It’s difficult to pinpoint exactly when I chose to stop covering the sewage portion of my Thames Water bill. Perhaps it was prompted by a headline from the Guardian in July 2025 that read, “Serious pollution incidents by English water companies rose 60% last year,” accompanied by a subheading noting that Thames Water was the worst offender among 75 serious incidents documented by the Environment Agency out of a total of 2,800.
As a London resident, Thames Water is my designated supplier, and their profit margins appear to thrive on environmental negligence. I resolved that if the government remained inactive, I could at least take a personal stand by withholding payment for such misconduct.
The rationale for refusing to pay these exorbitant fees is compelling. Water companies are neglecting their responsibilities, directly discharging untreated sewage into our waterways and communities. Moreover, despite last winter being one of the wettest on record, these companies have implemented hosepipe bans due to insufficient reservoir capacity to manage summer demand.
While they urge us to conserve water and suggest dynamic pricing strategies, they simultaneously neglect to address leaks that account for approximately 20% of the public water supply in England and Wales. Additionally, a significant portion of my bill is allocated not to resolving these issues but to servicing debt, which allows Thames Water to distribute billions to its shareholders.
Real change is unlikely until these companies face bankruptcy, and a straightforward method to hasten that outcome is for consumers to stop paying their bills. Historically, millions resisted paying the poll tax, resulting in governmental concessions. I faced legal repercussions for that action myself. So why not adopt a similar approach to challenge water privatization? If enough of us were to delay our payments by several months, we could jeopardize the financial stability of these water companies.
As a customer of Thames Water, I found it contradictory to advocate for change while continuing to pay my bills. Having been a member of the Green Party since 1988 and environmentally conscious since my youth, it felt imperative to take a definitive stand.
When I resolved to take action beyond mere advocacy, I reached out to Thames Water, indicating my willingness to pay for the water supply but not for sewage management. Their response was dismissive, stating that they do not differentiate between the two services. This was followed by a threatening letter and an inflated bill with additional charges.
The ultimate resolution to this dilemma would involve nationalizing these water companies. Public sentiment strongly favors renationalization, yet the government continues to assert that the cost of takeover is £100 billion, a figure that misleadingly includes the companies’ debts as part of their valuation. Many contend that the actual cost of nationalization could be significantly lower, possibly even negligible.
Additionally, the government has proposed a concept of “public control,” which stops short of true public ownership but would allow for some level of oversight and the imposition of penalties. However, if legislation and oversight were effective, we wouldn’t be facing this crisis.
Currently, we are not holding company executives accountable for their failures, nor are we prosecuting them for illegal waste disposal. Rather than crowding our prisons, they could be sentenced to community service, dedicating 20 hours a week to cleaning the pollution they have allowed into our rivers, streams, and coastlines.
This situation is not new. Despite having a Labour government for over two years, little has changed; bills continue to increase while our vital chalk streams are dying, river ecosystems are collapsing, and swimmers are getting sick from sewage contamination near beaches.
I intend to persist with my protest. The correspondence from Thames Water has been distressing, and there are mentions of bailiffs, so I advise others to consider the implications carefully. I will methodically review all the threatening letters and prepare for the court proceedings against me. Although I may not possess significant assets, I believe that, regardless of the court’s outcome, I will gain immeasurable self-respect by confronting Thames Water.
I have drawn a firm line in the sand, and I aspire to emerge victorious in this particular struggle.
Jenny Jones, a member of the Green Party and a peer in the House of Lords, expresses these sentiments.
