Connection application

Dispute

The business customer contacted the CRU in relation to a water services connection quotation received from Uisce Éireann (UÉ). The quotation was to provide water to a newly constructed extension to a nursing home.

According to the customer, the quotation received from UÉ was over four times more expensive than quotations provided by independent contractors. The customer advised that the process of attempting to engage with UÉ on the matter had caused a two-year delay to the project, and further advised that he had been notified of the existence of a UÉ self-lay pilot project, where a developer could use an independent contractor to self-lay rather than UÉ carrying out the work.

The customer believed the nursing home could qualify for the scheme, but UÉ had advised the customer that they did not meet the criteria for the self-lay pilot. The customer requested the CRU investigate these matters, particularly the connection agreement for the nursing home.

Outcome

The CRU did not uphold the complaint as UÉ provided a connection quotation for the nursing home in line with the CRU’s approved connection charging policy. The offer was made based on the rates of the approved contractors. The pricing was deemed to be a contractual matter between UÉ and its contractors.

The CRU liaised with UÉ to understand if self-lay could be considered. UÉ advised the CRU that the self-lay project as proposed by the customer did not meet the certain specific requirements.

The CRU, in an effort to assist the customer in obtaining an effective resolution, directed UÉ to arrange a meeting with the customer to a) discuss the existing offer and answer any questions the customer may have in relation to this connection offer; and b) consider if there were alternative options the customer could consider to lower the cost of the connection (including outlining anything the customer could do to meet the criteria for self-lay).

While the CRU did not uphold the substance of this customer’s complaint, the CRU identified significant failings by UÉ in relation to its Code of Practice on Complaint Handling. There were also significant delays in communications by UÉ with the customer which negatively impacted on the timeline of the connection offer. The CRU directed UÉ pay the customer five charter payments of €30 each for these failings.