A member of the House of Lords and Green Party peer, Jenny Jones, has publicly announced her refusal to pay the sewage portion of her Thames Water bill, citing ongoing pollution and mismanagement by the company. Jones, who resides in London where Thames Water is the primary supplier, says her decision follows reports highlighting a significant rise in serious pollution incidents linked to English water companies, with Thames Water identified as the worst offender.

Jones attributes the company’s failures to ongoing raw sewage discharges into waterways surrounding London and the broader environment, despite public advisories on water conservation and recent hosepipe bans. She further criticizes Thames Water for inadequate infrastructure investment, including a failure to build sufficient reservoirs and fix leaks that reportedly account for about 20% of water lost in supply networks across England and Wales. According to Jones, a substantial portion of customer bills is allocated not to addressing these issues but to servicing company debts and generating substantial shareholder profits.

In correspondence with Thames Water, Jones requested an itemized bill separating charges for water supply and sewage treatment, a request the company declined, later issuing her a higher bill with penalty charges. Thames Water has reportedly responded to her nonpayment with warning letters and threats of legal action, including potential involvement of bailiffs.

Jones frames her protest as part of a wider campaign against water privatization in England, drawing parallels with historic public resistance to the poll tax, which influenced government policy through widespread nonpayment. She calls for nationalization of the water companies, asserting that public opinion broadly supports bringing the industry back under public ownership. Jones disputes government claims that nationalization would cost £100 billion, arguing that this figure includes company debts and inflates the actual price, which some suggest could be much lower or even negligible.

While the government has proposed enhanced “public control” as an alternative to full renationalization—aimed at increasing regulatory oversight and enabling penalty enforcement—Jones contends that regulatory measures alone are insufficient. She points to a lack of accountability for company executives who have permitted pollution to continue unchecked and suggests community service as a more appropriate penalty than incarceration.

Jones expresses frustration that more than two years under the current Labour government have not resulted in meaningful changes, with environmental damage persisting and consumer costs rising. Despite the threat of legal consequences, she intends to maintain her stance and face any court proceedings, viewing the action as a matter of personal principle and environmental responsibility.

Her protest highlights ongoing tensions between consumers, environmental advocates, and private water companies over pollution, infrastructure investment, and the affordability of water services in England.