Summary
Mr C complained to us that Business Stream had not followed the correct procedure for taking meter readings. He said that since opening his business in May 2010, his water bills had greatly increased although his water consumption had not. He complained about this to Business Stream in August 2014 and was told that he should check for a leak. A leak was found and was fixed in October 2014.
Business Stream applied a leak allowance to Mr C's account for the six month period immediately before the leak was fixed. Mr C felt that this was insufficient and that Business Stream had not followed their procedure for taking meter readings. He believed the leak allowance should have been backdated to the opening of his business.
Business Stream's procedure requires them to take two meter readings per year. Mr C said that he was not alerted to the possibility of a leak because of Business Stream's failure to do this. However, we found that Business Stream had taken readings over the time in question, apart from a period between August 2013 and September 2014 (and they had attempted to do so in March 2014 but the premises were closed). It was towards the end of this timeframe that Mr C raised his concerns and was advised to check for a leak.
Business Stream said that Mr C had a responsibility to regularly check his water bills and to check for possible leaks and have them repaired. Once the leak was found and repaired, a six-month leak allowance was successfully applied for and paid into Mr C's account, in accordance with policy.
We found no evidence that Business Stream had failed to follow the correct procedures and therefore did not uphold the complaint.
Related reading
View Decision Report 201507759 as a PDF (11.32 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018