Douglas Sinclair: Scottish Water must be seen to be crystal-clear

Homeserve is a UK-wide private sector company that sells insurance to householders to cover the provision of emergency repair services for water pipes.

The firm had suspended its telesales to allow for a review of processes and to implement improvements and, as part of that review, suspended the practice of sending out marketing letters that carried – through a deal with Scottish Water – the Scottish Water logo prominently.

Members of our Consumer Network of more than 500 volunteers across Scotland, who keep us informed about consumer concerns, were sent a copy of the correspondence that Homeserve used in its direct mailing to householders.

They were asked to complete a survey to tell us both their reaction to the material and the actions they would take on receiving such material.

The findings were stark.

Nearly 60 per cent of recipients incorrectly identified the letter as being sent to them directly from Scottish Water, and most found the letter to be confusing and difficult to read.

Network members voiced concerns that unsolicited mail of this nature may cause undue alarm or stress, especially if it is sent to a vulnerable consumer, and that householders may respond by taking out a policy.

I have no doubt that Scottish Water is a responsible body that will respond positively to these concerns, but there is a wider issue of principle which I believe requires proper consideration.

Although not something we went into in our research, in my view the conclusions raise an important issue of whether it is appropriate for any service that is funded from the public purse to advocate, or be perceived to advocate, on behalf on any one private firm.

I believe there are three good reasons for concern.

First, water and electricity are basic essentials for life, but while consumers do not trust their energy companies, they do trust Scottish Water.

One of the reasons is that they see Scottish Water as a public service.

Scottish Water describes itself as a publicly-owned company – akin to the council and the health board.

Scots trust and rely on their public services, and turn to them in time of emergencies.

That trust is a powerful asset, and no public service should act in a way which can put that trust in jeopardy.

Second, for many of our public services there is no choice for the consumer as to who provides the service. I would argue that having a monopoly position places an additional responsibility on the service provider.

This is particularly true for Scottish Water, which is exclusively funded by its customer charges.

It must not to be open to any perception that it is in any way abusing that monopoly position.

Third, public services are often seen to be slow and bureaucratic.

But there is a good side to bureaucracy. Impartiality, even handedness, fairness of treatment and transparency must run as a golden thread in all the dealings between a public service and its consumers.

I do understand the pressures on Scottish Water to maximise its income to the benefit of its consumers.

No-one would argue with the right of Scottish Water to make its consumers aware of the need for adequate insurance in the same way that one would expect the local council to give similar advice to council house tenants. But crossing the line and advocating, or being seen to be advocating, on behalf of only one company runs a clear danger of reducing that bond of trust between consumers and Scottish Water.

And it will make much harder the achievement of Scottish Water’s ambition to be Scotland’s most valued and trusted company.

• Douglas Sinclair is chairman of Consumer Focus Scotland