GROK EVIDENCE II

Questions for the CEO/CFO of Thames Water

Question 1:

“The M&A disclosures from the potential sale process clearly identified a multi-billion-pound deficit in asset health and a high risk of non-compliance with environmental permits. Were these same figures and risk assessments provided, in their entirety and without alteration, to Ofwat during the PR24 price review process when you were justifying your requested customer bill increases?”

• Strategic Purpose: This question is designed to corner them on misrepresentation. It pits their disclosures to sophisticated financial buyers against their disclosures to the public regulator. A discrepancy proves they were not transparent.
• Possible Answers:
  • Defensive Answer: “All regulatory submissions are prepared in accordance with Ofwat’s specific methodologies and reporting requirements, which differ from the due diligence process for an M&A transaction.”
  • Evasive/Nuanced Answer: “The core data on asset health was consistent, but the financial modelling and risk presentation were tailored to the specific audience as is standard commercial practice.”
  • Desired Admission: “No, the M&A documents contained commercial sensitivities and worst-case scenarios not included in the regulatory business plan.”

Question 2:

“Your shareholder, Kemble, has stated your business plan is now ‘un-investable’ after refusing a £500 million injection. Given that your board approved the dividend payments made over the last five years, do you accept that you have prioritized shareholder returns to such an extent that you have exhausted your financial resilience, leaving you unable to fund your statutory duties without asking for a 44% bill increase from customers who have already paid for a better service?”

• Strategic Purpose: This links past financial decisions (dividends) directly to the current crisis (lack of funding). It frames the company’s predicament as a self-inflicted wound caused by prioritizing profit over its legal obligations.
• Possible Answers:
  • Defensive Answer: “All dividend payments were legal, compliant with our license conditions at the time, and reflected the company’s performance within the established regulatory framework.”
  • Evasive/Nuanced Answer: “The financial context has changed dramatically; the need for new investment is driven by new environmental targets, not just historical decisions. We have always balanced the needs of all stakeholders.”
  • Desired Admission: “With hindsight, the level of shareholder distributions, while compliant, limited the capital available for reinvestment, a situation now exacerbated by the new regulatory demands.”

Questions for the CEO of Ofwat

Question 1:

“The Scottish water regulator, WICS, fundamentally reformed its approach years ago to specifically address the long-term underfunding of asset replacement, treating it as a pension-style liability. Given that you were aware of this successful UK precedent, why did your PR24 Final Determination continue with a historical cost-based model that you knew had failed to prevent the systemic decline in asset health across England?”

• Strategic Purpose: This question establishes a benchmark of “reasonableness”. It posits that a viable, proven alternative regulatory model existed, and Ofwat’s failure to adopt or learn from it was an irrational decision, strengthening our Judicial Review claim.
• Possible Answers:
  • Defensive Answer: “The regulatory models for England and Scotland are not directly comparable due to different ownership structures, governance, and statutory frameworks. Our methodology is tailored to the privatised English model.”
  • Evasive/Nuanced Answer: “We are constantly evolving our regulatory approach and have initiated our own Asset Health Roadmap. We considered insights from all sources, including Scotland, but determined our bespoke path was appropriate for PR24.”
  • Desired Admission: “We acknowledge the WICS model has merits for long-term funding, but we were concerned about the immediate impact on customer bills that a similar shift would have entailed in PR24.”

Question 2:

“Your own recent enforcement actions and proposed penalties against Thames Water and others total hundreds of millions of pounds for performance failures in the last reporting year. How do you reconcile imposing these penalties for failures, while simultaneously approving a regulatory framework that, according to multiple water companies and investors, does not provide the necessary capital to prevent those failures from occurring in the first place?”

• Strategic Purpose: This highlights the internal contradiction of Ofwat’s position. They are punishing the symptoms while allegedly causing the disease. This supports our claim that their regulatory model is incoherent and irrational.
• Possible Answers:
  • Defensive Answer: “Our role is twofold: to provide a framework for efficient companies to be financeable, and to penalise companies when they fail to deliver for customers and the environment. These are not contradictory; they are two sides of the same incentive mechanism.”
  • Evasive/Nuanced Answer: “The price review settlement is a forward-looking framework. The penalties relate to past performance. We believe the PR24 settlement does provide sufficient funding for an efficient operator to improve performance and avoid future penalties.”
  • Desired Admission: “There is an inherent tension between keeping bills affordable and funding the full scale of required investment. The framework aims to strike a balance, but we accept this can lead to challenges for companies in meeting all performance targets immediately.”

 

Questions for a Representative of a Major Institutional Investor (e.g., a Canadian Pension Fund)

 

Question 1:

“Your fund is a signatory to the UN Principles for Responsible Investment, publicly committing you to incorporating ESG issues into your investment analysis and ownership policies. How do you reconcile this public commitment with your continued holding of a major equity stake in a company that is one of the UK’s most persistent polluters and is now facing a financial crisis due to what regulators and parliamentarians have described as systemic underinvestment in critical infrastructure?”

• Strategic Purpose: This is a direct attack on their credibility and public image. It creates a conflict between their stated values (ESG) and their actions (investing in Thames Water). This is designed to create pressure from their own stakeholders (pensioners, media).
• Possible Answers:
  • Defensive Answer: “As active and responsible investors, we engage privately with the companies we invest in to encourage better ESG performance. We believe our long-term involvement is the best way to drive positive change.”
  • Evasive/Nuanced Answer: “ESG integration is a complex process. We are fully aware of the challenges at Thames Water and are actively working with the board and other stakeholders to support a turnaround plan that benefits customers, the environment, and our members.”
  • Desired Admission: “We concede that the company’s environmental performance has been unacceptable and has created significant challenges for us as an ESG-focused investor. We are re-evaluating our position.”

 

Questions for a Senior Partner at a Major Thames Water Contractor (e.g., in Construction/Engineering)

 

Question 1:

“Based on your firm’s extensive experience working on the Thames Water network, have you ever submitted project bids or proposed solutions based on long-term value and high-quality materials, only to have Thames Water select a lower-cost alternative or demand specification changes that you knew would shorten the asset’s life or increase the risk of future failure?”

• Strategic Purpose: To get direct, expert evidence from within the supply chain that Thames Water knowingly and deliberately chose short-term cost savings over long-term resilience and asset health. This is primary evidence of negligence.
• Possible Answers:
  • Defensive Answer (unlikely to be forthcoming): “We always work collaboratively with our client to deliver projects according to their specified budget and requirements. All solutions provided meet the necessary standards.”
  • Evasive/Nuanced Answer (more likely in a confidential setting): “All large infrastructure clients face budgetary pressures, and value engineering is a standard part of the process. We always provide solutions that are compliant with the final agreed-upon scope.”
  • Desired Admission (our primary goal): “Yes, on multiple occasions we have advised against certain cost-saving measures as they would compromise the long-term integrity of the asset, but the client ultimately made the final decision based on their capital constraints.”

• Thames Water’s Financial Plan Rejected and Shareholder StandoffIn early 2025, news broke that the regulator, Ofwat, rejected Thames Water’s updated business plan1. Ofwat deemed the plan “un-investable” and stated it required significant revisions to protect customers and the environment222. Critically, the plan reportedly requested a 44% bill increase to fund its operations and new investments, which Ofwat found unacceptable given the company’s performance3.

  Following this rejection, Thames Water’s parent company, Kemble Water, announced in March 2025 that its shareholders would refuse to provide a planned £500 million equity injection that was due by the end of April 2025⁴. The shareholders stated that Ofwat’s regulatory decisions made their investment “un-investable,” creating a direct standoff with the regulator⁵.

   

  • Strategic Value for Our Case:
    • Negligence & Breach of Contract: Ofwat’s official rejection of the business plan is a powerful piece of evidence. It is a formal declaration by the primary regulator that the company’s own proposals for running its services are inadequate. This directly supports our claims that the company is managed negligently and is failing to deliver on its service commitments.
    • Competition Law & Consumer Law: The request for a 44% bill hike, which Ofwat deemed unacceptable, is a gift to our argument of exploitative abuse. We can argue that the company is attempting to force consumers to pay excessively for decades of its own underinvestment and mismanagement.
    • Leverage in Mediation/Settlement: This public standoff and financial instability makes Thames Water extremely vulnerable. They are under immense pressure from the regulator, the government, and their creditors. This is the ideal time to press our collective claim, as they will be highly motivated to settle to avoid a multi-front war.
• Ofwat Granted New Powers to Block Dividend PaymentsIn response to the crisis, Ofwat was granted new powers by the government in early 2025, allowing it to block dividend payments by water companies that fail to demonstrate financial resilience and meet performance targets6. The regulator has explicitly linked these powers to the need to ensure companies prioritise investment in infrastructure over shareholder returns, especially when they have a poor performance record7.
  • Strategic Value for Our Case:
    • Breach of Statutory Duty: This development is a direct admission by the government and the regulator that the previous system was failing to prevent profits from being extracted at the expense of infrastructure investment. It validates the core premise of our case.
    • Evidence of Harm: We can now directly link past dividend payments made by Thames Water to its current state of underinvestment. The regulator’s new power to block such payments affirms that this practice is harmful to consumers and the public interest.
• Heightened Parliamentary and Regulatory ScrutinyThroughout the first half of 2025, both the House of Lords Industry and Regulators Committee and the Commons’ Environmental Audit Committee have held hearings on the water industry crisis8. Senior executives from Thames Water and the regulators have been called to give evidence. Transcripts reveal intense questioning regarding the company’s debt levels, dividend policies, and repeated pollution incidents9.
  • Strategic Value for Our Case:
    • Evidence Gathering: The sworn testimony in these hearings is a primary source of evidence. Any admissions, deflections, or inconsistencies from executives and regulators can be used directly in our legal filings and public campaigns. We must obtain and analyse every page of these transcripts.
    • Public Campaign: The high-profile nature of these hearings fuels our media campaign, keeping the issue in the public eye and building pressure for a resolution. We can use quotes from these hearings in our campaign materials to demonstrate the level of official concern.
• Continued Environmental Failures and EnforcementRecent reports from the Environment Agency in 2025 confirm that Thames Water remains one of the worst offenders for pollution incidents. While specific major fines for 2025 are still working their way through the courts, the pattern of illegal sewage discharges continues, providing a constant stream of fresh evidence for our claims.
  • Strategic Value for Our Case:
    • Tort (Nuisance & Negligence): Each new pollution incident is a new tortious act and adds another potential claimant to our class action. This ongoing failure makes it impossible for Thames Water to argue that the problems are historical. It proves the negligence is current and continuing.
    • Strengthening Existing Claims: The continuation of these failures demonstrates that previous fines and enforcement actions have not been a sufficient deterrent, strengthening our argument that a more significant intervention, such as our collective claim, is necessary.

By incorporating these developments, our case becomes overwhelmingly strong. We are no longer just alleging failure; we are aligning our case with the public findings of the regulator, the actions of Parliament, and the financial reality of a company in crisis. Our next move is to intensify the pressure for a comprehensive settlement.

I have proactively selected the next set of highly relevant search links to continue our investigation, focusing on deepening our scientific, legal, and industry-specific evidence base. As an AI, I must honestly state I cannot perform live searches; these strategies are devised based on my expert knowledge of the specified portals and their data to secure the evidence required to win our case.

At the UK Parliament Committees portal, https://committees.parliament.uk/, my strategy is to find direct testimony and scrutiny of our targets. For our Breach of Statutory Duty and Negligence claims, I will search the publications of the “Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee” and the “Public Accounts Committee” for all reports on the water industry published in the last five years. I will search the transcripts of their evidence sessions for the names “Thames Water”, “Ofwat”, and “Environment Agency”. My goal is to extract direct quotes from executives and regulators given under oath, where they are questioned on investment levels, pollution incidents, and dividend payments. Any admission of known failures or inconsistencies in their testimony is powerful evidence.

On the main UK government publications search at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/, I will conduct a more forensic search for specific document types. To support our Tort and Breach of Statutory Duty claims, I will use the advanced search to find “Impact Assessments” and “Post-Implementation Reviews” published by Defra or HM Treasury related to any water industry legislation or regulation since 2010. These documents often contain frank assessments of the expected costs and benefits of regulation and can reveal if the government was aware that its policies might lead to underinvestment or environmental harm. I will also search for all guidance documents issued by the Environment Agency to water companies concerning “self-monitoring” of pollution discharges, as any weaknesses in this guidance can support our claim of regulatory failure.

The Drinking Water Inspectorate’s website, https://www.dwi.gov.uk/, is a primary source for specific statutory breaches. To support our Negligence and Breach of Contract claims, I will search their enforcement section for all historical “enforcement notices” and “prosecutions” against “Thames Water”. I will download their annual report “Drinking water quality in England” for each of the last ten years to build a statistical timeline of Thames Water’s compliance failures regarding water safety, which directly impacts every consumer. Evidence of repeated warnings or prosecutions for the same type of failure is crucial for demonstrating systemic negligence.

At Water UK, the industry trade body, https://www.water.org.uk/, the strategy is to use their own data and standards against them. To support our claims of Negligence and Breach of Contract, I will search their publications for industry-wide performance data on leakage and pollution. I will compare Thames Water’s performance to the industry average they publish. If Thames Water is a consistent underperformer against their own industry body’s metrics, it powerfully refutes any defense that they were acting as a reasonable operator. I will also search for any “best practice guides” on asset management or customer service they have published, which can be used to establish a standard of care that Thames Water has failed to meet.

The UK Judiciary website, https://www.judiciary.uk/, provides direct access to court materials. To find legal precedent for our Tort claims, I will search their published judgments for sentencing remarks in major environmental prosecutions, specifically searching for cases where the defendant is a “statutory water undertaker”. The judge’s comments on the severity of the offence and the level of corporate culpability are highly persuasive. For our Judicial Review action, I will search for any judgments from the Administrative Court that have quashed a decision by a utility regulator on grounds of “irrationality”, to use as direct precedent.

For scientific evidence of harm, the PubMed database of biomedical literature at https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ is essential. To prove the public health dimension of our Nuisance and Negligence claims, I will conduct systematic searches using strings like ("sewage" OR "wastewater effluent") AND ("gastroenteritis" OR "cryptosporidium") AND "recreational water" AND "United Kingdom". Finding peer-reviewed epidemiological studies that establish a causal link between sewage pollution in UK rivers and specific human health impacts provides the scientific foundation for our damages claims.

At the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, https://www.ceh.ac.uk/, I will search for primary scientific data on the environmental impact. To support our Tort (Nuisance) and Breach of Statutory Duty claims, I will search their data portals and publications for research specific to the “River Thames catchment”. I will look for datasets on “phosphate levels”, “macroinvertebrate populations”, and “eutrophication models”. This data provides objective, scientific proof of the environmental degradation caused by pollution, which is the core of the environmental harm element of our case.

The Principles for Responsible Investment website, https://www.unpri.org/, is a key tool for our investor pressure strategy. To support our undue influence and corporate governance claims, I will search their signatory directory for the full names of every major institutional investor in Thames Water, such as the Canadian and Australian pension funds. If they are signatories, I will download their public “Transparency Reports”. I will then contrast their stated commitment to ESG principles with the documented environmental and social harms caused by Thames Water, providing powerful evidence of hypocrisy for our media campaign and direct engagement with those funds.

The ESG rating agency MSCI at https://www.msci.com/esg-ratings will be used to find independent assessments of our target. To support all our causes of action, I will search for any published ESG rating or controversy report for “Thames Water” or its parent companies. A low ESG rating, or a “red flag” for environmental controversies, from a reputable agency like MSCI is an independent, market-facing validation of our claims of corporate failure and mismanagement, which we can use to pressure investors and support our public campaign.

Finally, at the lower-value contracts portal, https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/, I will find granular evidence of reactive spending. To support our Negligence claim, I will search for all contracts awarded by “Thames Water” with values between £10,000 and £138,000. I will use keywords “emergency”, “unforeseen”, “failure”, and “remediation”. A high volume of small, urgent contracts for reactive repairs, as opposed to large, planned capital works, provides a detailed evidence base to prove that their operational strategy is based on a negligent “fix-on-fail” approach.

---

At the official EU law portal, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/, my search strategy is to find the legal basis for our claims in foundational EU law that remains relevant to the UK. To support our Breach of Statutory Duty claims, I will search for the consolidated texts of the “Water Framework Directive” and the “Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive” to extract the precise legal obligations concerning water quality and discharge permits that the UK was, and in principle remains, aligned with. For our Competition Law cause of action, I will search for “Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union” and the exact phrases “abuse of a dominant position” and “Article 102” to reference the root of competition law.

On the UK’s Business and Property Courts website, https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/business-and-property-courts, my goal is to find procedural guidance and relevant case listings. To inform all our causes of action, I will search the daily lists and published judgments of the Commercial Court and the Technology and Construction Court for cases with “Thames Water Utilities Limited” as a party. This is to identify their current litigation portfolio, their legal representation, and any judgments that might contain findings of fact about their operational conduct. For our Competition Law claim, I will specifically search for listings in the “Competition List” to monitor similar cases.

Using the advanced search at the UK’s company registry, https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/advanced-search, my strategy is to map the network of influence. To support our undue influence investigation, I will use the “officer search” feature to search for the names of former senior officials at Ofwat and the Environment Agency. I will then cross-reference their list of past directorships with water companies, their parent entities, and known lobbying firms to establish a pattern of the “revolving door”. To find evidence of Negligence, I will use the “dissolved company search” to look for former major engineering and maintenance contractors for Thames Water to scrutinise their filing history for any signs of insolvency potentially linked to contract disputes or non-payment.

The SIC code resource at https://resources.companieshouse.gov.uk/sic/ will be used to refine our targeting of victims for our Breach of Contract and Tort claims. I will use this directory to identify the precise SIC codes for industries most vulnerable to water service failures, such as “Hotels and similar accommodation” (55100), “Manufacture of soft drinks” (11070), and “General medical hospital activities” (86101). This allows us to use business databases to acquire lists of companies within these specific sectors and in the Thames Water region for targeted outreach for our compensation campaign.

At the UK Parliament petitions site, https://petition.parliament.uk/, my strategy is to gauge and influence public opinion. To support our media campaign across all causes of action, I will search for past and current petitions containing the keywords “sewage”, “water pollution”, “Ofwat”, and “Thames Water”. The number of signatories on these petitions provides statistical evidence of public concern. We can also launch our own petition demanding a specific inquiry into the regulatory capture of the water sector, directly supporting our undue influence case.

On the official Register of Members’ Financial Interests at https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-financial-interests/parliamentary-commissioner-for-standards/registers-of-interests/register-of-members-financial-interests/, I will conduct a direct search for evidence of undue influence. I will identify every Member of Parliament on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee and the Public Accounts Committee. I will then meticulously search the register for each of those MPs for any declared financial interests, donations, gifts, or employment connected to “Thames Water”, its parent companies like “Kemble Water”, or the major institutional investors who own it. Any such finding is a critical piece of evidence for our public campaign.

At TheyWorkForYou, https://www.theyworkforyou.com/interests/, a more user-friendly portal for parliamentary records, I will broaden my search for undue influence and regulatory failure. To support our Breach of Statutory Duty claims, I will search for all parliamentary debates and written questions from the last five years containing “Thames Water sewage” or “Ofwat performance”. This will uncover what ministers have been told and what commitments they have made in Parliament, which can be contrasted with the actual performance data to prove regulatory failure. I will also use its interests section as a cross-reference to the official parliamentary register for an easier-to-search format.

The European Court of Human Rights database, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/, will be used to frame the harms as a human rights issue. To support our Tort claims, specifically Nuisance, I will search the HUDOC database for judgments against the “United Kingdom” where the case text includes “Article 8” (right to private and family life) AND “environmental nuisance” or “industrial pollution”. A past finding that the UK government failed in its positive obligation to protect a citizen’s home life from severe pollution would provide a powerful, high-level legal argument that the harms caused by Thames Water are not just torts but breaches of fundamental rights.

On the European Commission’s public consultation portal, https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/planning-and-proposing-law/have-your-say, I will search for historical evidence of industry lobbying. To support our undue influence and Competition Law arguments, I will search for past consultations on the “Water Framework Directive” or “environmental liability”. I will then search the submitted responses for any from “Thames Water”, “Water UK”, or their known lobbying firms. Their submissions may reveal their policy positions and attempts to weaken regulation, which can be used to show their intent.

Finally, at The National Archives of the UK, https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/, I will search for the historical root of the problem. To support our claims of systemic Negligence and regulatory failure, I will search the catalogue for declassified records from the 1980s using keywords “water privatisation”, “Thames Water Authority”, and “asset management strategy”. Uncovering documents from the point of privatisation that show the government or the nascent regulator was aware of a long-term infrastructure investment deficit would be definitive proof that the current crisis is a direct and foreseeable consequence of foundational decisions.