Consumer Council for Water (CCW)

3. Mr S complains that CCW has failed to handle his complaint as it should. He says it did not take agreed action within specified timescales on more than one occasion and has not provided clear reasons for its errors.

4. Mr S explains that CCW’s actions have exacerbated the financial harm his complaint to it related to. He has experienced stress, anxiety and frustration as well as having to take time and trouble to chase it to act. He says his ability to refer the matter to an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) service was delayed by CCW’s failings and he has lost trust in public complaint handling bodies.

5. To resolve his complaint, Mr S would like CCW to apologise to him for its failings and make a payment to recognise these. He also seeks service improvements to prevent the same issues happening again.

6. Mr S asked CCW to consider his complaint about his water supplier on 31 May 2025. It concluded this on 5 September when it referred his case to ADR at his request.

7. In the interim, Mr S contacted CCW numerous times chasing action and following up when timescales it had given to him had elapsed without contact.

8. CCW referred Mr S’ complaint to ADR on 5 September and passed the resulting decision on to him on 17 October. Mr S asked us to consider his complaint on 21 September.

11. When we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the event(s) complained about had a negative effect which the organisation has not put right. Having done so we think CCW has already done enough to put right the impact of these events.

Complaint handling and timescales

12. Mr S complains that CCW has not handled his complaint as it should. Specifically, he says CCW failed to properly recognise a valid deadlock letter, did not challenge inaccurate information provided by United Utilities and did not provide updates as requested. He also complains that CCW failed to act in line with agreed timescales.

13. Mr S referred his complaint about his water supplier to CCW on 31 May. He sent a copy of the water supplier’s final response, which he refers to as a deadlock letter. The letter was dated 30 May and stated that this was the water supplier’s final response, with Mr S’ next step being to contact CCW.

14. CCW contacted the water supplier following receipt of Mr S’ complaint. The supplier told CCW that Mr S’ complaint remained open. As a result, CCW wrote to him on 9 June to tell him it was unable to consider his complaint further as the supplier’s complaints process had yet to be exhausted. This was at odds with the information contained within the supplier’s final response letter.

15. The UK Central Government Complaint Standards (the Standards) say that public bodies should give key parties the opportunity to share their views. We think CCW did this when it contacted Mr S’ water supplier after receiving his complaint about it. While we can see why Mr S felt this was not necessary, given the final position outlined in the letter he had already provided CCW with, we would not necessarily expect CCW to have gone straight to reaching a decision about his complaint without first contacting the supplier. We think this shows CCW acted in line with the Standards.

16. We acknowledge that when CCW made this contact, it received conflicting information. As it has already recognised within its letter of 23 June, it could have explored this inconsistency with Mr S’ supplier. We can see that CCW has apologised for not doing so, as well as the delay this caused.

17. Mr S complains that he did not receive updates from CCW despite requesting these on several occasions. There are two periods he refers to. The period from June to July, and then after his complaint was allocated to a new caseworker. We can see his case was reallocated on 26 June, which falls within the June to July period. We have therefore considered this period alongside the point at which he asked CCW to refer his case to ADR.

18. The Standards say that organisations should respond to complaints at the earliest opportunity and give, and meet, clear timeframes.

19. We can see that CCW did not provide any response to Mr S’ 10 June email, and that he prompted it to deal with his case five day later. CCW then got in touch by phone on 17 June and followed this up with emails on 20 and 23 June respectively. It is unclear whether CCW would have responded had Mr S not been in touch again on 15 June, bearing in mind only three working days had elapsed in the meantime.

20. Mr S asked CCW for a timescale for its next steps within his email of 23 June. Although CCW responded to his email on 25 June and confirmed his case was with the correct department, it did not provide the information he asked for. We think this was poor customer service and, although it was a shortcoming, it is not substantial enough to be considered maladministration. This is because the error was relatively minor in nature and did not appear to have any significant impact.

21. Mr S heard nothing further until 18 July when CCW confirmed that it had not progressed his case because of its own error.

22. While we note that CCW got in touch with Mr S on 18 July, it seems this was prompted by his email of 15 July within which he chased it. Given that CCW had not progressed Mr S’ case because of its own oversight, it seems reasonable to conclude that it would not have taken any further action if not for Mr S’ 15 July reminder. We think this is an indication of maladministration on CCW’s part as it did not do what it said it would.

23. In CCW’s email of 18 July, it told Mr S he would hear from it again in two weeks. Mr S got in touch with it on day 13 and received a response the following day. This was provided at the two-week mark. It therefore contacted him within the specified time. We cannot say whether this would have been done without his 31 July prompt. Nonetheless, Mr S did hear from CCW within the 14 days cited. We therefore do not consider there to be any error here.

24. Mr S asked CCW to refer his case to ADR on 11 August. This was assigned to the relevant person on the same day, and, on 18 August, it told him it would confirm the next steps. He chased this action on 20 August and received a response the following day. This explained that the referral process was being undertaken and that he would receive contact within the next seven days. We think these timescales are reasonable and in line with the Standard’s requirement to respond at the earliest opportunity

25. That said, it appears CCW did not provide an update after this time. It told Mr S his case had been allocated to its ADR team on 21 August. It said he would hear from it, and it would instigate the adjudication within seven days. This included uploading his case to the ADR’s system. Mr S chased CCW about this on 2 September. The timescale quoted had passed and he had not heard anything. This is an indication something went wrong as CCW did not do what it said it would.

26. We note this was completed by 5 September.

27. This was not in line with the Standards and is an indication something went wrong. We recognise this was frustrating for Mr S.

28. We will return to consider the action CCW took to remedy these failings later.

Not providing reasons

29. Mr S complains that CCW did not explain why its failures occurred.

30. The Standards say organisations should provide fair and open answers to questions based on the facts and take full accountability for mistakes identified.

31. CCW has acted in accordance with our Standards as it has acknowledged the errors it has made. It has accepted that it did not reallocate Mr S’ case despite saying it would do, or providing updates as agreed, for example. Organisations are not always able to explain how or why things went wrong as this is often the result of human error. While we understand Mr S wants to know how and why the errors with his case happened and he finds CCW’s responses unsatisfactory in terms of providing these explanations, we do not think it has demonstrated any failings in not giving him the explanations he seeks.

Impact

32. When we identify something may have gone wrong, we look to see if this had an impact on the complaint. We also look to see if the organisation has done anything to put this right. Our Principles for Remedy say that where errors have occurred, the organisation should apologise and, ideally, return the service user to the position they were in had the error not happened. Where this cannot be done, whether compensation might be appropriate could be considered.

33. Mr S says CCW’s actions worsened the financial issues his complaint about his water supplier related to. He explains that, as well as having to take the time and trouble to press CCW to deal with his concerns, the matter has been upsetting, stressful and frustrating. Additionally, he says CCW delayed his ability to refer his concerns to ADR and he has lost trust in public complaint handling bodies.

34. We can see how not receiving updates or acting in specified timescales would be frustrating and that Mr S felt he needed to take the time and trouble to chase CCW. While we note Mr S’s desire to have his complaint considered more swiftly, we have not seen any evidence to support that CCW’s delays caused any financial impact.

35. CCW’s errors caused a delay in ADR having the opportunity to consider Mr S’ case. He referred his complaint to CCW on 31 May, and it referred the matter to ADR on 5 September having asked it to do so on 11 August. This is a total period of just under 14 weeks. Of this period, we think CCW prolonged the period by just over half this time. There was a two-week delay between 9 and 23 June, three and a half weeks between 23 June and 18 July and a further two weeks between 21 August and 5 September.

36. Again, we can see how this would be frustrating and worrying for Mr S. He was clearly keen to have the matter resolved as quickly as possible and spent time and trouble contacting CCW to ensure this was done. We are mindful that, although delayed, CCW did refer his concerns to ADR and passed on its views. Hopefully this has gone some way to restoring his trust as this is the position he would have been in if he had not experienced any maladministration by CCW.

37. CCW has apologised to Mr S on several occasions, which we welcome. We have thought about whether we think it should take any additional action and have decided that we do not.

38. We have considered our Severity of Injustice scale to help us make this determination. We have also been mindful of the fact that the impact Mr S complains of happened over a relatively short period of time (less than two months). Where this is the case, we would place a case into level two when we think the injustice was significant or serious in nature. While not wishing to minimise the impact Mr S tells us this matter has had on him, we do not consider this applies in this case. We think that this means Mr S’ complaint lies within level one of our Severity of Injustice scale, which does not usually attract a monetary remedy. We normally say an apology is enough to put right these types of injustices. As explained, CCW has already apologised for the impact of its errors. For this reason, we will not require any further action by CCW.

1. We have carefully considered Mr S’ complaint about CCW. We are sorry to hear about the problems he has experienced in his contact with it.

2. CCW has acknowledged its errors in its handling of Mr S’ complaint. We have decided that the action it has already taken to resolve these is in line with the relevant guidance, and we think it does not need to provide any additional remedy.