We took Ofwat to court to protect customers from paying twice and our rivers from sewage pollution
This week, the High Court finished hearing our legal challenge of Ofwat’s approach to its ‘not paying twice’ policy in its latest price review (PR24). The hearing took place over three days on 4, 5 and 17 November.
River Action, working with Leigh Day and expert barristers David Wolfe KC and Nicholas Ostrowski, brought this case to address our serious concerns about Ofwat’s approach. We argued that Ofwat’s current methods could allow water companies to charge billpayers again for environmental improvement works that they have already paid for, despite its promise that customers should not pay twice. We challenged Ofwat’s failure to require water companies to demonstrate compliance with environmental regulations as part of its price control exercise, as it said it would. We also highlighted flaws and gaps in Ofwat’s “clawback” mechanism, intended to prevent double funding when water companies fail to meet their environmental obligations.
Ofwat defended its approach, arguing that it never intended to look at actual compliance by water companies as part of its price-setting process and said that this was a reasonable approach to take given its regulatory function. Ofwat said that its clawback mechanism did not need to be explained in PR24 and that it intended to develop a more detailed framework.
During the hearing, the court considered detailed evidence on Ofwat’s PR24 process and methodologies, including exchanges between campaigner Matt Staniek of Save Windermere and Ofwat’s CEO. The court also looked at Windrush Against Sewage Pollution’s evidence of illegal sewage discharges into Lake Windermere by United Utilities, the case study at the heart of the claim.
We think that this case has uncovered significant issues with Ofwat’s regulatory approach to its ‘not paying twice’ policy, with internal documents released in response to the claim revealing gaps in Ofwat’s understanding and enforcement of water company compliance with environmental law. As well as Ofwat’s approach likely allowing some form of double funding, these shortcomings are contributing to the ongoing sewage pollution crisis.
Due to the complexity of the issues, a judgment is not expected for several weeks. We will provide a further update as soon as the judgment is handed down.
Regardless of the legal outcome, we will continue to push for regulatory reform to ensure that billpayers do not pay twice for urgently needed infrastructure improvements and that water companies are properly held to account to stop sewage polluting our rivers.
In 1962, Rachel Carson published her seminal book A Silent Spring. In it, she exposed the devastating environmental damage caused by the pesticide DDT and challenged the misinformation from industry, together with the lack of questioning by public bodies. In 2025, it appears we still haven’t learnt to stop the damage caused to the environment by pesticides, as our rivers fall ever more silent under this continuing chemical assault. As a pet owner, I have a dog, it’s the black one in the photo. I was shocked to realise that I was part of the problem when I discovered the pollution of our rivers by the pesticides in the popular Spot-On pet medicines that are used to treat fleas and ticks.
This is what I found out. The pesticides fipronil and imidacloprid are still authorised for use in pet medicines in spite of them being banned for agricultural use nearly ten years ago. This is largely because barely any environmental risk assessment takes place by our regulators, as it is assumed that the pesticides are unlikely to enter the environment in any quantity. But assumptions can be dangerous, especially when you consider there are over 10 million dogs and over 10 million cats in the UK. The dodgy assumptions are weakened further when, on top of the vast number of pets, an aggressive pet med marketing strategy is designed to entice and often frighten pet owners to use as many of these products as often as possible and for as long as possible.
“Driven by innovation and profit, the pharmaceutical and chemical industry require marketing authorisation to get their products onto the market as quickly as possible. The regulatory authorities rely on industry to ensure that their products are safe and effective, in other words, to mark their own homework. Technology today is far more reliable and predictive of human health and environmental impact than ever before. The challenge facing society today is government inertia to amend regulatory requirements in line with 21st-century evidence-based test methods”.
Dr Andre MenacheMRCVS PVA – Progressive Veterinary Association
Industry misinformation exposed all those years ago by Rachel Carson still exists today and is evidenced by the strategies to boost sales. Marketing claims fly in the face of the advice coming from responsible vets and ignore the science. For example, organisations like Vet Sustain and the PVA champion a ‘One Health’ approach (see below) and disagree with the practice of applying routine monthly prophylactic use of these Spot-On treatments regardless of need. Instead, like many others, they advocate a risk/need-based approach, contextualised is the phrase often used, as well as the use of environmentally safer or better still safe alternatives.
So, given all this, just how wrong have those assumptions made by our regulator proved to be? For our aquatic life, the answer is disastrous because this is what we now know and why it matters. To start with, there is the question of how do pesticides in Spot-On pet treatments which are applied in the household get into our rivers in the first place? The image below drawn from extensive research, shows how this happens. Since this was published in 2021, the suggested but at that stage unconfirmed additional pathways have also been confirmed. {Thanks to Dr Rose Perkins and Sussex University for the image)
A demonstration of how flea treatment pollution enters our rivers. Thank you to Dr Rose Perkins and Sussex University for the image.
Are pet owners aware of this problem? A study by Imperial College London of ponds on Hampstead Heath, see the image below, confirmed not only pet pesticide levels at way above risk thresholds but also that most dog owners were not aware of the problem. It did, however, find that many dog owners would choose safer alternatives if they knew what was going on.
Thanks to the Imperial College PREPP group for the image.
Taking a deeper dive into our increasingly silent rivers we know that Mayfly nymphs are amongst some of the aquatic invertebrates most vulnerable to these two chemicals. You only need to speak with trout anglers in national parks like Exmoor to find out what they think about this pollution. One resident on Exmoor told me that “These pet medicines containing pesticides are poisoning the pristine waters of the rivers Barle and Exe and killing off the insects and water life that used to sustain the migratory fish like Atlantic salmon, native trout and local bird life”.
Mayfly Nymph – Thank you to Dr. Cyril Bennett MBE for the image.
You might expect rivers in our National Parks to do better than most but not so. As it turns out they are the most heavily polluted compared with urban rivers when it comes to human pharmaceuticals. Add the pet medicines to this, and yes fipronil and imidacloprid are being found at alarming levels in the small rivers on Exmoor, then this is an eco-toxic timebomb poisoning our rivers and risks silencing them for good.
As well as invertebrates and the knock effect on fish stocks and river-dwelling birds like dippers and kingfishers, there is increasing concern for my personal favourites, the otters that rely on a healthy ecosystem to survive and thrive. As apex predators, they can be a keystone indicator of river health.
“Risk-based parasite control in pets means tailoring parasite prevention to each animal’s lifestyle and infection risk, instead of giving routine treatments to every pet. This approach balances animal, human and environmental considerations, reducing unnecessary drug use, limiting side-effects, slowing resistance development, and helping protect the environment.”
Dr Rosemary Perkins BVSc CertSAOpth PhD MRCVS
We can also challenge the industry to clean up their act. For example, put feedback about environmental damage into reviews,talk to store managers in supermarkets and other retail outlets (The Co-op and Waitrose have stopped selling these products) and write to the mighty Amazon and the like. If your vet happens to be part of the IVC Evidensia chain, then ask them about the environmentally irresponsible marketing practice of Pet Drugs Online which is owned by this global vet group.
At the government level, there is increasing awareness of the problem and of public concerns. As a result, there are small signs that DEFRA ministers are beginning to listen and the regulatory bodies like the VMD that are accountable to DEFRA are taking tiny steps although handicapped by the powerful lobby from the vet medicines industry. Talk to your MP and let them know not enough is being done nor at a pace in keeping with the data and research. We can collectively start to drown out the big pharma lobby with noise of our own. Taking action, which surely is what River Action is all about.
We are taking Ofwat to the High Court today, arguing that the economic water regulator acted unlawfully because its approach has potentially allowed water companies to charge bill payers twice for the same infrastructure improvements that would reduce pollution of our waterways.
At the heart of the case is Ofwat’s 2024 Price Review (PR24), which approved above inflation bill increases – averaging £123 a year per household – and authorised “enhancement expenditure” for water companies to upgrade wastewater treatment works and pumping stations including to meet their legal obligations. The case uses United Utilities and Lake Windermere as a case study, but we believe the claim has uncovered issues with Ofwat’s approach across England and Wales.
Ofwat’s own policy is that customers should not pay twice for enhancement schemes.
We claim that Ofwat acted unlawfully when it implemented its policy because its approach has allowed costs to be passed to customers without ensuring the funds actually deliver promised improvements rather than merely correcting historic underinvestment. In effect, we argue that Ofwat’s approach has likely allowed for paying twice, with some households having to pay for infrastructure improvements to achieve environmental compliance, which should have been funded from historic bill payments.
Our Head of Legal, Emma Dearnaley, said:
“It is fundamental that the public should not be made to pay twice for water companies’ past failures to invest in improvements to stop sewage pollution. But River Action is concerned that Ofwat’s approach means customers could be paying again. Meanwhile, degraded infrastructure keeps spewing pollution into rivers and lakes across the country that should have been clean decades ago. The regulator must ensure that the billions it approves results in legal compliance by water companies and that customers are charged fairly from now on. We cannot fix the sewage crisis or restore public trust until we have regulation that delivers for billpayers and the environment. ”
Legal grounds: flawed approach, weak enforcement
Represented by law firm Leigh Day, River Action will argue that:
Ground 1: Ofwat’s approach to implementing its own “not paying twice” policy was unlawful.
Ground 2: Ofwat ‘clawback’ mechanism to recover funds if water companies misuse customer money is flawed and incomplete.
Leigh Day partner Ricardo Gama, who represents River Action, said:
“Our client believes that this case shows that Ofwat has failed to make sure that water bills are used for infrastructure upgrades. River Action will argue that the money that could and should have been used to make essential infrastructure improvements is now gone, and customers are being asked to foot the bill for those improvements a second time over.”
A case with national implications
Although the legal challenge focuses on the PR24 determination for United Utilities and the Windermere schemes, we believe the outcome has national significance. The case aims to expose systemic failures in how Ofwat oversees compliance across the entire water industry and how it routinely signs off funding that could allow water companies to use customers’ money to rectify their own past non-compliance.
Windermere as a case study for a national problem
Lake Windermere, the “jewel in the crown” of the Lake District, has become a symbol of the crisis in England’s waterways. Despite being a designated protected site, monitoring data shows thousands of hours of sewage discharges every year from nearby treatment works and pumping stations.
Our case uses Windermere as a case study to illustrate a national problem. If such failures can happen at one of the country’s most iconic lakes, the charity argues, they are likely happening across the network of water and sewerage systems in England and Wales. Our concern with Ofwat’s approach to implementing its own ‘not paying twice’ policy extends across all of the 4,000 schemes it has approved across England and Wales.
Beyond the courtroom: a call for regulatory reform
Our legal challenge is part of its broader campaign to reform how water regulation works in the UK. We argue that Ofwat, as currently structured, has become too close to the companies it regulates and too distant from the public interest it is meant to serve.
Since the case was filed, the Independent Water Commission has also raised many of our concerns, calling for a major overhaul of the regulation of water services in England and Wales with a new single integrated regulator replacing the current fragmented system (including Ofwat) and with long-term infrastructure investment and asset health being central to making the system fit for the future.
Crucially, the outcome of this case should have profound consequences for PR29, the next five-year regulatory review. PR29 must not repeat the same failures of PR24. A reformed, well-resourced and robust regulator – with Ofwat’s current structure and functions expected to be abolished and included in the new regulator following the Commission’s recommendations – must ensure full environmental compliance by water companies before customers are asked to pay.
Notes to editors
The hearing takes place at Manchester Civil Justice Centre on November 4th & 5th.
River Action is represented by law firm, Leigh Day, and barristers David Wolfe KC and Nicholas Ostrowski.
A profound silence swept across Parliament Square as over fifteen thousand people stood still. On the giant screens, scenes of glistening waters, darting kingfishers, and emerald riverbanks shimmered into life while Robert Macfarlane’s voice carried through the air:
“Riversong is ebb and flow, flow and ebb, deep pools and shallow beds.”
It was 3 November 2024, and a wave of blue had descended upon London. From river source to seashore, people from every corner of the country came together to demand action from a newly elected government — action to rescue our dying rivers and polluted seas.
That day, the heart of Westminster became a confluence of voices and waters: Robert’s moving poem, Charles Watson’s impassioned river roll call, the symbolic mingling of over a hundred river samples, and the rallying cries of young river warriors, seasoned campaigners, union representatives, and community groups. It wasn’t just a protest — it was a movement in full flow, a moment that galvanised a nation determined to turn the tide.
I left Parliament Square that afternoon buoyed by the energy of the day — the powerful sense that years of hard work, heartbreak, and hope had finally gathered into one unstoppable current.
But one year on, what’s changed? Has the government listened? Are our rivers and seas rebounding from decades of neglect and abuse?
Author and writer of ‘Ebb and Flow’, Rob Macfarlane, alongside our CEO, James Wallace.
A Year of Scrutiny: The Independent Water Commission
Political attention on our rivers has continued to intensify. Clean water was one of the defining issues of the general election, and the new Secretary of State quickly made it a top priority.
Following the calls of many campaigners, including those who stood shoulder-to-shoulder in Parliament Square, the government launched the Independent Water Commission — a long-awaited review of the water sector.
Hope rippled across the movement. Could this be the start of the systemic overhaul we’d been fighting for — the beginning of the end for a failed privatisation experiment that had siphoned billions from public hands into private profits?
As the details emerged, optimism gave way to frustration.
The Commission’s scope was tightly ring-fenced, to “making the current system work better”. It was forbidden from considering public ownership or alternative models — effectively excluding the kind of bold, structural reform the water industry desperately needs.
Even more concerning, agricultural pollution, which remains the single largest source of contamination in our rivers, was entirely outside its remit. This omission spoke volumes about how narrow and politically cautious the review was.
That’s not to say nothing of value emerged. The Commission made several important recommendations: reforms to a regulator long viewed as toothless; new rules to tackle toxic sewage sludge; improved transparency of water company data; and greater enforcement powers. These asks were central to the joint evidence provided by River Action and Surfers Against Sewage to the commission, as well as the response submitted by many other organisations that took part in the march for clean water.
But you can’t fix a broken system by tightening its bolts.
The privatised water model, with its vulture-like investors extracting dividends while infrastructure crumbles, remains fundamentally unfit for purpose. Bill payers are being squeezed to cover the cost of failure, while rivers bear the burden of a system designed for profit, not for people or nature.
Our call to action for the public’s submission to the Independent Water Commission, voiced by Deborah Meaden
The People’s Commission: A Blueprint for Change
While the government’s commission tinkered around the edges, others were busy reimagining the system.
The People’s Commission, a collaboration of grassroots groups, academics, and policy thinkers, have been determined to prove that another way is possible.
Drawing lessons from models in Europe and beyond, the People’s Commission laid out a roadmap for a publicly owned, democratically accountable water system. One that puts environmental protection and community well-being above shareholder returns.
Their recommendations included decentralised governance structures, citizen representation on regional water boards, ring-fenced reinvestment of profits, and clear mechanisms for environmental accountability.
The People’s Commission is a reminder that imagination is as vital as indignation. It shows what could happen if we truly placed the public interest — and the health of our rivers — at the centre of water management.
The Thames Water Saga: A Cautionary Tale
If ever there was a symbol of the failure of privatisation, it’s Thames Water.
Over the past year, its decline has become a national drama — a slow-motion car crash of mismanagement, financial engineering, and moral bankruptcy.
In the spring, investors began to pull out, with major backers like RRK retreating while new ones, such as CRK, stepped in under dubious terms. Meanwhile, news reports revealed that the company was seeking exemptions from environmental fines — arguing that such penalties would deter investors.
Let that sink in: a company responsible for repeated pollution incidents effectively asking for immunity so that it could attract more capital.
As the financial situation worsened, rumours of a government bailout swirled. Ministers insisted there would be “no blank cheques,” yet also failed to clarify when or how they might trigger special administration, the mechanism designed to temporarily control failing utilities. A mechanism that could be used to fundamentally rethink how to restructure the company to work in the interests of people and nature, not purely boardroom shareholders.
In the absence of a clear policy, uncertainty reigned. Thames Water has continued to limp on, its debts deepening, while the rivers it was meant to protect remained choked by sewage spills.
Those who took to the streets last November are now gracing courtrooms. Windrush Against Sewage Pollution (WASP) and Charlie Maynard MP challenged the terms of the rescue package and demanded transparency. And at River Action, we are challenging Defra for their failure to have a policy in place for taking failing water companies into special administration.
Thames Water’s saga is not an anomaly; it’s a symptom. A warning of what happens when vital public goods are treated as commodities, and when regulation bends to the interests of those it’s meant to restrain.
The Regulator’s Verdict: A System Still Polluting
If anyone still needed proof that our rivers remain under attack, the latest performance reports from Ofwat and the Environment Agency delivered it in black and white.
In 2022, the water companies committed to cutting serious pollution incidents by 30 per cent. But the data now shows the opposite: serious pollution has risen by almost 30 per cent. It’s outrageous.
Let’s be clear.. After all the pledges, the speeches, and the glossy PR campaigns, the companies responsible for protecting our most precious natural resources are not just failing — they’re going backwards.
The Environment Agency described the performance of several major utilities as “unacceptable,” noting that some have slipped further behind their legal duties. Ofwat’s own report echoed the same frustration: repeated rule-breaking, inadequate investment, and a culture of denial at the top.
How can it be that in 2025, after decades of evidence and billions in profits, our water companies are still treating pollution fines as the cost of doing business?
This isn’t about a few bad actors — it’s a systemic failure. The regulators’ findings lay bare the fundamental truth that the current model is broken beyond repair. We cannot rely on the same companies that caused the crisis to be the ones who fix it.
Power to the People
If the year since the March for Clean Water has taught me anything, it’s that real change doesn’t just flow from Westminster — it springs from the ground up.
Across the country, the organisations, communities, and individuals who marched that day haven’t stopped moving. They’ve channelled the energy of that moment into ongoing, determined action.
Communities across the country are standing up to factory farms polluting our rivers. In the Wye Valley, Alison Caffyn (part of the Save the Wye community) and River Actionwon a landmark legal case forcing planners to assess the cumulative impact of intensive farms. In Norfolk, residents prevented new factory farm developments for failing to consider climate impacts, and in Hertfordshire, campaigners secured a ruling that manure taken off farms must be treated as waste, not dumped on land.
Individuals and local groups across the county picked up their pens to share their views on the Water Commission – over 2,000 people made use of River Actions guidance to respond, and many other communities of other organisations like Surfers Against Sewage did the same.
The Riverscape Partnership has launched its Making Space for Water initiative, calling for support for farmers and landowners to restore nature-rich river corridors.
The Women’s Institute, whose members turned out in force at the march, organised a Week of River Action— bringing thousands of women together to monitor water quality, campaign for tougher regulation, and celebrate the rivers that sustain their towns and villages.
And in an extraordinary act of citizen empowerment, the Citizens Arrest Networkhas continued its creative campaign of symbolic “boardroom arrests” — calling out pollution-for-profit executives and holding them to account through using the power of citizen arrests.
This is where I find hope: in the compassionate energy of people who refuse to look away.
CEO of Surfers Against Sewage, Giles Bristow, at the March for Clean Water
What Needs to Happen Next
A year after that extraordinary march, we stand at a crossroads.
The government’s upcoming White Paper on Water Reform offers another opportunity to show genuine leadership. But if it merely repackages the recommendations of the Independent Water Commission, it will fail to meet the scale of the crisis affecting our rivers.
We need a framework that addresses the whole system, not just the symptoms. That means:
Clear timelines for bringing failing water companies back into temporary public ownership through the special administration regime, or introducing hybrid community models.
A 25-Year Agricultural Roadmap that tackles diffuse pollution at its source.
Stronger, independent regulators free from political and corporate interference.
And a second Water Bill, one that enshrines the right to clean water and healthy rivers in law.
Without these, the “blue wave” that filled Parliament Square will, as Chris Packham said on stage, “be back…..in brown”.
Chris Packham on stage at the March for Clean Water
A River Still Rising
As I reflect on that November day, I can still feel the rhythm of the drums echoing through Westminster, the collective heartbeat of thousands who refused to accept that our rivers should be sacrificed for profit.
One year on, that heartbeat hasn’t faded. It’s grown stronger.
Every petition signed, every water test taken, every letter written to an MP is another ripple pushing against the current of complacency.
We may not yet have turned the tide, but the direction of flow has shifted. Awareness has deepened. Accountability is rising. Along the riverbanks, people’s voices rise, demanding change.
The March for Clean Water was never meant to be a single day. It was a major moment along a journey. The galvanising of a movement of communities reclaiming the lifeblood of this country.
And as long as our rivers run — however polluted, however wounded — so too will our determination to see them restored, replenished, and free.
Because rivers are not just waterways. They are the veins of our land, the pulse of our planet, and the mirror in which we see the health of our democracy.
