Mr N complained that his water provider hadn't consulted him before
putting a gate at the end of his property. The property is at the corner of two
streets - an easement of about 3 metres runs at the back of it. Other subdivision residents
frequently used the easement as a shortcut to other places in the area.
Mr N's property isn't fenced - after the gate was installed, people started crossing his
garden bed as a shortcut - causing damage to his property.
Mr N said he found out about the gate from his neighbour, who'd requested it for security
reasons. While he acknowledged the neighbour's security concerns, he didn't think the fence
resolved the issue - it just moved it to his property.
Mr N believed he should have been given reasonable opportunity to discuss solutions that would
have met the needs of all parties. On top of this, a key to the gate had been given to his
neighbour, but not to him.
The water company confirmed the gate had been installed after his neighbour expressed security
concerns. It apologised for not consulting him, but noted that he hadn't asked for it to be
removed. The water company also advised that neither it, nor its contractors,attached or
installed a lock on the gate - it offered to remove it if Mr N requested that formally.
Our investigation of Mr N's complaint showed he was hesitant to seek removal of the gate, as
he didn't want to aggravate his neighbour or other within the subdivision. We investigated some
alternatives. Mr N wanted to take some more time to research and consider these options.
We also arranged for a represtative of the water company to speak with Mr N directly about
removing the locks and possible removal of the gate.
Mr N was satisfied with the water company's response to his complaint.
EWOV was able to bring about discussion between Mr N and his company but, as this case
shows, balancing the wishes of individual customers and the community isn't always easy or
straightforward.
Return to Water case studies