Case Studies

Complaint Overview

The customer said that the company had failed to install a water meter after agreeing to do so. The customer also stated that the company failed to respond to communications and was untruthful.

The company stated that the customer's account was subject to a County Court Judgment (CCJ) in respect of unpaid charges. The customer's complaint about the water meter formed the basis of an application to court made by the customer to set aside the CCJ. The application was reviewed and dismissed by a District Judge.

Outcome and Reasons

The company needed to take further action.

WATRS cannot be used to adjudicate any disputes which have previously been to court. As a court had already ruled on the charges on the customer's account, this aspect of the customer's claim and the customer's complaints about the CCJ could not be considered.

However, the adjudicator found that the company failed to respond to the customer's emails within a reasonable timeframe.

Remedy Awarded

A written apology

Complaint Overview

The customer asserted that the company was charging him incorrectly, that it gave incorrect advice causing him to incur plumber costs and that works it had carried out had damaged his property. He sought an apology and compensation of £1,714.26.

The company said that it had charged the customer correctly and that it gave him correct advice. It denied responsibility for any damage or poor workmanship.

Outcome and Reasons

The company needed to take further action.

The adjudicator found that the company was charging the customer correctly and that it had given him correct advice. However, the works were carried out poorly which did cause minor damage to the customer's property and caused him to incur costs. The adjudicator considered it fair that the customer be reimbursed for the costs incurred and a further sum was given for the stress and inconvenience he suffered. The majority of the sum claimed by the customer was not awarded as it related to alleged overpayments that had not been proven.

Remedy Awarded

• £300.00
• A written apology

Complaint Overview

The customer stated that he had requested a water meter in 2008 and 2013 but one had not been provided. A meter was finally installed in 2015, which reduced his water bill. He therefore sought to be compensated for paying more than necessary since 2008.

The company said that the customer did not complete a request for a meter until January 2015 and one was fitted in February 2015. The company said it had no obligation to reduce the customer's charges prior to the fitting of the water meter.

Outcome and Reasons

The company did not need to take further action.

The adjudicator found that there was no evidence that the customer had made a request for a water meter until January 2015. The customer had not proven any failing on the part of the company.

Remedy Awarded

None.

Complaint Overview

The customer submitted that her business and domestic premises were subject to an internal sewage leak, due to a sewerage flooding from a public sewer. The customer stated that the company was liable to pay her £3383.00 compensation for the damaged caused to her property as a result of the flooding. She further submitted that the company had failed to pay her any of the amounts agreed and it had delayed dealing with her case.

The company submitted that the customer's property was internally flooded due to factors beyond its control and was therefore not liable for any resulting damage. It highlighted that it had paid the customer the agreed amounts in compensation.

Outcome and Reasons

The company needed to take further action.

The company was aware of the risk of sewerage leaks due to the factors beyond its control and there was a lack of evidence that it took sufficient measures to mitigate the risk of flooding as a result of these issues. The adjudicator also found the company delayed in handling the customer's claim and failed to prove it had made payment to the customer for the amounts agreed.

Remedy Awarded

£1540.00 compensation and a written apology.

Complaint Overview

The customer submitted that the company: failed to return £195.68 due to him; cancelled his Direct Debit multiple times; failed to abide by the terms of the Direct Debit guarantee; incorrectly placed non-payment marks on his credit file; chased him for payment by threatening him with debt collection agencies and county court judgments; and, sent him letters quoting untrue or misleading facts.

The company denied that it was responsible for the customer's Direct Debits failing and that it did not abide by the terms of the Direct Debit guarantee. It stated the customer could have requested the £195.68 due to him at any time. It submitted that it followed its debt recovery process correctly and correctly notified the credit reference agency of overdue payments. The company denied providing untrue or misleading facts but accepted that some information given by one of its agents was not strictly true.

Outcome and Reasons

The company needed to take further action.

The company failed to provide its services to the customer to the standard reasonable expected in relation to: the sum of money due back to the customer; its failure to fully explain why the Direct Debits had failed; and, for providing incorrect, misleading and/or insufficient information in its correspondence to the customer.

Remedy Awarded

Assist the customer is setting up a new Direct Debit by closing his account and opening a new one; remove the negative markers on the customer's credit file; and £200.00 compensation

Complaint Overview

The customer stated that he had been given a rebate in 2017, because more than 10% of metered water supplied does not return to the sewer, but the company refused to backdate this. The customer maintained the circumstances of the property had remained unchanged since 2005 and that he was unaware he could make such a claim until 2016.

The company submitted that it is its policy not to backdate abated payments. It further stated that the customer was on notice of his potential entitlement at all times, due to the information being available on his bills, in literature given and on the company's website.

Outcome and Reasons

The company did not need to take any further action.

The adjudicator found there was no evidence that the company had acted otherwise than in accordance with its policy. The company had also taken reasonable steps to alert the customer to his potential entitlement. It had therefore acted in accordance with the service standards to be reasonably expected.

Remedy Awarded

None.

Complaint Overview

The customer noticed a prominent increase in their water bills and usage and so reported a suspected leak in November 2014. The customer stated it took the company until September 2016 to identify the source of the problem and should have provided better advice and assistance. They stated that had this been done, wasted water costs totalling £16,880.00 would have been saved - the customer claimed this amount.

The company acknowledged that the matter took some time to resolve but stated that this was due to the leak being on private pipework and difficult to locate. It submitted that the customer had responsibility for the leak but despite this, as a goodwill gesture, the company repaired the leak. Further, an 'out of policy' wastewater allowance was allocated to the customer's account.

Outcome and Reasons

The company did not need to take any further action.

The adjudicator found that the company properly discharged its duties owed to the customer and the company had no obligation to provide more assistance than it did.

Remedy Awarded

None.

Complaint Overview

The customer submitted that he should have the right to choose to be billed by Rateable Value (RV) if he felt it more beneficial. The company had declined his request, stating that the property had been metered since 1999 and so no right existed. The customer requested that the company be obligated to charge him on an unmeasured or fixed basis.

The company stated that there was no legal basis for the customer to have requested this and that it had fully complied with the relevant legislation when installing the property's meter.

Outcome and Reasons

The company was not required to take any further action.

The adjudicator found that there was no legal basis for the customer to be allowed to choose to be billed by RV. The company had not failed to provide its services to the standard to be reasonably expected.

Remedy Awarded

None.

Complaint Overview

During the process of fitting a smart meter in the customer's home, it was discovered that an existing meter was already fitted to his private supply, and had been there since 1986. This meter was subsequently removed. The customer stated that had he known that the removed meter was connected to his private supply, he may have benefited by way of savings to his water services charges dating back to 1986. The customer sought £1423.54 in this respect.

The company submitted that it should have no obligation to pay compensation as the removed meter was for the company's monitoring purposes only and not for any billing or revenue-related purposes. The company stated that the customer had not lost any opportunity to make savings on his water charges.

Outcome and Reasons

The company did not need to take any further action.

The adjudicator found that the removed meter was fitted and used for monitoring purposes only, such that the company had no obligation to tell the customer.

Remedy Awarded

None.

Complaint Overview

The customer stated that, when installing a new public sewer in his village, the company: instigated an illegal road closure; delayed completing the works; knowingly used a faulty product; failed to keep residents updated, and provided inaccurate and/or inconsistent information.

The company denied all allegations. It further stated that it was for the Environmental Agency to determine whether there was any error on the company's part in regards to the time taken to complete the new sewer and for the Highways Authority to determine if it committed an offence with the road closure.

Outcome and Reasons

The company needed to take further action.

The customer's allegations regarding the illegal road closure and delay in completing the works fell outside the scope of the Scheme. The adjudicator found that there was no evidence to show that fault equipment was used or that incorrect information was provided, but there was evidence that the company had failed to keep residents updated.

Remedy Awarded

£75.00 compensation and a written apology.

Complaint Overview

The customer stated that the company had wrongly charged him for surface water drainage since 2007 and had only backdated payments to 1 April 2014. The customer claimed a refund of these payments from February 2007, amounting to £1081.81, an apology, £250.00 compensation and interest at 8% per annum.

The company submitted it was not liable to refund payments made before 1 April 2014 - the customer applied for a rebate in November 2017 and it applied its Scheme of Charges and policies correctly.

Outcome and Reasons

The company did not need to take any further action.

The company acted in accordance with its legal obligations and its Scheme of Charges. The adjudicator found it had supplied its services to the standard to be reasonably expected.

Remedy Awarded

None.

Complaint Overview

The customer's representative was the landlord of the customer. The customer suffered from schizophrenia. The landlord submitted that the company did not attempt to contact her about a leak to the shared water supply and submitted that as a result she was unaware of the leak and unable to make repairs. She further stated that the customer's neighbour's share of the bill had been waived but not the customer's - she claimed this to be unfair and discrimination. It was requested that the bill be reduced to zero, £200.00 compensation be awarded and that the company alter its process to knock on doors to advise of leaks, ensuring customers understand the situation.

The company stated it sent letters to the account holders of the relevant properties, advising of the leak. The customer did not respond and did not contact his landlord. It detailed that after issuing a s75 notice, it completed the repair work and charged the relevant customers. The company stated it was not aware the customer was vulnerable and the landlord was not added as a third party on the account until January 2018.

Outcome and Reasons

The company did not need to take any further action.

The company were not aware the customer was vulnerable until after the leak had been repaired. The company therefore followed an appropriate process in relation to the leak.

Remedy Awarded

None.

Complaint Overview

The customer submitted that significant water services charges were accrued on their property account as the account details were never updated from the previous owner. The customer stated that because of this they did not receive any invoices and did not pay any water services charges. They stated that this was the fault of the company's predecessor, and to some extent the company, and so claimed a service reduction of approximately £6000.00.

The company accepted that it initially incorrectly advised the customer when the issue of updating the account details was brought to its attention. However, it maintained that it was not responsible for the customer's dealings with its predecessor, who it had nevertheless chased on the customer's behalf. The company had offered the customer £250.00 compensation in recognition of the oversight on its part.

Outcome and Reasons

The company needed to take further action.

The adjudicator agreed that the company advising incorrectly was a failure to provide the company's services to the standard reasonably expected. However, the company was found to have adequately chased its predecessor, and so no further breaches were found.

Remedy Awarded

£250.00 compensation and an apology.

Complaint Overview

The customer stated that the company had not reimbursed him the repair costs of his water softener, which he claimed was damaged by chlorine added by the company. He requested this cost of £500.00. Further, he claimed that he did not know of the availability of a reduced tariff and so did not apply for this until August 2017. He submitted the company had unreasonably refused to backdate his eligibility for this tariff and requested this be directed.

The company stated it was not responsible for the damage to his water softener. It submitted that it applies a reduced tariff from the date of application only and does not backdate eligibility before the receipt of the application.

Outcome and Reasons

The company did not need to take any further action.

The customer had not proved that the company damaged his water softener by adding chlorine to the water. The adjudicator found that the company had acted in accordance with its own policies in applying the reduced tariff and provided adequate information regarding the availability of this tariff. The customer did not show that the company failed to supply its services to the standard that would reasonably be expected.

Remedy Awarded

None.