Consumer Council for Water (CCW)

3. Mr M complains that in 2024 the CCW did not independently review his complaint about Anglian Water. Instead, he says it repeated what Anglian Water had told him without independently verifying this information.

4. He says this has caused him to worry about a large water bill in the future.

5. Mr M would like an independent review of the CCW’s handling of the case.

6. In February 2024 Anglian Water replaced Mr M’s water meter with a smart water meter. Following this he noticed a significant drop in his reported water usage. Mr M was concerned the meter may be faulty and contacted Anglian Water in June.

7. Anglian Water replied to Mr M’s complaint and signposted him to the CCW on 2 July 2024.

8. Mr M approached the CCW in September 2024. On 12 September it issued a response from Anglian Water. The CCW signposted Mr M to Ofwat (the water industry regulator).

9. Mr M approached Ofwat and it advised it could not consider his complaint. Mr M returned to the CCW on 26 September. The CCW signposted him to our service on 4 October.

10. Following this Mr M decided to approach the Dispute Resolution Ombudsman (DRO), rather than our service. Unfortunately, the DRO could not consider his complaint. Mr M then asked his MP to refer his complaint to our service in December 2025.

12. The law says people must approach their MP within 12 months of becoming aware of the matter they are complaining about. We have some limited discretion to put this time limit to one side when there are special circumstances. To do this we consider the time it took for the person to complete the organisation’s complaint handling process and whether there were any personal circumstances that prevented them from approaching their MP sooner.

13. The CCW responded to Mr M’s complaint on 12 September 2024. It completed its internal review of its decision on 26 September, and signposted Mr M to our service on 4 October.

14. Mr M knew he was dissatisfied with the CCW’s decision on 12 September 2024 and asked the CCW to review its decision at that time. This means he should have approached his MP no later than 12 September 2025. His MP referred his complaint to our service on 12 December 2025. This means the complaint came to us three months outside the 12-month time limit.

15. Mr M provided an explanation for the delay in approaching our service in the complaint form he submitted to us. On 29 July 2026 we asked him for more information about any special circumstances which prevented him from approaching his MP sooner. Mr M referred us to the information he gave us in his complaint form.

16. In the complaint form, Mr M explained the delay in approaching his MP was due to a protracted complaints process with the CCW, Ofwat and the DRO. We can see the CCW did initially refer Mr M to Ofwat, and this was not the right service to refer him to. He promptly approached the CCW again, and it then referred him to our service on 4 October.

17. We consider the time between 12 September and 4 October 2024 is explained by the complaints process. During this time Mr M promptly asked the CCW to review its response and contacted Ofwat. He then approached the CCW again in good time and was referred to our service.

18. There are times when there may be more than one organisation which could potentially review the decisions of a public body. When this happens, we do not consider the time taken to approach the alternative dispute resolution service as a reasonable delay, unless this formed a necessary part of the complaints process. In this case, Mr M had a choice between approaching our service and approaching the DRO. He decided to approach the DRO.

19. The DRO advised Mr M it could not look into his complaint because the CCW had declined to refer his case, which was required. Based on the evidence Mr M submitted, it is unclear exactly when he approached the DRO. An email dated 31 October 2025 indicates he first approached the DRO in September 2025, 11 months after he was signposted to our service.

20. We have seen some evidence that Mr M may have been attempting to pursue his complaint again via Anglian Water in June and July 2025. This does not reasonably explain the delay in asking his MP to refer his complaint to our service. This is because Mr M had been advised to approach us in October 2024 and chose to pursue this matter via the water company and the DRO instead.

21. We have decided we cannot take further action on Mr M’s complaint because he approached his MP outside of the 12-month time limit. We recognise that during the time between becoming aware of the CCW’s decision and approaching our service he was attempting to pursue an alternative route to resolve his complaint. This does not amount to special circumstances and it was reasonable to expect Mr M to have approached his MP much sooner than he did.

1. We have considered Mr M’s complaint about the Consumer Council for Water (CCW) and have decided not to take further action. This is because Mr M brought his complaint to his MP outside the 12-month time limit. We have not seen good reasons for the delay in approaching his MP.

2. We recognise this matter is important to Mr M and our decision does not comment on the merits of his complaint.