A toothless poodle
The CCW Homepage proclaims “Here to fight your corner – the voice for water consumers.’ This fosters the illusion that they are both interested in, and have the power, to take on the likes of Thames Water on all matters of concern to consumers.
In practice, the CCW has for over 30 years failed to protect consumers interests in relation to the greed of Thames Water, their fleecing of customers, and their trashing of the environment.
Weak legislation + Institutional failure
There is a list on the CCW website of 19 legitimate consumer concerns which CCW say they will refuse to deal with. This effectively includes many of the issues which are of particular concern to ‘boycotters,’ such as:
- Systematic failure by Thames Water to correctly dispose of noxious household sewage, contrary to its statutory duties
- The impact of Thames Waters practices on consumers’ health and their environment
- Seeking recompense for consumers who suffer as a result of TW’s failure to deal adequately with sewage
- TW’s use of £Billions paid by customers to line the pockets of shareholders and executive rather than on improving infrastructure
- Huge above inflation price hikes
- Bills which unfairly require consumers to pay towards:
- The fines imposed on Thames Water
- Interest on the loans taken out to pay dividends to their shareholders
- Payment of unjustified dividends to shareholders
- Payment of excessive salaries and bonuses to executives
The decision by CCW not to deal with these issues is a political one. Challenging this institutional failure is not helped by the vague and complicated wording and other deficiencies of the Water Industry Act 1991 (WIA) which created the CCW.
Consumer concerns which CCW should deal with
Section 27 WIA sets out the basis on which CCW is being created. Section 27A(13) includes the following broad definitions:
- The interest of consumers means the interests of consumers in relation to the provision of sewage services
- Consumer matters mean any matter connected with the interests of consumers
The legislation does not include a list of matters which CCW is required to deal with. Nor does it include a list of matters it is not required to deal with. In short, there is nothing in the legislation which precludes CCW from investigating the matters of concern listed above. They all fall squarely within the Act’s definition of consumer interests and matters which are connected with the interests of consumers.
CCW itself states that it:
“was established under the Act to represent the interests of water and sewage customers by handling complaints about water and sewage companies, water supply licencees and sewage licencees; acquiring and publishing information, providing advice and investigating matters of interest to consumers.” (Memorandum of understanding between CCW and OFWAT)
Practical implications for boycotters
Typically, CCW rejects appeals concerning complaints about, for example, illegal sewage discharges. This is unacceptable. Submit the appeal and grounds of complaint anyway. Await the inevitable rejection. Then question CCW about their basis for rejecting it. Request details of where it says in any statute or regulation that it is not their duty to deal with it.
Lack of enforcement powers
The Water Industry Act 1991 which created the CCW gives it no enforcement powers. CCW is completely toothless. This is shocking. There is little point in having a regulator tasked with protecting consumers where that regulator has no enforcement powers. They don’t have the power to stop Thames Water from acting against consumer interests. They cannot penalise Thames Water when they do. They cannot make Thames Water do anything, including paying compensation to consumers.
CCW’s own view of its function has already been outlined in the last section. It is limited to ‘handling’ complaints, acquiring and publishing information, providing advice and investigating. In practice, ‘handling’ complaints often amounts to simply fobbing them off and, as noted above, refusing to deal with at least 19 different areas of consumer concern which are listed on their website.
CCW political bias
The current chairperson is Robert Wilson, appointed in May 2024 by then PM Rishy Sunak. Rob, as he likes to be called, is a former Tory minister. One of his claims to fame was a notorious tweet. When asked about how his party’s cuts would help solve a homelessness problem in his constituency, he responded with “Don’t be a bad loser.”
The political bias of CCW is expressed in various ways. It includes their dismissive attitude to complaints raised about illegal sewage discharge and their failure to use what limited powers they do have in relation to these complaints.
In late 2024 CCW published a report into how price rises sought by, among others, Thames Water will affect consumers. The report does at least recognise that two out of five customers will struggle with the proposed increases. But CCW’s political bias is still plainly evident.
The report implies that the sole reason for needing more money for upgrades is climate change and population growth. It ignores the failure by Thames Water over 35 years to invest the money we have paid. It brushes over the vast sums which TW has instead funnelled into the pockets of shareholders and executives.
If CCW is ineffectual, why bother appealing to them?
There are several very good reasons. Each is worth looking at separately
1. Playing for time
If you have lodged a complaint with Thames Water then a time will eventually arrive when Thames says they have concluded dealing with it. They will explain your rights to appeal.
It is important to consider carefully whether you agree that they have in fact dealt adequately with all the points you have raised. It is often the case that they have not. Read their responses carefully. Decide if there is a possibility of extending your exchanges.
At some point you are likely to conclude that there is in fact nothing further you can say to TW. The only way of prolonging the dispute will therefore be to lodge an appeal. The appeal could be to any one of the regulators, i.e. the CCW, the Environment Agency or OFWAT. The CCW is probably the most appropriate agency to appeal to in the first instance. Whatever its shortcomings, it is the agency set up specifically to deal with consumers and help them with their complaints.
TW does in some determinations attempt to put off customers from appealing to CCW by stating that CCW will not consider an appeal on the ground that you have raised. This applies in particular to complaints relating to sewage discharge. In fact it appears that during the course of 2024 CCW have changed their website in order to say that they will not consider complaints of this nature. A sure sign that they have had to deal with an increasing number of complaints on this ground.
It is highly objectionable that TW should tell any disgruntled customer what grounds of appeal they can or cannot lodge against one of their decisions. There is an absolute right to appeal. They have absolutely no right to try to put off appeals in this way.
It is crucial at this point to say that you intend appealing and that the bill is still in dispute. You could use words such as “I do not accept your decision. I continue to dispute the accuracy of my bill. I do intend lodging an appeal to the Consumer Council for Water. Please confirm that you will take no enforcement action until my appeal is dealt with.”
Do no feel obliged to lodge your appeal to CCW straight away. Play for time. It is probably wise to lodge an appeal within around 4 weeks of sending your email to Thames Water. There is no harm in sending holding emails to Thames Water over a period of a few weeks saying that you are still composing your grounds of appeal.
CCW’s resources are limited. When you do lodge an appeal with them you should receive an automated email acknowledgement. It is then likely to take at least another week or so for them to provide a detailed response. The more people who appeal, the longer the response time is likely to be.
As stated elsewhere here, the longer and more detailed your email the better. Experience has shown that CCW officers dealing with appeals don’t bother to read them in detail. It’s reasonable to assume that they attempt to filter out what they determine, using their skewed criteria, as ‘boycotters’ appeals as opposed to ‘genuine’ appeals.
The failure by CCW staff to read emails thoroughly means that they often send inadequate responses. The failure to provide adequate answers to your complaint is another great opportunity to extend the correspondence with them. Point out why you say they have not answered your complaint properly. Demand that they do answer it properly in accordance with their duty. Tell them they should, to use the words on their website, ‘Fight your corner’ and act as your ‘voice.’
2. Fending off Thames Water
A second important reason for lodging an appeal is to use it as leverage against TW. So long as your appeal is with CCW you can insist in any dealings with TW that there is an ongoing dispute. An ongoing dispute justifies continuing to withhold payment. This point can be emphasised in emails and in any phone calls with TW staff chasing up payment.
It is a mystery to BoycottThamesWater.Org how TW and CCW communicate with each other. What does TW tell CCW about your case? What does CCW tell TW about their decision? Critically, it is unclear if, and at what point, CCW tell TW that your appeal has been refused.
TW and CCW are supposedly completely independent of each other. While there are reasons to suspect they enjoy a cosy relationship, the time lag between CCW closing a case and TW becoming aware of this helps prolong matters.
3. Insisting CCW uses the limited powers it does have
As already noted CCW, the regulator set up specifically to protect water customers, has been granted remarkably few powers. Boycotters need to be imaginative to persuade CCW to use the powers it does have. Here are some examples. All are contained in the Water Industry Act 1991.
Gives CCW the power to represent the views of consumers when making proposals or providing advice or information to any other public body or person. The wording makes it clear that this is a mandatory requirement. It states that CCW “shall use this function.”
How might this be used
Whatever the subject of your complaint, ask CCW to make sure your view is communicated to relevant persons, such as OFWAT, Steve Reed (Sec State for Environment), etc. Ask CCW to tell you exactly how they intend communicating your view. Pursue clear and precise answers for how your view is being included in their proposals/advice/information to the relevant persons.
Gives CCW the function of providing information to consumers on any consumer matter in response to a request. The only restrictions are that CCW get to choose how that information is conveyed, and the information must already be in the public domain.
How might this be used?
It means you can include in your appeal requests for information which might help you address the grounds for complaint. For example, how can you claim recompense for damage caused to your local environment or your health? How can you find out how the interest element in bills is calculated? There is no end to the questions you might want to ask. Be sure to insist on clear, detailed answers.
In summary, where the subject of a complaint amounts to, or might amount to, an offence, CCW is under a strict obligation to report this to the Secretary of State. The wording is clear. They ‘shall’ report it, not ‘may’ report it. The current Secretary of State for the Environment is Steve Reed.
How might this be used?
To state the obvious, illegal discharge of sewage into our waterways constitutes a criminal offence. The environment agency has prosecuted Thames Water on many occasions for breaching environmental laws. This has resulted in substantial fines in the criminal courts.
But there is so much more that could be done. This provision provides a means by which a truly independent regulator with backbone could make a real difference
One idea is to include in an appeal something to the effect that you dispute paying your bill due to the way in which the illegal discharge of sewage by Thames Water has impacted on your health (including mental health and sense of wellbeing) and on the environment. Such discharges often constitute a criminal offence of public nuisance. Public Nuisance is a also a civil tort for which compensation can be claimed. It is reasonable to expect a reduction in your bill because of this.
The idea of seeking recompense is not fanciful. In November 2023 Thames Water was ordered to pay on average £4.92 to each customer for its failures, including illegal sewage discharge. This is a piddling amount which doesn’t accurately reflect what customers have actually lost. Where was CCW fighting our corner then?
The appeal should include a request that CCW report the offence or offences by Thames Water to the Secretary of State with a view to a prosecution being brought for public nuisance. This would open the possibility of obtaining further compensation through the criminal or civil courts for customers as the victims of public nuisance.
A conviction would also open the door to confiscation proceedings using Proceeds of Crime Act legislation (POCA). Robust regulators use POCA all the time. In short, it involves an enquiry into whether a convicted criminal has gained financial benefit from their crime.
POCA is used automatically by the CPS in, for example, drug cases.
More significantly, It is used regularly to great effect by Local Authorities in their role as regulators over private sector landlords.
There are important parallels to be drawn. Rogue landlords make huge profits by flouting planning laws. Pro-active local authorities protect tenants and their environment by clawing back the ill-gotten gains of offending landlords. The illegal discharge of sewage is built into Thames Water’s business model. Why doesn’t CCW use their powers to ‘fight our corner’ and use their powers to demand similar robust action?
4. Hope, goodness and change
Our campaign is based on hope that we can change the water industry into something better.
CCW no doubt comprises many decent individuals. People who take pride in their work, and want to do their best for water consumers. CCW staff should always be dealt with kindly and respectfully.
It is important to use the appeal process to highlight both the inadequate remit of CCW as a regulator and where it could do better using the powers that it does have. We are pressing for change from the outside. We should be doing all we can to persuade the decent individuals in the organisation to press for change from the inside.
Take just one example – the element of a bill which goes towards payment of interest on Thames Waters debt. This is an area to which the CCW appears to have given little consideration. It directly impacts on questions around whether a bill is accurate and fair. We should be encouraging well-intentioned individuals within CCW to take it on board as a legitimate reason for questioning the accuracy of a bill and demanding answers from TW.