Thames Water, I refuse to pay the sewage charge in my bill while you pollute Britain’s rivers and coastlines | Jenny Jones
In a Guardian opinion piece, Green party peer Jenny Jones explains why she has stopped paying the sewage element of her Thames Water bill, in protest at the company's repeated pollution of rivers and coastlines. She frames the move as a direct response to government inaction, arguing that water companies are failing their basic duties while imposing hosepipe bans, leaking a fifth of supply, and prioritising shareholder payouts and debt interest over infrastructure fixes.
Jones cites an Environment Agency finding that serious pollution incidents by English water companies rose 60% in a year, with Thames Water named the worst offender. She has written to Thames Water offering to pay only for water supply, not sewage treatment, but received a threatening letter and an increased bill with penalty charges in response; she says she will contest any resulting court case. She likens the tactic to the 1990s poll tax non-payment campaign and calls for renationalisation, dismissing the government's oft-cited £100bn takeover cost as inflated because it includes company debt, while also criticising the lack of prosecutions against water company bosses.
In short
- Green peer Jenny Jones is withholding the sewage part of her Thames Water bill
- She cites rising pollution incidents and Thames Water's poor record
- She likens it to poll tax non-payment and urges renationalisation
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Withholding the sewage charge can be defended as a non-violent form of protest when a company repeatedly fails a basic public duty and ordinary complaints seem ineffective. Jones argues that pollution, leaks and weak accountability leave customers paying for poor service, while her refusal draws attention to what she sees as government inaction and the case for public ownership.
The case against
Customers may reasonably argue that sewage treatment remains a necessary service even when the provider performs badly, and that withholding payment unilaterally risks debt, penalties or court action without directly repairing the system. They may favour enforcing environmental rules, prosecuting serious breaches and reforming regulation while keeping bills and service obligations clear, rather than treating individual non-payment as an effective route to accountability.
Explained simply
Thames Water supplies drinking water and removes wastewater for customers in London and parts of south-east England. Its bills cover both the water people use and the treatment of sewage before it is returned to rivers or the sea.
Water companies in England are privately owned and regulated by public bodies, including the Environment Agency, which monitors pollution. Thames Water has faced scrutiny over sewage discharges, ageing pipes and its finances; the wider debate includes who should pay to repair the system and how company performance should be enforced.
The dispute touches on public health, the condition of rivers and coastlines, and the cost of maintaining essential infrastructure. It also raises questions about the balance between customer bills, investment, company debt and ownership of water services.
Business Elections Government Politics UK World