Summary
Mr C complained about Business Stream's handling of his application for a reduction in the return to sewer (RTS) rate applied to his business. In particular, he was unhappy that the calculations submitted with his application had been rejected and that Business Stream did not clarify why the information provided was not acceptable. He also complained that Business Stream, who had advised him of the need to install sub-meters to record the volume of water used, had failed to provide adequate guidance on how to install the sub-meters. Mr C was also dissatisfied that Business Stream would not consider backdating any reduction in the RTS rate to a date before his most recent application. Finally, Mr C was unhappy with Business Stream's handling of his complaint.
We found that the application for a reduction in the RTS rate had been made on Mr C's behalf by an experienced representative. We found that Business Stream had provided information on the need for sub-meters, and had explained why the information provided in the application was inadequate to award a reduced RTS rate. However, during our investigation Business Stream accepted that they could provide more general information to the public on the RTS allowance, and that they could have provided more in-depth information on the need to install sub-meters. Based on the available evidence, we were satisfied that Business Stream were acting in line with their policy about the effective date for a reduction in the RTS rate.
We were also satisfied that, in general, Business Stream had responded to the representations made and had responded to the formal complaint in line with their complaints process.
Recommendations
We recommended that Business Stream: consider providing more general information regarding RTS and the type of evidence which should be supplied with any application.
Related reading
View Decision Report 201404826 as a PDF (12.33 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018