End of Year Complaints and Enquiries Report

Transcription

1 End of Year Complaints and Enquiries Report 1 April March 2016 July

2 CONSUMER COUNCIL FOR WATER END OF YEAR REPORT ON CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND ENQUIRIES 1 April March 2016 Table of Contents 1. Purpose of report Recommendations Report Summary Company actions, policy changes, hot topics and issues identified by CCWater Company Updates Quarter four (January - March 2016) Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water Severn Trent Southern Water Sutton and East Surrey Water South West Water Thames Water United Utilities Complaints Action Log Complaint and Debt Assessments Company Policy changes in Complaints Complaint Numbers Complaint Handling Complaint Categories Vulnerable customers Contact Methods Consumer Support Site Complaint Outcomes Consumer Satisfaction Performance WATRS Six-month Review of WATRS Enquiries Enquiry numbers Enquiry categories Enquiry contact methods Resource Implications Risk management

3 CONSUMER COUNCIL FOR WATER END OF YEAR REPORT ON CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND ENQUIRIES 1 April March 2016 Report of: Head of Consumer Relations 1. Purpose of report 1.1 To inform the Board of our complaint and enquiry numbers and comment on our performance and consumer satisfaction achieved during To identify company complaint trends and to provide information for Chairs, Local Consumer Advocates (LCAs) and staff to discuss identified issues and agreed future actions with local companies. 2. Recommendations 2.1 The Board is asked to: note the report, use the report information to capitalise on joint working between staff, Chairs and LCAs to challenge or congratulate companies where appropriate, and feedback any key issues arising from the paper to the Head of Consumer Relations for further follow up action, including if further information is required. 3

4 3. Report Summary Complaints about water companies 3.1 Consumer complaints about water companies to CCWater decreased by 1% from 10,135 in to 9,991 in When measuring complaints per 10,000 connections, the most complained about companies were Southern Water, South West Water and United Utilities. Wessex Water received the fewest complaints of any water and sewerage company. Investigations 3.3 We opened 19 investigations in , two fewer than in A further six investigations were opened but later retracted following an appeal from the company. The investigations were of United Utilities (six investigations), Thames Water (four), Anglian Water (three), and one investigation each against Severn Trent, Southern Water, Dŵr Cymru, Yorkshire Water, Sutton and East Surrey Water and SSE Water (a NAV). Complaints about CCWater 3.4 We received nine complaints about our complaint handling that we escalated for review in , compared to seven last year. We completed four reviews in the year, compared to ten last year. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman investigated one complaint against CCWater, which it partially upheld. Complaint categories 3.5 Billing and charges continued to be the most common cause of complaint to CCWater, accounting for 53% of all complaints we received. The most common root cause of complaint was disputed liability of a measured bill (10% of all complaints), debt recovery (8% of all complaints) and surface water / highways drainage charges (3% of all complaints). 3.6 Nine percent of the complaints that CCWater handled were from non-household consumers, one percent were from mixed use (both domestic and non-domestic properties) and the remaining 90% were from households. The percentage of non-household connections in England and Wales is around six percent. Financial Redress 3.7 We secured 1.9m of financial redress for consumers in This is 375,000 less than in The redress equates to 194 per complaint handled. WATRS 3.8 We closed 1,509 cases where customers were eligible to approach WATRS (the Water Redress Scheme) in There are no figures from to compare to as this is the first year of WATRS operation. Of the 1,509 eligible cases, 287 consumers asked us for a reference number to approach the scheme and to date 138 consumers have done so. Of these applications, 45 have been successful in part (no case has been completely successful). Performance & satisfaction 3.9 Our performance against the 5-day acknowledgement of complaints target has remained static at 99.9% (0.9 points above the OBP target of 99.0%). Our performance in 20-day complaint closures has decreased by 0.2 percentage points to 82.4% (but is still 4.4 points above our OBP target of 78%). Our performance in 40- day closures increased, by 0.3 percentage points, to 92.6% (2.6 points above our OBP target of 90%) Consumer satisfaction with service, outcome and speed increased compared to Satisfaction with service was 74% (73% last year) against an Operational Business Plan (OBP) target of 72%, outcome was 60% (58% last year) against an OBP target of 58%, speed was 81% (80% last year) against an OBP target of 79% and courtesy was 93% (93% last year) against an OBP target of 90%. 4

5 Consumer Support Site 3.11 There were over 93,000 unique consumer visits to our support website in Less than 2% of visitors needed to make a complaint or enquiry to us. Most people found the information they required with no impact on our staff resources. Enquiries 3.12 We received more enquiries in than in , up 6% (485 enquiries) from 7,968 to 8,453. There was a decrease in the majority of enquiry categories with only other enquiries and contact details enquiries seeing a rise, contact details rising by 109%. The increase was related to enquiries about almost all companies. This has been driven by CCWater s new Customer Caseworker (CC) team better recording short transactional enquiries. It is important that CCWater accurately records this work so that we can plan our resources accordingly. 5

6 4. Company actions, policy changes, hot topics and issues identified by CCWater 4.1 Company Updates Quarter four (January - March 2016) This section (4.1) applies to the last quarter of the year (January March 2016) only. Details of company updates throughout the rest of the year are available in previous quarterly Board reports Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water The company made us aware that it had seen an increase in complaints due to a problem with its new billing system, a change in its debt recovery process and phasing its annual billing later than normal. In Quarter 4 (Q4) we have seen an increase in complaints about the company, up 75% on Q4 last year. The main increase has been in complaints about billing and charges, up from 39 in Q to 89 in Q , an increase of 128%. In our last meeting with the company it explained that after in depth analysis of over 300 complaints, it had identified three main causes: 1. accounts had been placed automatically into its debt recovery system when they should not have been, 2. payment cards and books had not been sent out in all cases, and 3. upon debt clearance accounts had switched from one computer system to another, which had reset the payment plan at the same time. The company has explained to us the lessons it has learnt from this and the fixes it has in place, including making compensatory payments to customers. Our Senior Customer Caseworker (SCC) liaison for Dŵr Cymru has more detail on these issues if required Severn Trent In January, Severn Trent identified an issue with its cheques that affected a small number of customers (20-30 people). Serial numbers on the bottom of the cheques were incorrectly printed by the bank. This meant that when they were presented at a bank to be cashed or paid into an account the cheques were rejected. Severn Trent quickly identified all affected customers, contacted them about the problem and sent them new cheques along with a 25 gesture of goodwill. The issue has been discussed at a senior level by Severn Trent with their bank. No further action is needed by CCWater Southern Water As noted in previous quarterly reports, we have seen an increase in complaints about Southern Water. In Q4 this year complaint numbers increased slightly compared to Q4 last year, from 444 to 481 (+8%). An issue with Direct Debits (noted below) has not had much impact on complaint numbers, with the largest increases in complaints being seen in the metering category (+52%) and the water supply category (+88%). The increase in complaints has slowed compared to last year however, for now, it remains an outlier amongst its peers. We continue to hold regular meetings with Southern Water to discuss its progress in reducing its complaint numbers. In Quarter 3 (Q3) we reported that the company had identified a significant number of accounts affected by a problem with monthly Direct Debits. The payments had, for the last 12 to 15 months, been shown as taken on the company bills but in fact had not been taken from the customer bank account. At the time, the company s Board Chair had written to inform affected customers of the problem and a dedicated team was ringing those customers. Goodwill gestures were being made on a case by case basis and customers were being asked to pay the untaken amounts owed since April Amounts prior to that were being written off by the company. Upon investigation, it transpired that in the majority of cases it was only one Direct Debit payment that had not been taken. Following discussions, Southern Water reviewed its process and decided to write off any amounts not taken before January 2016 (worth c. 1 million). This reduced the number of affected customer to c.250. The company agreed to extend this policy even to those customers that had agreed to make payments for missed Direct Debits between April 2014 and January All affected customers have been contacted. CCWater felt that the decision to write off balances prior to January 2016 and the actions in place to prevent recurrences were sufficient. 6

7 4.1.4 Sutton and East Surrey Water The company told us that it had identified an issue in its developer services department, whereby it had been charging customers 10 more than it should have for infrastructure charges. The issue dates back to The company told us that it was checking records to identify affected customers and would be writing to them to provide a refund and further gesture of goodwill payment to apologise. It had notified Ofwat of the issue. At the end of Q4 the company gave us an update on the situation. It has not seen an impact on its complaint numbers over this issue. It feels this is down to its proactive approach and the small number of consumers affected. In Q4, CCWater did not receive complaints about this issue South West Water As part of addressing the high level of complaints CCWater receives about South West Water, the company had undertaken a survey of consumers who had contacted CCWater to ascertain why they had felt the need to come to us. The results of the survey have been shared with CCWater. A previous poll undertaken by CCWater when customers contacted us told us that a lot had called us by accident as our details were prominent on the bill. Following this SWW moved our details. This new survey showed that the majority of consumers had purposely contacted CCWater following at least three calls to SWW. A third of respondents said they had contacted SWW ten times or more about the issue before contacting CCWater. SWW will now begin a programme of tracking the number of contacts a consumer makes about an issue and look at its escalation processes to ascertain why someone might call them repeatedly but not get a resolution. As the majority of calls were about bills it will also undertake a staff training programme to improve customer service representatives ability to diffuse and resolve these issues Thames Water Through an internal audit, Thames Water identified a substantial number of customers who had experienced sewer flooding but had not been correctly paid GSS. The company identified affected customers and wrote to them all, providing the GSS payment, the penalty payment due for a late GSS payment and a gesture of goodwill (payment). Across Q4 neither Thames Water nor CCWater has seen an increase in complaints due to this company action. We will monitor the situation to see if there is a delayed response in Quarter 1 (Q1) United Utilities Throughout we reported that United Utilities experienced problems with a new billing system it introduced for business customers. The problem led to both customers and CCWater experiencing delays in responses from the company. Initially, c.30,000 accounts were affected. United Utilities quickly reduced this down to c.230 by Quarter 2 (Q2). We are happy to report that the issues were resolved by the final system update (January 2016) and there are no more affected accounts. This is particularly important as when the market opens for nonhousehold customers, United Utilities billing system, Mecoms, will be used to bill Severn Trent customers too Complaints Action Log We keep a log of issues we have identified that our SCCs raise with companies in their liaison meetings, here. The log shows when an issue was raised with the company and what the resolution is. Chairs, LCAs and Policy Managers may find the information contained in the log useful. We also encourage Chairs, LCAs and Policy Managers to add to the log where they see fit, as well as reporting any actions or updates identified in company meetings to the Consumer Relations team directly. 7

8 4.2 Complaint and Debt Assessments In Q4 we completed our risk based complaints assessments and cyclical debt assessments for except for Thames Water s assessment which has had to be delayed. Companies assessed on complaints were Affinity Water, Southern Water and Anglian Water (with Thames Water to be carried out at a later date). Companies assessed for debt were Northumbrian Water, Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water, Southern Water, South West Water and South Staffs Water. Information on the complaint and debt assessments that we undertook in can be found on CCWater s website here. Once the report for s assessments is complete it will be linked to in the quarterly complaints and enquiries report and included in the company issues summary. 4.3 Company Policy changes in A customer with two water meters contacted CCWater. She had a meter on her cold water supply but, because of the configuration of her home, also had a second water meter on a hot supply. Despite being a frugal water user, her quarterly bills were high as Dee Valley Water levied two standing charges on her account. We referred the matter to the company and it offered to move the customer to the assessed charge. Whilst CCWater and the customer appreciated the offer, we thought that the larger issue a low user having a high bill because of two standing charges - was not addressed. We did not agree with the company s justification that it cost as much to read the two meters at the same location as it would to read two separate meters at two different addresses. We put the matter back to the company, which conducted an internal review. The result of the review was that the company agreed with our view and from 1 April 2015 will only charge one set of standing charges for domestic consumers who have to have more than one meter. The company committed to contacting all affected consumers within six to eight weeks to communicate the change in policy, which it has done CCWater received high levels of contact from Anglian Water consumers over the company withdrawing its SoLow tariff. The SoLow tariff has been available to metered, low usage consumers and has a slightly higher price per cubic metre for water and sewerage but has no standing charges. Instead, Anglian Water now offers a tariff called Lite, available to consumers who are deemed to be financially vulnerable, as assessed by the Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB). CCWater knows that not all people previously on SoLow are eligible for Lite. The company trialled revoking the SoLow tariff with a group of consumers who were most affected and it did not result in a significant increase in contact. Another 85,000 customers then received notification letters informing them of the withdrawal of the tariff, which has resulted in the increase in contact to CCWater and to Anglian Water. Initially, Anglian Water had planned to phase the tariff out over three years. Following the high levels of contact received and ongoing discussions with CCWater, we were pleased when Anglian agreed to change this policy and instead phase the tariff out over a minimum of six years. 8

9 5. Complaints 5.1 Complaint Numbers Table 1 shows that the total complaints we received against companies in (9,991) decreased by 1% compared to (10,135). A breakdown by complaint category is shown in chart 6 at Table 1: Complaints about companies Water and Sewerage Companies Company Change % change South West Water % Anglian Water % Severn Trent Water % Wessex Water % Thames Water % Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water % United Utilities % Southern Water % Yorkshire Water % Northumbrian Water % Water Only Companies Bristol Water % Bournemouth Water % Hartlepool Water % Dee Valley Water % South Staffs Water % South East Water % Portsmouth Water % Essex & Suffolk Water % Affinity Water % Cambridge Water % Sutton and East Surrey Water % Cholderton and District Water Company NAVs Veolia Water Projects % SSE Water % Independent Water Networks % Other Wider water industry issues (not company specific) % Do not know company % TOTAL 10,135 9, % Chart 1 shows all complaints to CCWater and written complaints to the industry (i.e. excludes unwanted contacts to companies). Complaints to CCWater decreased sharply for two years after , but have subsequently levelled off to around 10,000 complaints per year, which may represent a core level of industry complaints. Companies will tell us in July how many written complaints they had in We expect to publish our cross-company comparison in September s Written Complaints to the Industry report. 9

10 Written complaints to companies Complaints to CCWater Chart 1: Historical complaints to CCWater and water company written complaints Written complaints to companies Complaints to CCWater 300, , , , ,000 50, ,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2, Chart 2 shows complaints to CCWater per 10,000 connections. We denote companies that performed comparatively worse this year compared to last year by (+) and companies that improved by (-). Chart 2: Consumer complaints to CCWater per 10,000 company connections 1. Southern Water (+1) 2. South West Water (-1) 3. United Utilities (+3) 4. Sutton & East Surrey Water (+9) 5. Anglian Water (-2) 6. Thames Water (-1) 7. South East Water (-3) 8. Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water (+2) 9. Cambridge Water (+7) 10. Affinity Water (+2) 11. Yorkshire Water (+4) 12. South Staffs Water (-5) 13. Essex & Suffolk Water (-2) 14. Severn Trent Water (-5) 15. Northumbrian Water (+4) 16. Dee Valley Water (-8) 17. Bristol Water (-3) 18. Hartlepool Water (-1) 19. Wessex Water (+1) 20. Portsmouth Water (+1) 21. Bournemouth Water (-3) Administration Billing and Charges Metering Water Sewerage Other CCWater has received more complaints per 10,000 connections about Southern Water than any other company in and it now claims the highest spot on the complaints per 10,000 connections table. As the chart shows, CCWater received around nine complaints per 10,000 connections from the company s consumers, making it a sizeable outlier compared to its peers. CCWater has seen a 23% increase in complaints received about Southern Water this year compared to last. However, this is an improvement on the 55% increase in complaints we saw last year compared to As noted at 4.1.3, the company has 10

11 shared with us its root cause analysis and the programme of actions that it has implemented over the year. We hope to see these actions bear fruit in ; the company tells us that it is already starting to see a reduction in complaint numbers there. We will continue to have regular meetings with the company to monitor its progress With 5.6 complaints per 10,000 connections, South West Water is no longer the worst performing company but CCWater still receives proportionately more complaints from its consumers than from others. It has conducted a survey of consumers who had contacted CCWater about the company and details of the outcome of this survey are noted at For the year, CCWater has seen a 28% decrease in South West Water consumers complaining to us, the largest decrease of any water and sewerage company, so the situation is improving Sutton and East Surrey Water has moved nine places up the complaints per 10,000 connections chart. This has been an increase of 71%, from 56 complaints in to 96 this year. Looking at the root cause, the increase has been in complaints about tariff structure, which have accounted for 24% of all complaints CCWater received about the company. In Sutton and East Surrey Water denoted on its bill the 2 Water Support Charge, which covers the company s social tariff. Our assigned SCC is aware of the situation and monitors the company s actions to address the situation through his regular update meetings Cambridge Water has climbed seven places up the chart, but complaints numbers have only increased by 11 compared to Dee Valley Water has dropped eight places down the chart, but the decrease in complaints has numbered ten. Both companies have a relatively low number of connections, so even a small change in complaint numbers can be magnified into a quite dramatic change on the chart Northumbrian Water showed the largest increase in complaints to CCWater of the water and sewerage companies, an increase of 64%. This has translated into a climb of four places up the complaints per 10,000 connections chart. The largest increase for the company as in water complaints, which saw an increase of 138% and included complaints about flooding and quality. Nevertheless, this still only amounted to 38 complaints throughout the year. With 235 complaints and sitting at 15 th out of 21 on the chart, there is no immediate cause for concern Table 2 shows the five companies with the largest reduction in complaints to CCWater per 10,000 connections and the five companies with the largest increase alongside the complaint category that saw the largest change. Table 2: Largest increase and decrease in complaints per 10,000 connections Company Reason Better than last year South West Water Decrease in all categories, largest in administration. Anglian Water Decrease in all categories, largest in billing & charges. Bristol Water Decrease in all categories, largest in billing & charges. Dee Valley Water Largest decrease in billing & charges. South Staffs Water Largest decrease in billing & charges. Worse than last year Yorkshire Water Increase in all categories, largest in billing & charges. Northumbrian Water Largest increase in billing & charges. Cambridge Water Largest increase in billing & charges. Sutton and East Surrey Water Largest increase in billing & charges. Southern Water Largest increase in billing & charges. 11

12 Table 3 shows how CCWater distributed complaints across its offices in During , CCWater closed its regional offices. Complaints are now handled by Birmingham and Cardiff based teams. Our Birmingham based Customer Caseworkers (CCs) handle all initial contacts, all enquiries and stage one billing complaints. Our SCCs, based in Birmingham and Cardiff, handle stage one complaints in categories other than billing and all stage two and above issues, such as operational complaints. As the teams are new, there is no data from with which to compare. Table 3: Complaints to CCWater offices Office Change % Change Eastern 1, % South West 1, ,045-79% London & South East 2, ,016-75% Wales % North West 1, % Northumbria & Yorkshire % CCWater % Central 1,925 2, % Consumer Relations Managers Senior Customer Caseworkers - England Senior Customer Caseworkers - Wales Customer Caseworkers - 2,951 2,951 - CCWater 10,135 9, % Chart 3 shows our profile of new complaints in We saw a seasonal December fall-off in contact and an increase in February and March, which is associated with the main billing period. Other than these two periods, we received c complaints a month throughout Work in progress is the number of open complaints that rolled over into the next month. Chart 3: Complaints received and in progress numbers Complaints received Work in progress 1,100 1, Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar Complaint Handling CCWater handles consumer complaints by: Referring them to the company (referral) 12

13 When a consumer approaches us before their company s procedure is exhausted, we send their complaint to the company to respond. We add value by requesting to see the company reply and chasing the reply if it is overdue. Paragraph details how our referral service offers more value than merely acting as a post box for consumer complaints. We then tell the consumer if the company s explanation or proposed resolution is or is not reasonable. We will escalate the complaint on behalf of the consumer to the next company stage or to a CCWater investigation if necessary. We clarified with Ofwat that companies should record complaints in the way that we present them to the company. Though we normally use the same method the consumer has used, there are times when a more complicated complaint, even if received by telephone, should be put in writing by CCWater on behalf of the consumer. Investigation We investigate when the company has had an opportunity to address a consumer complaint through their procedure (usually two stages). We question the company and make recommendations for resolution. Replying directly to the consumer (direct reply) We reply directly to the consumer when we can confidently advise that their company has provided a reasonable reply to a complaint, where we can empower the consumer to take action themselves (through a stage one or two complaint) or where the issue is about a general regulatory practice In , we referred 3,831 complaints to companies, replied directly to 6,141 complaints and investigated 18 complaints. Chart 4 shows that we referred fewer complaints to the company to address in than in This is due to an increased number of cases where we have been able to answer the consumer s questions without the need to refer the matter to the company. Chart 4: Complaint by handling method Direct Reply 44% Referral 38% Referral 56% Direct Reply 62% Investigation 0.2% We replied directly to 62% of cases in Looking at these complaints, 4% of the direct replies we gave were to consumers who had exhausted their company s complaint procedure. This means that we were only able to confirm for the consumer that the resolution offered by the company was correct and CCWater would not be able to escalate their case for them. Thirteen percent of the direct replies were to consumers currently in their company complaint process and a further 51% were to consumers who had not yet contacted their company or had only made telephone contact. In these instances we are able to offer Investigation 0.2% 13

14 the consumer guidance, set expectations around what resolution they might expect for their issue and empower them to take the case forward themselves. Lastly, 32% of direct replies we gave were to consumers whose questions we could answer without the need to check if they had already contacted their company or not. These cases tend to be straightforward complaints where we are able to address the consumer s issues without needing to check specific detail with their company We expect transactional complaints referred to companies to take no more than 10 working days, plus two days for handling, to resolve. Complaints taking longer than this typically required more involved CCWater intervention. In 16% of complaints handled by CCWater in it took the company longer than 12 days to respond. This was most commonly an issue for first stage complaints, where 21% took over 12 days for a response. There is still work for CCWater to do in ensuring companies meet these targets and make statutory payments to consumers where they do not Chart 5 shows the proportion of direct replies and referrals CCWater undertakes per company. A higher share of direct replies from CCWater indicates that either we felt the company had handled and resolved the complaint appropriately or that we were able to empower the consumer to contact the company and resolve the issue directly. Empowering a consumer to talk directly to their company helps afford companies to get a complaint resolution right first time (one of our Forward Work Programme strategic priorities). Chart 5: Handling method percent share by company 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Average % Direct Replies Investigation Referral Direct Reply Note: so that averages are statistically robust, only companies with 20 or more complaints are shown Table 4 shows that we opened 19 investigations against companies in compared to 21 in We also opened a further six investigations that companies appealed successfully against, so were retracted. We will hold an investigation workshop for our SCCs in 2016 to refresh their knowledge about investigations and clearly setting out why we believe there are grounds for the investigation in our escalation letter to the company. 14

15 Table 4: CCWater investigations of companies Company Change Northumbrian Water % Affinity Water % Severn Trent % Southern Water % Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water % Anglian Water % Thames Water % United Utilities % SSE Water / Swalec Yorkshire Water Sutton and East Surrey Water TOTAL % 5.3 Complaint Categories Chart 6 shows the proportion of consumer complaints sorted into our broadest categories. Chart 6: Complaint categories Water 16% Administration 9% Water 15% Administration 9% Other 4% Metering 7% Sewerag e 12% Billing & charges 52% Other 4% Sewerage 11% Metering 8% Billing & charges 53% Over half of complaints were about billing and charging. The volume of these complaints remained steady with the volume seen in ; we received 5,274 billing and charges complaints compared to 5,256 last year, an increase of just 18 complaints Chart 7 shows the division of subcategory complaints within the billing and charges category. There has been a change in proportion of the sub categories of billing and charges, with the proportion of complaints about measured and unmeasured bills decreasing, a slight increase in complaints about charges and a larger increase in the proportion of general billing and charges complaints. 15

16 Chart 7: Billing and charges complaints Unmeas ured 13% Charges 17% Unmeas ured 12% Charges 19% Measured 35% General 35% Measured 32% General 37% General billing complaints and measured billing complaints consistently make up the majority of billing and charges complaints. Within these two categories the largest root causes also remain consistent. In general billing and charges complaints, debt recovery is the most common cause of complaint, followed by surface water and highways drainage charges complaints. In measured billing complaints, disputed liability for the bill is the most common cause of complaint. Chart 8 depicts the proportion of complaints for each root cause. Chart 8: Measured billing and general billing and charges complaint root causes Leakage allowance 9% Estimated billing 4% Measured billing error 13% Disputed meter reading 9% Meter reading frequency 1% Assessed measured charges 6% Measured Disputed liability 58% Summons 1% payment methods 4% Payment arrangements 14% Legal fees 0% Surface water/ highway drainage 17% Site area charging 1% Disconnection 1% Backdated charges 9% General Debt recovery 38% Billing information / literature 8% Billing methods 7% Disputed liability of the measured bill accounted for 10% of all complaints that CCWater received in Debt recovery complaints made up 8%. Surface water / highways drainage charges was the third most common cause of complaint (3% of all complaints) Nine percent of the complaints that CCWater handled were from non-household consumers, one percent were from mixed use (both domestic and non-domestic properties) and the remaining 90% were from households. The percentage of non-household connections in England and Wales is around six percent. 16

17 5.4 Vulnerable customers We define vulnerability as: Vulnerability occurs when a consumer may not have reasonable opportunity to access and receive an inclusive, safe service from a company, resulting in a permanent or temporary detrimental impact on their well-being, finances or health In , 255 complainants identified themselves as vulnerable; around 3% of our total complaint contact Vulnerable customers were as satisfied with CCWater s service as our overall customer base and more satisfied with our speed and the outcome of their complaint as shown in Table 5; albeit the sample size of vulnerable customers is less than 100. Table 5: Vulnerable Consumer Satisfaction Service Outcome Speed Courtesy Vulnerable customers 74% 67% 82% 90% All customers 74% 60% 81% 93% Amongst vulnerable consumers, 65% of complaints were about billing and charges. The most common root cause of these complaints was disputed liability of a measured bill, accounting for 15% of all vulnerable customer complaints. The second most common cause of complaint from vulnerable consumers was debt recovery, accounting for 13% of all vulnerable consumer complaints, followed by affordability (6% of all vulnerable consumer complaints) and payment arrangements (5%). All of these root causes fall within the billing and charges category. Whilst the top cause of complaint for vulnerable consumers mirrors the top cause for all complaints, debt recovery, affordability and payment arrangements are less of a concern for consumers we have not identified as vulnerable. 5.5 Contact Methods Chart 9 shows the method by which consumers contacted us to complain and how that has changed compared to Overall, we received 54% of complaints in writing (60% last year) and 46% by telephone (40% last year). Consumers made 0.3% of their contact with us through other means, such as office visits or our website feedback form. Chart 9: Complaints by consumer method of contact Telephone & Answerphone 46% Telephone & Answerp hone 52% Webform 17% Webform 14% 22% Post & Fax 15% Other 0.3% 21% Post & Fax 13% Other 0% The decrease in written contact has been driven mostly by a decrease in webform contact. In Q2 this year we experienced an issue with our consumer support site where consumers were unable to submit a webform to us. Without this problem we would have seen a slight decrease in contact through all written mediums, but not to such an extent as we have. We are better able to reply directly to a consumer s complaint by telephone, and the increased proportion of telephone contact reflects the increased proportion of direct replies this year compared to last. 17

18 5.6 Consumer Support Website Table 6 shows how consumers used our online consumer support website in Virtually all visitors to the site found relevant answers, with fewer than 2% going on to make a complaint or enquiry to CCWater. Table 6: Consumer usage of our Consumer Support web site Month User visits User searches Answers viewed Webforms submitted to TAP % of questions to visits Apr 8, , % May 7, , % Jun 7, , % Jul 7, , % Aug 7, , % Sep 7, , % Oct 7, , % Nov 6, , % Dec 5, , % Jan 11,790 1,179 9, % Feb 7, , % Mar 7, , % Total 93,030 10,093 78,353 1, % The page where can I find my company s contact details? is the most commonly viewed answer on our support site, accounting for 8% of all answers viewed by visitors. The page what company supplies my area? generated the highest amount of feedback. On our site we display the Water UK map of water and sewerage providers but in some regions, notably the South East, there are many companies and it can be difficult to see in which area a property may lie. We encourage consumers unsure of their supplier after looking at the map to send us their post code via the feedback form so that we can check and get back to them Nine percent fewer consumers visited our support site in than in Chart 10 shows that the decrease has been steady throughout the year, with no particular month showing a sharp decrease in visitors. There is no particular reason for this decrease. Chart 10: Year on year monthly site visits to the support site 120, ,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20, Mar Feb Jan Dec Nov Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun May 18

19 5.7 Complaint Outcomes Chart 11 shows that our offices helped consumers achieve financial redress of 1,934,643 in This is 375,000 less than we achieved in , largely because our North West team had great success in achieving c. 500,000 of rebates for United Utilities customers when it pushed the company to change its policy and enact it retrospectively in regard to surface water drainage charges last year. Whilst we have had many financial successes in we have not achieved any individual result of this size. This has contributed to us not achieving the same amount of redress this year as we did last year. Chart 11: Financial redress 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000, ,000 March February January December November October September August July June May April Our average financial redress per complaint is 194 compared to 228 last year. With fewer complaints needing to be referred to companies to address it is to be expected that the amount of redress per complaint CCWater handled would decrease Looking at investigations, the average financial redress was 16,000 per case compared to 1,187 last year. It should be noted that this figure has been inflated as our Wales office achieved a very positive outcome and secured over 170,000 of redress in one investigation for a domestic household. Without this significant win, the average redress per upheld investigation would have been 2,006, but still an increase on the figure Aside from financial redress, we may challenge the company to resolve a complaint by taking action (akin to an ombudsman upholding a complaint). We may decide companies should offer something as simple as a clearer explanation or as complex as a change to their policy. Chart 12 shows that companies took some form of action in 39% of complaints that we closed. Fifty-one complaints we received were withdrawn by the consumer before CCWater took action and we referred 15 complaints to third parties such as Ofwat or Citizens Advice. In 60% of complaints, the outcome was an explanation of the situation from CCWater, be it bespoke or standard. This mirrors the proportion of complaints to which we replied directly across the year. 19

20 Chart 12: complaint outcomes Company action 12% Company policy change 0.04% Company explanation 16% Financial redress 11% CCWater standard explanation 33% Other 1% CCWater bespoke explanation 27% To help us better understand our consumer satisfaction levels in relation to the outcome of their case we now note whether the resolution was what the consumer desired, what CCWater felt was appropriate and proportionate although not what the consumer initially wanted, or something that was unacceptable to CCWater and the consumer. Chart 13 shows the proportions of this breakdown. Chart 13: Outcome acceptability Proportionate to CCWater 61% Proportionate to CCWater 75% Desirable to consumer 38% Unacceptable to CCWater and consumer 0.04% Desirable to consumer 25% Unacceptable to CCWater and consumer 0.6% In 99.4% of cases CCWater either achieved the resolution the consumer had hoped for or achieved what we considered to be a proportionate and appropriate outcome to the complaint. There were 34 incidents where neither CCWater nor the consumer felt the outcome of the case was unacceptable. Cases such as these may benefit from approaching WATRS, the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) scheme introduced on 1 April 2015 (see ) There was a decrease of 18 percentage points in the number of complaints being resolved with the outcome the consumer desired, and instead being resolved with an outcome that CCWater felt was proportionate. This ties in with the increase in complaints that we replied directly to, where consumers approached CCWater with an issue that we did not require a company to give a further explanation or take action in. Despite this decrease in achieving the outcome a consumer hoped for, our satisfaction levels with service and outcome have increased compared to This indicates that CCWater has been able to give consumers an explanation of why we were not able to achieve their desired outcome and that consumers found this acceptable Table 7 shows that in we received nine consumer requests for review and completed four. The number of consumers requesting CCWater review how we handled their case remains low. This is reflected in the overall satisfaction with the quality of CCWater s service (5.8.1). 20

21 Table 7: Cases escalated to and completed at review stage Rec'd in Rec'd in Completed in Completed in Region Central and Eastern London and South East Northern Wales Western Senior Customer Caseworkers, England Senior Customer Caseworkers, Wales Total We have carried five review cases into These cases were received late in and have not been completed before the end of the financial year. We aim to complete reviews within ten to twelve weeks. In the average time to review a case was 10 weeks In the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) made us aware of its decision to investigate a complaint. It partially upheld the investigation citing that we needed to apologise to the customer for any confusion or frustration caused as a result of our action to clarify the connection costs charged by the water company. Following the investigation we assessed our involvement in future disputes about connection charges to ensure that any future customer is clearly signposted to Ofwat at the earliest opportunity. 5.8 Consumer Satisfaction Chart 14 shows consumer satisfaction with various aspects of our service. Compared to last year, we have seen an improvement in three of the four satisfaction criteria. Satisfaction with the quality of service has increased by 1.2 percentage points, satisfaction with speed has increased by 1.1 percentage points, and satisfaction with outcome has increased by 2.9 percentage points. Satisfaction with courtesy has decreased by 0.5 percentage points. Chart 14: Consumer satisfaction (black line is target) 100% 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% Overall quality of service Outcome of complaint Speed of resolution Courtesy of staff We have exceeded our OBP target for all four satisfaction measures. With the restructure of our Consumer Relations team taking place across we had decreased our OBP targets slightly from , anticipating that the change over period, where experienced regional staff departed and new Birmingham and Cardiff staff became acclimatised might cause a decrease in performance and satisfaction. We are very pleased that this has not been the case and credit is due to all past and present Consumer Relations staff for improving consumer satisfaction during Three cases completed in were carried over from

22 5.8.3 In Q4 (January to March 2016) our teams achieved the highest level of satisfaction with CCWater s service (75%) since Q Congratulations to the CCs and SCCs for this achievement The market research organisation that conducts our consumer satisfaction survey, Future Thinking, undertakes in depth analysis of our survey results at the end of each financial year. Future Thinking will identify the key drivers of consumers satisfaction and, analysing the twelve months of results, which areas CCWater most needs to focus on to improve that. We will report to Board in late summer 2016 on Future Thinking s findings and our suggested actions to address them. 5.9 Performance Chart 15 shows key performance indicators (KPI) for performance in compared to Our 5- day acknowledgement has remained static at 99.9% (0.9 points above OBP target of 99%). Our performance in 20-day closures has decreased by 0.2 percentage points to 82.4% (4.4 points above our OBP target of 78%). Our performance in 40-day closures increased, by 0.3 percentage points, to 92.6% (2.6 points above our OBP target of 90%). Chart 15: CCWater performance (black line is target) 100% 95% % 85% 80% 75% 70% 5 day 20 day 40 day Our average handling time for complaints decreased from 16.6 working days in to 14.8 working days in WATRS The Water Redress Scheme (WATRS) went live on 1 April If a consumer remains unhappy with the resolution of their complaint having exhausted the company complaints procedure and following CCWater s intervention, they are now able to approach WATRS for independent adjudication on the matter. Unlike CCWater, WATRS does not discuss the case with the consumer or the company but instead bases its decisions on written submissions from both parties Chart 16 depicts how many consumers reached different stages of the WATRS scheme. We closed 1,509 complaints at company stage two, company stage three or company procedure exhausted in These cases were all told of the WATRS scheme. Two hundred and eighty seven consumers asked us for a reference number to access the WATRS scheme (19% of all eligible cases). At the time of writing, 138 of these consumers had submitted an application form. This means that to date, 9% of eligible consumers have submitted an application to the WATRS scheme. 22

23 Chart 16: Approaches to WATRS 1,509 eligible cases 287 reference numbers given 138 applications submitted to WATRS 45 cases succeed in part From the date that CCWater sends a consumer a notification letter with a WATRS reference number on it, the consumer has six months in which to submit an application to WATRS. Therefore, there is still time for more of the 287 consumers issued with reference numbers to approach the scheme Of the 138 applications submitted to WATRS, 131 cases have been completed. Eleven cases were rejected by WATRS following the company defence or by the adjudicator as outside of the scheme s terms of reference. Twenty-four cases were settled by water companies after the application form had been submitted but before full adjudication was entered into. Forty-five cases were successful in part, receiving some but not all of what the consumer requested. Fifty-one cases did not succeed. No case succeeded completely. Thirty-two consumers have accepted WATRS decision; where these cases had been partially successful any decision WATRS has made becomes binding upon the company. Some acceptances were from consumers whose case had been unsuccessful Table 8 shows those companies we issued notifications for, and how those cases have progressed. Company Table 8: Companies WATRS notifications issued Issued Sent a completed application form Rejected Settled before adjudication Succeeds in Part Succeeds entirely Does not succeed Still in process Accepted Affinity Water Anglian Water Bristol Water 1 Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water Essex & Suffolk Water Independent Water Networks 1 Northumbrian Water Portsmouth Water 1 Severn Trent Water South East Water South Staffs Water South West Water Southern Water Sutton and East Surrey Water Thames Water United Utilities Wessex Water Yorkshire Water Total