Case studies

This paper provides a brief summary of cases that have been referred to the Water Redress Scheme. The list will be added to as cases are decided upon by the Adjudicator.

Full redacted decisions are available on the Resolving Water Disputes website.

Case Study 1

Complaint Overview

The customer's mother passed away, and the customer notified the company that his solicitors would pay all outstanding bills. His solicitors did not pay the bills, and a County Court Judgment (CCJ) was made against the customer. The customer also stated that the company sent final bills and reminders to the wrong address. A further CCJ was made against the customer for the outstanding debt from his previous property.

The company accepted that a CCJ was recorded in the customer's name at his late mother's address, although this was later removed. The company acknowledged that it had no record of receiving any written notification from the customer's solicitors.

Furthermore, there was a telephone conversation with the customer as a result of which its billing records for his late mother's address were changed into the customer's name. The company stated that it attempted to bring the matter to the customer's attention before proceeding to obtain a CCJ. The company accepted that the customer did not reside at the address, and so it took steps to voluntarily set aside the CCJ. It paid the customer £50.00 as a gesture of goodwill and waived the charges in the sum of £154.70 which were correctly due for the customer's old property.

Outcome and Reasons

The company needed to take further action.

The company failed to provide a reasonable level of customer service in relation to the manner in which it dealt with the customer's complaint about his late mother's address. The adjudicator also found that the company failed to correctly notify the customer of the outstanding debt.

Remedy Awarded

£100.00

Case Study 2

Complaint Overview

The customer stated that the company overcharged him for the previous 11 years, which caused distress and financial hardship.

The company said that it began charging the customer in March 2004 and in June 2014 it found that it had charged the customer incorrectly over those years. The overcharge amounted to £420.23. The company refunded this sum, applied a further credit to the customer's account and then made offers of compensation which were refused.

Outcome and Reasons

The company needed to take further action.

The adjudicator found that the company had billed and charged the customer incorrectly for a number of years and had failed to identify and rectify the error within a reasonable period of time.

The customer had not provided evidence to support his statement that the company's billing error had caused him distress or financial hardship. However, the adjudicator acknowledged that the customer was deprived of a significant sum of money over a lengthy period of time and would have been caused stress and inconvenience by this.

Remedy Awarded

£150.00

Case Study 3

Complaint Overview

The customer's claim was that the company charged him incorrectly, insisted that he was responsible for pipe work in error, and provided poor customer service. The customer was also unhappy with the position of his water meter.

The company denied that it had charged the customer incorrectly, or that it had given inaccurate information to the customer regarding the legal ownership of the pipes.

Outcome and Reasons

The company did not need to take further action.

The adjudicator found that the customer had not proven that he had been charged incorrectly or that the company had incorrectly advised of his responsibility for certain pipe work. The customer's complaint related to the position of the water meter was outside the scope of WATRS.

Remedy Awarded

None.

Case Study 4

Complaint Overview

The customer's claim was that the company charged him incorrectly, provided incorrect advice regarding his charges, and provided poor customer service. The customer was also unhappy that the company's employees had trespassed on his property and that it was using a lead supply pipe which affected water quality. The customer sought £5,500.00 in compensation.

The company denied that it had charged the customer incorrectly or provided the customer with incorrect advice.

Outcome and Reasons

The company needed to take further action.

The adjudicator found that the company had not charged the customer incorrectly or provided incorrect advice. However, it was found that the company had failed to provide sufficiently informative responses to the customer's complaint which led to a long, drawn-out dispute.

The customer's complaint related to trespass raised a complicated issue of law which is more appropriately dealt with in an alternative forum, and the customer's complaint about water quality fell outside the scope of WATRS.

Remedy Awarded

£200.00

Case Study 5

Complaint Overview

The customer's claim was that the company should have alerted him sooner than it did that he could save money by having a water meter installed. The customer sought compensation in the sum of £2500.00 to cover overcharges he had incurred for 15 years for water provided on an unmeasured basis.

The company stated that it is only permitted to install water meters at existing residential properties where certain conditions are met. It duly provided the customer with a water meter when a Measured Charges Notice was received from him. It regularly and consistently informed the customer of his right to have a meter installed and to be charged on a measured basis by including a 'banner message' on all 'unmeasured' bills and articles in its accompanying customer magazine to highlight this possibility.

Outcome and Reasons

The company did not need to take further action.

The adjudicator found that the company is only able to install water meters when certain conditions are met and that in the customer's case there were no grounds to install a water meter at his address until it received the Measured Charges Notice from him. The adjudicator also found that there was no duty on the company to notify the customer of his option of having a water meter and/or provide advice that installation of a water meter could save him money. The adjudicator accepted that the company had acted reasonably by providing the customer with information in bills and other material which notified him of the potential to save money by having a water meter installed.

Remedy Awarded

None.

Case Study 6

Complaint Overview

The customer claimed that the company charged him in error for a number of years for the removal of surface water and failed to refund these charges or make an inflationary adjustment of the charges. The customer sought a full refund of erroneous charges, an inflationary adjustment of the charges and compensation.

The company submitted that it correctly refunded the customer for the period in which it erroneously charged him for the removal of surface water. Further, it claimed that as there was no provision or requirement either in the Water Industry Act 1991 or the various charge schemes in force from 1996 to 2016 to say that in circumstances where a customer is charged for surface water when they are not connected, that interest or inflation will be paid on any charges which are due to be refunded, the customer was not entitled to the compensation claimed for.

Outcome and Reasons

The company needed to take further action.

The adjudicator found that the amount refunded by the company accurately represented the charges for surface water removal paid by the customer during the disputed timeframe; therefore, the company was not required to provide any further refund. However, the adjudicator accepted that the customer had been deprived of a significant sum of money over a 17-year period due to the company having incorrectly charged the customer for surface water removal.

Remedy Awarded

£150.00

Case Study 7

Complaint Overview

The customer's claim concerned an odour in his property following works carried out by the company to a nearby sewer pipe. The customer also submitted that the company had provided poor customer service in relation to his complaint. The customer sought compensation of £10,000.00 and an apology.

The company stated that it had provided assistance and/or made a number of offers of assistance to the customer during the period.

Outcome and Reasons

The company needed to take further action.

The adjudicator found that, although the company had made reasonable attempts to investigate and rectify the problem, the customer had been greatly inconvenienced by the matter for over three months. The adjudicator also found that the company had failed to respond to the customer's written correspondence in a timely manner during the period of the complaint.

Remedy Awarded

  • £2,000.00
  • A written apology

Case Study 8

Complaint Overview

The customer stated that the company failed to allocate payments he had made to his account, which had negatively affected his credit file. The customer sought compensation of £2,000.00 and an apology.

The company said that the customer failed to provide the correct reference codes on his payments and refused to provide the company with assistance in locating payments.

Outcome and Reasons

The company needed to take further action.

The adjudicator found that the company should have located the customer's payments earlier than it did and should therefore have ended its debt recovery process sooner. In addition, the adjudicator found that once payments had been located, the company had not contacted the credit reference agency in a timely manner in order to amend the customer's credit file.

Remedy Awarded

  • £150.00
  • A written apology
  • The company had to ensure that the customer's credit file was correctly updated

Case Study 9

Complaint Overview

The customer submitted that the rateable value of his property was incorrect and that, as a consequence, water charges which had been levied on a rateable value basis since he moved into his home in 2002 were also incorrect. The customer also submitted that the company provided a poor level of customer service in its handling of his complaint. The customer sought an apology and a refund of all charges paid since 2002.

The company denied that it had charged the customer incorrectly, and it stated that it had provided a good level of customer service at all times.

Outcome and Reasons

The company did not need to take further action.

The adjudicator found that rateable values were effectively frozen in 1990 and there was no evidence to show that the rateable value being used by the company was not the rateable value issued by the Valuation Office Agency prior to 1 April 1990. The adjudicator also found there was no evidence to show that the company had failed to provide a reasonable level of customer service when dealing with the complaint.

Remedy Awarded

None.

Case Study 10

Complaint Overview

The customer claimed that the company had failed to give notice before commencing works outside his property, that the works had caused inconvenience and that the contractors employed by the company had been abusive, had carried out the works without a permit and without due regard to health and safety requirements.

The company stated that works had been carried out on its behalf by a third party contractor, and that the necessary permits had been obtained. The company accepted that the customer had been adversely affected by the works, and offers of compensation had been made to the customer in recognition of this. However, the customer had declined those offers.

Outcome and Reasons

The company needed to take further action.

The customer had been adversely affected by the works carried out by the company, and notice of the intended works had not been provided to the customer. However, the adjudicator found that the relevant permits had been acquired by the company prior to carrying out the works. In the absence of any contradictory submission or evidence by the company, the adjudicator accepted the customer's assertion that the company's contractor had used inappropriate language during a visit to the property.

Remedy Awarded

£200.00

Case Study 11

Complaint Overview

The customer claimed that a leakage allowance applied to his bills by the company had been incorrectly calculated. In addition, the customer asserted that he had requested a hard copy of the company's complaints procedure, which had not been provided. The customer requested compensation of £3,213.89.

The company stated that it can offer leakage allowances at its sole discretion. The company did apply a leakage allowance which took into account the fact that the customer did not bring the leak to its attention until three years after it had occurred. The company denied responsibility to provide any further sum to the customer. No reference was made by the company in relation to information it provided to the customer about its complaints procedure.

Outcome and Reasons

The company needed to take further action.

The adjudicator found that, under the Water Industry Act 1991, the company was entitled to use its discretion when applying leakage allowances. As the customer had not brought the leak to the company's attention sooner, the adjudicator was satisfied that the company provided its services to the standard to be reasonably expected.

As no reference was made by the company to the claims raised by the customer in relation to the complaints process, the adjudicator found on a balance of probabilities that the customer was not provided with the requested information.

Remedy Awarded

  • £50.00
  • The company was directed to provide the customer with a hard copy of its complaints procedure

Case Study 12

Complaint Overview

The customer submitted that the company had charged him incorrectly over four years (by failing to charge him in full). The customer did not request any compensation but requested a reduction in the full outstanding amount owing on his account.

The company accepted that it had charged the customer incorrectly for several years, but that it had already rectified the errors and offered the customer £25.00 in compensation. The company, however, did not accept that the customer was entitled to any reduction in the outstanding balance on his account.

Outcome and Reasons

The company needed to take further action.

The company's failures in relation to correctly charging the customer were not disputed. The adjudicator noted that these failures were significant and took place over a long period of time.

Remedy Awarded

£700.00, which was to be applied as a deduction from the customer's outstanding balance.

Case Study 13

Complaint Overview

The customer disputed her wastewater charges because the company had not specifically shown her the water meter at her property.

The company explained that it only provides wastewater services to the customer. The company showed that it had already provided the customer with a detailed breakdown of her charges.

Outcome and Reasons

The company did not need to take further action.

The adjudicator found that the company was not responsible for showing the water meter to the customer and it had already provided the customer with a breakdown of her charges.

Remedy Awarded

None.

Case Study 14

Complaint Overview

The customer claimed that the company made a change to his water tariff without his agreement. The new tariff had resulted in higher water and sewerage charges. The customer sought reinstatement of his former water tariff or compensation of £200 for every year he has been on the new tariff.

The company submitted that it is legally entitled to issue charging tariffs and that it has exercised its powers lawfully, reasonably and appropriately in implementing the change.

Outcome and Reasons

The company needed to take further action.

The adjudicator found that the company was legally entitled to make changes to its charges and withdraw tariffs when deemed necessary. By changing the customer's tariff, the company had not acted outside its authority. The company had also introduced a social tariff to assist those customers who are vulnerable or live in low-income households.

However, the adjudicator found that the company had not given sufficient notice of the change in tariff to the customer and had not provided a revised projection of its charges. Therefore the adjudicator was satisfied that the company had not provided its services to the standard to be reasonably expected.

Remedy Awarded

£125.00

Case Study 15

Complaint Overview

The customer's claim was that the company had not adequately responded to incidents of sewer flooding in his garden. The customer was dissatisfied with the amount of compensation offered, and requested that the company re-route the manholes and pipes at his property so that they are located outside the property boundary.

The company said that the sewage emissions were caused by blockages on its network caused by third parties discharging unsuitable materials into the sewer network. Although it is not responsible for the blockages, it will clear up any sewage flooding. It fully cleaned the customer's property and deep cleaned the sewers to remove fat, grease and scale. It also provided a leaflet to residents in the customer's area to educate them on the issue, and it implements a regular check of the sewer. There have since been no further incidents of blockages or flooding at the customer's home.

Outcome and Reasons

The company needed to take further action.

The adjudicator acknowledged that the company had taken a number of significant and successful steps to prevent the sewer from flooding again. However, the incidents of sewer flooding meant that the company had not provided its services to the standard to be reasonably expected. In addition, although the company had provided some GSS payments due to the customer for sewage flooding, the adjudicator found it had not made all payments that were due.

The customer's request for the re-routing of manholes and pipes was outside the scope of WATRS.

Remedy Awarded

£994.24

Case Study 16

Complaint Overview

The customer said that he was being charged in full for sewerage costs when a substantial volume of water was being used for irrigation. The company had applied a non-return allowance of 65% at the site for 20 years. The customer acknowledged that he had not renewed the non-return allowance for over four years, but cited mitigating circumstances.

The company stated that, under its charging scheme, non-return allowances are granted at its discretion. The company had written and called the customer to alert him that the non-return allowance would end if he did not renew it, but he failed to do this.

Outcome and Reasons

The company did not need to take further action.

The adjudicator found that the company had taken reasonable steps to notify the customer that the discretionary non-return allowance was going to end. The adjudicator also found that, by contacting the customer to request that he complete and return the form for the discretionary allowance, the company had met the standard to be reasonably expected.

Remedy Awarded

None.

Case Study 17

Complaint Overview

The customer said that the company had failed to install a water meter after agreeing to do so. The customer also stated that the company failed to respond to communications and was untruthful.

The company stated that the customer's account was subject to a County Court Judgment (CCJ) in respect of unpaid charges. The customer's complaint about the water meter formed the basis of an application to court made by the customer to set aside the CCJ. The application was reviewed and dismissed by a District Judge.

Outcome and Reasons

The company needed to take further action.

WATRS cannot be used to adjudicate any disputes which have previously been to court. As a court had already ruled on the charges on the customer's account, this aspect of the customer's claim and the customer's complaints about the CCJ could not be considered.

However, the adjudicator found that the company failed to respond to the customer's emails within a reasonable timeframe.

Remedy Awarded

A written apology

Case Study 18

Complaint Overview

The customer asserted that the company was charging him incorrectly, that it gave incorrect advice causing him to incur plumber costs and that works it had carried out had damaged his property. He sought an apology and compensation of £1,714.26.

The company said that it had charged the customer correctly and that it gave him correct advice. It denied responsibility for any damage or poor workmanship.

Outcome and Reasons

The company needed to take further action.

The adjudicator found that the company was charging the customer correctly and that it had given him correct advice. However, the works were carried out poorly which did cause minor damage to the customer's property and caused him to incur costs. The adjudicator considered it fair that the customer be reimbursed for the costs incurred and a further sum was given for the stress and inconvenience he suffered. The majority of the sum claimed by the customer was not awarded as it related to alleged overpayments that had not been proven.

Remedy Awarded

  • £300.00
  • A written apology

Case Study 19

Complaint Overview

The customer stated that he had requested a water meter in 2008 and 2013 but one had not been provided. A meter was finally installed in 2015, which reduced his water bill. He therefore sought to be compensated for paying more than necessary since 2008.

The company said that the customer did not complete a request for a meter until January 2015 and one was fitted in February 2015. The company said it had no obligation to reduce the customer's charges prior to the fitting of the water meter.

Outcome and Reasons

The company did not need to take further action.

The adjudicator found that there was no evidence that the customer had made a request for a water meter until January 2015. The customer had not proven any failing on the part of the company.

Remedy Awarded

None.

Case Study 20

Complaint Overview

The customer submitted that her business and domestic premises were subject to an internal sewage leak, due to a sewerage flooding from a public sewer. The customer stated that the company was liable to pay her £3383.00 compensation for the damaged caused to her property as a result of the flooding. She further submitted that the company had failed to pay her any of the amounts agreed and it had delayed dealing with her case.

The company submitted that the customer's property was internally flooded due to factors beyond its control and was therefore not liable for any resulting damage. It highlighted that it had paid the customer the agreed amounts in compensation.

Outcome and Reasons

The company needed to take further action.

The company was aware of the risk of sewerage leaks due to the factors beyond its control and there was a lack of evidence that it took sufficient measures to mitigate the risk of flooding as a result of these issues. The adjudicator also found the company delayed in handling the customer's claim and failed to prove it had made payment to the customer for the amounts agreed.

Remedy Awarded

£1540.00 compensation and a written apology.

Case Study 21

Complaint Overview

The customer submitted that the company: failed to return £195.68 due to him; cancelled his Direct Debit multiple times; failed to abide by the terms of the Direct Debit guarantee; incorrectly placed non-payment marks on his credit file; chased him for payment by threatening him with debt collection agencies and county court judgments; and, sent him letters quoting untrue or misleading facts.

The company denied that it was responsible for the customer's Direct Debits failing and that it did not abide by the terms of the Direct Debit guarantee. It stated the customer could have requested the £195.68 due to him at any time. It submitted that it followed its debt recovery process correctly and correctly notified the credit reference agency of overdue payments. The company denied providing untrue or misleading facts but accepted that some information given by one of its agents was not strictly true.

Outcome and Reasons

The company needed to take further action.

The company failed to provide its services to the customer to the standard reasonable expected in relation to: the sum of money due back to the customer; its failure to fully explain why the Direct Debits had failed; and, for providing incorrect, misleading and/or insufficient information in its correspondence to the customer.

Remedy Awarded

Assist the customer is setting up a new Direct Debit by closing his account and opening a new one; remove the negative markers on the customer's credit file; and £200.00 compensation.

Case Study 22

Complaint Overview

The customer submitted that between August 2014 and May 2017 rats were living in his home - having entered by two public sewers owned by the company. He stated that the company had denied the problem and did not adequately deal with the issue, causing him to have to engage private contractors to resolve the issue at his personal expense. He claimed a total of £9222.98 in respect of the direct costs incurred and compensation.

The company denied the rat problem, if one existed, was due to them entering via its assets. It maintained it carried out investigations and implemented measures, that went above and beyond its duty, in order to assist the customer in identifying whether he had a rodent problem.

Outcome and Reasons

The company needed to take further action.

The company's initial investigations were inadequate, leading to the customer having to engage private contractors - who discovered evidence of rats entering via disused pipes connected to two public sewers. Whilst the points of entry were on section of the pipe that the company were not responsible for, the company had no knowledge of this due to the insufficient original investigation. This was evidence that the company did not provide its service to the standard to be reasonably expected.

Remedy Awarded

£5324.00 compensation.

Case Study 23

Complaint Overview

The customer stated that he had been given a rebate in 2017, because more than 10% of metered water supplied does not return to the sewer, but the company refused to backdate this. The customer maintained the circumstances of the property had remained unchanged since 2005 and that he was unaware he could make such a claim until 2016.

The company submitted that it is its policy not to backdate abated payments. It further stated that the customer was on notice of his potential entitlement at all times, due to the information being available on his bills, in literature given and on the company's website.

Outcome and Reasons

The company did not need to take any further action.

The adjudicator found there was no evidence that the company had acted otherwise than in accordance with its policy. The company had also taken reasonable steps to alert the customer to his potential entitlement. It had therefore acted in accordance with the service standards to be reasonably expected.

Remedy Awarded

None.

Case Study 24

Complaint Overview

The customer noticed a prominent increase in their water bills and usage and so reported a suspected leak in November 2014. The customer stated it took the company until September 2016 to identify the source of the problem and should have provided better advice and assistance. They stated that had this been done, wasted water costs totalling £16880.00 would have been saved - the customer claimed this amount.

The company acknowledged that the matter took some time to resolve but stated that this was due to the leak being on private pipework and difficult to locate. It submitted that the customer had responsibility for the leak but despite this, as a goodwill gesture, the company repaired the leak. Further, an 'out of policy' waste water allowance was allocated to the customer's account.

Outcome and Reasons

The company did not need to take any further action.

The adjudicator found that the company properly discharged its duties owed to the customer and the company had no obligation to provide more assistance than it did.

Remedy Awarded

None.

Case Study 25

Complaint Overview

The customer submitted that he should have the right to choose to be billed by Rateable Value (RV) if he felt it more beneficial. The company had declined his request, stating that the property had been metered since 1999 and so no right existed. The customer requested that the company be obligated to charge him on an unmeasured or fixed basis.

The company stated that there was no legal basis for the customer to have requested this and that it had fully complied with the relevant legislation when installing the property's meter.

Outcome and Reasons

The company was not required to take any further action.

The adjudicator found that there was no legal basis for the customer to be allowed to choose to be billed by RV. The company had not failed to provide its services to the standard to be reasonably expected.

Remedy Awarded

None.

Case Study 26

Complaint Overview

During the process of fitting a smart meter in the customer's home, it was discovered that an existing meter was already fitted to his private supply, and had been there since 1986. This meter was subsequently removed. The customer stated that had he known that the removed meter was connected to his private supply, he may have benefited by way of savings to his water services charges dating back to 1986. The customer sought £1423.54 in this respect.

The company submitted that it should have no obligation to pay compensation as the removed meter was for the company's monitoring purposes only and not for any billing or revenue-related purposes. The company stated that the customer had not lost any opportunity to make savings on his water charges.

Outcome and Reasons

The company did not need to take any further action.

The adjudicator found that the removed meter was fitted and used for monitoring purposes only, such that the company had no obligation to tell the customer.

Remedy Awarded

None.

Case Study 27

Complaint Overview

The customer stated that, when installing a new public sewer in his village, the company: instigated an illegal road closure; delayed completing the works; knowingly used a faulty product; failed to keep residents updated; and provided inaccurate and/or inconsistent information.

The company denied all allegations. It further stated that it was for the Environmental Agency to determine whether there was any error on the company's part in regards to the time taken to complete the new sewer and for the Highways Authority to determine if it committed an offence with the road closure.

Outcome and Reasons

The company needed to take further action.

The customer's allegations regarding the illegal road closure and delay in completing the works fell outside the scope of the Scheme. The adjudicator found that there was no evidence to show that fault equipment was used or that incorrect information was provided, but there was evidence that the company had failed to keep residents updated.

Remedy Awarded

£75.00 compensation and a written apology.

Case Study 28

Complaint Overview

The customer stated that the company had wrongly charged him for surface water drainage since 2007 and had only backdated payments to 1 April 2014. The customer claimed a refund of these payments from February 2007, amounting to £1081.81, an apology, £250.00 compensation and interest at 8% per annum.

The company submitted it was not liable to refund payments made before 1 April 2014 - the customer applied for a rebate in November 2017 and it applied its Scheme of Charges and policies correctly.

Outcome and Reasons

The company did not need to take any further action.

The company acted in accordance with its legal obligations and its Scheme of Charges. The adjudicator found it had supplied its services to the standard to be reasonably expected.

Remedy Awarded

None.

Case Study 29

Complaint Overview

The customer's representative was the landlord of the customer. The customer suffered from schizophrenia. The landlord submitted that the company did not attempt to contact her about a leak to the shared water supply and submitted that as a result she was unaware of the leak and unable to make repairs. She further stated that the customer's neighbour's share of the bill had been waived but not the customer's - she claimed this to be unfair and discrimination. It was requested that the bill be reduced to zero, £200.00 compensation be awarded and that the company alter its process to knock on doors to advise of leaks, ensuring customers understand the situation.

The company stated it sent letters to the account holders of the relevant properties, advising of the leak. The customer did not respond and did not contact his landlord. It detailed that after issuing a s75 notice, it completed the repair work and charged the relevant customers. The company stated it was not aware the customer was vulnerable and the landlord was not added as a third party on the account until January 2018.

Outcome and Reasons

The company did not need to take any further action.

The company were not aware the customer was vulnerable until after the leak had been repaired. The company therefore followed an appropriate process in relation to the leak.

Remedy Awarded

None.

Case Study 30

Complaint Overview

The customer submitted that significant water services charges were accrued on their property account as the account details were never updated from the previous owner. The customer stated that because of this they did not receive any invoices and did not pay any water services charges. They stated that this was the fault of the company's predecessor, and to some extent the company, and so claimed a service reduction of approximately £6000.00.

The company accepted that it initially incorrectly advised the customer when the issue of updating the account details was brought to its attention. However, it maintained that it was not responsible for the customer's dealings with its predecessor, who it had nevertheless chased on the customer's behalf. The company had offered the customer £250.00 compensation in recognition of the oversight on its part.

Outcome and Reasons

The company needed to take further action.

The adjudicator agreed that the company advising incorrectly was a failure to provide the company's services to the standard reasonably expected. However, the company was found to have adequately chased its predecessor, and so no further breaches were found.

Remedy Awarded

£250.00 compensation and an apology.

Case Study 31

Complaint Overview

The customer stated that the company had not reimbursed him the repair costs of his water softener, which he claimed was damaged by chlorine added by the company. He requested this cost of £500.00. Further, he claimed that he did not know of the availability of a reduced tariff and so did not apply for this until August 2017. He submitted the company had unreasonably refused to backdate his eligibility for this tariff and requested this be directed.

The company stated it was not responsible for the damage to his water softener. It submitted that it applies a reduced tariff from the date of application only and does not backdate eligibility before the receipt of the application.

Outcome and Reasons

The company did not need to take any further action.

The customer had not proved that the company damaged his water softener by adding chlorine to the water. The adjudicator found that the company had acted in accordance with its own policies in applying the reduced tariff and provided adequate information regarding the availability of this tariff. The customer did not show that the company failed to supply its services to the standard that would reasonably be expected.

Remedy Awarded

None.