A Chronology of Recent Water Sector Cock-ups
Dec 2024 – OEP Four-Year Investigation Concludes
🔗 https://inews.co.uk/news/illegal-sewage-dumping-water-firms-regulators-3434771?ico=in-line_link
The Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) completed a four-year investigation into illegal sewage dumping by water firms. Initiated by a complaint from WildFish, the probe scrutinized water companies and regulators over environmental breaches.
17 Dec 2024 – DEFRA Announces New Customer Compensation Rules
🔗 https://inews.co.uk/news/illegal-sewage-dumping-water-firms-regulators-3434771?ico=in-line_link
DEFRA introduced regulations mandating higher compensation for issues like sewage flooding and water quality failures. Compensation for sewer flooding doubles from £1,000 to £2,000, and £25 to £250 for water pressure issues.
These are the first updates to compensation rates since 2000. Boil water notices will also trigger automatic payments.
6 Jan 2025 – E. coli Contaminates South-East London Water Supply
🔗 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jan/06/e-coli-found-in-water-supply-of-properties-of-south-east-london
Residents raised concerns after E. coli was detected. Vulnerable residents’ testing requests were refused. The article highlights wider issues in water safety regulation.
A separate 7 Dec 2024 article highlighted a post-Brexit crisis in UK water safety due to the shutdown of all Regulation 31-certified testing labs. This regulatory vacuum prevents certification of chemicals used in water treatment, threatening long-term safety.
9 Jan 2025 – Water (Special Measures) Bill – First Commons Sitting
🔗 https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2025-01-09/debates/44b580b1-2828-4453-a7db-fbc977633fd7/Water(SpecialMeasures)Bill(Lords)(FirstSitting)
The bill grants the government powers to intervene in failing water companies. Parliamentary discussions revolve around customer protection vs. investor confidence.
11 Jan 2025 – Power Plant Pricing Scandal – Links to Thames Water Leadership
🔗 https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jan/10/britain-energy-costs-labour-power-plants-uk-cold-weather
Centrica (TW CEO’s former company) faced scrutiny for charging up to £5,000/MWh. Ofgem was prompted to update trading rules.
14 Jan 2025 – PFAS ‘Forever Chemicals’ Under Review + Bill Debate
🔗 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jan/14/cost-clean-up-toxic-pfas-pollution-forever-chemicals
DEFRA confirmed a £2bn investment plan (Ofwat 2024 price review) partly addresses PFAS cleanup. MPs debated water reform, warning customers may unfairly bear the costs of water industry failures.
15 Jan 2025 – Thames Water Pushes Back on Bonus Cap
🔗 https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jan/15/thames-water-says-it-will-raise-base-pay-of-bosses-if-ofwat-limits-bonuses
TW resisted Ofwat’s attempts to limit executive bonuses, claiming it would deter talent. The company defended £770K in bonuses while preparing a 35% customer bill hike.
16 Jan 2025 – Regulators Meet with Chancellor Amid Criticism
Senior officials from Ofwat, Ofgem, and others met to address perceptions that regulators obstruct investment. The government signaled reform pressure on the regulatory framework.
19–21 Jan 2025 – TW Restructuring Plan Sparks Public Backlash
🔗 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jan/19/treasury-seeks-to-keep-water-firm-fines-earmarked-for-sewage-cleanups
A £3bn bailout plan lets creditors take control, angering campaigners. Groups like We Own It protested at court hearings and criticized the plan as a covert attempt to privatize public risk.
If approved, the plan could prevent public ownership by locking in creditor-first repayment terms. Protesters argued that the deal prioritizes financiers over customers and could set a precedent for other privatized services.
23 Jan 2025 – Southern Water Seeks Massive Bill Hike
🔗 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14308753/Southern-Water-bonus-customers-bills-rise-Gosden.html
Southern Water, amid ongoing discussions with Ofwat, seeks customer bill hikes over 85%. They did not rule out appealing to the Competition and Markets Authority.
24 Jan 2025 – Thames Faces Credit Downgrade and Admin Threat
🔗 https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jan/24/thames-water-credit-rating-slashed-as-administrators-approached
Moody’s downgraded Thames’ outlook due to financial instability. The company needs £23bn to address failing infrastructure and risks nationalisation amid ballooning debt.
Internal sources revealed Thames Water deferred essential safety and chemical treatment expenditures due to bureaucratic slowdowns. Critical infrastructure such as explosive gas containers and cracked reservoirs were neglected.
25 Jan 2025 – Investors Demand Temporary Nationalisation
🔗 https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jan/25/thames-water-rescuers-seek-clean-break-before-committing-fresh-funds
Some investors condition new equity on temporary nationalisation to reduce debts and replace management. £3.25bn in funding is needed alongside a 35% bill hike by 2030.
Tensions surfaced between Defra, Treasury, and Cabinet Office on how to manage Thames’ crisis. Temporary nationalisation is seen as politically explosive despite it being potentially cost-effective.
28 Jan 2025 – MPs Push for Fines to Restore Rivers, Not Treasury
🔗 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jan/28/water-firm-river-pollution-fines-must-be-spent-on-rivers-mps-to-say
MPs opposed Treasury efforts to redirect £11m in fines meant for river restoration charities. Clive Lewis and Tim Farron supported Clause 8 to cancel up to 100% of water firm debts under special administration.
A 34,000-signature petition for public ownership of Thames Water was handed to the environment secretary. This followed concerns that fines meant to restore rivers were being appropriated by the Treasury.
30 Jan 2025 – Water Bills to Rise by £123 on Average
🔗 https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jan/30/water-bills-in-england-and-wales-to-rise-by-123-on-average-this-year
Water bills will rise an average of £123 in 2025, the biggest increase since privatisation. Thames Water bills are set to rise 31%. Households already owe £2.5m in water debt.
1 Feb 2025 – Six Water Firms Sued for Sewage Spill Underreporting
🔗 https://inews.co.uk/news/six-water-firms-sued-underreporting-sewage-spills-3487822
Legal action led by Professor Caroline Roberts targets six companies, including Thames Water, for underreporting illegal sewage discharges. Peter Hammond’s analysis revealed widespread permit breaches.
3 Feb 2025 – Court Hears Thames Water £3bn Bailout Deal
🔗 https://on.ft.com/4hpLflw
Bondholders opposed the bailout deal, claiming it allowed creditors risk-free returns and undue control. Court documents revealed Thames spent £15m/month on lawyers and advisers.
6 Feb 2025 – When Fines Are Not Fines – No Penalties Collected
🔗 https://leftfootforward.org/2025/02/the-water-industry-shows-how-the-state-indulges-corporations-to-the-detriment-of-society/
Despite £168m in fines issued to Thames and others for environmental harm, none had been collected. Critics called this regulatory theatre and decriminalisation by under-resourcing.
9 Feb 2025 – Conflict of Interest Over Thames £37m Dividend
🔗 https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/feb/08/thames-water-chairman-accused-of-conflict-of-interest-over-37m-share-dividend-payment
Senior officials reportedly ignored conflicts of interest around Thames chairman Sir Adrian Montague’s role in its holding company. The £37.5m dividend was deemed ‘unjustified’ by Ofwat.
14 Mar 2025 – Thames Water Pleads to Avoid Fines and Legal Costs
🔗 https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/mar/14/thames-water-launches-appeal-for-permission-to-raise-bills-even-higher
Thames warned that bidders might withdraw if burdened with additional legal costs or fines. They asked to raise bills beyond Ofwat’s approved 35%.
18 Mar 2025 – Raw Sewage Discharges Rose 50% in 2024
🔗 https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/mar/18/thames-water-data-reveals-raw-sewage-discharges-rivers-2024
Data showed Thames discharged raw sewage for almost 90% of 298,081 hours in 2024. Dry-day discharges breach permit terms and may be illegal.
Professor Peter Hammond, whose research triggered a major EA criminal investigation, confirmed TW ‘sweated’ assets without proper investment. Environment Secretary Steve Reed has set new targets to cut spills by 2050.
1 Apr 2025 – KKR Offers £4bn Equity Bid for Thames Stake
🔗 https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/kkr-thames-conservative-party-andrew-matthews-b1219749.html
Private equity firm KKR emerged as preferred bidder for a majority stake in Thames Water. Concerns over conflicts of interest and prior donations to political parties raised transparency questions.
14 Apr 2025 – DEFRA Hit by 600 Job Cuts, Morale Low
🔗 https://inews.co.uk/news/inside-defra-cuts-as-600-jobs-face-axe-and-nature-sites-left-unchecked-for-a-decade-3632820
DEFRA and Natural England face deep staffing cuts despite the environmental crisis. Civil servants report demoralization and underfunding.
The Environment Agency’s enforcement budget has been slashed by 40% since 2010, with critical functions left under-resourced.
17 Apr 2025 – Pollution Incidents Up 30% Despite Promises to Cut
🔗 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/apr/16/water-companies-pollution-incidents-in-england-increased-by-30-in-2024
Surfers Against Sewage report showed 2024 pollution incidents surged 30% despite a 40% reduction target. Water companies paid £1.2bn in dividends in the same period.
3 Jun 2025 – KKR Pulls Out of Thames Water Rescue Deal
🔗 https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jun/03/thames-water-kkr-pulls-out-rescue-deal KKR withdrew its £4bn rescue bid, leaving Thames scrambling for new funding by end of June. The utilite accuracy of a bill and demanding answers from TW.
Thames Turpitude
We make no apology for aggressively seeking the demise of Thames Water. It has operated effectively as a scam on the British public since its inception in 1989. Some would say it is a moral duty to do all we can to take it down.
The myth of privatisation
Privatisation was hyped by its champion, PM Thatcher, as essential to secure capital to upgrade the industry’s crumbling infrastructure.
On this measure alone the crazy experiment of handing this essential resource to a private monopoly bent on greed and profit has failed miserably.
For over 35 years there has been gross underinvestment in fixing leaky pipes, building any new reservoirs, or of course sorting out the sewage discharge scandal.
Catalogue of shame
Below are just some examples of Thames Water’s flagrant abuse of their monopoly, of their shameless, immoral behaviour, of how they have fleeced us, and how they have trashed our environment.
- Prior to privatisation Thatcher wrote off £7 billion of debt to ensure that stewardship of each water area was handed to its new private owner debt free. Since taking control, Thames Water has accumulated over £15 billion of debt. Their financial recklessness led to their shares being downgraded in Summer 2024 by two leading credit agencies to junk status.
- Much of the indebtedness incurred by Thames is down to loans which were taken out to pay their own shareholders, not to invest in infrastructure.
- A substantial part of each customer’s bill goes towards paying the interest on Thames Water’s borrowings.
- Shareholders’ greed knows no bounds. Despite the stupendous level of debt they squeezed out a £35 million dividend in October 2023, and two dividends totalling £158.3 million in March 2024. The regulators wring their hands, but take no action. Once again Thames scandalously takes advantage of weak regulation at customers’ expense.
- In October 2024, after handsomely rewarding their shareholders, Thames Water demanded price hikes for customers massively above the rate of inflation
- Warped values are engrained in Thames Water’s culture. In March 2024 a bonus of £195,000 was awarded to new Chief Executive Chris Weston, who was only appointed in January. This took his pay for his first three months to £437,000. This is despite the company’s dire financial performance and catastrophic failure on sewage discharges. It sticks two fingers up to the one in five customers reportedly struggling with their water bills in the middle of a cost of living crisis.
- For good measure, Alastair Cochran, Thames Water’s chief financial officer, was given a £446,000 bonus in July 2024
- Thames Water’s record for environmental crimes is well-known and has provoked justified anger. Just one reminder of the scale is the Freedom of Information Act disclosure that at least 72 billion litres of sewage were discharged into the River Thames alone between 2020 and 2023.
- There is nothing new about illegal discharge of sewage by Thames Water. It is on an industrial scale, it is systematic, and it has been built into Thames Water’s business model for 35 years.
To be continued…
Consumer Council for Water
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