was intermittently low for some months. Our investigation also found that Scottish Water delayed in taking action to resolve this. Although we upheld her complaints, we did find that what Scottish Water did in response to the complaint was reasonable and proportionate. They had apologised and offered her financial redress. They also outlined what they would do to try to prevent similar problems arising. In view of this action, we did not make any recommendations.


CASE STUDIES

Sewer flooding Case 201103863 Positive action taken by organisation A woman complained that after heavy rainfall flooding prevented her from getting out. She said this had happened several times. It had ruined her garden, and Scottish Water had refused to compensate her for the damage. Our investigation found that Scottish Water agreed that there was a problem in the area and had been trying to resolve it. They had been unable to find a solution but now planned to appoint engineers to look at this. They had kept in contact about the complaint, usually by phone, and, after a few months, had written in detail to update residents on what was happening. They also told the woman that as they had not been negligent they would not pay compensation. We explained to her that flooding could be a very difficult problem to resolve. There may be more than one cause, and other organisations may share responsibility. Flooding is not always the fault of Scottish Water, and they could not always get funding to resolve major flooding problems. Funding is part of a complex process, and Scottish Water could not simply decide to spend more or increase water charges to get extra money. We also explained that it was not their responsibility to deal with all rainwater, and some responsibility lay with the local authority, who had separate sewers of their own. We considered that Scottish Water had actively tried, and were continuing to try to resolve the problem. We found no evidence that their handling of it was unacceptable. In respect of the compensation claim, our role is, broadly speaking, limited to considering whether the authority followed their procedures in reaching their decision about it. The question of if, or how much, compensation is due is a matter for the courts. We found no evidence that the authority did anything wrong when coming to their decision.

Disruption because of water works Case 201105183 A man runs a business that relies solely on customers visiting his workshop. He complained that work by Scottish Water resulted in disruption to, and closure of, the access road. The road works were meant to take two weeks, but were extended several times. He said that this meant he had no customers for three months. Scottish Water told us that the road works were extended because the contractors hit rock when excavating. We were satisfied that they had carried out exploratory work, but that these delays were unforeseeable. We were also satisfied that Scottish Water took reasonable steps to reduce impact on the business – they ensured some access to his property and put up 'business as usual' signs on the main road. However, we found that they did not communicate with the man about extending the closure, and when he tried to claim compensation they dismissed this without passing it to their claims handlers in line with their customer charter.

Recommendations Scottish Water pay the man £20 in line with their service standards in recognition of their failure to notify him of the delayed work; and pass his claim to their claims handlers for consideration, in line with their customer charter.



Total Complaints

Investigation 1

Early Resolution 2

Early Resolution 1

Advice

2

Total

0 47 74

Outcome not achievable

Premature

Total

15 1 31

Not upheld

No decision reached

Total

147

145

7 8

23

Total

Fully upheld

1

No decision reached

Partly upheld

11

Not upheld

Total

7

17

Premature

4

5

Outcome not achievable

Fully upheld

1

No decision reached

Partly upheld

3 6

Matter out of jurisdiction (non-discretionary)

2

24

No decision reached

Matter out of jurisdiction (discretionary)

2 1

Matter out of jurisdiction (discretionary)

Matter out of jurisdiction (non-discretionary)

2

2

Billing and charging

Enquiry

Outcome

Notes: No decision reached includes not duly made, withdrawn and resolved

Total Contacts

Complaint

Advice & Signposting

Enquiry

Total Enquiries

Stage

Case type

10

10

3

0

1

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

6

3

0

3

0

0

0

0

0

Customer service

2

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Environmental concerns

7

7

2

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

4

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

New connections

10

9

1

0

1

0

0

2

0

2

0

0

2

0

0

1

1

0

4

3

0

1

0

0

1

1

1

Other

35

35

4

1

0

2

1

12

4

7

1

0

8

2

1

2

1

2

11

7

0

4

0

0

0

0

0

Waste water

57

56

12

0

5

2

5

8

0

5

3

0

10

2

3

3

2

0

26

17

1

5

2

1

1

1

1

Water supply

83

83

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

83

42

1

37

1

2

0

0

0

Subject unknown or out of jurisdiction

351

347

53

2

22

14

15

45

5

25

11

4

40

9

6

12

7

6

209

124

2

74

4

5

4

4

4

Total

STATISTICS Further information about this sector is available on our website at www.spso.org.uk/statistics

SPSO 4 Melville Street Edinburgh EH3 7NS Tel Fax Web CSA

0800 377 7330 0800 377 7331 www.spso.org.uk www.valuingcomplaints.org.uk