A Court Case - when SW et al failed.

This case was raised in what used to be called The Small Claims Court but is now the Simple Procedure. The rules etc are laid out on the web site at: https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/rules-and-practice/rules-of-court/sheriff-court---civil-procedure-rules/simple-procedure-rules. These are in effect what used to be contained in The White Book - the bible of court procedure. The rules in Sections 1.6 and 1.6 of Part 1 apply.

In the view of the author of this report, the rules are excellent, and as good as one could wish for IF they were observed, BUT where breaches occur unless these are disciplined, then one is back to what might call "lawyering" viz lawyers doing all those things which they ought not to such as making unevidenced assertions, not once but many times.

Some notes on this case ...... 

• This case in effect started when the respondent challenged Scottish Water Business through the offices of the local MSP one Nicola Sturgeon - not that she cared one wit - but the Constituency Assistant proved helpful. That date was 13th February 2017.
• The case was in effect dismissed on 9th July 2021, although the order was not received until 13th July - so it all took some 4 and half years.
• During that time, discussions were attempted. No reasonable person of business would consider that amount of time at all fair. In fact it was highly distressing - how do you discuss a matter with someone for whom the most apt description, in best Glaswegian, is "Ignorant".

The documentation is in reverse date order i.e. with the latest first.

Comments are in red.

The following email was received: 

Good morning Thank you for your telephone call today. I write to confirm after the adjustments made to account 9999999 for the removal of charges the balance is £xxx in credit. As you have never made any payment to the account this is not something that can be refunded, however I can confirm your account is now closed and there is no money due.

Kind regards
Customer Service Adviser

How is it possible for the credits made to an account for which no money has changed hands leave it in such a state ? Simple, because the accounting function has failed. It is suggested that Business Stream are probably unable to keep proper accounts which can be relied upon in court.

This is an order of the sheriff in a case which you are a party in. You should read it and follow it. You should also read Part 8 of the Simple Procedure Rules, which is about orders of the sheriff.

Sheriff Court: Glasgow

Date of order: 9 July 2021

Claimant: Scottish Water business stream limited, 7 Lochside View Edinburgh Park, EDINBURGH, EH12 9DH

Respondent: xxxxxxx, Glasgow

Case reference number: GLW-ZZ9999-99

The court has received an Incidental Orders Application from the claimant.

The court has received consent from the respondent.

The sheriff has considered the Incidental Orders Application and gives the following order:-

The sheriff, ex proprio motu, Discharges the case management discussion assigned for 14 July 2021 at 10:00 am, thereafter; assoilzies the respondent from the claim, with no expenses due to or by either party.

Signed by: Sheriff A Bcdef, Sheriff of The Sheriffdom of Glasgow and Strathkelvin at Glasgow

Explanations

• ex proprio motu means "Of one's own accord". So in this instance, the Sheriff did not wait for a hearing, but just chucked the case out.
• "assoilzies the respondent from the claim". This means that SWBS were in effect told "this is an end to the matter, and do NOT comeback"
• A Decree of Absolvitor is "the dismissal of an action" and also signifies that the matter cannot ever be returned to court.

Email

Good afternoon

Please find attached copy of inspection report. Despite the outcome of this report, as set out in my email dated 8 June 2021, Scottish Water have determined that your premises are to be deregistered for surface water drainage services.

Please respond to the offer contained within my email dated 8 June 2021.

Kind regards,

Report

The report was in pdf format consisting of a two page report containg a conclusion, a map showing the probable route of the connection of drains from the buildings [as opposed to the premises within the buildings], and seventeen photographs.

The first page is simply a tick box affair mostly with the words "Not Requested". However, the following questions and answers [in bold] are recorded:

Is it combined at property? (surface water and foul in same MH or visible connecting into downpipes) - Yes

Details of surface water dye test(downpipes/aquachannels/gullies etc): The downpipes is visibly connected to the waste pipe, were the property is combined. No private treatment works onsite. The downpipe connects to the Scottish Water combined sewer. MH1 could not be lifted as it was seized closed. We could not located two Scottish Water manholes shown on the GIS (MH9402 and MH9506). Access road flows onto the main road. The nearest gully was dye tested, however we confirmed the connection to the Scottish Water sewer vis a sound test as we were unable to lift the manhole..

Does any surface water drain to the Scottish Water sewer Yes

Does any surface water flow through any SW pipework? Yes

If yes, What type of network is the premises connected to? SW surface water sewer, SW combined sewer, passes through SW pipework to reach outfall + MH NO. Scottish Water combined sewer

Are the GIS drawings accurate? No Unable to locate SW manholes Noted that the possible route is unproven and not on the GIS.

After an extensive investigation it is concluded that the xxxxxxxx in Glasgow is connected to the Scottish Water sewer for surface water. An onsite survey, of which included a visual inspection and a sound test, confirmed that the gully and the downpipes connect to the Scottish Water combined sewer. This combined sewer is shown as a Scottish Water combined sewer on our GIS records.

The map and all but two of the photographs are shown below. The two missing ones are of the door to the premuises and thus only serve to identify the premises. Noted that the foul drain connection is to the adjoining unit, the markup on the map is in the wrong position, and the unit boundaries are not shown.

So the report concludes in effect what is already known and has been intimated since 2017. The building is connected to a combined sewer via the Landlord's infrastructure. The "premises" under consideration are not as it consists only of the solum of a certain unit withing the building.

Before replying to Brodies to accept the offer to walk away, it was decied that the SW report should be obtained.

Good afternoon. Further to your email of 8th June, 2021 please let us have a copy of your final inspection.

Dear Sirs

Further to Scottish Water's inspection of your Premises, they have deregistered your Premises for surface water drainage services.

Accordingly, I am instructed to offer to dismiss the court action with no expenses due to or by either party.

Please confirm whether you consent to this offer.

Without prejudice

This offer was made following the SW report 39 days earlier, which Brodies failed to send to the respondent as ordered.
The question is WHY did they not send the report which demonstrates that the building's drainage is connected to SW's sewerage system.
The report was requested on 21st June 2021 - see above.

There is only one logical conclusion - and that is that SW did not want the defence tested in court. The next question is which item in the defence were they were not prepared to see aired.

The Email

This is an automated message, please do not respond to it. If you have not requested this email, please contact SCTS staff at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. Attached to this message, you will find the following document:a document of type: Order of the Sheriff, in a case with the following reference number: GLW-ZZ9999-99

The Order

The sheriff, having heard from parties, orders the respondent to permit the claimants access to the premises at xxxxx, Glasgow to allow them to investigate the premises connection to the sewage system within 30 days hereof, on the basis that the claimants will produce a report and share between parties and thecourt;

Further orders the respondent to lodge with the court and intimate to the claimants the lease of the premises within 14 days of the date hereof;

Continues the case management discussion by telephone conference call.

Both partiesare ordered to attend a case management discussion by telephone conference call at Glasgow Sheriff Court on 17 July 2021 at 10:00 am. The sheriff orders both parties to provide the court, no later than 5 working days prior to said hearing,a note setting out:

1. the name of the individual representing the party or in the case of a party litigant,confirmation that the party is self-represented;
2. the representative’s direct telephone number;and
3. the representatives direct e-mailaddress.

Please send these contact details to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Both parties should be aware that the sheriff may decide the application even where they are not fully prepared to discuss it or in the absence of a party. The case may be decided or dismissed in the absence of a party ifthat party fails to attend.

Signed by: Sheriff P Qrstuv, Sheriff of The Sheriffdom of Glasgow and Strathkelvin at Glasgow

The report was NOT sent to the Respondent as ordered by the Sheriff.

Record of Telephone Conference Wednesday 21st April from 11:15 am

On 20th April, in the afternooon, a place to ensure that his mobile phone [being the nominated telephone number]would operate satisfactorily. It did. It had been decided this was a good place for Research Project to support the Respondent during the conference as COVID rules and social distancing etc could be observed.

Although the conference was scheduled for 11:15, it was not untill just after 11:45 that the phopne rang.

The Sheriff asked the Respondent to confirm his name. He then connected Miss Smith of Brodies into the conversation.

Almost immediately in what is best described in Glasgow as "Ignorant" in a belligerent tone and asked: "what happens to the rainfall on the roof of your premises ?"

The Respondent was quick to reply that he only rents "the solum" and that the matter of rainwater is for the Landlord to deal with. Also said that the record of the lease arrangement was provided as Document 10. The Sherrif was unable to find it. He asked for it again.

The Sheriff then made the following statement: "this case is going nowhere untill Scottish Water carry out an inspection".

He asked the Respondent to consent to this, and in reply the Respondent said that Scottish Water had made many visits and inspections, and he saw no reason for any more inspections.

The Sheriff responded by stating if he so ordered, would the Respondent permit an inspection. The Respondent consented.

The conversation ended.

Conclusions that my be drawn from this record:

1. That the Sheriff had had a prior conversation with Brodies - probably from 11:15 to 11:45.
2. That the Sheriff was "hunting for evidence" [of connection to the sewers].
3. That the Sheriff had not bothered to read the defence documents submitted. In particular he could not find the Record of Lease, nor read the defence statement tregrding in the inadmissibility of evidence from Scottish Water's Inspectors due to the manner of their remuneration.

Twelve further documents were lodged with court via their web interface, of which eleven were in one pdf, and further defence notes. The first set included a record of the lease signed by the Landlord and the respondent - all other documents were already referenced.

Record of the Lease

A note on the arrangements made between the Landlord and the Tenant of the Unit.

Firstly, the families of the Landlord and Tenant are close, the Landlord being the son of a close friend of the Tenant's late wife..

The Agreement is a simple: it is oral, and made between two Hindu Gentlemen.

It may be referred to as a lease, or a rental agreement, or whatever.

It has been in force for the many years since the Respondent took over one small portion, known as the Unit, of the buildings at xxxxxxx.

In return for a rental, the amount agreed from time to time, the tenant has the use of the internal parts, with the landlord being responsible for everything else. Tenant to pay his own electricty bill, and rates to Glasgow City Council.

There is only one access door, and just two windows. Inside there are four rooms off a passage. The smaller rooms are used as a small office, and a store room. Of the other two rooms, one is used for cutting and like activities, and the other is the machine room where garments are made.

It covers what is generally known as the "solum" in property terms. It excludes the roof, gutters, walls, etc .

Signed on
10th March 2021

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa                               bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
Landlord                                                Tenant.

Other Notes, not forming part of the oral agreement.

The Landlord and the Tenant, in order to satisfy the inquisitiveness of Brodies, have set their names to this record, which has been prepared for them by Reserarch Project, following the Sheriff's instructions to attempt resolve matters with Brodies.

The verbal agreement was advised to Scottish Water via Nicola Sturgeon's Office in 2017.

There are no facilities which have or require either a water supply or a connection to a sewer - whether it be foul or storm, or combined. In fact the local sewer system installed sometime after the first world war is a "combined sewer".

There are no rights of any sort accruing to the tenant, except that he has access from Forth Street via a car park, which is for the general use of the adjacent super market.

Noted that in the records of the innumerable inspection visits made by Scottish Water's staff and others on their behalf, this is complained of and warned of. Said records were provided by Scottish Water at the behest of the Scottish Information Commissioner.

Further defences.

Second Paper Apart

Further Background & Defence
Prepared by Research Project, 1st April 2021

Note
The term "Scottish Water et al" is used to describe Scottish Water, their contactors, advisers, third party inspectors often known as "gap analysts", as well as their supposedly independent subsidiary Scottish Water Business Stream [in effect the default invoicing contractor], the regulator the Water Industry Commissioner for Scotland, as well as the civil servants within the Scottish Government and the relevant Scottish Ministers, between whom the distinction of who is doing what is somewhat blurred.

Introduction
In his book The Justice Factory (pages 396 to 397) Ian Mitchell quotes Lord Bingham of Cornhill as saying: "without law that is intelligible, clear and accessible, it is impossible for the average lawyer, much less the average citizen to access justice."

"Many things which might not be done by the rule of law might be done by the rule of government". Said where the Crown had levied a tax in defiance of parliament - on the basis therefore of prerogative. See Ian Mitchell's book The Justice Factory on page 399 & footnote 307.

As far as the average citizen is aware, Section 27 defines an Eligible Premises, and it is only such premises that should be charged. The Law is so clear as to be apparently uncontestable.

If Scottish Water, the Water Industry Commissioner for Scotland, the Scottish Government, and the Scottish Ministers dislike it, then they should amend said law. Instead, they have chosen to bully the occupiers of premises that do not fall into the category defined in Section 27, which it is submitted, relates to physical connections.

The bullying consists of raising innumerable cases in courts around the country. This wastes an inordinate amount of time and effort not only on the part of the occupiers and their business's, but mostly of the courts. The result is the demise of many entrepreneurial business's.

A conumdrum
Scottish Water et al are supposed to raise charges based on the existence of a connection [a fixed charge] and on the volume supplied or collected [metered or estimated.]

However, when they raise charges not based on a connection, there is no sensible means of metering or estimating the volumes. They have elected to raise charges based on the rateable value. A five story building in the centre of a city [with maybe a rateable value per premises of five times that of one in the suburbs] will therfore likely raise 25 times the amount a premises in a single story suburban building would raise.

It is this that makes the commercial argument for using rateable values, as opposed to following the laws of the land. It seems probable that the iniquities of the 1945 Act which were highlighted by Lords Denning, Scarman, and Orr in the West Pennine case were rectified by the Scottish Office when they drafted the 2005 Act, and introduced the concept of "Eligible Premises".

The Water Industry Commissioner for Scotland, the same person as created Scottish Water by amalgamating the separate water companies, clearly disagrees with the Law. He is NOT a lawyer, but a management consultant, and it remains unclear why he left North America, and then Russia.

Solutions to the conumdrum
There appear to be two ways of perceiving the charges that are made on premises that are NOT "Eligible Premises" in terms of Section 27.

1. As a form of taxation. Considering that Small Business Rate Relief effectively removes the council charges, then these could be replaced by "Roads and Property" drainage charges [although this has from 15th March 2021 been reduced to Property Drainage charges only which charge has been increased by the amount that was declared as being for Roads] without causing commercial damage to the occupiers. That argument is false as said occupiers were in need of relief in any event.
2. By introducing the concept of a "non-existent" connection, delightfully termed a "Pseudo SPID". Pseudo SPID's are defined in the procedures of a Scottish Registered Private Limited Company called the Central Market Agency, Registration No: SC328635. 

It is submitted that the defences to the above arguments are as follows:

1. Scottish Water are not a taxation authourity under the various Acts that created them, nor are they authourised in any way to raise taxes. That prerogative belongs to Local Councils in respect of local taxation, and HMRC of national including Scottish taxation.
2. Private Limited Companies may create rules to govern their own conduct under the aegis of the Companies Act, but under no circumstances  can they create or amend the laws of Scotland. The Pseudo SPID is defined and managed by the Central Market Agency [CMA]. More information is given below. It is submitted that the concept of "Pseudo SPIDs" is outwith the scope of the 2005 Water Act.

Scottish Water - Removal of Water & Waste SPID's, etc.

In February 2017, the first detailed inspection of Unit B at 11 Forth Street was undertaken byResearch Project, at which he concluded there was neither a water supply, nor a drainage connection of any sort.

In the foreknowledge that Scottish Water et al would almost inevitably raise a court case in this matter [as has now happened], on the 1st April 2019, a Freedom of Information request was raised requesting:

• Routes and locations of Scottish Water’s water mains, stop valves, and water meters which form the supply to the solum of the premises, indicating also the reference and physical location of the SPID;
• Routes and locations of Scottish Water’s main drains whether it be for Storm Water, Foul water, or combined Water into which the solum of the premises drains, indicating also the reference and physical location of the SPID;
• The applicable law; that is the law (as opposed to any rules) under which you have raised a (probably erroneous) charge.

The response is best described as grossly inadequate, but a map which was somewhat out of date was provided. No detail of the applicable law was provided. After this poor response, the matter was taken to the Scottish Information Commisioner, who managed to obtain additional information, which is included as evidence.[10 documents provided. Assembled as 20191009_2013-16_Promise_Notes_Markup.pdf]

This evidence indicates two things:

1. The first record supplied by Scottish Water et al evidences reports and inspections etc commencing on 14th February 2013, which carried on until 13 December 2016 in the records supplied. 
2. The removal of the SPID's for Water and Foul Drainage was on 4th January 2017.

Page 23 of 66 includes the following statement: 

date 3/9/15
After extensive investigation it is concluded that the Unit is not connected to the Scottish Water sewer for foul water. An onsite survey, of which included a visual inspection, confirmed that the site does not contain any foul water facilities such as toilets, sinks etc.

Page 56 of 66 includes the following statement

WATER SPID to be removed: YES
SPID: 999999999999. and
WASTE SPID to be removed: NO
SPID:  999999999999
Foul waste charges to be removed: YES
Roads Drainage to be removed: NO
Property Drainage to be removed: NO

There is only one sewer in the vicinity, and it is a "combined sewer", so where a premises or property is directly connected to it there will be only one connection, discharging combined [foul and storm] effluent.

This makes a nonsense of Section 27. No water supply and no drainage connection to a premises means that said premises are NOT an Eligible Premises so no there can be no liability for Roads and Property Drainage, which is part of drainage.

It is submitted that if there is only one connection, and that it is found to be non existent, then there is no physical connection. It is therefore submitted that the connection known as 20032597 must therefore have been  classified by Scottish Water et al as a "Pseudo SPID".

Definition of Pseudo SPID 99999999 & Invoices

The reference above, SPID 99999999, is taken from a recent letter dated 15th March 2021.

A second letter referenced the two withdrawn SPIDs, namely:

Water supply point ID (SPID): 200325970101
Waste SPID: 200325970251

The latest invoice bears the references for both the withdrawn Water Supply SPID, and the withdrawn Waste SPID, yet is for charges for non-existent drainage.

It seems therefore that not only is the charge erroneous, but that the invoicing mechanism itself is erroneous.

It is submitted that no proper invoice for the charges subject of the writ for an "impossible to provide service" [Roads and Property Drainage] has been provided.

About Pseudo SPIDS

Scottish Water et al, an organ of the state, decided, contrary to Section 27 of the 2005 Act, to charge small business's etc in premises where they have no facilities of their own, and thus no connection to any service provided by Scottish Water on grounds which are suspect if not downright fraudulent.

They came up with the concept of a "pseudo" connection - a bit like Alice who was told by the Queen that she had jam yesterday and will have jam tomorrow, but not jam today - pseudo jam in effect.

In support of their "pseudo" connection they have a "pseudo SPID". See clause 5.15 of the CMA Market Code, which does not form part of the Laws of Scotland. Noted that the CMA is NOT the the UK Government's Competition & Markets Authority but a private Scottish registered company, not related to the Scottish Government in any way.

The word "Pseudo" is an adjective which is applied to things which some dictionaries define as "not genuine, spurious, or sham". Other dictionaries use the words "false, and deceptive".

This implies that the service purported to be provided by Scottish Water is a pseudo service, which in practice is no service at all. It is submitted that Scottish Water et al are attempting to charge for a service that is, in simple terms, is not provided, nor providable at all.

Brodies continued REFUSAL to provide evidence

Once the defence had been lodged, on 10 February 2021, Brodies requested sight of the lease for the Unit. There is only a verbal agreement which has worked well for many years. In fact the information  they requested had been provided to them by Nicola Sturgeon's constituency office on 13th February 2017.

On 17th February at 12:54, the repondent's friend on behalf of the respondent, replied and requested details of the connection that renders the premises as an Eligible Premises, and also the "detail of the law upon which your case relies".

At 14:44, Brodies replied, ignoring the requests made, but stating: "It is our client's position that the premises have a drainage connection – i.e. drains on the premises which drain into the public sewerage system". Again, Brodies failed to provide any evidence of this, nor of any applicable law where there is no connection.

At 16:15, a response was sent to Brodies again requesting that they provide the requested evidence of connection, when both their own inspection of 3rd September 2015, and that of a Chartered Engineer confirm that there is no draiange of any nature to the premises.

In his order of 24th February 2021, but not received by the respondent until the 10th March 2021, the Sheriff ordered that by way of settlement and negotiation "the claimant and respondent are encouraged to settle the dispute, or narrow the issues in dispute."

The respondent took advantage of this, the email of 17th February at 16:15 having been ignored by Brodies.

On 16 March 2021 13:57, Brodies were again asked to provide the evidence of a connection.

At 14:38, Brodies responded, stating that "Our client has been advised by Scottish Water that there remains a drainage connection at the premises". This is still not evdence of the existence of a drain connected to the solum of the premises. They requested that a further inspection be made. If they were in any doubt before raising the writ, then they should have enquired at that time. They didn't. They made an extensive inspection on 3rd September 2015 as recorded, and evidenced by the respondent. If a new connection had been made since, then Scottish Water should have a record of it.

At this stage, Brodies decided to blacklist Research Project's email address. This had happened before on another case, and is typical of their disruptive and bullying behaviour.

The email that Research Project had sent to Brodies on 23rd March 2021 not having been acknowledged, was forwarded to them. It took two attempts, and was finally sent at 13:03, and acknowledged at 13:08 on 25th March 2021. This also contains Townsend-Rose's certification of Scottish Water et al's inspection of 2015, confirming that there are no drains of any nature within the premises.

On the 29th March, not having received a reply, the respondent yet again asked Brodies to provide the evidence of the connection, and suggested perhaps that as there is no physical drain, they are creating a "Pseudo SPID" in order to raise the charges for Roads and Property draiange.

On 31st March 2021, Brodies replied, again refusing to supply the connection information upon which they have based their writ.

Brodies Request to Inspect

The behaviour of Brodies, on the instruction of Scottish Water et al, is intransigient bordering on being petulant at the refusal of the respondent to accept their "contentions" which are both unevidenced and illogical.

Evidence

In response to the FOI raised on 1st April 2019, Scottish Water supplied a map showing their water mains - blue line, and combined sewer - red line. They do not enter the general area of 11 Forth Street nor of the adjacent car park. Noted that the records of connections to the sewer simply do not exist, although the water connections are shown up to the meters, which are the Water SPID's.

Previous inspections by Scottish Water et al state that there is no foul drainage from the Unit. This has been verified by a Chartered Engineeer

Logic

There are a number of reasons why there will not be a "Roads and Property Drain" connected to the premises, identified as the Solum of the Unit, as per the Record of Agreement - of occupancy of the Unit by xxxxxxxxx and their landlord.

There are a number of logical [as oposed to contended or contentious] reasons that support that there is not a draiange connection:

• It is contrary to the building regulations [and has been since Victorian times] to have un-trapped connections to a sewer of any sort within the confines of a building.
• If there was such an untrapped connection it would vent sewer gasses into the premises. These gasses are noxious and often explosive. These gasses would contaminate the cloth stored on the premises and the clothing which is manufactured there, as well as rendering the premises unfit tor work in.
• No inspection has found such a connection, although the records supplied by Scottish Water et al specifically exclude mention of such a connection [when identifying that there was no foul drainage connection] that they now contend exists.

Independence

It is most unlikely that an inspection by Scottish Water et al could be independent. They seek to find something, and the inspectors are a part of "the system", and not only subject to instruction, but apparently remunerated  on what they find, and certain rules of behaviour that if breached are deemed to bring Scottish Water into disrepute. It would be grossly unfair on the various individuals who have communicated this to be identified.

In the summary of the Scottish Information Commissioners report, it is stated: "... Commissioner  ... Scottish Water ... , but decided that its advice in its correspondence with the Applicant [the respondent] was misleading.

The respondent therefore rejects Brodie's suggestion. Of course if the court instructs an independent and  reputable firm of Civil Engineers to carry out an inspection then the respondent will natutrally accede.

It is most unlikely that their report would be any different to that carried out by Research Project who has belonged to the Institution of Civil Engineers for some fifty years, and is accredited by FEANI. The matter of fees has barred the respondent from such an action. Research Project has acted Pro Bono.

Conclusion

Brodies are simply not interested in suporting their unsupportable writ by way of evidence or argument. It is apparent that the writ is deficient, having neither evidence nor argument.

Plea to the Court

That the court does protect the Respondent against the ravages of Scottish Water et al which has been going on for in excess of eight years, and dismiss their case forthwith. 

Good afternoon

Our client is charging you for drainage services as it is our client's position that there are drains on the premises which drain into the public sewerage system. This connection is what the SPID represents.

I note that Research Project provided various logs of correspondence between Scottish Water and our client. There is no reference in these logs to a lack of drainage connection. The result of these logs is that the water SPID was deregistered along with the foul waste charges. The drainage charges have remained.

If you dispute this, we would be happy to ask our client to request that Scottish Water attend the premises and provide a report on the drainage connection at the premises. If you wish us to do so, please provide the name and contact details of someone who is able to provide access to the premises.

Please note Brodies act for Scottish Water Business Stream only and cannot give you legal advice. If you are in any doubt you should seek your own independent legal advice through a solicitor or advice centre.

Kind regards

Thank you for your email.

I am currently on annual leave with no access to emails. All emails will be dealt with upon my return on Wednesday 31st March.

If your query is urgent, please contact Beth Taylor at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Thanks for acknowledging receipt of Research Project's email which I forwarded to you.

I would really like the evidence of the connec on through which you claim the drainage that you are charging me for is being provided.

If there isn't one, then what does SPID ( ref off the bill) represent?

Is it a pseudo connection? and if it is perhaps, you could explain the law about this and where I can find it on the web.

I really need to know.

Please acknowledge the receipt and oblige

Good afternoon

I confirm receipt of the email. I will take client instructions and revert in due course.

Kind regards, 

Please find the email sent to you before. Please confirm receipt of this email and oblige.

This refers to the  Research Project's email of 23rd March 2021.

I refer to your email dated 16/03/2021, 14:38

You state:

Our client has been advised by Scottish Water that there remains a drainage connection at the premises, meaning the premises are Eligible Premises for the purposes of drainage and are liable for drainage services.

Scottish Water, whose Revenue Protection Department raise the charges and instruct the relevant provider to issue invoices, have advised under FOI that there is no foul drainage connection.

To enable you to obtain this information, I can advise you that two SPIDS were deregistered - i.e removed as being non existent - on 04-Jan-2017 with a time stamp of 07:17:28.

Water SPID reference SPID 200325970101
Drainage SPID reference SPID 200325970251

This information was provided by Scottish Water within the documents attached. These were provided at the behest of the Scottish Information Commissioner. You will note that there were innumerable visits, and it took some years for the "Gap Analysts" to confirm that there is neither a Sottish Water Water Connection [nor indeed is there one from any other source], nor a Scottish Water Sewer Connection [nor indeed is there one from any other source - such as a soakaway]

These records of innumerable inspections, provided through a competent judicial body [The Scottish Information Commissioner] are incontestable. They record the actions of inspection and registration, etc.

Your suggestion as to further inspections is rejected as wholly unnecessary and time wasting. The facts have already been determined, and verified by me, Chartered Engineer. See below.

Please read Section 27: It is in simple English, and provides that If neither a water connection exists nor a drainage [foul or storm] connection exists then the premises are NOT Eligible Premises.

For the avoidance of doubt, any writ which is deficient in terms of any of the following items: evidence, quoted law, and argument is unsupportable. You are therefore YET AGAIN requested to provide evidence, namely the details of the connection to the sewer, which ALL previous inspections have failed to identify.

Noted that Scottish Water may create Pseudo SPID's for administrative purposes. A Pseudo SPID does not, and cannot, create a connection through which a service can be provided [save possibly as a non existent "Pseudo Service"]. Noted that "Pseudo" is an adjective which some dictionaries as applied to things which are "not genuine, spurious, or sham". Other dictionaries use the words "false, and deceptive". Scottish Water are not authorised to raise charges for Pseudo Services.

The Scottish Information Commissioner's Decision is attached.

The Commissioner ... decided that Scottish Water's advice in its correspondence with the Applicant was misleading.

It would appear that you have been improperly briefed, and have been misled, and consequently you are misleading the Court.

It would be reasonable to expect that the writ would be complete, and contain the necessary evidence and legal arguments. Because of the number of writs that I personally have had sight of it was decided that it would be necessary to raise an FOI for the information that ought to be contained in any writ. The writ does not contain all the necessary information.

You have failed to produce a shred of evidence of the purported connection. You have contended there is a connection. Contending is NOT evidence. Now your client has been advised. The basis of that advice has not been provided.

If your client persists in maintaining that there is a sewer connection, then it would be in the interest of all parties, particularly the Sheriff's that the detail of the connection which they purports to exist be provided, and upon which Brodies have raised a writ.

Noted that the area is serviced by a combined sewer - that is one which provides both storm [aka roads and property drainage] drainage and foul drainage. I am aware that Scottish Water's records are in an appalling condition, and appear to remain so.

As a Chartered Engineeer with some fifty years of experience, many of them in the Water Industry, and accredited by FEANI and thus bearing the title Europeanne Ingenieur, I can confirm that I have visited the premises on several occasions and have searched diligently for any sign of of a Scottish Water Water Connection usually evidenced by a Meter and a Stop Valve and for any sign of a Scottish Water Sewer Connection usually evidenced by Manholes and or Rodding Eyes. None has been found.

One last point:

You state I strongly refute any accusation that either Brodies or our client is refusing to cooperate.

The lack of co-operation is evidenced as follows:

in the writ, failing to provide any evidence of a sewer connection, and
when requested, failing to reply and provide said evidence of connection.

I maintain that, in my view, you remain uncooperative. It is a trait that over six years of my research into the charging for water and sewer use has become very apparent.

Your recent email to which this is the reply, provides further evidence of your behaviour, and is prejudicial to say the least. Your attitude ensures that it will be presented to the Sheriff, as it his and the court's time that you are wasting on what is in essence a trivial ma1er. You bring Brodies, your client, and Scottish Water into disrepute.

Be reminded that my involvement is as part of my research into the appalling treatment of mainly entrepreneurial Scots by the Scottish Water Industry.

Dear Sirs

Thank you for your email.

We are in agreement that the issue in dispute primarily pertains to whether the premises are Eligible Premises and (therefore) whether our client is entitled to charge you for drainage services rendered at the premises.

First, can I take this opportunity to explain (for the avoidance of doubt) that Scottish Water Business Stream (our client) and Scottish Water are two separate legal entities and separate organisations. Our client has been advised by Scottish Water that there remains a drainage connection at the premises, meaning the premises are Eligible Premises for the purposes of drainage and are liable for drainage services.

Where premises are 'registered' as an Eligible Premises on the market (as yours are for drainage services), the occupiers of those premises will be charged for services provided to those premises. Those charges may come from other licensed providers or from our client, depending on what arrangements have been made. In this instance, the charges are made by our client. If Scottish Water are satisfied that premises are not connected to the public water/waste water system (including drainage system), it may 'deregister'' the premises.

I understand that your position is that Scottish Water have previously advised that the premises are not Eligible Premises, if you can provide evidence of this advice (in relation to the drainage charges), I can ask our client to take this to Scottish Water for comment. Otherwise, in order to narrow the issues in dispute (as directed by the Court), I suggest that parties agree that Scottish Water agents attend the premises to determine whether there is a drainage connection. Scottish Water will then produce a report which will be shared with you. If the result of that report is that there is no drainage connection at the premises, Scottish Water will 'deregister' the property, meaning no further invoices for these services will be issued. Accordingly, the issues in dispute may be narrowed or, indeed, resolved. If you are agreeable to this course of action, please provide a name and contact number for someone who is able to give access to the premises.

I strongly refute any accusation that either Brodies or our client is refusing to cooperate.

Please note that this email is written entirely without prejudice to our client's whole rights and pleas and may not be founded upon in any proceedings except at the instance of our client or with our client's express prior written consent.

If you are in any doubt as to the contents of this email, please seek independent legal advice

Dear Sirs/ Madam.

I refer to the recent Sheriff's order "to narrow the issues in dispute". As far as I can see, you contend that the unit is an " Eligible Premises", where as we have been advised by Scottish Water that there is no connection to a Sewer. That means that under Section 27 the Unit is NOT an Eligible Premises.

So, I contend that th Unit is NOT an Eligible Premises.

It is obvious what is "in dispute"

The Research Project has asked you to evidence that the Unit is an eligible Premises. I am asking again for this. This proof has been requested again and again. It is not included in the writ. The words "It is our client's position that the premises have a drainage connection - i.e. drains on the premises which drain into the public Sewerage system." is not evidence, and in my view is totally incorrect. The Landlord has drains and so on, but the unit does not.

You have asked for the lease. There is only a verbal agreement between two Hindu Gentlemen, viz the Landlord (the son of one of my late wife's closest friends) and myself. What I rent is I understand called "Solum of the unit". The Landlord can confirm that.

As I am making an attempt to find out, yet again, how it is you think that the Unit is an Eligible Premises.

I have to say that I will be sending a copy of this email, and any replies to the Sheriff as evidence of your refusal to be co-operate.

The respondent has indicated to thecourt that this claim will be disputed. The sheriff hasconsidered the ClaimFormand the Response Formand has given the following orders:–

Settlement and negotiation

The claimant and the respondent are encouraged to contact each other to seek to settle the case or to narrow the issues in dispute, before the case management discussion. Ifthecaseis settled beforethecase management discussion then the parties mustcontact thecourt immediately.

The sheriff orders a Case Management Discussion via a telephone conference call. Both parties are ordered to be available for a discussion via a telephone conference call on 21 April 2021 at 11:15 a.m.

Lay Representation

The Lay representative form submitted in this case discloses that the proposed lay representative will not be able to appropriately participate in proceedings due to health difficulties. Accordingly, theapplication for lay representation is refused. If the respondent wishes the evidence of the proposed lay representative to be considered then the respondent requires to clarify with the court the means by which it is proposed this will be achieved. A fresh application for a newlay representative will also have to be submitted.

Documents and other evidence

Parties should lodge all documents and evidence they wish to refer to with thecourt 14 days before the hearing.

Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the said documents should be lodged electronically by email to the court at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.; or in the event that this is impracticable or impossible, by post to Glasgow Sheriff Court, 1 Carton Place, Glasgow, G5 9DA)

The sheriff orders parties to provide the court no later than 5 working days prior to the said hearing, a notesetting out:

a. the name of the individual representing the party or in the case of a party litigant, confirmation that the party is self-represented;
b. the representative’s direct telephone number;and
c. therepresentatives direct e-mail address.

Please send these contact details to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Signed by: SheriffS Brown Sheriff of The Sheriffdom of Glasgow and Strathkelvin at Glasgow

First of all it is grossly impolite to adress me as "mr". My formal title is Europeanne Ingenieur or Eur. Ing. for short. Thus you are in breach of Part 1 Rule 1.6 item 3.

You have the information you require regarding the tenure of the Unit.

You state:

It is our client's position that the premises have a drainage connection – i.e. drains on the premises which drain into the public sewerage system.

You are hereby requested to provide details of this connection. It is self evidently NOT your client [SWBS] 's position unless they admit to failing to reply truthfully to an FOI. Your client sent inspectors on many occasions all as detailed in the additional information provided under FOI on the direction of the Information Commissioner. Of course you may have been improperly briefed by the Revenue Protection Department, who it is in the event who instruct SWBS to raise invoices.

Meanwhile you appear to be what is best desribed as a"word smith". The burden of proof lies with yourselves. I direct you to Rule 1.6 Item 2 regarding behaviour.

Again, please provide the proof requested.

The right is reserved to provide a copy of this email exchange to the court as evidence of time wasting and bullying.

The Response form lodged raises various questions which require investigation by our client, some of which you have again, reiterated below. It is our client's position that the premises have a drainage connection – i.e. drains on the premises which drain into the public sewerage system. The definition of Eligible Premises under section 27 of the Water Services etc (Scotland) Act 2005 are premises which are connected to the public water/public sewerage system. I am paraphrasing here as I understand you are more than familiar with the terms of the 2005 Act but if you would like me to provide you with copies of the relevant sections, I would be happy to do so.

In order for our client to investigate matters, we require to establish what parts of the premises xxxxxx occupy in light of your position, as set out in the Response Form that the leased premises "consists of the solum leased from the landlord, and thus it excludes per se the roof, guttering, and access roads, and car parts, etc and consists of the internal parts only". It is for this reason that we requested lease documentation. From the link provided I see that you have explained your position in an email in a similar way from how it is described in the Response Form. We would be grateful if you could provide evidence of this position, being a lease (or any documentation) detailing the parts of the premises occupied by xxxxxx.

Briefly, as set out in the Claim Form, our client's claim for charges is a claim under its licence which has been granted in terms of section 6 of the 2005 Act. Again, I understand you are familiar with the provisions but if you require copies I can arrange for these to be provided to you. That licence, in terms of section 6 entitles our client to make arrangements with the occupier of eligible premises for the supply of sewerage services and to fix, demand and recover charges for those services. Eligible premises is defined in section 27 – which is summarised above.

Sirs

I have been forwarded your email requesting information, namely "the lease", in order that "the defence may be tested". The fact is that in our opinion it is your writ is that requires to be tested.

You have provided no evidence as to why the Unit is an "eligible premises" despite many requests.

Under FOI, information was provided by Scottish Water that there is neither a water connection nor a sewer connection, which are the pre-requisites laid down by the 2005 Act in Section 27.

You may like to provide the physical connection information that indicates that the Unit is an Eligible Premises, bearing in mind it that Scottish Water have confirmed that there are no such connections. Please also provide detail of the law upon which your case relies, bearing in mind that the laws quoted in your writ pertain to the various appointments of Scottish Water, Business Stream, and the Commissioner et al none of which relates to the autority to raise Drainage and Property Charges for properties which are NOT Eligible Properties.

Please be advised that details of "the lease" [being the arrangement between xxxxxxx and their Landlord] was passed to Scottish Water et al by Nicola Sturgeon's Constituency Office on 13th February 2017. Please see here:

http://www.unaccountablescotland.org.uk/water-charges/water-charges-communications-reviewed/water-charges-emails-with-an-msps-office-et-al

Your response is awaited.

Dear Sirs

We refer to the above matter and to the Response Form lodged with the Court.

The Response Form raises various issues which require investigation by the Claimant, in order to test your defence. In particular, in order to assist with investigations, please provide a copy of your lease of the premises, referred to at paragraph 2 of the paper apart lodged with your Response Form.

If you wish to discuss matters, please contact me on the below noted details.

Although there are forms, the meat of the writ and the defence were in "papers apart".

The Writ

Some salient statements which are cited are as follows [using the numbering system used in the form]:

D7] The claimant has made arrangements with the respondent for and in relation to the supply of Sewerage services at eligible premises and is accordingly entitled to fix, demand and recover charges for those services. The claimant having done so in the sum claimed, it is entitled to payment of that sum.

D8] The respondent has been called upon inter alia in each of the invoices detailed on the claimant's attached Statement of Account and in a letter by Brodies LLP to the Respondent dated 27 March 2019 to make payment but has refused or failed to do so.

PAPER APART: D1

Article 1. The Claimant is a licenced provider of non-domestic water and sewerage services in Scotland. The Respondent has occupied non-domestic premises at xxxxxxxx (the "Premises"). The Claimant supplied sewerage services ("the Services") to the Respondent at the Premises. The Claimant operated an account for the Respondent relating to the provision of those services, account number 9999999.

Article 2 Scottish Water is a body corporate established by Part 3 of the Water Industry (Scotland) Act 2002 (the "2002 Act'), Scottish Water is the principal provider of wholesale water and sewerage services in the non-domestic water and sewerage market in Scotland ("the Market"). The Water Services etc (Scotland) Act 2005 (the "2005 Act") introduced competition into the Market by allowing retailers to apply to provide retail water and sewerage services in the Market. The Market is regulated by the Water Industry Commission for Scotland ("WICS") a body corporate established by Part 1 of the 2002 Act.

Article 3 Section 5(1) of the 2005 Act empowers WICS to grant a licence authorising a person: "(a)to - (i) make arrangements with the occupier of any eligible premises for or in relation to the supply of water to the premises through the public water supply system, and (ii) fix. demand and recover charges for or in relation to the supply of water to any premises in respect of which the person has made such arrangements; and (b) to make such arrangements with Scottish Water and such other persons as are necessary for the purposes of or in connection with the things mentioned in paragraph (a)." Section 6(3) of the 2005 Act empowers WICS to grant a licence authorising a person:- "(a)to— )4 '' (i) make arrangements with the occupier of any eligible premises for or in relation to the provision of sewerage to, or the disposal of sewage from, the premises through the public sewerage system; and (ii) fix, demand and recover charges for or in relation to the provision of sewerage to, and disposal of sewage from, any premises in respect of which the person has made such arrangements; and (b) to make such arrangements with Scottish Water and such other persons as are necessary for the purposes of or in connection with the things mentioned in paragraph (a). In terms of Section 27 (1) of the 2005 Act, eligible premises are: ' "(a) in relation to the supply of water premises which are (or are to be) connected to the public water supply system: and (b) in relation to the provision of sewerage or the disposal of sewage, premises which are (or are to be) connected to the public sewerage system, but not to any dwelling" ("Eligible Premises"). A dwelling in terms of Section 27 (1) of the 2005 Act means any dwelling within the meaning of Part II (Council tax; Scotland) of the Local Authority Finance Act 1992 except the residential part of part residential subjects within the meaning of that Part of that Act,

Article 4 The 2005 Act required Scottish Water to establish an undertaking which was to apply for such licences. The Claimant is that undertaking. Provisional Water Services and Sewerage Services Licences were granted by WICS to the Claimant on 31 October 2006 in terms of Sections 6(1) and Section 6(3) of the 2005 Act. Permanent licences were granted to the Claimant by WICS on 11 January 2008, The Claimant s said licences incorporate standard conditions set by WICS, Standard licence condition B1(2) requires the Claimant, in fixing, demanding or recovering charges for the provision of its licensed services, to ensure that such charges do not exceed default maximum tariffs prescribed by WICS as amended from time to time ("the Default Maximum Tanffs"). The Claimant issues annual charging statements which set out the unit prices and methods of calculating its charges for water and sewerage services. The Claimant's water and sewerage services charges do not exceed the Default Maximum Tariffs.

Article 5 Scottish Water and the Claimant entered into a Transfer Agreement, transferring Scottish Water's non-domestic retail business to the Claimant from 1 November 2006. The Transfer Agreement transferred to the Claimant the rights and liabilities of Scottish Water under contracts and existing supply arrangements with customers and occupiers of all known Eligible Premises in Scotland. On or around 1 November 2006, the Claimant became the provider of water services and sewerage services to all Eligible Premises known to be connected to the public water supply system and/or the public sewerage system within Scotland,

Article 6 In October 2006. the Claimant wrote to the existing non-domestic customers of Scottish Water, being the occupiers of the premises by letter ("the October 2006 Letter") informing its customer inter alia that: (i) the Claimant had become the first licensed retailer of water and sewerage services for nonresidential properties in Scotland; (ii) from April 2008 the customer would be able to choose its supplier; (iii) meantime the customer's current arrangements with Scottish Water had been transferred to the Claimant and would be honoured by the Claimant; and (iv) that the customers would continue to be invoiced. In November 2006, Scottish Water wrote to all of its non-domestic customers by letter ("the November 2006 Letter) confirming inter alia that: (i) from 1 November 2006 the Claimant would begin delivering customer service and billing services; (ii) existing customer accounts had transferred over to the Claimant under existing customer reference numbers; and (iii) customers would continue to be invoiced. The October 2006 Letter and November 2006 Letter directed the customers to the Claimant's website for (i) minimum service standards, (ii) its scheme of charges, (iii) customer service and billing information, and (iv) the Claimant's terms and conditions of supply. The Claimant thereby made arrangements in terms of Section 6(1) of the 2005 with the occupiers of all known Eligible Premises in the Market for the supply of the water services and/or sewerage services from 1 November 2006.

Article 7 The Claimant was the sole supplier of water and sewerage services in the Market until 1 April 2008. Prior to the Market being opened to competition, the Central Market Agency ("the CMA") was established on 1 August 2007. The CMA maintains a record of supply points connected to the public water supply system and to the public sewerage system at all known Eligible Premises within the Market. The CMA maintains a record of the licenced provider assigned to each supply point. Each separate supply point at an Eligible Premises has a unique supply point identification number ("SPID"). A Water SPID is registered to the licenced provider which is responsible for providing water services at that connection point. A Waste SPID is registered to the licenced provider which is responsible for providing sewerage services at that connection point. On or around 1 November 2006 all Water SPIDs and Waste SPIDs at all known Eligible Premises within the Market were allocated to the Claimant. Articles / y" ! The Premises are Eligible Premises. The Claimant has been registered with the CMA as the licenced provider to the SPIDs at the Premises, Water SPID number 200325970101 and Waste SPID number 123456789012. The Respondent entered into occupation of the Premises on or around [date]. At the point of entering into occupation of the Premises, the Respondent was or ought to have been aware that (i) the Premises were connected to the public water supply system and/or the public sewerage system, and (ii) the Claimant was the registered licenced provider supplying Services at the Premises. The Respondent took no steps to engage the services of an alternative licenced provider in substitute for the Claimant or to have the supply of the Services disconnected prior to entering into occupation of the Premises. 

Article 9 The Claimant provided the Respondent with the Services since the Respondent entered into occupation of the Premises. The Claimant notified the Respondent that it was the provider of the Services to the Premises after it became aware that the Respondent was in occupation of the Premises. The Ciaimant did so by issuing invoices to the Respondent narrating the services being provided to the Respondent at the Premises, the registered SPID numbers at the Premises, the applicable tariffs for the Services, the account number allocated to the Respondent, and the Claimant's contact details. The Claimant has demanded payment from the Respondent for the provision of the Services at the Premises in accordance with the Default Maximum Tariffs. Copy statement of account, for account number 9999999. detailing (i) the invoice(s) rendered by the Claimant to the Respondent for the provision of the Services at the Premises, (ii) the period of supply of the Services, and (iii) all payments to account made by the Respondent to the Claimant for the provision of the Services, is produced and referred to for its terms which are held as incorporated herein brevitatis causa. The Respondent was made aware that the Services at the Premises were supplied by the Claimant at least the date on which the Claimant first rendered an invoice to the Respondent for the provision of the Services. The Claimant made arrangements for or in relation to the supply of Services to the Premises with the Respondent in terms of Section 6(1) of the 2005 Act.

Article 10 In terms of Section 6 of the 2005 Act and the licences hereinbefore condescended upon, the Claimant has a statutory right to fix, demand and recover charges from the Respondent for its provision of the Services to the Premises, The Claimant has provided the Respondent with Services to the value of £1111.11 calculated in accordance with its annual charging statements and the Default Maximum Tariffs which the Respondent has failed to pay for despite repeated requests to do so. That sum remains outstanding despite the Respondent being requested to make payment and is the sum first craved. The Respondent was given notice of the amount of the sum first craved on or around 21 February 2020. A Decision should be granted as claimed.

The Defence

D1] No services have been provided. Additional arguments and points for discussion are attached - document bamed xxxxxx.pdf

D2] xxxxxxxx is not an Eligible Premises as defined in Section 27 of the 2005 Act.

D5] Various telephone calls were made in an attempt to discuss the connections and Clause 27 of the 2005 Act, with promises that the matters would be referred to Scottish Water's Legal Department, but nothing was ever heard.
The office of the local MSP [Nicola Sturgeon] also made attempts unsuccessfully.

E2] Documents in support
1) Information provided by Scottish Water under FOI. Two FOI's have been raised.
2) Information provided by Scottish Water at the nehest of the Scottish INformation Commissioner.
3) Analysis of this information.

Paper Apart

Notes.

About Definitions

An "Eligible Premises" is one which meets the critreria specified in Section 27 of the 2005 Water Act, namely that is has either a physical connection to a water supply owned by Scottish Water, and or a physical connection to a sewer [foul, storm, or combined] owned by Scottish Water. The Premises in Question is a part of an old industrial estate and consists of the solum leased from the landlord, and thus it excludes per se the roof, guttering, and access roads, and car parks, etc and consists of the internal parts only. These internal parts have been inspected by representatives of Scottish Water on many occasions, and neither a water supply nor a sewerage connection has been located.

Supply Point ID [SPID]

SPID was originally initiated to enable water and sewer management and shows in the case of water the location of the water meter and stopcock, and in the case of sewers the entry point to the sewer of dischage from another system. Later these were taken over and used for accounting purposes. Nevertheless, the point in a supply or collection system where responsibility for maintenance by Scottish Water ceases requires definition for management of the infrastructure and is usually taken as the location of the SPID.

About Combined Sewers

The following statement is taken from Scottish Water Document SWSWP1 01/17 [that is January 2017] which reads as follows: What is a combined sewer? Historically up to the 1980’s foul sewage generated from within properties (ie toilets, baths, sinks, etc) has been mixed with surface water into a single pipe (combined sewer). Due to environmental and flood risk management considerations, it is recognised best practice to separate out foul sewage from surface water. The Premises in Question were initially constructed sometime soon after the first world war. The plans of the sewers supplied by Scttish Water under FOI for the area around Forth Street where the premises in question is situated indicate only single [combined] sewers. Thus "no connection to a sewer" means no connection to either the foul system or the storm system.

Freedom of Information Request

In order to assist Scottish Water in determining, what is self evident to any reasonable person, which is that the Premises in Question are not an Eligible Premises, an FOI was raised requesting three items:

• The locations of water meters and water supply points to the Premises in Question,
• The locations of sewers and connexction points to the Premises in Question,
• The applicable law.

Scottish Water supplied information in respect of the first two items by way of plans of their infrastructure in the local area which in no way indicate any connections to the Premises in Question. They failed to supply the applicable law under which their claim for drainage charges is made.

The matter was taken to the Scottish Information Commissioner, who instructed Scottish Water to look further. As a result a massive number of records were found and supplied in pdf format amounting 66 pages. It is to be noted that the nine longer entries [more than 2,000 characters] were not provided, but marked as "truncated".

This data was exhaustively analysed and the analysis provided to Scottish Water by email on 9th October 2019. The following is a summary of the information provided:

It is agreed that Section 27 of the 2005 Act is applicable. The question is whether xxxxx is actually an Eligible Premises.

Under part (1) (a) there has to be a direct connection to a water supply provided by SW.

Noted: that SW has agreed that there isn't one.

Under part (1) (b) there has to be a direct connection to a sewerage or drainage pipe.

Noted: that SW has agreed that there isn't one.

It is thus difficult to comprehend that Scottish Water persist in raising an action at court when they refuse to explain the law under which the action is brought.

On the 18th March 2020, the Commissioner made the following statement in the summary to his report:

Following investigation, the Commissioner was satisfied that Scottish Water had carried out adequate searches, but decided that its advice in its correspondence with the Applicant was misleading Relevant evidence available:

The following documents are available.

• Information supplied by Scottish Water at the behest of the Scottish Information Commissioner.
• Analysis of above.
• Scottish Information Commissioner's Decision Notice 048/2020 published 18th March 2020.

Note on the initiation of charges

Scottish Water have a department whose sole function is to raise charges: it is unsurprisingly called the Revenue Protection Department.

Reference is made to the Notice of Claim Part D

Section D1 The extensive background has been ignored. It is submitted that the following should have been included:

The respondent has been to considerable lenghths to attempt to persuade the claimant that the premises is NOT an Eligible Premises in terms of Section 27 of the 2005 Act. This has included:

• Enlisting the assistance of the Respondents MSP, namely Nicola Sturgeon. [Feb 2017 - Jan 2018]
• Raising an FOI [1st April to 29th May 2019]
• Taking the matter to the Scottish Information Commissioner [June 2019 - March 2020]. Scottish Water confirmed that there is neither a water nor a sewer connection.
• Raising a second FOI for information still not supplied viz "The Applicable Law". Scottish Water eventually replied with this statement: Property and Roads Drainage charges were not removed and remain in place for your premises because all available information suggests that surface water from the premises drains into the public sewer.

Section D7

It is submitted that Scottish Water's statement of claim is erroneous, as the information provided by Scottish Water at the behest of the Scottish Information Commissioner confirms that there is no sewerage connection to the premises.

Section D8.

The claimant has made absolurtely no attempt to discuss the matter in a sensible, preferssional, and commercially competent manner.

Section E2. The claimant had the opportunity to provide to the court the information provided at the behest of the Scottish Information Commissioner. On page 56 of 66 pages the following is found, made by Wholesale Service Desk, Scottish Water, Phone: 0800 121 4547:

SPID – 200325970101 is to be deregistered from 01/03/2012
SPID - 200325970251 is to have foul waste removed from 01/03/2012
Authorisation Method – Site Visit
Effective Date of Transaction – 01/03/2012
Expected Date of Transaction – 05/01/2017

Section E2:

The claimant has not made any attempt to provided any evidence that the premises in question are an Eligible Premises.

Reference is made to the "Paper Apart: D1" provided by the Claimant.

Re: Article 1.
Denied that there has been any provision of Property & Drainage Services to the Premises in Question. The Claimant may have supplied drainage and or sewerage services to the Landlord, but that is of no concern to the Lessee of the premises. Indeed the "common parts" of the estate viz car park, roofs, etc etc may well be construed as being the "Eligible Premises", as is the case for example in the Templeton Business Centre.

Re: Article 2
The 2005 Act also introduced Section 27 defining Eligible Premises.

Re: Article 3
This relates only to Eligible Premises, which the Premises in Question is NOT. The writ contains absolutely no evidence as to eligibility.

Re: Article 4
The licences granted enable Scottish Water to arrange for Eligible Premises to be charged.

Re: Article 5
The transfer agreement enabled Scottish Water Business Stream to take over charging the owners or lessees of Eligible Premises. It did not enable charges for premises which were not Eligible Premises.

Re: Article 6
It is known that many other owners or lessees treated Scottish Water's letters of October and November 2006 as junk mail. The lessee moved into the premises some six years after this date in September 2012 shortly after it was registered at Companied House. Nevertheless, these letters in no way enabled charges for premises which were not Eligible Premises.

Re: Article 7
Registering a SPID for accounting purposes cannot in any way change the physical infrastructure

Re: Article 8
The claimant makes an unevidenced statement viz: The Premises are Eligible Premises. The raising of the FOI was to determine whether Scottish Water posessed any information indicating that there was either a Water Connection or a Sewer Connection to the Premises in Question. No such information was provided. As a consequence of their investigations, Scottish Water's Revenue Protection Department withdrew charges for supply of water [on a rateable value basis], and of sewerage collection [on a rateable value basis], thus indicating that there was neither a water connection nor a sewerage connection, which under Section 27 of the Act defines that the Premises in Question are NOT an Eligible Premises, and thus are not liable for any charges emanating from Scottish Water's Revenue Protection Department. See the Note on Initiation of Charges above.

Re: Article 9
The issuing of invoices, apart from possibly being fraudulent, is not evidence of either a water connection or nor of a sewer connection to the Premises in Question. Denied that there has been any provision of Property & Drainage Services to the Premises in Question, there being no connection to the combined sewers in the area.

Re: Article 10
Denied that Claimant has any stututory right to recover any charges from the lessee of the Premises in Question, as is is NOT an Eligible Premises under Section 27 of the 2005 Act. The Claimant has failed to evidence any clause of any statute enabling them to raise Property and Drainage charges without at the same time raising Water charges and or Sewerage charges.

Quoad Ultra Denied.

The next step was an FOI. The purpose was to establish the facts, viz answer the questions as to whether there were any Scottish Water connections to the premises namely (the solum of the Unit), and the applicable law.

The FOI was raised on 1st April 2019. The full detail is here. No straight answers were received.

The matter was taken to the Scottish Information Commissioner on 4th June 2019.
This resulted in a plethora of information being provided - none of it particularly useful. The Applicable Law was not provided, as the Commissioner evaluated [wrongly] that the appeal was asking him to determine whether the premises were "eligible premises" under Section 27. The full review of the decision and its explanation is here. The detailed correspondence is in the same article as the link in the previous paragraph.

A second FOI was raised in a final attempt to elucidate the applicable law. Nothing further was elucidated. The detailed correspondence is also in the same article as the link in the second paragraph above

Briefly the history of this case started when Scottish Water reduced the charges to use the correct rateable value. This was after a protracted email exchange between the repondent's MSP's Constituency Office and Scottish Water Business Stream. However the respondent then contacted the research project on which this web site reports.

On the 13th February 2017, the Constituency Office emailed Scottish Water as follows:

In my view I am not liable for any drainage charges.

The grounds for this are that I do not have a connection to the public sewerage system and so I am not liable to pay drainage and property charges. My premises, consist of the INSIDE of the unit only.

Please ask Scottish water Business stream, What and where is my connection to the public sewerage, they have visited the unit 6 or 7 times. The parking space out side is a public car park space and the roof is not my affair.

This correspondence may be read here. [scroll to end to "13 Feb 2017 - Email to the Constituency Assistant to Nicola Sturgeon MSP (Glasgow Southside)"] This continued until the 23rd January 2018, when it became apparent that an MSP's offices are worthless in sorting out problems, especially when one's MSP is First Minister. The conclusion is that the elected Parliament are unable and or unwilling to hold the Scottish Government and its organs to account.