Summary
Mr C owns a substantial garage, which he used for storage but that was formerly used for a business. It had no toilet or kitchen facilities but there was a stopcock at the entrance. He was charged for drainage of rainwater from the roof but not for water services. However, in 2014 Business Stream sent him a demand for payment for the provision of water there. Mr C said that after Business Stream visited to verify his information about the lack of facilities, he made enquiries about permanent disconnection of the water supply. A few days later, a contractor called and fitted a meter, although Mr C said he explained that what he wanted was disconnection. He told us that he was asked to pay a fee to proceed with disconnection, but Business Stream then sent him an invoice seeking a further, larger, payment for it. Mr C complained that Business Stream failed to give him prior notice before a water meter was fitted and that the proposed charge for disconnection was expensive for what was required.
We found from our investigation that Mr C had initially applied for a reassessment of charges, which is for the installation of a water meter if possible, before he applied for disconnection of the water supply. There was no record of him changing his mind about having a meter fitted before he applied for disconnection, and we did not uphold the complaint as we did not find evidence that Business Stream were required to give prior notice.
Related reading
View Decision Report 201403974 as a PDF (11.22 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018